The F/A-22 Raptor Must Fly

The American Spectator ^ | July 8, 2004 | Michael Fumento

[Southack]

"And just how are you going to get it into orbit? That takes an ICBM, and a whole lot of power."

Surely that's not in dispute.

[XBob]

179 - The point is, that small numbers of superior technology are no match for large numbers of somewhat inferior technology.

If you check, relativley large numbers of pretty good aircraft are now being deployed around the world, and even such an elegant solution as the f-22, is just too expensive, and too slow in development to be of great value. There is only so much money, and it is now old technology and old mission - designed to fight old Russian Bombers and Fighters.

Who gets into dog-fights anymore? Sure, the ability to fly backwards is pretty neat. But I would far more rather have 10 forward flying planes than 1 backward flying, super manuverable plane.

The F-22 is just too damn expensive. The new radars can find it, in spite of it's stealthiness. The new missiles can hit it, in spite of its manuverability. It's another plane in search of a mission, like the DynaSoar.

[XBob]

181 - "Surely that's not in dispute."

And just what do you mean by that?

How are you going to get it into orbit?

DynaSoar took a Titan ICBM.

[Southack]

"DynaSoar took a Titan ICBM."

I'm fine with that. The methods that we us to get to the altitudes that we want to control (i.e. all of them) is less important to me than the control itself, so long as we can afford it.

What I'm not fine with is paying for hardware that won't be relevant in the future, or that can't add to our superiority today, or that forces massive pilot retirements, etc.

I mean, civilians from Scaled Composites are now flying into Space, and we're wanting to pay Billions for "new" fighters that can't even shoot up there much less go there?! We're trying to retire large amounts of current fighter pilots to replace them with what, some 23 or so F-22's that wouldn't know what to do with a swarm of UAV's or kamikaze civilian aircraft?!

Price matters. Capabilities matter. Our enemies may very easily be willing to sacrifice UAV's or kamikazes. If they detect that our numbers are too few, then we've got a problem. If they detect that we can't control Space, then we've got a problem.

[David1]

Yes, very small numbers will not be enough. But sufficient numbers would be enough. Further, one F/A-22 can take on 8 enemy fighters because of its stealth and BVR combination. So you really don't need to match the enemy one for one. That is what the F/A-22 brings to the table. And what the F/A-22 lacks in numbers the cheaper F-35 is intended to make up for in quantity. That is the high/low combination. Like the F-15 and F-16 scenario. It will be the same with the F/A-22 and F-35.

I want to continue discussing this with you. But not tonight. It is just too damn late and I have to go to sleep. Maybe we can continue this discussion tomorrow. I intend to argue tomorrow that the F/A-22 definitely can be built in sufficient numbers. I will argue and disagree with you over your radar claim. Of course any radar can see it. It is just a question about how close you can get before it can see you. Btw, the F/A-22 does not fly backwards. ;-) But it does have other capabilities required to win the air-to-air and air-to-ground battle. The F/A-22 was not only designed for Soviet aircraft. But to defeat the best fighter and projected fighters of the time which is now. It is not a plane in search of a mission because the mission requirements for US air superiority fighter is to defeat air threats. The F/A-22 is definitely up for that mission. Hopefully I can have the time to discuss this with you tomorrow. ;-) Good night. ;-))

[XBob]

You are arguing in circles, southack.

there is no swarm of space fighters, nor will there be in the forseeable future.

DynaSoar was a dumb idea.

A super expensive fighter plane is a dumb idea.

Personally, I like an old idea - A C-5 Galaxy interceptor, outfitted with 100+ long range (100+ mile) missiles, and missile firing tubes. (Yes, this was a projected potential mission years ago, when the C5 was first coming on line.)

The price of the f-22 is just too great, and it's playing a losing game, just like the Germans and their fancy Messershmidts and Panzars, and just like the Concorde vs the 747.

[XBob]

184 - "If they detect that our numbers are too few, then we've got a problem. If they detect that we can't control Space, then we've got a problem."

This is where a totally different weapons system makes much more sense, a particle beam weapon, which can hit multiple targets.

[TomasUSMC]

Recall the recent DARPA-sponsored race from LA to Las Vegas. Robot cars were given a route to follow, and had to make all of the route-planning and obstacle avoidance decisions without user input. If I remember correctly, about 30 teams raced. 2-3 robots made it one mile, and only one made it six miles. Technology's just not there. Yet

---

Yeah well lets compare that to driving robots on Mars and around Saturn. Thats like six hundred million miles. Not to mention that we put the Viking landers on Mars a quarter of a century ago. I'd say technology is definitely there.

[XBob]

185 - "Btw, the F/A-22 does not fly backwards. ;-)"

It does. The contract spec didn't require it, nor did the fly off tests, but they did do it, and can still do it. They can make a 'Thunder Road' turn, putting the the plane into a yaw, going tail first, while hitting the gas and 'spinning the tires' and doing a 180.

(Interesting little tidbit I learned while working for Lockheed during the flyoff tests).

[TomasUSMC]

What I don't like about all these new stealth fighters and the unstealth ones as well is they are not incorporating the speed or flexibility that we already have on the shelf.

IN the 1950's we were flying a strategic bomber that flew 3 times the speed of sound. A bomber!
With research and development studies beginning in 1955, the XB-70 was a large, long-range strategic bomber The Air Force requirement was for a Mach 3, high-altitude, long-range bomber capable of carrying nuclear and conventional weapons.

Although there was a technology breakthrough in 1957 that made Mach 3 possible:
The XB-70 had a length of 196 feet, a height at the tail of 31 feet, and an estimated maximum gross weight of 521,000 pounds. It had a crew of four: pilot, copilot, bombardier, and defensive systems operator. The delta wing had a span of 105 feet with six turbojet engines side by side in a large pod underneath the fuselage. The wing was swept at about 65 1/2o, and the wing tips were folded down hydraulically 25o to 65o to improve stability at the aircraft's supersonic speeds of up to Mach 3. At this speed the Valkyrie was designed to ride its own shock wave.The aircraft was fabricated using titanium and brazed stainless steel “honeycomb” materials to withstand the heating during the sustained high Mach number portions of the flights. The propulsion system consisted of six General Electric turbojet engines (J93-GE 3) with two large rectangular inlet ducts providing two-dimensional airflow.
The entire mission (including return) was to be flown at Mach 3. First flown in 1964.

AND:

"Harrier GR (Ground Attack / Reconnaissance) Mark 1", the first operational VTOL combat aircraft. A contract for six pre-series machines was issued on 17 February 1965,

So a bomber that flys mach 3 the entire time and a vtol fighter. Both flying 40 years ago. Before we put 12 men on the moon. And today we still don't have a fighter that flys mach3 and the the new ones won't be vtol. What is the problem. By now I would expect our aircraft to be vtol and mach 3 at least.... WITH STEALTH.

[Gunrunner2]

Yeah. . .but ya know. . .I hear most of the same stuff from the same guys, over and over so I choose who and what I respond to and avoid the noise. Trying to change some minds or inform some people is like talking to a wooden Indian. . .you will get worn out and nothing changes. And, perhaps, last night I was a bit groggy because I just got done with followup work on a nasty root canal. . .my first.

Cheers!

[Gunrunner2]

Bulk buy and you reduce the cost per unit to something palatable.

Stealth ensures survivability and this translates to force multiplication.

Pilots in the cockpit for years and years to come. No matter what people think about technology and UCAV and Predator and RPV's in general, like I've said before, until you can replicate actually being there you are never going to have the air sense, the situational awareness to fight with unmanned vehicles effectively.

(BTW: Many years ago for a brief moment in the Pentagon there was a PC movement that tried to gain ground and lost. The PC movement wanted to change "unmanned" to "uninhabited." You see, to have "man" in the name was sexist. This movement never caught on. . .but it still is lurking out there.)

[Gunrunner2]

You are probably close to the definition, for sure. Mach COULD be corner but not anything we have now and the G forces would be a killer.

I'll stay out of the space plane debate. . .

[Northern Yankee]

I've seen the A-10s in action.

They'll turn a car into swiss cheese in a matter of seconds.

[Northern Yankee]

Ahhhh... the Skyraider.

One of the few single engine airplanes where you enter from the side door.

One hell of an aircraft!

[RFEngineer]

"Bulk buy and you reduce the cost per unit to something palatable."

You took the "cost accounting for pilots" course, didn't you? ;^)

[Fudd]

In the DARPA robot race, the vehicles were *completely* autonomous. Had to choose the route, avoid obstacles by themselves. In other words, people are out of the loop.

NASA engineers are making the big decisions when it comes to planning the travel routes for the Mars rovers. While they do have some autonomy, there is a person in the control loop.

[Gunrunner2]

Yup. . .even I can understand that concept. Have to keep things simple for a simple guy like me.

Apparently those on congress that cut and cut the numbers and then fuss about how much it costs per jet have no clue about nonrecurring costs.

[reagandemo]

Unmanned yes without human control no. Many articles have been written on how the fighter will be a virtual cockpit with a pilot being in a remote position far away from harm controlling the fighter. With all the advances in control it is only a short amount of time before this is reality. Remember it is a whole lot cheaper replacing a plane than an experienced pilot.

[reagandemo]

Pukin Dog, No disrespect to you and my hats off to former jet jockeys like you. Thanks for your service. Facts are facts and I am sorry you guys are a lot more valuable than a plane. You can build all the planes you want but there is a finite number of qualified pilots with the "touch". The best I have ever flown is a Cessna 182 and I would hate to be told that I could never do that again. Saying so I understand the touchiness of telling a jet jock that his job will be relegated to a virtual cockpit. Several questions remain. How do you effectively compete in combat against an enemy which has a plane that out performs yours? Answer get a better plane. How do you fly a plane effectively which exceeds the human body's limits? Answer either devise and anti gravity force mechanism or have the pilot control the plane remotely.