Artist conception of new combat UAV...
;-)
Posted on 07/08/2004 1:01:01 PM PDT by Akira
It made sense to kill the Crusader self-propelled howitzer program, a bulky cold war left-over developing so slowly it wouldn't be available before the Starship Enterprise. We also didn't need the Comanche stealth helicopter when our problem is losing choppers to low-tech ground fire. But the stealth F/A-22 Raptor fighter, with apologies to those who consider every new military project a boondoggle, we need this jet. And far more of it than Congress plans to buy.
Even critics admit the Raptor is an incredible fighting machine. Slated to enter Air Force service next year, it blends key technologies that before only existed separately on other aircraft -- or not at all.
It has radar-avoiding stealth, of the F-117A Nighthawk, the agility of the F-16 Fighting Falcon, air-to-air combat abilities and penetrability of the F-15 Eagle, tracking abilities of the E-3 Sentry (AWACS), and, like the SR-71 Blackbird, it can fly faster than the speed of sound without using fuel-guzzling afterburners.
The F/A-22 also has better reliability and maintainability than any military fighter in history and can wipe out ground targets like radar, anti-aircraft sites, and armor formations as readily as it can sweep the skies.
IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE in danger of losing our air superiority edge -- we've already lost it. With "some foreign aircraft we've been able to test, our best pilots flying their airplanes beat our pilots flying our airplanes every time," Air Force Commander John Jumper told Congress three years ago. When U.S. planes go against the Soviet Su-27 Flanker "our guys 'die' 95 percent of the time," observes Republican Rep. Duke Cunningham of California.
Cunningham is one of only two American aces from the Vietnam War. He knows the value of even a slight edge in combat capabilities. "I'm alive today because of it," he told me.
The international arms market is now flooded with Su-27 aircraft, because the Russians will sell to anybody with a bit of loose change jingling around.
The independent American Federation of Scientists notes that the Su-27 "leveled the playing field" with the F-15, our best fighter but one that's 30 years old. Meanwhile, "The Su-37 represents a new level of capability compared with the Su-27." The Su-37, apparently close to deployment, looks frightfully effective against both air and ground targets -- meaning our soldiers.
Nor is it just Russian planes we have to worry about. Brookings Institution Senior Fellow Michael O'Hanlon, who wrote in the Wall Street Journal in 1999 that "Congress Should Shoot Down The F-22." O'Hanlon nevertheless admitted that even then the "Swedish Gripen, French Rafale, Eurofighter EF-2000" are "impressive weapons systems that rival the F-15 and F-16." As well they should be: One entered service in 2001, one in 2002, and one just last year. The F-15 is their grand-pappy.
No, we probably won't go to war with Sweden or France anytime soon. (Well, maybe France.) But we already face enemies with high-tech French weaponry. Rest assured in the future we will clash with them -- including the Rafale fighter. It's also rather pathetic that the Czech air force is about to take possession of 39 Gripen fighters, meaning this tiny country will be flying more advanced aircraft than the United States.
Fortunately even the Su-37 lacks one thing the F/A-22 has -- stealth capability. "Only the F/A-22 can compete with the Su-27 or Su-37," Cunningham insists, because "the stealthiness allows you to get inside his radar so you can have first [missile] launch."
Surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) also regularly improve, and potential targets like the North Korean capitol of Pyongyang bristle like porcupines with SAM sites. "If you target an area with the current SAM threat today, our planes will probably die before they ever get to the target," says Cunningham. "So the F/A-22 and B2 [stealth bomber] must soften up those radar sites." Cunningham knows a bit about SAMs, too. After his fifth "kill," he was splashed by an enemy missile that's a slingshot compared to today's technology.
ONE MAJOR CONGRESSIONAL criticism of the Raptor is the cost per plane, now over twice the original estimate. But much of that is because prime contractor Lockheed Martin added a ground attack role. Most of the rest is because those congressional critics cut back the order, knowing that with fixed development costs the smaller the order the higher the per-unit price. Sound like a sneaky game? It is.
Originally the Air Force requested 762 Raptors to support two squadrons for its ten Expeditionary Wings, and then was forced to cut that in half. But it only made its first official purchase last month of a grand total of 22 planes. That's almost enough to stock the nation's aeronautical museums. Worse, it has only authorized only enough money for 218 planes total, and may slice that further.
Mind you, these same congressmen recently passed pork-laden highway spending bills of around $300 billion, but apparently Cleveland needs that transportation museum more than our troops need protection from enemy aircraft.
Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona told NBC's Meet the Press that we should consider completely canceling the F/A-22 program to free up money for more troops in Iraq. But McCain assumes defense spending is a zero-sum game. It's not.
In 1960, with no U.S. involvement in a hot war, the percentage of GDP spent on defense was 9.3. This year, with wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and anti-terrorist military activities around the world, we're spending a miserly 3.5 percent. Merely splitting the difference between 1960 and now would allow the Army to expand from 10 divisions to 12 and supply the Air Force with more F/A-22s than it would know what to do with. And yet last summer Democratic Sen. Robert Byrd of West Virginia offered an amendment to seize $1.1 billion from the Defense Budget and use it for AIDS/HIV spending.
Other armchair air experts say we can skip the F/A-22 (other than the 22 already procured) while awaiting the cheaper F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 is a fine plane and will be great for exporting to our allies, but it's far inferior to the F-22, especially in the stealth category. (Its advantage is a much lower price.) F-35 development is also three years behind that of the Raptor. If you needed a top-of-the-line new car immediately, would you hold off three years on buying that BMW until Honda Civics become available?
It's also true that F/A-22s were unneeded in invading Iraq -- though one of our F-117s was shot down over Serbia. The value of the F-22 in the current guerrilla war? Zero. But you know that expression about generals "planning to fight the last war"? Here it's the F/A-22 critics like O'Hanlon who remind us that during Desert Storm "The Air Force's premier fighter, the F-15C, flew 6,000 missions without a single loss." Yes, and that was 13 years ago. Any war against North Korea or China would make heavy use of the Raptor.
A WASHINGTON POST ANALYSIS piece that ripped the F/A-22 was reprinted on websites of such groups as Environmentalists Against War and Million Worker March. The Post claimed the plane's "role is now more ambiguous because no country is developing an aircraft with anything near its capabilities."
But isn't that exactly what we want: Quick and complete air domination? If price is the primary consideration, why not scrap both the F-22 and the F-35 and start rebuilding the P-51s of World War II, which cost only $54,000 in 1943 dollars? Like the F-15, they were marvelous planes in their time.
Why not? Because our potential enemies will be flying the best jets and antiaircraft missiles they can make or buy, allowing them to intimidate us in peacetime and defeat us in war. We must beat their capabilities, or we will surely die trying.
Yes...the U.S. is still ahead [I think] in technology.
Russia and China have shown they can mimic rather quickly if they want too...its just a motivation reality.
China is getting a Maglev rail system...link here:
China Awaits High-Speed 'Maglev'
Maglev conjoined with other propulsion systems could put vehicles up for sub orbital insertion and orbital.
Computer process speeds are now capable of handling the tasking for this.
I think its going to get really competitive soon...**up there...Sputnik days are just around the corner.
Russia and China have shown they can Mimic systems and platforms rather quickly when they want to.
Both have aircraft they simply are sitting on...,no one can afford to buy them.
Wether they steal/copy and mimic..or take a technology and make it better....the fact is..they will being going for sub orbit and orbit with their military projection.
The race could be on allready.
This is not different from fighting against an enemy with superior numbers of aircraft. Better pilots and better tactics can overcome superior numbers and superior aircraft any day of the week. I remember coming to TopGun with my shiny new VF-111 Tomcat thinking I was unbeatable, only to get slaughtered day in and day out by instructors flying A-4 and F-5 aircraft. No way were these planes superior to the F-14A, but because they knew their craft better than I did(at that time) they kicked my ass 8 ways from Sunday.
For every advantage an aircraft may have over others, it will be limited to the ability and knowledge of its pilot. It comes down to SA (situational awareness). You are never going to convince me that some kid sitting in a chair on the ground is going to understand what is going on around him better than the guy in the jet. No computer is ever going to be a superior solution in a fighter jet than a pair of eyes connected to a pilots brain.
You should not consider your comments to be disrespectful, that is not my take on it. This is not about me personally, but you should know that I am not a 'former' jet jock, I am in line again for a reserve slot having suffered through the Delta Airlines disaster. Don't put me out to pasture yet, son. Hell, I'm 45, not 60.
Back to your question:
A superior aircraft only gives you more effective options against an opponent. It wont save you from being an idiot in the air. Most of that superior ability just gets you more able to run away when you are about to get hosed. Better to live another day, learn something and come back, then to get your ass blown off by the guy you did not see.
I have no idea how I would clear behind me sitting in a chair on the ground. Would I trust a camera? I had a camera in the Tomcat, but the government wouldn't trust it most of the time either. So, you gonna put another camera in the tail? On the wings? Underneath and overhead? The Navy is going to risk their aircraft to a bunch of transistors? Not in my lifetime.
The general impression is that I am against these things coming, but I am not. I just know better. There are many many issues at stake before this can happen. ROE issues, tactical and strategic issues, not to mention technical issues such as cheap jammers turning your jet into a dumb little glider. I doubt some kid in a chair can acquire bearing on a SAM, beam it, avoid it, notice a line of tracers coming up and do something about it before he is looking at snow on his screen. It just aint gonna happen soon.
As for flying aircraft that exceed the limits of the human body, we have been doing that already for years. Even in the old Tomcat, it was never hard to put a RIO to sleep if he talked too much. The limits are at your controls. There is nothing mandatory telling me "I've got to pull 14G against this guy or I'm gonna get shot". The media made too much hype over GLOC, because they never mention that GLOC is a choice. A dumb choice. Pilots learn to evaluate their situations. If you cant win, LEAVE. If you cant leave, you screwed up and we will say nice things about you at your funeral. If I need 14G, I'll push a button and let a Sidewinder pull it for me.
So relax, dude. This isn't personal between you and me. I get pissed because some things I see are just untrue, not because they effect me. We need the F-22, because the enemy will have 5 times the number of aircraft that we will have, not because they will have aircraft just as good. Right now, the F-22 eats up 4 F-15s at a time. When the tactics get better, it will eat 6 Eagles for lunch. That is why we need it.
Artist conception of new combat UAV...
;-)
Should of warned me. Well there goes another keyboard! That Phantom looks like it's in real trouble.
Have some Family in the Airforce currently...Gunnrunner2 has bumped into Mike at the Pentagon...Mike flew A-10's in the past..then Vipers out of Osan S.K.
He's currently assigned to the Joint Chiefs.
J.J. is with the 48th FW out of Lakenheath...F-15E's..Northern and Southern watch..plus recent Iraq ops.
Part of the reason for hooking up at FR....good medium to follow U.S. Military and connect with Veterans.
When someone develops and builds a suborbital fighter that is militarily viable, please let me know and I'll start paying closer attention. So far, all Rutan has done is build something akin to the X-planes of the '50s and '60s. A great accomplishment, especially given the civilian development.
Unless we have something really special stashed at Groom Lake, we won't be seeing anything capable of carrying weapons outside the atmosphere for many years to come. We'll get there eventually - but by then the F/A-22 will be long in the tooth.
It's almost as real as Burt Rutan's "Space Fighter" ...
Well, that is news to me and never heard of it. I know I used to talk to a Russian that used to brag to me about the fact that the SU-47 or some other Russian fighter can fly backwards and that the F/A-22 couldn't. I just told him that I would love to see how those planes flying backwards would do against an AIM-9X coming up its ass. ;-))
The command and control of a fleet of UCAV would be a complicated exercise in bandwidth management and re-tasking/re-targeting.
Can UCAV's be programmed to be that smart? Do we have enough UCAV "pilots" to fly a swarm of UCAV-like aircraft? Can we deconflict the airspace? How do you sell to the public and congress the idea that we want to buy a fleet of expensive UCAV's with the idea that you plan to lose many of them? Pilots at least can fly into a situation, get a grip on it, have "360 degree" situational awareness and decide to fly, fight, re-target, re-attack, not attack, whatever. They have this ability because they are there and they can think. UCAV's may be "there" but they can't think, and if controlled by a pilot then that pilot is operating with severely limited situational awareness and he will "die."
For pilots to be replaced we need Star Trek holo-deck technology that allows a UCAV pilot to fly in a reasonably situationally aware manner to ensure he stays alive when bullets and missiles start flying.
I would think that tanks would be a nice first step to develop unmanned weapons. It is a less complicated and less fluid environment, and less costly to build. Do it there first, validate the concept, technology and doctrine of employment, and then I think we may be onto something.
Can field battalions of unmanned tanks in a 2-d, 1-G, 25 knot ground battlefield?
No.
This means we can't even begin to handle unmanned aircraft in a 3-d, x-G, Mach aerospace environment.
Solve first the engineering problem for the relatively simple task of "flying" a tank. Then we will talk seriously about unmanned jets in a war environment.
212 - "an AIM-9X coming up its ass. ;-))"
I'm No longer privy to classified info, and don't know the specs for an AIM-9X, but I would assume it is still relatively short range and IR, and this technique would make it simpler to get beyond the performance envelope of the missile.
Ardie Dahl was hooked up with Mike in the past....came accross this article when it turned up on a google search.
anyhoo..great moments in Hog busting : )
Fayetteville (NC) Observer
July 11, 2002
Pope Pilots Credited With Anaconda Kills
By J.S. Newton, Staff writer
Two A-10 ''Warthog" attack pilots from Pope Air Force Base are credited with killing between 200 and 300 al-Qaida and Taliban fighters during Operation Anaconda in eastern Afghanistan. They did it in a single mission, said Lt. Col. Arden Dahl, commander of the 74th Fighter Squadron at Pope. The pilots are Lt. Col. Edward ''K-9" Kostelnik and Capt. Scott ''Soup" Campbell. The mission happened in March, but details of the part played by people from Pope Air Force Base were not disclosed until Wednesday. Dahl, who recently returned from Afghanistan, where he flew 11 combat missions, spoke with reporters during a deployment ceremony for a sister unit, the 75th Fighter Squadron. The 75th Fighter Squadron is going soon to Southwest Asia. The aim of Operation Anaconda, which was carried out in March in the mountains of Afghanistan, was to hunt down and kill al-Qaida and Taliban troops. On One day in March, the enemy was discovered forming for an attack on a small group of soldiers from the 10th Mountain Division. The enemy force was nearly within strike distance -- about a mile and a half away -- when the Pope A-10 pilots attacked with bombs and 30 mm armor-piercing rounds. After the attack, Dahl said, ''there wasn't anybody left.'' Dahl said that mission and another mission around the same time inflicted heavy damage on enemy forces. Initially, Pope A-10 crews were not expecting to fly in Afghanistan. They were told that they would be patrolling the skies over Iraq and keeping Saddam Hussein in check. But when Anaconda began, the 74th Fighter Squadron was called into action. An undisclosed number of Pope personnel were sent to a classified base on March 10. From there, Pope pilots flew missions in support of Anaconda ground forces. The first combat sorties launched just 15 hours after the 74th received mission notice. The pilots flew their first mission and landed at a secret base even before an advance team arrived to park their jets. The pilots did not know where they were landing until they were already in the air. In all, during the 10-day mission, Pope planes flew 275 hours in 36 sorties. They dropped 19,500 pounds of bombs and fired 14 rockets and 740 rounds of 30 mm high-explosive, incendiary ammunition. While the pilots may get a lot of the glory, Dahl said, it was a dedicated group of maintenance people, catching catnaps between launches, that kept the aircraft in the air. The maintenance crews took "cat naps" between launches. Pope A-10 pilots and crew members helped change the course of the war with their actions in Anaconda, Dahl said. ''After that night, all the al-Qaida and Taliban, and their buddies, were on the run,'' Dahl said. ''They just got swacked.'' Air Force officials have submitted requests for Kostelnik and Campbell to receive Silver Stars. The Silver Star is the Air Force's third highest award for valor in combat. After the Anaconda mission, the Pope pilots no longer had clearance to remain at the secret air base. They had to go back to the Persian Gulf to regroup. They spent the next seven days preparing to go to Bagram Air Base in the eastern Afghan mountains. Their original deployment '' started out as a 90-day rotation and turned into something else,'' said Capt. Jeff Baldwin. ''It was basically unheard of what we did: to go to a forward location and then to go forward again. Nothing like that has been done since Vietnam.'' Dahl said his squadron flew into Bagram, a former Soviet air base littered with wrecked MIG fighters and bomb craters and made it operational. They arrived March 20 in Bagram. The base is at the foothills of the Hindu Kush Mountains. Peaks in the area reach as high as 22,000 feet. There was no running water and no toilets. There were unexploded bombs and mines everywhere. Everything had to be shipped in, as during the Berlin Airlift, Dahl said. By the time the 74th Fighter Squadron left, Bagram was up and running. The base was handed off to a reserve unit April 28, but some Pope personnel were still there in May. Master Sgt. Tim Isaacs, an aircraft maintenance section chief, said his experience in Afghanistan was great because the troops got to do what they had trained for. Bagram is dusty and hot, he says, but adds: ''It's a beautiful place. It's too bad there is a war there.''
Is it your opinion that existing weapons can't be added to existing civilian aircraft, that existing civilian aircraft can't be used in kamikaze attacks, or that already-developed military programs such as Neil Armstrong's X-20A DynaSoar aren't viable?
"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."
I agree that it would certainly lower the unit cost, but to get to the lower unit cost we'd have to spend a LOT more money.....It's kind of like this.... have you ever had your wife come back from the mall and immediately tell you how much she "saved"? If so, did you start worrying?
I think the F-22 is like this, unfortunately. It's good, but it's not good enough to justify the cost of a "big" 500+ unit buy. They are going to be silver bullets, like the F-117/B-2, because we can't afford anything more.
For those that want to kill the program - they will use the unit cost with NRC factored in, for those that want a big buy, they'll use the incremental cost of the next aircraft, ignoring the NRC.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
mmun g