The F/A-22 Raptor Must Fly

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

[Non-Sequitur]

Dagnabit!!! Well then dust off those design history files and get to it - make another 200 of those puppies and keep them greased up just in case.

The manufacturer, Fairchild, went belly-up a couple of years ago. Their assets were sold off piece-meal.

[Northern Yankee]

If the U.S. Air Force doesn't want the A-10s then I'll take em.

Could help a lot to clean up this liberal neighborhood.

[sully777]

I remember my business professor handing us reams of "data" from his buddies at some libertarian think-tank. The reports called The Raptor, B-2, and F117 total boondoggles. They were wasting public tax money.

As I recall, we students asked if the F-14, F-15, F-16. F-18, Apache, and B-1 programs were also boondoggles. We took a quick look back into late 1960's-mid 1970s news and found the answer. Yes.

Nothing changes.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Agreed. The media would have us design the "me too weapon system".

[Cobra64]

The A-10 may not be sexy enough for the Airforce image

I disagree. I love the A-10's, "don't F with me" looks. Just like the Humvee.

[Logic n' Reason]

"I'll sacrifice fuel for speed, agility, and stealth everytime. I had mine painted Cub Yellow so I can find it."

I like the stealth idea; buy my engines make so much noise the neighbors can hear me for miles. I was, however, very fortunate to get the cute "mauve" color with the cream interior - the littel TV screen in my cockpit is kind of cute too; but has lots of funny little squiggles and lines all over the screen - instead of my favorite "Sex in the City".

Oh well, for a few hundred million, I guess you can't get everything!

[sully777]

btt

[tbpiper]

If the U.S. Air Force doesn't want the A-10s then I'll take em.

That would put some real spice on a $100 hamburger!

[Shryke]

To shock your mind out of the rut of fighting the last war so that you'll be less surprised by what the near-term future is about to change.

South, I am all for better technology, but comparing a civilian rocket-powered aircraft to a military spec fighter is absurd. Want to estimate the amount of money it would take to produce a rocket fighter that would be effective? It would make $26 billion look like 26 PESOS. Rockets are BAD for manned military craft, for many obvious reasons. If you doubt me, please ping the science/NASA Freepers. We really, really would like to get away from using chemical rockets to move things around.

[Conspiracy Guy]

Yep the TV is kind of boring but she is fast. I had an Alabama State Trooper clock me at Mach 2.5 flying 2 feet above I 20 one night.

[SJSAMPLE]

The Harrier has the highest incident and loss rate of any American combat aircraft. The Marines don't want the A-10 because their vision for fixed-wing aviation revolves around VSTOL aircraft, like the new F35. For the Army, that would mean airfields, which the Army doesn't maintain in forward areas. The Army bought into rotary-wing gunships which have proven themselves.

The A10 has a good home with the Air Force. Yes, the Air Force has tried to get rid of the A10 on numerous occasions, but only because they've been trying to get aircraft with a much better performance envelope and electronics suite.

[fulcrum_SMT29]

One fundamental factor to our sucesses on the battlefield is our ability to gain and hold air superiority. While the F-15 does have a perfect kill record(something like 108-0), we're still looking at an airplane that was designed in the 1960s and first fielded in the early 70s. Fortunately, there's been room for growth in the airplane, and a few Alaskan based F-15C Eagles have been refitted with the new APG-78 AESA radar(I believe it's the same radar used in the Navy's F/A-18E and F Hornets) as well as the new AIM-9X Sidewinder that's coupled with the pilot's helmet mounted sight. However, you can only "supe up" an airplane so far until you need something new, only as the result of another country fielding something that is superior to yours in one form or another, or entirely. Yes, the Sukhoi Flanker family, the JAS-39 Gripen, the Rafale, and EFA Typhoon are impressive machines, and they may be equal or are superior to our current USAF's F-15 force, our pilots still have the edge in training and being able to adapt to the current threats in the skies. Having the F/A-22 in our arsenal will do more than even up the level on the playing field. When you mix pilot experience with the Raptor, as well as knowing your enemy's strengths/weaknesses and how to exploit those weaknesses to your advantage, you're going to have one hell of an advantage over the battlefield.

[Gunrunner2]

I'm interested.

Tell me how they are doing that.

[Gunrunner2]

>>The A-10 may not be sexy enough for the Airforce image, but it's damn deadly and efficient. Give it to the Army or the Marines, somebody who's familar with down and dirty fighting.<<

The Air Force is facing budget cuts like every other service, and the Air Force is scrimping for the bucks to buy/fly/maintain the F-22. The A-10 is a single-mission jet. The problem is not that the Air Force doesn’t want the A-10 (it does), it simply can’t convince congress to pony up the bucks to modernize and/or replace.

Transferring the jet to the Army or the Marines is a non-starter.

Both of those services have no intention of operating a jet that is tied to a hard-surface runway. While Harriers and attack helo’s can operate out of a mud puddle if need be, the A-10 can too, but only for a mission or two.

The Army and Marines are not into the flexibility the A-10 gives you with its theater-wide reach.

The Army had air assets, in fact the largest “air force” of all the services, but the Army doesn’t have the command and control ability to effectively range the A-10 to affect battle areas beyond, say Division or Corps boundaries. What Division commander wants to call Corps and the Air operations Center and say; “Hi, got a few A-10’s sitting and ready to go. . .where do you want them.” Ain’t gonna happen. They don’t do that with helos and they certainly won’t with an A-10.

The Marines have their own indigenous air assets and they “own” these assets.

Marine assets are hardly ever chopped to the Joint Forces Air Component Commander. The Marines keep Marine air for Marines, and to release them for the JFACC’s use would violate Marine doctrine. As, in the case of the Army, the Marine commander would be loath to let “his” A-10’s out of his AOR.

The subject is more rooted in how to use the jet to the best advantage, not passing them to “somebody who's familiar with down and dirty fighting.”

Finally, about that attitude (“somebody who's familiar with down and dirty fighting”). That comment is a slap at all Hog Drivers, FAC’s and planners from ALL services that populate the Joint Air Operations Center and put together an air campaign, putting the best aircraft and weapon to the mission. It is also an insult to those that fly the mission, from B-52’s to F-15E’s to the A-10, they all perform Close Air Support. Close Air Support means putting the weapon "close" and more Air Froce aircrew than you realize have been "down and dirty."

Gunrunner
Hog Driver ’85-89
FAC, Gulf War I, 101st

[Flightdeck]

"Why do we ever want our fighters to go faster and fly higher?"

And you don't think a military-equipped aerospaceplane would cost a lot? (which was your whole point, I believe, in favor of "Rutan-style" over the F-22)

[Southack]

"South, I am all for better technology, but comparing a civilian rocket-powered aircraft to a military spec fighter is absurd. Want to estimate the amount of money it would take to produce a rocket fighter that would be effective? It would make $26 billion look like 26 PESOS. Rockets are BAD for manned military craft, for many obvious reasons. If you doubt me, please ping the science/NASA Freepers. We really, really would like to get away from using chemical rockets to move things around."

That's just so wrong.

Burning rubber and nitrous is hardly more expensive, certainly less dangerous, and clearly more powerful than burning Avgas or Jet-A.

This is not the Battle of Britain. We aren't having to refuel fighters as soon as they land so that they can return into the skies to fight ten or twenty times in a single day. Most American fighters won't even see a single dogfight, ever, much less multiple fights in one day. so designing a new fighter around the Battle of Britain is archaic.

What we want is air supremacy. Well, you don't obtain air supremacy if foreign civilians are flying faster and higher than our military fighters...which they could be doing if they merely copy existing American civilian technology.

The F-22 can't go into Space. Civilian aircraft can.

One way to penetrate air defenses is to fly over and above their reach. Existing civilian aircraft can already do that to us...and the F-22 doesn't help solve that problem.

Stop fighting the wars of the previous century. Start thinking about what we will be facing in the very near future.

Our enemies are looking for weaknesses in our defenses; they aren't looking to take us on in one on one dogfights.

Our enemies are thinking about how they can overwhelm our air defenses with massive waves of thousands of aircraft (even if they are old, slow aircraft). They are thinking about flying over our air defenses (i.e. orbital and sub-orbital Space). They are thinking about building all-wood and fabric gliders to give themselves rudimentary stealth.

In none of these areas are we aided by the F-22. The F-22's massive cost overruns mean that we retire large numbers of existing American fighters for each new F-22.

That's not my idea of a good plan.

[Gunrunner2]

A-10's had Pave Penny pods before.

Other upgrades are in the works.

Costly and add a lot of weight.

[Shryke]

You have a somewhat skewed view of the "advantages" of high altitude. I will offer this refutation: whatever manned craft you develop and build to achieve that altitude, it will be MUCH easier to develop and build a missle that can hit it (and ALOT more of them). A rocket engine has an inherent, unavoidable weakness: HUGE heat signature. Explain to me how you can avoid these two obstacles with a rocket-powered craft - and forget about speed. It's far easier to get a low-mass missle up to speed than a manned aircraft.

[USMCBOMBGUY]

By PODs I am assuming he is talking about the D/N VR Pod. It is an enhanced video and radar pod that has IR/video and look down radar. Talking to a couple of drivers, this issue has some meaning to me, they had told me that at times it is difficult to engage targets due to viability. So when in close proximity to shooting targets it is possible to mistake friendly and foe. With this pod (if it is the one I hope he is referring to) It will help in identifying targets. The pod also can be used to track friendly ground units if they have the equipment.

[Southack]

"I will offer this refutation: whatever manned craft you develop and build to achieve that altitude, it will be MUCH easier to develop and build a missle that can hit it (and ALOT more of them)."

That's not a refutation. That's a progression of what would happen if a foreign government adapted current American civilian technology into their air and space forces; we would build such missiles en masse at that point.

But what that natural progression also means is that the U.S. doesn't *currently* have such air defenses. We're spending vast sums on F-22's that will replace and retire huge numbers of our current F-14, F-15, and F-16 pilots, only to see that this F-22 can't help us against such civilian-based technology (e.g. sub-orbital aircraft).