The F/A-22 Raptor Must Fly

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

[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.

[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).