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.

[barkeep]

Amen to first comment! A-10 was and is perhaps the best designed plane FOR it's job, I have ever seen. God help an infantry force of the future that is suddenly facing a tank batallion a single A-10 could have neutralized.

[barkeep]

Amen to first comment! A-10 was and is perhaps the best designed plane FOR it's job, I have ever seen. God help an infantry force of the future that is suddenly facing a tank batallion a single A-10 could have neutralized.

[Shryke]

That's not a refutation

It is. I was pointing out that if we chose to pursue what you champion, we would be getting shot out of the air instantly by our enemies (remember BIG heat signature), as well as overspending them hundred-folds to do it. It's a bad business plan, much less military strategy.

Now look at the F-22. What technogoly can be developed by another country to shoot this thing down effectively? Nothing in any near future. As far as shooting down a sub-orbital plane, our military has missles that can do that now.

My point is: high and fast mean very little when you are using a rocket (unless you are talking about SUPER high, in which case who needs a damn vehicle? Use a satellite or ballistic missle). A stealthy, fast fighter is far more effective.

[Southack]

The F-22 can't guarantee air supremacy while civilian aircraft are flying higher and faster than it can go and shoot.

Worse, the F-22 is so expensive that it is forcing us to retire vast numbers of experienced F-14, F-15, and F-16 pilots.

You are fighting the last century's wars in your head still.

Future fighters have to be better than current civilian technology. Flying slower and lower than civilian aircraft, and paying a billion dollars more per copy for that priviledge in the meantime, is not the path towards air domination.

If stealth alone is the answer, then we've already got the F-117 and B-2...but current civilian aircraft can already fly over and past them as if they were standing still. Ditto for the F-22, expensive as it is.

Frankly, what the F-22 offers is either redundant (e.g. stealth by the F-117 and B-2) or obsolete (e.g. its speed).

[Shryke]

You didn't answer my questions. Please do.

[tbpiper]

That comment is a slap at all Hog Drivers,"

Don't take it that way. It’s the decision makers I’m not sure of. I remember that early on there seemed to be quite a few disparaging remarks about the A-10 and its mission by some in congress and uniform who were for a bigger and faster Air Force and not a lower and slower one. I suppose they thought we could carpet bomb or nuke Soviet tanks rather than go at them one on one with our own flying tank. I thought Gulf War I was a big ‘I told you so’ to those folks. Now when I hear that some want to do away with the A-10 I think some of those original dunderheads are at it again.

I can understand budgetary problems and I haven’t a clue as to how to effectively use the A-10. I love watching it fly and am awed by the GAU-8 (as are the Iraqis, I hear). I just hate to see a good plane go away. Can you tell me if there is a place for the A-10 in the near future?

I worked on some of the first A-10 simulators. These didn't use a motion base but used strap tighteneres and whoopie cushions to simulate g loads. Don't know how well they really worked, seemed like a cheap approach to me. Did you ever fly one and if so, how did it work?

[Gunrunner2]

I suppose you were replying to my Post 57.

Nav and Tgt pods are heavy, though development is underway to make them lighter.

The A-10 has no radar and the Lantirn Pod would only have a TFR capability, not a true radar capability to TGT ID.

The A-10 pod would be to assist in TGT ID through tgt designation. Nothing fancy.

[Chode]

I always said the Corps shoulda got the A10.

I read somewhere they are using them for FAC aircraft now.

[Gunrunner2]

Okay. But too many times I hear that sort of statement and it is a slap, as if the USAF doesn't appreciate the CAS mission. it does, but prior to Gulf War I, they thought the F-16 a much better platform (all proof to the contrary). Since Gulf War I the "powers" had to accept the fact that we Hog Drivers knew all along--the A-10 is a kick-butt aircraft and would rock the world of any bad guy, under any circumstances.

Sadly, there are no plans to replace the A-10. Instead the plan is to use smarter and smarter weapons systems. Poor choice, in my opinion.

The volatile and ever changing battlefield is the place where the Mark I Eyeball, interfaced with a Cranium Bucket processor, work best when it comes to weapons delivery.

[Southack]

"Now look at the F-22. What technogoly can be developed by another country to shoot this thing down effectively?"

The F-22 is the best fighter aircraft ever to go into service (apologies to the superior YF-23).

Nonetheless, even the F-22 has core weaknesses. When its own radar is on, for instance, it can be shot down by a HARM variant ground to air or air to air missile. It is also vulnerable to optical-processing missiles (i.e. camera+computer that can "understand" and process images).

More fundamental, the F-22's exorbitant cost limits the potential numbers that can be fielded. You'd be hard-pressed to keep CAP over a single F-22 airfield with the mere 23 F-22's that have been paid for to date (some 4 to 6 of which have actually been delivered). Without CAP, the F-22 is vulnerable on the ground.

So because of that core weakness, the F-22 will have to rely upon *other* American aircraft to protect itself. Other types of American aircraft will have to provide CAP for the F-22.

That's structural. That's fundamental.

Nor can the F-22 go into Space or even shoot into Space with our current arsenal. Sub-orbital and orbital fighters can fly right over the F-22 with impunity already today.

That too is a core structural failure.

Repeat: failure. Core failure.

Worse, fielding the F-22 means that we will have far fewer F-14, F-15, and F-16 pilots in our forces (due to cost savings needed to pay for the Raptor). Those pilots, the very ones needed to provide CAP for the F-22, will be retired in order to field the F-22.

Likewise, the small numbers of F-22's that we can afford to field are incapable of stopping a mass swarm attack from thousands of UAV's or civilian aircraft.

Again, we'd have to fall back on our *other* fighters to handle those emerging threats.

[Oztrich Boy]

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

Yep that was the reason they built 2000 F-12A fighters back in the 60s

[saminfl]

Just this year I saw A-10s with Litening Pods shoot Mavericks and drop LGBs.

[Bob J]

Major FR Announcement

The National March Against Terror

[Southack]

"Yep that was the reason they built 2000 F-12A fighters back in the 60s"

No, the F-12A went into military service to take advantage of its ability to fly higher and faster, just not as a fighter. We called it the SR-71 Blackbird.

Again, why does the military want to always go higher and faster?

ANSWER: Because it is advantageous.

Well, if the F-22 doesn't go higher and faster, then it doesn't have certain advantages.

[Oztrich Boy]

And militarily, a "Burt Rutan style fighter" is worthless. Why would we launch a teeny little thing up really high only for it to fall back down 15 minutes later only a hundred miles away?

But you have to admit the concept is mature technology (talk about planning for the last war - or five)

[Shryke]

Sub-orbital and orbital fighters can fly right over the F-22 with impunity already today.

Wrong

That and other missles were developed LONG ago to hit satellites traveling very quickly. And far above a sub-orbital craft's ceiling.

When its own radar is on, for instance, it can be shot down by a HARM variant ground to air or air to air missile

Possible, yet very improbable.

It is also vulnerable to optical-processing missiles (i.e. camera+computer that can "understand" and process images).

Not at night.

So because of that core weakness, the F-22 will have to rely upon *other* American aircraft to protect itself. Other types of American aircraft will have to provide CAP for the F-22

And? That's modern warfare. Why would a craft flying at....let's say 30 miles above the surface, be any more protected from missiles? Do you have any idea how fast a Pheonix missile can cover that distance? At Mach 5+? And this is a missle deployed im 1974????

[David1]

Ok...I disagree with you. We need the F/A-22 and we need it now. Just because it cannot go into space does not mean we don't need it. There will always be better technology in the future. ALWAYS!!! But just because there will be better technology in the future does not mean we suffer and not use the best technology available now. The technology to go into space and back in an affordable way is far into the future. Heck, the US wants a hypersonic bomber version by 2025. They are not even talking about a fighter version yet since the technology for the bomber version alone is already too advanced enough. Bottomline, F/A-22 is needed now so that it can kick the ass of current and projected future enemy fighters. In the future, when technology is ready, they may build a space fighter. Btw, the US will not only purchase 23. They already have projected to purchase 218. And if the thing proves itself in the real world, don't be surprised if something around the original figure of 700 is purchased.

[Gunrunner2]

Pretty cool but not as cool as the FOGG (Fist of GAWD GUN).

Mavericks have to either lock on to an IR, visual tgt. Some may be laser designated, though I haven't seen that variation at all (think it's Navy).

Point is, for the weapons load and the power of the A-10, much needs to be done to reduce the weight of pods, and LGB's require either self-designation or designation from some other source, and because laser pods weigh a heck of a lot, this is problematic, and besides, the LGB must have enough kinetic energy to "fly" to the tgt as the fins move about, cranking and burning off the energy, and A-10's generally don't fly that fast at low to med altitude and the LGB burns off energy and never reaches the tgt. High altitude is different as you may trade altitude for energy. However, the BRP and the ORP are much different and what source of cueing will the A-10 pilot have to tell him when he is within ORP as opposed to BRP (and never reach the tgt).

Work is in progress but much remains to be done.

[M1-A2]

F/A-22 Raptor
Air Superiority Stealth Fighter

My favorite plane if it doesn't see action Congress will hear from me and believe me I will be loud! As much as I would like to trust the F-15 or a drone fighter but we can't drone don't have the skill and instincts to even stand a chance to a superior fighter and the F-15 is not in the least able to cope with the disadvantage. I'm only stating what I've heard if I'm wrong please correct me I haven't been able to verify any of these as facts because I can't find any data comparisons.

[M1-A2]

Sorry to all about my last my last post in this thread my punctuation is horrible.