Maintaining Air Superiority, Congress Must Fund More F-22s

Washington Times ^ | 9/9/2008 | Phil Gingrey

[Paul Ross]

Opinion: Maintaining air superiority Congress must fund more F-22s

By Phil Gingrey,

Washington Times 09/09/2008

The F-22A Raptor is the key to America's air superiority, and we need more of them. Recently, however, some have argued otherwise. Many of the dissenters suggest that Congress is considering continuing F-22 production for simple, political reasons. I respectfully disagree.

Continuing the F-22 production is not a political nicety for the Air Force or for the defense of our nation. It is a necessity and the current program of record - 183 Raptors - is woefully inadequate to fulfill the National Military Strategy. This means that after accounting for test and training aircraft, and aircraft in maintenance, only about 100 Raptors would be immediately available for combat. Remember that numbers do matter, given that the F-22 will replace the original force of some 800 F-15 A-D Eagles.

Every campaign analysis study shows the need for significantly more than 183 F-22s. In fact, the Air Force Sustaining Air Dominance study concluded that 381 F-22s is the "sweet spot" for a balanced fleet of fifth generation and legacy fighter aircraft required to support Air Force mission requirements. Even if the Air Force procures all 381 F-22s, it would still require a "Golden Eagle" fleet of 177 F-15C/Ds to supplement the Raptor fleet and fill the fighter inventory through 2025.

....

[snip]

[Paul Ross]

Note the unregenerate reader commentary from a likely Strobe Talbott clone...

[southernerwithanattitude]

The F-22 is the most awesome jet ever built!

[Bobalu]

500 of them would not be too many!
These things will probably stay in service for 30+ years.
The enormous cost when spread over that many years of use is not bad at all.

[Candor7]

Can't we make the F-22 more ergomomic, and fuel efficient?

I am not so sure that we should be funding something with such a large carbo footprint

And trees are being felled in Washington State as we speak , and YOU want to talk about F-22s?

Give me a break! ( Sarc. off).

[stefanbatory]

one of the arguments for a specific aircraft that I never see is the cost of equivalent aircraft, pilots, ground crews, and training to outfit the current generation's aircraft to do the same amount of work as the new plane.

Let's say for argument's sake that the F-22 is roughly equivalent to 5 of the current top-of-the-line F-15s... how much would it cost to build, maintain, and fly those 5 F-15s in comparison to 1 F-22? Does that cost take into account the F-22’s stealth capabilities?

The same question must be asked about the B-2...how many B-52s, escort fighters, fuel tankers, pilots, etc does that one B-2 replace with its stealth capability and bomb load? How many of those afore mentioned planes would not return from a mission that is easily survivable for a B-2?

[A.A. Cunningham]

A few more questions you need to ask are how many ECM birds are required to accompany those B-2s on each combat mission they fly, providing SEAD, compared to the B-52s and B-1s and where is the air force going to get them since the Navy is going to begin retiring their EA-6B fleet and replacing them with fewer EA-18Gs? One additional question you need to answer is why an airplane that its operator repeatedly claimed and sold to congress as being “invisible” to RADAR requires radar jamming platforms to accompany it?

[straps]

Dear Bobalu You are wrong fighters never stay in service longer than 4-6 years max. The f15,16 are the only 2 disenters.
The F22 is a waste of money . We could buy 4 F35s for the price of 1 F22. Stop at 1 wing period. Then equip the balance with F35

[stefanbatory]

ahhh yes...I believe that radar are more advanced now than they were 20 years ago (almost) when the B-2 was rolled out...

Call them radar resistant instead of radar-proof...

[bpjam]

Nellis AFB Ping!

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

Really? The F-4 was last built by Boeing in 1981 and there are still many in service around the world. I think Japan has 30 or so still in operation and I know Germany just as many in their air force.

Let’s see, that 27 years minimum for the F-4 to be in service. I could go to Jane’s and find more planes that are in service more than 4 to 6 years max.

[PJammers]

4 to 6 years service for fighters????

When I joined the USAF in 1981 I worked on F-4’s that were built in 1964/5. The F-15 A/B models were built in the early 70’s along with the early F-16’s. I believe the last strike eagle rolled off the line in 1995. The F-117 was built in the early 80’s.

I’m with Bobalu here. 15 to 20 years is more like it. Also the F-22 and the JSF-35 are different weapons platforms that perform different missions.

The JSF-35 is available to other countries the F-22, however, is not. Because the F-22 is not being produced in higher numbers it is more costly per aircraft to produce.

[puppypusher]

A few more questions you need to ask are how many ECM birds are required to accompany those B-2s on each combat mission they fly, providing SEAD, compared to the B-52s and B-1s and where is the air force going to get them since the Navy is going to begin retiring their EA-6B fleet and replacing them with fewer EA-18Gs? One additional question you need to answer is why an airplane that its operator repeatedly claimed and sold to congress as being “invisible” to RADAR requires radar jamming platforms to accompany it?

If the Air Force wanted to they have a number of F15 Strike Eagles that could be converted into ECM Birds.The Strike Eagles even have the legs to carry out longer missions than the EA-18’s.

The Air Force had a perfect ECM bird when they possessed the F-111 Raven. It was not only able to fly at Mach2+ it also had the range to fly extended mission profiles.

Unfortunately they were forced to give them up for the Joint use of the Prowler which was handicapped with the speed and extended mission profile.

[Paul Ross]

...to do the same amount of work as the new plane.

That's the point. Those "five" or however many can't provide stealth, and can't do the equivalent.

Let's say we task a fleet to take out China's thicket of air defense in order to take out their attack force against Taiwan. The F-15 fleet would likely not survive against the S-300s with what we now know of their capabilities. No amount would. And the Chicoms are busy making hypersonic missiles that will allow them to go after our AWACs way out in the Pacific.

But the F-22 provides a credible threat of waltzing into their back yard, taking out the air defenses and their latest greatest Russian fighters, then allowing the strike planes and bombers to do whatever work needs doing.

But no serious numbers of F-22s...no such deterrent effect. Hence: China will feel no problem about eventually pulling the trigger on their Taiwan invasion plans.

As for the costs, keep in mind that the F-22's costs were inflated by about a DECADE of R&D ing the plane to death (financially speaking) especially after Xlinton forced it to be re-engineered to be a "Strike" plane i.e., Attack, (A/F-22) not merely an air-superiority fighter (F-22). He wanted to force its delay in production out of his entire administration. Which he did. Bush only reluctantly started producing them with a clear ceiling of 185 planes because he had the DELUDED (Frankly C R A Z E D ) idea that F-35s (the F-16 replacement) could do the same things. They can't.

So if you want to recapture all that R&D spent, you need to build planes to realize the economies of scale.

The existing or improved F-15s would not be significantly cheaper per plane...those unit costs of $27 million per plane are ANCIENT HISTORY. Try $125 million per plane today. Hence, we are far better off trying to run the production line of the F-22s.

Get some Lockheed guys in here to explain it. We are already seeing drastic drops in per unit cost as the run went to its end. And if you took the R&D out of the equation, we are already in the vicinity of F-15's current-day pricing. But they have no where close to the combat capabilty of stealth.

[Paul Ross]

You are wrong fighters never stay in service longer than 4-6 years max.

Wrong. There are a whole raft of fighters kept far longer...I could mention the F-4 but let's point you to the F-14...which dates from the same time line. And that was a NAVAL fighter which took a hell of a lot of pounding from launching and landing, and salt sea air. Yet they were only just retired over the last two years.

The f15,16 are the only 2 disenters.

Wrong. See above, and other's commentary.

The F22 is a waste of money .

No. Bailing out Bear Stearns, and Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae was a "waste of money." We should have let capitalism work. But we do need the Government to buy these fighters for our defense. And it would be a waste NOT TO BUILD, as the R&D then goes without any utility to the taxpayer. No defensive planes for the money. As the article indicates...we don't have enough capability without them. That is why they designed in the first place...not to make Lockheed money.

The F-15s, as wonderful as they have been, have remained essentially static in capabilities, whereas the world, and the Russians have been catching up...and the F-15s are already losing to the Su-33, as the Indian exercises proved.

We could buy 4 F35s for the price of 1 F22. Stop at 1 wing period. Then equip the balance with F35

Wrong. First, be aware of the F-22 unit cost, as per Wikipedia:

Unit cost US$137.5 million (2008 flyaway cost)

Contrast that with the Unit cost of the F-35 from Wikipedia:

Unit cost US$83 million

And we really don't know what they will actually wind up costing. Might be a LOT more than advertized. And you should note: The F-35s are built using F-22 R&D. Subtract the "F-22" R&D from the cost of the F-22 it would be almost as cheap as the F-35. Or why not add the cost of the R&D onto the F-35...then it would definitely cost a lot more than the F-22.

Anyways, it is clearly nuts to think that the F-16 replacement F-35 can do what the F-22 can.

[Bryan24]

The Washington Times needs some fact checkers, very badly.

"Four historic warbirds fly by in formation, from left, F-22A Raptor, P-56 Mustang, F-18 Hornet and A-10 Thunderbolt, at the 2007 Armed Forces Day Joint Services Open House at Andrews Air Force Base on Saturday, May 19, 2007. (Bert V. Goulait / The Washington Times)"

Someone needs to tell them that the picture actually has

- an F-22 Raptor

- a P-51 Mustang

- an A-10 Thunderbolt

- an F-15 Eagle

They mis-identified 2 of the 4 planes.

[Paul Ross]

The Air Force had a perfect ECM bird when they possessed the F-111 Raven. It was not only able to fly at Mach2+ it also had the range to fly extended mission profiles.

Agreed.

[Paul Ross]

Someone needs to tell them that the picture actually has...

Blame "Bert V. Goulait"

[numberonepal]

The F-22 is the most awesome jet ever built!

We should make more just to marvel at the beauty of it. I am privileged to see them flying often.

[stefanbatory]

due to my schooling, I know several of those Lockheed guys...;)