Our only guarantor of air superiority rests with this plane: Lockheed Martin Boeing F-22 Raptor.
Posted on 07/15/2009 3:19:28 AM PDT by myknowledge
Since World War II, the U.S. military has used air power as a decisive force multiplier to prevail in peacetime and in combat. In fact, "American ground forces have not come under attack from enemy air forces since the Korean War."[1] Usually, the military with the best and most fighter aircraft achieves air superiority (control of the airspace over the operational zone).
Accordingly, Air Force leaders consider their air superiority mission their second highest priority, behind only nuclear deterrence.[2] The U.S. military has consistently gone one step further by establishing air supremacy, in which "the opposing air force is incapable of effective interference."[3] The Air Force attains air supremacy by destroying an enemy's ability to fight in the air. Indeed, the U.S. military's strength and capacity to shape the outcome of military operations depend heavily on the country's fighter aircraft.
No foreign nation or new advanced fighter platform poses an immediate threat to America's air power. Rather, President Barack Obama's fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget request is jeopardizing U.S. dominance in the air. The request continues the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program but would end production of the F-22A Raptor at 187 fighters and retire 250 of the oldest fighters.[4] This would not produce sufficient new fighters to replace the legacy planes as they retire from service.
Inadequate funding to replace the legacy fighter fleets, which have worn out faster than anticipated and are nearing the end of their service lives, constitutes the greatest dilemma for the services. Also problematic is the potential lack of funding for research and development for future upgrades of the latest U.S. fighters or for initial development of a sixth-generation fighter.
As the FY 2010 defense authorization and appropriations bills move through Congress, Membersshould provide additional funding to acquire enough new aircraft to replace the legacy fighters with additional fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighters. Congress needs to ensure that the nation maintains a substantial deterrent and should add funding for robust research and development of future upgrades to the latest U.S. fighter aircraft and for the development of a sixth-generation fighter.
The Growing Fighter Gap
Members of Congress and Department of Defense (DOD) officials have warned for years of an impending "fighter gap" and its implications for U.S. national security. A fighter gap is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security.
In April 2008, Lieutenant General Daniel Darnell testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Air Force could have a requirement gap of over 800 fighters by 2024.[5] However, after release of the President's FY 2010 budget, Air Force leaders announced a combat Air Force restructuring plan to "eliminate excessive overmatch in our tactical fighter force and consider alternatives in our capabilities."[6] Instead of seeking to address the projected fighter gap, the Air Force plans to accelerate the retirement of 250 legacy fighters, including 112 F-15s and 134 F-16s. The Air Force believes it can save $3.5 billion over the next five years and reinvest those funds to reduce current capability gaps. However, budgetary restrictions--not a changing threat environment--appear to be driving this fundamental shift in security policy.
During the same hearing, Rear Admiral Allen Myers projected a "most-optimistic" deficit of 125 strike fighters for the Department of the Navy, including 69 aircraft for the U.S. Navy and 56 for the Marine Corps.[7] This projected gap, set to peak around 2017, was considered optimistic because it assumed that the service life of F/A-18 Hornets could be extended from 8,000 flight hours to 10,000. The original service life was 6,000 flight hours.
A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report in April 2009 unveiled a potentially larger gap, citing a briefing to House Armed Services Committee staffers in which the Navy projected that its strike fighter shortfall could grow to 50 aircraft by FY 2010 and 243 by 2018 (129 Navy and 114 Marine Corps fighters).[8] However, in a move that emphasized lingering disagreement among the White House, Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Department of the Navy, and Congress, a senior Pentagon planner reportedly claimed on April 7, 2009, during a private briefing with lawmakers that the Pentagon's Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation had concluded there was no Navy strike fighter shortfall.[9]
The data on available fighters did not change between April 2008 and April 2009, but the Pentagon is now dangerously altering its policy as if it had. This move reflects Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates's desire to "reform" and "balance" Pentagon priorities by accepting more risk in the conventional military sphere. Although the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review may scale back Air Force and Navy strike fighter requirements, both services will experience significant shortfalls for the coming decade under the current procurement program. With General Darnell and Admiral Myers publicly affirming the same troubling data identified by the CRS, Congress should act to mitigate and correct the fighter gap that is already upon the American military.
While both Republican and Democratic Members of Congress have expressed concern about projected gaps in strike fighter inventory, the Obama Administration has thus far deemphasized its relevance by insisting that a smaller, more capable force with "limited resources" can remain effective and continue to meet services' requirements.[10]
Foreign Capabilities
To assess fully the implications of the widening U.S. fighter gap, Congress needs to consider the future capabilities of states that may potentially challenge U.S. fighter aircraft in the coming decades as fifth-generation fighters become the mainstay of the future force and legacy aircraft retire. These capabilities include foreign advanced attack aircraft, jammers, infrared search and tracking sensors, ultra long-range missiles, surface-to-air missiles, radar detection, anti-stealth technologies, and electronic warfare.
Twenty years after the Cold War, new regional military powers and former peer competitors are expanding their military capabilities. Regional powers, such as China and possibly Iran,[11] are acquiring Russian air superiority and multirole fighters based on the Sukhoi Su-30 Flanker family. Closer to home, Venezuela is aggressively expanding its air force.[12]
The Russian Federation. Russia is expanding its fighter forces more than at any other time since the end of the Cold War. Russia is fielding the Su-34 Fullback strike aircraft, which is based on the Su-27 Flanker and can carry supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and short-range air-to-air missiles for self-defense.[13] The Russian Air Force plans to field 58 by 2015 and 300 by 2022.[14] The Russian Air Force also has a requirement of about 300 Sukhoi PAK FA fifth-generation fighters.[15] However, Russia appears to be planning for a production run of 500 to 600,[16] which most likely includes planned exports.
In addition, several countries have multirole Russian-made fighters capable of firing supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles and high performance air-to-air missiles.[17] The main Russian export is several versions of the Su-30MK, a fourth-generation fighter that is the Russian equivalent of the F-14 and F-15.
Russia also appears to be in the early stages of developing a sixth-generation fighter.[18] A fourth-generation fighter would be no match against this type of capability. While President Obama is proposing to permanently close the F-22 production line, Russia plans to keep open the Sukhoi PAK-FA production line. Russia will likely fund production of two Sukhoi fifth-generation fighters, the PAK FA and a light multirole stealth fighter,[19] for both the Russian Air Force and the export market.
China. China has ordered an estimated 76 Su-30MKK Flanker-Gs and can produce an additional 250 under license, including at least 100 "knock-down kits" to be assembled in China.[20] It has also received at least 24 Su-30MK2 naval strike fighters. If China modernizes its 171 Su-27SK/UBs to the Su-27SKM standard and assembles another 105 Su-27SKMs under license, it will have roughly 626 multirole fighters available for air superiority missions. This would place China in the same league as the U.S., which has 522 F-15A/B/C/Ds, 217 F-15Es, and a planned endstrength of 186 F-22s.[21]
China is also developing a stealth fifth-generation fighter, variously identified in the West as the J-X.[22] It may also benefit from information allegedly stolen on the "design and electronics systems" of the F-35 Lightning II.[23]
As militaries expand and modernize, especially the Chinese People's Liberation Army, the probability of miscalculation grows. The 2009 DOD report on China's military power discusses two ways that China's growing power could lead to a miscalculation and possibly conflict. First, Chinese leaders may overestimate the proficiency of the Chinese military, leading them to overestimate its capability to achieve greater operational goals. Second, they could fail to appreciate how their decisions affect the perceptions and responses of other regional actors, inadvertently provoking a military confrontation.[24]
The increased potential for both competition and miscalculation between the United States and other countries raises the importance of America's conventional deterrence. Preventing war by convincing a would-be adversary that its goals are not achievable is a primary goal of the military. Thus, even though the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are America's central focus and the U.S. may not currently face a potential great-power adversary, maintaining a strong fighter force is critical to sustaining a credible conventional deterrent in the coming decades.
Military Requirements and Current Inventory
The U.S. achieves and maintains air superiority and supremacy with fighters from the Air Force, the Navy's aircraft carriers, and the Marines' carrier-based and land-based air wings. Typically, a fighter force is superior to any potential opponent if it has at least the following three elements:
* Technically superior aircraft, including flight performance (speed, range, and maneuverability), avionics (sensors, navigation systems, computers, sensor fusion, data displays, communications, electronic support measures), and armament. * Numerical sufficiency. * Exceptionally trained pilots and crews and an adequate pool of replacements and well-trained new pilots.
The modern battlefield demands that multi-mission combat aircraft perform air-to-air combat; air-to-ground strike missions with precision-guided bombs and autonomous cruise missiles; and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) missions.
Fifth-generation fighters are also highly effective in irregular warfare and counterinsurgency operations. In addition to carrying large payloads and operating over vast areas, such as Afghanistan, fifth-generation fighters can better coordinate attacks against insurgent forces by sharing the same tactical picture through data links and tracking moving ground targets with their active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar. Using sensor fusion capability to integrate targeting information from their own sensors and other sources into a single tactical picture, the F-22A and F-35 can more accurately identify and target enemy forces. This also helps to reduce casualties from friendly fire and collateral damage.
America's Air Superiority Fighter Force
The F-15 and F-16 have been the backbone of the Air Force's fighter fleet for the past 30 years, providing a superior fighting capability and a credible conventional deterrent against potential adversaries. However, the spread of advanced fighter technology has surpassed both planes, and the present number of fighters in the U.S. Air Force fleets is insufficient to meet the possible challenge from fifth-generation foreign fighters.
F-15Eagle/Strike Eagle. The U.S. has 690 F-15A/B/C/D/Es. Extending their service life will require upgrading them with AESA radar, a new engine, and other equipment and structural improvements.[25] After the Cold War, the services were reduced by one-third during the 1990s, and the Air Force's fourth-generation fighter fleet was reduced by 57 percent from 1991 levels. In 1999, the Air Force had 714 operational F-15A/B/C/D/Es, including 205 F-15Es.[26] Thus, the plan to upgrade 396 F-15C/D/Es with AESA radar represents a 45 percent reduction from 1999.
However, the Air Force's declining air superiority capability is not just a matter of numbers. The F-15's service life is also an issue. The F-15C/D became operational in 1979, and the last production aircraft was delivered in November 1989.[27] About 179 upgraded F-15C/Ds will remain in service until 2025, which means extending their service life from the current 8,000 hours to 10,000 hours.
The structural strains of continuous service are affecting the F-15C/D with tragic consequences. In November 2007, an F-15C/D "broke apart during flight" after "failure of the upper right longeron, a critical support structure." An investigation of the F-15 fleet showed "more structural damage."[28] Extending the F-15C/D's service life seems likely to result in more frequent structural failures.
Even with better structural conditions than the modernized 179 F-15C/Ds, the F-15E may prove inferior to Russia's Sukhoi PAK FA, which is scheduled to enter mass production in 2015. The F-15E may be equal to the fourth-plus-plus-generation Sukhoi Su-35BM, which will enter production in 2011.[29]
F-16 Falcon.The single-engine F-16 is the Air Force's most widely fielded multirole fighter. The Air Force has 1,200 F-16s with an average age of 20 years. The F-16's low cost and versatility have made it one of the most exported fighter aircraft in the world. As part of its proposed combat restructuring plan, the Air Force plans to retire 123 aging F-16s. The Air Force variant of the F-35A is designed to replace the F-16 and A-10 Warthog and has a larger payload and longer range than the F-15C.
F-22A Raptor.Initially, the Air Force wanted to procure 750 F-22A fighters, which was later reduced to 381 aircraft. Before President Obama's decision to limit production of the F-22A to 187 aircraft, the Air Force's stated requirement was to increase the previously approved number of 183 fighters to 243.[30] The 187 F-22As would provide about 127 combat-coded fighters at any given time, with the remaining fighters used for training, testing, backup, and reserve missions.[31] The Air Force's original requirement of 381 F-22s would have provided 240 combat-coded fighters.
More than 30 air campaign studies over the past 15 years have confirmed a minimum requirement for 260 Raptors. Although the F-22A is the world's sole fifth-generation fighter, numerous studies have concluded that its quality can be stretched only so far to make up for a lack of quantity.[32] A shortfall would also prevent the Air Force from filling out the service's 10 Air Expeditionary Forces (AEFs), undermining AEF stability by requiring them to rotate F-22s.[33]
The Navy's Air Superiority Fighters. The Navy's aircraft carriers are the country's first visible line of defense in the world's oceans.[34] The backbone of the aircraft carrier's air component is the fighter force, which fulfills the air superiority mission and ultimately ensures the carrier's survival and the continued operation in the face of a potential or actual enemy air threat. After defeating the enemy fighter threat, the fighters can then clear the skies of all enemy air activity and achieve unopposed control of the air. This in turn allows the carrier's strike aircraft to carry out interdiction and ISR missions unimpeded.
Since the Cold War, the U.S. Navy has reduced both the number of aircraft carriers and the number and quality of its sea-based air superiority fighter force. In 1991, the Navy had 15 aircraft carriers and 377 F-14s in 26 squadrons, including 68 F-14As, 21 F-14Ds, and 48 F-14As in the Navy Reserve.[35] In 1999, the Navy had 12 carriers (10 operational) and 235 F-14 Tomcats, including 77 F-14Bs and 46 F-14Ds, and 14 F-14As in the Navy Reserve.[36] Hence, between 1991 and 1999, the Navy's air superiority fighter force was reduced by nearly 40 percent and the carrier force was effectively reduced by one-third.[37]
In 2006, the Navy retired its last operational F-14. Cost considerations weighed heavily in this decision. An hour of flight time in the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet costs half as much as an hour in the F-14.[38] Yet in terms of speed, range, and air-to-air missile armament, the F-14 is superior to the F/A-18E/F. The Tomcat has a top speed of Mach 2.34 at altitude and a range of 3,200 kilometers compared with the Super Hornet's "more than" Mach 1.8 and range of about 2,944 kilometers.[39] The F-14 was retired for financial purposes, not because the F/A-18 was superior.
Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the third DOD fighter modernization program after the F/A-18E/F and F-22A. JSF variants are being built for the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and several foreign partners. The Air Force variant, a conventional takeoff and landing fighter, will replace the F-16 and A-10 Warthog. The Navy's version is designed to be carrier-capable, although this has not yet been achieved. The Marine JSF will have short take-off vertical landing capability and replace the current fleet of AV-8B Harriers.
After proposing to end production of the F-22, Secretary Gates announced that he was prepared to recommend the President procure 2,443 F-35s, including 513 frames in the next five years. However, this will leave the U.S. without enough fighters designed specifically for air superiority. The Navy's F/A-18E/F was designed more as a bomber, and the F-35 was designed "to be the world's premier strike aircraft through 2040" with an emphasis on internal payloads and greater internal fuel capacity to maintain radar stealth.[40] Both the F/A-18E/F and the F-35C may have difficulty engaging high-performance fighters, such as the latest Flanker variants.
The Air National Guard and Air Sovereignty Alert Missions
Reducing the number of F-15C/Ds to 179 and phasing out the remaining 126 F-15A/Bs means reducing the number of operational U.S. Air National Guard units. In 1999, the Air National Guard had nine F-15 squadrons, six equipped with F-15A/Bs and three equipped with F-15C/Ds.[41] In 2009, the Air National Guard has only five squadrons of F-15s,[42] a 44 percent reduction since 1999. The additional planned reductions would mean the phasing out of all F-15A/Bs, including those attached to the Air National Guard. This will leave the Guard with only 48 F-15C/Ds for air sovereignty missions until 2025, unless F-22A fighters are assigned to the Guard or additional fourth-generation fighters are purchased.
Furthermore, based on current budget requests and plans, the JSF will not be available in time to replace the vast majority of F-16s currently fulfilling this mission over the next decade. As a result, the air sovereignty alert mission would evaporate. Operation Noble Eagle after the attacks of September 11, 2001, demonstrates the ongoing need for operational Guard fighter units to sustain the air sovereignty mission. Fighting and winning overseas helps to protect Americans at home. Likewise, protecting the homeland includes vigilantly guarding sovereign airspace over the homeland with modern and upgraded fighters. If enacted, the FY 2010 defense budget request could end the air sovereignty mission over the U.S. within just a few short years.
The proposed 2010 defense budget would result in a smaller Air Force. By extension, this will have a disproportionately negative effect on the Air National Guard. National Guard force structure should not be a bill payer for the Joint Strike Fighter. Instead, Air Force leaders should be pursuing active associate wings at Guard bases to expand the Reserve Components at a fraction of the operational cost for active units.
Fifth-Generation Fighters vs. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
Unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) have capabilities that complement, not substitute, the superior range of the F-22A and the F-35. Yet the Air Force's fifth-generation manned fighters with their sophisticated integration of sensors, weapons, communications, avionics, and computer systems can carry out intelligence, surveillance, reconnaissance, and target acquisition faster and more effectively than fourth-generation fighters. If required, these advanced fighters can deliver air strikes against insurgents over a wide area of operations. When time is critical, the sensor fusion, real-time information display, and shared tactical picture capabilities of fifth-generation fighters can provide the faster response needed to engage the enemy accurately and promptly.
Even the Predator C UAV cannot match the supersonic speeds of the F-22A and F-35 to fly quickly to remote areas in Afghanistan where air strikes would need to be delivered promptly to support ground troops under enemy fire or to eliminate a concentration of otherwise elusive insurgents. The F-22A has the added advantage of flying at supersonic speeds without using an afterburner, conserving fuel and reducing its heat signature--a capability the F-35 lacks.
By FY 2011, Secretary Gates wants to field and sustain "50 Predator class unmanned aerial vehicle orbits." Deploying and maintaining 50 aerial vehicle orbits "represents a 62 percent increase over current levels and a 127 percent rise from a year ago."[43] Pentagon leaders are undoubtedly drawn to UAVs and Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), which in the mind of some may one day replace a large portion of manned combat flights. However, UCAV technology is still in its infancy at the operational level.
A clear danger is that the Pentagon, in its enthusiasm for cutting-edge technologies that might save money, would acquire UCAVs at the expense of manned fifth-generation fighters, substituting them for strike missions beyond suppression of enemy air defenses.
On the assumption that the main near-to-medium-term mission of the U.S. military will be counterinsurgency, defense leaders may seek to buy armed UAVs and UCAVs in place of stealth fighters to carry out a considerable amount of the tactical air strike role. The problem is that in a conflict with a peer competitor with a powerful air force, UCAVs might become easy prey to enemy fighters with AESA radar.
Future of the U.S. Fighter Force
President Obama's proposed FY 2010 budget would dangerously diminish U.S. fighter capability. The President has proposed reducing acquisitions of fifth-generation fighters and limiting their upgrades. If Congress complies, the U.S. will risk falling behind internationally and in the technological race for air power. Congress and the President would do well to remember how France, despite having pioneered the use of military aircraft, tanks, and motor transport in World War I, had fallen behind Germany by the beginning of World War II.
Large production runs of air superiority fourth-plus-generation fighters equipped with fifth-generation technology, such as the Su-35BM in Russia and China, could put the U.S. Air Force with its fewer numbers of F-22s and an aging F-15C fleet at a serious disadvantage. History and the ongoing technological arms race suggest that it would be dangerous for the U.S. to assume that the F-22 will have no equal and thus have a decisive advantage over any other fighter aircraft for the next 20 years.
Congress Should Close the Fighter Gap
The fighter gap is often considered to be far in the future, but the reality is that Congress needs to begin closing the gap in the pending FY 2010 defense bills. If enacted, the President's budget request would eliminate one of the two remaining fifth-generation fighter production lines. This would severely limit the options available to Congress if it wants to restart production at some later date. The cost to the taxpayer would also be much higher than if production continues. Finally, the nation would permanently lose many highly skilled aerospace designers and engineers if they are laid off because of insufficient work.
Specifically, the U.S. should:
* Purchase additional F-22s in 2010. The proposed FY 2010 budget would end F-22 production, limiting the ability of the U.S. to achieve air superiority in the future. Russia's state-run military industrial base is focusing on producing advanced fifth-generation fighters with some nearly sixth-generation capabilities. If Russia exports these advanced fighters, it will multiply the potential threats and opportunities for U.S. fighters to engage in combat with enemy fifth-generation aircraft. Additionally, given the U.S. military's global commitments, the 187 F-22s will likely operate in the different theaters, all but ensuring that they will be outnumbered in any potential engagement. Congress should appropriate funds to buy at least the full initial order of 286 F-22s to ensure air superiority over the next two decades, beginning with a purchase of 20 F-22s in FY 2010. * Encourage sales of F-22 allied variant to Japan and Australia. With time running short on the F-22 manufacturing line and the Obey Amendment preventing the foreign sales of the F-22, the prospects for selling the F-22 to the most interested buyers among America's core allies, including Japan and Australia, remain bleak. Nevertheless, this option is worth considering, and Congress should repeal the Obey amendment this year. It would provide U.S. allies with the most advanced fighter on the market, increase their interoperability with U.S. forces, reinforce America's hedging strategy in the Pacific, and keep the production line open while reducing the unit cost. * Research viability of building a strike variant of F-22. Stealth technology has increased the survival rate of aircraft due to their ability to remain undetected. The U.S. should consider acquiring the FB-22, the strike variant of the F-22. The FB-22 has a greater bomb load capacity than the F-35, could replace the F-15E, and carry out many missions currently performed by the B-1 and B-2 strategic bombers.[44] The FB-22 could also then become a platform to introduce operational sixth-generation fighter technology. Congress should direct a DOD study on the viability of pursuing the FB-22 this year. * Immediately begin research and development of a sixth-generation fighter. Congress should fund the development of a sixth-generation fighter. Sixth-generation technologies may include a flying wing with morphic wings that deflect and minimize its radar signature and a visual stealth structure that would use micro cameras to take on the appearance of the sky and the ground to make it invisible. It might also feature a laser weapon in place of a 20 mm or 25 mm cannon and a thought-controlled helmet-mounted display. *
Study the formation of composite units. Composite units of F-22s, F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s, along with the future F-35s might help to offset the reduced number of F-22s. Using fighter aircraft attached to the Air Expeditionary Forces to form ad hoc composite units as required by the operational situation would provide commanders more flexibility. Such Fighter Fire Brigades, similar to the concept of the German Flying Circus, would contain smaller numbers of fighters and bombers in the AEF of 90 aircraft. These brigades could also be reconfigured for multirole, swing interceptor, and strike missions. They would have their own command staff, logistical, and maintenance support resources, and be capable of operating autonomously. One precedent is the formation led by the 187th Fighter Wing, when it deployed in 2003 to the Middle East to support the air operations of the Second Gulf War. In theater, the 187th was "the lead unit, commanding a mixture of Air National Guard, Air Force Reserve, Active Air Force, and British Air Force units comprising the 410th Air Expeditionary Wing."[45]
Similar units could also be amalgamated to form the equivalent of panzer kampfgruppen. Aircraft from the services can constitute these tactical air formations established in the theater of operation to defeat an immediate air/ground threat. The fighter kampfgruppe (battle group) can be formed with mixed units of fourth-generation and fifth-generation fighters, which could include bombers depending on the type of mission. This composite unit would be an ad hoc formation tailored to meet mission requirements and equipped with support aircraft, such as airborne early warning, tanker, and electronic warfare aircraft. Pilots from the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps--together with support aircraft-- should be trained to operate together in new tactical scenarios. Forming the equivalent to kampfgruppen with units smaller than the fighter wings would provide commanders flexibility. Once the mission of the fighter unit is accomplished, the battle group would dissolve, and the aircraft would return to their original units. * Purchase additional fourth-generation fighters for the Air National Guard. The air sovereignty mission remains a critical component of America's homeland defense posture. Many at the Pentagon and in Congress seem prepared to gamble in the medium term that the F-35 will eventually help the atrophying Air National Guard to sustain the air sovereignty mission, but an interim "bridge" is required to reach this stage. Extending the service life of the Air National Guard's current fleet is possible, but expensive ($20 million) and would add just 1,500 hours. Instead, Congress should purchase additional fourth-generation fighters, which are relatively inexpensive, to bridge the coming gap in FY 2010.
Conclusion
Congress needs to examine carefully whether the planned numbers of new and modernized fighters in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps inventories will meet service and operational requirements. Careful scrutiny is required given the reported structural problems caused by the stress of combat operations, the current and planned numbers of fifth-generation fighters, and the scheduled phase out of legacy fighters. In the ongoing Quadrennial Defense Review process, Congress and the Pentagon should carefully examine the inherent capabilities and qualities of each model of fighter to verify that it can fulfill these requirements and defeat the technological challenges that may be posed by future challengers.
Congress must ensure that the U.S. military maintains both its technological edge and adequate numbers of aircraft to maintain U.S. air superiority well into the 21st century.
Mackenzie M. Eaglen is Research Fellow for National Security and Lajos F. Szaszdi, Ph.D., is a former Researcher in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation.
Nice pics, and your point is???
One is for close air support, the other is for air dominance.
Can’t believe the moronic Gates is trying to kill off the Raptor so he can fund more Reapers.
Fact is, if there is no air dominance, the Reapers are sitting ducks. There’s no way it would survive a dogfight against a manned fighter.
Our only guarantor of air superiority rests with this plane: Lockheed Martin Boeing F-22 Raptor.
Of course. But that's "apples and oranges". What we are discussing is a UAV that would be designed from the ground up specifically for air superiority. And in that case, the "manned fighter" would be the "sitting duck", because the unmanned airframe will be vastly superior in manueverability. That's the whole point.
Oh, and the Air Force doesn't particularly want to fly "Reapers" either. Read about how the "geek pilots" are treated by the "fighter jocks".
My concern is what if the enemy jams the communications links? With a surface attack aircraft like the predator, they can be programmed to attack a stationary target and operate autonomously. For the Air to Air mission, the enemy is constantly moving and the pilot has to make decisions on the fly.
This is true for ANY war fighting situation, not just UAV's. The job of technologists is to assure that it doesn't happen.
"With a surface attack aircraft like the predator, they can be programmed to attack a stationary target and operate autonomously. For the Air to Air mission, the enemy is constantly moving and the pilot has to make decisions on the fly."
This is why an air superiority UAV WOULD be piloted. The pilot is just not sitting in the aircraft.
The remote pilot would have more and better information than the "hot seat" pilot would have, due to the ability to use more technology at the remote pilot site (also my point about more than one "fighter" per UAV).
No, piloted air superiority will inevitably go the way of the dodo.
Bump
My point was that communications can be jammed. If that happens you can’t pre-program an air-to-air fighter to continue the mission. You can use autonomous logic in a surface attack aircraft because it’s attacking a stationary target.
I work as a engineer for a military contractor for unmannded mine warfare systems. I agree that they’ll take over the most dangerous manned missions someday, but we aren’t ready for them to take over the Air to Air mission yet.
I doubt seriously that communications can be jammed sufficiently to prevent control. Secure communictations is much too important to the modern high-tech battlefield to allow a potential enemy to succeed.
"I agree that they’ll take over the most dangerous manned missions someday, but we aren’t ready for them to take over the Air to Air mission yet."
And the biggest reason fot the delay is that the "fighter jocks" in the Air Force want to keep getting their "adrenaline high", not that the technology isn't available.
I work for a Navy Contractor doing test and evaluation on Autonomous and remote minehunting equipment. Trust me - if the stuff we're evaluating is any example of what the state of the art is, it's not ready yet. The number and types of decisions that would have to be made during an air to air engagement are staggering. It is an incredibly fluid environment. The software that we've seen couldn't handle anything near that complex.
I don't know how many times I've got to repeat this before it gets through your skull....the UAV's WILL BE PILOTED. Software won't be doing anything "autonomous", unless maybe to get the UAV from launch point to theater. FORGET about "autonomy"...that isn't the subject under discussion.
The only differences will be that the pilot (or crew) will be sitting in a nice, air-conditioned facility instead of in the cockpit, and that the airframe will have many times the performance of manned fighters. They won't be fatigued, have bloated bladders, have soiled their diapers, or any of that. They will be sharp, focussed, and ready to "rock and roll". And when they DO get tired, they can be easily relieved by fresh personnel.
Only as long as the control link is intact. Interrupt comm, then what?
Maybe you don't read so well. Even a piloted UAV has to have some kind of contingency program to allow it to operate autonomously if the communications are lost. I understand how UAVs work. As I said - I am on an engineering team doing test and evaluation on unmanned vehicles. I'm sure I know a lot more about them than you do and I know what the current level of development is on them. I'm also very familiar with the Air-to-Air mission because I'm an engineer and was the Superintendent of the F-15C Schoolhouse at Tyndall AFB before I retired from the AF. That's the only schoolhouse that was dedicated to teaching the Air Superiority Mission in the US.
One of the common failures that I see is a due to a loss of communication with the vehicle. The software has to take hundreds of variables into account and react quickly. The data is fed from sensors all over the vehicle and those sensors sometimes fail, so the program takes action based on faulty data. We've lost very expensive equipment because an attitude sensor failed and said the vehicle was descending when it was supposed to be going straight and level and it commanded a corrective action that caused it to broach and break loose.
Your comment about "Fighter Jocks blocking UAVs" displays your ignorance. The "Fighter Jocks" are the only ones who have a frame of reference on the requirements for Air to Air because they've actually done it. Everyone else is just guessing. You're discounting the opinions of the most experienced people on the subject because you read something on the Internet and formed an ignorant opinion. Ninety percent of the F-15 pilots that I knew had engineering degrees. I worked with one guy who graduated number one from the AF Academy - Number one from undergraduate pilot training, and had Aeronautical Engineering and a Computer Science Degrees. He had several thousand hours of seat time in half a dozen different fighter jets and was the number one graduate from Fighter Weapons School (the AF Equivalent of Top Gun). That's the caliber of person who made the decision that the current state of technology in UAVs isn't up to the Air Superiority mission.
You also stated that a UAV could pull 20 Gs. A brand new F-15 could pull about 10 Gs before it experiences structural failure. You have to compromise drag and weight to increase structural integrity and that in itself will limit performance. A plane would need large control surfaces to pull high Gs, but that would create a lot of drag and the G load on the wings would be huge. To achieve high speed, you need low drag - that means smaller control surfaces that prevent high-G maneuvers. That's why an airplane can outmaneuver a high speed air to air missile. You have to compromise speed for maneuverability.
You also can't deploy weapons at high Gs or high air speed.
The Navy's approach to AUVs for the Air to Air mission was the AIM-54 Phoenix. It was a long range air-to-air missile with a range of over 200 km. The program was scrapped because it was expensive and didn't work well. Someday we will have the technology to build and operate UAVs for the Air Superiority mission, but not today.
One day we will face a foe that doesn't bow to Allah and grow dirty beards on their unwashed faces.
Enough with all the UAV bashing. First of all, a UAV can be piloted from the ground with all the situational awareness of a pilot in the air. The ground operator can see the same instrumentation data that a pilot in the cockpit can. High def cameras can provide the same range of vision that a in-cockpit pilot has.
The UAV will be able to execute maneuvers that would generate enough G-forces to kill an in-cockpit human pilot. In fact, the F22 can already do this, but its flight controls computer has an active limiter that prevents pilots from pulling a 12G turn.
UAVs are expendable. Pilots are not. If a UAV gets shot down, the operator can simply stretch his legs, go to the bathroom, and grab a drink of water before coming back and grabbing control of another UAV.
UAVs will be significantly cheaper. No special ejection, life support, or pilot comfort systems are required. Airframe geometry would not be dictated by having to comfortably seat a human pilot. Billions of dollars were spent on designing the F22 canopy so it could be stealthy AND allow the pilot to see outside - a non-issue for UAVs.
Additionally, a jammed comm signal will not cause UAVs to fall out of the sky. Even today’s generation of UAVs have contingencies in the case that they lose communications with ground controllers - they autonomously fly back and loiter around their home airfield until comm can be reestablished.
Second, wireless communications systems are getting better and better and there are a ton of jamming countermeasures. Unfortunately, the USAF finds fighter jets to be much sexier than communications satellite systems. While a program of questionable utility like the F22 gets hundreds of billions, next generation SatCom programs such as TSAT get their budgets slashed or outright canceled.
It’s rather disingenuous for the USAF to purposely neglect developing reliable, protected communications and then claim that UAVs cannot replace manned aircraft because the comm links are unreliable and unprotected.
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.