The F-22 - Why Does This Surprise You, General?

redstate.com ^ | August 10, 2009

[khnyny]

There’s a nice little piece over in today’s Wall Street Journal authored by General Merrill McPeak, expressing his dismay at the premature termination of the build-out of the originally-planned fleet of the F-22 Raptor - the kick-*ss air-superiority fighter pictured above.

The piece is rather good, so I’ll let you go read the whole thing via the link.

I’ll just note a couple of things here:

The future air combat capabilities we should build are based on the F-22, a stealthy, fast, maneuverable fighter that is unmatched by any known or projected combat aircraft.

….

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft….

That first item is simply a statement of fact, while the second is a truly-astonishing description of an unparalleled military achievement.

[OldEagle]

"So no Americans died from NVA aircraft in Vietnam??????"

I dont think VictorCharles had an aircraft. It sure would have been different if he did.

We lost a number of people and aircraft as a result of North Vietnamese missiles.

[Mr. Jazzy]

Ret. General McPeanut is just like a stopped clock, right only twice a day and this was the time.

[Mr Rogers]

He said no soldiers or Marines...not no Americans.

[A.A. Cunningham]

but the Spitfires made it possible for the Brits to win the Battle of Britain.

A gross exaggeration, at best. Britain had 32 Hurricane squadrons and 19 Spitfire squadrons during the Battle of Britain. Hurricanes accounted for more aerial kills than all other RAF defenses combined.

[A.A. Cunningham]

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft….

That first item is simply a statement of fact, while the second is a truly-astonishing description of an unparalleled military achievement.

A Clintonesque statement. The sailors killed aboard the Liberty and Stark would disagree.

[GBA]

But now, we will end up at 187 of these fabulous, most modern, most dominant fighters.

187 F-22's, 20- B-2's and 100 B-1B's. Does anyone else not see anything wrong with this picture?

Yes, I do. Let history be our guide. The Oct. 2009 issue of Flight Journal has an interesting article about the F-4. It ends by noting that "Out of 2,254 Air Force aircraft lost in the Vietnam War, 444 were Phantoms."

While those loss numbers vary a little depending upon the source, it's sobering to consider how many aircraft we currently have in our inventory, the average age of those planes, our current rate of retirement and how long it takes to ramp up production should we ever fight a war where our aircraft are up against another airforce.

Supposedly, the F-4 was far superior to the Soviet fighters and our tactics and training superior to the defenses and pilots of the Vietnamese, yet those are serious losses. Do we have anywhere nearly enough aircraft for whatever combat we may face in the future?

[RobbyS]

I know the Hurricane pilots don’t get their due, but the Spitfires were several cuts above the norm, with their range the only real flaw. When you have an outcome that close —the Brits won by an inch—the Spitfire made the marginal difference.

[RobbyS]

Damned straight!

[jnsun]

Both the USAF and the US Navy's Air Force are run by fighter jocks. To them, the ONLY real aircraft are fighters. Same with aircraft carriers. They are the ONLY real ships...

I agree with what you say. Many of us would like to support the F-22 because of its current superior stealth and supercruise technology, but how difficult is it to envision some foreign power churning out UAV's, even supersonic and stealthy ones, like french fries, over which even a CAP of Raptors has little dominance.

There is a point where we have to trust to the vision of more informed imaginative technical minds. In other words decisions above, at least, my pay grade. I would think, since it's already in place, at least a reduced production line be maintained for its readiness and learning.

But what I do know is that the Obama administration does not consist of more informed imaginative minds but rather abysmally obtuse and bigoted ones. The mediocrity of the ones at the top, Obama and Emmanuel, only results in the even worse than mediocrity of a Sibelius, and Napolitano. Thus, all of us, are plunged into an abyss of ignorance and bias. Kind of like modern journalism.

This is the way Ego and Narcissism work: only those who are dull can we permit decisions, so that we, ourselves, are not exposed.

[AFreeBird]

Supposedly, the F-4 was far superior to the Soviet fighters and our tactics and training superior to the defenses and pilots of the Vietnamese, yet those are serious losses. Do we have anywhere nearly enough aircraft for whatever combat we may face in the future?

The Phantom had its "issues". There was no gun, and early on, and a lot of the missiles, Sparrows I think, that did not function as desired. Losses can also be traced to political micro-managing of the war and asinine ROE.

[PsyOp]

You are missing the point! Don’t you understand?! It’s not fair for us to have such an advantage! It only leads us into imperial aggression against defenseless countries that mean us no harm and would like us a lot more if we would only institute cap & trade and hamstring our own economy for their benefit which is only fair since we are using all the worlds resources at an unsustainable rate, causing global whining from pole to pole, which btw are melting and drowning all the polar bears! Have you no empathy for the drowning Polar Bears!!!! We have to get rid of the F-22 to save the planet from ourselves!!!!!

Whew... channeling liberals is exhausting!

[PsyOp]

So no Americans died from NVA aircraft in Vietnam?????? Even when they shot down our thuds, nobody died?

The point was "losses from hostile combat aircraft" which the raptor is designed to destroy.

[naturalized]

MTE (my thots egzactly)

[GBA]

Of course, with few exceptions, issues, stupid ROE and tech that doesn't perform the way its supposed to has always been the case with all branches of the military.

And it will be true again when we fight another war with air and ground forces that actually can shoot back.

So, given what you posted, when we experience similar combat loses again, will we have enough aircraft? No, probably not. Not the way we are going now.

[When do we get liberated?]

NV had 15-20 MiG 21 fighters. Try this http://www.acepilots.com/vietnam/viet_aces.html
We certainly had the upper hand in the air, but it was not a blowout

[Bryan24]

“Gen. McPeak (ret.), Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, was a national co-chair of Obama for President.”

Words fail me.

[Gondring]

The other things I am concerned about is munition levels.

[RobbyS]

I take your point. About 25 years ago I had a conversation with a Brit who had served in WWII as a lad. It was his opinion that the Cruise missles were a bigger threat to the Russians than bombers or rockets conventionally armed. This was, I think, after that small plane pilot penetrated Soviet air defenses and landed in Moscow. To the Brit it meant that cruise missles could flood the Soviet defenses and disrupt them very much. As for the jet jockies, yes, there was a reaL pecking order, They were” of” afraid the guys in charge of the air rockets, and of course, they don’t like the unmanned aircraft. It amuses me to recall that during the First World War, NCOs were the first to fly the planes. Then as it was discovered they were real weapons, all of a sudden there were officers at the controls .

[spetznaz]

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft….

Hmmm ...maybe if they are really slicing thin, and by 'American soldier' they mean US Army. If they include Navy and Airforce in 'American soldier,' then they are wrong. As for the part about a Marine, 2 US Marines have given their lives due to 'hostile aircraft,' as I shall show. I'll start from the furthest incident within 50 years, to date:

- June 1967: Israeli Dassault Mysteres attacked the Liberty, leading to 34 crew dead. Of those brave crew, 2 of them were US Marines.

- During the Vietnam war, the USAF & USN did suffer a number of A2A losses on aircraft like the F-4 Phantoms and A-4 SKyhawks and F-105 Thunderchiefs etc against the North Vietnamese i.e the VPAF(as well as reports of Chinese and Russians). I have read of at least 16 North Vietnamese aces.

- In May 1987 an Iraqi Mirage fired a pair of Exocet ASMs at the USS Stark, leading to 37 dead.

- In the opening night of the Gulf War, Scott Speicher F/A-18 was shot down by an Iraqi MiG-25PDS, leading to loss of life. The official statement was that a SAM brought him down, by pilot witness and a CIA report confirmed the Iraqi story that a FoxBat flown by Zuhair Dawood shot him down.

All in all, there have been lives lost due to hostile aircraft, although the main thing is that with every passing year US air-superiority increased to the point whereby it had become air-dominance. The USAF was, quite simply, the most lethal thing flying without an angel's trumpet.

That needs to be maintained, because resting on the laurels of victories past is one of the best ways to ensure a very rude (and probably expensive) awakening.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Thank you for setting the record straight.