F-22 Editorial For Maggie

[Pangloss62]

I post the below for Maggie because I know she's into jets and stuff and would likely have a thing or two to say about the F-22. This editorial was in our Atlanta Journal Constitution because we make these jets a few miles from here in Marietta, GA.


F-22 fighters expensive, unnecessary
By CAITLIN TALMADGE
Caitlin Talmadge is a doctoral candidate in the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Published on: 08/15/06

In recent weeks, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has been battling to extend Lockheed Martin's contract for the Pentagon's most advanced fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor. Congress should be tearing up this contract, not pouring an additional $1.7 billion into it.

At $265 million a pop, the F-22 is the most expensive, least-needed weapons system in U.S. history. Canceling further production would save $11 billion over the next five years.

The Air Force developed the F-22 in the 1980s as a replacement for the F-15, then the United States' premier air-to-air combat fighter against the Soviet air force. Although the Soviet threat collapsed, the Air Force continued to pour billions into this new supersonic stealth fighter.

But the last 15 years have confirmed what many early opponents of the plane suspected: The biggest threats to American aircraft come from missiles on the ground, not planes in the air. It is much cheaper and simpler for an adversary to build a network of surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites than a fleet of fighter aircraft — something that Iraq, Serbia, Hezbollah and other opponents have all shown they understand.

In an effort to justify building this Cold War contraption, the Air Force claims that the Raptor can handle ground threats. In 2002, the service even briefly added an "A" to the plane's name to indicate that it could handle the ground "attack" mission in addition to the aerial "fighting" mission for which it was designed.

But turning a highly tuned air-to-air fighter into a ground-attack airplane is like buying a thoroughbred racehorse to use as a pack animal. Moreover, because the F-22's weapons bay was intended to carry only the relatively small missiles used in air-to-air combat, it's a pack animal that can carry only a tiny load — just two bombs.

Additionally, to counter the most serious ground threat, the next generation of SAMs, the F-22 would need a long-range version of a special type of weapon known as a High-Speed Advanced Radiation Missile. But this missile is so large that it would have to be carried on the outside of the plane.

Unfortunately, external weapons carriage would dramatically increase the F-22's visibility to radar, destroying the stealthiness that the Air Force used to justify the plane's exorbitant cost in the first place.

The Air Force has already procured 98 of these fighters and is planning to buy 183 in total — 187 if Chambliss has his way. But at a time when U.S. ground forces are stretched thin fighting a "long war" against terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Raptor seems irrelevant. Where is al-Qaida's air force?

Potential conflict with China is often the unspoken reason for buying the F-22, and the Pentagon is right to watch Chinese military modernization closely. But the United States spends 10 times what China does on defense. The Pentagon's own February strategy review gives little reason to believe conflict with China will occur in the next several years, when the Air Force insists the Raptor will be needed as a "bridge" between old and new planes.

Regardless, massive investment in a new fighter is unwise. Fighters need bases relatively close to the site of conflict. Recent U.S. experiences with Turkey and Uzbekistan suggest that allies may not always be politically comfortable providing these. Because the F-22 is not designed to take off or land on an aircraft carrier, lack of base access could be a serious impediment to an Air Force strategy weighted toward fighters.

Whether or not it continues producing the F-22, the United States will possess the greatest air force the world has ever known. The existing fleet of F-15s and F-16s can be refurbished or expanded for billions less than the cost of the F-22. The United States is also investing billions each year to build more than 2,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which will also help ensure U.S. air superiority for the foreseeable future.

Chambliss' best argument in favor of the Raptor is that the United States has already invested billions in it. But as the adage goes, when you're stuck in a hole, stop digging.

[barefoot serpent]

F-22 fighters expensive, unnecessary
By CAITLIN TALMADGE
Caitlin Talmadge is a doctoral candidate in the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Published on: 08/15/06

Where is al-Qaida's air force?

the buggers tend to borrow planes but don't return them

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I post the below for Maggie because I know she's into jets and stuff and would likely have a thing or two to say about the F-22.

Well..as cool as manned fighter aircraft are, the basic story seems to be that the future of air-to-air combat is unmanned aircraft. ACM is all about high-G maneuvers, and that's not very compatible with actually having somebody on board. It's quite possible that USAF's desite for the F-22 isn't completely rational; aircraft systems drive entire careers these days...and testosterone (not exclusively a male motivation) may be part of the picture too.

That said, I dunno about this "High-speed advanced radiation missile"...I assume Ms. Talmadge may be referring to the AGM-88. I'd be wary of a "PhD candidate in security studies" writing about military tech who doesn't seem to be able to get their nomenclature right. Her other writings online seem to be more about politics; perhaps this one actually is too.

One of the most wasteful ways to spend on weapons systems is to do an entire development program and then cut back on the number of units produced; this drives the cost per unit up; once you tool up to produce something you should bake a bigger batch rather than a smaller one; the economy of cutting back inflates the per-unit cost that's the bloody shirt she waves earlier in the piece.

Talmadge points out the "we may need this to fight the Chinese" argument but then starts blowing smoke about how "it won't happen soon enough" and how much more we spend on defense than the Chinese do....the relevance of that last escapes me.

I'd also say her numbers need some looking into. 89 additional planes for 1.7 billion isn't $289 million per each.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I post the below for Maggie because I know she's into jets and stuff

Pangloss and Maggie sittin' in a tree . . .

[tw]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I post the below for Maggie because I know she's into jets and stuff and would likely have a thing or two to say about the F-22. This editorial was in our Atlanta Journal Constitution because we make these jets a few miles from here in Marietta, GA.

As MaggieL notes, before one can build a weapons system, first, one must define objectives. They cannot even agree as to whether China is a threat, let alone how much.

But we know this. The purpose of air power is to support the troops. And so the add on - ground attack function - which the Raptor by design will never be good at.

IOW the purpose of Raptor is to protect the Air Forces' #1 plane - A-10 - and other aircraft doing that same function.

The Raptor is unmatched in dog fighting - air superiority. But it sounds too much like the (forgot the number) X-70 supersonic bomber. It is not the airplane that needs study. It is a strategic objective that must be defined. That goes well beyond the scope of a fighter's abilities. Who will be the enemy? That is the question of F-22 verses missiles. Who is this enemy that we would spend so much money?

BTW that was the purpose of the Wolfovich paper that stated, if necessary, we should be prepared to attack India, Russia, or Germany. That paper was asking what weapons we need - such as F-22.

[Pangloss62]

Pangloss and Maggie sittin' in a tree . . .

A-R-G-U-I-N-G

[MaggieL]

If I'm arguing I was unaware of it. I haven't looked at the F-22 anywhere near as close as I have the Osprey. I don't have a firm opinion about whether it's worth having in the arsenal, or how many of them are actually needed...but I do think the writer's credentials and arguments look a little suspect.

[9th Engineer]

The objectives probably changed well into development, so it was a choice to either continue and turn out a working product or start over. They should have finished development of a prototype and then continued to adapt the technology for a more anti-ground role, I'm sure they wouldn't have their funding cut for that. Wouldn't take that long to twist it to carry more long range missiles so they'd be selling product anyway. Just stupid to put that many into active service.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by tw

As MaggieL notes, before one can build a weapons system, first, one must define objectives. They cannot even agree as to whether China is a threat, let alone how much.

It is also important to keep in mind that, given the years of development and testing required to bring a new air platform into service, you can't really wait until your threats are known...you have to project and hope that the capabilities you build in prove to be useful when the hit hits the fan.

[Pangloss62]

If I'm arguing I was unaware of it.

I think we locked horns on the Osprey. How about D-E-B-A-T-I-N-G?

Regardless, didn't McDonnel Douglas compete with Lockeed Martin for the prototype of that fighter? And wasn't their prototype a VTOL-type jet like the Harrier? If so, perhaps they chose the wrong one. I think there was a NOVA episode about that whole competition.

[Griff]

The Joint Strike Fighter had a VTOL version. According to that article the short take off and landing version will still be produced.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Pangloss62

I think there was a NOVA episode about that whole competition.

There was. McD-D disappeared into Boeing in 1997.

I'm just not somebody who will debate you on the F-22, though; I don't know enough about the technical situation to have an informed opinion.

[Pangloss62]

Thanks Griff. Below is the one I remember:

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Griff

The Joint Strike Fighter had a VTOL version. According to that article the short take off and landing version will still be produced.

Short take-off, vertical landing. In demo, they got one airborne in < 500 feet, took it supersonic and then landed vertically. Heavily loaded Harriers are flown short take-off too...that's why those Brit carriers have ramps for launching.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Heavily laden helicopters do a short takeoff run, if they have room. Much, much safer and easier on the equipment.