Nothing we post generates more comments and emails than the F-22. (F/A-22 to the boys in building.) Col. Everest "Rich" Riccioni (USAF, ret.) is one of America’s great fighter pilots and combat fighter designers. And he ain’t too happy about the Raptor. It’s the wrong weapon at the wrong time, he says – not to mention the history of technical problems it’s had. You can check out Riccioni’s detailed report. Let the debate continue! (Let’s try to keep it civil guys – no commie references – besides that’s so 80s.) Here's a crib sheet for those new to the issue.
"F-22 is the only American fighter to stand against enemy´s best jets today"
Straight out the the sales broshure,
remarkably from the SAME
Military Inudstial Complex that has killed
hundereds, and maimed thousands
of GIs in Iraq and Afganistan, with defective body armour, mis-firing automatic weapons, and unarmoured HumVees.
MaX
Posted by: Maximillian | May 04, 2006 at 08:35 AM
I´m sorry but IMHO,Mr. Riccioni either gets it wrong or his analytical skills and data are simply off-date .
1. F-15C is not the best fighter in the world since the introduction of Su-27. Russians pushed thanks to CAGI research maneuvrability in high AOA enviroment beyond F-15C or F-16 (sic!) capabilities. Su-27 outperforms teen fighters in every single aspect, safe top speed and decceleration of F-15. USAF knows this pretty well, thanks to excercises in 1991, 92 between F-15s and Su-27s. Quite frankly, F-15C didn´t make Su-27 drivers even sweat - and Russians didn´t use their IRST+ Helmet mountet designator + R73 (AA-11) combo. And behold, unbelievers, I´m talking about Su-27 "Cold War" model.
2. F-15C or F-16C are far beyond new Eurocanards, Rafale and Typhoon, in overall performance and avionics. It is natural as these are new composite jets made to fight Su-27s and MIG-29 over European territory, with great T/W ratios, excellent wing loading and great cockpit ergonomics. Su-30 with canards and thrust vectoring( that Mr. Riccion so much despises) is another jet "Too Much To Take" for old F-15C or aluminium F-16, no matter which Block. I remeber F-16C USAF pilot asked in Farnborough 96 what would he do when flying against TV equiped Su-37 in dogfight - he simply answered "I would eject", covering his nametag with hand.
As Mr. Riccioni likes FACTS so much, he should compare range of AA-10C Alamo or R-77 with those of current AMRAAMS -I simply may not figure out how would USAF jets merge with with Sukhois when being shot at without chance to retaliate. I hope that rogue nations never get MIGs-31s with R-33 and its derivatives, that would be another sad story.
3. More to that, Russians and Chinese somehow do not follow Mr. Riccioni´s logic - and pursue developement of 4th generation (Su-3X and J-10) and most importantly, 5th generation jets - T-50 (PAK-FA) for Russians and J-XX for Chinese. As both radar and AL-41 engines for PAK-FA are basically ready, plus experience from S-37 Bekrut involved, we may see T-50 take off soon, coming to service at the same time as F-35 (if F-35 survives). Validity of F-15, 16 or Navy disgrace called Super Hornet against such threat jets is close to zero.
4. Saying that the only threat are terrorists requires a prophet - I do not claim to be one, but I know for sure that Mr. Riccioni is not. It is as relevant as saying in 1985 that Russians are our only potential enemy. Nobody knows future threats - but saying that we will be saved by bunch of A-10s in nonsense. Every army must prepare for class one enemy - fighting colonial wars degrades army into rather police force with big hammer, ready to be beaten in "old" war by A team, ignorant to "asymetrical" threats. Want an example? Look how did French or British do against Germans at the beginning of WW 2.
Mr. Riccioni, if you are right and only terrorist are our enemy, let us get rid of all Ticonderogas, DDG-51 destroyers, AWACSs, Submaries (we may fire Tomahawks from rented barges and cruise ships), heavy artillery, two thirds of F-16s and all F-15s, cancell EF-18 Growler, AARGM missile, Patriots, Stingers...these are only weapons made to fight wars. Why is only F-22 to blame? Maybe becaouse Mr. Riccioni worked with and for Northrop, manufacturer of competitive YF-23 design, an looser to F-22 in ATF fly-off?
5. Oh language! How good marketing move is it to label F-22 a "Cold War Relic". Using this logic, F-16 is the best exaple of Cold War Trilobyte. So is Rafale, Typhoon, Su-27, A-10, B-52, Bradley, UH-60, M-16, M-14... Shall we stop using Blackhawks for that???
F-22 is the only American fighter to stand against enemy´s best jets today - F-16s or F-15s only offer war of attrition - these jets are designs from seventies. Of course, training, logistics, initiative - these all are importants factors, but there is no evidence that US is the best neither. The other part - is if there is such enemy? It can appear sooner then anybody may expect, and than it would be too late to look in a haste for a fighter to fill in a hole.
Posted by: Martin Barak | Feb 15, 2006 at 02:14 PM
I came across a news report recently that
Walmart (US based, corporation, (not a G-8 country in it's own right, but perhaps could be considered as such in terms of influence)) is now China's 5th largest trading
partner, on it's own. That's only one single (although very major) US based company, all by itself.
That might suggest that any war (perhaps unlikely for just cause, perhaps more likely to be artifically provoked,) between the US and China, might be particuarly and rather bad for bussiness, and continued prosperity on both sides ?
Similarly, India seems to also be developing close ties to the US economy. With for example, many major US companies setting up thier remote service oriented, LDST based operations there.
Along with Japan & SKorea, Russia, and Europe, and maybe Brazil, that about covers the "superpowers" as potential advisaries (in the coventional sense of warfare as defined and practiced throughout the last century) for the forseeable future.
In studying Mr. Ricconi's excellent report, along with a lot of other information, I form the impression that some in the USAF current leadership are somehow, still pining for a showdown with the old Soviets, vis-a-vie the Isreali ATA massicre of the Syrians, in the 1980s. Back then the F-22 might have made some sense, but come to think of it, the F-15s made out perfectly anyway.
Max
Posted by: Max | May 28, 2005 at 12:53 PM
The FB-22 was a haistily concieved adaptation of the F-22 airframe, concieved in desperation, by the USAF being under fire for the delays and cost overruns in the program.
It featured an enlarged, (heavier airframe)
and larger wing (delta like) surface.
By the time you read about such things in Pop Science magazine, rest assured they are probably
dead. (Pop Sci. did feature an artists rendition of the FB-22 version. Obviously
the FB-22 had no future.
F/A-22 is an adaptation (similarly teniously concieved, as eliquently described by Mr. Ricconi) of the basic existing F-22 airframe, with some upgrades specific to the ATG role.
Informed speculation would be that in the current climate, the USAF is desperate to prescribe some offensive capability to
the F-22, predictably, in reaction to critisim
over a lack of a credible air to air threat.
The SU-27 - 37 class remain the pinnacle of the old "Soviet Unions" (now bankrupt, divided, and in dis-array) Air superiority fighter aircraft development, and arguably match
overall the performance and "capability" of the
F-15.
Personely, I'd like to see the USAF place
more emphaisis on training and readiness, (incl. increased numbers of existing) to get back thier edge over any "potential" (????) advisary, so equipped.
MaX
Posted by: Max | May 28, 2005 at 12:02 PM
"After reading comments posted on POGO's blog, it is clear that I am not on the same frequency as some of you commenting on the F-22. It is seemingly impossible to change people’s opinions, their preconceptions and misconceptions. "
The way to change misconceptions is to present people with facts and logic rather than opinion and distortion.
"Many in our country are now aware that — The F-22 is unnecessary because it is no longer relevant to the current and future enemies of the US. Terrorists are a product of the new state of the world. Our enemies and their motivation have been well defined in the writings of experts— works by CIA operatives Richard Clark, Mike Scheuer, analytical reporter Bamford, Robin Wright, Richard Perle, Hal Lindsay, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and many others, and I agree with their views."
How is an ICBM, aircraft carrier or tank going to prevent a terrorist from blowing up a truck in downtown Miami? Are you seriously suggesting that we need no defenses whatsoever? That somehow the sea lanes will stay open if we just have more police officers? That if we watched our boarders more closely that S-300PMUs would somehow be unable to shoot down F-15s anymore? Nobody is going to disagree that terrorism is something to be watchful of but to attempt to tie the need of the F-22 to terrorism is completely irrational. NO aircraft is going to prevent terrorism although it COULD be argued that the F-22 would have had a better chance at knocking down those airliners on 9/11. If you want credibility then at least be consistent. An F-15 or F-16, let alone the F-35, isn't going to defeat terrorism anymore than an F-22 so you should add virtually every other aircraft in the inventory to your moral crusade lest you appear to have an unreasonably emotional issue with the F-22 in which case your objectivity becomes more than suspect.
"My critics merely seek countries that possess fighter aircraft and declare them potentially inimical. Potential does not mean real. Fighters don’t define our enemies, people do! And they no longer need to be national leaders to concern us. Foreign Affairs is an excellent source of information."
Yes an excellent point. You might want to take a look at this article: http://www.spacedaily.com/news/china-05zf.html
The fact remains that only an imbecile bases his current procurement strategy on what he HOPES happens. Yes it would be nice if the world joined in hand to sing Kumbaya but it's unlikely in the extreme to ever happen as history points out time and time again.
"For 15 years the USAF repeated the mantra — “A new, capable, air superiority aircraft is necessary to protect our ground troops.” That F-22 advocates have come to realize that this role for the Raptor can no longer justify the acquisition and its expense, is proven by the actions of the USAF! To save the program, the mantra is now very seldom heard, and there is a mad scramble to find many new roles and missions, new justifications. Each variation is analyzed in detail in the report. None of the new concepts make sense."
Anybody who's actually followed the program from the beginning knows the ATF as it was known was FROM IT’S INCEPTION designed specifically to clear the air over ENEMY territory. By killing the enemy before he can enter friendly territory it makes it much more difficult for him to attack from the air. It's the same today. Or would you prefer we let them on through?
"Critics reminding me that the F-22 carries missiles and guns (together with its very light bomb load) and the F-117 (with twice the bomb load) doesn't, insist on missing the point."
Let's settle the bomb load issue once and for all. The F-117 carries TWO bombs internally. Count 'em: TWO. That's it. It has no gun and it has no air to air missiles and can't carry so much as a hand grenade externally. The F-22 also carries two bombs internally IN ADDITION to two AIM-120s and 2 AIM-9Xs. And guess how many bombs the F-16 and F-15 carry internally. That's right- Z-E-R-O. So of course in your book that makes them completely worthless right? Next you'll say (if you haven't tried to blurt it out already) that "yeah, but the bombs the F-117 carries weigh 2000 pounds and the ones the F-22 carries weigh 1000 pounds". So what? Is the F-117 worthless because it can't carry the 5000 pound GBU-28? The fact is the US is leaning towards smaller weapons to minimize collateral damage. (You've heard of the SDB right?) When the SDB comes on line the F-22 will have the same INTERNAL bomb load as the F-117. Now lets compare the EXTERNAL bomb loads of the F-117 and the F-22. F-117: Nothing, nadda, ZERO. The F-22 on the other hand has four pylons each rated a 5000 pounds. So the F-22 could carry two of those GBU-28s (each of which weighs more than the F-117’s entire bomb load), of which the F-117 can carry none, put two 600 gallon fuel tanks on the other two pylons in ADDITION to the eight air to air missiles it carries internally. To keep going on and on about the F-22s supposed half-the-bomb-load-of-the-F-117 is misleading at BEST. The reality is that the F-22 will carry more bombs than the F-117 AND THAT'S NOT EVEN IT'S PRIMARY MISSION. Even if it couldn't carry as many bombs as the F-117 NOBODY CARES because that's not it's primary mission. Air superiority is it's primary mission.
"Our only real enemy — terrorists — do not and will not fly fighters or fighter-bombers against us."
Nor do they live in any particular country so we can scrap our ICBMs and SSBNs right? They don't drive tanks either so it's safe to say we can scrap all those M-1s, A-10s, and Apaches too right? And since they don't have a navy we can lose the aircraft carriers and all those expensive Aegis ships and SSNs too. What world are you living in?
"In fact, none of our real enemies will. Enemy fighters haven’t seriously challenged the USAF since World War II, more than half a century ago!"
And anybody who's done even the most rudimentary study of the subject knows WHY too. Nobody has seriously challenged us because we've had the best airforce. This is such a basic, not to mention well known, concept that the fact that you pretend not to know it can only be an attempt at deception on your part.
"There are other, lower cost and better ways of gaining control of the air."
Yeah, you've mentioned that before so let's hear them.
"Only Russia posed a significant aerial threat, a threat that vanished along with the Cold War."
Let's be clear here. The MOTIVE disappeared. A lot of the equipment is still there. Russia recently tested a new ICBM (the SS-27 Topal) and is building a new SSBN. The mistake you seem to be making is thinking that since the MOTIVE is (at the moment) gone that we can sit back fat and happy now. Nations change and as quickly as it changed for the better it could change for the worse. Personally I think Russia would prefer to sit on the sidelines while the US/China issue plays out. The thing is you don't plan your procurement on what you HOPE happens. You do all the studies and take your best shot at making sure you are protected based on trends. As far as Russia is concerned the trend is they are becoming LESS friendly toward the US. And even a blind man could tell which way China is going.
"Critics should reread my report. "
They have. That's why you have critics.
"Some F-22 advocates talk of being prepared for war with China. China is not going to attack the US."
Neither did Iraq in 1990. Nor did Germany in either WWI or WWII. North Vietnam didn't attack the US, neither did North Korea. Funny we still somehow ended up fighting them huh?
" Engaging China in a conventional war would be the worst error this country can possibly make!"
Actually the WORST thing they could do is to let China do whatever the hell it feels like which is apparently what you're advocating.
"The US couldn't conquer its small backward neighbor, North Vietnam, after 10 years of war throwing everything we had at them except nuclear weapons."
If you think the US threw everything we had at them then you need to do a SERIOUS brush up on your history. And while you're at it you might want to examine who it was that REALLY lost the war for the US. (I'll give you a hint- it wasn't the US *military*)
"This is in my report. Nuclear war with China would be a catastrophe for the US and the world."
Nuclear war would be bad for everybody. That's a no-brainer. I don't recall anybody every saying the F-22 should be used to conquer China. You DO recall that's what this discussion is about right? The word that should be used here is "deter" not "conquer". Nobody has ever suggested conquering China. What people HAVE been talking about is China's open declaration of expansionism. According to them there are a lot of disputed territories that are not in their possession and they mean to take them back starting with Taiwan. Are you suggesting we should let them? As most people know, winning a war begins with controlling the air. Ask yourself what some of the very first aircraft to fly to Saudi Arabia were when Saddam overran Kuwait. (Two squadrons of F-15s from the 1st Tactical fighter wing were in theater within DAYS). And that means we'll need the F-22 because the F-15 and F-35 won't cut it. The F-15 won't be able to fly in areas defended by SA-10/S-300PMUs and SA-12/S-300V/AN-2500 and the F-35 won't be able to go toe to toe with the Flanker.
"The readers don’t see, or they disregard my detailed logic, miss the point, and then revert to their previous opinions."
No offense but your reports are sorely lacking on logic. A perfect example is your argument that somehow the F-22 is worthless because it can't carry 2000lb munitions internally. It's the only straw you have to grasp at so you bring it up time and time again as though it actually MEANS something. You focus so narrowly on that single fact to the exclusion of all others that it's hard to even take you seriously.
" Opinions are worthless! Only facts and cogent analyses are meaningful! "
Preaching to the choir. Now if you'd only follow your own advice.
"That my critics differ from me is fine! But, properly, they should/must provide overpowering logic, more-relevant facts, and more profound analyses — not (unjustified) opinions. I do my research, and make quantified analyses with an open mind, and then and only then, form my conclusions. (The quantified analyses are available — for a price.)"
If you mean "facts" like your claims that the F-22 has a tiny bomb load then even FREE would be too steep a price to charge for you so-called "analysis".
"I endured similar criticism while serving as the Godfather of a triumvirate renowned as the Lightweight Fighter Mafia. It was composed of: myself, and two geniuses — the famed fighter pilot and incomparable Col John R. Boyd, and the perspicacious Pierre M Sprey. I was banished twice as a “reward” for initiating the Lightweight Fighter (cum F-16) program, and for solving the Air Staff’s constant complaint that we would be badly outnumbered in a European war. The Fighter Mafia was successful in forcing the F-16 into a recalcitrant USAF— literally doubling the size of Tactical Air Command! We inadvertently helped the Navy to solve its numbers problem via the F-18A, born of the F–17. Interestingly, properly, the air services never complained about being outnumbered after the advent of the F-16 and the F-18."
Oh this is PRICELESS. I was waiting for this to come up. You seem to have left out the part that the F-16 as was originally proposed was virtually WORTHLESS. Two short-range AIM-9s, a cannon, and dumb bombs. You didn't want the F-16 to have a BVR AAM making it cannon fodder to pretty much every other fighter in existence except for the Mig-21. It was at a disadvantage against the Mig-23,25,29,31 and Su-27, not to mention the fact that it lost out in foreign sales to the F/A-18 and Mirage 2000 in part because it didn't have the longer ranged missile. The F-16 today is NOTHING like the one you proposed and had a Block 40 been proposed back then you'd have been screaming as loud against it as you are against the F-22. The latest block 60 F-16s are closing in on the heaviest single-engine fighter of all time, the F-105, as far as weight goes and that's saying something. So much for “Light Weight Fighter”. And look at the rework the YF-17 needed to actually make it usable. I'm not talking about just the beefed up structure for carrier operations but it got a better radar and radar guided missiles. You'll notice NOBODY wanted the F-17 but people bought the more capable F-18.
"Today I must endure critics making egregious statements that “small numbers of F-22s are desirable?” "
I've certainly never said that and the USAF says it's MINIMUM number it would be happy with is 381. And the only sources I've seen that said "small numbers were desirable" were meaning it as "small numbers are better than none at all".
"For what battles? For what wars? Logic? In the report, I discussed that instead of creating a global air force, with small numbers the US can aggress only one small, undeveloped country at a time. Today, a conquered Iraq with its mere 20 million population is stressing our military. Ten to 20 thousand insurgents are the problem, against whom the Raptor has no necessary role."
Nor do ICBMs, SSBNs, F-15Cs, B-2s, Aegis cruisers, etc. etc. Should we get rid of all of those? What role do Patriot missiles serve against insurgents? How about ATACMs or Tomahawks? You going to launch a Tomahawk against a guy wearing an explosive vest?
"My critics think highly of the Raptor's performance, but don't know that it represents no progress over the thirty-year old F-15C."
Is this some more of your "research"? How about this:
http://www.dcmilitary.com/airforce/beam/9_20/features/29191-1.html
""We're way ahead of where people expected us to be," Secretary Roche said of the Raptor's initial operational test evaluation trials.
The secretary used the results of a recent combat simulation to describe the Raptor's capabilities.
"We had five F-15 Eagles against one Raptor," he said. "The engagement was over in three minutes. None of the F-15s even saw the Raptor. The Raptor simply went down the line and, in simulation, took out all five of the F-15s."
One reporter asked if the simulations were fair, since the F/A-22 pilots had previously flown the F-15.
"They never get into dogfights, so it makes no difference," said Secretary Roche. "The fact that [the Raptor] flies
very high, very stealthy and at [Mach 1.6] without afterburner makes it very tough for anybody else to have a fire-control solution. The F-15s, with very good radars, were not able to pick up and understand where the F/A-22s were, and the F/A-22 was looking at the F-15s all the time." "
Here's another:
"WASHINGTON, D.C. - The F/A-22 Raptor demonstrated "overwhelmingly effective" warfighting capability according to the Initial Operational Test and Evaluation report by the Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center at Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.
During the test, it met or exceeded performance expectations in altitude, speed, maneuverability and survivability. It also performed significantly better than the F-15C in all air-to-air mission areas, leading to a rating of "effective" by AFOTEC.
"The Raptor operated against all adversaries with virtual impunity," said Maj. Gen. Rick Lewis, Air Force program executive officer for the F/A-22. "The ground-based systems couldn't engage the Raptor, and no adversary aircraft survived. That is air dominance, and that's exactly what the Raptor was designed to give us."
There was another recent article in which an airforce official close to the program said that even AESA radars didn't help the F-15 against the F-22. It was no contest. So much for "I do my research, and make quantified analyses with an open mind" huh?
"Neither the USAF nor the contractor advertise this."
Because it isn't true.
“Few critics realize that the program’s money should be spent on the weapons, technology, and training for fighting guerrillas and insurgents — our only real enemy.”
So why aren't you screaming for cutting the REALLY big ticket items like the F-35, DD(X), CVN-21 and Virginias? Come to think of it think how much money we'd save if we disbanded the navy and scrapped all of our warships. None of them will be used to kill "insurgents".
"Neither the obscene unit cost of the F–22 nor the USAF’s gross distortions in reporting it, disturb the critics. Nor does the enormous drop from a stated requirement for 750 aircraft (funded by $40B) to a likely 180 fighters (now for $70B) disturb them! This incontrovertible history is in the report. Misspent money means little to my critics, despite its weakening our military capability. How do they justify the misinformation on cost? "
Why don't you tell us all how much of that money is ALREADY SPENT? If you cancelled the F-22 program TODAY and didn't accept a single additional airframe you'd STILL be out tens of billions of dollars. It's called "R&D". Look it up. The cost to MAKE an F-22 today is significantly lower than what you'd have people believe. You'd have us cancel the F-22 and then spend tens of billions MORE money on R&D for another aircraft. Yeah that's smart.
"Why did no critic address my exposition of the great perpetual (endless cycle) scam of requiring new, high performance fighters to engage friendly countries flying our former best fighter aircraft?"
Since when did we start building and selling Su-27/30/34/35 Flankers and Mig-29 Fulcrums? When did we start building J-10s? Or are you saying we're planning on going to war with Japan, Israel, and South Korea? Where's all your vaunted "research" you've been talking about? If you want to talk about squandered money why don't you tell us all about how prices skyrocket when you stretch out a program and about the "stretch out and cut" death spiral that short-sided individuals are infamous for inflicting on the taxpayer?
"Among the qualifications of the critics—It is doubtful that any have ever written the requirements for, or managed the design of fighter aircraft. Few if any have they planned air-wars and air-to-ground-wars for any country. They didn’t develop the artful combination of technologies that give a fighter the supercruise characteristic. I did. This is in the report. None of the critics have created a novel tactical doctrine for aerial combat. I did. None of them commanded a group that generated the air-to-ground war plans to defend South Korea. General Robert Malloy, commander of the 314th Air Division assigned me this task. None planned the air-war for the defense of South Korea.I did essentially single-handedly, at the order of PACAF Commander, General Vogt."
So what? The first sign of a closed mind is the attitude that "I can do no wrong". We're suppose to go "whoa, look at his resume, I guess all those other guys with equally impressive resumes are wrong because he's special or something"? We're suppose to think "this guy's resume is so impressive that the laws of physics don't apply to him and 20,000lbs is really much less than 4,000lbs"? If you're wrong, you're wrong. It doesn't matter WHAT your credentials are because we're talking about FACTS.
It’s pretty clear why you’re against the F-22. This is the F-15 all over again for you. The “Fighter Mafia” was dead set against the “gold-plated” F-15 when it was new and they were proven wrong in the end. The idea of the LWF was debatable in theory but in practice was not all that great of an idea. It DID get more airframes in the air, there’s no arguing that but in the end it required SIGNIFICANT updates before it was a truly useful aircraft. What the USAF is flying today is in NO way what you had in mind at the beginning of the program.
Posted by: sferrin | Apr 03, 2005 at 03:59 AM
Sitting at my desk in the Office of Air Warfare in OSD circa '73-'78, hearing/reading all the views from air profesionals, analysts and pundits re the our responsibilities for the Mission Areas of: Air Superiority, Interdiction (Battle Field Interdiction and Deep Attack wich included both Cruise Missile and Pershing applications), CAS and Defense Suppression it was not easy to sort it out and one could loose track on any given day.
I adopted a habit of categiorizing the nature of the conflict as an aide in sorting out the virtues of various weapons for the famlies of missions. The two major categories of military activity for me were: (1) WAR and (2) Military Political Gymnastics (MPG); I had experienced both. My WAR experience was WWII: it was all out, everything to lose, complete commitment, words such as attrition rates and survivability and cost are not part of your vocabulary and numbers/force depth really matter for you have to be conducting mini wars in many places simultaneously and can't afford to lose in any location.
Next, especially during the latter part of Korea, I encountered what I call MPG. I recognized it when during a briefing on board our carrier enroute to the South China Sea, a senior staff officer from COMFAIRJAPAN said to our assembled fighter/attack squadrons: "Gentlemen, it is important for you to keep in mind that there are no targets in North Korea that warrant the loss of you or one of our airplanes." Those of us who were WWII air combat vets looked at each other in disbelief. Since then, there have been a number of conflicts that can be regarded as MPG, certainly not WAR.
There are a number of countries around the world where their leaders have invested in procuring small numbers (a couple of hundred) modern fighters for political prestege which on any given day could carry out a political/military event sufficient to make the five oclock news; these are not worthy of discussion re WAR preparations/capabilities.
When we (not without significant debate) evolved the DoD Air Forces composed of F-14/F-15/F-16/F-18/A-10/A-6, concern over depth of forces and world deployment to counter the WARSAW PACT were of major concern. We were planning for a WAR and numbers would be PARAMOUNT. What I had in mind when I inserted the concept for a "stealth" combat aircraft was a few that could aid in degrading PACT air defenses to the degree that the bulk of NATO air elements could break through and destroy Soviet follow-on armor and infantry. Later, the concept of the ATF emerged (with help from Riccioni and other USAF thinkers) which was focused on eliminating the SUAWACS to pave the way for the swarm of NATO deep attack forces. It was to compliment these NATO forces which we planned to have in place in some depth by the end of the first week.It was assumed that we could procude a few hundred or perhaps a thousand to compliment the thousands of other aircrtaft we would have.
I believe that those readers who are interested in supporting the creation of appropriate air forces for the future need to think more deeply about the probable character of the conflicts. One fact will remain, I believe, for WAR, we will need depth; it is more important than leading edge technology which may appear (at great expense) in "token" numbers.
Think about it.
Chuck Myers
Posted by: Chuck Myers | Mar 23, 2005 at 05:00 PM
Riccioni's latest comments were worthy of their own blog entry because of length.
Click here to view the new post by Riccioni on the F/A-22.
Posted by: POGO | Mar 23, 2005 at 04:42 PM
Is it too much to ask that people do a little research to see if what they say actually has any merit whatsoever?
"A smaller buy makes sense, however."
Yes and no. On the one hand 180 should be able to handle any airwar we're likely to see in the next 20 years. On the other hand does anybody know at what point China will say "okay we have enough"? If we close down the production line then we won't have the opportunity to build more down the line. Technically we probably could but the people will have moved on, equipment sat idle, subcontractors closed their doors and so on. I'd propose cranking out the 180 and then dropping orders down enough to keep the line "warm". That way if we NEEDED some more we could build them much cheaper than starting from scratch.
"Certainly, there are plenty of plausible scenarios in which the U.S. would have to deal with an enemy Air Force. But, the size of the F-15 fleet was based on a scenario of taking on the entire combined Soviet and Eastern European Air Forces all at once, "
You need to keep in mind though that there are things like "down for maintanance", "training", "needed in areas in addition to the war zone" that you need to take into account. You can't strip areas down to nothing to put all your F-22s in the warzone. Go back and check the numbers in Desert Storm and see what percentage of each type actually went to the Middle East. About 15% of the F-15s went, less than 10% of the F-16s. . .a pretty significant percentage of A-10s went due to the nature of the war and I know a lot of F-16s were rotated back to the states (and probably the rest of them too to one extent or another). If we bought 180 F-22s there's NO way they'd all show up in a warzone. Take the F-14 for example. Over 600 of them were built for the US Navy. Seeing how there are only 12 aircraft carriers that had 2 12-plane squadrons that meant 288 Tomcats assigned to aircraft carriers at any given time. What were the other 300 doing? And while the USSR had a much bigger airforce and over 900 F-15s were bought for the USAF you have to remember there were also several THOUSAND F-16s, F-4s and so on, not to mention the Royal Airforce, the German Air Force and the French. That's just for starters and NONE of them are going to be around to help us.
"Recent history has dramatically reduced the importance of planning for that kind of contingency."
Recent history is just that. In the overall schmeme of things it was more an aberation than the norm.
"Now, the two biggest worries in an air superiority mission are (1) fighting a large number of relatively low technology fighters in a battle with China (probably over Taiwan),"
I'd hardly call 300 Flankers "low tech". Nor is the J-10 by any means something to dismiss. The F-35 will not be able to hang with the Flanker. It's a ground attack aircraft with some air to air capabilities but it's not in the class of the Flanker. The F-15s and F-16s are on their way out so what are you going to fight the Flanker with if not the F-22?
"or (2) fighting a modest number of very technologically sophisticated fighters, for example, if we ended up at war with Saudi Arabia."
Both the Chinese Su-30MKK and the Indian Su-30 MKI are more sophisticated than the Saudi F-15s. Once the Chinese Flankers and J-10s have European avionics the scales will tilt even further.
"While these missions call for a significant air superiority force, they don't call for the same sized force that we had when we were facing off against the WARSAW pact during the Cold War."
NATO was facing the Warsaw Pact. The US wasn't going it alone.
"A small F-22 force also, by merely existing, discourages development of enemy new fighter programs by other nations, by setting the bar higher for such program. "
China & Russia seem to have missed the memo.
"The Air Force's favorite maximum is that the fighter which is 10% better wins 90% of the engagements. A China or Russia might think twice about spending billions to develop an F-15+ class fighter, if it know that it still will be trounced by the F-22."
They both ALREADY HAVE an F-15+ class fighter. It's called the Flanker. Where have you been?
"The stronger criticism of the F/A-22 program is the Air Forces efforts to sell it as an attack, and even worse, as a close air support, program, in an effort to justify a larger buy of the aircraft."
They're not trying to sell it as an attack aircraft. They've ALWAYS maintained they want it primarily for air superiority. Sure they're going to point out that it CAN drop bombs but that's not why they want it. And to be blunt ANY aircraft that can carry JDAM can be used in close support. Hell they even use B-52s for it. Your problem is you think of close support in the traditional "get down in the weeds with a gatling gun and strafe the trenches" mindset when more and more it's "drop a JDAM on this X,Y,Z coordinate". Quite different altogether and the A-10 is going to be around for years to shoot in the weeds.
"This differs from the F-15C and F-14, which unlike the F-22, were not sold as attack jets. They were, and were sold as, fighters designed to engage other aircraft. "
And? Does saying "the F-22 can drop bombs" somehow make it a less effective fighter? Does the "A" in the name make it go slower? What's your point?
"There are several kinds of attack/CAS roles a plane can carry out. One is the "hostile skies/critical target" role. The epitome of this is going in on the eve of a conflict to destroy air defenses and an enemy air force on the runway. "
This is the LAST thing you'd want to use it for. Really, you do need to do some research as to what the F-22's role is. It is designed to knock out enemy aircraft over their OWN territory. China and Russia both have the S-300/-400 series and you do NOT want to get in their envelope in a non-stealth aircraft. The ONLY way you are going to be able to attack enemy aircraft over their own territory is with a stealth FIGHTER. And that's the F-22. The F-35 won't be able to do it because 1. it doesn't have all-aspect stealth and 2. a Flanker would eat it for lunch anyway.
"But, there is little indicatation that the existing F-117 and B-2 and cruise missile fleet isn't up to the task, and the X-45 and X-47 drones scheduled to hit prime time around the same time as the F-35, do the job just as well as an F/A-22 would without putting a pilot at risk, for a much lower cost. And, if you need more ordinance than an X-45, X-47, F-117 or F/A-22 can deliver, we already have the B-2. Thus, this capability isn't an urgent need in our current force structure. The attack designation of the F-22 when it refers to this role, adds little to our force that we need. If you are going to do a stealth strike and rely on the expensive F-22 stealth technology, then the 16 air to air missiles don't have much of a point."
It's unlikely they'd use it to drop bombs much anyway. I'd say 80% of the reason they're pushing the bomb capability up is to sooth those who have a coronary at the thought of a single role aircraft. They wouldn't have to do that if those individuals actually had some imagination and could see how much control of the air help the war effort. When you control the air you can pretty much control the entire war. All those convoys in both Desert Storm and OIF would have been impossible without control of the air. Remember the Highway of Death at the end of Desert Storm? That's what it would be only with our guys being the dead ones. Is that what we want? Hell the media had a feeding frenzy when ONE SCUD killed 28 people in a barracks. Now imagine our troops getting pounded with laser guided bombs EVERY SINGLE DAY. That's what happens when you lose control of the air.
"Another attack role is to act as a moderate load, short range bomber in a non-hostile skies environment. This is one important role of the F-15E, F-18 and F-16. It is also what the A-6 and most of the A designated aircraft other than the A-10 and AC-130 were designed to be.
Yet, another attack role is to drop fairly small bombs on targets when the skies are no longer hostile (and hence air to air combant isn't going to happen) from a fairly high altitude (to avoid mobile SAMs). The F/A-22 can do this, but who cares? So can every single other combatant aircraft in the Air Force. Why send an F/A-22 at $250M a piece to do a job that an F-16 at a fraction of the cost does equally well?"
Becuase they DON'T do it equally well. We haven't faced an enemy with REAL SAMs. Against an enemy with SA-10s and -12s non stealth bomb droppers will be effectively GROUNDED until those sites are taken down.
"While every fighter has some attack capability (heck, if worse came to worse it could even launch an air to air missile at a ground target), nothing about the F/A-22 recommends it over other aircraft for an attack mission, and it is deceptive of the Air Force to try to do so."
All they're saying is "hey this can drop bombs too. Moreover we'll have the option of dropping them from high altitude and supersonic speed which means you can stand off at a longer range". When it comes to attack there IS a lot it will be able to do that other aircraft can't.
" Dishonesty in the way the military sells weapons systems, such as using an attack designation for an aircraft that is even more of a pure fighter aircraft than either the F-14 and F-15 (non-attack designated aircraft) whose role it is taking over, is what places like POGO are about and the A designation for the F-22 is dishonest. "
"Dishonest"? You have GOT to be joking. Seeing how the F-15's mantra was "Not a Pound for Air To Ground" I can hardly see how the F-22 can be even MORE specialized than THAT. IF it were impossible for the F-22 to drop bombs THEN you could say it was "dishonest" for them to say it can. Since it's ALREADY demonstrated that it CAN drop bombs if anything YOU are being dishonest in implying they are lying. More likely than not though it is ignorance that is speaking on your behalf. Most POGO fans seem to shoot their mouths off without actually researching the subject and it seems you are no different in this regard.
"Yes, we need some F-22s and yes, we need some attack aircraft. But, the F-22 is not an attack aircraft and the Air Force does the nation is disservice when it tries to pretend that it is one."
Let's say for sake of argument it's physically impossible to attach a bomb to an F-22. Does that make it a less effective fighter? Is that going to make it do a poor job at keeping our forces from getting the crap bombed out of them? Is it all of a sudden going to cease to be stealthy?
"As far as the FB-22 goes, the point again is, where is the gap in existing capabities?"
Well retire the F-14s and F-15s and what have you got? A bunch of short ranged aircraft. F-35? Short range. The only stealth aircraft of any range is the F-22 and while it CAN drop bombs it's not it's primary mission nor is it likely to be used as such unless the numbers procured are a LOT higher. Or do you suggest we build more $2 BILLION B-2s?
"If there is anything that the existing U.S. military is pre-eminent in the world at doing, it is carrying out bombing raids."
And why is that? Because it controls the skies. Let's see those F-15s, F-16s and B-1s run the gauntlet against several wings of Flankers and a few batteries of SA-10s and see how they fair. Those who think all war is going to be like Iraq and Afghanistan DO NOT HAVE A CLUE.
"If you want to do a stealth run, we already have the B-2 which has greater capacity and range."
Yeah all 21 of them. Which means MAYBE you'll have five available in theater to drop bombs on any given day.
"If you want to bomb in a context where most enemy aircraft have been cleared out"
That's the problem. What are you going to "clear them out" WITH? The F-15s and F-16s will be retired and the F-35 won't hack it against any of the Flanker family. And EVERYBODY is getting them. Hell even Vietnam has some.
" but there is a dim possibility that one or two enemy fighters might be encountered, the F-35 which has a pretty large bomb bay is a good choice."
So in other words "if we're fighting an enemy with a pretty much nonexistant airforce the F-35 might be a good choice". Wonderful.
"If there is a gap in our bomber capability at all right now, it is that too much of our cruise missile capacity is on slow to react destroyers and cruisers, rather that more versitile and less vulnerable aircraft, but the FB-22 is not the tool to fill that gap."
What is more $2 BILLION B-2s? Or yet ANOTHER expensive stealth bomber?
Posted by: sferrin | Mar 21, 2005 at 09:24 PM
The F-22 makes sense as an air superiority fighter. This is what it was designed to be and it is an excellent design for that task. Air superiority is an important Air Force mission, and the F-15, which is the primary tool in the existing Air Force, is getting old enough that it needs to be replaced someday, and if we are going to replace it, we may as well replace it with something better, like an F-22.
A smaller buy makes sense, however. Certainly, there are plenty of plausible scenarios in which the U.S. would have to deal with an enemy Air Force. But, the size of the F-15 fleet was based on a scenario of taking on the entire combined Soviet and Eastern European Air Forces all at once, while fighting a smaller air superiority battle in some other region. Recent history has dramatically reduced the importance of planning for that kind of contingency. Now, the two biggest worries in an air superiority mission are (1) fighting a large number of relatively low technology fighters in a battle with China (probably over Taiwan), or (2) fighting a modest number of very technologically sophisticated fighters, for example, if we ended up at war with Saudi Arabia. While these missions call for a significant air superiority force, they don't call for the same sized force that we had when we were facing off against the WARSAW pact during the Cold War.
A small F-22 force also, by merely existing, discourages development of enemy new fighter programs by other nations, by setting the bar higher for such program. The Air Force's favorite maximum is that the fighter which is 10% better wins 90% of the engagements. A China or Russia might think twice about spending billions to develop an F-15+ class fighter, if it know that it still will be trounced by the F-22.
The stronger criticism of the F/A-22 program is the Air Forces efforts to sell it as an attack, and even worse, as a close air support, program, in an effort to justify a larger buy of the aircraft. This differs from the F-15C and F-14, which unlike the F-22, were not sold as attack jets. They were, and were sold as, fighters designed to engage other aircraft.
There are several kinds of attack/CAS roles a plane can carry out. One is the "hostile skies/critical target" role. The epitome of this is going in on the eve of a conflict to destroy air defenses and an enemy air force on the runway. This is the role that the F-117 and B-2 and cruise missiles serve in the existing force structure. The B-1B was made supersonic and nap of Earth flying for this purpose, but became largely obsolete for this purpose when stealth technology came along to do the job better.
An F/A-22 can do this as well, and this is the only legitimate attack role for the F-22. But, there is little indicatation that the existing F-117 and B-2 and cruise missile fleet isn't up to the task, and the X-45 and X-47 drones scheduled to hit prime time around the same time as the F-35, do the job just as well as an F/A-22 would without putting a pilot at risk, for a much lower cost. And, if you need more ordinance than an X-45, X-47, F-117 or F/A-22 can deliver, we already have the B-2. Thus, this capability isn't an urgent need in our current force structure. The attack designation of the F-22 when it refers to this role, adds little to our force that we need. If you are going to do a stealth strike and rely on the expensive F-22 stealth technology, then the 16 air to air missiles don't have much of a point.
Another attack role is to act as a moderate load, short range bomber in a non-hostile skies environment. This is one important role of the F-15E, F-18 and F-16. It is also what the A-6 and most of the A designated aircraft other than the A-10 and AC-130 were designed to be.
Yet, another attack role is to drop fairly small bombs on targets when the skies are no longer hostile (and hence air to air combant isn't going to happen) from a fairly high altitude (to avoid mobile SAMs). The F/A-22 can do this, but who cares? So can every single other combatant aircraft in the Air Force. Why send an F/A-22 at $250M a piece to do a job that an F-16 at a fraction of the cost does equally well?
A fourth attack role called close air support involves low alitude, often day time support of ground forces against often mobile enemy forces. Missions in this category include killing enemy tanks and missile launchers and artillery positions on the ground, strafing enemy infantry formations, and attacking specific houses or bunkers. This role has been proposed by the Air Force as part of its "attack capacity". It is an idiotic way to support this particular weapon. Everything about the F-22 that makes it distinctive and expensive is neutralized in this situation. Supercruise means nothing when your slowing down to look for tanks and your opponents have trouble going more than 100km/hr. Radar stealth technology means nothing when your opponents are relying on visual and audible identification at close range and you are making multiple runs over the same general target area. Advance avionics aren't that useful when your relying on forward observers to tell you who to strike and where not to strike. Air Force generals, moreover, are not going to want to risk a $250M plane in such a situation.
The F-35, despite being sold as an A-10 replacement, is also a poor fit for this job, which the Air Force has historically not been interested in doing (indeed there are proposals floating out there to transfer the A-10s to the Army breaking historical tradition). Close Air Support is the job that the A-10 was designed for, and the A-10 with its better armored cockpit, greater system redundency and general hit survivability, short turning circle, and heavy payload for air to surface ordinance, is much better for this job than the F/A-22. The AH-64 Apache Helicopter, AH-1 Cobra attack helicopters, Predator drones and the AC-130 gunship also fill this role. And, we should have a successor to the upgraded A-10C on the drawing board, because the A-10 has outperformed attack helicopters in the anti-tank role in both the Gulf War and Iraq War, and this role more than most benefits from having a human being in the loop even when communications are disrupted.
Also, the notion that a plane in this CAS role needs significant air to air capabilities, ignores how the U.S. military operates. U.S. military doctrine is to destroy enemy airpower and anti-aircraft batteries first, and then and only then, to attack ground forces. The U.S. military has never departed from that doctrine is recent times, and this has proven to be a good strategy in the Gulf War, in Kosovo, and in Iraq. The U.S. isn't going to be sending in planes to do CAS when there are Su-30s or J-10s out flying around and posing a threat to U.S. forces. In fact, it isn't going to send in more than de minimus ground forces at all, until all enemy fighter aircraft are out of commission.
There is no room for a hostile skies CAS role in current military doctrine, there is no clear need to create such a role when current military doctrine seems to work just fine on this point, and even if we needed a hostile skies CAS plane, it isn't at all clear that the F/A-22 fits the bill. A few F-22s optimized for air to air combat escorting A-10Cs and AC-130s which would actually do the CAS work, would seem to be a better choice. Not all missions need to be served by a single plan acting alone.
While every fighter has some attack capability (heck, if worse came to worse it could even launch an air to air missile at a ground target), nothing about the F/A-22 recommends it over other aircraft for an attack mission, and it is deceptive of the Air Force to try to do so. Dishonesty in the way the military sells weapons systems, such as using an attack designation for an aircraft that is even more of a pure fighter aircraft than either the F-14 and F-15 (non-attack designated aircraft) whose role it is taking over, is what places like POGO are about and the A designation for the F-22 is dishonest. Yes, we need some F-22s and yes, we need some attack aircraft. But, the F-22 is not an attack aircraft and the Air Force does the nation is disservice when it tries to pretend that it is one.
As far as the FB-22 goes, the point again is, where is the gap in existing capabities? If there is anything that the existing U.S. military is pre-eminent in the world at doing, it is carrying out bombing raids. If you want to do a stealth run, we already have the B-2 which has greater capacity and range. If you want to bomb in a context where most enemy aircraft have been cleared out but there is a dim possibility that one or two enemy fighters might be encountered, the F-35 which has a pretty large bomb bay is a good choice. If there is a gap in our bomber capability at all right now, it is that too much of our cruise missile capacity is on slow to react destroyers and cruisers, rather that more versitile and less vulnerable aircraft, but the FB-22 is not the tool to fill that gap.
Posted by: ohwilleke | Mar 17, 2005 at 02:18 PM
I'd like to interject a little rationality into this tirade:
"The undersized bomb load"
It's not a bomber hence the "F" in F/A-22. It will be able to carry the SDB internally in addition to the JDAM. The fact that it doesn't carry two 2000lb munitions internally is completely irrelevant. It's primary role is to be air to air combat. It will be able to carry bombs internally but that is a secondary mission. And we're talking in a stealth manner here. Which completely negates any comparision to the F-15E or F-16 as they ar not stealth aircraft. As for when stealth is not an issue it has four pylons rated at 5000lbs EACH which it will be able to hang bombs under in addition to it's internal load. To complain that it has an undersized bombload is completely irrational. Do you hear anybody whining that the F-117 can't carry the 5000lb GBU-28 internally therefore it is useless? No.
" is important because now that the Raptor has been proven useless for air superiority battles"
Proven by who? Your say so? Actually what has been proven is that it is undoubtedly the best air superieority aircraft on the planet bar none. The F-15, which is currently undefeated in air to air combat can't touch it in air to air combat and that has been demonstrated time after time. Your assertions mean nothing if you can't provide evidence to back it up.
" that exist nowhere"
Ah, I see. Since the Afghans didn't have an airforce that must mean nobody else does nor will anybody in the next 30 or 40 years that the F-22 will be flying. Perhaps you'd like to explain the presence of over 300 Flankers in China and rising not to mention the new J-10s that are going into production in China? I guess they're all for airshows huh?
", so the USAF is trying to sell it as an air-to-surfact aircraft."
No the airforce is trying to point out to those without a shred of imaginiation that you can use the aircraft for more than air to air combat. Funny how these same individuals don't seem to have a problem with the fact that the F-15C carries no bombs whatsoever nor did the F-14 Tomcat for most of it's career.
"The existing F-117 doubles its capability,"
You might want to point out for the rest of us where it hangs those sixteen air to air missiles. Yeah that's about what I thought.
" and the USAF is reducing that fleet for lack of need.
Our USAF is and will soon be awash in air to surface aricraft."
Yeah so let's cancel the F-22 and buy MORE air to surface aircraft in the F-35. You can't have it both ways. Or are you saying we need no new aircraft whatsoever? Maybe you'd care to explain how those 20 to 30 year old F-15s and F-16s we currently have flying are going to keep flying for another 30 to 40 years? And please don't demonstrate your ignorance further by trying to compare them to the B-52.
"Not only is there no air superiority problem"
Not in Iraq or Afghanstan. Are you suggesting there are no other potential threats anywhere in the world nor will there be for the next 30 to 40 years? Do you have even a shred of evidence to back that assertion up because there's a load of it out there to the contrary?
"but the few numbers of F-22s being aquired"
Thanks in part to clueless individuals like yourself. The fact of the matter is that even 180 will make life difficult for the enemy. In Desert Storm we only had 96 F-15Cs in the theater and most of them never even saw combat.
"and their attendent low readiness rates"
Perhaps you'd tell us all with some REAL numbers how it's readiness compares to any other aircraft BEFORE IT EVEN ENTERED SERVICE. What was the F-15's readiness in 1973? (Don't forget to mention the scores of airframes that were sitting idle because there were no engines for them.) What was the Tomcat's readiness in 1972?
"mean that they can never amass a dominant force."
Sounds like you should be arguing for MORE of them not fewer. And if you think they can't then how in the world do you think you're going to do it with aircraft that are far inferior?
" There are other low-cost ways to protect our ground troops from the non-existing airforces that may attacak them."
Non-existing? You mean like those 300 Flankers in China? Who BTW have recently signed it into law that they'll attack Taiwan if it declares independance. You ARE aware that we're commited to defend them when China attacks aren't you?
"The existing enemies of the US and the future enemies will be composed of Molem Fundamentalists."
Well I'm sure all those countries in the Pacific will be relieved to hear that. Or they would be if they didn't live in the real world with the rest of us. Ufortunatley China (whom Europe is screaming to line up to assist) has declared that it has expansionist plans. Those who choose to ignore that fact are no better than the kid hiding under the bed hoping the boogeyman will go away. And that is completely beside the fact that the F-22 is going to be in service for 30 to 40 YEARS. What was the world like 30 years ago? It is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty what the world will be like that far out. So the choice is do we do what we can to see that we're prepared or do we do as you suggest and hope the world will turn into a Utopia?
"They are very effective without purchasing fighters to counter ours. Please read my latest report that resides with POGO."
If it's as inaccurate as this post of your's I'd heartily suggest they avoid it.
"Thank you for correcting my error on the engine destined for the FB-22. I was unaware that it would get a new engine. So nothing is commonal between the two aircraft."
You've obviously never even SEEN the design. What qualifiys you to comment on it?
"Now for the lack of need or air superiority, we will build a new air to surfacre aircraft. What good is a new bomber against insurgents?"
Are you seriously saying all we need to worry about from here on out is a bunch of uneducated misfits running around with bombs straped to them? Surely you must be joking. How about that Chinese airforce? Or are you of the school of thought "not our problem"? Are you so simple that you think that since Russia went from being a Cold War enemy to neutral and back to beligerent in the space of 15 years that they will stay friendly for the next 40? You ARE aware of who is CURRENTLY helping China build up it's military aren't you?
"The F-22 may be made into an effective air-to-air aircraft that is utterly unnecessary."
Repeating yourself doesn't make it any more true.
"More, and more competent A-10 Warthogs, are much more effective in fighting insurgents."
Great. Let's see how it fairs against a Su-30MKK. Or a J-10 or anywhere else it has to fight when the country has an airforce.
"It is the Army that is most effective against them. The USAF is the secondary service. How could
an Existing F-22 fleet been able to stop the Sept. 11, 01 disaster?"
How could the A-10? Or an M-1 or an aircraft carrier or ICBM or SLBM or anything else for that matter? Are you saying we don't need any of that at all, that it's all a waste of money?
"The F-22 is the wrong aircraft for the foreseeable wars. IT IS AN ANACHRONISM."
Actually the attitude of "if I repeat it enough times it will be true despite all the evidence to the contrary" is what is an anachronism.
Posted by: Scott Ferrin | Mar 15, 2005 at 05:31 PM
The undersized bomb load is important because now that the Raptor has been proven useless for air superiority battles that exist nowhere, so the USAF is trying to sell it as an air-to-surfact aircraft. The existing F-117 doubles its capability, and the USAF is reducing that fleet for lack of need.
Our USAF is and will soon be awash in air to surface aricraft.
Not only is there no air superiority problem but the few numbers of F-22s being aquired and their attendent low readiness rates mean that they can never amass a dominant force. There are other low-cost ways to protect our ground troops from the non-existing airforces that may attacak them.The existing enemies of the US and the future enemies will be composed of Molem Fundamentalists. They are very effective without purchasing fighters to counter ours. Please read my latest report that resides with POGO.
Thank you for correcting my error on the engine destined for the FB-22. I was unaware that it would get a new engine. So nothing is commonal between the two aircraft. Now for the lack of need or air superiority, we will build a new air to surfacre aircraft. What good is a new bomber against insurgents?
The F-22 may be made into an effective air-to-air aircraft that is utterly unnecessary.
More, and more competent A-10 Warthogs, are much more effective in fighting insurgents.
It is the Army that is most effective against them. The USAF is the secondary service. How could
an Existing F-22 fleet been able to stop the Sept. 11, 01 disaster?
The F-22 is the wrong aircraft for the foreseeable wars. IT IS AN ANACHRONISM.
Posted by: Everest E. Riccioni | Mar 15, 2005 at 03:00 PM
Just ot clear up a few of Maverick's misconceptions
"F-22: The current flying blind aircraft that needs other platforms to tell it the GPS coordinates to set its undersized bombload for."
"Flying blind" implies that it cannot detect it's target. The APG-77 is currently the best radar flying in the world bar none. It's got more modules than any AESA flying and puts out far more power. As far as not being able to lase a ground target to determine a GPS coordinate it's pretty much a big "so what". That's not it's job. It would be like complaining that the F-117 can't guide an AIM-120. For those who haven't figured it out that's what the F-35 is being bought for. F-15Cs have never carried bombs and the F-14 didn't start to until the end of it's career. The fact that the F-22 will have the ability so soon from entering service is a benefit seeing how that's not it's primary mission and is a very distant second.
As for "undersized bombload" again, "so what"? That's not it's primary mission. It's primary mission is to keep the skies safe for the bomb trucks such as the F-teens and the F-35. Complaining that it can't carry as many bombs internally is no different than complaining that the F-35 can't carry as many air to air missiles as the F-22 internally. Different missions, different priorities. Pretty simple concept Henry. Besides after the skies have been cleared and it can use external pylons it can carry a 20,000 pound load under it's wings in ADDITION to what it carries internally. Not even a Strike Eagle can do that. So much for tiny bombload.
The FB-22 would NOT use the same engines but a variant of the F-135 or F-136. They are more powerful than the F119 but optimized for a different flight regime. It would have a much larger range and bomb load than either the F-22 or F-35.
The F-22 being the best dogfighter in the world is debatable but in the end pretty much irrelevant. Sure it needs to be able to fight in close good (and it does no doubt about that) but it's primary strength is the ability to attack multiple targets AT THE SAME TIME without the enemy being aware he is under attack. Makes for a REALLY lopsided fight.
"Now, which country will it be needed against, that can stand against one thousand JSFs backed by a transfomed networked American force?"
The JSF (F-35 for the last several years) will be able to carry only one quarter of the air to air missiles internally that the F-22 can and it will NOT be able to carry the AIM-9X internally. And as soon as you start hanging stuff on the outside it loses pretty much the only thing it had going for it when it comes to air to air combat.
"Unlike the F/A-22, the F-35 will be able to "see" and shoot in all directions. So what's the point of pulling 9 Gs to get on the tail of a JSF if it can smoke you with an AIM-9X on the way in?"
This isn't Hollywood Maverick. The F-35 will have 360 degree **IR** vision. But since it won't be carrying the AIM-9X it's not going to do it a bit of good in air to air. And any F-35 with an enemy aircraft on it's tail will pretty much be a dead duck because unlike the F-22 it doesn't have all-aspect stealth.
It's bad enough you try to misinform those on r.a.m. (fortunatley they know better there) but to try to peddle this tripe here where most probably know even less than you is unconscionable.
Posted by: sferrin | Mar 14, 2005 at 08:30 PM
Also Riccioni seems to have the F/A-22 and FB-22 backwards.
F-22: The current flying blind aircraft that needs other platforms to tell it the GPS coordinates to set its undersized bombload for.
F/A-22: The same platform with new computers, ground mapping radar and possibly FLIR so that it can find targets for its undersized bombload.
FB-22: Using the same engines on a bigger slower aircraft with a slightly increased range and weapons load.
Posted by: Henry Cobb | Mar 11, 2005 at 06:41 PM
The F/A-22 is the best dogfighter in the world.
Now, which country will it be needed against, that can stand against one thousand JSFs backed by a transfomed networked American force?
Unlike the F/A-22, the F-35 will be able to "see" and shoot in all directions. So what's the point of pulling 9 Gs to get on the tail of a JSF if it can smoke you with an AIM-9X on the way in?
Posted by: Henry Cobb | Mar 11, 2005 at 05:38 PM