Sort-ie out the F/A-22

National Defense Specialist Christopher Bolkcom of the Congressional Research Service has a question for all of you F/A-22 fighter supporters: Do we really need it?

History would seem to suggest not. “Since 1991 the United States has flown in-excess of 400,000 combat sorties, and lost only one aircraft to another fighter, according to DoD estimates and CRS analysis,” Bolkcom writes in “Questions for the Record” follow-up to his April 5, 2005, hearing testimony before Senator John McCain’s Airland Subcommittee. “Some observers have characterized the need to procure any F/A-22s based on this historical record as weak.”

In past missions, for instance, the U.S. has faced little or no air-to-air opposition in Libya, Lebanon, Panama, Grenada, Haiti, Bosnia, or Kosovo, he says.

Bolkcom writes that the F/A-22 “appears to be over-designed to achieve air superiority against the fighter aircraft we face today, and are likely to face in the near future.” He quotes Air Force Major General Stanley Gorenc as describing the contemporary threat environment in testimony in the following manner: “It’s very difficult to fly air-to-air against somebody if everybody that you’re up against is actually burying their aircraft.”

But, you counter, what about the so-called “classified” mission of the stealthy F/A-22 Raptor to “kick down the door,” or destroy ground-based surface-to-air missile sites (SAMs), in the event of future war with, say, China? Don’t we need that air- to-ground capability?

On the subject of a potential conflict with China over Taiwan, for instance, opinions vary on the need for the $345-million per-aircraft Raptor. Here’s why: “The U.S. Navy likely could be the first on the scene to deal with such a crisis,” he writes. “The Navy, however, has no plans to acquire the F/A-22,” Bolkcom says.

“Either the Navy believes that it can adequately deal with China’s Air Force and advanced SAMs with its less sophisticated and less expensive aircraft, or it is going to depend on the Air Force to 'kick down the door' for them. It may be useful to know whether the Navy and Marine Corps are prepared for a potential challenge in this area without F/A-22 support.”

Comments

[Nick]

I'm afraid I disagree. The F15 has been the mainstay air to air superiority fighter for many years, and has never been bested.
However, most of their air frames are over 20 years old, and as the mainenance cost rise, and the likelyhood of fatal accidents rise, the air force have to put a replacement in place.

Now does it make sense to develop an extrememely costly platform when the F15 met the nations needs?

Yes. This asset gives the US armed forces garenteed air superiority from hour one on day one of any future comflict, and further underlines the futility of enganging in a (massively expensive) comflict with US forces.

The hard worth of any deterent has to be questioned however. But as the air force HAD to spend many billions replacing their 20 year old airframes, they have managed to ensure total air superiority with basicly zero American casulties in any comflict for the next 30 years. This is worth the money of development.

That said however, the numbers of aircraft they are asking for are quite rediculous. This platform is so far in advance of any rival, and the pilots so skilled, that it is a farce to pretend that so many hundreds of airframes will be required.
The air superiority mission will be rarely required, and easily delivered with just a few hundred F22's. There is very little requirement to use F22's for air to ground missions, as there are many more capable and cost effective means of delivery.
Given the quality of the developed platform I can't fault the Air Force for wanting lots of them, but they must be rained in or massive funds will be wasted.

[Franco Lolan]

Stating that one does not need an air dominance fighter jsut because US conflicts in the last two decades have not necessitated one is extremely foolish and irresonsible.

[Todd]

You don't have to hate defense contractors, hourly wage earners, America, or the military to arrive at the conclusion that the F-22 is an absolute waste. The message of recent operational experience is clear: the Air Force's strike capabilities are far more vital to national security than its air superiority assets. For that reason alone, it makes sense to increase the F-35 buy at the expense of the F-22, as the former can carry a far larger strike payload. Not to mention, the F-35 will still blow anything else out of the sky in a dogfight.

[Randy]

Do you idiot’s believe that the F-22 will and does cost $345 million per copy? If all the aircraft that is in service today had even a small part of their development cost add to them the also would rank up there with the F-22 and F-35. Have you looked into the maintenance cost of some of the aircraft in service today? Thing can only last so long in the kind environment they fly in. I personally think the F-22 has been dragged out for too long as it is. YES! I do work in the defense industry. I’m hourly and have a family to support just like a lot of others working in these EVIL defence contractors. But I guess you don’t give a Sh— about us. If you could only bring down one of these EVIL contractors it would be a colorful feather in your hat.

[Henry Cobb]

F/A-22s can engage over the Taiwan Strait from a base in Okinawa.

And they can get there a lot faster than a carrier group can travel there from Virginia or California.

-HJC