Does the USAF really need the F/A-22?

[Soldier]

As is my wont, I'll start a thread here analagous to the paper I'm currently working on.

So - does the USAF really need the F/A-22?

Recently in the "FairTax" thread, I was rather against it - looking at its necessity (or lack thereof) in the current War on Terror. Not a whole lot of Muslim radicals up in fighters these days...

But, looking into it more, I think I've changed my mind. A lot of it goes back to one of the things people used against it - "we're always prepared for the last war."

Well, this is the last war that we're preparing for right now. If we were to scrap the F/A-22 because it doesn't fit our needs for the War on Terror, then when the next war comes about, we'll look back and find that we've just proven that saying right once again.

I think the War on Terror will be won primarily by SpecOps, on the ground, with high-altitude backup. The F/A-22 can be used for this latter purpose, but certainly isn't needed for it. However...what happens if/when we manage to clean up the terrorism scene somewhat? Or even without it, if/when somebody else gets big and belligerent? China, perhaps, or Iran. Or maybe (it seems absurd now, but one never knows...) the EU and US will actually get mad enough at each other to start shooting.

In any case...should we switch to a low-key, fast, light-weight military to defeat terrorism...we'd be in trouble if we suddenly faced a regular standing military again.

Basically, I think we should go ahead with the F/A-22, if only to be trying to break out of this habit of reaction, and be proactive.

Anybody else's thoughts? Or am I the only one who cares?

[Larrison]

Hmm.. good question.

My answer is yes, we need it for technology, but we definitely don't need it operationally. We should build a limited force of F-22 (like 50-100) and shut the program down.

Why? As you said, we're always preparing to fight the next war. I do disagree that the next war is going to be another Afghanistan (SoCom supported by "dial a bomb" inventories orbiting overhead in bomb trucks). That only works if you don't have a peer competitor.

Now, do I think the US is going to see a peer competitor in the next 20 years (the operational life of a typical Fighter)? No, not really -- but its not beyond the possible. I think what we're going to be seeing is a lot of assymetric warfare, with a focus on experimentation on the part of adversaries and a lot of attempts to disrupt the C4ISR loops in the US military.

So how does the F-22 play in this? The primary thing the F-22 does is give air superiority in a major conventional war. Are we probably going to need it? Probably not.. But there's a chance we will. But at $100M+ per aircraft, its too expensive to mix it up and get down and dirty in a real war.

So what should we do? IMHO, we should continue US military investment and focus on that next-generation technology -- but in an operational context. We're heard of network-centric operations, and effects-based warfare and all the hype about how you can get greatly increased operational effectiveness with networked operations. But no one has really figured out how to pull this together into a real operationally effective system yet. And you might get a lot more capability out of the exisitng fighters through it. The F-22 (or its follow on) might fit into this - but the F-22 as it stands is fighting the Cold War again.

Another problem with the F-22 program is budget and technology base. It looks like the US is going to have one, maybe two companies which can do fighter design in about 3-4 years. Those are the companies doing the F-22 and JSF. That's down from a half dozen or so just 10 years ago. Not having the industrial base, nor the programs to keep it alive at a requirements/ design/ manufacture level is probably a bigger danger than not having a full complement of F-22s. I'd take the primary production money for the F-22 (the other 150-250 planes after the first 50) and put it into another design cycle for the next generation aircraft, generate up some fully networked figher/ bombers and experiment a bit ourselves into what is possible. And oh yeah -- keep a couple more design houses alive and innovating. I'd like to see at least 2 or 3 more fly-offs between Y-vehicles in the next 10 years. And I'd like to see a funded experiment to see how effective you can make a low cost fighter that is fully networked, and perhaps unmanned (think a networked F-16), and the same for a real close-air support vehicle (think a fully networked A-10 crossed with a bomb truck).

If push comes to shove in a future confrontation with a significant peer competitor, having 200-250 F-22s plus F-35s, isn't going to be any better than 50-100 F-22s and F-35s, and 50-100 next-gen fighters - if you can use them operationally effectively in a fully networked environment. Unless of course, your opponent is flying 2x the number of equivalent aircraft with equivalent operational effectiveness -- and you're going to be able to see that coming years in advance.

But if you don't see that, and we remain in an asymmetric warfare environment, such as the "War on Terror", getting operational effectiveness is probably more useful than having a force of super fighters to hold air superiority.

[ThatReallyHurt]

I don't know... isn't the vast majority of aircraft improvement in the computer, communication, or other electronics fields? Look at the F-4 - it's doing things now that its designers would never have dreamed of back in the 60's. The F-14 first flew operationally in what, 1973? Who would have guessed it would still be flying over 30 years later?

I agree with Larrison - I'd go with a smaller fleet of F/A-22's. Airframes and materials are always evolving, but a stealth aircraft that's stealthy now may not be in 5 or 10 years when the next generation of radar or other active/passive detector shows up, and once you're seen, it all comes down to who fires their missile first, right? You can still fit newer radar and weapons on the 15's, 16's, 18's...

Just a thought.

[Maeve_Mari]

Air Superiority. And Overwhelmingly Operational Effectiveness. That's why we need it.

Also, you can't get to the "next generation" when programs like F-22 are shut down. There's a huge investment made in building the knowledge that gets you to next generation - it's not just a sewing bee, where you can change a stitch or two until you see one you like - and no one today has the money to keep tossing it into developing technology if the programs are closed in a political whim.

WASHINGTON — March 24, 2005 "The Cold War ended, but the airplanes that were built to fight in the Cold War are still in production and have been delivered around the world," Gen. John P. Jumper said. "Even more formidable for us, they were also constructing a new generation of surface-to-air missiles. Those missiles have also been built and their designs advanced, and they are also being delivered around the world."

The Cold War may be over, but the weapons designed to fight it are still in production and in the hands of America´s enemies -- both known and unknown. It is that unchecked proliferation of weapons systems that could one day threaten America´s air superiority, he said.

"It is not the Cold War, but these systems that were being built for the Cold War are still being advanced today and are being proliferated around the world to create contested airspace," General Jumper said. "We must be able to access and operate in that contested airspace."

The general said the F/A-22 will help the Air Force secure that air space.

With the F/A-22, the B-52 Stratofortress or any other aircraft in the inventory, the ability to adapt is critical. General Jumper said versatility is key in keeping the Air Force fleet modern and ready to fight.

"What we have to understand is that the inventory we have in the Air Force today is going to be with us 15 years from now," he said. "We don´t just do away with a whole inventory and replace it, so we had better figure out how to make this inventory work in the environments where we exist."

One example of that versatility is the B-52. It was designed more than half a century ago to fight the Cold War. Today, it is performing modern missions and proves indispensable in the war on terror, General Jumper said.

"The B-52 was built in the 1950s to drop nuclear weapons into the old Soviet Union," he said. "Right now we have a laser designator pod on the B-52, we can load it up with laser-guided weapons, and it goes around able to do anything from interdiction to fixed target destruction of communications nodes to close-air support."

The B-52 and other aircraft will have greater access to those targets in the future because of the F/A-22, General Jumper said. With its stealth and supercruise characteristics, it will be able to precede other aircraft into combat zones to clear out any threats.

Those advanced abilities allow Air Force warfighters to modify its air dominance tactics as needed.

"We adapt to the situation," the general said, "and young (and) technically proficient people figure out how to make these things relevant in the environment we are in."

Those technically proficient young people include the Airmen who have been tasked with maintaining the F/A-22. General Jumper said that in the Raptor, those Airmen have been given an aircraft that is easier to maintain than aircraft of the past.

"When you go around the F/A-22 Raptor, you see all the crew chiefs and the mechanics doing the Toyota leap with how happy they are with what they´ve got," he said.

The F/A-22 includes an automated diagnostics system that tells maintainers what is wrong with the airplane and an engine that has all of the accessible hydraulics lines on the bottom side so it is easier to maintain, General Jumper said. Additionally, he said, the aircraft is designed to be maintained with only a small number of tools.

The general said the Raptor, with its versatility and maintainability, is a vital component in the Air Force´s air-dominance arsenal of the future.

[Soldier]

Great article, Maeve_Mari - where'd it come from?

[Westley]

Yeah- If nothing else though, it could be used as a bomber- it's defenses would far outdo those of any operational bomber right now. But then again, todays bombers can drop missiles miles away from their target, ala B-52. Very sad, really. Such a wonderful machine, too. It's like the Monitor or Merrimack of it's day. We could rule the world with those MF'ers. I'm also saddened there wasn't more use of the Commanche in Desert Storm, because we sure as hell could have used that thing. Basically the most advanced helicopter in existence.

[ThatReallyHurt]

Yeah- If nothing else though, it could be used as a bomber- it's defenses would far outdo those of any operational bomber right now. But then again, todays bombers can drop missiles miles away from their target, ala B-52. Very sad, really. Such a wonderful machine, too. It's like the Monitor or Merrimack of it's day. We could rule the world with those MF'ers. I'm also saddened there wasn't more use of the Commanche in Desert Storm, because we sure as hell could have used that thing. Basically the most advanced helicopter in existence.

Wasn't the Comanche project cancelled?

[Soldier]

F/A-22 as a bomber? Bad idea. It carries a relatively small payload, which means that sending up sortie after sortie would be awfully expensive from a per-bomb perspective. Aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16, B-52, and others, are far more effective for high-altitude bombing. Make no mistake, the F-22 is a fighter.

More use of the Comanche in Desert Storm? There was none to begin with - the Comanche was slated to go operational in 2006. It would definitely have been the most advanced helicopter out there, but the Army cut it. Mercedes-Benz was actually quite glad to hear that news, because they were having a devil of a time making engines for it, and would probably have lost a lot of money on the deal.

Which brings to mind another thread...

[Soldier]

Wasn't the Comanche project cancelled?

Yes, it was.

[Soldier]

I don't know... isn't the vast majority of aircraft improvement in the computer, communication, or other electronics fields? Look at the F-4 - it's doing things now that its designers would never have dreamed of back in the 60's. The F-14 first flew operationally in what, 1973? Who would have guessed it would still be flying over 30 years later?

Problem is, you can only upgrade an airframe for so long - they've got a limited capacity to "absorb" new technologies. Most of our current aircraft are approaching the end of that - fighters especially, since they have to stay more on the leading edge of technology.

[Larrison]

F/A-22 as a bomber? Bad idea. It carries a relatively small payload, which means that sending up sortie after sortie would be awfully expensive from a per-bomb perspective. Aircraft such as the F-15E, F-16, B-52, and others, are far more effective for high-altitude bombing. Make no mistake, the F-22 is a fighter.

Actually LockMart floated a pretty serious proposal to the USAF to build a "stretched" F-22 as a FB-22. Think of it as a F-111 sort of, but with a F-22 derived triangular wing, stealth characteristics and subsystems (mostly, anyway).

Here's a couple of articles...

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf
http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=26

Question is -- what type of bomber do you think you'll need? A regional, small bombload, semi-stealthy bomber? A big global range dial-a-bomb "Arsenal Ship in the Sky"? or A hypersonic global reach/ global strike precision strike vehicle?

[Larrison]

Problem is, you can only upgrade an airframe for so long - they've got a limited capacity to "absorb" new technologies. Most of our current aircraft are approaching the end of that - fighters especially, since they have to stay more on the leading edge of technology.

I agree with this -- but.. I really think the industrial base argument needs a bit more examination, particularly regarding the F-22.

You may *have* to upgrade an airframe, as there isn't anyone left to design you a new one from scratch.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but I think there's a grain of truth in there... Right now we're seeing lots of changes in mission environments, operational doctrines, and mission systems --- but my personal opinion is that we're starting to really restrict our options as letting our ability to rapidly design and innovate the hardware go away by going with 1 or 2 sole-customer design shops.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1696/

[Soldier]

Actually LockMart floated a pretty serious proposal to the USAF to build a "stretched" F-22 as a FB-22. Think of it as a F-111 sort of, but with a F-22 derived triangular wing, stealth characteristics and subsystems (mostly, anyway).

Here's a couple of articles...

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21848.pdf
http://www.air-attack.com/page.php?pid=26

Question is -- what type of bomber do you think you'll need? A regional, small bombload, semi-stealthy bomber? A big global range dial-a-bomb "Arsenal Ship in the Sky"? or A hypersonic global reach/ global strike precision strike vehicle?

Yeah, I'd seen the concept ideas for the FB-22. Lockheed Martin floated it hopefully, but Air Force said "no thanks".

I haven't given bombers much thought so far. I think we still need some small, semi-stealthy bombers...well, rather like what the FB-22 would be. With the way we've been getting into dial-a-bomb warfare, though, I think we also need some nice big dumptrucks that can loiter for a good long time - rather like the B-52 is doing now. I think the B-52, though, will be fine in that role for quite a while. Stealth is great for something small that we're trying to get in behind the lines (part of why the F-22 is designed to carry a few JDAMS), but the big ones up high aren't meant to defend themselves anyway - that's what the fighters are for.

Something hypersonic could sure be nice...but then, we can already reach out awfully fast with a B-2. Given that we can hit anything in the world within 48 hours, how much faster do we need to be to justify an entirely new aircraft? Also, of course, I doubt that a hypersonic craft would be any good for loitering - which I think is becoming an important ability, given the way precision bombing is going.

[Soldier]

I agree with this -- but.. I really think the industrial base argument needs a bit more examination, particularly regarding the F-22.

You may *have* to upgrade an airframe, as there isn't anyone left to design you a new one from scratch.

That's a bit of an oversimplification, but I think there's a grain of truth in there... Right now we're seeing lots of changes in mission environments, operational doctrines, and mission systems --- but my personal opinion is that we're starting to really restrict our options as letting our ability to rapidly design and innovate the hardware go away by going with 1 or 2 sole-customer design shops.

http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1696/

I definitely agree that the industrial base is a problem; we still need more and varied aircraft manufacturers - if for no other reason than to prevent some monopoly holding the government by the balls over a new fighter. What I don't see, though, is how not getting the F-22 and instead sticking with our older fighters, would help that.

[Maeve_Mari]

Great article, Maeve_Mari - where'd it come from?

Googled, but don't have the reference for the one I included here.

[Larrison]

I definitely agree that the industrial base is a problem; we still need more and varied aircraft manufacturers - if for no other reason than to prevent some monopoly holding the government by the balls over a new fighter. What I don't see, though, is how not getting the F-22 and instead sticking with our older fighters, would help that.

Well I'm not espousing that the F-22 be cancelled as it stands. However, I would recommend a significantly smaller fleet, and taking the money that goes into the fleet build and putting that into another cycle of prototypes to get another around of competition for the next generation. And yes, I'd like to do the same with the JSF.

If memory serves, I think the F-35 (JSF) is the last fighter program forecast for the *NEXT 20 YEARS*. That's a bit long I think... There's got to be a way to have at least one new competition every decade, and IMHO it should be closer to every 5 years just to keep up with technology and changing operational doctrine.

[Soldier]

Googled, but don't have the reference for the one I included here.

I actually found it anyway - thanks a lot, though!

Wouldn't have guessed you for an F-22 supporter...

[Soldier]

Well I'm not espousing that the F-22 be cancelled as it stands. However, I would recommend a significantly smaller fleet, and taking the money that goes into the fleet build and putting that into another cycle of prototypes to get another around of competition for the next generation. And yes, I'd like to do the same with the JSF.

If memory serves, I think the F-35 (JSF) is the last fighter program forecast for the *NEXT 20 YEARS*. That's a bit long I think... There's got to be a way to have at least one new competition every decade, and IMHO it should be closer to every 5 years just to keep up with technology and changing operational doctrine.

Yikes, that would be expensive.

The F-35, by the way, is a lot closer than "next twenty years". It's already been prototyped, and they're currently putting it through its flight test phases. They got to this stage in about three years (if my memory serves correctly), the same pacing that the F-22 took about 15 years to accomplish. I think we're looking at 2010 or so right now for operational F-35.

[rmyounis]

EDIT: Nevermind

[Soldier]

You know, when in edit mode, you can also just delete a post.