Forum: F-22A Raptor

From Spacewar.com: a rather good argument imo, for rethinking the Raptor fleet, 'after Gates':

Thompson Files: Why America needs the F-22

by Loren B. Thompson
Arlington, Va. (UPI) May 27, 2008
Imagine that in 1902, Secretary of War Elihu Root had told U.S. President Teddy Roosevelt the difficulty of suppressing the Philippine Insurrection proved future weapons would need to be useful in conducting irregular warfare. I know, you aren't so clear on what the Philippine Insurrection was. But it was a big deal at the time: 130,000 U.S. troops were deployed in a multiyear counterinsurgency campaign, and more than 4,000 of them died. U.S. forces tortured prisoners. Insurgents committed atrocities. Very messy.
Root's call for greater emphasis on irregular warfare would have seemed quite sensible at the time, because nobody expected the great powers to ever go to war again. Their economies were too closely linked. So anarchists, insurgents and other unconventional enemies looked like the wave of the future.

Nonetheless, a dozen years later the great powers did go to war, and what followed made the guerrilla wars of the previous generation look like child's play. U.S. troops marched off to World War I so ill-prepared that they had to borrow planes from European allies just to secure the air space above their trenches.

As it turned out, World War I was just the beginning, and America spent most of the rest of the 20th century fighting or preparing to fight other industrial powers. But the really big war -- the one between capitalism and communism that could have ended it all -- never happened, because after fighting fascism America's leaders decided there was no substitute for being prepared. They relearned the lesson that George Washington gleaned from 18th century English historian Edward Gibbon's "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire": If you want peace, prepare for war. Faced with a heavily armed United States, the Soviet Union chose not to launch World War III.

Today, the Bush administration is trying to unlearn this vital lesson from America's past, and as a result the Air Force's F-22 fighter is once again at risk. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates says that "any major weapons program, in order to remain viable, will have to show some utility and relevance to the kind of irregular campaigns that ... are most likely to engage America's military in coming decades."

As Josh White of The Washington Post noted in his May 14 report on the secretary's remarks, Gates repeatedly has singled out the F-22 as an example of misplaced priorities in military investment plans.

But Gates is wrong about the F-22. He doesn't know what the future holds, and the history of the last 100 years weighs heavily against his assessment of future threats -- as do the war-fighting scenarios being prepared for the next quadrennial defense review.

The problem in Iraq isn't misplaced military priorities or lack of intelligence, but the Iraqis themselves. We cannot make them something they are not, and killing the F-22 to buy more Predators won't change that fact. Instead, it will give rise to other threats far worse than anything al-Qaida or the Mehdi Army are likely to dream up...

This danger was well understood the last time the U.S. Department of Defense had a bipartisan, consensus-based management team. In a letter to the chairman of the Appropriations Defense Subcommittee of the U.S. House of Representatives dated July 15, 1999, Secretary of Defense Bill Cohen said: "For 50 years every American soldier has gone to war confident that the United States had air superiority. Canceling the F-22 means we cannot guarantee air superiority in future conflicts. It will also have a significant impact on the viability of the Joint Strike Fighter program. The F-22 will enable the Joint Strike Fighter to carry out its primary strike mission. The JSF was not designed for the air superiority mission."

http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Thompson_Files_Why_America_needs_the_F-22_999.html

-----------------------------------------------

Note: While one could counter the author's claim that F-35s will be dependent on F-22s (just as it's flawed to say 5th gen Strike ops will be dependent on F-35s), the point remains that F-22 is a superior asset today and operational now, while it could be 10 yrs before F-35s are operational in significant squadron force (and even then, there is NO assurance today of F-35's performance, reliability and capability... as it's still in pure R&D). Therefor it could well be justified to better exploit F-22s deterrence value and further hedge against future uncertainties.

F-16.net Sponsor

I do hope the AF gets the 300 or so Raptors it needs. Hopefully, Gates will be right and there won't be a big war. But with the price of oil these days what it is, I think pretty soon the world will be at a breaking point. OPEC is really pushing everyone, themselves included, and pretty soon people will start getting pissed off at the whole thing. We might even start seeing WESTERN terrorists carrying out attacks against the oil producing countries in an attempt to make them lower prices (which probably won't work, but they'll do it anyway, out of frustration).

Why does the leadership of this country want to leave the AF naked? Did they not learn anything at all from Gulf War 1?

Tinito_16 wrote:

I do hope the AF gets the 300 or so Raptors it needs. Hopefully, Gates will be right and there won't be a big war. But with the price of oil these days what it is, I think pretty soon the world will be at a breaking point. OPEC is really pushing everyone, themselves included, and pretty soon people will start getting pissed off at the whole thing. We might even start seeing WESTERN terrorists carrying out attacks against the oil producing countries in an attempt to make them lower prices (which probably won't work, but they'll do it anyway, out of frustration).

Why does the leadership of this country want to leave the AF naked? Did they not learn anything at all from Gulf War 1?

Apparently Gordon England feels he got the shaft by Lockheed Martin so now he's giving the shaft back. Nice to know he's such a quality guy he'll screw the country to satisfy a personal grudge.

Got anything to base that on? Gordon IS a quality guy and would not do any such thing. I also believe we should have more F-22s, but maybe he knows more about it than you and I put together. He'll be gone in six months, so we get to see how someone else thinks about it.

johnwill wrote:

Got anything to base that on? Gordon IS a quality guy and would not do any such thing. I also believe we should have more F-22s, but maybe he knows more about it than you and I put together. He'll be gone in six months, so we get to see how someone else thinks about it.

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... al-ve.html

Now if damn near every study out there hadn't said the US needs more F-22s I'd dismiss this thing out of hand. But where every report says they need more, the USAF says they need more, the USAF has said in the past it would trade 500 F-35s for 100 more F-22s and were denied, you have to wonder. When a money cap is put on the program, the USAF finds a way to make it cheaper, so the gov. comes back and said "did we say money count? We meant number count" while at the same time forcing C-17s on the USAF that it doesn't want you have to wonder. Something fishy is going on. All I can say is thank god he'll be gone in six months though it's possible things could get worse if Osama Hussein the intern gets in the White House.

If you think Gordon has a grudge against Lockheed, why would he pour many billions into the F-35? LM will make many more bucks on the F-35 than they would ever make on the F-22, even if 500 were bought.

johnwill wrote:

If you think Gordon has a grudge against Lockheed, why would he pour many billions into the F-35? LM will make many more bucks on the F-35 than they would ever make on the F-22, even if 500 were bought.

Read the link.

Johnwill, I tend to agree with your line of thinking, re: hard to nail down Gordon England's reasoning. I too will give him the benefit and support the 'next' admin's position (whether I agree with it or not). Of course, we'll all have to accept it, since the next admin will in fact decide the F-22s fate Smile

But based on what the USAF is saying and what is public knowledge, I'd support about 100 additional F-22 procurement at the cost of perhaps 150 F-35s in the back end (if you can borrow in such a way, lol). If only it were that easy... But someone should def keep track of England's post-admin career move and make a note of it here (for any relevance) if I forget to track it! Thanks!!

Ok, read the link and several secondary links. Basically, Loren Thompson and you (Sferrin) are charging Gordon with treachery without a shred of proof. He has devoted almost all of his working life to building the airplanes our country needs and does not deserve to be treated that way. Disagree with him all you want (like I do), but that's as far as it should go.

johnwill wrote:

Ok, read the link and several secondary links. Basically, Loren Thompson and you (Sferrin) are charging Gordon with treachery without a shred of proof.

Exactly what form would "proof" take? Rolling Eyes

You are the one making the accusation, not me. So it's up to you to prove it any way you want. Just saying he is guilty won't cut it. Big No No

johnwill wrote:

You are the one making the accusation, not me. So it's up to you to prove it any way you want. Just saying he is guilty won't cut it. Big No No

Like I said, what do you want a notorized document from Gordon England saying "I'm screwing Lockheed Marietta at everyone's expense because I'm a childish SOB"? Rolling Eyes

One of the basics of our court system is that the "state" accuses people of crimes or misdemeanors, then has to provide proof to back up the accusation. The jury doesn't tell the prosecutor how to prove the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove his innocence.

That's where we are in the case of you vs Gordon. You have accused him, now prove it or go away.

johnwill wrote:

One of the basics of our court system is that the "state" accuses people of crimes or misdemeanors, then has to provide proof to back up the accusation. The jury doesn't tell the prosecutor how to prove the accusation. The accused doesn't have to prove his innocence.

That's where we are in the case of you vs Gordon. You have accused him, now prove it or go away.

Man where have you been? Wink

That may be the way it's wrote on paper but if you have ever been accused of anything you would know full well it don't work that way. You had better hope that you can prove you are innocent or yur gonna get free room and board for a while. Everyday you see someone being released from prision cuz they were innocent after new techniques could prove it. At the time they cound not prove they were innocent so they went to jail. IOW, here in the US of A you are now guilty until proven innocent. Wink

Beazz

Notice I said the accused doesn't HAVE to prove his innocence, but he is allowed to. No one goes to jail solely because he can't prove his innocence. The state cannot just accuse someone and say, "OK, prove your innocent of these charges". The state has to provide evidence to prove the guilt.

All these people getting out of jail would not have been convicted if the technology had been available. Just be glad we have the technology now.

Glad I don't have your sour opinion of our justice system. I'd guess that more guilty people go free than innocent ones go to jail. (OJ for example). That is little comfort to those wrongly convicted, but lf you have any suggestions on how to improve the system, let's hear them.

All of which is totally irrelevant to the Sferrin vs Gordon case.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

A case for more F-22s: Assured Air dominance