Forum: F-22A Raptor

I found this article from the Washington Times, written by Rep. Phil Gingrey of the House Armed Services Committee, for everyone's reading pleasure...

Washington Times
September 9, 2008
Pg. 23

Maintaining Air Superiority

Congress must fund more F-22s

By Phil Gingrey

The F-22A Raptor is the key to America's air superiority, and we need more of them. Recently, however, some have argued otherwise. Many of the dissenters suggest that Congress is considering continuing F-22 production for simple, political reasons. I respectfully disagree.

Continuing the F-22 production is not a political nicety for the Air Force or for the defense of our nation. It is a necessity and the current program of record - 183 Raptors - is woefully inadequate to fulfill the National Military Strategy. This means that after accounting for test and training aircraft, and aircraft in maintenance, only about 100 Raptors would be immediately available for combat. Remember that numbers do matter, given that the F-22 will replace the original force of some 800 F-15 A-D Eagles.

Every campaign analysis study shows the need for significantly more than 183 F-22s. In fact, the Air Force Sustaining Air Dominance study concluded that 381 F-22s is the "sweet spot" for a balanced fleet of fifth generation and legacy fighter aircraft required to support Air Force mission requirements. Even if the Air Force procures all 381 F-22s, it would still require a "Golden Eagle" fleet of 177 F-15C/Ds to supplement the Raptor fleet and fill the fighter inventory through 2025.
It has also been suggested that the F-35 could act as the "affordable" fifth generation fighter. While the F-35 will complement the F-22, it cannot replace it in the air-to-air superiority mission.

Some critics believe that legacy fighters that are largely more than 25 years old, such as the F-15 and F-16, can be sufficiently upgraded and that will be good enough. They believe that in a cost-constrained environment, continued procurement of the F-22 would be a waste of taxpayer dollars. Unfortunately, the reality is that these legacy fighters are vulnerable to current and future threats, including those posed by Russian and Chinese advanced surface-to-air missiles such as the S-400 / S-500, HQ-9, SA-20, and proposed 5th generation fighters like the T-50 and XX-J, which are not hypothetical by any stretch of the imagination.

The fact is that the F-22 is exceeding the Air Force's operational expectations everywhere - from Red Flags and Northern Edges to Air Expeditionary Force deployments. Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap Jr., speaking to Jane's Cityforum Washington Conference, points out: "We must do more than just assess the likelihood of conflict occurring at a particular point on the spectrum; we must also calculate the magnitude of the potential loss." While we must continue to plan and equip for the conflicts in which we are currently engaged and those we can reasonably expect, Maj. Gen. Dunlap makes the case that it is absolutely imperative that we have the conventional (non-nuclear) means to deter and defeat the existential threat the enemy that would have the ability to end the "existence of the United States as anything we would recognize ... The magnitude of the potential loss is just too great to make national security decisions based simply on the expected frequency of conflicts where the stakes are not as great."

We don't have the ability to accurately predict the global political and military scene that will face us a generation from now. The F-22 is an utterly essential component in assuring we maintain our asymmetrical advantage well into the future: "The F-22 is the finest [air superiority] fighter in the world. It is by far better than anything else that is out there and better than anything on anyone else's drawing boards. We're very lucky," says Lt. Col. Michael Hernandez, an F-22 pilot.

One need not look further than the current conflict between Russia and Georgia to see that future potential conventional military threats are very real. It is our responsibility as a nation to ensure that the military we procure today will be a force available and ready to defend America and our interests for the next three decades. We simply must do all that we can to have our troops prepared to defend our freedom with the best possible equipment in order to shorten wars and save lives.

In recognition of this, the House Armed Services Committee acted appropriately by providing funds for advance procurement to continue the F-22 beyond the program of record. Despite this, decisions made in the coming weeks during Senate consideration of the fiscal 2009 National Defense Authorization Act - and during conference negotiations with the House - could ultimately determine the fate of the program.

Americans - and the Russians and Chinese - will be watching.

F-16.net Sponsor

According to some military experts, the Tiger tank of the Nazi's was inferior to the Allied Sherman tank. Why? Although the Tiger tank was considered a rolling fortress and the Sherman a rolling coffin the reality of fund diversions, production cost/time, and production numbers meant the tactical presence of Shermans meant more to a positive battlefield outcome then the Tigers. Anyway, I am just repeating what I heard. I know it is a crude analogy but do you think the writer fears the same fate for the F-22?

Quote:

It is our responsibility as a nation to ensure that the military we procure today will be a force available and ready to defend America and our interests for the next three decades. We simply must do all that we can to have our troops prepared to defend our freedom with the best possible equipment in order to shorten wars and save lives.

Considering that statement, I say "Major General Dunlap Jr. for President." Off Topic

But I digress, As npad pointed out, and I agree somewhat, We as a nation should STILL consider winning a war of attrition, Should we ever be attacked by an aggresor, but I also feel we are winning the war from technological stand point as well. The combination of the two should be a deterant to anyone who thinks that they can take to the skies and have a snowballs chance in hell against the greatest air armada ever conceived
Whew, That's the most I've ever said here, So with that I'll just climb down off my soap box and quietlly slink off into the shadows.

Salute.

If I understand what npad said then heres what I have to say...The sherman and the tiger tank could see each other and aim at each other and shoot each other but If there was any forien aircraft pitted against the F-22 He/She would have a less likly chance of being shot to bits(because of it's stealth advantage). Niever tiger or sherman had a stealth advantage.

hobojet wrote:

If I understand what npad said then heres what I have to say...The sherman and the tiger tank could see each other and aim at each other and shoot each other but If there was any forien aircraft pitted against the F-22 He/She would have a less likly chance of being shot to bits(because of it's stealth advantage). Niever tiger or sherman had a stealth advantage.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to be obscure. What I was trying to say using the analogy of another era's top fighting machine was that something that was considered to be superior to anything else in its class, in the context of its mission purpose, failed in its designer's hopes for being a decisive factor in the military campaign it fought in. And the reason was quite simply because it had too few numbers to be tactically significant. I don't want to get into a big argument here. I am just trying to clarify what I was saying. The point of my post was to wonder if the writer of this thread's topic was concerned about a nightmare scenario of an unmet numbers threshold for tactical significance of the F-22 in the case of something more than a local skirmish (ie Russia, China)? Personally I wonder if the writer is concerned that other unseen factors might pop up to challenge the F-22's supremacy but that for him the most obvious concern at least for now is the numbers. I guess I hear an urgency in his writing.

Hmmm... I think I understand a little better. Here's my opinion on the first post. I think it would be great to have more F-22s. heck it would make me feel a whole lot safer. But even in a tactical situation would we need more. from my stand point no. I read something in another thread which pushes americas other stealth fighter against and su-37. The stealth has less pilots in the dogfight but wins any way.but then again I'm still think'n what if...what if we really wouldn't have enough in a situation like china+russia vs. america. what if there was to much air combat and to little f-22s to fight them. then this brings me to another stop what if what ever enemy wether it's russia or china does what iraq did(didn't even greet us in the air).

Any ways there's somethin to think about

sorry for my stupidity npad.

Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible being that I'm stuck in AETC away from the "real" Air Force, what does it really matter at this point. Do we really need mre F-22's cluttering the skies over Red Flag and other "exercises?" I'm not aware of any AOR deployments for the F-22 yet where thay have actually made a diference in what is going on today. I understand that we have to think about the variable of tomorrow (next several decades) but it seems people keep talking about this as if it is an immediate and pressing need.

MechFromHell wrote:

Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible being that I'm stuck in AETC away from the "real" Air Force, what does it really matter at this point. Do we really need mre F-22's cluttering the skies over Red Flag and other "exercises?" I'm not aware of any AOR deployments for the F-22 yet where thay have actually made a diference in what is going on today. I understand that we have to think about the variable of tomorrow (next several decades) but it seems people keep talking about this as if it is an immediate and pressing need.

The problem is that the F-22 production line is to begin shutting down shortly. Won't do us any good to make these decisions in five or ten years when the line is gone and the trained workers are scattered across the country working on other projects.

183 F-22's is quite simply not enough to project power and to protect our airspace. A very simple illustration: If you put 2 squadrons at each of the four corners of the country along with Alaska and Hawaii you are talking 12 squadrons. 4 of those can deploy, 4 can spin up or spin down from deployment and 4 more can protect the homeland. Already you are talking understrength squadrons at 15 a/c each. This is not taking into account a/c used for training pilots and maintainers. There are endless scenarios that could cause the loss of several a/c whether it be pilot, maintainer, parts failure, or a terrorist/spec ops action and even one loss after the line is closed will be significant. The plan right now is to have 15's and 16's fill gaps in air coverage now. Legacy fighters will only be around for so long before they must be retired. No pilot in his right mind wants to fly a fighter that has 8,000+ hours on them.

In reference to the AOR deployments and this is only my opinion. The 22 is designed as a air superiority fighter first, not a strike fighter. It can drop bombs, but it is no better than the 15, 16 or 18 when dropping them IF we have total air superiority. Outside of pilot experience, it is best to keep the airplane in reserve for when we might really need it.

MechFromHell wrote:

Unless I'm wrong, which is entirely possible being that I'm stuck in AETC away from the "real" Air Force, what does it really matter at this point. Do we really need mre F-22's cluttering the skies over Red Flag and other "exercises?" I'm not aware of any AOR deployments for the F-22 yet where thay have actually made a diference in what is going on today. I understand that we have to think about the variable of tomorrow (next several decades) but it seems people keep talking about this as if it is an immediate and pressing need.

Well, I'm a retired C-5 criew chief but have always been a admirer of the f-22. Even if the F-22 never goes into battle, I think it serves as a deterrant to other adversary air forces. The problem with the program of record of 183 Raptors is, there won't be enough around to adequately protect us from a near peer country. I don't see how 183 Raptors, plus a so-called force of around 175 "Golden Eagles" can do the job. The Air Force will fly the F-15s C/Ds up until around 2025. Hmmmm, that gives us another 15 years before they will have to retire those Eagles. That leaves the U.S. Air Force with only 183 F-22s to fill the air superiority role. We will still have the 224 or so Strike Eagles, but they were designed primarily for the A2G role, not air superiority. I'm sure the F-35 will be highly capable when it becomes operational, but it was not designed to be an air superiority fighter. I believe if the program of record stands at 183 and when 2025 starts to creep up on us, the people at the Pentagon will start wondering, what will we do now? The Russians will have their T-50/Pak-Fa operational and the Chinese will have their 5th gen fighter. The Pentagon needs to either buy more F-22s or upgrade our F-35s to be more balanced as a true multi-role fighter. That, of course, is just my opinion.

The F-35 could indeed supplement the F-22 as part of Air Superiority Strategy, but the timing is off. Sufficient operational USAF [F-35] sqaudron numbers might not be seen until 2018 or even 2020 for example. There will be a gap and even the future F-35 program cannot be counted on, until the first squadron is worked out perhaps and after which better analysis of capabilities and requirements can be made.

It's simply too much of a gamble to play with such a strategic gap. It wasn't planned this way but it's what the USAF is faced with so potentially undesired solutions need to be made, including the continuation of additional Raptors in the short and mid-term. Besides, such a secured Raptor line might enable the Raptor to be upgraded further given future adversarial 5th gen threats, which could be cheaper than designing an altogether new Air superior fighter if things go wrong with the F-35 (or if it simply becomes out-classed).

Very careful calculations need to be made with regards to Raptor-line therefor, taking into account many yet unseen contingencies beyond what is assumed on the table today.

One solution is to produce more than 500 raptors, as it could help with defense & also to escort strike bombers to their targets. Aquiring a large amount would also drive the total cost downwards, making the f-22 cheaper. If there is more raptors left over from air defense, air superiority, training & attrition, the spare airframes could be stored at a secure location at AMARC & if not needed could be sold to other countries(i.e. Japan, Israel, etc.) after taking the sensitive parts from them(they can do it if the export country is desperate for f-22s)

The F-16 line is still open. Not good for EVERY AEF... but most. And well who needs to do maintenance on weapons bays and L.O. refurb duing ISO/Phase when most Operation:USELESS DIRT campaigns don't need it?

Anyway.. USAF is doing some great recapitalization efforts .... They just went out and bought a bunch of King Airs for COIN C2ISR ... Laughing

Needed considering NTISR with a Pod'ed F-16 burns up a lot of gas an airframe life on current F-16s that will be geriatric. Example: Block 40/42's are no longer young.

Not buying new build F-16s as gap fillers is moronic. We pay 4 stars a lot of money.... for what?

Can't argue with buying more 16's; you have an established supply system, it is a proven platform, maintenance and flight crews are already fully trained, etc. The pentagon and USAF are both completely opposed to the idea and to me it seems like a relatively cheap interim solution. The reality is the teen series fighters are getting old quick; we have plans for an air force made up of 35's and 22's that will be a third of the size of our current air force, but I think it will be realized (perhaps too late) that we need a lot more airplanes.

Looking through this whole forum, there aren't many dissenting opinions that are bulletproof. I would like to see some people make the argument for the smaller more lethal USAF.

elp,

Perhaps even more Reapers/equivalents could gap fill for those 'older F-16' ? While additional Raptors could gap fill for a reduced F-15C/D fleet? And then if first USAF F-35A squadron cannot prove itself as reliable or cost-stable, etc, then consider a modern block Viper option, around 2015 to gap fill another 15 yrs plus/minus? But maybe you're right with exercising a more short-term Viper option. Regardless, at least 100 additional Raptors imo would be prudent for minimal strategic insurance, e.g. until/assuming the improved F-35 blocks are delivered later in schedule (and successful). (and especially after that RAAF F-35 clubbing vs Sukhoi in A2A computer simulation recently).