Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 11, 2007 - 07:35 PM Posts: 20

Quote:

On Raptor's arrival, critics call it impractical

By JAMES HALPIN
The Associated Press

Published: August 8, 2007
Last Modified: August 8, 2007 at 04:38 PM

The Air Force's most technologically advanced -- and expensive -- fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor, is designed to be a stealthy killer capable of downing bogies at supersonic speeds.

But critics say the changing nature of warfare in the age of terrorism, combined with the unparalleled superiority of U.S. air power, make the Cold War-era conceived Raptor an overpriced luxury.

"The real issue is, who are we going to fly the F-22 against?" asked military aviation author and lecturer James P. Stevenson. "I don't think al-Qaida is going to shrink back into their caves because there are F-22s flying overhead rather than F-16s."

Elmendorf Air Force Base is getting the first of 40 Raptors this week, making it the first base outside the contiguous United States to house them. When their arrival is complete at the end of 2008, the base will be home to more than a fifth of the Air Force's Raptors.

In a written statement, top Elmendorf officials say it would be a mistake to anticipate the capabilities of future enemies based on the tactics of today's terrorists.

"We cannot afford to lose sight of the fact that we may be called upon to battle an enemy whose technology and skills more closely mirror our own ... and we may have to counter both types of threats simultaneously," says the statement by Lt. Gen. Doug Fraser and Col. Thomas Tinsley. Fraser commands the Alaskan Command, and Tinsley is in charge of Elmendorf's 3rd Wing.

The Lockheed Martin-built F-22 is capable of cruising faster than Mach 1.5 -- more than one and a half times the speed of sound -- without using its afterburner. It can perform tactical maneuvers at altitudes greater than 50,000 feet, far superior to current fighters. Its stealth capability means it can attack air and ground targets before they even know it's there.

STICKER SHOCK

But that comes at a steep cost.

The basic sticker price is $135 million per plane. When research, development and testing costs are factored in, the cost balloons to more than $350 million each.

Initial plans called for buying 750 Raptors, but increasing costs have cut that number drastically. The Air Force now says it needs 381 of the planes; it may not have funding for more than 183.

The program has gotten bogged down by competing interests that want their products in the aircraft, said Pierre Sprey, a former systems analyst for the Defense Department and a designer of the F-16 and the A-10 Warthog. Combined with the Air Force wanting the Raptor to be a technological marvel packed with everything that would fit, that has resulted in poor planning and the program's exorbitant cost, he said.

"They made it so complicated and hopeless that it took forever," Sprey said. "It's just disgraceful."

Pursuing the stealth technology was simply a waste of time and money, he said, because it isn't possible to completely cloak a fighter against long-wave or infrared radar.

Retired Air Force Col. Everest "Rich" Riccioni, of the Pentagon's advanced tactical fighter program, was one of the early planners for the Raptor prototype. Since its conception in 1981, it has morphed from a streamlined, surgical fighter into an overpriced and bloated technology showcase, he said.

"When you design something with a lot of capability, it's got to have a purpose," Riccioni said. "We don't have an air superiority problem. The purpose isn't there."

When planning for the Raptor first began, it was intended to combat aerial Soviet Union threats. It has since evolved into a versatile fighter capable of striking ground targets and conducting information warfare as well.

IRONING OUT WRINKLES

But that evolution has cost the project, both politically and mechanically.

Earlier this year, six Raptors were on an inaugural flight between Hawaii and Kadena Air Force Base in Okinawa, Japan, when several of them had computer glitches that crippled their navigation systems and hindered communications.

As a result, the Air Force had to repair 87 of the fighters that faced similar problems.

And in March 2004, the General Accounting Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said in a report the plane has had problems with its tail fins, canopy and computer software. It also said the Raptor's avionics processors, developed in the 1980s, are obsolete, and replacing them will take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

While the Air Force tries to work out the kinks in the fighter, a Congressional spending cap coupled with the jet's rising costs has kept whittling away at the number of jets it can afford to buy.

But Air Force officials say cost notwithstanding, the Raptor is long overdue because the commonly used F-15 -- first flown in 1972, the year Don McLean's "American Pie" was released -- is an aging relic.

Lt. Col. Mike Shower, squadron commander for the first Elmendorf Raptors, said no enemy aircraft even comes close to the F-16. But that doesn't mean the Air Force should maintain the status quo, he said.

"Our old stuff is essentially on par," said Shower, who has piloted both the Raptor and the F-15. "There is a significant amount of threat out there, but the F-22 absolutely dominates when we fly."

Raptors will replace a squadron of F-15s at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii beginning in 2011, and they will also replace F-117s that are based at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico.

Those upgrades are much-needed, said Loren Thompson, of the Virginia-based Lexington Institute think tank.

He said the Air Force's F-15s are "falling apart" and that, although the F-16 is still far superior to other fighters, maintaining a decisive technological edge is essential to deterring military threats the United States might face.

"People are so preoccupied with terrorists that they aren't thinking about fighter aircraft," he said. "But if we didn't buy the F-22 we would have a reason to worry."

Source: http://www.adn.com/news/military/story/ ... 8864c.html

After I read this article this morning, my wife and I said two things at almost the same time:

1: Of COURSE it is expensive and has some issues, it is brand new, and;

2: We didn't become this great country by being "on par" with the rest of the world.

And the quote by Lt. Col. Mike Shower saying no enemy aircraft even comes close to the F-16 brought a smile to my face.

F-16.net Sponsor

I think the question of whether the Raptor is worth the price tag is irrelevant now. If the question were asked before or at the beginning of the program with the knowledge of the abrupt end of the cold war approaching then the question would have been valid. The problem is a lot of these articles are written with hindsight, the F-22 is an engineering marvel and was designed to counter any Soviet threat, but now that threat is non-existent so we see a lot of questions about its purpose. But just because the main threat it was designed to counter no longer exists doesn't mean that it shouldn't be operated. That would be a horrible waste of R&D and lets face it, the F-22 is the best fighter out there so it will be a welcome addition to any future military operation.

Now they've spent all that money on the F-22 they may as well get their money's worth and use its excellent capabilities to enhance future military operations. Plus along with the F-35, the USAF can replace their aging fleet.

Article wrote:

I don't think al-Qaida is going to shrink back into their caves because there are F-22s flying overhead rather than F-16s."

This is a valid point. What people seem to forget when demanding more Raptors is that we are fighting two wars at the moment and are not exactly winning (thats not to say the enemy are either). In these two theaters A2A capabilities are irrelevant, in fact the best aircraft is the one that can provide the best ground support. It shows that when the US and its allies have such superiority over the enemy in air power and conventional warfare, the enemy will not try and fight them on equal grounds. The US and its allies really havn't had much trouble controlling the skies in recent conflicts, but thats far from the case on the ground. Counter-insurgency is something we really need to focus on both from the air and on the ground. Some will argue that we won't be fighting insurgents after Iraq/Afghanistan but can anyone see an end to these wars? And look at all the other potential threats in that region. If the US/UK and other allies end up pulling out of Iraq (which is looking even more likely by the day), what message does that send out?

I think the Raptor will be welcomed with open arms in any future coalition operations, but I don't think increasing the numbers past 183 is worth the extra $$$, seeing as we really need to perfect counter-insurgency more than increasing the already mighty air superiority we see. But at the same time air superiority cannot be neglected so there is a balance.

I don't believe in perfecting COIN to a point because the rest of our strategy is so flawed. You can be primo COIN superman and the fact still remains we don't have enough troops in Iraq....need at least 4-500k for years until the thing gets padded down. So until that happens we will still be spinning our wheels. Another cue that our GWOT strategery is flawed is a lack of our border security on the south U.S. We chide Syria for not securing their border with Iraq yet we refuse to do the same here and anybody and their brother ( not just some poor Hispanic peoples looking for the American dream) can get across there and do us bad. So sorry I'm not signed up with the current sloppy methods we use now. An advanced 12 year old that reads history can see we are off track. So claiming COIN on a foreign shore is the way to go when our own glass house security at home is goofed isn't cutting it.

Afghanistan. Not winning it at the moment but then again we can't lose it either doing what we are doing. Bad guys get into even a small group and a PGM lands on their head.

Blaming the F-22 isn't such a good idea. We need to keep big war stuff up to proper levels too and that means having domination in the air and not parity. Parity is a losers game. Note at least some good things. All of our advanced subs are being home ported on the west cost. Ditto for a bunch of other things. U.S. F-22 deployments are looking Pac Rim centric. Given the future that is a good thing. That is why a foreign sale of a export F-22 to Japan and the southern Pac Rim anchor Australia makes good sense in the coming years, not just a slick sale. F-22 is the way to go for USAF small fighter needs. Our investment in short range fighters is way too much. F-22 will do one thing. Beat down the first part of an air war so bad that the rest of our legacy jets won't have any trouble doing the rest of the work. We need more medium and long range assets. We have less and less bases to launch from not more. Longer range assets are the way to go. We are over investing in short range assets. JSF will show up whenever. Some moron claiming F-22 is bad when they haven't even mentioned looking at the JSF value ( seeing as they are so COIN centric in their thinking ) means they are asleep at the wheel and would do us all a favor by STFU as they have either been asleep for the last several years and only wake up out of a stupor for a few seconds and say "F-22 is bad" then fall back asleep. Either state something constructive or go away and die somewhere so we don't have to be bothered by mental defectives.

Personally, I am sick of the peace loving idiots. Just because today's battle is against terrorists, does not imply that tomorrows battle will not be against Iran, N Kora, or a Police Action deployment in an Indian vs Pakistan conflict...
It takes years to tool up an airplane.... These guys have no crystal balls to see into the future... "Hey we're fighting guys in caves. Lets throw away the air force, the M1 abrams, and everything else that isn't used in cave to cave warfare!" No one can predict the future but when you look at the trend line, and modern fighters going to Iran, along with their tooling up some nukes, and sending munitions into Iraq; we've got the makings of real shooting war greater than what we had with Iraq.

For my tax dollars I want overkill, and not parity with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Regan years, our military has been on a downward spiral from the WWII days.

These idiots do not realize that systems like the F-22 are PROTECTING their right to speak against the military. Having spent so many of my years in an acedemic and learning/teaching institutions I've learned that these peace loving idiots simply live in a fantasy world where all of the conflicts around the world are a result of having weapons systems and don't realize weapons systems are the result of hatred and greed and ego. Mankind is not war-like because of weapons, but weapons the result of man being war-like.

fox100 wrote:

Personally, I am sick of the peace loving idiots. Just because today's battle is against terrorists, does not imply that tomorrows battle will not be against Iran, N Kora, or a Police Action deployment in an Indian vs Pakistan conflict...
It takes years to tool up an airplane.... These guys have no crystal balls to see into the future... "Hey we're fighting guys in caves. Lets throw away the air force, the M1 abrams, and everything else that isn't used in cave to cave warfare!" No one can predict the future but when you look at the trend line, and modern fighters going to Iran, along with their tooling up some nukes, and sending munitions into Iraq; we've got the makings of real shooting war greater than what we had with Iraq.

For my tax dollars I want overkill, and not parity with the rest of the world. Unfortunately, with the exception of the Regan years, our military has been on a downward spiral from the WWII days.

These idiots do not realize that systems like the F-22 are PROTECTING their right to speak against the military. Having spent so many of my years in an acedemic and learning/teaching institutions I've learned that these peace loving idiots simply live in a fantasy world where all of the conflicts around the world are a result of having weapons systems and don't realize weapons systems are the result of hatred and greed and ego. Mankind is not war-like because of weapons, but weapons the result of man being war-like.

Cheers.....

fox100 is 100% right, Elbows! Cheers

And if you read some more of our Raptor threads you will understand: The Raptor is the right choice for the near future.

Enthusiast Joined: Jan 11, 2007 - 07:35 PM Posts: 20

I wasn't badmouthing the Raptor, I just wanted to share what I read and see if people's reactions were the same as mine -- disbelief in the fact that some people can only see what is happening now, and not think about what could happen 5-10 years down the road. And I agree with fox100.

Last edited by J.J. on Aug 10, 2007 - 01:27 AM; edited 1 time in total

Nice to hear that, Elbows! Simply forget some of the daily news media stuff or your prejudices and take a closer look to the Raptor´s facts and figures.

I think the real question is whether the ability to kill 100+ enemy aircrafts with probably no loses is an overpriced luxury.

We can certainly field a platform that gives us parity or marginal superiority and simply spend aircrafts instead of R&D to win wars. If that is what we want then yes, the F-22 and the F-35 are BOTH overpriced luxuries as they are both designed to clearly dominate opponents in the air and on the ground, and they are both expensive. However, if the idea is to maintain such a degree of superiority that it allows us to fight major opponents with minimal loses and possible demoralize the enemy because of that, then they are necessary even if they are hugely expensive.

If you are wondering why our platforms cost so much more to develop than a Rafale or a Typhoon, it is because we aspire to dominance over existing aircrafts whereas the Europeans aspire to merely to nose ahead.

The reason why we have asymmetrical warfare rather than conventional warfare today is because our enemies and their proxies cannot hope to defeat us in a conventional war. Raptors, B2 bombers, aircraft carriers, virtually every weapon system that critics cite as unnecessary are the very reason why we fight a low level proxy war whose loses are counted in the dozens rather than a general war whose casualties would be counted in the thousands. Get rid of or limit these assets and you embolden our enemies to confront us in a conventional war.

Quote:

I think the real question is whether the ability to kill 100+ enemy aircrafts with probably no loses is an overpriced luxury.

You tell me if it's an overpriced luxury if it's your hide that is at risk.

Quote:

If you are wondering why our platforms cost so much more to develop than a Rafale or a Typhoon,

Not only is Raptor an order of magnitude more lethal than the Typhoon and the Rafale, she is being built in far less numbers. Build only 183 Typhoons and see how much they cost.

Quote:

For my tax dollars I want overkill, and not parity with the rest of the world.

I can say that I agree with you 100 percent on that one.

Elbows wrote:

I wasn't badmouthing the Raptor, I just wanted to share what I read and see if people's reactions were the same as mine -- disbelief in the fact that some people can only see what is happening now, and not think about what could happen 5-10 years down the road. And I agree with fox100.

I get riled up every time I hear some moron pontificate about "it's a Cold War weapon" like a weapon designed to fight in a high intensity war is a BAD thing to have. Bang Head

Sprey and Riccioni are always trying to piss me off. These guys thought that the ideal air combat platform is a lightweight aircraft that was only designed to fire AIM-9s and 20mm's. Grrrrr.

When in-face the balanced approach of BVR and WVR is the way to go as it gives you the most options in an engagement.

We learned that lesson in Vietnam with our F-4 Phantoms. Ideally, pilots wanted AIM-7s (which actually worked), AIM-9s, and a cannon to handle all aspects of a situation.

Yeesh.

dwightlooi wrote:

If you are wondering why our platforms cost so much more to develop than a Rafale or a Typhoon, it is because we aspire to dominance over existing aircrafts whereas the Europeans aspire to merely to nose ahead.

Well not so fast...the RAF is now quoting an 80 million pound price tag on the Eurofighter...thats a bit more than an F-22.

Actualy it is not since the F-22 is priced at 130 million. But on the other hand people like thumper have been underrating the Typhoon too much IMHO. They usualy put the Typhoon on the same class as a Gripen. If the US didnt have the F-22 online already the Typhoon would be the best AA fighter in the world today. It will be quite potent in AG too.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Raptor - An Overpriced Luxury according to critics