Chode

F-22 production should be stopped at the currently funded 183 planes. (about 130 or so have already been built). At $150 million a pop, these aren't an aircraft we can afford to produce in the kind of numbers we'd need in a real war, no matter how capable it is.

I'm not suggesting that we don't need a replacement for the F-15 and F-16; just that the Raptor doesn't cut it from either a budgetary, or an operational standpoint. The mission capable rate on the aircraft is 62%, and it looks as though the cost of the necessary improvements and modifications to get this up to some kind of reasonable level will be at least $8 billion for just 100 aircraft. By contrast, the mission capable rate for the F-15 is about 81%

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz defends this abysmal rate by commenting that if "low observability" maintenance issues are ignored, the mission capable rate is in 'the mid- to high-70's". To put it another way, mission availability isn't really, really, bad just as long as we don't want them to be stealthy. Stupid me, I thought that was one of the major selling points for the new fighter. As well as one of the major costs.

There are some alternative ideas floating around, but the Air Force finds them pretty unpalatable. Just doesn't fit the current leadership's vision of the proper role of the Air Force. Of course this is a service that can't even award a bid for, let alone build, a new tanker, And then, there's that embarrassing incident about mislaying a view nukes.

Finally here are links to a couple of videos of remarks made by an Air Force Colonel following a recent Red Flag training exercise in which he got to fly against Indian SU-30's. Each video is about 10 minutes long and contains language that is Not Suitable For Work.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KBmv...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgA...eature=related

Drew1369

The F-22 is replacing the F-15C/D and the F-117 stealth fighter. The JSF is replacing the F-16, F-18, AV-8B.

The MC rate is always low for a new A/C as it was/still is for the B-2... the B-52 holds a higher mission capable rate then both the B-1 and B-2 should we cancel both those programs too?

Numbers mean nothing in war now. When 2 F-22's can do the job of 16 F-15's do you really more?

The F-15 are old aircraft with cracking spars. It is a very capable aircraft, but with everything, as technology advances, you have to advance with it. Clear case of a country that didn't advance when it should have... Japan in WW2.

Many other programs were on the chopping block because they were either unproven, broke alot in the begining or expensive... those would be the Apache, Abrams, and Warthog. Now weapons that are indispensible in the design of any warfare operation taken.

bry623

I like the F-22. It is awesome.

Chode

One of the points that Dilger and Sprey make in their critique of current air force doctrine is that each new generation of U.S. warplanes has had decreased MC ratings, higher costs, and was built in reduced numbers compared to the previous generations of aircraft.

Would I kill the B-2 and the Lancer? Yes. I think they represent ineffective doctrine and an enormous waste of money.

Certainly, the F-15s in the U.S. arsenal are aging aircraft, but not all F-15s are old. Some are brand new. Like the F-15K, which Col. Fornof talks about in Part II of his lecture. Again, though, as I said in my original post, I think we need to replace the F-15, just not with the Raptor.

It's really interesting that you mention the A-10 as a project that was on the chopping block, because it was the Airforce brass that fought the concept every step of the way. During Desert Storm General Horner opposed the deployment of A-10s right up until he saw what they could do. The Generals running the USAF deserve no credit at all for this remarkably effective aircraft.

In fact, Col. Dilger (USAF, ret.) who is one of the major critics of the Raptor had some involvement with the A-10: "Col. Robert Dilger (USAF, ret.), an F-4 fighter tactician in Vietnam (187 missions) and then chief air-to-air instructor at the Fighter Weapons School, became A-10 Armament Director in charge of the 30mm cannon, the massive 30mm ammo war reserve production program (reducing its costs by a factor of 8), and the pioneering live fire effectiveness tests of the 30mm against loaded Soviet tanks in formation."

Numbers still count in warfare. Even if your equipment is worth 100 of the enemy's, numerical superiority still gives him the option to attack on multiple fronts and force you to spread yourself thin enough to be vulnerable, or fail to respond to some attacks. At a cost of $35-45 million for an SU-30 vs. $150 million for a Raptor, that's a real concern.

Where this becomes a pretty serious issue with the Raptor is its small missile load which is going to force pilots to engage a lot of targets with guns in a serious conflict. Not to mention the increased availability and effectiveness of radar jammers.

So, we've got proven technologies available to build fighters that cost much less than Raptors, but could still defeat the best of the rest.

Drew1369

You are correct on the numbers, we are currently having problems with the multiple front aspect of war (ie Iraq and Afgahnistan) so numbers can come into play, but so can force multiplication.

The F-22 is also much more in terms of defense of the a/c itself. It has technologies that currently no other a/c has and would cost alot more to start retrofitting our current stock.

I understand about the A-10's argument and currently all of those generals are gone and sleepying in retirement were they belong.

The F-22 outperforms the F-15's in air-to-air and if stealth is not a factor can carry much more armament on external hardpoints.

The SU-30 is a capable aircraft no doubt, but it is still a fourth generation aircraft. Our F-15's have been getting killed in combat (training) by other A/C (ie Eurofighter, the SU-30 and other newer 4gen) I dont know the combat kill ration of the SU-30 vs F-22 as I havn't had time to see the lecture but I promise I will. But I know that it is currently still no compitition against the Eurofighter.

Chode

When you have a chance to watch Col. Fornof's lecture you'll enjoy it. In Red Flag 08, the SU-30MKIs didn't fare well against F-15s. In his second lecture, Fornof makes the point that this was essentially because of the Indian pilots flying relatively new planes, and that more experienced pilots are going to be able to beat F-15s and 16s consistently. Also, the F-15 pilots in the exercise had previously been flying against Raptors, and were able to exploit the same kind of errors that new Raptor pilots sometimes made, just much more effectively because the SU-30 is a far, far less capable aircraft than the F-22.

I have no doubt that the F-22 is the best fighter in anyone's inventory, but I agree with Dilger and Sprey when they say that we would be better off to build larger numbers of less sophisticated and less costly fighters in place of the F-22. We've already developed the materials, the engines, and the airframes, so we should be able to build an aircraft that's much cheaper than a Raptor with most of the capabilities.

You can read the full version of their paper Reversing the Decay of American Air Power here: http://pogoarchives.org/m/ns/sprey-p...n-20090219.pdf The link opens a pdf file of their report.

sobeit

look at it this way, you have one mosquito attack you, you slap it and its gone, but if you have hundreds of mosquitos buzzing you, you retreat and go indoors to stay because you can only slap so many before its a lost cause.

I feel this is the same with the one expensive plane that would take place of several. Once its shot down its gone. Where as if there were a bunch of less sophisticated planes buzzing you, you will get out of there because one of them will get you.

mikeber

I think that many of us speak without knowing all the data. When you compare between airplanes or think what to build next, there are many considerations which we simply ignore or we don't know. This colonel and other critics are speaking from outside and minimize the facts and data to only a few, when in reality, there are many thousands of points to consider.
1) One factor which was not mentioned is range. The current range of fighters is still very limited. When you want to engage in battle over the middle east, you cannot use remote bases. Even when flying from Saudi Arabia to northern Iraq, there wasn't much fuel left for patrolling missions in F-15.
2) Another big issue they ignore, is why built future manned aircrafts when already with current remote controls (that are becoming better all the time) there is a possibility of remote operated combat missions. This will change the whole air combat equation.
3) They speak about "low cost" aircrafts. There is no such thing as cheap designs. Since the design cycle is usually long (10-15 years) there are always costly improvements introduced. For example, a new helicopter to replace the Kiowa warrior (the Bell ARH-70) was supposed to be based on an existing civilian design and be... cheap. Guess what....
At the end, the final product is never cheap.

EnglishPaul

I have no knowledge of this area, but would the fitting of bigger fuel tanks to F15s not make a far quicker and cheaper solution to gulf patrols? Is a better fighter than the F15 needed over Iraq?
How many wars do you think that the USA air force will have to fight against the Eurofighter? I think most would get caught by the nuclear umbrella or diplomacy.

Mcninjaguy

Wars are fought by men not nuclear weapons people would prefer to die on both sides than have innocent people nuked

Raptors are faster, stealthier, more maneuverable, and have better radar and communication systems.

I think its better to have less very capable aircraft than dozens of aircraft that have a godd chance of being shot down. You've heard of the Stealth B2 bomber in action, it goes in hits its target and gets out with nobody hurt on the US side. That's better than taking a bunch a unsteathly bombers and hoping that a couple hit their target.

Pilots need training and a Jet can make a human very nauseated, and confused. Give it more time then tried and tested aircraft. Everything has to upgrade at some point.

mikeber

Iraq is not the point. When you build a system you need to take in account all possible future scenarios. What about flying combat missions in northern Iran when we'll be out of Iraq? Extra fuel tanks are insufficient. They used them and still came short. These tanks also limit the weapons load and slow the aircraft significantly. Your guess is as good as any. For example, many weapon systems were designed for cold war scenarios, but when ready they needed to deliver in places like Afghanistan. The problem with nuclear deterrence is that it leaves very limited space to maneuver. What will you do if Iran or North Korea kills 2 US troops? Will you nuke them?
Ideally, when you need a new weapon system you fund it and is delivered in 2 years. Although that could be done in WW2, today you talk about 15 years before a system becomes operative.

EnglishPaul

What I was meaning was that when the big toys come out, it is likely to be a serious war. And I can't see those being settled in a dogfight anymore. For all lower tech enemies, I would expect that the F15 would do.

mikeber

Do you think the Eurofighter and future Russian aircraft will remain home? These countries are desperate to export their systems. They will sell everything to anyone like Iran and North Korea. Possibly Chavez in Venezuela. Just look at missile technology and nuclear weapons, how they made their way to Iraq, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea. Today Syria Libya and Egypt are also in line for these goodies. China is both a developer and customer for next generation weapon systems.
The big problem is how to visualize today threats and possible scenarios in 2025. How will the world look by then ?

yustr

The problem is they get it wrong most of the time. Or they get it right but don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Chode

Dogfights are going to be around for a long time. There are very effective radar jammers (the Israelis make a superb one) that render most current radar guided missiles virtually useless. So, for the near future at least, guns and heat seekers are still going to remain mainstays of air to air combat.

Mcninjaguy

have you seen what the thrusters in the F-22 can do they can change direction of the thrusters making the F-22 able to change direction about half the time of older jet fighters.

Dog fights are gonna be around for another couple thoousand years if not forever. even space wars will have dog fighting between fighter aircraft.

yustr

What the pilot can handle has been the limiting factor in maneuverability for many years. Adding more won't change that.

EnglishPaul

Just out of interest, when was the last time that a fighter was taken down in a dogfight?

mikeber

2003 - The Iraq war.
You remind me of an interesting piece of history. After winning WW1, the US, France, England all went to sleep. They cut or canceled every military project. If you lived in the 20s, (a time of relative peace), any military spending seemed a waste of money.
The US army for example refused to develop a bomber aircraft (there was no airforce back then) because we won the big war. The Thompson machine gun was rejected by the army. Another fact I learned only recently, is that Britain and US successfully employed sniper teams in WW1 but after the war, they were deemed unnecessary in future warfare.
When first introduced in Viet-Nam, the F4 didn't carry a gun, since it was pointless when you have AA missiles. The list goes on and on.
Wars are like that. You live many years in quiet and peace. Suddenly, a war breaks and all experts (including those opposed just a few months before) ask "where are the weapons"? What about our readiness? Then, you rush to develop them, but it takes 15 years to develop a new system. You can pour billions of $, but you won't get them when you need them most.

Drew1369

Negative... '99 Serbia if you are only counting NATO I dunno about other countries

Iraq never got their AF off the ground the second time...