Thread: House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive

Originally Posted by Chunder

We've been through this. You can check the GAO report on Tables III.2, III.6, IV:1, as well as just look at the breakdown of Fully Successfull, and Not Fully Successfull attacks on Table IV.1, and then, armed with reality of comparable usefullness of platforms.



I'll get to that


The whole substance of the F-22 debate is what it can perform because it is stealthy. This isn't the reality when factored in with costs and true maintenance hours per flight hours and war. Despite true metrics used in true wars where specialist platforms are used, if you can even be bothered to read a GAO report I suggest starting off with page 173 of the report - because it deals with exactly this sort of simplicity that clouds judgement on what sort of numbers are needed.
Gates is not some neo anti F-22 trogdolyte.

This is a primary reason outlined below.


Niche silver bullets don't win wars. Sortie rates and guys pulling triggers and surviving does.
As for mission specific platforms, heres an idea of what it costs when other platforms move foward.


The F-22 isn't a team player it was designed as a niche silver bullet, and evertime a new system comes into existence, it will have to upgrade to it at enormous cost.


There are several things about maintenance that are "Hollow". First and foremost is the presumption that all materials and techniques used are available for use, and secondly, that maintenance is a recipe for gauranteed sortie availability. You can get an agregate number across the fleet as a whole, but it isn't representative of characteristic traits of real operatons. Frankly, the amount of bad press involved, to cause concearn and within the said PDF, the USAF's reluctance to address the specific critisisms and their potential to effect operational ability are doozies. For instance as a practical example, the USAF can tell you they have 50 C-7's ready for flight. When they actually start up and get ready to taxi, it becomes apparent that it isn't fully operational to perform the mission required of it.

The ability to generate sorties in the shortest possible time is the metric which counts. The ability of other platforms to fill in for a drop out is very important. Likewise the facilities available in war to support a platform is equally important. So far - we have always built up for war - but in the "Dire situation" where raptors are "critical" to the air campaign doesn't exist in a full blown war with a credible adversary. The reality is you throw everthing you have got at the situation thats ready to go. The USN for instance is most likely to be this tool - yet it does not have these raptors... infact it's "Only Got" Superhornets and F-35's in the future. The USAF may have 2 squadrons of F-22's ready to be deployed - and when they are deployed all the specialist equipment will need to go with them, to secure bases that support the unique demands of the F-22. The operational reality of deploying lets say in the case of China (because thats primarily the reason cited for the F-22) , where numerical advantage exists in support of Naval and Ground advancements on the ground & water - is that platform availability to stem the advance on short notice is what is needed. Either you have complete confidence in the F-22's ability to generate sustained sorties in adequate numbers to halt the countries attempt to alter the geo political status quo or you don't. As Vietnam & Korea both demonstrated, tech supremacy does not mean much if it ends in stalemate or ultimate victory through your departure.
Over-investing in a maintenance intensive platform is a sure fire way to over-rely on it (supported by GAO figures when it comes to reliance on platform specific missions) and hinder the fighting capability of other platforms (also demonstrated by GAO reports). Even by the PDF's Figuress, the F-16 for instance is almost half that (5.5 hrs) (something to do with basically having 1 engine) The F-35 is designed to match that. In the context of an operation fight, that means a lot.


The U.S Govt knows that deterence is key to the effectiveness of it's other government agencies, and that an adversaries fear it's ability to strike with relitive impunity. Yet, here we have a whole heap of speculation by "concerned" individuals on why the F-35 is not good enough, why, because it's not the F-22. Imagine the potential despot thinking "they've only got F-35's". The hyperbole about the inadequacy of the F-35, may well be the root cause of the belief that an adversaries force has adequate capability to deal with the threat resulting in greater potential for conflict.... adequate capability that is designed to be countered by developers in the first instance.

The reality is that speculation on the inadequacy of a particular platform to deal with real and developing threats bias's the potential for congress to hurt the warfighting capability of the whole. For instance, insistance that battlships be in reserve to provide fire support for marines "Just in case", rather than focussing on develaping tech that can be fitted to a DD.

really no idea where you are going there with any of that.....

i dont see anything in there to back up the claim that the F-22 is unreliable, a miantenance 'hog', is too mission specefic to the point that it makes uts useless.

You also mention support costs. are these the same support costs that F-35 is going to incur as a new platform as well?

The Raptor was cited for its overwhelming performance in the demanding Northern Edge joint military exercise. 12 Raptors were deployed to Alaska to take part in this large-scale, force-on-force exercise. During the exercise they achieved a fascinating 80-to-1 kill ratio against their Red Air opponents. Raptors flew eight sorties per day meeting 97 percent of their scheduled missions. (Similar kill ratio was achieved by the Israel Air Force in combat against the Syrian Air Force, during the battle over the Beka'a valley in Lebanon, 1982.) In addition to air-to-air missions, Raptors also demonstrated ground attack capability dropping 1,000-pound, GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) weapons. Apart from their overwhelming success against aggressors, Raptor pilots contributed to the overall situational awareness for the entire Blue Force team exploiting the F-22’s integrated avionics package. According to the commander of the F-22 squadron, the most impressive outcome of the exercise was the realization by all players of just how much of the battlespace information or situational awareness F-22s saw and could share with other forces. This increased the effectiveness and survivability of all flying with the Raptor. For their impressive operations in Northern Edge, the Raptor team was awarded the national Aeronautic Association's Collier Trophy.

"The Raptor’s performance in Northern Edge confirmed that it is the most lethal, reliable, survivable and revolutionary fighter the world has ever seen. Joint and allied force commanders talk about the commanding presence of the F-22 and how the Raptor makes everyone in the battlespace better," Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Executive Vice President and F-22 Program General Manager Larry Lawson, told Defense Update. "Pilots will tell you about the quantum leap in situational awareness the Raptor provides, and maintainers are amazed at how much easier it is to keep the F-22 in the air, day-in and day-out in any environment. That is the level of performance and reliability the F-22 is delivering today." Lawson said the F-22 has recorded several major milestones over the past year including its first overseas deployment and the first participation by a Raptor unit at Red Flag, the Air Force's highly realistic combat training exercise.

More recent missions included a 90 day deployment of 12 aircraft from the 27th Tactical Fighter Squadron, (1st TFW Langley) from Langley VA to Kadena Air Base, Japan during the spring of 2007, where Raptors flew more than 653 sorties (854 flight hours) with both U.S. and allied forces demonstrating 99% availability. The 1st Fighter Wing's 94th Fighter Squadron participated in the Raptor's first trip to Red Flag earlier in 2007. The Raptors flew 168 sorties, demonstrating 100 percent sortie generation rate for the 94th Fighter Squadron pilots. "This Red Flag exercise was the first exposure to the Raptor's capabilities for many of the participants," noted Lawson. "The Aggressor pilots quickly became very frustrated because the Raptor’s stealth, speed, agility and 360 degree situational awareness ensured an overwhelming advantage.”

i understand the arguement that its to expensive. i dont not see, in any of this, the arguement that it does not perform.