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

Originally Posted by ArmchairGeneral

100,000?! Got a link for that?

No I don't have a link on that, there was a special on the History Channel about Blackwater and all the things they were in to. Blackwater contractors do virtually anything the US operations need in Iraq. Blackwater provides doctors, nurses, teachers for Iraqi children, cafeteria services/operations, janitors, police instructors, military instructors, etc. A large amount of the construction work done in building the police academy in Bagdad, Iraq were Blackwater contractors. Most people like I used to think, when they heard the name Blackwater they think of military functions only... not so.

Originally Posted by Officer of Engineers

My 1st instincts is to trust Adrian. He has been upfront so far ... However, for reference, I do like a source.

Thanx for the confidence. -Adrian

Originally Posted by Jimbo

Well I think the F-22 is dead as far as more being built. 180 some planes is an awfully small number to depend on for dedicated A-A for the next 30 years IMO. Of course who knows how the world will look then?

I must agree with you on this point about not knowing what the future will bring. How long has America gone without a major conflict since 1900? Twenty-two years... with eighteen years between the Viet Nam War and the Persian Gulf War. The way the world is changing, peace for more than another ten years is optimistic!

Originally Posted by Chunder

What other articles?

If your going to assert something. Link to it.

geeeee...

its not like you havent posted in a thread containing it around here or anything...

F-22 Has Major Shortcomings

Originally Posted by bfng3569

geeeee...

its not like you havent posted in a thread containing it around here or anything...

F-22 Has Major Shortcomings

Alright, I've had a week off and got back to this thread.
Firstly...

you should check what you link.

The F-22 does not have a 12.5 maintenance hourse per flight hour. Thats patenently false, and missleading. It's 30, with SB, purporting to be approaching 60. The moment that was linked, left it carte blanche to be hacked away at. There is no possible way it could be that little.
Further, its how the plane partakes in combat as a cost/effectiveness measure, rather than a pie in the sky one.

The others barely deserve a mention,, because none bare any relevance whatsoever to the true capability of a platform in a real fight. You know, the ones where we continuously generate sorties and attack targets successfully, with enourmous tonnages of bombs.

Heres a report by the GAO, on aircraft and weapons effectiveness on desert storm.

http://www.f-111.net/downloads/ns97134.zip


In it you will note that the F-16, whilst the cheapest and most numerical fighter in the Air force's inventory, had better air to ground stats than the F/A 18's. You will note that it costs 1/2 the cost of a F-115 to operate, and Further, as the GAO notes, that as the airforce had mission specific platforms those mission specific platforms were assigned the relevant targetting/aquisition Pods, as well as the relitive weapons, thereby directly inhibiting the aircraft to perform it's practical mission.

I.E the Aircraft was dictated the mission, vs the real combat effectiveness ratio of the airplane.

This is what has been mentioned in every thread I have posted in. What matters, is the ability to Aquire, Target & kill a target - and do it time and again. For many reasons... as clearly highlighted in the GAO report.

Instead of relying on pure fantasy facts, what matters is the amount of the guys pulling the trigger, doing so successfully, and repeating the process, by giving them the tools to do the job.

The GAO clearly says as such on page 175 of the above report.

The F-22 is a pure Diversion, an abismal waste of money, and when you boil it down to the nuts and bolts, the real issue of aircraft in Desert storm, was their ability to Aquire, Target & Kill, as Damningly evidenced on Page 176 of the report, when put into contect with page 166 of the report.

TO continually assert that hordes of F-22's, in any given number are essential for combat in the future, especially considering time scales, even within 10 years - flies in the face of pure tactical relevance of being able to bomb the beejeesus out of the other guy. S-300 or not!

This is why the F-35 is designed with a modular system. Because of the following real issues, that dictate real combat data:

1) The USAF has a demonstrated history of providing it's niche aircraft with the hardwear needed to strike a target, whilst denying other platforms in that inventory of that capability.
The F-35 is designed with a comprehensive A2G suite.

2) The USAF has a demonstrated history of NOT being able to conclusively demonstrate, that any one platform is particularly capable of beiing the 'key' to destroying any particular target, reference GAO report. Infact, just the opposite, that the platform availability is the real criteria.

3) Platform cost is not relative to the ability of the aircraft to contribute to the fight.

4) The F-35 will be upgraded to include an air to air suite, just as good as the competitions - or nobody would be ordering the damn thing! Especially those countries that participate with you in these wars.

5) There is a trade off. You want high stealth and top of range, physical brawn you pay the cost. Likewise, very effective relitivity can be obtained with a low rcs, and effetive countermeasures whoose ability rises exponentially with a lower RCS, like chaff, decoy's and jamming. It sure as hell is easy to sucker ANY radar based system with a higher RCS decoy.

What matters is planes in the air, with the ability to Aquire, Target and Kill, because, as the GAO mentions, what matters is the statistical capability of a platform to engage in the fight.

Even if you got 300 + Raptors, they would have demonstratably lesser effect than some 3000 odd F-35's, it's a friggin Furphy... Despite the huge technological superiority during Desert Storm, heck, try Kosovo, or even OIF, in DS, despite absolute ownage by the coalition, it all means jack if they just hide, or fly their aircraft elsewhere.

In DS, 43% of the Iraqi airforce survived. 17% went to Iran. I.e Enough to maintain a real and practical threat after the coalition packed up and went home.

What matters is the ability to kill, and do it in numbers. Not technical meta data of why the F-22 is superior to the F-35, because it won't be. It won't be, because the F-35 will have half the turn around, and operate in much greater numbers at much less cost. Sure you might loose a few F-35's, but you didn't retard the campaign, so you could let the USAF play 'selecta jet'.

Originally Posted by Chunder

Alright, I've had a week off and got back to this thread.
Firstly...

you should check what you link.

The F-22 does not have a 12.5 maintenance hourse per flight hour. Thats patenently false, and missleading. It's 30, with SB, purporting to be approaching 60. The moment that was linked, left it carte blanche to be hacked away at. There is no possible way it could be that little.
Further, its how the plane partakes in combat as a cost/effectiveness measure, rather than a pie in the sky one.

can you prove this please? i'd really like to see where the actual 'facts' and the 'truth' come from?

The others barely deserve a mention,, because none bare any relevance whatsoever to the true capability of a platform in a real fight. You know, the ones where we continuously generate sorties and attack targets successfully, with enourmous tonnages of bombs.

Heres a report by the GAO, on aircraft and weapons effectiveness on desert storm.

http://www.f-111.net/downloads/ns97134.zip


In it you will note that the F-16, whilst the cheapest and most numerical fighter in the Air force's inventory, had better air to ground stats than the F/A 18's. You will note that it costs 1/2 the cost of a F-115 to operate, and Further, as the GAO notes, that as the airforce had mission specific platforms those mission specific platforms were assigned the relevant targetting/aquisition Pods, as well as the relitive weapons, thereby directly inhibiting the aircraft to perform it's practical mission.

I.E the Aircraft was dictated the mission, vs the real combat effectiveness ratio of the airplane.

This is what has been mentioned in every thread I have posted in. What matters, is the ability to Aquire, Target & kill a target - and do it time and again. For many reasons... as clearly highlighted in the GAO report.

Instead of relying on pure fantasy facts, what matters is the amount of the guys pulling the trigger, doing so successfully, and repeating the process, by giving them the tools to do the job.

The GAO clearly says as such on page 175 of the above report.

The F-22 is a pure Diversion, an abismal waste of money, and when you boil it down to the nuts and bolts, the real issue of aircraft in Desert storm, was their ability to Aquire, Target & Kill, as Damningly evidenced on Page 176 of the report, when put into contect with page 166 of the report.

TO continually assert that hordes of F-22's, in any given number are essential for combat in the future, especially considering time scales, even within 10 years - flies in the face of pure tactical relevance of being able to bomb the beejeesus out of the other guy. S-300 or not!

This is why the F-35 is designed with a modular system. Because of the following real issues, that dictate real combat data:

1) The USAF has a demonstrated history of providing it's niche aircraft with the hardwear needed to strike a target, whilst denying other platforms in that inventory of that capability.
The F-35 is designed with a comprehensive A2G suite.

2) The USAF has a demonstrated history of NOT being able to conclusively demonstrate, that any one platform is particularly capable of beiing the 'key' to destroying any particular target, reference GAO report. Infact, just the opposite, that the platform availability is the real criteria.

3) Platform cost is not relative to the ability of the aircraft to contribute to the fight.

4) The F-35 will be upgraded to include an air to air suite, just as good as the competitions - or nobody would be ordering the damn thing! Especially those countries that participate with you in these wars.

5) There is a trade off. You want high stealth and top of range, physical brawn you pay the cost. Likewise, very effective relitivity can be obtained with a low rcs, and effetive countermeasures whoose ability rises exponentially with a lower RCS, like chaff, decoy's and jamming. It sure as hell is easy to sucker ANY radar based system with a higher RCS decoy.

What matters is planes in the air, with the ability to Aquire, Target and Kill, because, as the GAO mentions, what matters is the statistical capability of a platform to engage in the fight.

Even if you got 300 + Raptors, they would have demonstratably lesser effect than some 3000 odd F-35's, it's a friggin Furphy... Despite the huge technological superiority during Desert Storm, heck, try Kosovo, or even OIF, in DS, despite absolute ownage by the coalition, it all means jack if they just hide, or fly their aircraft elsewhere.

In DS, 43% of the Iraqi airforce survived. 17% went to Iran. I.e Enough to maintain a real and practical threat after the coalition packed up and went home.

What matters is the ability to kill, and do it in numbers. Not technical meta data of why the F-22 is superior to the F-35, because it won't be. It won't be, because the F-35 will have half the turn around, and operate in much greater numbers at much less cost. Sure you might loose a few F-35's, but you didn't retard the campaign, so you could let the USAF play 'selecta jet'.

i'm really gonna try to not get into every thing you said here, as i wasnt comparing the F-22 to the F-35, but merely pointing out an article that is of a differing view when in relation to all the short comings you seem to think the F-22 has. You seem to say that that particular article is useless and not trustable?

so has a 'trustable' accurate report to go by?

and further more, all I 'get' from what you have posted above is that F-22 wasnt needed in Deseret Storm, and there fore, wont be needed for anything else in the future and that we should just buy F16's instead.....

Why don't they use it in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're limiting it's potential and it's one of the most advanced aircraft out there.

The F-22 is not a relic of the Cold War. It is a victim of complacency. THe United States has no real opponents that it is willing to recogize as such. China will very probably start a major war within the next thirty to fifty years and because of our wish to remain blissfully ignorant, we will be caught with our pants not only down but hanging on the neighbour's bathroom door (if you get my drift...). Obama and his ilk are the people of America who want to think that war and nationalism are old evils fading away in the mist of a new happy global economy where everyone is forced to be friends by economic policy. We cannot be enemies with China because China needs our consumption of their products and we cannot afford to threaten China because they are the cheapest way to make the goods our people want. Such is the logic of these kind of people. Any historian will tell you that economics is the basis of all wars.

The F22, therefore, is a product of a policy that sees the need for armies disappearing altogether. Obama and his supporters think the whole world can be like Western Europe; happy socialist states with no need for big armies. He doesn't realize that Europe is not only taking a huge risk and knows it, but that Europe relies on the US to be the big guns of democracy. If the United States disarms itself enough, it is probably that The British and Germans and French would begin to rearm as they take over the role of securing their economic interests with force. There is a reason that the British House of Commons continues to debate a National Service (Conscription) Bill every year, because the British are aware that the time may come that the happy socialist state will have to pick up its weapons to keep the money flowing.

Originally Posted by SenorPabloIII

Why don't they use it in Iraq and Afghanistan? They're limiting it's potential and it's one of the most advanced aircraft out there.

The potential to do what? Drop a JDAM in country? Why would you have an F-22A do this, when an F-16C can do it at (i'm guessing) half the cost. The F-22A has no reason to be in either of those conflicts right now.

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.

Short version of this whole debate.

Anti F-22 side.

F-22 is to specialized in air to air and two hard to cost effectively upgrade without lossing some of its air to air capaibility. Theres also not enough of them to really benefiet fully from a big supply chain and all of extra advantages that go with being a USAF primary aircraft. The F-35 can do most of what the 22 can do air to air while being better airto ground and because its maintence rate looks like it will be better. (in part because hopefully there will be so freaking many of them and in so many roles its fun funny.) We can't afford F-22's so no reason to even try to figure out if it can meet our needs.

Pro F-22 side

F-22 is awesome at air to air and nothing really important is stopping it from being upgraded to be better at air to ground. Its uber expensive because there aren't very many of them (partially true). The reason why its not being used currently is it doesn't make much sense to use something that advanced to bomb caves and desert huts. Thats why the US is looking for a turboprop coin aircraft because they realize that the capaibilites of the teen series isn't even really needed. The US military needs more airframes.


Pragmatic view. All the momentum has been driven out of the f-22 by budget and politics and its capaibilities will probably end up being wasted now. There is no reason to fight the political battles to get a trickle of airframes out of congress because realiztically there is no way it'll ever get built in the numbers to be the primary tacticle aircraft of the USAF at this point. (unless WW3 starts tomorrow). The USAF needs airframes that are there far more at this point that it needs airframes that are superior to everything else under the sun. The F-35 looks like it is equal or superior to everything else in the pipelines for other countries at the moment so why not work really hard to get the numbers of that bilt to cover all future airforce needs for the next 20ish years, instead of complicating things further down the road by not having enough f-22's and f-35's realizing that we need airframes to meet all expectations and trying to keep what at that point will be 40+ year old teen series planes in the air.

Oh and yeah we probably should realize that congress is a commitee and like all commitees is epically retarded on a bunch of different levels and will try to self agradnize its components so next time we go to develop start a plane in 5 years to start relacing the F-22's in the 2030 to 2035 timeframe we know how the battles need to be fought to keep it from becoming a giant boondoggle like the F-22 program became.

That's such a depressingly accurate post.

One question I've yet to hear a good answer for is how the F-35 is going to pick up the air-to-air slack (compensating for the insufficient numbers of F-22s) while still winning the air-to-ground war? There will be fewer F-35s than F-16s, remember.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

One question I've yet to hear a good answer for is how the F-35 is going to pick up the air-to-air slack (compensating for the insufficient numbers of F-22s) while still winning the air-to-ground war? There will be fewer F-35s than F-16s, remember.

The USAF website says that currently 1,280 F-16C/D fighters are on force, and they *plan* to aquire 1763 F-35A is what I have always read.

I don't like the idea that the F-35's will replace the F/A-Hornets and Superhornets, it doesn't make sense, they're good enough, and the F/A-18 family is superb (excluding the F-22 and F-35 technology wise) to most fighters and in my opinion the only thing that doesn't make it the best fighter in the world is the F-15's superb track record. But the F-22 and F-35 should get into service, I don't think the F/A-18 family should be replaced neither should the F-15. Also, if the F-15 is aging, then improve it, upgrade it instead of waisting millions on stealth aicrafts.