F/A-22 required for deep strike against enemy threats

Air Force Link ^ | March 5, 2004 | Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez

[Spruce]

F/A-22 required for deep strike against enemy threats

by Staff Sgt. C. Todd Lopez
Air Force Print News

3/5/2004 - WASHINGTON -- Maintaining deep-strike capability is critical to future warfighting operations.

In a March 3 testimony before the House Armed Services Committee subcommittee on projection forces, Air Force Vice Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley said the Air Force must continue to maintain its deep-strike capability.

"(Deep strike) must be defined as the capability to achieve the desired effects rapidly and persistently upon any target set in any environment, anywhere, at any time," General Moseley said. "Simply said, we must continue to be able to hold any enemy target set at risk at any point on the Earth."

For an operation like Iraqi Freedom, General Moseley told committee members that the Air Force's ability to strike was in part because of American presence in the region for nearly 12 years and U.S. access to nearby bases. In testimony submitted for the record, the general said that type of access might not always be available to the U.S. military.

"We are unlikely to encounter such a luxury in subsequent conflicts," General Moseley said. "In the future, we will require deep-strike capabilities to penetrate and engage high-value targets during the first minutes of hostilities anywhere in the battlespace.

"Against the most advanced current and future enemy anti-access threats, the F/A-22 [Raptor] will be required," he said. "Combining stealth and supercruise, the F/A-22 will destroy these systems -- pave the way for penetrating F-117 [Nighthawks] and B-2 [Spirits] -- and support follow-on operations by our nonstealthy bomber and legacy fighter-bomber fleets."

Committee members asked the panel of witnesses, which included both military and Department of Defense advisers, about the threat posed to U.S. long-range capability in Iraq by military hardware produced in Russia or China. Such hardware included the SA-12, a tactical surface-to-air missile system with anti-ballistic missile capabilities.

General Moseley said such systems were unlikely to surface in Iraq.

"The opportunity for the bigger systems, the strategic systems that are such a threat to long-range strike capability … I don't see as a threat … in Iraq," General Moseley said. The systems, he said, are too large and too expensive to be used by opposition groups there.

By some estimates, systems such as the SA-10 or SA-12 may cost as much as $300 million to acquire. Both the initial cost, and the training and support required to sustain such systems would be prohibitive the general said.

One concern of the committee was the possibility of U.S. technology being leaked to adversaries because of liberal licensing of Joint Strike Fighter technology to subcontractors. General Moseley said the JSF program office is aware of the issue.

"The JSF is a critical niche in our portfolio, is a critical backfill to many of our aging systems and is a compliment to the F/A-22," General Moseley said. "The (F/A-22) program office is acutely aware … of our sensitivities on the protection of software, source code, and key and emerging technologies. We believe … the way ahead on this is to build this airplane the way we have it laid out and to be ever vigilant to the challenge (of security)."

Also discussed was the need for intelligence in the field, the ability of the services to replenish munitions at a fast enough rate and the Air Force's need for a new tanker aircraft.

One committee member asked if the requirement for a new Air Force tanker was invalid or "made up." General Moseley assured committee members the requirement was very valid.

"Yes we need a new tanker, and yes we cannot operate these (KC-135 Stratotankers) at the level we have in the past," General Moseley said. "I am the operating commander from two campaigns. I could not take the KC-135E and, in fact, said ‘Do not deploy it, I do not want it over here.’"

General Moseley was the first combined air forces component commander for Operation Iraqi Freedom.

[Spruce]

The USAF is expanding the role of the F-22 in order to justify the cost. But I think the last paragraphs about tankers is the real meat here.

[CasearianDaoist]

How so? It was always defined as a deep strike, first day aircraft. ANd it is worth every penny - they should build 700 if them.

[Spruce]

I always assumed the Raptor was an "Air-Dominance" package. Now that it has been officially admitted that it will perform Strike missions is a first for me.

[capt. norm]

They are flying training flights out of here (Tyndall AFB) but they stay out of sight over the Gulf of Mexico and I never get a glimpse.

All my USAF friends speak in glowing terms of the Raptor's capabilities, and since they have daily contact with them in maintenance, etc., I tend to believe them more than I would believe the "arm-chair experts" who say otherwise.

[TaMoDee]

We had 700+ of "them" they were called F-111's!

[Spruce]

No doubt you have seen them. Tyndall is the base of the Raptor. Are they loud?

[Spruce]

To equate an F22 with an F111 is ludicrous.

[RicocheT]

I doubt if we can afford more than 100 at the present cost per F-22. Also, only build them here and don't license the technology as we need to keep the secrets here.

[Blood of Tyrants]

Within 10 years passive radar will have made current stealth technology obsolete.

Why are we spending $200+ million per copy for an airplane whose main defensive feature will be worthless in 10 years?

[CasearianDaoist]

Total nonsene.

[Southack]

"How so? It was always defined as a deep strike, first day aircraft. ANd it is worth every penny - they should build 700 if them."

Just how, pray tell, can the F-22's 600 mile range be considered "deep strike"?

My single engine prop plane has an 1100 mile range, and it doesn't cost millions upon millions to build, operate, and deploy (and it can hit just as many ground targets as can a current F-22).

No, the use of the phrase "deep strike" when refering to the F-22 is code for padding the budget in order to build a bomber version of the Raptor...because the price of each F-22 is so high that we can't justify using them on Combat Air Patrols (which is where they will get tasked as is today because they can't hit ground targets and have no range).

But the future of aerial combat is not in manned, hyper-expensive bombers.

Instead, the future is in cheap, unmanned aircraft that can serve as flying missile platforms, among other things...as well as manage to not have a range so short that our lumbering aerial tankers have to fly into combat zones just to keep our fighters in the sky.

[IGOTMINE]

Had to maintain some sort of relevance. Mission creep is great for that.

[Southack]

"Within 10 years passive radar will have made current stealth technology obsolete."

Passive radar can be spoofed by any decent computer + transmitter array. Heck, the Russians actually did this to us once back in the early 1980's after they learned we were passively listening to their radar signals.

With luck, our opponents will pour vast amounts of their limited resources into such folly, foolishly believing that we aren't fly right over their heads...when in fact we are doing that very thing.

[Pukin Dog]

We are NOT spending 200M per plane, and passive radar is easily jammed if need be. Also, find me a country that has the dough to put passive radar everywhere within the next 10 years anyway.

[CommandoFrank]

My single engine prop plane has an 1100 mile range, and it doesn't cost millions upon millions to build, operate, and deploy (and it can hit just as many ground targets as can a current F-22).

You can't be serious with this statement. If you are you have disqualified yourself from further discussion on this thread.

But to give you the benefit of any doubt, you could have just one hell of a single engine aircraft. If that is the case, report to the Pentagon immediately...

[TaMoDee]

I don't think so. As other posts above this one state.

[capt. norm]

No they're not loud.

They're like the Loch Ness Monster or Bigfoot except that we know they're up there but we never see or hear them.

There may be others here (Panama City, FL) that have gotten a look at them or heard them but I sure haven't run into any.

Tyndall always hosts a special air show and open house each spring. This year it's on 28 March and I'm hoping we'll get to eye-ball a Raptor then.

You can Google over to TAFB's website and get the details.

It's always a well-spent day at this annual event, if you happen to be near here at that time.

[Pukin Dog]

Raptors will not be CAP performers. F-15's will perform that role. Deep strike, or Penetration missions involve escorting and protecting Stealth Bombers or using their own weapons to attack heavily defended targets like airfields and communication centers.

The Combat Radius of the F-22 is beyond 1550 miles, so I don't know where you get 600 miles from. You must have been reading about that fabulous "Super Hornet" with it's 600 mile range compared to the 2000 mile range of the Tomcat it is to replace.

[Spruce]

Air dominance. You feel we don't need that?

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

We had 700+ of "them" they were called F-111's!

I got to sit in the cockpit of an F-111 one time up at Pease AFB in New Hampshire.
One of my close friends was in charge of an F-111 maintenance crew in the Air Force at the time. Quite a thrill actually getting the full ten dollar tour.