This is a representation of the chickenhawk bureaucrats.
Posted on 08/05/2009 6:12:23 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
This is a representation of the chickenhawk bureaucrats.
But this time, we’ll know that the Russkies, Chicoms or some other enemy in the future we’d face will be equipped with the latest Flankers and PAK FAs.
Yep. But we must accept high-risk encounters ie lots of downed planes and dead pilots. However, making an airforce on the cheap, means we will have to re-manufacture lots of cheaply made Sopwith Camels and Spads - Gates knows what he is doing, doesn’t he?
Those pesky Flankers, PACs, SA 400, and Anti-Access weapons will never be able to detect our new WWI airforce.
When it comes, if it ever does, perhaps we can have US pilots wave pictures of the still-to-be-produced F35s at the opposition - sure to strike fear in their evil hearts.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.
Sorry you misunderstood the satire.
SecDef Robert Gates is the #1 Master Chickenhawk (shhhhhhhh) 
USAF air superiority depends on this one fighter: The Raptor.
In fact, for FY 2008, it only had a 62 percent mission capable rate. It has never flown a combat sortie over either Iraq or Afghanistan, despite the fact that the 1 FW at Langley (an F-22 wing) was IOC in 2005 and FOC in 2007.
This 62% Mission capable rate comes at a high pricetag, too. $360 MILLION per plane. Yes, that is $360,000,000 for ONE fighter plane. No wonder they would've never wanted to send the planes to Afghanistan or Iraq. You couldn't afford to lose one (even a loss due to a breakdown).
The only reason the F-22 wasn't killed during the Bush administration was that Congress really didn't care what the Bush administration wanted and appropriated the money anyway. Why? This is a Murtha thing. And, by the way, it's bipartisan.
Let's look at some of the key supporters for the program. The prime contractors (Boeing - Lockheed team) contributed over $78,000 to Murtha last cycle. More importantly, as the chairman of the Armed Services subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee, he controls whether or not that item stays in the budget or not. (His support for programs that benefit other members, of either party, help guarantee their support for pork-barrel government projects, apparently unrelated, for his district).
Who else are big supporters? Look at a few of them:
Bottom line: there's a lot of money going on here. The reason Congress is supporting this has NOTHING to do with national defense. It has to do with money, lobbyists, and / or pieces of F-22 being built in their districts.
If somebody can show me a Congressman who has come out and who has NO interest in this (either by district jobs or political contributions), I'll be very, very surprised.
As for the Air Force Association (who wrote this piece), it does great work. I am not besmirching the AFA, but you've got to keep in mind that it is a private industry-military organization, it *is not* part of the Air Force. If you take a look at AFA's officers, you will find that all of them are former AF people, but they are also either current or former aerospace-defense industry people too. For example, Joseph Sutter (AFA Chairman) was formerly with a electromechanical component manufacturer, Jim Lauducci (AFA Vice Chair) works for Harris, Sanford Schnitt is on the Board of Directors of Comdial...and so on. The point is that I have never read an Air Force magazine that said "this major acquisition program is a dog. The AF ought to scrap it." Not for the F-22, not for anything. Not to say it hasn't happened, but I don't remember it.
Bottom line is that yeah, we need to have a replacement for the F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s, but the F-22 isn't it. If a plane is so expensive that you won't use it ($360M a pop) and it's so undependable that they won't trust it (mission capable 62%), what the heck good is it?
This sounds reasonable to me. Is anyone working on a replacement?
So, planning ahead and massively spending and dedicating to a weapons programs isn't that productive.
Some of your points are valid, some are not. The 62% mx rate is low, it may be accurate. The F16 and F15 were probably over 80% (we’re about 83% now in my squadron) at similar times in the program. Thats a rough guess, any MX folks on FR please chime in. 62% is not good, but it is being worked on.
The price. Where to start. The program was supposed to have over 750 aircraft purchased. The lead up to IOC was too long (way too long) which led to over runs. So, instead of amortizing the up front R&D costs over 750 aircraft it is now amortized over 184. The price on a Raptor is $135M on accident reports. I had a friend pick one up from Lockheed, he said the paperwork said $108M, who knows what it actually is. But your $360M number I have a hard time believing. Lets say its accurate though. The current price is $108 to $135M to buy them now, and the R&D cost is ALREADY PAID FOR. The USAF is NOT going to pay $350M or $500m or $1B per aircraft. Steep at $135M; yes, but an F16 (Blk 60/70) is over $50M, and a F15C/E is about $65M. Call the F22 price right now as double the cost of an F15 and a bit more for an F-16. You could buy 50 F16s and not hit the target. It pains me to say this; I fly them! But you can’t hit the target if you are turned into a loose collection of hair, teeth and eyeballs before you get to the target....
Here’s the problem; You cannot fight China (and several other countries) with F15s or F16s. You can’t do it, period dot, end of story, this is my job (and has been my career for over 18 years), there is no debate, etc. etc. etc. The SA 10 surface to air missile system and all its derivatives have taken that option off the table. It would be a slaughter. And that system is proliferating like wild fire.
So, in summary, they don’t cost $350M apiece, they cost roughly twice the cost of an F16. Either it or something like it is needed. You CANNOT penetrate an SA-10 Missile Engagement Zone (MEZ) with an F16 or F15. Either buy more at $135M per aircraft and lower the per unit cost or come up with something else. That “something else” program would take a looong time and probably cost even more! For all the folks about to yell “Get UAVs!”, please choke yourselves. Just kidding. The tech isn’t there yet and won’t be for a long time. It is the future. It’s not here yet.
You can (and need to) buy more F16s and A10s to plug the gap until the F35 comes on line. The F35 is real expensive too. Pulling some F16s or A10s out of the boneyard, buffing them up with new tech, and extending the airframe life would be a lower cost option to plug the gap in “follow on forces” that would come in after the F22 does it’s thing. We still need them, and we need more of them as the ones we have are almost at the end of their airframe lives. But no matter how you slice it, unless we’d like to be second fiddle in the air superiority world (not a good idea) you cannot do it with any technology other than the F22. I haven’t (and won’t touch it on this forum) gone into the threats coming on line in the form of Su-27/35/30mki, Gen5 stealth projects from the Russians or Chinese, or their new stable of air to air missiles. I’d rather avoid getting a visit from the OSI or the DIA. These aircraft make the tactical problem even worse, in case you’re wondering.
I’m not even a fan of the F22; we gutted the other forces to pay for it and didn’t explore other options when we could have (about 1998) but it’s too late to change now, and it’s all we’ve got that can do the job in the current double digit SAM threat environment. It’s expensive, but it gets the job done, unlike lots of other things the US government buys.
The unit cost is the total cost of the program divided by # of jets. Congress chops the # of jets being procured and guess what happens to unit cost as a result? Then they cite the later dollar figure and say, “It was so expensive we had to cut it.” Two years ago, the unit cost being thrown around was $125 million. Chop the # being produced and Voila!! it now costs $360 million.
It’s the same thing with the B-2 bomber. Everybody bitches about them being $2 billion each. That’s what happens when you chop the procurement number from 132 to 21.
As for the current mission capable rate, it’s 70% not 62%. You’re citing a figure from 2004.
The “facts” presented by the Washington Post are not correct and nearly every assertion has been rebutted but there’s no convincing the people who insist on making a career of being naysayers. It’s always a lot easier to complain and shoot holes in something. That’s not to say that the F-22 is wonderful or perfect, it isn’t. There’s a lot of things about the program (technical, acquisition, and contracting) that are a real good example of what not to do, but cutting it off at the knees now that it’s actually being fielded isn’t right, either.
The Russians and Chinese have stolen enough technology to make some really top-of-the-line fighters. We have to move ahead, too. This isn’t the 1980s where we were operating modern jets and everybody else (including the USSR) was operating jets fielded in the 1960s that were carrying 1950s technology. They’ve modernized their forces while ours were neglected.
You obviously don’t understand the need to “community organize” the military. ACORN will defend us— against those who still believe in the Constitution.
But, but, California had a program for clunkers years ago and look how well they’re doing. Read Tom McClintock’s piece that was posted a while ago.
I guess you missed the snark with the WWI planes - those are the sort of planes which Gates & Co would like - cheap to make. But really the high-tech stuff on the Flankers et al would not see the Spads, and not be able to slow down enough to shoot. So Forward to the Past!
Interesting.
Let me get this straight - after Congress has killed further F22 production, after thousands are put out of work, after all the skills the workers had disappear because there is no other air superiority plane in production for them to transfer to, you write a long winded-piece filled with disinformation defending why the F22 is a bad plane, regurgitating all the same points Gate’s boys made and then justifying that point of view by claiming you got the same info from people who have “actually have worked on the plane” - what an unoriginal canard!
Are you afraid that some magical thing might happen and the F22 be reinstated?
The cost you cite applies to the first batch of planes produced, as more were produced the costs fell a lot. However, had the original 750 been built, the costs would have fallen even further, and if Democrat Obey’s Amendment banning overseas sale had been waved for the Japanese, Australians, and Israelis - all of who would purchase 100s - the price per plane would have fallen even more dramatically. So your cost argument is totally bogus.
So sit back and relax when the next air challenge comes along, because thanks to your and others efforts - USAF pilots will be as Sec. Gates plans: at high-risk against exported next-gen Russian and Chinese fighters - to the extent our guys with their aging antiques would be best served staying in their hangers and the troops they would protect remaining home.
Glad you agree that we need replacement aircraft. Perhaps you will volunteer your expertise and analytical ability in designing a cheap, exportable replacement to compete with the very expensive, very high-tech Flankers, PACs and J-Series air superiority fighters?
In my mind, I think they need to look at the mission of the fighter again.
In my mind, there are two basic missions: ground attack and air superiority.
For ground attack, Predators and Tomahawks can do a large amount of the job. If you can put 100 UAVs in the air for every F-22, then how much do you need manned ground attack aircraft? Maybe you need more UAVs and more air control aircraft.
For running wild weasel type missions, you could equip the radar and SAM detection equipment in a UAV, along with the appropriate HARM missiles.
For air superiority, again, you could equip a UAV with more modern air-to-air missiles and up-to-date detection equipment. Those missions would have to be semi-autonomous, to have a human confirm a airborne target as a bogey and not a neutral (or allied friendly), but the remaining functions could be done autonomously. Granted, they would suck in dogfights, but, in reality, how many dogfights are actually necessary nowadays?
For close air support, you could again use a UAV equipped properly, but it would need to have some human control in order to minimize fratricide. But, again, it's not like that stuff isn't happening now.
UAVs have one other big advantage: human factors engineering is not required to make them go. The biggest limitation on aircraft design, to my knowledge, is the amount of stress you can put the pilot under. If it wasn't for the pilot, you could design an aircraft to be far more maneuverable and agile than it they can now. (How many humans could take a 14G turn?)
The downside is that you have to absolutely have reliable, high speed, jam resistant data links in order to maintain human control (when required). But, proper control of wild weasel missions can remove jammers (which would wreak havoc on CAS aircraft). Besides, data links are part of the deal right now anyway (how do you think they control smart bombs and make adjustments to T-LAM missions today?)
So what I'd do is to make a transition to unmanned aircraft with an increased number of air control aircraft (where the pilots would be located).
Just IMHO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.