Skip to comments.The Untimely Demise of the F-22
Posted on 08/14/2009 6:35:52 AM PDT by WhiteCastle
After the Senate vote, General Peter Pawling, who moved to the staff of U.S. Pacific Command earlier this year after serving as commander of the Hawaii Air National Guard's 154th Wing, told Aviation Week's David Fulghum that he was "still planning on getting those airplanes." "There is nothing out there that can fly against it," Pawling said. "If we had a major conflict [against someone with advanced air defenses], I can't imagine going in there with anything but an F-22."
Indeed, that same day Fulghum quoted another Air Force official, this one identified only as a "senior intelligence officer." "The F-35 is not an F‑22 by a long shot," he told Fulghum, "there's no way it's going to penetrate Chinese Air Defenses if there's ever a clash." Concerns about the F-35's ability to penetrate sophisticated air defenses center on doubts about just how stealthy the plane will be. A study published earlier this year by Air Power Australia (Australia is one of the F-35 partner countries) concluded that the Joint Strike Fighter is "demonstrably not a true stealth aircraft in the sense of designs like the F-117A, B-2A, and F-22A." The F-22 can also fly higher, faster, and farther than the F-35 and all while carrying twice as many air-to-air weapons in stealth mode.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
With Pres. Zero at the helm, congress obviously needs to have 8 new Gulfstreams, more than our country needs to have the ultimate fighter. Since Pres. Zero took the helm, Congressional foreign travel is up 10x over what it was when we actually had a real President. Must be a coincidence, lest I be called a rascist.
I am looking forward to seeing “Barry’s” administration go down in flames.
Thanks to the look, USAF pilot training grads can look forward to flying the drones - from a trailer.
Looks like the Navy is the only choice for aspiring hot shot pilots.
Obama doesn't plan on fighting our foes.
He plans on throwing the doors to the USA wide open and hand us over to them.
Carter scrapped the B1 Bomber in 1977. Reagan brought it back to life. The F22 will come back if a true conservative is elected in 2012.........
I agree completely, we scale back the electronics and sell it to our allies, Japan, Britain, Australia, S. Korea, Israel, Poland, some of these countries must be interested and it will keep a lot of people employed.
We have enjoyed Air Supremacy so long we think its our G-d given right. The current, non-AF DOD leadership (from Gates on down) seems to believe that UAVs can provide all the airpower we need. Eventually we will get into a situation where our (increasingly) outdated fighters get unexpectedly waxed. And then the handwringing will begin.
Oh, and someone posted an article yesterday that now the Dems are complaining about the F-35’s costs. I’m sure that they will cancel that too in favor of some future (vaporware) aircraft that is better and cheaper. [/sarc]
The Oct. 2009 issue of Flight Journal has an interesting article about the F-4 Phantom. It ends by noting that "Out of 2,254 Air Force aircraft lost in the Vietnam War, 444 were Phantoms."
While those AF (not Navy or Marine) loss numbers vary a little depending upon the source, it's sobering to consider how many aircraft we currently have in our inventory, the average age of those planes, our current rate of retirement and how long it takes to ramp up production should we ever fight a war where our aircraft are up against another air force.
Supposedly, the brand new F-4 was far superior to the Soviet fighters and our engineering, tactics and training superior to the defenses and pilots of the Vietnamese (and Soviets), yet those are serious losses.
With our past experience, knowledge of human error, as well as our potential adversaries in mind, do we have anywhere near enough aircraft for whatever combat we may face in the future? Gates and obama seem to think so...who are we to think differently?
It is worse than you think - although this thread is a strong argument for not buying ANY new planes for the USAF...what we really need are loudspeakers on balloons.
Air Force may buzz before bombing in Afghanistan:
“Indeed, that same day Fulghum quoted another Air Force official, this one identified only as a “senior intelligence officer.”
“The F-35 is not an Fâ22 by a long shot,” he told Fulghum, “there’s no way it’s going to penetrate Chinese Air Defenses if there’s ever a clash.”
This should answer your question - when those Chinese air defenses are sold/exported to other countries (like oh maybe I don’t know how ‘bout North Korea or Iran), we will have to ‘negotiate’ with them since we have nothing or nothing in sufficient quantities to get through their defenses - unless as Gates said. “The Air Force must get used to accepting mid to high risk environments.” That is: high losses of planes and pilots.
Naturally, any ‘negotiations’ will end up with the US apologizing and conceding something of great value, like oh let’s say for example, its SOVERENTY! A great idea that the communists like Hussein & Co have fought for since the 1930’s.
So, no, of course, they will not rescind the Obey Amendment - he’s a dem after all and that would set a bad precedent.
Further, it would make our once-upon-a-time allies stronger rather than weaker. Such sales to our once-upon-a-time allies would not only prove the tech, and make the F22 not only the world’s only production 5the gen fighter, but the cheapest as well.
Better to have a plane like the F35 under development and always in the wings to keep the public at bay while quietly destroying the USAF.
Boing Boing is not fighting for the contract to produce more F22s, because for one, they have existential problems that have to be solved first.
The Navy is next for drones.
Our guys fly planes they are more scared of than combat in a lot of cases. Many can’t be flown as they should be for fear of structural failure. You don’t see any F-18s being built either and they are being absolutely beat to death.
We have worn our out equipment defending freedom and liberating those who didn’t have the guts to do it themselves. But we can certainly spend money on political junkets, give aways, pork and buddy bailouts.
AF1 will be worn out by the time zero is through as well. The POS is in that plane almost daily.
Just a thought, someone needs to do a photoshop of AF1 tricked out with spinner wheels, blacked out windows and a homeboy or ghetto look.
Want to bomb someone? the Predator works just fine!
Piloted arcraft is so wrong and not Wright!
No more remains lost for 18 years in the desert!
A good book on the topic is “Clashes: Air Combat over North Vietnam 1965-1972”, by Marshall L Michel III (ISBN 1-55750-585-3). The author knows of what he speaks and pulls no punches.
The B-1’s usefulness came into question when Soviet aircraft radar was discovered to be more sophisticated and effictive in the “look down” role. It was capable of detecting the B-1, so the “fast and low” approach was deemed to be ineffective.
At the same time, we were deploying both ALCM and GLCM cruise missiles, which offered more bang for the buck.
No F/A-18s being built?
What about current production of the Super Hornet, which Boeing is offering in ANOTHER upgrade variant as a hedge against F-35C problems?
The American public elected a Islamo_Marxist who wants to destroy the country. A country that is going broke. We do not need top of the line fighters or NASA because we are heading to third world status.
Blame members of the public who are more concerned with college ball games and other nonsense as they head towards serfdom. Until you get 50,000 members of the military and a decent lawyer in a lwsuit asking for the BC - then you are headed towards serfdom.
What really sucks is our soldiers are getting killed in an Afghan circle jerk while muslims flood into America. Just like Rome in the final years. Afghanistan has been like that for 1,000 + years. Nothing is going to change.
You and others who feel as you do put too much faith in technology and too little in humans and history.
When the F-4 was designed, it was designed without a gun b/c "the experts" knew modern missiles made dogfighting and a gun obsolete. In actual combat, those "experts" quickly learned the folly of their beliefs and their trust in technology at the cost of our pilots.
Drones are a reality and will do more and more in combat, but only the foolish and the fearful believe they are invincible or will replace piloted fighters and bombers.
"The more complicated the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain."
The Untimely Demise of the F-22, and the unfortunate still-birth of the F-35? But, in the long run, both are too expensive to build, and too pilot-limited in their performance. I’d guess that both will be convertible to an optional unmanned/drone config sometime soon.
I knew the Super Hornet was being offered to others but what I have read (including the article referenced in this thread) says that Lockheed is pushing the F-35 at the expense of the F-22 because it is more profitable and will push Boeing (1/3 participant in the F-22) out of the fighter business completely. That doesn’t sound like the F-18 line is going to continue much longer.
The Silent Eagle is being offered as well as the F-18 upgrade but these are workhorses and not fifth gen air superiority fighters. The Australian study is not very complimentary of the F-35 in many roles.
I sand to be corrected but the line for F-18 seems short lived and even at that it doesn’t seem the acquisition program paces the attrition and deterioration pace. The position I take is only opinioneering though.
Where did Gates say that (not questioning you, it’s just that my son is one of those AF pilots who will I guess have to “get used to accepting mid to high risk environments)?
If he said it, Gates is a m***-***ing SOB.
With the F-35s open issues (cost, REAL stealth characteristics), Boeing continues to offer the F/A-18E/F to both partner nations and those not allowed to buy the F-35.
Australia is giving serious thought to the Super Hornet, as is the British navy, given JSF cost overruns and other tech issues.
India is looking at the F/A-18, as well.
I think they’ve still got a market, especially with even more upgrades.
Not true, Lockheed quit fighting for the F22 because they were not gaining any ground with the gov't and the Secy. of Defense and decided to move those resources to selling the F-35 to other customers/countries. They would have loved to have kept that line open and to open the JSF line.
Boeing being pushed out of the fighter business? They did that to themselves. They couldn't even get a grotesquely looking prototype JSF into the air without removing hundreds of pounds of external components and were using basically the same technology for STOVL capabilities. You are aware are you not that Lockheed is not the sole contractor on the JSF? There are other large aerospace contractors involved.
What information is Australia using to base their "less than complimentary assessments" on? They don't even have an aircraft to evaluate. Let's reserve judgement until the actual Flight Testing with actual aircraft gets into full swing and we start seeing what the aircraft is truly capable of before casting aspersions without facts.
Search and you will find.
Yes Sec Gates is as you say a “m***-***ing SOB” much like the other Gates (the ‘professor’).
I think Bush picked him knowing he was bad, but not as bad as someone else Hussein might choose on his own, if he, Bush, had picked a good guy.
Clearly Gates is doing what Hussein wants - shutting down the USAF, in preparation to eliminating the entire US Mil - Hussein must, if he is to fulfill his campaign promises to create a Civilian National Security Force equal to the current US mil, and to unilaterally disarm.
Also correctly stated your son will have to accept orders from the USAF Brass to fly in such envirnoments - it was to the Pentagon and USAF Brass Gates was speaking to when he made that statement.
And neither will the F-22 unless it's provided SEAD by one of these:
B-1 that Carter killed was the mach 2+ high altitude B-1A. When Reagan brought it back in the 80s, it was the stealthier mach 1+ low altitude B-1B. The B model ditched the variable geometry engine inlets necessary to approach and exceed mach 2, in favor of fixed inlets with a much smaller radar return.
It's worse than that. The experts were more or less correct, maybe a little ahead of their time. But it was those who set policy that killed those pilots. The F-4 was designed for BVR combat, but rules of engagement during Vietnam prevented BVR engagements.
Sarah will bring the F-22 back in 2013.
There’s that little detail about the success rate of the IR Sidewinder compared to the RADAR Sparrow.