Posted on 01/21/2010 11:31:48 PM PST by myknowledge
The Air Force is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on two fighter jets that probably will never be used to support troops on the ground in Iraq or Afghanistan.
Congress has decided to cap production of the F-22, removing funding for the fifth-generation fighter from the 2010 military budget. And the F-35 — also known as the Joint Strike Fighter — won’t be ready for prime time before 2013, according to the latest estimates.
Critics of the new fighters say they are too expensive and not needed in today's warfare, while proponents argue that the current aircraft are not as advanced as the F-22 and F-35, both of which would help the U.S. maintain air superiority for decades to come.
The programs have come under heavy criticism, mainly for cost overruns.
Each F-22 — there are about 140 of them assigned to six stateside bases — will have cost about $350 million under current estimates. The U.S. is awaiting delivery of roughly 50 more of them.
Winslow Wheeler, director of the Straus Military Reform Project of the Center for Defense Information and a vocal critic of both programs, predicts each F-35 might eventually cost almost $200 million.
Guy Ben-Ari, a fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said the costs are "raising eyebrows left and right. At the end of the day, it comes down to resources, and they’re not endless."
Despite those concerns, the fighters’ advantages cannot be ignored, some officials say.
Maj. John Peterson, requirements officer for the F-35A at Air Force headquarters, said each fifth-generation fighter has four features that make it superior to fourth-generation models such as the F-16, F-15 and F/A-18. Some fourth-generation models might have some of the capabilities, but none has all four, he said.
Those four are the ability to evade enemy radar; maneuverability; the ability to take on varied tasks; and the ability to translate more data into usable information for the pilot.
A look at each aircraft:
F-22 Raptor
Christopher Preble, writing on the blog he maintains for the Cato Institute, said he believes the F-22 "likely never will" participate in actions over Iraq or Afghanistan. But Preble, director of foreign policy studies for the institute, said that doesn’t necessarily make it a bad aircraft.
"I have no reason to question the F-22's capability," he said in a recent telephone interview.
Ben-Ari, a member of CSIS’ Defense-Industrial Initiatives Group, agreed with that assessment.
He said the F-22 might be able to carry out missions to support ground troops, but said that other aircraft such as the F-16 and A-10 are better designed to do so. The F-22 is thought to be better suited for taking on enemy aircraft and anti-aircraft positions as opposed to enemy forces engaged with friendly troops on the ground.
But there is the cost factor.
Preble cited a Washington Post article that stated that the cost of flying an F-22 is about $40,000 per hour.
So using the F-22 for a mission that other aircraft could handle, Ben-Ari said, "would be in the same manner as a Lamborghini used to bring your kids to school. You could do it, but do you really need to?"
Maj. Clay Bartels, F-22 requirements officer for Air Force headquarters at the Pentagon, said he believes the F-22 could take on ground-support missions today if called upon. But he said its primary role — ensuring U.S. superiority in the skies — isn’t needed in today’s wars.
"Air superiority is achieved already," he said in a phone interview.
Supporters say the F-22 is so technologically superior to other fighters that it will use advanced detecting and targeting systems to take out enemy planes from miles away. In such cases, enemy planes might not have even known they were in a fight until it was too late.
F-35A Joint Strike Fighter
The Air Force expects to receive the first of its 1,763 aircraft in 2013 — if testing goes according to plan.
The Marine Corps recently took possession of the first versions of the F-35 from Lockheed Martin and has begun its own testing. Congress overrode Pentagon misgivings and decided to spend an additional $465 million on an alternative engine for the F-35.
The Air Force, which projects that the F-35 will make up half its fleet in 2025, is involved in a system development and demonstration phase that Peterson said is set to last until 2014.
Wheeler, who once worked for the General Accounting Office, said that means the service will have purchased a significant number of aircraft that haven’t been fully tested. And he said he believes too much of the current testing is in the form of simulated models and table-top theories. He said more tests must involve actually flying the F-35.
Peterson and Bartels said the F-35 and F-22 are designed to provide specific, complementary roles for the service. But they’re only part of the picture. The service projects that some of the current generation of fighters will be used for decades to come.
Ben-Ari said the Air Force needs to not only deal with conflicts today, but also plan for future ones. "For the missions we’re conducting today, the current fleet is capable," he said. "For future ones … I’m not so sure.
"You can’t just draw up a design for a new aircraft and produce it in six months," he said. "You’re hedging against future risk. No politician or military officer wants to be the one who, looking back through history, canceled a project or ignored a risk."
We already have aircraft and UAVs to do that, and we are building more.
These aircraft are for tomorrow's wars--with the Chicoms or a resurgent Russia. It would be mighty foolish to think A-10s and AC-130s alone are adequate for those roles.
War is attrition. The bathtub is to give pilots confidence to enter the threat zone. After that it is academic. Like wearing a helmet. It is there to get the snuffy infantry into the fight. After that it is as it always was.
A-10’s are part of a system, a tool, and used with in its parameters will do fine. If not, they won’t.
We’ve had now almost seventy years of fighting against third world forces, and in the case of the Army, especially, always poorly equipped, skilled and prepared.
By and large our military has been eurocentric. It should be world centric and most of the world is third worldish with those types of non integrated weapons, training and combatants.
Still don’t need them. We’ll all go nuclear. They are cheap, effective, have a lot of political punch. The Russians and Chinese have a good, long history of totally emotionless use of available power.
And, our more educated Generals, and even the likes of lowly me, are well aware of the Russian and Chinese way of war.
I guess the Chinese and even Russia, certainly Europe and maybe also India could counter the efford of any nation trying to dominate the skies by this specific form of a stealthy air-superiority weapon system.
Imaging Radar (synthetic aperture) tech is known to these countries I guess. Advanced IR and UV sensors as communication tech. to link these informations and I guess the F22 was visible enough to be homed in by a stand off missile.
The time of UAVs that are stealthy AND cheap and linked and effective has definatly come not only in the US and active electronic warfare has never gone out of style.
Clarence Kelly Johnson was such a brilliant aeronautical engineer, but with an irascible temper, and he mastered in project management with cool efficiency.
Up-armored M113s are better.
Anyway, there is hardly any aerial opposition in a sub-national conflict like Iraq and Afghanistan. Using the Raptor or Lightning II is unnecessary.
But in a high-tech nation-state war, the F-22 Raptor would be a necessity. Why?
That’s why I posted the picture. The up armored HUMVEE was a hack, slap dash solution to the US Army ignoring mine threats for the last fifty years.
If we stop and stand stock still, they might catch up in 20 or 30 years. If we don't, they will never get without shouting distance. Ever.
That isn't what was talked about or compared. What was talked about was air superiority. But let's integrate the two: air and ground.
Without air superiority, imagine the ground conflict with the other side controlling the air. “Highway of Death” ring a bell? Or the entire scope of Gulf War One and Two could be considered.
But what if one side has equal or better air? For this we go back to WWII. How important to ground battles was air superiority? Would the Battle of the Bulge be different with German control of the air? Would Normandy be even possible? Would you have gotten there in the first place if Germany had won the Battle of Britain and Germany had invaded and conquered England?
What I talked about was the blowing of money on shovel ready scams and money bubbles blown on socialism, not allocation of resources to the military.
So let's talk about ground pounders. What is it with the M-4? All the tests show it isn't the first choice as an infantry rifle and there are other better options that are more reliable. What happened to the next generation tank? What is the future of UGV’s?
I'm in no way against giving the same edge to ground forces, and the navy, and space based defenses, that I promote for air superiority.
And, I haven't heard anything against the quality of the officer corps now. What have you heard?
Thank you for your informed reply, spetznaz.Judging by your name, I will make the assumption that you are well-versed in military strategy.
I was unaware that we lost any A-10’s in the Gulf Wars.I will look that up.
I think that it is very short-sighted of our government to short-change the development and procurement of the F-22 and F-35’s.
But, the little man occupying the White House is “uncomfortable with the word ‘victory’”.
I think that it is highly likely that we will be in a conflict in the future, as per your scenario. And, we will pay dearly for the fecklessness of the Left.
You are not going to get the same. The pie is the pie. One dollar on F-22 is not going somewhere else.
We’re talking a dysfunctional system that has historically, at least since the first WW, spent money on bad systems and not given the troops what they want, when then want.
The M-16/4 is a fine enough weapon. Soldiers always hope for some super weapon, it’s called a tank. Tankers want infantry. And so it goes.
We haven’t need Air Superiority for seventy years. If then. The Russians didn’t have it and they reached Berlin first.
The brances split the mil money pie evenly, when the Army/Marines has been doing most of the killing, dying and needing equipment.
Think of the Air Force beuorcacy history. Didn’t want the F-16. Didn’t want gun on planes. Didn’t want or keep the A-10. Hasn’t supported the Army/grunts with tactical intel intercept aircraft. Didn’t want inter area lift, so the Army burns up Chinooks. Didn’t want the UAV’s, and then only with flight qual pilots.
I really think the Army should get it’s own Air force and leave space, air superiority, and long strike to the Air Force.
The officer corps is poorly educated, recruits from third tier schools. The reading lists are for juiveniles. Something I would expect a E-7 to read. Very, miniscue of the officers are from elite universities. Stanford, MIT, Brown and yes, Harvard and Yale.
An exampler of an officer of the worst, ticket punching, coat holding, brown nosing yes man, General Casey.
An example of the poor, pathetic non tinking was the miltary’s post enetering Baghdag plan. There was none. Zero. Nada.
If I was Bush, I would of had a shoe box with General Stars in it.
Incorrect. The first aircraft shot down in Desert Storm was Speicher's F/A-18C on 17 January 1991. The first A-10 was lost on 2 February 1991. During OIF the first fixed wing aircraft lost was a Tornado GR4.A on 23 March 2003. The lone A-10 lost during OIF went down on 8 April 2003.
Two. The dysfunctional system isn't dysfunctional, it is neglected. This system has produced weapons systems that are the benchmark for the rest of the world. What has been neglected is the contracting integrity from the government, not industry. Sharpen the pencils, define the terms, get good results. It has happened before. We were and still are the arsenal of democracy. We produce more and better equipment than anyone else. If there are bad systems they do not last or are supplanted by newer ones.
A good example is the M-4 we used. The army did a series of tests due to the higher rate of malfunctions of the M-4 and showed the rifle came in last among those tested. There were better rifles available including the XM-8. This is where the politics come in. The better rifle isn't selected. Not the industry fault, the military decided they didn't want to commit when something better might be coming down the road from the dysfunctional system. That was an organizational choice.
As for not needing air superiority for the past 70 years, that is a comment so out there it is difficult to address. The Russians wouldn't have reached Berlin without Allied air superiority. How you can divorce the Western front from the Eastern front is beyond me. Any more than you can divorce the air war from Italy against the oil supplies of Germany.
And finally, since the pie analogy was already discredited, in no way do I advocate shorting one service on behalf of the next.
As to the comments of officer quality, I find your examples lacking, your analogy wanting, and really a poor view of a large group of people.
If anyone else would like to comment on the current crop of officers, please chime in. I would defer to more direct contacts and examples.
Ok, lets just look at your M-4 example to get some idea as to the, ahem, quality of your...notions.
First we already have them in large numbers, the troops trained with them. Paid, trained, experinced.
So, even if a new spanky, gee whiz rifle exist, what does the cost of junking the perfectly fine existing stock effect the Army. I’d say about half a billion. Maybe more. You got the new costs, and the waste of the old and all it’s experiences with the operators for decades now. And in the Army’s case, what does the Army not fund for this marginal improvement? Real world, your call, tell me who in the Army Pie gets it in the neck?
So, in this one example, you show yourself unable to handle simple variables of captured cost investment returns vs wasted expenditures on replacement equipment, with marginal, if any, improvement.
And I’m suppose to think you can handle more complex, costly, longer term examples? Yeah. Right.
The question seems to have turned from good enough verses the next best thing, to cost benefit analysis of improvement.
In my scenario the XM-8 rifle, which has gone through all the tests the army wanted, is purchased and distributed to the troops because I want them to have the rifle that won't jam in combat. Just like I want the Air Force to have the fighter that can survive air combat.
That, apparently, isn't your priority. As for “junking” all those perfectly good existing stock, well, the same argument could have been made when we transitioned from the M-14. So that doesn't fly. But most of the rifles, can be parted for surplus parts or modified and sold to the civilian market (CMP for example). So that isn't a zero sum game either.
Finally, I already discredited your pie analogy, why stick with it? The XM-8 rifle is reported to be easier to clean, maintain, train on, and use. Sometimes spanky gee whiz new rifles are an improvement. It is why they don't use trapdoor Springfields anymore. How about we stop the waste and fraud from Medicare and Medicaid they prat about and buy the rifle? Then no “Real world” army pie eaters “get it in the neck”
All weapons jam. Every. Single. one.
There will be no effective improvement with the new weapon.
Weapon contractors want it. Army weapons percurmeant
bureaucrats want it.
I noticed you couldn’t in this case tell me what to cut from the Army’s budget. Typical.
You didn’t discredit, nor even address other than gratuitously the pie argument.
So, as soon as the lefties give up welfare, the troops can have the candy?
Well, that’ll be a long wait.
Meanwhile the Pentagon IG has released a report that 25,000 Americans have been killed or wounded because the Army didn’t have fifty year technology MRAPs.
Other things the Army messed up. Sights. First used in combat in the 70’s. Commonly deployed to troops in .......1996. 25 years. Way to go.( Sights are important to infantry. They really help, especially in low light ).
Army weapons procurement bureaucrats don't want it. They want to stick with what they have regardless of the troops so your assertion makes no sense.
I did refute the pie argument already, you might have to go back a post or two where I explain the budgetary process.
Before I put to rest the rifle issue for you, where do you get that I want to put the troops at risk by not developing anti- IED technology? That is diametrically opposed to everything I have argued so far from air superiority to reliable rifles for ground troops. So I don't know where that bit of silliness comes from.
This should explain the weapon jam thing for you. The source is at the end. It isn't where I originally read it but it is what I remember reading:
Late December 2007: DID obtains some exact results from the Army’s testing. The Army has now done 3 dust tests. In the late 2006/Jan 2007 report “Baseline Reliability and Dust Assessment for the M4, M16, and M249,” the M4 jammed 9,836 times – 1 jam every 6 rounds. In a May 2007 “Extreme Dust Test II”, with no competitors, the M4 had 1 jam every 88 rounds, using heavy lubrication. In the November 2007 “Extreme Dust Test III”, as DID has discussed, the competing rifles were subject to significantly more maintenance and lubrication than elite American forces like Delta used in their weapon selection process, or indeed in HK’s own field testing of its HK416s prior to shipment.
We’ll begin with the Army’s overall results, from its own release:
“Even with extreme dust test III’s 98.6 percent success rate there was a total of 863 class 1 and 2 weapon/magazine stoppages with 19 class 3 stoppages. During extreme dust test II conducted during the summer, there were 296 total class 1 and 2 stoppages and 11 class 3 stoppages.
A class 1 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear within 10 seconds; a class 2 stoppage is one a Soldier can clear, but requires more than 10 seconds; and, class 3 is a stoppage that requires an armorer to clear.”
DID will simply point out that 10 seconds can be a rather fatally long time when people are shooting at you, and at your friends. So, what happens when the Extreme Dust Test III stoppages are broken out by weapon?
The M4 Carbine is the Army’s existing weapon.
•882 jams, 1 jam every 68 rounds, again using heavy lubrication. In addition all 10 of the M4 barrels needed to be replaced, and a number of their parts were replaced during the test. None of the cold hammer forged HK416 and XM-8 barrels needed replacement.
The HK416 is a modified M4 carbine, which can be and has been converted from existing rifles. Used by US Special Forces.
•233 jams, 1 jam every 257 rounds, 3.77x more reliable than the M4.
FN SCAR is US special Forces’ new weapon, designed by SOSOCM. It just went into production in late 2007.
•226 jams, 1 jam every 265 rounds, 3.85x more reliable than the M4
XM-8 is a developmental rifle. It’s an advanced version of HK’s G36, a rifle in wide use by many NATO armies. The US Army cancelled the XM-8 weapons family 2 years ago.
•127 jams, I jam every 472 rounds, 6.95x more reliable than the M4.
The failure of M4 barrels at 6,000 rounds confirms SOCOM objections that date back to the Feb 23/01 report “M4A1 5.56mm Carbine and Related Systems Deficiencies and Solutions,” which ended up concluding that “M4A1 Carbine… does not meet the requirements of SOF.” The barrel replacement also increases the rifle’s life cycle costs when compared with the 10,000 round advertised barrel life, as additional barrels are sold to the Army for $240 each. A longer, heavier M16 barrel, which is a competed production weapon, cost $100 by comparison. While the dust test is indeed an extreme test, the 10,000 round requirement is under “all conditions” – not just ideal conditions.
Dec 18/07: The US Army publishes “M-4 Carbine Has High Soldier Confidence Despite Test.” Not exactly a headline to inspire confidence, as the Army acknowledges that the M4 Carbine finished last among the 4 contenders – but amazingly, asserts that the rifle is just fine and shows no interest in buying even the HK416’s parts swap-out into the existing M4:
“After being exposed to the heavy dusting, 10 of each weapon fired 6,000 rounds apiece. They were fired in 50 120-round cycles. Each was then wiped and re-lubricated at the 600 round mark. After 1,200 rounds were fired from each weapon, they were fully cleaned and re-lubricated… “While the M-4 finished fourth out of four, 98 percent of all the rounds fired from it went off down range as they were supposed to do,” Brig. Gen. [Mark] Brown [commander of Program Executive Office Soldier and the Natick Soldier Systems Center] said. “However, the three other candidates did perform better at about a 99 percent rate or better, which is a mathematically statistically significant difference, but not an operationally statistical difference.”.... The Army has put an option on an existing contract for 64,450 M4s, according to the general.”
“A mathematically statistically significant difference, but not an operationally statistical difference.” Statistically, 99% is a 100% improvement over 98%. Operationally, I jam every 68 rounds is almost one jam for every 2 30-round magazines. Whereas one jam in 257 rounds would only happen about once in 8 30-round magazines. Readers are left to contemplate the operational significance of those probabilities in a sustained, serious firefight.
Defense Industry Daily.com quoting Military.com
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/the-usas-m4-carbine-controversy-03289/
1 jam every 68 rounds verses 1 jam every 472 rounds. No effective improvement, huh? OK. You are a troop in a firefight in Afghanistan. Your weapon will jam once every two 30 round magazine verses once every fifteen. Leisler voted to give you the first rifle. IrishCatholic voted to give you the second. Just for the record. That settles the final point. Thank you.
But, back to the topic. What you can do, or not do, in the comfort of you lounger to your M4 really isn't the point. Giving you enough ammo and range time at the local range isn't the point.
What an 18 year old can do in Afghanistan after 7 hours walking up a valley IS. So much for that point.
Next. This isn't the same bureaucracy that switched over the .45 for the Beretta. It is a whole new one. They reproduce like viruses but still retire every so often. That is why the guy in 1964 isn't to blame for what is done in 2009. It also isn't the same crew that took 25 years to do anything.
But, the same type ‘crew’ as you say, got you the M-1 Abrams tank, the Striker, The Bradley (yes, it is improved), The MLRS, the smart bomb, GPS, the B-52, the B-2, the F-22, the A-10, the Excalibur artillery shell, Predator drones, etc. ad infinitum.
So much for that drivel.
Finally, as I stated...now numerous times, I don't have anything against anything that helps the troops including helping them defeat IED’s.
“Me? I don’t carry water for anyone. You get thousands of patriotic Americans killed,”
That is incorrect. That I will hold you to. Show how, in anything I posted,you can say that. You can't. I will be gracious and say you were mistaken. Otherwise you are a liar. To repeat it after I have called you on it makes you a dishonorable contemptible liar.
P.S. Use the spell check feature. I haven't referred to it in our discourses as I chose to address the points you were attempting unsuccessfully to make. However, it is becoming distracting.
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.