Posted on 05/19/2005 6:58:23 PM PDT by iso
Well, there's one thing it DOESN'T do.
One F/A-22 cannot be in, say, Iraq and Guam at the same time.
I can't argue with that but in fact this aircraft is so good that, using your example of Guam and Iraq, we will need less of them in each place then we currently do with the older aircraft. If 10 F-16 @$90M each are currently needed in these theaters at a total cost of $900M plus support and we can get by with only 6 F-22's @$110M at a cost of $660M + support, that would appear to be a savings of $240M or so. It's not the amount of money you spend, it's what you can accomplish with the amount of money you spend.
"I can't argue with that but in fact this aircraft is so good that, using your example of Guam and Iraq, we will need less of them in each place then we currently do with the older aircraft."
What if one of those airplanes breaks?
"Did we forget the Gulf War and enforcement of no-fly zones?"
Gulf War: effectively nil air-to-air work.
We've shot down, what, three airplanes in air combat since then?
We're pricing ourselves out of business. Sovle that problem first, then come back and start yammering.
I'll dig up the Moscow comparison (as well as a Hanoi comparison) in a bit.
from: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3070293/
The Iraqi air defense network has always been primarily concentrated around Baghdad. At the start of the Gulf War in 1991, 552 SAM launchers were within 60 miles of the capital. Another 380 AAA sites containing 1,267 guns were identified by U.S. intelligence around Baghdad.
Then, as now, the Iraqi force was formidable. In total, there were some 20,000 launchers of all types. However, over 7,000 of those were short-range shoulder-fired SAMs, and an even greater number were AAA guns of 23mm or larger.
The most feared threat was the long-range ex-Soviet SA-2, SA-3, and SA-6 SAMs. But during the Gulf War, for a variety of reasons, Iraq was never able to properly employ its weapons. Its network was not designed to defend against an attack as large as the one waged by the United States.
There were still thousands of shoulder-launched infrared-guided SAMs and AAA guns without radars — weapons that rely on the skill of the trigger man rather than electronics to hit home. The portable, shoulder-launched SAMs, in fact, ended up being the leading cause of Gulf War aircraft losses for coalition forces, accounting for 13 of 38 downed aircraft — 34 percent. Anti-aircraft artillery, also known as “flak,” was the leading cause of damage: Iraqi gunners were real “trigger pullers,” sending up barrages of fire against approaching aircraft.
Most people don't appreciate how well our forces did in the first gulf war. This article will give you a sense of how potent their AAW capabilities were. I somethimes think we made it look too easy.
From: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/air-defence-equipment.htm
"The Iraqi air defense system was formidable, combining the best features of several systems. The multi-layered, redundant, computer- controlled air defense network around Baghdad was more dense than that surrounding most Eastern European cities during the Cold War, and several orders of magnitude greater than that which had defended Hanoi during the later stages of the Vietnam War."
Always a possibility. Of course an F-16 can break also. If the military where to carry every possibility of negative impact out to the nth degree then we wouldn't bother doing anything because the possibility exists that at some point men or equipment MIGHT fail. I do see your point that if we have less aircraft in theater each loss is magnified. This is partially overcome by having enough spare parts on hand to fix the aircraft. Besides that there will always be the possibility of moving other F-22's to the battle zone if circumstances dictate that action.
:And Baghdad was more heavily defended than Moscow was, and we used another high priced plane the F-117 ($122million/copy) to destroy their defenses."
More heavily defended than Moscow? Yeah, right. Where were the nuclear-tipped SAMs?
"Do you promise well never face A2A combat again? China has close to 2000 aircraft."
Aircraft require intact airfields. Killing the airfields--namely, parked aircraft and the maintenance, ordnance, and fueling facilities--kills the enemy air force. Airplanes cannot stay aloft indefinitely, nor can they fly when the maintenance troops are dead.
"An air superiority fighter has to be able to fight just not other aircraft, but survive in a SAM environment. No current fighter we have can actually do that without taking loses."
What has our loss rate been in SAM environments since Linebacker II ended? (And had SAC been marginally competent in Linebacker II, they would've avoided the appalling loss rate on nights 1 and 3.)
"Didn't know we were going out of business, guess we should stop all military spending."
Quit putting words in my mouth.
I said we're pricing ourselves out of business. We won't be able to afford enough airplanes to perform the mission unless we set our procurement house in order.
We can be honest and pay the full freight on R&D, preproduction work, etc., up front--AS UNITED STATES LAW REQUIRES--or we can continue to break the law and price ourselves out of business, because no one is going to spend $110 million per bird AND buy enough aircraft to do the mission.
"We haven't had too many submarine battles lately either."
No, we haven't. And too many US Navy submarines are married to the mission of fighting submarine battles.
"Or for that matter opposed amphibious landings, so lets get rid of the Marines."
The Marines are getting out of the opposed amphibious landing business--look up "Operational Maneuver From The Sea."
"You build your military for future battles. And you never know who the enemy might be. We might be fighting a country that buys French made fighter jets in 5 years."
We've done that before. Didn't do them much good, did it?
"Always a possibility. Of course an F-16 can break also."
There's more F-16s available than there ever will be F/A-22s available.
"This is partially overcome by having enough spare parts on hand to fix the aircraft."
Spare parts for the F/A-22 are going to be as scarce as the airplanes themselves. Expensive airplanes have expensive parts.
"Besides that there will always be the possibility of moving other F-22's to the battle zone if circumstances dictate that action."
Sure. All you have to do is write off another theater.
"There's more F-16s available than there ever will be F/A-22s available."
So what? You seem to be saying that if an F-22 is out of service it is permanent and that we will soon run out of them as one after the other becomes inoperable.. Just what % of these aircraft do you think will be inoperable at any one time anyway?
"This is partially overcome by having enough spare parts on hand to fix the aircraft."
Spare parts for the F/A-22 are going to be as scarce as the airplanes themselves. Expensive airplanes have expensive parts.
Why will they be any more scarce then parts for the F-16? As for the expense of the parts, what has that got to do with anything? Given that we can get along with fewer of the more expensive fighter because it is far superior the overall cost of operation will still be less.
"Besides that there will always be the possibility of moving other F-22's to the battle zone if circumstances dictate that action."
Sure. All you have to do is write off another theater.
You assume that every theater these fighters are assigned to will be hot, and of course that is not the case. Besides if a Raptor or 2 is transferred to an active war zone due to aircraft service problems they will remain only until the originally assigned planes are again serviceable.
In the final analysis it is difficult to argue against the deployment of the worlds most advanced fighter which insures we stay ahead of any possible threats from the enemy, whomever they are and will be.
How do you put a price on freedom?
Are you saying we cannot afford to buy airplanes necessary for maintaining air superiority in any future conflict? I say we cannot afford not to.
First one of you that gets me a ride in one of these gets my hand in marriage.
I don't care I just want your money... I've already said...
Too late. You know, I'm on vacation and I don't get up early.
"Are you saying we cannot afford to buy airplanes necessary for maintaining air superiority in any future conflict?"
At these prices, in the quantities we will need? No, we can't. Not until the Air Force starts setting its procurement house in order.
The F-22 puts us ahead of schedule for fulfilling Augustine's Law: In 2054, unless procurement policies change drastically, the entire Defense budget will buy ONE airplane, which the services will have to take turns flying.
"I say we cannot afford not to."
Generally, conservatives tend to shun solutions that come down to "throw money at the problem." The military tends to be their blind spot if they have one.
I don't think manned aircraft will be used in combat in 2054.
I am retired from both the US Air Force and Lockheed, and I believe air superiority is of paramount importance in any future conflict. The money will have to come from social programs. I reject the idea this is a blind spot.
"So what? You seem to be saying that if an F-22 is out of service it is permanent and that we will soon run out of them as one after the other becomes inoperable."
If we can't afford enough planes to do the job, we won't be able to afford enough spares to keep them airborne constantly, either.
"Just what % of these aircraft do you think will be inoperable at any one time anyway?"
From what I've heard, over 40%. Maybe more like 50%, given its more finicky nature (any damage to the surface of the aircraft compromises its stealth, for example).
"Why will they be any more scarce then parts for the F-16?"
Because they cost more. Cost goes up, quantities purchased go down.
"As for the expense of the parts, what has that got to do with anything?"
More expensive spares equal fewer spares available.
"Given that we can get along with fewer of the more expensive fighter because it is far superior the overall cost of operation will still be less."
I fail to see how that would work in reality--the aircraft is much more susceptible to being rendered inoperative by bad weather (B-2s cannot fly combat missions in foul weather because their radar-absorbent paint will abrade away).
"You assume that every theater these fighters are assigned to will be hot, and of course that is not the case."
When the cat's away, the mice will play.
"Besides if a Raptor or 2 is transferred to an active war zone due to aircraft service problems they will remain only until the originally assigned planes are again serviceable."
You are, of course, assuming that the "Raptor or 2" will not experience mechanical problems themselves...
"In the final analysis it is difficult to argue against the deployment of the worlds most advanced fighter which insures we stay ahead of any possible threats from the enemy, whomever they are and will be."
It's extremely easy to argue against it: if you can't afford enough of them because the Air Force cannot avoid violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act, then you might as well buy exactly zero. The most expensive luxury in the world is a second-rate military, and that is what the Air Force is demanding we reduce ourselves to in order to afford their overpriced toy.
The Raptor's capabilities are aimed at a potential war that is almost two decades in the past; the capabilities are irrelevant in the extreme to the present struggle in which we find ourselves; and the sole justification for procuring these tremendously expensive aircraft (and, conversely, NOT buying those capabilities we need for prosecuting the war we're actually in) is so outrageously hypothetical and ignorant of how America fights wars that any flag officer advancing it should be broken to private, handed a K-pot and a rifle, and get sent to Iraq to relearn about how to fight and win wars.
Hell, for the Taiwan scenario you're touting, the Raptor is worthless: it's too short-ranged. A devious foe can kill its tanker support and confine it to Anderson AFB; a ruthless foe can simply smuggle a nuke into the vicinity of Anderson and flatten the entire base, while making it look like we got clumsy with our own weapons.
"I am retired from both the US Air Force and Lockheed, and I believe air superiority is of paramount importance in any future conflict."
Including your apparent conflict of interest?
"The money will have to come from social programs."
The voting public will give you the upraised middle digit and kill your pet program. Life sucks sometimes.
"I reject the idea this is a blind spot."
It is, especially since the Air Force violated the law of the land when they started the program, and when they made LockMart eat a huge chunk of R&D costs.
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.