The 60′s era USAF “fighter mafia” is apparently in a lather over the F-22, and being enabled in their anger by the kinds of people who tend to think that any new military acquisition program is inherently wasteful:
Lockheed Martin is starting work this month on its latest multi-billon dollar contract to build 60 F-22 Raptors, the most advanced fighter aircraft in the world. But many critics, including the Government Accountability Office, are calling the continued production of the Raptor a costly mistake for U.S. taxpayers and U.S. security.
“It makes anyone angry who is concerned about the real defense of the country and not abusing the taxpayer,” said Pierre Sprey, the man who designed the F-16 and A-10 fighters. “This is the opposite.”
Sprey was one of three men who made up the so-called “Fighter Mafia” in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Sprey, along with John Boyd and Col. Everest Riccioni, helped revolutionize American aircraft design, challenging many of the notions under which the U.S. military had operated for years.
He said the F-22 is a near-perfect example of what the “Fighter Mafia” told the military to avoid.
“The F-16A, as it was in 1986, can whip today’s F-22,” said Sprey. “You’d think the F-22 would be able to whip some antique.”
Well, maybe. If a Viper jock managed to somehow blunder into a merge with the F-22 alive he might well have a fighting chance of claiming a kill. But by that token, I’d be hesitant to engage a Mitsubishi Zero in a one circle fight in my FA-18. Those things can turn on a dime.
The problem for the F-16 (as well as a my theoretical Zero) would be surviving to the merge with the F-22 in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Because say you start out with twenty F-16s or their equivalents against a four- or eight-ship of Raptors and maybe you personally win the lottery odds and survive to the merge.
With four or eight Raptors.
From the performance videos I’ve seen, that can’t be a very congenial place to be.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7myzuslpoY[/youtube]
Are the airplanes expensive? Hell yes, but by the time you factor in full life-cycle costs for the Raptor buy as contrasted to what you’d need to match them in equivalent conventional combat power, the F-22 could well turn out to be a bargain.
This isn’t to say that the new technologies that Sprey goes off on are infallible – something will come along in time to knock the Raptor off its post, and for every move there’s a counter. Nor is it unlikely that a sufficiently large mass of 4th Generation technology couldn’t sneak someone in unexpectedly. But people who conjure images of twenty or thirty low tech planes sacrificing themselves to maybe get one fox into the hen house are, I think, discounting the moral effect of seeing 18 or 20 of your best buds go down in flames around you from a threat you haven’t even seen on radar yet.
That kind of thing can shake a man’s will.
Critics also point out that the F-22 in its current instantiation doesn’t have an organic air-to-ground capability and most of our current work in fighters involves moving mud. It’s a fair cop, but in the meantime we’re not going short for TACAIR sorties, the F-35 is on the way as a level-of-effort replacement for the F-16 and we won’t be developing a robust, all-aspect stealth, supercruising fighter on the fly once a peer competitor – or even someone hoping for local numerical superiority and interior lines of battle – decides that the odds are on his side. A high low mix is not a bad way to go, and just as the F-15/F-16 combination worked well for the USAF – even while engendering the kind of passionate rivalries the “fighter mafia” seems to still wear on their sleeves – so should an F-22/F-35 force be effective in the future.
We may not need the Raptor’s capabilities right now, but with the long lead times associated with aircraft builds it’s nice to know that we’ll have them if we need them 5 years from now.
Time, tide and technology waits for no one – best to keep marching with them.
Considering the what, 20 year lead time on this aircraft, I think it’s a good thing they started developing it when they did.
In April 1938, an exasperated backbencher interrupted Churchill during one of his speeches urging more air defense, crying, “How much is enough?” Churchill replied that the question reminded him of the man who received a telegram from Brazil informing him: “Your mother-in-law dead; wire instructions.” The man immediately replied: “Embalm, cremate, bury at sea. Take no chances.”
Lex – re. the Zero, not so theoretical. Watch the mix-up between the Zeros and VF-84 Tomcats from “Final Countdown” and you’ll see a spot where the Zero almost got a for real kill when the Tom nearly departed flight whilst engaging in ACM. Low. Slow. Not a good place to be…
-SJS
Thanks for this, Lex. I’m pleasantly surprised, yet probably shouldn’t be.
But there is…uh…a certain amount of inter-service parochialism on display in these parts. From time to time. Occasionally. Just every-so-often. Ya know?
Just so long as we can afford to build enough of them to maintain our edge in the places and times we need it.
I think we need the Raptor, but we don’t need more than the ~190 already contracted for.
Face it, the most likely role for the Raptor is to cruise majestically over the battlefield at FL60 while both sides ignore it.
The Air Force gave up way too much other capability to get the Raptor.
The money spent on mini-bombs for it just proves the point.
I was hoping you’d get to this one, Lex, particularly for this reason:
We may not need the Raptor’s capabilities right now, but with the long lead times associated with aircraft builds it’s nice to know that we’ll have them if we need them 5 years from now.
It is nice to see the aviators keeping this in mind, even if the sub fleet isn’t (or rather, is being prevented from doing so)
Like the furiously fast, red Ferrari sitting in the showroom, the F-22 is indeed desirable and sexy. It understandably quickens the heartbeat of pilots, defense contractors, and certain pork-barrel politicians. However, while highly attractive, the Ferrari unnecessarily far exceeds its real intended purpose – transportation – and at a price tag that far exceeds the reasonable and intelligent budget.
Designed for the Cold War of two decades ago, the F-22 is now a weapon without a foe and is currently, irrelevant…although its supporters eagerly raise the specter of a resurgent Russia, or a rising China – similar to the specious “missile-gap” arguments of the Cold War that fueled that incredibly expensive and mostly unnecessary arms race. But now like then, it’s good for the military-industrial complex business, isn’t it?
Ironically, some of the former massive budget, hi-tech bombers have gathered lots of dust while the, ugly, and unwanted low-tech and cheap, A-10 – also designed for the Cold War – continued to prove its utility.
Because of its extraordinary per unit procurement cost – $183 million per aircraft! – the requested number had to be reduced from 381 to 183 aircraft. For a supposed world power, only 183 aircraft – regardless of cost or capability – hardly covers the world. And to think the aircraft is invulnerable is captain-of-the-Titanic thinking. A few very expensive losses reduce a smaller fleet by much larger percentages. Then what?
(And money does not grow on trees. We are already well over-budget with a huge deficit. To remain a world power we need a continuing healthy economy, especially with our future nascent fiscal concerns, rather than gold-plated Ferraris without a current mission.)
In the past, while the US has often had a much greater advantage in technology, its technology rarely has been the deciding factor. It has been the greater numbers of our aircraft (and training) more than their supposed superior technology and capabilities that have ruled the skies in our favor.
Like him or not, Sprey didn’t just fall off the turnip truck and has a great depth of knowledge on the subject. For me, rather than buying a few outrageously expensive Ferraris, I would put that same limited amount of money in a far greater number of much cheaper Corvettes and some tough utilitarian Ford trucks – much bigger and wider bang for the buck and overall, greater capabilities……… But that’s just me.
“The Air Force gave up way too much other capability to get the Raptor.”
It’s good to see that the USAF has finally learned something from the Navy. We used to be the leaders in giving up capability.
N
I think the critics are missing something. If I recall correctly, the Raptor once had the F/A designation to it, and it does carry AG weapons, albeit on wing stations which defeat their stealth capability. Now, I’d expect they wouldn’t start that effort until they’ve established air superiority, so the F-15Es and A-10s wouldn’t be out of a job. But I’d be curious how they would handle taking out air defenses.
Lex,
I just wanna say thanks for giving us the imbedded Raptor pr0no. Obviously it’s been on the ‘net for some time, but I just don’t have the time to go find all the cool stuff.
With any luck the Thunder Chickens will bring a F-22 when they take over Miramar this fall so I can see the demo in person.
cheers,
BeachBum
If you all would like to take a break from this spirited and edumacated discussion here (not being sarcastic, BTW), head over here:
http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=3039222
for a FAR less enlightened discussion of the same subject.
SJS: I thought I was the only guy to have the movie on DVD. Truly a classic.
“183 aircraft. For a supposed world power, only 183 aircraft – regardless of cost or capability – hardly covers the world. ”
That’s about how many F-15Es we bought, and also about how many F-4G Wild Weasels we bought. So it’s enough to sustain a couple of CONUS bases, and two or three of squadrons for Europe and the Pacific.
It’s enough.
Don’t forget we’re getting the JSF, which gives up a slight amount of stealth but has an almost equal BFR capability, better capability in a phone booth, and much greater air-to-mud capability.
The JSF is also the first fighter designed post-internet, so it plays better with others.
Anyone who thinks we don’t need the Raptor didn’t watch the slideshow on SowjetRussian jets referenced a couple of days ago in this location.
Blast… that “Sowjet” was supposed to be
strikeouttext.Why does the cynic in me believe this is more about the numbers bought than about the actual aircraft…..e.g. lack of enough aircraft to put in a whole bunch of Air Guard units.
The real issue with the Raptor is not the buying of it-its what is being mortgaged to pay for it. The USAF still needs a new tanker, a new AWACS, more airlift and better combat rescue capability. Those things are getting kicked down the road-kind of like the Navy did in 99.
The fighter mafia was right how?? How many F-15′s have been shot down? To what ratio of enemy? You never plan on fighting the enemy of today you plan on fighting the enemy of tomorrow and to always have the upper hand. Putin just stated that he wants the Soviets to be the worlds supplier of fighter aircraft so we need to be prepared to fly against the new Su and Migs. That platform, although a nice Ferrari also has the survivability of a volvo and that is the difference. The one who get off the first shot usually wins in modern aircombat, and If i can see you first and then reach out and commune, I win. It is all abouot who gets to go home and kiss the kids at night, and it should be our guys not theirs.
Unbeliveable! I didn’t think planes were supposed to be able to do things like that.
Jim C
Skippy-san,
You forgot to mention that the AF needs a tactical EW plaform as well. Maybe they plan on taking a 22 or a 35 and making a EW variant ala the Growler?
The Fighter Mafia principle was the first thing learned in engineering school: KISS. Keep It Simple Stupid. I seem to remember the F16 and A10 projects were all about building a cheap jet that did one thing very, very well, at the expense of doing a lot of things only fairly well or adequately. Given the time, swing-wing everything and no-shows like the Valkrie eating up the budget without providing equipment to the military, their position made a lot of sense.
These days we’re facing targets from Flankers to farmers with an RPG. Hard to design an aircraft that does all that sort of stuff well. In air-to-air I’m all for the F22, but in air-to-mud maybe it’s cheaper to build a simple F22 and another A10?
I believe I brought this point up once before, at this price tag the jet is awfully expensive, and if one were to put it opposite 100 enemies with inferior tech there is a non-trivial chance numbers may prevail. Lex answers that with the human question, but let us remember not everybody shares our value of the human element in combat. It’s a good point, we should have the best and with the best we should be able to fight our way beyond superior numbers, but as history shows this is not an unassailable position.
Side note: I understand Boyd was the guy who first applied mathematics and engineering to the potential energy/kinetic energy of an aircraft, basically mapping the qualities of thrust and lift and drag into an overall performance assessment of the airframe. Is that briefing of his available for the public?
- Max
“It is all abouot who gets to go home and kiss the kids at night, and it should be our guys not theirs.”
The USAF has no real Electronic Warfare capability, no real Weasels, no Jammers, very little Elint. All of that was sacrificed for the Raptor.
What if the enemy won’t play our game? What if they deploy a bunch of fifth generation SAMs with 21st century radars? Radars that we can’t jam because we don’t have a jammer (and no, the F-22 isn’t a jammer any more than its a bomber). A little jamming goes a long way with modern LO designs. But we don’t even have a little jammer.
With all our eggs in the fighter-v-fighter basket we are terribly vulnerable.
T1, it is NOT about who gets the first shot…it’s always been who sees the other guy first. And IMHO, the Raptor did not sink all the other programs because of it’s cost. Look to our Navy for the stupid programs they’ve funded in the past 20 years that have failed to produce one viable replacement: SC-21, DD-21, LPD-17, LCS, DD(X) CG(X). THAT is where the money for our navy went down the drain.
I’m keeping the FFG fleet together with spit and baling wire all because the Navy has frittered away time and money, most especially time, coming up with it’s replacement, the LCS. All the FFGs were supposed to be out of the fleet by 2001. Seven years later, we’re still maintaining half of these tough little ships, pouring more and more money into repairs and much needed shipalts. Would you believe that we had to replace a serious number of each vessels diesel generators, simply because the engines were so old, key parts were no longer being made? Guess what it costs to replace all 4 diesels with brand new Cats? Or to re-do all the berthings to todays standards?
Yah, Skippy, all the money for our Navy comes from one big check….and stupidity squandered a huge chunk of it on designs that never saw salt water, and ones that are heavily flawed.
We need the Raptor. We need to insure that the Tactical Air Force has the tools to go into the next fight with a high degree of assurance that they WILL overcome the enemy. Or, like the man once told me, you don’t bring a knife to a knife fight, you bring a gun…two of them if you can.
The USAF doesn’t lack a jammer because of the Raptor. It lacks a jammer because the EF-111 was sacrificed on the alter of “jointness”, and the Navy was told to do that job.
Hence, the “Joint” EA-6 squadrons.
Skippy-
That’s if the Tanker and CSAR contracts ever make it out of the Courts
Hmmm…
Personally, I’ve always favored None Of The Above.
Hordes of “cheap” 4th gen fighters are viable IF the 5th gen machines aren’t that much of an improvement. Two F-16s trump one F-35. But if the advantage is big enough – like the F-22 – all you are providing is targets.
On the other hand, numbers DO annihilate. And an F-22 can only be in one place at one time.
Which is why I favor a network-centric fighter. Full F-22-like performance – supercruise, VLO, etc. – but NO advanced sensors. THOSE go on dedicated sensor platforms. E-2D, BAMS, etc.
Remember, the avionics on a 5th gen fighter are 50-60% of the cost. More, if you count the need to buy an airframe to lug them around. With modern sensors and data links, we can capitalize on this and field a 5th gen fighter that is far more cost-efficient than anything else.
And the Navy will need it. Iraq dominated U.S. planning for the last 15 years…and the geography meant that Iraq would be largely an Army and AF show. Now, we are entering a post-Iraq period. We don’t know where the next campaign will be fought. And unpredictability favors mobility and flexibility. Which the sea services have in spades. Air Force rice-bowls be damned…the Navy has GOT to get a top-flight air superiority capability.
I don’t care how secure your data link, how much encryption and encapsulation you place on it, if it’s radio-based it’s succeptable to jamming by simply transmitting noise on the same frequency.
That’s something to think about as one fields aircraft that require other aircraft with sensors and such to feed them the data they need for intercept, or if one intends to pilot the aircraft from an office in Arizona. It’s a lot easier to drown out the control signal from the battlefield area than it is come up with ways around the laws of physics.
– Max
Max, correct me if i’m wrong, but don’t all mil aircraft today use agile freq skipping for comms?
I find it hard to believe the F-22 can get beat out by an F-16. Perhaps on occasion, but not repeatedly and even then I would have to ask, “Was it better man at the stick or a better a/c?” The Japanese are all over wanting to buy F-22′s after the USAF went out to Kadena. (That squadron that had the international dateline mishap. I think it was the same guys.) I think if the performance had not been truly superior the Japanese would be looking elsewhere.
As for the F-35, the stonings of that a/c have just begun. Wait until everyone figures out it will on occasion be a widowmaker. Think Harrier mishaps, flip and crash. My biggest beef is the dual source engine concept. I find it ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer money. And I have first hand experience with engine competitions. I just don’t think the fleet will be big enough to support the expense incurred for something like that.
BTW, the Navy will never be able to handle dual source motors. Its not feasible with the carrier environment and space constraints. That would be either USAF going dual source only or the USAF will have one motor and the Navy the other and that is an enormous waste of taxpayers cash.
Byron, nearly all secure data links today are using radio skip frequencies. That’s not a cure, that’s a patch on an age-old problem. Energy needed to send that signal increases with the square (plus a bit) of the distance. At some point I can emit a little and overcome your signal.
As for skipping freq’s, drive along and listen to AM radio — you get static from storms that aren’t even in the same state. Not one station, the whole AM band. It’s a lot easier to jam a signal than it is to bypass the jamming.
– Max
As to the JSF, does anyone remember one of the big advantages the Hornet has over the A-7?
Think about losing an engine, however it is sourced, in a JSF while conducting blue water ops. At night. During a storm.
Sleep well.