The WSJ steps into the fighter wars today, with an Op-Ed discussing the effects of a load failure on an older F-15C on acquisition plans for the F-22 Raptor:
The Air Force has since discovered significant stress fractures in at least eight other aircraft, and ordered that 442 of the older-model F-15s be grounded through at least January (though 224 of the newer-model F-15Es continue to fly). Those 442 Eagles, or about a fifth of the total number of fighters fielded by the Air Force, are mainly responsible for homeland defense. They’re the ones that would have to be scrambled to intercept hijacked jetliners in the event of another 9/11.
In an alternative universe, the F-15 problem would not be significant, because the Air Force would already be flying large numbers of its designated replacement, the F-22 Raptor. But the Raptor–a fifth-generation fighter that outclasses everything else in the sky–was deemed too costly and too much of a “relic” of the Cold War. The Air Force currently has orders for no more than 183 of the planes (with some Raptor squadrons already fully operational), though there is now talk of keeping the production line open for as many as 200 more. We think it’s an investment worth making.
And a good argument to have, too. We may have for too long taken for granted the advantages that air supremacy brings to us in a brawl. There are lessons to be drawn from the fact that no US soldier or Marine has suffered an aerial attack since World War II. Those who stood against us could not make the same claim. For my own part, I would not have liked to be on the receiving end of what I have in my time dealt out. It sucked to be them.
But we need to be fiscally responsible as well. At $100 million a copy, F-22s don’t exactly grow on trees. Maybe the F-35 series won’t be “world beaters”, but we don’t expect to have to fight Eurofighters and with the Lightning II running at less than half the price of a Raptor one is reminded that “quantity has a quality all its own.” So long as a deployable force of nearly 200 F-22s is on call its hard to imagine a local adversary who could stand against up to 20 squadrons of Raptors – 10 in a two-theater fight – as well as all of those USAF, USN and USMC F-35s. For the sake of clarity, I leave out for now our coalition allies.
The real question planners and budgeteers ought to be asking is not whether an obsolescent and potentially decrepit F-15 force can defend the mainland US from aerial attack. As an island nation, we are still fortunate in that continental air defense is a 1% mission at best and in any case another 100 Raptors wouldn’t appreciable improve kill ratios against hijacked airliners. Furthermore, for “away games,” if the F-15C is not capable of standing up to Su-35s, then it doesn’t much matter how many cracks there are in the load-bearing members. We don’t send our guys out to die in inferior gear – it’s terrible for morale.
The homeland defense mission could be absorbed by Air Guard F-16s or augmented by shore based Navy and Marine Corps FA-18s in times of increased tension. That’s not much fun nor is it very good training for the Leviathan forces, but the fact of the matter is that they stood up after 9/11 when all the airliners were grounded and the weekend warriors couldn’t travel from their airline domiciles to their Air National Guard bases.
Nor is this an either/or question of simply buying what you can and hoping for the best. The USAF should be (and undoubtedly is) looking at the threat, defining a capability suitable to overcoming that threat and illuminating whatever risk is inherent in a capability shortfall.
It’s always correct to say “more is better,” because, frankly, it is. What’s harder is to ask is “how much is enough?” That’s the question that needs answering. When you’ve modeled that out, add 10%, in case you worked the math wrong. And then add another 10% because, in the end game?
Congress, knowing that you’ve padded your numbers 10%, will screw you every time.
This is all a carefully planned Air Force conspiracy to get more F-22’s.
How much is enough indeed? And why could the USAF not buy F-18’s (E’s nd F’s), save some money and employ an already proven and capable airframe?
We could do a lot of our deployments with F-16s when F-22s aren’t needed ( most deployments )
http://www.f-16.net/news_article2647.html
Did Skippy just compliment someone else’s airframe?
*faints*
200 F-22s is indeed a lot. If I recall correctly the initial F-15E buy was 186, and the total to date not much more than 200.
Lex,
The USAF is notorious for its ruthlessness towards its airmen (the pilot types more so than those pleased to be E1-E3s wearing Air Force blue). Do I think that they are capable of flying the wings off F-15s and routinely engaged in stretching the envelope and the metal in the airframe? I do. Will these few overstressed aircraft find their way into the hands of the poor bastards from the Air National Guard? Most surely they will as that is the fate of cast off worn out military equipment from the beginning of the Republic. (Except for what goes to the USMC). Will the sad fact that this worn out gear then fails under routine load be accepted as simple failure brought about by excessive stress or will it be seized upon as a ready excuse to upgrade to the latest and greatest thing to come down the pike since the Saturn V and at just double the price? It will.
On a purely personal note, the poor Army, Marines and even us benighted surface types have routinely suffered air attack which is why, as a young fire control officer on a destroyer I routinely had both my weapon systems lock up every plane that came within range and damn the whining complaints. Besides it’s not as if you were in much danger from a Mk 86 or a RIM-7M. From memory I recall the USS Liberty took a pounding and one of you sneaky bast*rds dropped a contact fused 500 bomb on the bow of one of your own cruisers in the IO a few decades back and lets not mention the Blue on Blues in ODS and OEF and OIF.
The Patriot and Aegis guys are working at evening the odds but do I really want to lob two $3million missiles at $100million US aircraft? I do not.
Let’s hear it for the American Defense Industry! When we can’t sell the cost of new gear on the simple merits of new stuff that doesn’t quite meet the range or payload of the old stuff, we’ll point out how flawed the current tools are and how they now urgently need to be replaced. Didn’t quite work out for the A-12 or MPA or really replace the B52s but by golly, just give them a couple of hundred billion, really not more than 2 trillion and they’ll be there with something that will meet the future demand signal in 20 or 30 years. Cost overruns vary with mileage.
Completely forgot to mention USS Stark. They did not routinely lock up all inbounds but, as sailors, do not fall in the category of soldiers or marines so we’ll just put them over in the same column with Liberty, Twin Towers and the Pentagon. Well, maybe not the Pentagon since the enemy killed at least one Lieutenant General and many other fine soldiers and marines in that attack.
If you bit the bullet and committed to a firm number of, say 300 aircraft, wouldn’t the unit price come down? As it is now, the most common remark I hear about military aircraft manufacture in the US is ‘ordering just enough to keep the production lines open.’
Lex, It’s not often I get to hear a Navy guy talking sense about USAF aircraft purchases. Thanks.
Here’s a mental picture I like to use for folks when explaining the age of our current inventory. Imagine operational squadrons of P-51’s as our frontline fighter in 1980. They would have been the same age as the F-15’s will be next year. Better yet, imagine operational wings of B-29’s as our mainstay bomber in 1997, making a reappearance over central Europe during the Balkan conflict. The first B-52 rolled off the line just 10 years after the first B-29. Better yet, imagine those wings of B-29’s still taking in new pilots as butter bars in the year 2030. Current plans call for the B-52’s to fly into 2040. Bottom line: the last pilot to pass through initial checkout in the BUFF may not have even been born yet. Maybe it is time for some new planes after all.
The first B-52 rolled off the line just 10 years after the first B-29.
Yow.
The F-22 is a great plane. The question is:
Can 20 squadrons of F-22s defeat 200 squadrons of Russia’s finest? As more than one commentator has mentioned, we may be developing the Me-262 to fight the P-51.
Are we the sort of country that can develop and fill the skies with a brand-new, dominant machine? If not, buying a fighter that will be the greatest thing in the sky for ten years, assuming limited adversaries only gets us ten years of defense against limited adversaries.
Curtis,
The Hawaii National Guard is slighted to be among the first of a small handfull of F22 squadrons. Those are some fancy “cast-offs”. They have guard guys flying them out at Langley now.
Times have changed…and not really for the better. The active duty pilots have to share training time with the guard, and they have a different chain of command and much different expectations. Leads to some not insignificant problems actually.
If the Raptor ONLY cost $100 each I’d say buy even more. Unfortunetly I think they are upwards of 150M plus…
I think what they are going to get, plus about 50 more, is about right.
BTW, if a Raptor costs 100 mil and is an acknowledged air-to-air” world beater”, where is the value of the SuperHornet, a virtual TACAIR “Jack of all, Master of None” at 75M a copy?
Just asking. As usual. Glass houses and all.
Skippy,
I would say the Eagle dilemma is real enough. We all saw the empirical evidence here at Lex’s in that Missouri field. Just stating for the record- I know you know that but plenty of uninformed may take what you say in jest as truth.
Another uncomfortable BTW, don’t forget our own haze gray, emergent, and serious problem. Using the same logic perhaps we should only buy 39 or so P-8’s to replace the bad P-3’s..At 200+ mil a copy we could save a lot there….right?
b2
The Oregon Air Guard in Portland is (or was) taking receipt of F15C’s out of Kadena to replace their F15As (including the oldest A model flying).
The maintenance folks aren’t real happy with the state of the C’s they are getting. But then again, they don’t think a whole lot about the standards of maintenance in the active duty force to begin with.
Ah HA! Another SPRU Can weaponeer crawls out from under a log….Newer than me…when I was a sailor once (and young), I had -7H birds.
I like Skippy’s idea…make them buy FA-18s…they work, we got the parts and the trained people. Bad part is the strap hangers who were looking forward to getting bags of money for a new set of stuff will be disappointed.
I’ve got a question; I know that the F-22’s are pretty impressive as far as maneuvering and air to air engagements. But, from what I hear their payload capability is a little less than impressive. So, why are they going with the F-22?
From what I hear they can (after the first night/day strikes in a conflict) attatch external hardpoints to the F-35 as well as the internal weapons bays. In doing that you would greatly increase the weapons payload. You would lose a lot of the stealth capability. But presumably, if it’s after the initial strikes, you wouldn’t need the stealth capability. Now, with the F-35 being slightly less costly than the F-22, and with the Navy and USMC wanting their own versions of the F-35… you would think that having the USAF buy F-35’s would be a better idea.
Jim C
Three things:
1. The USAF is buying F35s to replace the F16. It may also replace other fighters.
2. The F22 is in production and being delivered today.
3. The F35 program is basically delivering the flight test models right now, right?
JimC,
Aha. You noticed. No “A” after “F”! Sometimes diversity is a good thing Jim.
BTW, I ain’t an A-A guy but this sounds impressive:
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/events/jul_07/jul07_events01.html
The SuperHornet won a lot of procurement awards but nothing like this, wouldn’t you agree? Nahhh. Never. LOL.
SSG Jeff- in that same issue there is a good story on testing the F-35 huge powerplant.
Folks- Defense costs big bucks especially if you want to be #1. Ronald Reagan knew that. Thankfully that’s why we have what we have now. What’s left of it anyways…
b2
Well (as was stated) the F22 is operational and the F35 isn’t. It will take at LEAST eight years until they have operational F35s.
Don’t forget also, as the aircraft gets closer to operational, the pamplet gets less and less glossy while expenses go up. Many things look great on paper but until they’re fielded and tested that doesn’t mean a whole lot.
Sorry for three in a row, but I was reading through the above and might be misunderstood. I meant “operational squadrons” of F35s, not operational as in “working”. Once the planes are produced, they go through a long testing process before becoming “operational” and deployment-ready.
Liz, there is no need to get snooty with the caps “LEAST”. We in the F-35 fan club want you to know it is money well spent.
JK…hehe
Lex, how do you think the Superhornet would shake out against the future SU-35s? From what I have heard, they do quite well against the MIG-29 in Red Arrow. Of course it will most likely be decided by the human factor, just did not know how they handled comaprative to the F/A 18 superhornet. If you can’t say, I understand.
#8 Doc,
The venerable B-52 proves that utility trumps technology. Its extraordinary age is not to be lamented, but celebrated. The BUFF has overcome and outlasted our country’s best contenders to its position over many decades.
The exciting B-58 Hustler tried and failed badly, as did the spectacularly beautiful, cutting edge and expensive B-70 Valkyrie , ( not to mention the many XB’s…. XB-53,54,55,56,57,59,60,68. Then there’s the FB-111, and the B-1 and B-2).
The B-52 is just a great old warhorse that keeps plugging away. 94 still remain of the 744 B-52’s that were built in the ’50’s and ’60’s, (although many were destroyed because SALT).
Now that’s both extraordinary utility and economy. So is there a lesson there?
Did anyone check out the link B2 put out?? 80/1 kill ratio. How much crap did that 1 take at the bar that night?
We are speaking of fighter aircraft and air superiority? I’m not sure where the ‘old’ and ‘lumbering’ fits into that.
that one was meant for filterman’s post. Good grief I must type slow!
fliterman I mean. Okay. I’ll shut up now. Gah. Need option to edit post-response.
Liz – “We are speaking of fighter aircraft and air superiority? I’m not sure where the ‘old’ and ‘lumbering’ fits into that.”
Who said anything about “old and lumbering?”
The point was – be it fighters, bombers, ships, or armor – the best, the most technologically advanced, the most capable against a certain threat, and the most expensive may not always be the best option in the long run…. as the failed contenders to the B-52 have shown.
There must be a balance of utility, capability, economy, flexibility, adaptability, reliability, in any weapon system, and adequate numbers to truly be successful over a longer term.
B2,
Of course the problem is real as is the P-3 problem. The real question to me though is in a time of limited dollars why does every solution have to be perfect? The F-18 E and F are capable fighters, still on the production line, a lot cheaper than the Raptor-and they are still superior to just about all the other fighters out there world wide. It just seems to me that the money it would take for 200 Raptors could buy a lot of F-18’s which would give the USAF the numbers it needs. Quantity has a value in and of itself.
As for the P-3 issue-well as we discussed that is another story. The Japanese have a patrol aircraft on the shelf-for that matter their own P-3’s are in much better shape than ours. ( They don’t fly them as much as we do…..).
Skippy,
I think one of the things I see about the F-22 and F-35 is the maneuverability (vectored thrust) and stealth capability (I’m assuming that the avionics can be upgraded in the 18’s).
Of course, you make a good point… there’s something to be said for good enough. There’s also something to be said for quantity (quantity has a quality all it’s own…).
Jim C
As much as the AF is chasing an all-stealth fighter mix; buying new (and upgrading younger) F-16s makes financial sense. The F-16E? F-16I? They’ve got room to grow, and new build they have long lives in front of them.
That said, more F-22s are probably a good idea as well. I don’t know how many more, but I’d guess 2-5 more squadrons worth.
Basically, my answer would be to replace the remaining -15Cs with new -16s and -22s, and use the F-35 to replace the older -16s.
I understand the various arguments around the B-52 and its age, and keeping the BUFF around for as long as we have has worked. However, doesn’t a fighter put more stress on the airframe in a typical mission than a B-52 does on a typical mission? How much life can you keep adding to an airframe performing under high stress – and how much does it cost? Also, have B-52 airframes broken up due to airframe fatigue in midair?
Not to throw the proverbial turd in the F-35 mutual appreciation society punchbowl, but the A-A module for the F-35 will lag the A-mud version by at least three years. Software issues you know…
- SJS
Liz,
Hawaii Air National Guard is probably flying those early prototype aircraft that the test pilots flew in all the early tests and trials and now since they were the “not quite test to destruct” models, the regular air force pilots insisted that rather than scrapping these clapped out birds or forcing “real” air force pilots to fly them they should be flown by the usual crew that get worn out equipment except this time they selected the Hawaii Air Guard because this way, when the wings fall off, the planes will fall into the sea and be unrecoverable so the powers that be can claim they were lost due to pilot error…
OK, OK, TFIC but isn’t it a wonderful conspiracy theory?
And it easily qualifies as one of the longest run-on sentences I’ve ever written.
Curtis
The 20-year procurement holiday the U.S. has taken is coming home to roost…and I fear that we have not seen all of it.
How many worn-out F-16s will turn up? How many used-up Hornets? Quite aside from the cost of patching up the P-3 fleet – or the ultimate cost of replacing SH-3s with SH-60s, and the S-3s with nothing at all.
We’re on the verge of being like the British in the 1960s…unwilling to keep our dues in the Superpower Club paid. Not an appealing prospect.
Skippy,
re- “a lot cheaper than the Raptor-and they are still superior to just about all the other fighters out there world wide”
That’s a “Spinney-esque” statement, in some circles considered reasonable, however we wouldn’t have the F-16 or the F-15 with this kinda logic. Remember the fighter wars of the early ’80’s?.
To me it just smells of work 1/2 done, a “good enough” mentality and “misery loves company”…The Navy has made it’s bed witht the SuperHornet, why should the USAF? The sky would be black with big wet $$$ wings.
IMO, y’all are still sniffing around the edges of the P-3 dilemma and downstream impacts. Recommend think hard on it. There’s a lot of Ostrich heads in da sand…..Especially those schooled only in TACAIR, who also happen to be in charge. Rather, take the ‘holistic” approach.
Shifty,
If you can re-wing a plane- fighter or Buff size you can fly it forever if you take care of it (PMS) and re-engineer/upgradeother stuff (avionics, wep sys, flight controls, etc.) to prevent obsolescence and enhance capability every decade or so. Doing this on tactical fighter and attack aircraft is more problematic. Usually designed as throway jets in the 50’s/60’s/ 70’s it is very hard and cost prohibitive to replace center barrell type structures vice load bearing, huge aircraft grade aluminum wings found on less glamerous aircraft. Consider a cross type structure vs a single beam. Sorta like doing a backbone transplant on a live trout. Lots of variables going back to basic design.
Re the Buf- I’ll bet the USAF would have canned the -52 years ago if they could have bought more B-1’s or B-2’s. This is a case where mission trumps acquisition – rare. But if you consider that thes aircraft are at our core nuclear strategy like SSBNs/ICBMs we can see how important they are.
In certain ways the USAF is better than Naval Air when it comes to recapitalization of it’s assets (I hate to admit it). Look at the A-10C program- $1.8 B well spent I’d say. Ask the Army.
On the other hand, we in the Navy put all our eggs in the H-60 and Hornet product lines (save ILS dollars..) and divested ourselves of diversity, recap or otherwise. In order to buy our current crop of SuperHornets Navy bean-counters scorched the fiscal earth and robbed every program to fund those acquisitions. Every program was stripped by the “Black-led” TeamHornet sanctioned by “Teflon Johnson”, and some- like the S-3, with 20 years left in the airframe, were terminated with prejudice. Plus, as Mike M. points out above Hornets ARE wearing out- fast.
Want more?- IMO the V-22 program is the A-12 program- executed…$$$$$$.
Whew. Glad I got it all out before this slides to the next page.
b2
B2,
You just summed up Naval Aviation in one page!
And its not a good story to tell. Even with “Airspeed”.
But hey, we got great diversity programs now…………
Fliterman: “The point was – be it fighters, bombers, ships, or armor – the best, the most technologically advanced, the most capable against a certain threat, and the most expensive may not always be the best option in the long run…. as the failed contenders to the B-52 have shown.
There must be a balance of utility, capability, economy, flexibility, adaptability, reliability, in any weapon system, and adequate numbers to truly be successful over a longer term.”
I can’t say I disagree with the above, but we’ve had a rather ‘long-run’ with the aircraft we have already. The F-15 was fielded over 30 years ago, and even the later models are 20 years old. As the aircraft reach their intended service lives and beyond they become increasingly difficult to maintain, which is reflected in increased cost and man-hours, and decreasing reliability. At some point these older fighters simply are too old to be useful and must be retired. And even if you replaced every single component on the F-15 fleet (at an enormous cost), there is simply no way to modernize the aircraft to have the capability of the F-22.
Also, the US has dominated air warfare due in large part to superior technology and training. The countries we have faced have been using equipment from the Former Soviet Union (FSU), quantity over quality versions. Our recent adversaries were using the FSU equipment and failed miserably, so the next generations of potential adversary aircraft do not follow the FSU model, and are extremely advanced by comparison. The newer aircraft could erode the United States’ quality advantage rapidly. Defense planners must look to the threat in 2010 and beyond to forecast requirements.
“We don’t send our guys out to die in inferior gear…”
No one caught that one?