So how many F-22s are needed?
For security of the U.S. and our allies, we need more of this aircraft.
Japan could use about 150 or more. Israel--given the lessening security situation over the long haul--about the same number. Australia, now with the F-111 gone, certainly could use about 72.
The U.S. Air Force--based on an actual study--needs as a minimum 380+ to support 10 deployment contingency tours known as AEF's.
All of this would give the program health to fund other variants and the FB-22.
However, now that the U.S. has no air power leadership of worth, this is all lost.
Future conventional wars will now be more costly. The loss of credible deterrent puts the U.S. and its allies at more risk.
25 comments:
F-22 needed as a stop-gap: As many as can be brought to the latest common standard.
New F-22 needed: 0
Needed: A common land and carrier based FAXX/NGAD that can match PAK-FA. About 600 for the U.S., another 250-300 for allies.
The line should have remained open for another 3, maybe 4 yrs even - to offset the reduction of F-35 concurrency over an extended duration. I think even McCain might be kicking himself now for not better calculating the probabilities and situation.
But to restart the line now, I still don't know... how long would it take to ramp up all over and produce at a rate of 16-20 units/yr? How much would it cost to restart the line?
I'm open to making a more informed analysis, but am just not fully convinced it is now the most cost-effective strat for the mid-term. I could change my view, sure.
An F-23 would have arguably been the better gamble for the long-term, as USAF wouldn't have even needed the F-35A, as F-23 could have done it all by the 2017 time-frame with JSF's huge R&D budgets going into actual procurement.
My gut feeling is in support somewhere along the lines of what Distiller proposes here. But I feel it could also be based on a multi-mision 80,000lb MTOW class, navalized FB-22-lite development which could be accelerated and achieved sooner than FAXX. It could be jointly developed and manufactured with Boeing too, imho.
Fund it (adding a block II wing design enabling a longer ranged ground-based variant) in black budgets along side the NGB as a fall-back in case NGB is delayed or too costly, etc?
The cycle, planning and sequence is definitely out of whack though, no doubt.
Why not this;
Build more F22's, however keep the majority in a non stealth congig in the interests of keeping build & maintainence costs to minimum.
Retain sufficient aircraft in optimum config so as to provide additional capability when required & to maintain air & ground crew skills.
Additional aircraft could be "stealthed" as necessary from a common maintainence pool.
Centralize maintainence, spares & weapons stores across the 3 services that would potentially operate them.
Given that the FB22 was in the pipline, redirect F35 funding to develop the varient.
As the basic F22 design is mature & proven, developing & optimising variants for specific roles seems to be money better spent...& less money at that!
@geogen: “…how long would it take to ramp up all over and produce at a rate of 16-20 units/yr? How much would it cost to restart the line?”
How about 3 years? One year to get it through Congress; one to get the suppliers to make parts again; and one to assemble it, plus $10 billion before you get the first jet and $200 million a jet COD, if you make them at 50 a year. Wait..make it 5 years, $20 billion up front and $250 million a pop, 20 a year. Can you hold off the threat by diplomacy until 2025? We could have been building “A” models now at about $175 million each at the low rate of 20 a year, but it did not make sense to spend that on a Cold War relic, did it? Nah.
“An F-23 would have arguably been the better gamble for the long-term, as USAF wouldn't have even needed the F-35A, as F-23 could have done it all by the 2017 time-frame”
Huh? The losing F-23 was designed to the same specification as the F-22. Why do you think it could have done it all? Never mind, I can’t argue anymore. You can just say “If it isn’t true, it oughtta be”. I’m good with that. It is as logical as recent leadership decisions.
Thanks for the reply and I would concur with you and be in that camp of thought supporting position that simply continued -22A units should have been the sustainable no brainer procurement plan, as ironic as it may sound. But I'd have to also unfortunately agree with you that the F22 might just take too long, cost too much up-front and too much per reduced rate copy to continue the line at this point. Further, there would probably be considerable interests to upgrade the jet to incorporate some F35 qualities which would be factored into production delays, etc. A total cluster no doubt, doing it the way policymakers have, totally out of sync and skipping a generation of tacair recap as it is, etc. For this reason, it might just be more cost-effective to, as the poster above noted, to redirect/transfer some F-35 funds (from the National Bank of JSF), along with possible black bud funds and either do a major overhaul and redesign of a joint-venture F-22X as an accelerated FAXX alternate? Either that or redirect JSF Bank funds to a true follow-on, navalized 5.5/6th gen with a maturity target set for the early 2030s?
In either of the two above scenarios, there should be mid-term 4.5 stopgaps starting w/ FY13, a delayed implementation itself, but arguably no other option.
As for the F-23 comment? Well, for one thing the F-23 was said to have a larger weap bay. An ATF with a 2k lb weap bay (perhaps even large enough to carry JASSM), in addition to the longer range, could have very well negated the need for a CTOL F-35 variant. Simply supplement with evolved F-16 and UCAV, etc, and then plan ahead for a 2035 6th gen, etc? The savings from the CTOL portion of JSF program dev could have been applied to procuring actual F-23 multi-role variants. water under the bridge. imho.
geogen:
Nice to see you back here at Eric's blog again!
I agree with your comments on the YF-23. The Black Widow II easily remains the most advanced fighter design to fly anywhere. It had better stealth, was faster, had better range,and had more payload then the competing YF-22.
With the situation we're now facing with the Chinese, the extra range would have come in handy potentially deterring/defending aggression against Taiwan.
So now with the ending of production of the F-22 the US has no air superiority fighters capable of handling the emerging A2A threats.
I don't believe that its to late to save the Raptor. As Eric has correctly stated both Australia and Japan among others still need it. Developing and selling an export version is now a viable option with the arrival of the J-20 and the PAK-FA.
RSF
Interesting that Google somehow mixed up my account with my wife's business account.
BTW - We sure could use a production run of new build F-16XL's. Throw in a SABR or RACR AESA and a DSI inlet and we'd have the perfect 4.5 gen fighter to build as an interim aircraft until or politicians get their sh*t together.
:-)
The defence of the U.S. doesn't require a single F-22.
The defence of U.S. allies does not require a single F-22 in the short term because the inventories of the older combat aircraft still point at a 'Western' advantage, even in East Asia.
The defence of U.S. allies does not require a single F-22 in the long term because other equipment (and other countries' budgets) can meet the demand.
U.S. small wars of choice don't require the F-22 at all.
U.S. great wars of choice are stupid and not ongoing, so why bother?
Don't give your government the tools for stupid adventures. Tell it to stay back, for there are no tools for the nonsense available.
All USAF aircraft could be scrapped today and the U.S. would not be an iota less safe.
The USN/USMC have air power on their own that's proportional to the size and wealth of the entire nation.
Btw, maybe you doubt my opinion - but this blog post is just an opinion piece without any reasoning and explanation, too.
SO,
Your opening statement should have been;
The defence of the U.S. doesn't require the F-22 at present.
However this will not remain the case.
If history tells us anything is says that non-aggressive nations, in order to maintain "peace" need to stay a step ahead of potential enemies. Lokk waht happened in Europe during the 1930s & 40s as a case in point.
If countries that demonstrate potential to be a problem ie; Russia & China, increase their military capabilities Than you need to react to counter same. If a potentially aggressive nation believes it can act without incurring significant repercussions it will ie; Nazi Germany.
Therefor in order to deter you need to have a decisive advantage & the F22 provides that.
Naivity wont help you if place too much trust in a nation that does not deserve it.
"If history tells us anything is says that non-aggressive nations, in order to maintain "peace" need to stay a step ahead of potential enemies. Lokk waht happened in Europe during the 1930s & 40s as a case in point."
Germany had NO hardware advantage (neither in overall quality nor overall quantity) over France and the UK in 1940.
The advantage was solely in how the troops were lead and trained.
Reference:
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5r2wwps
Which could actually be useful if it had something to do with this topic.
Repeated exercises show that low-time F-22 pilots consistently blow away guys with 2000-3000 hours.
On the flip side, our legacy aircraft are old and decrepit (visit a depot and or a real squadron).
We do not have enough of a sane air power road map to protect our interests.
Maybe this guy can be of some help.
http://goo.gl/cGkkB
All F-22 exercises are similar instead of dissimilar AC engagements in the sense that the opponent does not come from an air power that has a vested interest in countering the F-22's strengths.
Results are accordingly about as meaningful as the F-4 AC record prior to Vietnam.
On top of that you've got the medium range AC focus of the F-22, where everything depends on a tiny radar seeker of a missile that has been target #1 for countermeasures for two decades.
SO, you missed the analogy in my earlier post.
The US cant really grab a couple of up to date SU-35s for disimilar training. However against the F15, which has been the benchmark for several decades, the F-22 dominates by any metric you wish to apply.
My point earlier was that you need to get ahead & stay ahead in terms of capability. The F-22 is the one platform in the US inventory that would consistantly give any nation contemplating or risking a direct confrontation with the US or any other nation that operated the type a headache.
The potential for serious losses, both on the ground & in the air associated with going up against an air arm outfitted with F22s is too great.
The F35 looks increasingly like its going to fail & teen series fighters, no matter how advanced, simply will not be survivable against a mature PAK-FA or J20.
S O:
By what metric do base the statement that not a single F-22 is needed for the defense of the US?
Fighting two insurgent wars for the last 8 years in a totally permissive air environment? So now we're going to base all future warfighting A2A needs on hunting insurgents hiding in caves? Just cover your ears and eyes and repeat, there's no J-20's or PAK-FA's.
Then you post:
in order to maintain "peace" need to stay a step ahead of potential enemies.
So that fact that two nations not exactly our friends are developing and building Raptor class 5th gen fighters SHOULD mean that we need MORE F-22's not less, right? Try not contradicting yourself, OK?
"All F-22 exercises are similar instead of dissimilar AC engagements in the sense that the opponent does not come from an air power that has a vested interest in countering the F-22's
strengths."
WTF?! So let me get this straight, the fact that the Raptor kills ALL of our other front line aircraft at something like 130-0 kill ratio in DACT means nothing because their not Russian or Chinese aircraft flying in these exercises? I'm sure that the USAF/USN would love to hear that their aggressor programs that simulate potential enemy aircraft are just window dressing.
So here's something to think about. If the PAK-FA or the J-20 are only 50% as good as the F-22, what will that mean to our "other" front line fighters based on the aforementioned 130-0 Raptor kill ratio? How can the F-35 which was designed from the beginning to emulate the performance of the F-16 be good enough against the supercruising two engined air supremacy fighters like the J-20 or the PAK-FA?
Wake up and smell reality...
Russia and China are not threat to the USA.
The like to trade with the USA and the are far away countries no matter what Mrs. Palin can see or not see.
F-22's may be needed for certain military adventures overseas, but they are not needed for actual defence.
Even for unnecessary adventures, the F-22 is likely unnecessary unless you assume that the U.S. fetish for air supremacy is rational.
Chinese and Russian attack aviation cannot cope well with air defences, or with 90's fighters.
Most likely neither of the two known Russian and Chinese LO fighters is prepared and intended for escorting attack aviation over AAD-infested territories.
Plus you did really not get what I wrote about similar/dissimilar.
The U.S., UK, France, Germany, Italy, Japan had no incentive to equip their fighters and air defences to face LO/VLO aircraft.
The Russians did this likely for 20-30 years and the Chinese for at the very least 0-15 years. Meanwhile, the F-22 basic design is already over 20 years old and heavily dependent on VLO success and a single type of missile with a single type of seeker.
The F-22 may very well slaughter hundreds of F-15s and still fail to achieve a 2:1 kill ratio over actual threat fighters. After all, no F-15 was ever equipped specifically for countering (V)LO aircraft.
Last but not least; having less military might actually reduce the probability of getting involved in a war.
Interesting theories.
History is full of examples where having a weaker military ended badly.
Russia probably is not a threat. The gear/technology that they sell and will sell to others will be a problem. Club-K, BrahMos and similar, S-300, S-400, S-500, PAK-FA, etc.
The idea that communist China is not a threat that one has to be prepared against in the Pacific can't be taken seriously.
I will let you comments on the technology in-general pass because you do not know what you are talking about.
What country importing Russian arms could be a threat to the U.S., requiring a war to defend the homeland? Mexico?
About technology; today's combat aviation is almost all about avionics, and it can easily be said that we both lack the key information on this.
There are nevertheless patterns in military tech history: A major and visible leap forward provokes a countermeasure.
The more spectacular and visible, the quicker and more powerful the countermeasure.
The Raptor needs to be a huge exception to the rule to escape this pattern.
..." is almost all about avionics"...
Yup. Almost.
Which if you don't have high altitude and high speed to back it up means that you will have great situational awareness of that which will kill you. Case in point: The Super Hornet Block II. Then there is the single point of failure, the AMRAAM. We have not fielded a mult-sensor air-to-air missile.
SO -
I'm sorry but I sense you are contradicting yourself somewhat, as anyone can, probably due to your evidently strong, or possibly absolutist ideological bias which seems to be dictating your thoughts against the F-22 and US in general.
To the contrary, the F-22 can be argued as very much a fair, asymmetrical deterrent to maintain balance of power and keep peace until diplomats can better seal a deal, e.g. some sort of Yalta II final end to cold war, etc.
Very simply, emerging counter-part tactical aviation technologies were seen as superior to US F-16 and F-15 in the 80s and 90s, always seeming to be one leap ahead. Moreover, as you also noted correctly, the reliance on systems such as a tiny missile radar seeker will always have an improved counter-measure waiting for it.
The US's legacy fleet under production could have arguably been secretly updated with better missiles and better avionics and secretly trained smarter, against superior tactical air systems, true. But that is not the path it took, right or wrong, the strategy taken was to counter such emerging superior capabilities with an altogether different doctrine. Perhaps your correct and the US should focus more on avionics and weapon systems and less on medium range VLO fighters. Mistakes in doctrine have happened before, different approaches will likely be studied again.
As for 'Why' the USA would 'want' to upgrade from 'inferior' F-16 and F-15 platforms to such a high-end, next-gen fighter capability? The answer is clearly within the question. Inferior systems would need to be replaced or significantly upgraded as mid-term deterrence and 'hedge' against a potential future aggressor after the Cold-war ended. Oh, and btw, I beg to differ... those potential adversarial 'attack platforms' you discussed - backed up by tactical SCUD class capabilities - were extremely capable given a decision to surprise attack as IADS defences were actually pretty weak against such a surprise.
Remember, in the early and mid-90s, it was still NOT exactly so clear the potential for a Nationalistic Russian-coupe take-over, or anti-West, vengeance-seeking parallel leadership succession - there was never a formal 'surrender' per se, only the hope of a liberal, moderate and integrated progression (after the Yeltsin drama and experience).
Furthermore, in this 90s time-frame... Possible North Korean adventures either against Japan or SK was a constant viable threat requiring deterrence.
One must confess too, that in this period PRC was actually more hard line against Taiwan as well, and showing potential hard-line stances against Japan, including ambiguous future intentions across the region, where US clearly had vested interests for regional security/stability and non-aggression against allies. There was simply less trust between the US and PRC in this period unfortunately, coming fresh after the Cold-war, and the dialogue was not as established and evolved as it is today.
So in closing, when one talks about undesired aggressive 'adventure-making', please understand that the USA of course has NO monopoly in this regard or potential for threatening such 'adventures'.
Hopefully, we're heading into a less antagonistic period in history and a more globally-integrated phase now, incorporating less militarization and being non-confrontational in differences between major powers. I would think you would agree with this stance?
But as far as US needing to upgrade her Tactical fleet one way or another as a means to maintain deterrence, keep peace between major powers and hedge against a potential threats from unknown emerging aggressors, the F-22 was the decision made to fill that role regardless of whether it being the appropriate platform.
SO,
The one point that I agree with you on is the AMRAAM. This missile, although far more capable now than when introduced, is the achillies heel of any combat aicraft IMO. I think it wise to develop a BVR missile with a IR sensor or at least incorporate an IR seeker into the AMRAAM family.
Your statement that; "Russia and China are not threat to the USA" is at best giving these states too much credit & a little naive.
"the inventories of the older combat aircraft still point at a 'Western' advantage, even in East Asia". I agree, this may be the case NOW however, it will not remain so into the future if, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the capabilities of the PAK-FA & J-20 meet or exceed expectations. As such we need to develop new or improve existing capabilities on the basis that these 2 aircraft, the 2 most likly that western air arms will go into combat against, will be able to at the very least match the threat posed.
"U.S. small wars of choice don't require the F-22 at all". Correct, COIN operations such as Afghanistan dont require a F-22 class of aircraft. Major regional conflict involving nations that have progressed out of the dark ages & developed modern complex capabilities do. Do you suggest that we allow China to continue to develop & expand its military unchecked in the vein hope that place nice?
Damn.... I love that S.O guy arguments....
@ELP:
Fighter flying higher at launch of missile => + potential energy = more energy.
Fighter flying faster at launch of missile => + kinetic energy = more energy.
Missile having better rocket engine or booster => + chemical energy = more energy.
That's the near-perfect substitute to the higher/faster attributes of the F-22. This is much of the reason why Europe is more interested in Meteor than the U.S. in a comparable project and why Russia has been developing extremely long range AAMs for two decades.
Super cruise is not just an asset - it's also a problem. You don't have much time to scan the environment if you are moving at Mach 1.5. Two fighters closing in at a cumulated Mach 1.8 is already requiring very fast detection and decision-making. An approach speed of comulative Mach 2.4 is even more of a problem.
In other words; a F-22 may be in a world of huge troubles if AEW support is not available - especially over red territory.
Btw, it should be clear that everyone comes to a conclusion with his own background of info, preferences, perceptions...I am not much interested in the particular aircraft type (unlike obsessed fanbois or haters). Instead, I do likely differ in my understanding of what "defence" means and how the dynamics of arms races and security policies work out.
SO -
I would concur with you 100% that a longer ranged AAM should be required even for a super cruising stealthy fighter, such as the F-22. In my opinion, even as someone who was skeptical of the F-22, the AMRAAM alone is in fact insufficient in range as the stand-alone US AIM. It will not always be put in a scenario where it is being launched at high altitude and super-sonic speed, or there will be scenarios where tactics alone would justify a long-range engagement either in offensive or defensive.
So I would concur that this so-called mismatch of AAM capabilities should be counter-balanced by US, not so much as part of an arms race, but as keeping parity, especially when being carried by slower and lower flying aircraft types.
I would further agree with you that an F-22 type super-cruise tactic be only employed when in a definitive weapons release situation, where rough or actual target location is already prepared for, or expected, or in other planned flights such as ISR sorties. But a mach 2.4 approach speed alone shouldn't be a critical problem and as you said, it is even an asset when employed properly. BTW, it doesn't seem to have been a problem when Mig-31 were at a mach 4+ closing speed intercepts vs SR-71 during cold-war.
Regarding your final comment on arms races and security policies, unfortunately this goes in multiple directions and it would not simply be a one-way phenomenon caused by the US or west in general. Moreover, in the early 90s, when former Soviet military structure was weakest and NATO structure still strong, there was no threat to Russia of attack as Russia was now seen as an investment paradise, key energy supplier and necessary for disarmament/safeguarding agreements.
Since the late 90s and early 2000s, there has been a decline of US air power and bomber fleet, culminating in the past couple years and is further set on track for the next 10 yrs to potentially become hollow and an illusion of deterrence value.
There has been a demobilization from Europe and in Korea/Japan and reduction of force structure across the board, land sea air. Modernization will always be the obvious method of offsetting considerable force reductions, until such a time when major powers are not threatened by ideological differences, become more pacifist and the world becomes less intent on counter-balancing and confronting one another.
The problem however is in hawkish rhetoric when combined with modernization and force level expansion. I've personally been critical of US's rhetoric in picking out PRC by name in official statements as this can be provocative.
But if one looks around today, it's actually not Europe or US who is leading in this hawkish rhetorical capacity, nor in the expansion of modernized forces with expressed intent of directly countering another (no, there will not be anywhere close to 3,000 F-35). And it is certainly not Japan in the lead here.
And with security in mind, it would appear to be a concern, that mini-arms races can unfortunately be escalated in places such as Asia as US in fact demobilizes, while hawkish rhetoric of others intensify and military balance of power dramatically shifts. Although on a bright note, one does have to applaud and further support continued China-Korean-Japanese contacts and cooperation in light of the global economic/financial crisis.
SO,
Further to my last post & in reply to your statement "..small wars of choice don't require the F-22 at all"
This is the exactly the style of problematic thinking western defence planning is falling into. That future wars will mostly be limited COIN operations against terror groups that will not need the capabilities provided by the F-22.
A defence force structured to fight a conventional war can adapt to fight extended COIN operations however, a fighting force structured primarily for COIN warfare will not be capable of fighting an extended conventional war.
What aircraft such as the F-22 bring to a battle is the ability to allow land & sea forces to operate & manouver freely safe in the knowledge that the only aircraft above them are friendly.
The US should get the F22 back into production ASAP. It should also be selling this aircraft to Australia. Furthermore, the F22 should be further developed with the aid of close allies like Australia and Japan. The F35 does not address any potential future confrontation with China. Even now, if China decided to retake Taiwan, the US would be at a serious disadvantage to intervene.
Post a Comment