Home » Air » Stop the F-22 Now

Stop the F-22 Now

By Commentary Monday, July 13th, 2009 5:50 pm
Posted in Air, Commentary, Policy

UPDATED: Obama Reissues F-22 Veto Threat in Letter to McCain; Levin and McCain File Amendment To Stop Plane; POGO Tracks Votes

The Senate should debate the F-22’s fate this week . Sen. John McCain, ranking member of the Senate Armed Services committee, has pledged to lead the fight against the F-22, which the committee approved over the objections of McCain and Sen. Carl Levin, chairman of the committee. Following is an op-ed by Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey calling for an end to a plane they argue doesn’t work nearly as well as claimed and is far too expensive.

Lawmakers beholden to Lockheed are leading the charge to overturn the Secretary of Defense’s decision to stop producing the F-22. Gates and President Obama have threatened to veto the 2010 defense spending bill if it contains a single F-22 over the 187 authorized.

Both the House and Senate Armed Services Committees have already voted to overturn Gates’ decision. The House wants to make a down payment on 12 more F-22s. The Senate wants to pay up front for seven more in 2010. The House of Representatives passed its version of the bill on June 25 by a vote of 389 to 22. Clearly, Obama and Gates have a long way to go to pocket the 145 or so votes they will need in the House to sustain a veto. The Senate should debate its bill this week. Obama and Gates will suffer a huge legislative defeat if the F-22 supporters win.

Instead of being such a close call, further production of F-22s ought to be laughed out of court. The F-22 is outrageously expensive. The 187 are costing just over $65 billion, about $350 million each.

Not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be foolish to deploy them since there is no enemy air force to fight against. To send F-22s as a bomber — at three times the operating cost of F-16s that are already bombing over there — would be just another drag on the war effort.

Even more important is the question of whether the F-22 is a good fighter. The truth is that the F-22s weaken US air power. Study after study show that pilot skill dominates all other factors in winning or losing air battles. The F-22’s maintenance costs have the Air Force to slash in-air pilot training. In the 1970s, fighter pilots were getting 20 to 30 hours a month of air combat training. Today, F-22 pilots get 10 to 12 hours. High tech theorists claim flying can be replaced by ground simulators. Experience teaches that simulators can be used for cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality, they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat.

The Air Force, Lockheed, and their congressional boosters tout the F-22 as the silver bullet of air combat. The F-22’s so-called stealth may hurt more than it helps. In truth, against short wavelength radars, the F-22 is hard to detect only over a very narrow band of viewing angles. Worse, there are thousands of existing long range, long wavelength radars that can detect the F-22 from several hundred miles away at all angles. Believers in stealth’s invisibility should ask the pilots of the two — not one, as commonly believed — stealthy F-117 bombers taken out of action by old Russian radar-directed defense systems in the 1999 Kosovo air war. Moreover, a new whistleblower scandal is presenting evidence that the F-22’s stealth skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements because it has been badly fabricated and dishonestly tested.

The vaunted invincibility of the F-22 founders on two incurable flaws: First, the plane’s so-called “low probability of intercept” radar may now be easily detected, thanks to the proliferation of spread spectrum technology in cell phones and laptops. That creates an environment where, if the F-22 pilot turns on his radar, he announces his presence over hundreds of miles. Even better for the enemy, the radar makes an unmistakable beacon for opposing missiles.

Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they’ll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised by stealth and heavy radar electronics, the plane’s agility, short range missiles, and guns are nothing special — as one of us observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 “shot down” an F-22 in exercises.

As for the plane’s advertised ability to cruise supersonically the F-22’s low fuel capacity (27% of takeoff weight, only two thirds of what’s needed for combat-useful supersonic endurance in enemy airspace) reduces this to an air show trick. Why the big fuel shortfall? To make room for stealth technologies and radar electronics.

In summary, a vote for continuing F-22 production is a vote to decay pilots’ skills, to deny them a truly great fighter, to shrink the number of pilots and planes we can field, and to reward Congress’ unending appetite for pork. The new 2010 Defense Authorization bill should be vetoed if a single F-22 is added.

Winslow T. Wheeler, a former GOP congressional budget expert, is director of the Straus Military Reform Project at the Center for Defense Information in Washington.

Pierre M. Sprey, helped bring to fruition the F-16; he also led the design team for the A-10 and helped implement the program.

Share |

Join the Conversation

	ELP July 13th, 2009 at 6:21 pm Again, this crew shows what they don’t know. “Not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Interesting as Operations: USELESS DIRT 1 and 2 don’t provide any credible defense for the U.S. add to that it is a permissive air environment. “The F-22’s maintenance costs have the Air Force to slash in-air pilot training. In the 1970s, fighter pilots were getting 20 to 30 hours a month of air combat training. Today, F-22 pilots get 10 to 12 hours. High tech theorists claim flying can be replaced by ground simulators. Experience teaches that simulators can be used for cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality, they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat.” Um… no. While the USAF has monstrous management issues. OUD 1 and 2 at $10–13 billion per month have taken their toll on everything DOD wide and not just the F-22. More? The F-22 is not an F-117. It was designed with huge performance and not to be dependent on stealth. There is another new jet that doesn’t have extreme altitude and dash speed and well it is also built by LM. “Moreover, a new whistleblower scandal is presenting evidence that the F-22’s stealth skin has failed to meet its stealth requirements because it has been badly fabricated and dishonestly tested.” This is a good point. Should we worry? Look what else LM has their name on? “Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they’ll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised by stealth and heavy radar electronics, the plane’s agility, short range missiles, and guns are nothing special — as one of us observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 “shot down” an F-22 in exercises.” Lets see.…. GOOD when an occasional legacy jet gets a shot in.… BAD when the F-22 takes down hundreds. Hmmm “Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they’ll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight. Compromised by stealth and heavy radar electronics, the plane’s agility, short range missiles, and guns are nothing special — as one of us observed at Nellis Air Force Base in Nevada when an F-16 “shot down” an F-22 in exercises.” Tell me about the AN/ALR-94.… everything you “know”. You can’t if that is your argument. Wrong also on the super-cruise. In this case it allows the aircraft to setup on its own terms log before contact ( again look at how that inter-acts with the AN/ALR-94. Then there is the issue of a better NEZ ( no-escape zone ) shots for AMRAAM (up to 40–50% better push)-a big push for JDAM and SDB also. M1.8 at 65,000 feet (calculate the effective ground speed conversion) isn’t small. While everyone is slobbering over the yellow journalism of the WP, consider this too. http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html
	Chief Houston July 13th, 2009 at 6:38 pm Anybody that led the design team on the A-10 Thunderbolt has my ears open! Russia’s 4th ++ generation fighter seems to match or surpass the F-22 and at what cost advantage? Bang for the buck is critical at the start of the 21st century since cost factors can only rise. We have got to get some value for our dollars with a useful lifetime to match the A-10’s lastest configuration till 2020 or so. The A-10 should be the baseline for a productive service lifetime in AC design. What is wrong with the engineers on the fuel system? Time out bandit buddy, I got to refuel!?
	Charley A. July 13th, 2009 at 6:51 pm The simple truth is that the F-22 is not providing much as far as ROE goes. Regardless what the naysayers bleat, it is a great airplane — but it is way too expensive for what it brings to the table.
	Charley A. July 13th, 2009 at 6:54 pm Sorry, typo alert. Should have been ROI, not ROE.
	RFL July 13th, 2009 at 7:05 pm I would note that Wheeler is against any modern aircraft. And as for not being used, CENTCOM has asked and the Secretary has denied. As for the use of the aircraft, the con-ops of an F-22 and F-35 fleet are clear to anyone who wishes to actual study it. The thurst of the Obama Administration is to build ground forces for uncertain occupation efforts; not to defend the sovereignty of the United States. The role of power projection forces for the Untied States has been unique and central to the crafting of US leadership of global alliances. We are clearly on the course to dismantle this capability in order to provide for what used be called peacekeeping forces.
	Chief Houston July 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pm I agree Charley A. since we have no other options on the table. What a shame, we need something to counter South American purchases of Russian 4th ++ generation planes, but can we afford to fly it in training. Unless this thing has a hidden scram jet that takes it to MACH 5 on a small amount of fuel or sits on the ground piggybacked to a B-52 to be flown into the conflict area then dropped, I cannot see it being cost effective.
	Alex July 13th, 2009 at 7:08 pm They are slashing training for pilots because of the cost of the F-22? That sounds suspiciously made-up. Even if that were the case, a pilot with 30x hours training in an F-16 stands little to no chance against a pilot with 10x hours training in an F-22, as the author of this article conveniently forgot to mention that the F-22 that was ‘shot-down’ by the F-16 had already splashed two other 16s in a 3–1 dogfight, with the third ending in a mutual kill between the two aircraft. And lets not forget that the Red pilots of the 3 F-16s that were shot down are the best in the Air Force flying against less experienced F-22 pilots. Certainly you can make a case against procuring more F-22s, but the author of this article makes himself look like a fool.
	Chief Houston July 13th, 2009 at 7:14 pm Thanks ELP, I needed some encouragement after that bath from the WP. I know the truth is somewhere in there, I just want to minimize lives lost on our side with cost factors that are manageable.
	Alex July 13th, 2009 at 7:19 pm And of course, the total kill ration for the dozen or so F-22s in that exercise (vastly outnumbered by more experienced Red pilots) was 142–1 I believe.
	EE July 13th, 2009 at 8:10 pm Hold on there ELP In the Hollow Military years of President Carter-we had to get some of our F-4 Fighter flight time in A-4 simulators (to get the required USMC 100 hours per year. Ohe last day of the FY we could fly our F-4s to another base BUT not pay for the JP until the next day. It is a complet falshood that Fighter Pilots in the Seventies were getting 20 to 30 hours of Air Combat Training-I was at almost every fighter base USN/USAF/USMC in those hollow years of the Big Peanut and it was an awful time for fleet readiness and Combat proficency until President Reagon was elected.
	DensityDuck July 13th, 2009 at 8:24 pm “Pierre M. Sprey, helped bring to fruition the F-16…” Ah yes, the F-16. A great tac bomber. Oh wait, it was supposed to be a FIGHTER? PS I really wish people would stop cockworshipping the A-10. It was designed for plinking tanks in the post-nuked Fulda Gap. That it is so commonly-seen in the CAS role speaks more to the lack of an actual dedicated CAS aircraft than it does to the A-10’s suitability for the role. The old AD-1 did everything that the A-10 has ever done, and less-expensively at that. *** “High tech theorists claim flying can be replaced by ground simulators. Experience teaches that simulators can be used for cockpit procedures training but, by misrepresenting in-air reality, they reinforce tactics that could get pilots killed in real combat.” translated: “Ah’m tellin’ you young’uns, ya can’t beat EXPERIENCE! I’ll take yer book-larnin’ any day, I’ll take it ANY day’a the week, I’ll take it and I’ll give ya EXPERIENCE! Experience ALWAYS wins, boy, and don’t you go fergettin’ that!” (gets killed by an AMRAAM launched from an F-22 thirty-six miles away.) * “Second, when combat forces F-22 pilots to turn off radars, they’ll find themselves forced into a close-in, maneuvering fight.” Oh look, it’s “last-war-itis”. Vietnam wound up as a lot of close-in turning fights, therefore all future air combat will always be close-in turning fights, The End. * And oh look, they’re crapping on stealth, using the “evidence” of an F-117 being shot down after flying the same route 36 times and broadcasting in the clear while doing it. Does Sprey even have a security clearance anymore? If he did, he’d know that he was talking out of his ass. (Not that this would stop him, but at least he’d know.) “In summary, a vote for continuing F-22 production is a vote to decay pilots’ skills, to deny them a truly great fighter…” Ah-heh. “please please PLEASE let us build the Mach 3 fighter we’ve ALWAYS wanted one it’ll REALLY WORK this time we SWEAR just ignore the XF-103 and XF-108 and XF-107 and XB-70 and YF-12 and all the rest it’ll TOTALLY HAPPEN this time WE PROMISE!!!!” ** “Not a single F-22 has flown in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.” :rolleyes: we haven’t fired a warshot Minuteman since they were built. Clearly the Minuteman is a useless waste of money! Same with all those submarines, silly things just go under water and stuff, how many bad guys have they killed? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Obviously submarines are a meaningless waste of money!
	Daniel Russ July 13th, 2009 at 8:37 pm Electronic aggressor exercises are not real combat. They are simulations. A best guess if you will. That said, I would like to bring a lesson from history and something to think about. In WWII the Germans built the Panzer Mark VI Tiger Tank, and it proved itself the best tank on the field. But it was expensive, broke down after about 160 km and each one took about 3 weeks to finish. Meanwhile, the Russians built the T-34 which when fitted with the 85mm HV gun, could stay in the ring with a Tiger or take it out. It took a few days to build one, and broke down about every 450 km. The T-34 inspired the next version of the Panzer Mark VI, the King Tiger, even more expensive and harder to produce. All told, the Germans built about 1300 Tigers and 484 King Tigers. The Russians built 39,000 T-34s. About 3/4 of which were built and fielded before the end of the war. We all know how that ended. 187 F-22s will not hold off tens of thousands of Su-30 series, Mig 29s, Mirage 2000s or whatever Gen 4 and Gen 5 aircraft we may face– particularly at these repair times. It’s time for taxpayers to demand not just bang, but bang for the buck– something the F-22 does not do. For the money, it should have lower maintenance costs. Is that too much to ask? Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	John the civi July 13th, 2009 at 8:45 pm Anyone know when those Senate debates are going down?
	zb July 13th, 2009 at 8:57 pm Isn’t the predominate American bomber and fighter for that matter going to be a UAV well within the F-22s functional lifetime?
	DensityDuck July 13th, 2009 at 9:41 pm “Electronic aggressor exercises are not real combat.” Why? Oh, right, because of Magic Human Power that makes jet fighters able to do impossible things. Hey, I guess in-flight exercises are useless, too, right? Seeing as how it’s Americans flying the other side. We’ll never know how the Chinese will fight, so there’s no benefit to training–it’s still a simulation, after all! **** “187 F-22s will not hold off tens of thousands of Su-30 series, Mig 29s, Mirage 2000s or whatever Gen 4 and Gen 5 aircraft we may face…” …and these are the actual numbers, then? You’ve got some substance to back that up, right? “tens of thousands”? Really? That’s a bold statement, friend. Also, your analogy doesn’t hold. If anything, the Su-30 is the Panther and the F-22 is the Pershing.
	dave July 13th, 2009 at 9:59 pm Come on, the guy is from CDI. CDI, like Obama, is for anything that weakens America’s defenses. Yeah, let’s cut the F-22 so Obama and Pelosi can pay more bribes to their left-wing scum cronies.
	Daniel Russ July 13th, 2009 at 10:15 pm Well Density Let’s just use our indoor comment thread voice and please not make this a flame war. Let’s try and keep it civil. I get so tired of the blogs where discussions become little more than two rage-a-holics in traffic trying to out flip each other. I see your point. As a former vendor to the AF on two accounts for over 12 years, I worked with and know dozens of combat pilots who say that yes, electronically scored aggressor training is a best guess and no it doesn’t really match the intensity and outcomes of actual combat. That said, if you add up all the production of Su-30 series aircraft, MIG –29s, MIG– 21 Bison export models, Mig –31 Foxhound variants and Mirage 2000s on order around the world, it’s well over 10,000 combat aircraft. Finally, I don’t see why my analogy is wrong. If a weapon system is too expensive to produce in high enough numbers to withstand wear and tear of intense combat, then it’s not worth building. Like I mentioned in an earlier thread: we only built 100 B-1s. Only 67 are flying. I mean how many missions does a B-1 fly that couldn’t be accomplished with two SLAMs or other cruise missiles for a fraction of the cost? Why then is it more like the Pershing? More Tigers engaged on the Eastern front than against the Americans and British. There were only 1600 Pershings built and fielded and rather late at that. It was on the Eastern Front where the cheaper, faster, easier to build and operate T-34 really kicked the stuffing out of the Panzer Grenadieres who marched behind Tigers. Your move sir Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Daniel Russ July 13th, 2009 at 10:29 pm zb, I will bet that the F-35 is next to the last manned US aircraft made as a front line strike/fighter. UAVs are less expensive, improving faster than versions of the iPhone, and far less costly when one goes down. The cost of training a pilot is so high that at Edwards AFB, pilots who won their wings and got their pilot bonuses were once forbidden to buy motorcycles because a few of them crashed in the highways of the Mohave Desert. I believe in our life time, we’ll see a major battle fought with as many robots as humans. If I were King, I would put much more emphasis on robotic systems than building Cold War aircraft. You’ll know you’re too old when one of the two following things happen: robots kill robots, or a song by Outkast ends up in an elevator being covered by the Ray Coniff Singers. Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Cole July 13th, 2009 at 10:35 pm Dan Russ etc, Nobody on the face of the earth will ever have a thousand Su-30s let alone ten times that many. Mig-29s are falling out of the sky and none have ever had a chance against an F-15/16 let alone an F-22/35. Meanwhile, check out StrategyPage where the Russians are scrapping 22,000 more tanks which kind of makes your WWII history lesson outdated. Does that sound like an expanding military that can afford hundreds of $100 million fighters that still are marginally stealthy and have lousy radars and engines? What about the recurring expense of $20K-50K (who to believe) per flight hour that is required for any kind of stealth fleet? Then unless they have aerial tankers, their endurance is limited, while ours is not…because only we can afford numerous tankers, AWACS in numbers, and EF-18s in numbers. General Cartwright wanted to scrap further F-22s for jamming 18s for a reason as DarthAmerica is arguing effectively on F16.net. They complement stealth. But back to StrategyPage.com where you can read about the Pakistanis (you know, that useless dirt with terrorists near nukes) complaining about insufficient helicopters at 300. Saw a Brit politician claim the same problem on a YouTube today. And of course, the Marines just used a bunch of newly added Army 82nd Airborne Chinooks to air assault into Helmand. Chinooks cost $6800/hour, not $10K for a less capable V-22. Apaches cost $3400 an hour and UH-60s about $2800 an hour. That is a far cry from $20-50K to combat a nearly non-existent worldwide quantity AND quality jet threat that can be disposed of in weeks…especially when F-35s are added. There WILL be thousands of F-35s unlike Su/MiG variants. BTW, seen many U.S. helicopters getting shot down in Iraq or Afghanistan? Sure its more than jets but that’s because they actually fly low enough to get shot at. All those pilots learned extensively on high fidelity visual and motion simulators. If the major threat to F-22s/F-35s is S-300/400, that can be practiced in a simulator with far greater realism than actual flight. And then there are the coming UCAVs…heck the Russians were trying to buy Israeli UAS just to copy the technology of UAS basics. Think they are close to a stealthy UCAV? If they aren’t, neither are the copycat Chinese. How about stealthy cruise missiles. How about improved air-launched decoys. How about coming EW jamming of missiles and radars by frontline jets. How about Israeli-style cyber attacks of air defenses in Syria. How about those Russian fighters getting shot down by Georgian air defenses. And we should be fearing products built by the bear? But Venezuela might buy a few dozen you say!;) We already spent $65 billion for the 187 F-22s we will own, will need $8 billion more for limited upgrades, and then you want to buy 40 more so that AEF fighters can deploy less? Then we will be spending $120 billion for new tankers, who knows how much on new bombers, and $300 billion on the F-35. And of course, as DD points out, we gotta replace USAF ICBMs one of these days…that other never used asset that still wears out every few decades and doesn’t hide too well unlike subs. Hypersonic Global Strike$$$$? “Aim high” certainly has monetary significance does it not…and that’s before we spend big to train and pay USAF aviators that outnumber other services in numbers of officers as a percentage of the overall total force? All the other services have warrant officers, too. The Army has 15,000 active warrants doing a heck of a job flying…and still doing pretty darn well at the bank. But Mr. Sprey would have us go for quantities of pilots, maintainers, bases, and yes aircraft that would still be expensive these days. Show me the air threat requiring 5,000 non-stealthy fighters? But I’ll happily show you many a shoreline where those 5,000 non-stealthy jets will never venture thanks to S-300 defenses. Heck, we are struggling to park the far fewer stealth aircraft we project and keep them from getting pounded by Chinese TBM submunitions. At least the stealthy F-35 gives up some pounds for air-to-ground and can visually ID targets on day 1 through the duration. AMRAAM/AESA (there is the quantity you asked for), small diameter bomb, JTACs, B-2s/B-1s/B-52s, UCAV/UAS, Navy jamming, and an 80% F-35 OR rate will do the rest. But the Air Force thinks they are making a great counterargument by claiming the F-22s are up to 70% OR now and eventually will be able to fly 3 hours mean time between maintenance! Wow, how impressive…
	Daniel Russ July 13th, 2009 at 10:59 pm Cole, 90% of your post I totally agree with especially as a cost analysis. Glad we see eye to eye there. i think the F-35 is one of the smartest planes we have built in part because it delivers great performance/cost. Granted, no single enemy will have tens of thousands of fighters. But tens of thousands of these new Gen fighters will be deployed around the world in large numbers in theatres that we supposedly may see air to air engagements. Plus the Chinese are making large numbers of Golden Eagles and variants. But the aircraft are really just platforms for newer air to air missiles and high tracking systems. The plane might not matter as much as the missile tracking systems. In regards to MIG-29s falling out the sky. In Vietnam, Phantoms, F-105s, F-100s, A-4s, and rotorcraft also fell out of the sky in total, by the thousands. Next week I will post an article on my blog about the total number of US aircraft lost from 1965 to 1975 and it’s actually staggering, and they were shot down by Russian fighters, SA-2s, SA-6s, and AAA all being “leased” by a third world nation. Finally, yes we have better pilots. But we can’t rest on our laurels. There will come a time when the best pilot is in a weapons platform that simply cannot stop the plethora of new and advanced systems being developed and/or purchased by our “frenemies”. I am not sure why scrapping 22000 tanks changes the facts about history, that the T-34s were made in numbers big enough to beat smaller numbers of better tanks and better crews.
	Daniel Russ July 13th, 2009 at 11:11 pm Cole, StrategyPage is awesome. I’d like to put it on my blogroll. Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Cole July 13th, 2009 at 11:59 pm Dan Russ, I read you used to be a fighter and were even on TV. How would your untrained/lesser trained, AND lighterweight opponents have fared against you if they came at you one at a time…and they had less reach…and less speed…and YOU were invisible! That is how we will fight future air wars…one at a time against lightweights. It doesn’t matter how many jets are out there if we aren’t fighting them, most of them are our allies, and their jets (except allied F-35s) aren’t as good OR as numerous anyway. Furthermore, air supremacy is one of those fewest forms of warfare where you CAN fight near simultaneous conflicts. Fight a few weeks.…next. Historians (I see you have that interest as well) always attribute old lessons improperly to new conflicts, enemies, terrain, and technology. A Sparrow radar missile bears ZERO resemblance to an AMRAAM. An active radar has no bearing on an AESA radar. F-117s that flew the same route repeatedly have no bearing on better tactical employment of stealthier AND more numerous aircraft. An F-35 AIN’T an F-4 anymore than an AH-64D is a early Huey gunship. Since the USAF went on their spending spree beginning with the undefeated F-15/16, the number of aces has dropped because our foes cannot keep up in either the pocket book, training, or technology departments. They cut and run, and buy TBM and air defense systems instead. The only Golden Eagles I know of are 180 or so U.S. F-15C/D that may be upgraded with AESA radar to fill out the air supremacy fleet…to add to the F-22, F-35, F-15E, F/A-18E/F still out there and still effective against J-10 (like an F-16)and J-11 (like a Su-27). I’ve seen artist renderings of a new Chinese jets with canards that would stand out like a sore thumb on radar. A PAK FA may look like an F-22, but that is where the resemblance will stop. The Russians still have 6,000 tanks, but 500 M1A2s could handle them all, let alone all the other U.S weapons that target tanks and armor. Modern tanks/APC can easily cost $10 million. Not many nations can afford lots of modern tanks. The Chinese don’t have them. How will they afford lots of far costlier stealth aircraft when all they do is copy others who can’t build them? I finally read an AUSA Army article that described (before they got killed) that FCS manned ground vehicles were going to have radar, so now can talk about it (never was classified but still). Can you imagine a tank with AESA radar and 8+ km range vs the current 2–4 kms and thermal only? The Army did a lousy job of advertising anything other than their nebulous FCS network. The EFV is $20 million plus for a light armor deathtrap with a unique but unnecessary water trick. They should get on board with the Army on vehicle modernization just as all the jet air services got on board with a near common, highly effective F-35.
	pfcem July 14th, 2009 at 12:13 am LOL Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey at it again. They haven’t been relavent or had a clue about what works in modern combat since the 1970’s All you need to know is that if Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey didn’t design it & it wasn’t buit exactly to their design they want you to believe that it is a POS & that their 1970’s era mindset know better despice all the evidence & history to the contrary. They didn’t even like the F-16 after those who actually know about what workes in combat took their “armed with just two Sidewinders, a gun & with only a ranging radar LWF” and turned into the envy & the benchmark of the world.
	DensityDuck July 14th, 2009 at 12:16 am Also, just to continue the tank riff: Look into the design decisions that led to the M4 Sherman / M10 combination. Take note of how that turned out in combat. And doesn’t that look a lot like the whole “high/low” plan? And doesn’t it seem that maybe we’re painting ourselves into the same corner by giving up on vastly-superior F-22 in favor of near-parity F-35?
	John the civi July 14th, 2009 at 12:17 am pfcem All you need to know is that if Winslow Wheeler and Pierre Sprey didn’t design it & it wasn’t buit exactly to their design… ==================================== You have sources for that?
	EE July 14th, 2009 at 7:28 am Rough ball park of Aircraft lost in SEA during Vietnam (combat and in theater mishap combined)- USAF—2,251-including the bravest of the brave 335 F-105Ds USN 859 (377 Naval Aviators KIA) USMC 193 Fixed Wing including 95 fellow Phantom Crews and 270 Helos US Army 5.086 Helos –waht tremendous courage and fortitude This was in todays F-22 debate Secreatary Gates’s “non-peer war”– AND the combat aircraft of the PLAAF is roughly the size of todays USAF and growing-US numbers are declining–
	Cole July 14th, 2009 at 8:40 am EE, thanks for the stats and those were courageous airmen in all services, but… Different conflicts: A fight against China over Taiwan would be entirely different than one in the mideast or against Russia in southern Europe. There are fewer bases for airpower. Airfields would be under constant threat of TBM attack. That scenario probably favors loitering stealth UAS to find TBM and S-300 and long range bombers. Additional F-22 on the ground around Japan/Korea would be under constant threat since most are being worked on at any given time. It just wastes fighter and tanker hours flying from Guam. Different enemies: Comparing the Viet Cong/NVA to most Armies we would fight is like comparing the super bowl winning team to a mid-pack or bottom-dwelling team. Same thing for comparing Hezbollah to most mideast foes. The Viet Cong/NVA were also helped enormously by our conscript Army. Sorry draftees, but a few good ones does not a great Army make. The ability to hide in jungle terrain brings up the second area where history fails. Different terrain: Comparing a conflict that occurred in dense jungle or one that occurred in southern Lebanon where the enemy had unobstructed preparation, is not germaine to other terrain we may fight on. Urban terrain is the newer norm, which dictates smaller bombs and Hellfire-sized missiles and 30mm and the EO/IR to positively ID targets. F-22 radar imagery doesn’t cut it for positive ID amongst civilians. Even with the Vietnam terrain, if we had precision bombed (couldn’t back then) Hanoi the entire war ala Linebacker II, suspect the outcome would have been entirely different. Different technology: Already mentioned that the F-35 isn’t remotely similar to an F-105D or F-4 except that it is jet powered and has wings. We had far fewer precision munitions and far fewer UAS in even Desert Storm, let alone in Viet Nam. Don’t believe we had HARM back then. What we had was lots of carpet bombing and hope-I-don’t-hit-you-down-there CAS. With precision munitions, you require far fewer fighters and bombers. Now we fly much higher and have the (F-35 not F-22) optics to still see the ground up close. Army AH-64D have the MTADS optics and Longbow radar combination to ID targets low to the ground while maintaining standoff. Vietnam Cobras? Grease pencil on the glass. Compare our body armor and helmets today to Vietnam. Compare the number of helicopter losses in Vietnam to Desert Storm, OIF, and Afghanistan, Compare the Soviet losses of 300+ helicopters in Afghanistan to our losses. The difference is technology in both IR missiles and countermeasures against them. The difference is greater redundancy in flight systems to take a licking and keep on ticking.
	Rhyno327 July 14th, 2009 at 9:00 am Pierre Sprey doesn’t like ANYTHING. Why not sell the planes to the Japanese? Aussies? We are gonna need capable allies. For all these countries that want it, there must be something really good about it. So, wats the rumpus?
	Rhyno327 July 14th, 2009 at 9:04 am Vietnam era “Wild Weasel” missions included the “Shrike”, an older and less capable than the HARM we operate now. F-4’s in Desert Storm performed that mission. Now? I don’t know. F-16? E/A-6B? Someone enlighten me pls?
	EE July 14th, 2009 at 9:30 am I totally understand the terrain arguement having been in SEA (land air and sea) and ALL of Iraq-with side trips to Jorden, West Bank and Israel-I missed Panama. My only point is modern high tech war can destroy assets very quickly (in ways and situations we do not yet understand until actual combat)-I fully understand the “ibilities”-survivability, maintainability. reliability and trading firepower for manpower (America way of war since ending of Civil War) My quest is not to have a debate on the margins while hundreds of Billions are being spent on Acorn and other domestic make work “shovel ready jobs”–as an aside what a huge insult to all Americans that our goal is a depression era WPA slogan–“Shovel ready”– The military apitite should be insatiable-it is up to the Political process to set priorities-and on the biggest issue Militay Vs Domestic I think the F-22 represents the entire arguement-it is the key indicator for all other 21st Century budgeting priorities.
	Tenn Slim July 14th, 2009 at 9:47 am ALL As an EX LM EMD Loggie, for the F 22 program, in its Pre First Flight days, I can say this is an atrocious set of falsehoods. Period. The F22 bird is the best technological aircraft to come out of LM, Northrup, Grumman, McDonell, Douglas, since the days of WW2. PERIOD. Cost, capabilities, etal are always subjects of attack. We fought the good fight with these folks in the 90s and won. IF and WHEN the need arises for a response to any attack, ask the USAF Pilots which aircraft they want to take DownTown. My bet is the F22, PERIOD. I could detail ad nauesum the articles false claims, but really, it is not worth my time. I am off line to call McCain. He is being used, badly, here. Semper Fi end
	John the civi July 14th, 2009 at 10:55 am Looks like this whole thing is going to be wrapped up pretty soon one way or the other.
	pfcem July 15th, 2009 at 1:34 am John the civi, Just anything & everything they have ever written or said.
	Allan M Salzberg MD, PhD July 15th, 2009 at 5:46 pm In the late 1960’s Pierre Sprey who was part of a DoD Analysis shop attempted to make the A-10 a turboprop plane. I personally, as in Air Force Operations Analysis Research decision showed that non only is the A-10 more effective, but is far more survivable against Red eye and Stingers. The rest is history. Pierre has had a lifelong aversion to high tech solutions and seems to believe that high tech is too expensive and would not perform as stated.
	Jawaralal Bernstein July 15th, 2009 at 10:34 pm We can’t afford the F-22. We can afford not to buy it in order to fund what today’s and tomorrow’s warfighters really need. It doesn’t matter if LockMart’s stock price is dented.
	Do the right thing July 15th, 2009 at 11:31 pm Come on, the guy is from CDI. CDI, like Obama, is for anything that weakens America’s defenses. Yeah, let’s cut the F-22 so Obama and Pelosi can pay more bribes to their left-wing scum cronies. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Why do some of you blame Obama for everything you can think of that is bad about today’s military? The Pentagon proposed the number of approximately 186 F-22’s back in 2006. Obama’s fault? Was he that good early in his career in the Senate? Dick Cheney tried to kill the V-22 Osprey. Everyone is cool with that? Republicans good. Democrats bad? Dick Cheney, before he left as Sec. of Def. reduced manpower by 10% and DoD budget by 20%. Republicans good? Democrats bad? What is amusing is he was degraded as just a lowly community organizer before the election. Now, after all that has happened, he is blamed for controlling most facets of our lives. More so than the last president ever did. Oh, did I mention we still have the old Republican appointed Sec. of Def. still in charge?
	F101 voodoo Crew Chief July 16th, 2009 at 1:11 am The Republicans and Democrats emptied Americas Coffers just like a Jet Fighter squawking Code 4, to a 1960’s USAF Crew Chief that means BROKE DICK. The two year experienced Commander and Chief will use the ole standard fix, KEEP THOSE PRINTING PRESS’s well oiled, full of ink, paper, and don’t stop printing, yes we can, afford those RAPTORS.
	Do the right thing July 16th, 2009 at 2:03 am What I would prefer to talk about is airplanes. I think we all agree the cost of this airplane seems to have been poorly managed. Some want to scrap the entire program as a result. Some want to cut back to 186. I don’t know the numbers required but I would like to see us get some return for our money on this program. The plane must be somewhat creditable. And the Soviet block AF is gone. So if we cut back to 186, how long before attrition, etc, causes the bean counters to convince the powers that be to scrap out the entire remaining fleet and send them to D-M? And then start over with a new design that surely won’t cost less. If we build 20 or or 50 or 100 more, would that allow the fleet a much longer life span before a new design needs to be implemented? I like programs that hang around for awhile. F-4’s, F-15’s, F-16’s, F/A-18’s for example. I like build rates like the F-16 that allowed continual upgrades. And this also allows the original manufacuring line to still be operational when the eventual wing spar failures require new replacements. If evolution of technolgy is prceeding at too fast a rate for this, then we need to radically rethink out procurement process and shorten desgin and manufacturing times to half or less than what we wasted on the F-22. By the time the computer hardware was ready to be built per the original designs of that plane, the motherboards were obsolete and not buildable.
	MARK SCHULMAN July 16th, 2009 at 10:05 am Our people in senate and congress are so currupt it makes me sick! We voted them in, we should vote them out.
	PIF31 November 29th, 2009 at 10:02 pm Well, 19 weeks later and the F22 is dead. Rumor on another board: “Don’t fret — there is something operational and flying that is far better than than the F22…”
	SeesthruBS November 30th, 2009 at 3:19 am >Mig-29s are falling out of the sky and none have ever had a chance against an F-15/16 Okay im a little late upon seeing this, but this is absolute crap. Try asking the pilots of the aircraft who went up against Mig 29s from the unified German airforce. All US aircraft flown against them were beaten. HMS played no small part which the US then adopted, though nearly 20 years later. Still, such threads are always good for a laugh.