Has The F-22A Lost The Battle?

Steyr

The F-22A appears to have lost the battle as Senators voted 58-40 to stop production of the jet at 187, in line with Defense Secretary’s Robert Gates’ original plan. The vote called for the $1.75 billion set aside for construction of seven more Raptors to be removed from the Defense Authorization Bill and is seen as a political victory for the Obama administration, which threatened to veto the bill if the money remained.

Senator Carl Levin, who proposed the amendment to remove funding for the extra F-22As, said “Today’s vote is a significant victory for our men and women in uniform, for the taxpayers and for reforming the way we do business in Washington. The Senate faced a simple question today: if not now, when? When would we end a weapons programme, if not now, with the civilian and uniformed leadership of the Pentagon asking us to do so? Many members are concerned about the job losses that will result in this decision. Believe me, I know first hand the pain such job losses can bring. But we need to invest in weapons systems that are needed. That members of both parties voted to end this programme is an important step toward reforming our defence budget.”

Senator Barbara Boxer is one of the F-22A’s supporters. “I voted to support continued production of the F-22 Raptor because we are still hearing strong indications from top military leaders that we need additional aircraft,” she said. “Last month, General Corley, the Commander of the Air Force Air Combat Command, wrote that ending procurement of the F-22 would put our ability to execute our nation’s military strategy at ‘high risk’ over the ‘near to mid-term.’

“The United States has made a significant investment in the F-22 programme. Before terminating it, I believe we must see in unequivocal terms how the defense planning process has determined that requirements and threats have changed to stop production at 187. The next Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR), which outlines our national security strategy, is scheduled for submission by the Department of Defense in early 2010. The timing of today’s vote ignored this review.”

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said “We’ve been fighting a headwind from the White House and the Pentagon leadership for weeks now. For whatever reason, the White House expended a lot of political capital to seek to terminate the F-22 programme. We will continue to pursue the potential for foreign military sales of a scaled-down version of the F-22 if interest persists from our strong allies.”

The next step for the legislation is a House-Senate conference version of the bill – if the Senate’s vote is carried in the combined version, F-22A production would cease at 187 aircraft.

AirForces Monthly
_______________________________________________________________________________

Not good news for the USAF. The F-22A production was heading to end this way for some time after it was revealed how high the expence cost was to keep the aircraft flying by the media. 187 is not many aircraft at all when you consider the size of the United States Air Force.

helimachoptor

In a way I agree, at the moment they don't have an air-to-air threat and a negligible ground-to-air threat in Iraq and Afghanistan. The F15 Eagle will continue to be there and when the JSF comes on board it will help.

Only if a new threat comes to the fore with technology than can rival that of the USAF will this be seen as a mistake.

Manic Moran

If they build a useful number of F-35s to counteract, hopefully it'll work out.

I just hope attrition on the F-22 isn't too bad.

NTM

Captain Chaos

Manic Moran wrote: »

I just hope attrition on the F-22 isn't too bad.

NTM

Same here, there is two F-22s gone already,one of the test airframes. It was lost along with the pilot earlier this year. Another crashed on take off a few years ago but the pilot ejected.

There is a big mess in the upgrade paths of the early F-22 block 10s, they can't be brought up to block 30 status, and the current block 20 can only be brought to partial block 30 status.

Block 30 will has a good degree of air to ground ability while the block 20 are limited and the block 10 are next to useless except for training.

Its going to be hard to keep a fleet of 187 going for 40 years. Only 60 F-22s are going to be full spec block 30s and all.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Not good news for the USAF. The F-22A production was heading to end this way for some time after it was revealed how high the expence cost was to keep the aircraft flying by the media. 187 is not many aircraft at all when you considerthe size of the United States Air Force.

but the F-22A isn't going to fight the USAF.

F-22A/AWACS is an air dominance capability, it is a system designed to destroy an enemies most sophisticated AD aircraft on the first and second day of war - and the trials that have taken place suggest that it does what it says on the tin - after that its a capability that is simply not needed.

very much in the same way as the USAF's abilty to project massive offencive power isn't crippled by only having 20-odd B-2's, they are both niche (if vital) capability that provides 'entry' for the vastly more numerous (and much less costly) legacy systems that can more than handle what threat remains after the F-22/AWACS sweeps the FDoW enemy from the sky while the B2/F-35 destroys those FDoW targets on the ground.

the USAF doesn't have 200 dedicated SEAD aircraft either, but that hasn't stopped them parking their tanks on any lawn they like.

AbusesToilets

When the politicians state that expensive systems like this are unnecessary because the USA is already the most dominant power by many degrees, i can't help but think that this is partly due to them being the only country willing and able to outlay such vast sums on weapons platforms and other pie in the sky projects. Star Wars and it's ilk being indicative of this. How long will the USA's dominance last if they stop investing money to have all the best toys and settle for immediate functionality?
That being said, the defense procurement set up has been in need of serious overhaul for decades and perhaps Gates could be the one to force it to reform. For the price of one F/A-22 you could probably outfit a division or two with gas-piston M-4s ala the HK416 and the necessary back side support needed for such a change. Or buy more rotary wing assets or any number of things that would benefit troops on the ground.

Manic Moran

Aircraft do get cheaper per unit the more you buy, as it divides into the R&D costs. My concern is with availability: You need to have sufficient numbers built to handle the attrition by way of accidents over the service life of the aircraft* (and each aircraft generation seems to last longer in service, probably due to the development costs: Plus age has its own problems, F-15s are now restriced to Mach 1.5), plus all the training squadrons, those down for maintenance, and finally still have a reasonable number scattered around the world for whatever use they may need.

M-4s ala the two with gas-piston HK416

I hope they don't. I'd rather carry the M-4 due to weight and balance. Now, if they moved to an entirely new design, preferably bullpupped, then I'd take the change.

NTM

*By way of curiousity, I looked up the F-15 figures. The USAF has so far lost at least 143 F-15s. 187 F-22s are being built.

AbusesToilets

It seems like they are putting a lot of weight into the F-35, hoping to use that to form the bulk of the numbers for future fighter/ground attack airframes. Personally i think we could be looking at the last generation of manned aircraft for the USAF, at least in terms of making up the majority being used in combat roles. They should invest in making more A-10s, by far and away the best ground attack aircraft flying nowadays. Nothing you'd rather have overhead if you're in a tic.

Can't say that i'd agree with you about the 416. Would take that in a heartbeat over the current alternatives. Not a huge fan of bullpups, the AUG is a nice rifle but ergonomics are not to my liking. But each to his own.

Manic Moran

I think there's something to be said for at least keeping pilots in ground attack aircraft.

Once you start putting the various goodies that the Army provides you to add to the rifle, things start getting very front-heavy. The 416 piston won't make that any lighter. That's the one benefit to the direct impingement design: It's light.

NTM

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

but the F-22A isn't going to fight the USAF.

Maybe you misunderstood, why would the F-22A fight the USAF... What i meant was it seems like a resounding yes to the other next generation Aircraft the F-35, the fact that they have over 2000 perliminery orders for the JSF helps with its poularity within the US Government. I feel they only way the Raptor would be the number one choice is if it was for export in the first place but they didnt want to export her in the first place.

If it was down to me id have lots of Raptors, 187 Raptors is still impressive considering in Red Flag they were knocking F-15 and F-16 aggressor pilots out 7/1.

Captain Chaos

[quote=Manic Moran;61278611My concern is with availability: You need to have sufficient numbers built to handle the attrition by way of accidents over the service life of the aircraft* (and each aircraft generation seems to last longer in service, probably due to the development costs: Plus age has its own problems, F-15s are now restriced to Mach 1.5),
*By way of curiousity, I looked up the F-15 figures. The USAF has so far lost at least 143 F-15s. 187 F-22s are being built.[/quote]

The M1.5 limit is not bad considering the F-15 can't go faster than M1.7 with just air to air missiles on it due to drag.

Of those 143 lost, is that from the 450 F-15A/B/C/Ds only or is the 200+ F-15Es included aswell? One of those was lost this week in Afganistan.

You are looking at around 25% of the fleet lost in accidents over 37 years, not that good looking at it. But then again a good few F-15A/Bs was been sent to AMARC for storage/scrappage.

If the F-22 follows the F-15s accident rate, we're looking at around 46 lost in around 35 years time. Hopefully not too many from the 60 full spec F-22s that have been built and are still on the factory line.

Steyr

AbusesToilets wrote: »

They should invest in making more A-10s, by far and away the best ground attack aircraft flying nowadays. Nothing you'd rather have overhead if you're in a tic.

Damn right, imagine if that was still in production, she would be perfect for the IAC. Gorgeous design and lovely sound too.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Maybe you misunderstood, why would the F-22A fight the USAF... What i meant was it seems like a resounding yes to the other next generation Aircraft the F-35, the fact that they have over 2000 perliminery orders for the JSF helps with its poularity within the US Government. I feel they only way the Raptor would be the number one choice is if it was for export in the first place but they didnt want to export her in the first place.

If it was down to me id have lots of Raptors, 187 Raptors is still impressive considering in Red Flag they were knocking F-15 and F-16 aggressor pilots out 7/1.

sadly my boy, it was you who missunderstood - the whole concept.

states, proper ones anyway, don't buy $200m platforms because they are 'cool'. they buy them to do a job, when they have enough of them to do the job they are bought for they stop buying them.

i'll go through it again for the hard of thinking. F-22 is one of several 'can-opener' platforms (B-2A, F-35SEAD, TLAM and ALCM). it degrades, using its detection evasion and EW capabilities, the air defence systems of the country its attacking to the point at which the much cheaper 'legacy' platforms can operate efficiently (that means F-15E and F-16C's undertaking their ground attack roles without a full A2A weapons load getting in the way and without having to be followed everywhere by fleets of fighter escorts).

do you use a can opener to scoop out whats in the tin, or do you use different tools for different jobs?

my point regarding your comment regarding the comparive size of the F-22A fleets and the size of the USAF is that its completely irrelevent, all that matters is that the USAF will be able to mount a sufficiently large F-22A force to accomplish its 'can opener' role over the life of the type in service. the tests so far conducted suggest that even after the attrition of thirty years service, the US will have the capabilty to fight, and beat decisively, China, over China with 30% of its F-22A fleet.

and thats what matters, not 'looking cool', which i'm afraid seems to be the big driver in your understanding or AirPower doctrine.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Damn right, imagine if that was still in production, she would be perfect for the IAC. Gorgeous design and lovely sound too.

thank you for proving my above remark so clearly.

i know i've 'disscussed' this with you before, but just for the record, could you give three realistic (given the Irish political effort undertaken to ensure that Irish troops don't go on operations where such violence might have to be used) scenarios where the IAC would use the formidable firepower of the A-10 and therefore justify its purchace?

Steyr

OS119 wrote: »

and thats what matters, not 'looking cool', which i'm afraid seems to be the big driver in your understanding or AirPower doctrine.

Sorry my son nothing wrong with apprectiating nice lines and design, if it looks right it flys right. Also i didnt say "cool" in any of my postings except for my reference to the A-10 which i personally like as it does look "cool" its a lovely simple rugged design and is appreciated by lots of aviation enthusiasts and Airshow fans alike considering i have spoken to people who think its an "ugly" design are you ok?

Manic Moran

Captain Chaos wrote: »

Of those 143 lost, is that from the 450 F-15A/B/C/Ds only or is the 200+ F-15Es included aswell? One of those was lost this week in Afganistan.

144... The list I looked up stopped in 2008.

NTM

Morpheus

Current missions dont call for A10's however, imagine if they deployed 4 PC9's with FFAR and .5's they would be able to provide 1 maybe 2 at least at short notice but where would they be if they have to call in PC9's ?? I think other in theatre forces would have better equipment at our disposal ... sad, we should be providing indigenous air support but we dont and thats the reality, I think that the UAV's are the first time irish aircraft have been deployed abroad in a military role.

increase numbers of and upgun and uparmour the Wolfhounds with miniguns and rocket pods and deploy them to move troops AND protect them in a pinch. better use of money IMO.

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Sorry my son nothing wrong with apprectiating nice lines and design, if it looks right it flys right. Also i didnt say "cool" in any of my postings except for my reference to the A-10 which i personally like as it does look "cool" its a lovely simple rugged design and is appreciated by lots of aviation enthusiasts and Airshow fans alike considering i have spoken to people who think its an "ugly" design are you ok?

you wrote in your post that "She'd be perfect for the IAC", and its not the first time you've said it on any of the discussions relating to AirPower doctrine on this board. of course, when challenged about that assertion, you've never given any doctrinal reason, just your normal pap about 'national pride' ot 'looking good'.

or are your posts so ridiculous that even you don't remember what you've put in them?

so, any chance of those three (two? one?) realistic scenarios - or perhaps a retraction of 'She'd be perfect for the IAC'?

goldie fish

What Air Combat have F15 type aircraft taken part in since Vietnam? Surely Ground Attack with an air to air ability should be the priority?

Captain Chaos

goldie fish wrote: »

What Air Combat have F15 type aircraft taken part in since Vietnam? Surely Ground Attack with an air to air ability should be the priority?

Since Vietnam, the air to air versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/Ds) have claimed 105 kills for no losses. The multi role F-15E built since 1986 has got 1 kill, took out an Iraqi chopper in the air!, with a laser guided bomb as they were outside Sidewinder range.

The USAF got 35 air to air kills in the '91 Gulf War with F-15s. They got another 4 over Bosnia in 1999.

Saudi F-15s have got about 4 and Israeli F-15s have gotten the other 60 odd kills.

Ground attack is taking priority in the USAF, they wanted 370 F-22 to cover their planned 1,600 F-35As for the USAF alone. The F-22 has been cut to 180 and the F-35A order is looking like it will get cut to under 1,000.
The F-22s ground attack ability is still being developed with Block 30 software and hardware. If the F-22 ground attack ability was fully developed and explored it could be just as good if not better in some areas as the F-35 in ground attack missions.

Yes the F-22 has a smaller weapons bay designed mainly for air to air missiles but it can still carry more air to ground and air to air weapons internally at the same time than the F-35B designed for the USMC and RN.