As I watch those magnificent machines doing their touch and goes outside my window, I'm constantly reminded that they are an overpriced beast to buy and operate. It's a vestige of Pentagon planning for Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen.
The BS about stealth airplanes flying in rain and damage to RAM coatings started with B-2. It was BS then and still is.
As for planning for the Great Power War, the requirement to maintain air superiority remains regardless of potential adversary. N. Korea, Iran, possibly China all are on the future table.
Price per unit for Raptors is higher than it needed to be because of continual cuts in contract numbers and amortizing total development across fewer airframes. Cost to operate is within the framework of first operational years of a new system.
We haven't had enemy aircraft over American ground forces since Korea and that didn't happen because the threat wasn't there. It occurred because we could control the airspace.
The idea of killing an air enemy stealthily and at a distance is very appealing to this old fighter pilot who used to have to get a lot closer.
"Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen."
Would that it were so. People think this is a new age of reason. Take a look around. It's a dangerous world and will always be that way.
War has always been part of the human condition. Those skinny, peaceful people walking around with the catatonic expressions and wearing sparkly white spandex suits are only in the movies. They're not *really* in our future. M'kay?
You can only bounce back if your heartland has manufacturing capacity/base, it isn't destroyed, and the sinews of war (money, financial capacity, ability to acquire/ownership of energy sources) are hale.
These days that's all looking shakier than in a long time.
Yep! The F22 is done. Make way for the newest kid on the block, the JTF F35. From all I understand, it's cheaper & more multi-role. Hence the discontinuation of the F22. The only ones crying are the makers, contractors & politicians who pull in the pork for it.
"From all I understand, it's cheaper & more multi-role."
It's also not an air superiority fighter.
That's like saying "The F-15 is done, make way for the AV-8B!"
Don't buy that MSM "pork" nonsense. The same people in the media who decry the Raptor as "pork" are salivating over Nat'l Health Care and Green Industry subsidies...
Hmm, Tam, I don't know, but The Guns of August is now in my Amazon shopping cart. Thanks for the recommendation.
No, I don't think we'll be shooting at the Europeans in quite awhile. At least, not on any large stage that the F-22 is designed for. Bosnia doesn't cut it.
I don't consider N. Korea or Iran to be any sort of Great Power. Iran won't commit. They'll rattle and make noise, but they have a bigger issue with Sunis than the West. Particularly Saudi Arabia. Assuming they don't destabilize internally in short order.
N. Korea seems stupid enough, and it'd be a hell of a fight for awhile, but they only rattle the saber to make themselves feel important. Besides, they don't have the logistics to last more than a week.
China and Russia have too much to lose. Their economies are too dependent on the West, as Russia learned when it invaded Georgia and European FDI energy money suddenly vanished.
The F-22 is an awesome piece of technology and no one else can take it on mano-a-mano. It's also a costly expense that simply isn't necessary, just like Nat'l Health Care and Green industry subsidies.
With all due Ed, moisture is a real problem with this aircraft, from what I understand, Lockheed & the Air Force are working on it, but the damn thing still takes too many hours of maintenance per hour, the cockpit glass has to be replaced too often and right now, an air dominance fighter is not the greatest priority.
Smaller, cheaper, multi-role aircraft are what we need. Of course that's my opinion.
You don't win wars by being a little better than the other guy, you win them by having the other guy so hopelessly overmatched that you can slap him silly before he knows you were there.
It is an expensive thing, but it beats all the potential adversaries thinking they have a chance to pull something.
Not being funny, but there's only one real opponent to worry about in Major War, and that's China. And while the Raptor may give us a 16-to-1 kill ratio advantage, they have 200 birds to throw against each Raptor.
So... you know... gotta find a way to break the zerg rush, and frankly I'm thinking F104s and Warthogs, not Raptors.
All I know is that planes have to be replaced after a certain span of time. Fighter craft especially. There's only so long an airframe can withstand the stresses before it fails. Air Superiority is still a mission that needs to be filled. So, if we need to replace worn out planes anyway, why not take the more refined type as opposed to one that is familiar to everybody?
A for 16:1 kill ratios, that does not matter 3 farts in a windstorm if: 1) We can't afford to build and maintain 17:1 or better,
2)We can't keep our :1 flying due to maintenance issues.
The Wermacht had the most fearsome tanks and tank destroyers in the ETO (western front, anyway), but could not keep them running or keep them from being overrun due to sheer numbers of Allied materiel thrown at them.
..... And a broken down F-22 does not even make a decent emergency pill-box...........
Countries don't get foreclosed on. When a country's credit rating drops, then they get no more money, but there is no foreclosure (or else we'd be evicting people from Zimbabwe). The most recent credit rankings I could find have us 15th, so we're ok so far on that front. Not that the monstrous national debt is a good thing, I say it isn't, but this whole "China owns us" thinking doesn't really hold. Besides, Japan would own the other half.
Seems to me that having something that's neater than sliced bread or pheromonic underarm sweet-smellum is all well and good: If you can pay for it.
When you're some dozen or fourteen trillion greenies in debt, how do you pay for it? Just keep the printing presses rolling?
Our society is based on a guns'n'butter philosophy. A strong military needs a strong economy, or an overly-large percentage of a Soviet-style economy. At the rate we're going, we're gonna be the highest-tech third-world country in history.
Hey, we can just keep flying F-15's 'til the wings fall off. Our boys held off Zeros in P-40s and Wildcats until we got the Hellcats and Corsairs online, after all...
Not only held off but were kill/loss ratios shows them as being quite effective.
I've never said that a air superiority capability isn't a useful thing. I'm simply stating that the F-22 isn't it because it is cost prohibitive and unnecessary.
I've known people at Warner-Robins, the F15 wing rebuilding process is pretty interesting (if you're into titanium metallurgy).
China and Russia have too much to lose. Their economies are too dependent on the West
Those exact same arguments were made between 1900 and 1914 as to why another Great Power War was impossible. Their economies were too interlinked and mutually dependent. I'd be leery of depending too much on that type of analysis.
The Navy parked (and are in the process of cutting up) their F-14 air superiority fighter because they are too maintenance intensive. They now use a lesser capable plane for that role, the F/A 18. The Tomcat required 50 man-hours for each hour of flight time. They are destroying them due to fears that Iran might get their hands on a spare part or two! Shades of Clinton.
So, if we need to replace worn out planes anyway, why not take the more refined type as opposed to one that is familiar to everybody?
I opine that the tail of equipment and trained manpower necessary to support a particular fleet (and which is pretty much peculiar to it, particularly the training) is worth retaining if such is at all possible. This is not to say that new designs should be avoided even if there is a sound case for them.
Someone who thinks the F35 is anything equivalent to the F22. . . or that the F35 is cheaper to operate.
It LOOKS cheaper because the integration costs for the Navalized models isn't charged against the AIRPLANE -- it's charged against the FLEET.
You wouldn't BELIEVE how much damage the STOVL buggers do to existing ships during normal flight ops, and the carrier birds have their own Big Ticket Support Items that simply don't show up as "F35 program costs".
Whereas the F22 (and, AFAIK, the USAF version of F35) integrates very nicely into current USAF bases, comparitively.
The F35 is the equivalent in mode(depending on model) to an F16, FA18, or AV8.
The F22 is equivalent in mode to an F15. . . and they even have looked at a tactical penetration fighter bomber variant (a capacity we are somewhat lacking, although F15E fills the gap).
Stealth air superiority and tactical penetration strike is only going to get MORE important, not less. Even if we never fight a First World nation.
For the same reason your I-Phone can do so much cool stuff compared to the phone you had in your house in 1976.
And shortlegged, light lift weight birds don't do as well for some roles as Big Iron -- for one, unlike thrust to weight, scaling down your radar ALSO downgrades it's performance.
As I watch those magnificent machines doing their touch and goes outside my window, I'm constantly reminded that they are an overpriced beast to buy and operate. It's a vestige of Pentagon planning for Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen.
ReplyDeleteI'd have more sympathy if Lockheed had built a premier multi-role air dominance fighter that could, you know, fly in the rain and all...
ReplyDeleteThe BS about stealth airplanes flying in rain and damage to RAM coatings started with B-2. It was BS then and still is.
ReplyDeleteAs for planning for the Great Power War, the requirement to maintain air superiority remains regardless of potential adversary. N. Korea, Iran, possibly China all are on the future table.
Price per unit for Raptors is higher than it needed to be because of continual cuts in contract numbers and amortizing total development across fewer airframes. Cost to operate is within the framework of first operational years of a new system.
We haven't had enemy aircraft over American ground forces since Korea and that didn't happen because the threat wasn't there. It occurred because we could control the airspace.
The idea of killing an air enemy stealthily and at a distance is very appealing to this old fighter pilot who used to have to get a lot closer.
Basically, the development work on the raptor is done.
ReplyDeleteThe less aircraft we buy, the more expensive the amortization on each aircraft becomes.
Having second rate aircraft get horribly expensive once a new war starts. And there will be a new war eventually.
Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen.
ReplyDeleteWhat, you think we won't be shooting at the Europeans ever again, let alone Iran, Russia or China?
"Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen."
ReplyDeleteWould that it were so. People think this is a new age of reason. Take a look around. It's a dangerous world and will always be that way.
War has always been part of the human condition. Those skinny, peaceful people walking around with the catatonic expressions and wearing sparkly white spandex suits are only in the movies. They're not *really* in our future. M'kay?
"...Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen."
ReplyDeleteWasn't that the opening line of the first chapter of The Guns of August?
That's okay, we've bounced back after Bull Run, Kasserine, and Task Force Smith before... It's the American Way, apparently. Sigh.
You can only bounce back if your heartland has manufacturing capacity/base, it isn't destroyed, and the sinews of war (money, financial capacity, ability to acquire/ownership of energy sources) are hale.
ReplyDeleteThese days that's all looking shakier than in a long time.
Yep!
ReplyDeleteThe F22 is done.
Make way for the newest kid on the block, the JTF F35. From all I understand, it's cheaper & more multi-role. Hence the discontinuation of the F22. The only ones crying are the makers, contractors & politicians who pull in the pork for it.
B Woodman
III-per
"From all I understand, it's cheaper & more multi-role."
ReplyDeleteIt's also not an air superiority fighter.
That's like saying "The F-15 is done, make way for the AV-8B!"
Don't buy that MSM "pork" nonsense. The same people in the media who decry the Raptor as "pork" are salivating over Nat'l Health Care and Green Industry subsidies...
Hmm, Tam, I don't know, but The Guns of August is now in my Amazon shopping cart. Thanks for the recommendation.
ReplyDeleteNo, I don't think we'll be shooting at the Europeans in quite awhile. At least, not on any large stage that the F-22 is designed for. Bosnia doesn't cut it.
I don't consider N. Korea or Iran to be any sort of Great Power. Iran won't commit. They'll rattle and make noise, but they have a bigger issue with Sunis than the West. Particularly Saudi Arabia. Assuming they don't destabilize internally in short order.
N. Korea seems stupid enough, and it'd be a hell of a fight for awhile, but they only rattle the saber to make themselves feel important. Besides, they don't have the logistics to last more than a week.
China and Russia have too much to lose. Their economies are too dependent on the West, as Russia learned when it invaded Georgia and European FDI energy money suddenly vanished.
The F-22 is an awesome piece of technology and no one else can take it on mano-a-mano. It's also a costly expense that simply isn't necessary, just like Nat'l Health Care and Green industry subsidies.
With all due Ed, moisture is a real problem with this aircraft, from what I understand, Lockheed & the Air Force are working on it, but the damn thing still takes too many hours of maintenance per hour, the cockpit glass has to be replaced too often and right now, an air dominance fighter is not the greatest priority.
ReplyDeleteSmaller, cheaper, multi-role aircraft are what we need. Of course that's my opinion.
You don't win wars by being a little better than the other guy, you win them by having the other guy so hopelessly overmatched that you can slap him silly before he knows you were there.
ReplyDeleteIt is an expensive thing, but it beats all the potential adversaries thinking they have a chance to pull something.
Jim
Not being funny, but there's only one real opponent to worry about in Major War, and that's China. And while the Raptor may give us a 16-to-1 kill ratio advantage, they have 200 birds to throw against each Raptor.
ReplyDeleteSo... you know... gotta find a way to break the zerg rush, and frankly I'm thinking F104s and Warthogs, not Raptors.
All I know is that planes have to be replaced after a certain span of time. Fighter craft especially. There's only so long an airframe can withstand the stresses before it fails.
ReplyDeleteAir Superiority is still a mission that needs to be filled.
So, if we need to replace worn out planes anyway, why not take the more refined type as opposed to one that is familiar to everybody?
"It's a vestige of Pentagon planning for Great Power War which simply isn't going to happen."
ReplyDelete..... Uhmmm ...... errrr.... cuz when China forecloses on us and demands we pay up or move out, we are just gonna go, right? To where, exactly?
A for 16:1 kill ratios, that does not matter 3 farts in a windstorm if:
ReplyDelete1) We can't afford to build and maintain 17:1 or better,
2)We can't keep our :1 flying due to maintenance issues.
The Wermacht had the most fearsome tanks and tank destroyers in the ETO (western front, anyway), but could not keep them running or keep them from being overrun due to sheer numbers of Allied materiel thrown at them.
..... And a broken down F-22 does not even make a decent emergency pill-box...........
Iran won't commit. They'll rattle and make noise, but they have a bigger issue with Sunis than the West...China and Russia have too much to lose.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm wrong, we're out some cash, but have air supremacy potential.
If you're wrong, that cash won't help much.
Countries don't get foreclosed on. When a country's credit rating drops, then they get no more money, but there is no foreclosure (or else we'd be evicting people from Zimbabwe). The most recent credit rankings I could find have us 15th, so we're ok so far on that front. Not that the monstrous national debt is a good thing, I say it isn't, but this whole "China owns us" thinking doesn't really hold. Besides, Japan would own the other half.
ReplyDeleteSeems to me that having something that's neater than sliced bread or pheromonic underarm sweet-smellum is all well and good: If you can pay for it.
ReplyDeleteWhen you're some dozen or fourteen trillion greenies in debt, how do you pay for it? Just keep the printing presses rolling?
Our society is based on a guns'n'butter philosophy. A strong military needs a strong economy, or an overly-large percentage of a Soviet-style economy. At the rate we're going, we're gonna be the highest-tech third-world country in history.
Art
Art,
ReplyDelete"When you're some dozen or fourteen trillion greenies in debt, how do you pay for it?"
You know my answer to that: National Defense is actually in the Constitution, and I can think of a metric buttload of other programs that aren't...
It certainly is, but I don't recall any Constitutional provisions that call for the most expensive weapon systems available.
ReplyDeleteHey, we can just keep flying F-15's 'til the wings fall off. Our boys held off Zeros in P-40s and Wildcats until we got the Hellcats and Corsairs online, after all...
ReplyDelete...and predicting who we're going to be at war with next year is a risky proposition. I'd especially avoid predictions about Russia:
ReplyDelete1916: Shipping Russia arms.
1918: Deploying troops in Russia.
1944: Shipping Russia arms.
1947: Gearing up to nuke Russia.
Not only held off but were kill/loss ratios shows them as being quite effective.
ReplyDeleteI've never said that a air superiority capability isn't a useful thing. I'm simply stating that the F-22 isn't it because it is cost prohibitive and unnecessary.
I've known people at Warner-Robins, the F15 wing rebuilding process is pretty interesting (if you're into titanium metallurgy).
whoops, s/were/there/
ReplyDeleteAndy,
ReplyDeleteChina and Russia have too much to lose. Their economies are too dependent on the West
Those exact same arguments were made between 1900 and 1914 as to why another Great Power War was impossible. Their economies were too interlinked and mutually dependent. I'd be leery of depending too much on that type of analysis.
Larry
The Navy parked (and are in the process of cutting up) their F-14 air superiority fighter because they are too maintenance intensive. They now use a lesser capable plane for that role, the F/A 18. The Tomcat required 50 man-hours for each hour of flight time. They are destroying them due to fears that Iran might get their hands on a spare part or two! Shades of Clinton.
ReplyDeleteSo, if we need to replace worn out planes anyway, why not take the more refined type as opposed to one that is familiar to everybody?
ReplyDeleteI opine that the tail of equipment and trained manpower necessary to support a particular fleet (and which is pretty much peculiar to it, particularly the training) is worth retaining if such is at all possible. This is not to say that new designs should be avoided even if there is a sound case for them.
Jim
Wow. . .
ReplyDeleteSomeone who thinks the F35 is anything equivalent to the F22. . . or that the F35 is cheaper to operate.
It LOOKS cheaper because the integration costs for the Navalized models isn't charged against the AIRPLANE -- it's charged against the FLEET.
You wouldn't BELIEVE how much damage the STOVL buggers do to existing ships during normal flight ops, and the carrier birds have their own Big Ticket Support Items that simply don't show up as "F35 program costs".
Whereas the F22 (and, AFAIK, the USAF version of F35) integrates very nicely into current USAF bases, comparitively.
The F35 is the equivalent in mode(depending on model) to an F16, FA18, or AV8.
The F22 is equivalent in mode to an F15. . . and they even have looked at a tactical penetration fighter bomber variant (a capacity we are somewhat lacking, although F15E fills the gap).
Stealth air superiority and tactical penetration strike is only going to get MORE important, not less. Even if we never fight a First World nation.
For the same reason your I-Phone can do so much cool stuff compared to the phone you had in your house in 1976.
And shortlegged, light lift weight birds don't do as well for some roles as Big Iron -- for one, unlike thrust to weight, scaling down your radar ALSO downgrades it's performance.