We Could Never Have Been Defeated From Without
Friday, August 14th, 2009
After decades of waiting, and after the bulk of the expense necessary to develop both the B-2 and F-22 has long since been spent, these programs have now been cancelled at token procurement levels.
When war with the Chinese comes, the U.S. military will have but 80 or 90 available F-22s and, perhaps, 18 B-2s with which to suppress the massive Chinese air defense system.
All remaining U.S. aircraft — the legacy, or teen series, fighters and the F-35 — will not be able to operate in sufficient proximity to the Chinese S-300/400 air defense missile to pose a threat to that system. With the S-400 Triumf system operational, all U.S. air opera-tions will then remain at risk throughout the duration of any conflict with the Chinese.
Given China’s immense advantage in manpower and great depth in conventional armament, a secure airspace above these assets may portend a stalemate, at best, in any war between that nation and the U.S. The aftermath of such a standoff is the likely reduction of the U.S. military to the status of a second-rate power, a circumstance that will pave the way for strategic blackmail against the U.S. and its interests in the Pacific and, eventually, in the Western Hemisphere.
It is hard to imagine that these consequences escaped the authors of the F-22 program’s demise, circa July ’09.
This programmatic, premeditated build-down of our strategic capabilities should be called treason.
The cancellation of the F-22 is also timed to preempt any further efforts by the Japanese and Australians to buy the aircraft. The whole point is obviously to abort the Raptor, regardless of who is willing to pay for it.
Objections over the cost of the aircraft, which will, in time, be almost indistinguishable from that of the F-35, are only a ruse. The vital issue, now accomplished by our internationalist-dominated Federal Legislature and President, is the elimination of the F-22 from any future Pacific war zone.
All this is indicia of a globalist agenda to effect a power shift. The F-35 program, sold as a substitute for the F-22 and allegedly a much more intelligent investment because it is better for bombing Mujahedeen, may prove its greatest value as a slight-of-hand trick to cover this retrograde move in the quality of American airpower.
Lacking super-cruise capability, all-aspect stealth or a 60,000 ft. operating altitude, the F-35 is a “5th generation aircraft” only in terms of its sophisticated avionics suite, a set of marvels mostly related to its tactical bombing function. Its performance limitations and high wing loading mean it cannot disengage at will from even current threats such as the Sukhoi Su-30.
Do not buy the proposition, made by many defenders of the F-22′s axing, to the effect that sub-launched cruise missiles and unmanned air vehicles will handily suppress Chinese air defenses. The UCAV programs are not of the scale of a replacement fighter aircraft, and both the UCAV and the cruise missile depend on intact satellite communications… something the Chinese can reliably deny the U.S. in time of war.
-Dale Williams
Related reading:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/07/a_good_day_for_the_chicoms.asp
This is also a very good day for the ChiComs: less for them to worry about, not only from us but from the Japanese (this pretty much kills export of F-22). And it is a big step in confirming the long-term decline of US defenses that the Obama budget/program represents. Even if much/most of his domestic program doesn’t make it, he’s begun locking in yet another decade of defense neglect.
There will soon be a crisis of American airpower: old F-15 and F-16s, aging F-18s and not enough of them to fill carrier decks, too few F-22s (that you’re going to be very reluctant to use) and late arriving (and limited) F-35s (and what’s the likelihood that F-35 goes forward according to plan?), plus a dinky and old bomber fleet. I haven’t worked out the numbers, but if you look forward 7-10 years, the picture has got to be very ugly.
But then again, since there are going to be no tankers, it doesn’t matter that there are no fighters.
|
Originally Posted by Elbs
 I agree. The full capabilities of the F-22 has to be taken into concept. It’s more than a beast of an air superiority fighter. Like it’s mentioned, the newer Russian air defense systems are very long ranged and could place most of the USAF legacy SEAD platforms at risk, and they’re available to anyone with cash to blow.
I wouldn’t want to be the F-16 jock who has to fly into an S-400/S-300 threat envelope to fire a HARM down it’s throat. I believe it’d be much safer to kill or suppress that SAM with a long-range JDAM or an SDB with a folding-wing kit, dropped from an F-22. |
F-22 is still the champ
Posted by David A. Fulghum at 7/23/2009 3:07 PM CDT
Regardless of the vote in the Senate, “ The F-22 funding termination this week doesn’t change a thing [about the tactical advantages offered by the stealth fighter’s advanced systems] and I think history will bear out the F-22 advocates’ position when all the dust settles,” a senior U.S. Air Force intelligence officer tells Aviation Week.
“The F-35 [Joint Strike Fighter] is not an F-22 by a long shot,” he says. “There’s no way it’s going to penetrate Chinese Air Defenses if there’s ever a clash.”
The intelligence official was referring to the fact that penetrating the latest surface to air missile defenses is something only the F-22 can do. China and Russia have variants of the the S-300/400 family that includes the SA-20 which is being sold in Asia and the Middle East. The F-22 can stay ahead of SA-20 because it it flies about a half-mach faster, two-miles higher and has a smaller Radar Cross Section than the F-35.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think development of the JSF was any less expensive than developing the F-22 and B-2, and as the unit price of the F-35 continues to climb towards the $100 million mark (eventually to pass it no doubt), to where there will be scant difference between it and the price of the F-22, I wonder what the REAL (read: political) reason is for so much effort on the part of the Obama admin to kill this plane that we have waited so long for.
Obama’s “victory” over the F-22.
by Reuben F. Johnson
07/27/2009 2:45:00 PM
Washington, D.C.
It is both painful and amusing to watch the crowing over this week’s vote by the Senate to delete $1.75 billion in funding for the continued production of the Lockheed-Martin F-22A Raptor. There are numerous parties in the Obama camp calling this a spectacular victory, but so far no one has outdone the Huffington Post. There the president was hailed as the second coming of Dwight Eisenhower, fighting against the military industrial complex and along with Secretary Gates, “break[ing] its back.”
The reality is not quite so dramatic. Michigan Senator Carl Levin, an opponent of the F-22 spending, said after last week’s vote that “the president really needed to win this vote, not just in terms of the merits of the F-22 issue itself, but in terms of the reform agenda.” In other words, this was a test of manhood between the White House and — well, anyone who got in their way.
By making the vote on the F-22 a symbol for “who is in charge” the debate has not only become irrelevant to the nation’s real defense requirements, it has also succeeded in propagating a number of myths that augur more bad policy when other defense procurement decisions have to be made further down the road.
Myth No. 1–Voting down funding for the Raptor was a blow against the “evil, military-industrial complex.”
Nothing could be further from the truth. Taking the F-22 out of play leaves the field wide open for
the other new-generation fighter that is in flight testing at the moment, the F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF). The F-35 is the most expensive program in the history of the U.S. Defense Department. A smaller, single-engined, stealthy fighter, it is the foundation of U.S. international cooperation for the future. There are nine major partner nations on the program, plus other nations that are not involved in the development phase but will purchase the aircraft as “Security Cooperative Participants.”
No senior executive of the defense firms involved on the F-35 program would admit this, but the death of the F-22 is actually the best news they’ve had all year. Had the Raptor program continued on, several countries that have been pushing for the U.S. to overturn the Obey Amendment that bans the F-22′s sale abroad would have eventually prevailed and exports of the aircraft to Japan, South Korea, Australia and others would have been the next shoe to drop.
This would have likely led some of the F-35′s partners or prospective customers to leave the program and opt for an F-22 purchase instead, causing no end of unhappy repercussions. In the zero-sum game that is often the weapons buying business, the military-industrial complex has been handed a gift from the U.S. Congress because their customers now have no choice other than the F-35, which could be built in the thousands before the program is all over and done with.
Myth No. 2–The F-22 is a hugely expensive aircraft because defense contractors purposely are trying to gouge the taxpayer by making weapons that are unnecessarily overkill in terms of capability. The taxpayer won a victory when the Senate said no more would be built.
The F-22 has been an extremely expensive program to develop because its development has dragged on for so long. The original fly-off of YF-22 prototypes that selected the Raptor over the McDonnell-Douglas/Northrop YF-23 occurred in 1991. Development of the prototypes began long before this, so the F-22 has been in development for almost 20 years. This is largely due to the USAF customer selecting a prototype that required almost all of its major subsystems (i.e. radar, engines, avionics) to be developed specifically for this aircraft.
The USAF, in essence, selected an empty prototype — an “aerodynamic paint job,” as one U.S. aerospace analyst described it — and then said to the contractors “now go develop the aircraft.” The result has been a $32 billion bill. The $1.75 billion in funding the Senate Armed Services Committee was seeking to continue F-22 production represents about 5 percent of this R&D price tag. Saving such a (comparatively) paltry sum may make Senators feel noble, but it is virtually meaningless now. If Congress wanted to stop wasting taxpayer’s money on what they now say is an overly-expensive program they are more than a decade too late.
Myth No. 3–The 187 F-22s to be built represents the number that would be available for combat missions should the aircraft be placed in a conflict.
When you are talking about modern fighter aircraft you have to remember that there will always be a certain number used for training, a certain number used
for testing new weapons or on-board systems, a certain number being retrofitted with upgrades or refinements, and a certain number down for maintenance. When you subtract all of these, probably less than half of the 187 would be available at any given time for military operations.
In a major conflict such a small number of aircraft would be little more than a first day of the war silver bullet. With the developmental budget at $32 billion that is a very expensive bullet. This is not much of a return on the taxpayer’s investment, to say nothing of the fact that such a small force of fighters would fall into that famous category of “if they were sent there to fight there are not enough and if they were sent to die there are too many.”
Myth No. 4–It is good to cancel high-priced weapon systems like the F-22 because they are the reason for bloated defense budgets.
Big-ticket items like a high-technology fighters make an easy poster child for those that want to accuse the Pentagon of being the world’s greatest spendthrift. The truth is that you could cancel every single weapons program on the armed forces’ wish list and U.S. defense expenditures would still be sky-high. What represents the largest single cost in a time of major, multi-theatre, prolonged deployments are military personnel themselves. Payroll, benefits, medical, etc., are the lion’s share of the budget, and will continue to grow to become an even larger share.
In terms of whether the aircraft is value for money, the numbers speak for themselves. Some 25 of the F-22s produced to date have been declared defect-free by the USAF upon delivery. “For the first fifth-generation fighter aircraft in U.S. history — given the complexity of the aircraft, the twin-engine, thrust vectoring propulsion technology, the number of lines of computer code in the aircraft — this is a remarkable achievement,” said a Lockheed-Martin executive. “Given this accomplishment, it’s a disservice to the people who designed and built the aircraft to use the F-22 as a whipping boy for this conflict between Congress and the White House.”
Myth No. 5–The F-35 meets any and all conceivable technological challenges that might emerge in the next two decades.
The assertion has been made by SecDef Robert Gates that by 2020, 1,100 of the aircraft operated in the U.S. armed forces “will be the most advanced fifth-generation F-35s and F-22s. China, by contrast, is projected to have no fifth generation aircraft by 2020. And by 2025, the gap only widens. The U.S. will have approximately 1,700 of the most advanced fifth generation fighters versus a handful of comparable aircraft for the Chinese.”
The difficulty with this line of reasoning is that the Chinese are not the only players in this game. Russia also continues to develop its own fifth-generation fighter, the Sukhoi design bureau’s PAK-FA/T-50 project. The first model has already been delivered for validation on a structural test assembly stand. Moreover, the Sukhoi Su-35, described as a “fourth double plus-generation” aircraft is going into production soon, utilizing many of the fifth-generation T-50′s components and technologies in its configuration.
Fighter aircraft performance analysts have raised questions as to whether the single-engine F-35 can take on these more powerful twin-engined aircraft and consistently prevail. Furthermore, the Chinese program, which may be developed in conjunction with Russia, stands every chance of being deployed earlier than Secretary Gate’s predictions.
Finally, the F-22 was designed to replace the Boeing F-15 Eagle and become the upper tier of the U.S. Air Force’s long-standing force mix of a heavy (F-15 to be replaced by the F-22) and light/medium (F-16 to be replaced by F-35) fighter aircraft. The small numbers of F-22s to be built will not be nearly enough to fill in for all of the F-15s currently in service. The future seems to be one in which a small number of F-22s will have to be supported by an aging inventory of F-15s. Keeping these older aircraft still in operation past their intended service life is going to be another increasing expense.
Add up all the real-world facts and there does not seem to be much of a victory here for any one–the possible exception being those nations who are planning to do battle with the U.S. in the future and will now face a mere token force of F-22s. The decision not to continue F-22 production might be justified on other grounds, but this week’s vote has been based on a set of false assumptions and creates a false sense of economy. The future of U.S. combat airpower is much too serious a business for it to be held hostage to this manner of legislative myth-making.
Reuben F. Johnson is a frequent contributor to THE WEEKLY STANDARD Online.
Get the RSS