WT Forums

(From the New York Post)

By RALPH PETERS


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



April 13, 2005 -- LAST month, I sat in the of fice of Col. Jon "Dog" Davis, a veteran Marine aviator. While at war, the Corps' pilots had seen a rise in their accident rate. Davis was determined to do something about it.

I wanted to be sympathetic, so I said, "Well, you're flying some very old aircraft."

Davis, a taut, no-nonsense Marine, looked me in the eye and said, "They may be old, but they're good. That's no excuse."

As commander of the Marine Aviation Weapons and Tactics Squadron 1 out in Yuma, Ariz., Davis could have nodded and gone along, blaming the jets and helicopters. But he's a Marine. And Marines don't make excuses. They do their best with what the taxpayers give them. And their best is pretty damn good.

Contrast that with a recent conversation I had with two Air Force generals. I had written columns critical of the platinum-plated F/A-22, the most expensive fighter in history and an aircraft without a mission. So the Air Force decided to lobby me.

Those two generals spun the numbers until the stone-cold truth was buried under a mantra of "air dominance," imaginary combat roles and financial slight-of-hand. Still, I wanted to be fair. I took them seriously and investigated their claims.

Not one thing they said held up under scrutiny.



Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters. With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget.

Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America - and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.

I had gone out to Yuma to speak to Dog Davis' Marines about future war. The truth is they should have been lecturing to me. There is nothing more inspiring than being around United States Marines (yes, a retired Army officer wrote that). The Corps does more with its limited resources than any other branch of government. The Marines are a bargain rivaled only by our under-funded Coast Guard.

Even the military installations are different. A Marine base is well-maintained and perfectly groomed, but utterly without frills. Guest quarters are Motel 6, not the St. Regis. Air Force bases are the country clubs of la vie militaire.

Meanwhile, the Air Force twiddles its thumbs and dreams of war with China. Its leaders would even revive the Soviet Union, if they could. Just to have something to do.

If you go into the Pentagon these days, you'll find only half of the building is at war. The Army and Marine staffs (the latter in the Navy Annex) put in brutal hours and barely see their families. The Navy, at least, is grappling with the changed strategic environment. Meanwhile, the Air Force staff haunts the Pentagon espresso bar and lobbies for more money.

The Air Force hasn't forgotten how to fight. But it only wants to fight the other services.

Recently, the blue-suiters have been floating one of the most disgraceful propositions I've ever encountered in Washington (and that's saying something).

I heard the con directly from one of the Air Force generals who tried to sell me on the worthless F/A-22. The poison goes like this: "The Air Force and Navy can dominate their battle space. Why can't the Army and Marines?"

Let me translate that: At a time when soldiers and Marines are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Air Force shamefully implies that our ground forces are incompetent, hinting that, if the Air Force ran the world, we'd get better results.

How low can a service go? Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq. But the Air Force is willing to slander those who do our nation's fighting and dying.

As for the vile proposition itself, well, it's easy to "dominate your battle space" if you don't have anyone to battle. Our fighter-jock Air Force doesn't have an enemy (Air Force special-ops and transport crews, as well as ground-liaison personnel, serve magnificently - but the generals regard them as second-class citizens).

While courage is certainly required, Air Force and Navy combat challenges are engineering problems, matters of physics and geometry. Our Army and Marines, by contrast, face brutally human, knife-fight conflicts that require human solutions.

The Air Force is about metal. The Marines and Army deal in flesh and blood - in problems that don't have clear or easy solutions.

Hey, if the Air Force knows of a simple, by-the-numbers way to win the War on Terror, combat insurgents in urban terrain and help battered populations rebuild their countries, the generals in blue ought to share the wisdom. (They've certainly been paid enough for it.)

But the Air Force doesn't have any solutions. Just institutional greed. Their strategy? Trash our troops. Lie about capabilities and costs. Belittle the genuine dangers facing our country, while creating imaginary threats. Keep the F/A-22 buy alive, no matter what it takes.

A little while ago I wrote that our Air Force needed to be saved from itself. Now I'm no longer sure salvation's possible.

If you want to see how to fly and fight, call in the Marines.

Ralph Peters is the author of "Beyond Baghdad: Postmodern War and Peace."

Bottom of Form




"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

Mr. Peters inspires me. Allow me to opine.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I had written columns critical of the platinum-plated F/A-22, the most expensive fighter in history and an aircraft without a mission.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The next generation fighter is always the most expensive in history, if it is any good. Is he saying that there is no need to sweep the skies of our enemies in the 21st century, or that there are no enemies?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Those two generals spun the numbers until the stone-cold truth was buried under a mantra of "air dominance," imaginary combat roles and financial slight-of-hand. Still, I wanted to be fair. I took them seriously and investigated their claims.

Not one thing they said held up under scrutiny. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Oh yeah, he wanted to be fair, but not one thing they said held up under scrutiny, not one thing. (I'm seeing the image of Jack Palance holding up his index finger in the movie "City Slickers", but I digress)

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Morally bankrupt, the Air Force is willing to turn a blind eye to the pressing needs of soldiers and Marines at war in order to get more of its $300-million-apiece junk fighters. With newer, far more costly aircraft than the Marines possess, the Air Force pleads that it just can't defend our country without devouring the nation's defense budget. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The Air Force does not turn a blind eye to soldiers and Marines. They make strong arguments that national treasure should be spent on them because they get the desired results. The congress decides where the money is spent. Take it up with them Ralph. And Ralph, don't play these numbers games with me and expect to get away with it without a challange. F-22's do not cost $300 million each, and you know it. They are not "junk". They work very well. The F-22 does not "devour" the defense budget, unless you think about 1% is gluttony. Could these misrepresentation of facts be considered Moral Bankruptcy? One man's lie is another man's argument.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Meanwhile, Marine aviators fly combat missions in aging jets and ancient helicopters, doing their best for America - and refusing to beg, lie, cheat or blame their gear.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Now we see the reason for this journalistic piece. He is jealous that other services, especially the Air Force, get more budget and more headlines. Ralph, why don't you talk to the Marine leadership and get them to be more articulate in their arguments. Besides, they have sponsored several of their own budget busting projects like the V-22 and F-35B. What's an F-35B gonna cost Ralph? Does it give the corresponding bang for the buck? Just asking?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I heard the con directly from one of the Air Force generals who tried to sell me on the worthless F/A-22. The poison goes like this: "The Air Force and Navy can dominate their battle space. Why can't the Army and Marines?"

Let me translate that: At a time when soldiers and Marines are fighting and dying in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Air Force shamefully implies that our ground forces are incompetent, hinting that, if the Air Force ran the world, we'd get better results.

How low can a service go? Not a single Air Force fighter pilot has lost his life in combat in Iraq. But the Air Force is willing to slander those who do our nation's fighting and dying. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Inter service rivalry is as old as warfare. Mr. Peters would have us believe that there is not a single harsh word coming from the Marine Corps disparaging the [insert your favorite service here]. All the Marines reading his piece are saying Boo-Ya. Everyone else is saying Bull-Sh*t.
And I thought we were supposed to get the other guy to die for his cause. Since when is it shameful to be militarily successful and survive to fight another day. The fact that casualties are light in the Air Force is an argument that they know what they are doing and are being supplied with adequate equipment. I think we should keep ahead of the game, not hold back resources until the casualty rate meets Marine expectations.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>While courage is certainly required, Air Force and Navy combat challenges are engineering problems, matters of physics and geometry. Our Army and Marines, by contrast, face brutally human, knife-fight conflicts that require human solutions.

The Air Force is about metal. The Marines and Army deal in flesh and blood - in problems that don't have clear or easy solutions. [quote]

Each service had better be good at their specialty. If it takes high tech to do the job then they should get high tech. Bayonets are not useful at Mach .9 at 30,00 feet. By the way, I ask you to consider that there may be difficulty in solving some technical problems too. If it takes a ruthless "kill people and break things" attitude, then call in the Marines. We need everyone if we intend to prevail.

[quote]Hey, if the Air Force knows of a simple, by-the-numbers way to win the War on Terror, combat insurgents in urban terrain and help battered populations rebuild their countries, the generals in blue ought to share the wisdom. (They've certainly been paid enough for it.)

But the Air Force doesn't have any solutions. Just institutional greed. Their strategy? Trash our troops. Lie about capabilities and costs. Belittle the genuine dangers facing our country, while creating imaginary threats. Keep the F/A-22 buy alive, no matter what it takes. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Puh-leeze. The USA needs to be able to count on using the skies with impunity. The Marines are especially needy of this service under many conceivable circustances. Mr. Peters wants to neglect the air superiority need, (temporarily?) in favor of what? How would the Marines be used against terrorists, aside from the obvious combat, and what are they lacking now? I say again, this is a jealousy article. Ralph Peters should be more critical of Marine leadership. They are the ones that can't make persuasive arguments for their position. Then again, Marines are not known for their diplomacy, are they? That is what we like about them. Semper Fi
















THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

I seriously doubt the Marine/Army <u>grunts</u> care WHO has air supremecy, so long as it's us! Oh, and that there are Warthogs available on-call.

"Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together...." - Carl Zwanzig
<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

Edited by - 30mike-mike on Apr 19 2005 09:22 AM

_________________
\"Those who hammer their guns into plows
will plow for those who do not.\"
- Thomas Jefferson

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Since when is it shameful to be militarily successful and survive to fight another day. The fact that casualties are light in the Air Force is an argument that they know what they are doing and are being supplied with adequate equipment. <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Which implies that Marines on the ground don't have adequate equipment (likely), but are you implying that the reason Marine casualties are higher is because they don't know what they're doing? I hope not. I mean, I don't see much in the way of USAF infantry in-country, save for a few TACP teams, some CCT, SPs and Trans folks running convoys. Comparing the AF and it's low casuality numbers to the high casuality numbers of the Marines in the trenches is just a little disingenuous. It's just as disingenuous as trying to say that AF people have it as hard as the Marines/Army over there, which we all know isn't the case.

We've got our junk F/A-22, they've got their junk V-22. As for the AF protecting the jewel of the future F-22 at all costs, it's true. The argument that we're in big trouble of being outmoded with the F-15, I don't buy it. Just like I don't buy that the Elmendorf Eagles had their asses handed to them by Indian Su-30s. But, whatever protects the F/A-22 best be done. Sort of like cooking the maintenance books for the V-22.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The Air Force does not turn a blind eye to soldiers and Marines. They make strong arguments that national treasure should be spent on them because they get the desired results.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

To the detriment of everything else in the AF? CAS has always been a third-tier mission so far as the pointy-nose leadership has been concerned. Again, why is nearly everything else being sacrificed for this one weapon system? And as for the Marines being mad that the AF does a better job of conning congress. Just because the AF has better used car salesmen pushing their case doesn't make their case more right or correct. Pork is pork, any way you look at it. And the AF's share of pork has historically been higher than the other services.

On your other points, I basically agree.



Edited by - Type 7 on Apr 19 2005 10:28 AM

"Comparing the AF and it's low casuality numbers to the high casuality numbers of the Marines in the trenches is just a little disingenuous."

Just a little?

Massively disingenuous is more like it IMO.



<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Again, why is nearly everything else being sacrificed for this one weapon system?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Who says that? I beg to differ. F-22 procurement budget is about $4 billion a year. The F-18E request is $3 billion. The JSF is $5 billion. Total aircraft procurement for all services totals $22.3 billion.

http://www.antiwarcommittee.org/resourc ... ntagon.htm

The total defense budget is about $400 billion a year. I can't fathom that the linchpin of USAF strategy in the 21st century is not worth 1% of the defense budget to aquire. Please explain?

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Which implies that Marines on the ground don't have adequate equipment <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No, there was no such implication intended. The statement was intended to compliment the people who planned and provided the current USAF equipment as well as those who use it effectively. I don't know much about land warfare. If the Marines are ill equipped, it is the fault of their leadership in not asking for the right stuff, not that other services do ask for the right stuff.


<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>are you implying that the reason Marine casualties are higher is because they don't know what they're doing?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Of course not. I was merely attempting to counter the insinuation that because the USAF has no casualties it is proof that they are not doing anything useful, i.e. not at the "pointy end".

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

Edited by - a10stress on Apr 19 2005 1:23 PM

_________________
????

Just for the record, i think Peters is a jackass.

<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Again, why is nearly everything else being sacrificed for this one weapon system?<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


Who says that? I beg to differ. F-22 procurement budget is about $4 billion a year. The F-18E request is $3 billion. The JSF is $5 billion. Total aircraft procurement for all services totals $22.3 billion.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Every weapon system is being modded, reduced, or other, in order to protect the jewel of the nile, the F/A-22. Right now in the 117, we're not getting some needed upgrades because money isn't available, money that could be seen as being taken away from the Raptor by some up high. Because of this, we're stuck with the capability and accuracy a little better than a Block 40 Viper, which is already an outmoded airframe by Block 30 (C+) Vipers. For the price of a Raptor, there are a number of other more useful airframes we could acquire. Half the stuff it does, we don't really need. Look at the fact that it became the <b>F/A</b>-22 in the first place, since it couldn't survive as the F-22. The jet already is getting "add on" missions it never really wanted, and which can be done by other aircraft better. It's price tag is pork. We've got a jet optimized for a cold war scenario, being kept on life support in a counter-insurgency world of today. The Comanche was a capable bird too, and look what happened to it.

Our focus is off what the real threat is, with grand projects like these. And like you said, maybe the Marines don't lobby as well as the USAF. I'd say that maybe they aren't as good sleazy used car salesmen as USAF acquisitions folks. Just because the AF can get away with the amount of pork they do, doesn't make it right.



Edited by - Type 7 on Apr 20 2005 02:10 AM

Snipe, I agree with you.

Fender
"A woman drove me to drink
and I hadn't even the courtesy to thank her".
W.C. Fields

"Half the stuff it does, we don't really need. Look at the fact that it became the F/A-22 in the first place, since it couldn't survive as the F-22. The jet already is getting "add on" missions it never really wanted, and which can be done by other aircraft better. "

Let's look at that a little closer T7.

The "A" was added on because none of the "F"s(F meaning honest to god fighters, not the F-117 which is all Attack) we have now can't survive with a reasonable chance of success in the face of an IADs built around the S-400 Triumf. The biggest add-on mission the F-22 is getting is SEAD, which is a good thing, because using existing platforms armed with HARM to take out S-400s looks like an extremely shaky proposition. Mated with SDB, the F-22 will have the ability to go S-400 hunting with near impunity.

<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Right now in the 117, we're not getting some needed upgrades because money isn't available, money that could be seen as being taken away from the Raptor by some up high.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I don't understand why you blame the F-22 for that. Why not the F-35, or the C-17, or the J-UCAV, or the A-10C? The priority has been set. The F-22 is the key piece of equipment for the USAF in the 21st century. You don't agree with that priority? OK, write your congressman. I'm trying to salvage 25 years work and $30 billion of taxpayer's money spent on development to replace the F-15. Now, when we are in a position to reward the taxpayers with a system that is, and will be, superior to all comers in the next twenty years, people want to stop it. The major argument for this is that it is too good for the job. Huh! You will find that there is about a 10% penalty for building F-22's as compared to new/upgraded F-15's. Face it, the thing to do now is leverage the development time and money spent on the F-22 investment and build a lot of them fast. Then spend some time and money to wring out some potential alternate missions it could also do well. I see that would take over some missions currently assigned to the F-117. However, the F-35 will get the bulk of F-117 missions, that is, if it can solve its own technical problems and survive similar end-game criticism.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

su-27 versus f-117 once spotted you dont stand a chance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Right now in the 117, we're not getting some needed upgrades because money isn't available, money that could be seen as being taken away from the Raptor by some up high.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>


I don't understand why you blame the F-22 for that. Why not the F-35, or the C-17, or the J-UCAV, or the A-10C? The priority has been set. The F-22 is the key piece of equipment for the USAF in the 21st century. You don't agree with that priority? OK, write your congressman. I'm trying to salvage 25 years work and $30 billion of taxpayer's money spent on development to replace the F-15. Now, when we are in a position to reward the taxpayers with a system that is, and will be, superior to all comers in the next twenty years, people want to stop it. The major argument for this is that it is too good for the job. Huh! You will find that there is about a 10% penalty for building F-22's as compared to new/upgraded F-15's. Face it, the thing to do now is leverage the development time and money spent on the F-22 investment and build a lot of them fast. Then spend some time and money to wring out some potential alternate missions it could also do well. I see that would take over some missions currently assigned to the F-117. However, the F-35 will get the bulk of F-117 missions, that is, if it can solve its own technical problems and survive similar end-game criticism.

THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't just blame the F-22, in fact, I can't really blame an airframe for these existing problems I outlined. I blame the top leadership for misprioritization, and congress for lack of funding. So far as airframes do go, though, saying that we should hedge our bets on the F-22 and then fix some of the follow-on problems later simply because of all the development costs spent, is like saying we should mass-produce the V-22 Osprey, and figure out what all it's problems are down the road. That may be well and good for the bean counters, but for we operators, that doesn't fly (no pun intended). Reason I don't blame the A-10C or the C-17 is because they're not competitive airframes in terms of dollars, whereas I agree the F-35 will be the next pork airframe to come along, so far as the USAF looks at it.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
su-27 versus f-117 once spotted you dont stand a chance.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

No kidding? And I always thought I'd just engage the guy. But thanks for the tip. However, consider that there's a reason we don't give much regard to air-air threats. I'll leave it at that. But that's even besides the point. There's a number of airframes that likely "wouldn't stand a chance" if spotted by a Flanker with a capable pilot, what's the point?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
"Half the stuff it does, we don't really need. Look at the fact that it became the F/A-22 in the first place, since it couldn't survive as the F-22. The jet already is getting "add on" missions it never really wanted, and which can be done by other aircraft better. "

Let's look at that a little closer T7.

The "A" was added on because none of the "F"s(F meaning honest to god fighters, not the F-117 which is all Attack) we have now can survive with a reasonable chance of success in the face of an IADs built around the S-400 Triumf. The biggest add-on mission the F-22 is getting is SEAD, which is a good thing, because using existing platforms armed with HARM to take out S-400s looks like an extremely shaky proposition. Mated with SDB, the F-22 will have the ability to go S-400 hunting with near impunity.

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

OK, I'll consider that. But look at it this way.

The SA-20 is a bad mother SAM system regardless of who is going after it. I highly doubt that current/future doctrine would have aircraft targeting this system. And we're not going to go into a threat environment with anything like this still operating, regardless of the aircraft. Much like other very high threat SAM systems such as the (NATO designation)Gammon, Grumble, or Gladiator, these items won't have an F-22 sent anywhere near them (much less any other aluminum jet); they'd be taken out by TLAM or CALCM first. So any perceived capability against these systems is nice window dressing to sell to the public and congress, but highly doubtful to be ever used operationally, especially with our risk-averse leadership and the high dollar cost (high value) system the F-22 would be considered.





Edited by - Type 7 on Apr 20 2005 10:22 AM

The S-400 is a semi-mobile system.
That obviously means that TLAM will be of limited utility against it(during the flight time of TLAM an S-400 battery could have already moved as far as many miles from the original target point).
The F-22 with it's supercruise and data link has the ability to get on target fast. With it's avionics it has the ability to stay out of the detection envelope of enemy air defenses, with SDB it has the ability to hit the S-400 from 60km out with an unjammable non-emmiting supersonic weapon. Add it all up and the F-22 is by far the best SEAD asset the US Military possesses by a very wide margin IMO.

PS: The difference between the F-22 and the V-22 is that one delivers big time, where as the other does anything but.



<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
The S-400 is a semi-mobile system.
That obviously means that TLAM will be of limited utility against it(during the flight time of TLAM an S-400 battery could have already moved as far as many miles from the original target point).
The F-22 with it's supercruise and data link has the ability to get on target fast. With it's avionics it has the ability to stay out of the detection envelope of enemy air defenses, with SDB it has the ability to hit the S-400 from 60km out with an unjammable non-emmiting supersonic weapon. Add it all up and the F-22 is by far the best SEAD asset the US Military possesses by a very wide margin IMO.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Semi-mobile sure, and am very familiar; but now we can get into a number of "what if" scenarios that you and I could go back and forth with for days (they'd have to know a TLAM is coming, they could move by coincidence, assuming we have a full-up/autonomous and capable SAM crew, etc etc). I'm just telling you what our current philosophy is of the clowns in the upper management of the circus. Regardless, I highly doubt the military would use the F-22 as such, casuality averse as they are. Heck, there's a ton of stuff we're capable of doing in my own airframe, but that no one wants to take the risk with. I just think that doctrine won't change to allow an aircraft with the dollar cost and technology to be used for such risky missions. The threat and cost of losing one is too great. Only reason I say this is because I see these decisions get made time and again from the air ops standpoint in exercises; and it's not just for an exercise, this is how they really think up top (which for the record, I disagree with). It's the same reasoning why the A-6E model, though available for the latter part of the Vietnam War, wasn't used. They didn't want the technology to be at risk, so the A model A-6 (though still capable, but not as much so) was kept going during the war only. For that reason, a TLAM would most likely be used, apart from the thing getting destroyed by a SOF team, which is another possibility, both far and above any aircraft being sent directly against this system, IMHO. So IMO, unless we can correct this doctrinal thinking, no super system will be used to it's full capability. And as things stand, this thinking isn't going away any time soon. The LAST thing the military/government wants, is a repeat of the VEGA 31 loss over Kosovo, only this time with an F/A-22.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
PS: The difference between the F-22 and the V-22 is that one delivers big time, where as the other does anything but.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree. But can we afford it? Either of them, for that matter? As much as I would like us to still have it, the Reagan days of "no bounds for defense spending" are long gone. Which is too bad, and it shouldn't be that way; but the reality is, it is. So can we afford these systems, most especially with the type of war we're faced with today?

PS- Good discussion, btw. Lots of interesting and informative thinking going both ways.






















Edited by - Type 7 on Apr 20 2005 11:10 AM

I would state outright that we need the F-22 a HELL of a lot more than we need the JSF.

Agree?

<i><b>"US Snipers...providing surgical strikes since 1776"</b></i>
<img src="http://www.creedmoorsports.com/images/SA9121-M21.JPG" border=0>

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I don't just blame the F-22, in fact, I can't really blame an airframe for these existing problems I outlined. I blame the top leadership for misprioritization, and congress for lack of funding. So far as airframes do go, though, saying that we should hedge our bets on the F-22 and then fix some of the follow-on problems later simply because of all the development costs spent, is like saying we should mass-produce the V-22 Osprey, and figure out what all it's problems are down the road. That may be well and good for the bean counters, but for we operators, that doesn't fly (no pun intended). Reason I don't blame the A-10C or the C-17 is because they're not competitive airframes in terms of dollars, whereas I agree the F-35 will be the next pork airframe to come along, so far as the USAF looks at it.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I don't get the hedge our bets statement. The F-22 has top priority because everything the Air Force does (for itself and in support of the other services) assumes absolute control of the sky. When that is established, many things can be accomplished with the remaining spectrum of inventory aircraft. I guess you don't think air superiority is necessary, or maybe you think the threat is overstated. I agree with the national leadership on this one. The worst you can say about the F-22 and the people who made the performance specs for it is that it is ahead of the actual threat by a few years. Isn't that a luxury to exploit? Successfully beating your enemies to a superior position is a military axiom. (Was it the KKK founder General Nathan Beford Forrest who said the key to victory was "Get there first with the most"). Sure people argue that we spent too much to get there, but we have it now, why make another error by scrapping it?

What do you mean by fixing the follow-on problems. I am not aware of any serious problems with the design mission function of the F-22. It works well enough right now, especially since the critics think it is overmatched to the current threat. So, I guess you are referring to the incorporation of ground attack features. That is not a problem, it is a target of opportunity. If the F-22 can do alternate missions as a fallout of its design, with a little tweak (money spent) here and there, then I think that is the leverage I was speaking about. If you are referring to the FB-22 concept, which is a 90% redesign, I can share your skepticism (can you say F-18E).

Don't kid yourself, the C-17 competes for the same dollars as the F-22. At over $3 billion dollars a year it is a large target of opportunity for project killers and budget vampires. I wish critics would kill programs before the major bucks are spent on development, not after everything is working and we can finally get some return on investment. Why not go after the F-35, then?



THE RAMPTOR ENGINEERING TEAM <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>
"Who cares if it works? Does it look good on the ramp?"

_________________
????

I have to agree with a-10stress’s school of thought on this matter. Every battle doctrine of every service as a collective whole bases their success on a forgone conclusion of United States air superiority. Period. If we can assure that for the next 20 years, and we must; then the F/A-22 Raptor is worth the investment. The real argument is the need for the F-35 in the VTOL and CTOL configuration. If the F/A-22 can assume the first day of battle stealth strike role that is currently being tasked to the F-117, then not only is it replacing the F-15C as the worlds pre-eminent air superiority fighter, but also the worlds best tactical stealthy strike aircraft. And to be honest when one compares the R&D costs of the F/A-22 then factors in inflation, its procurement price tag is not out of line with two other aircraft that went through this very argument 30 years ago. Both of those aircraft proved successful and well worth the capital investment. You may of heard of them, the F-14 Tomcat & F-15 Eagle. Both can be considered the best air superiority fighters for those last 30 years, and both proved very adaptable to being true multi mission strike fighters.

One last thought, had the US Air Force continued with upgraded F-4 Phantoms, and the US Navy continued with a variable geometry variant of the latter, like some bean counters wanted, and could justify using their smoke & mirrors arithmetic, both would have been out classed by the current generation of fighters now being used in the third world, and Europe, American air superiority over the likes of Kosovo, and Iraq would have been in peril.

Very thought provoking discussion, glad I took time to read this thread.

imagin the crys in the press if our boys go over seas to say fight china or heaven forbid (France) and get the shit kicked out of them. We cry that we did not buy the best tank, best body armour, best rifle when we are in a war. These aircraft are something you can click your fingers and product rapidly. The days of america getting caught flat footed as in world war 1 and 2 are over we do not have the luxury or industrial base to recover if we get our asses kicked for not controling the sky. I hate this arguement about being too good to aford.

Type7 I have a lot of respect for you but how much longer can the f117 soldier on. it is a slow aircraft with limited to no air to air capabilities, and limited in numbers produced with high time on airframes. If your going to upgrade why not upgrade to the best capilities possibly.

Love the idea that china does not have tankers and awac now. you can bet they have studied the sucesses in Iraqi are making plans for such aircraft.

At the very least we should by enough f-22 to provide us with the edge the Eagle did for all these years. Sure the f-16 was purchased in bulk but i was never designed to control the skys, and Eagle more than proved its worth.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
imagin the crys in the press if our boys go over seas to say fight china or heaven forbid (France) and get the shit kicked out of them. We cry that we did not buy the best tank, best body armour, best rifle when we are in a war. These aircraft are something you can click your fingers and product rapidly. The days of america getting caught flat footed as in world war 1 and 2 are over we do not have the luxury or industrial base to recover if we get our asses kicked for not controling the sky. I hate this arguement about being too good to aford.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

My big gig is that the F/A-22 should've remained the F-22, and money appropriated to keep it as such. From what I know of it's air-air capes, it's quite a machine (though I think we need a replacement for the AMRAAM, something more suited for the sophistication of the F-22). It should be the air dominance fighter it was designed to be and not be porked out to the multirole tasking it's getting. That's my stance.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Type7 I have a lot of respect for you but how much longer can the f117 soldier on. it is a slow aircraft with limited to no air to air capabilities, and limited in numbers produced with high time on airframes. If your going to upgrade why not upgrade to the best capilities possibly.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

This is actually a very good point you make, since it's very factual of the state of the 117 right now. 117s are pretty run out. With a current 67% MC rate, as the Wing reported in this week's AF Times, we're hurting. It didn't help that the tooling for parts wasn't preserved like it was for the B-2. I agree we need a replacementfor the 117 very soon, but I don't think it should be a multirole aircraft, I believe it should be a dedicated strike aircraft, and let the F-22 concentrate on the air dominance arena, keeping it a master of one vice a jack of all trades. We need the F-22 in a limited number to cover the potential for large-scale war, but we also need to keep in mind the most likely state of war we'll be facing, IMO; that of the counter-insurgency type.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Love the idea that china does not have tankers and awac now. you can bet they have studied the sucesses in Iraqi are making plans for such aircraft.

At the very least we should by enough f-22 to provide us with the edge the Eagle did for all these years. Sure the f-16 was purchased in bulk but i was never designed to control the skys, and Eagle more than proved its worth.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Agree. And I think the F-22 should do what the C-model Eagles did....the one job excellently done or air-air. War with China will be no easy street by any means, and even though they don't have a ton in the way of advanced airplanes, they make up for in numbers.



Edited by - Type 7 on Apr 20 2005 11:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I would state outright that we need the F-22 a HELL of a lot more than we need the JSF.

Agree?

<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

I agree with this.

see type 7 we agree a lot fa--22 is a gimic. Just like the f-15c carrying bombs it aint gonna happen. we should bring the best aircraft to table not compromises.