Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Canceling the F-22: A 2009 Mistake
In 2009 the Senate voted to end funding for the Lockheed-Martin F-22.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Senate voted on Tuesday to stop production of the F-22 fighter plane, handing President Barack Obama a victory as he tries to rein in defense spending.
A pyrrhic victory for Obama now that the new threats come from China and Russia. The Afghan War was one that did not need the F-22. Afghanistan did not have an air force, so there was no need to establish air superiority to protect A-10’s, Apache helicopters, and the AC-130 gunships.
China and Russia have an air force. China is not bogged down in a war of attrition. Russia still has not established air superiority over Ukraine, at least not with manned aircraft.
Could Lockheed-Martin start producing the F-22 again? They could but it would take a long time to retool and rehire the skilled workers to bring the production line of F-22’s back to life. The F-22 was expensive in large part because it was not going to be sold to US allies.
From the very beginning, the F-22A exceeded the USAF’s expectations, and during exercises and deployments, it proved to be more than a match for any fighter opposing it.
During the highly realistic Exercise Northern Edge 2006, the F-22 proved itself against as many as 40 “enemy aircraft” during simulated battles. The Raptor pilots achieved a 108-to-zero “kill” ratio against the best F-15, F-16 and F-18 “adversaries.” The stealthy F-22A also proved that it could avoid and destroy enemy surface to air missiles, and recorded an impressive 97 percent mission capability rate.
Some observations by Mike ‘Dozer’ Shower who has flown both the F-15 and the F-22.
Published in MilitaryDozer was in the F-15C community right at its peak during the 1990s through to the 2000s. He says: “Back then the F-15 was the best plane out there: it reigned supreme. It flew high (until the F-22 came along), had a big radar, but it was the weapons and training and sensors that made it.” Mike would get a MiG-29 kill during Operation Allied Force over Bosnia on Mar. 24, 1999, ripple-firing an AIM-120 and an AIM-7 Sparrow. So, let’s talk F-15C versus F-22A Raptor: Dozer?
“In an F-15 you’re sensor operator, you’re working the radar; you’re the guy working this all out and managing the systems and putting together the 3D picture in your head. That’s the difference with the F-22 Raptor. It does it all for you … you could take four weapons instructors in an F-15 each and you could have some lieutenant who is ‘weapons clueless’ and he’s gonna find them all and kill them all. Then you put one really good guy in an F-15 against a Raptor and he’s still gonna get killed; there’s that much of a difference in technology. It’s about sensors and training.”
In 2001 there was a request for experienced pilots, F-15C pilots and ex-weapons school and that meant that Dozer was going to get lucky and get to test the F-22 Raptor.
Initially — at Edwards Air Force Base — as is usual with a new platform, getting things to ‘work’ was an issue. Dozer says: “I was at Edwards for about a year and a half and we had a hard time to get two planes to work at same time. First day we had two planes to work, we had Langley F-15s next door and we are like: `Hey, we’ve got two planes working; wanna come fly against us?’
“So we hop in the jets and set up the two of us; we’ve done simulator stuff but we’re not sure it will work. We take off, we’ve got tankers, we’ve got the F-15s and we try our tactics out. We set up the battles against different numbers of F-15s, up to eight against two Raptors and they just never saw us. We could hear them saying: ‘Hey, where are you at?’ and we are a mile behind them. These were combat-experienced pilots we’re talking about. It was really cool. This proved what the F-22 could do. I had one guy who had worked on the F-22 programme come up to us almost crying, saying: `Hey you validated my whole life’s work.’
“We tested against F-15s, F-16s and then people realised it wasn’t a joke or a theory: the F-22 worked. My favourite time was a Raptor four-ship versus 12 F-15Cs and we’re like, ‘Let’s see how quick we can kill these guys’ So we hook up way up high and supersonic and they can’t take a shot and they’re running away at Mach 1 and we kill them in two minutes or so. I was thinking, ‘This thing is unbelievable.’ When the sensors work and each plane talks to each other, the Raptor is nearly untouchable when things are right. The F-22 versus a 4th-generation fighter is like having two football teams against each other and one of them [the F-22] is invisible!”
Considering that the F15 is 104-0 in aerial combat that really says something about the Raptor. We enter every war unprepared and have to catch up. The next one we won’t have the time to catch up.
Several of the lies told involved falsely stating that the existing stock of F-22 would be upgradable over its life.
One quibble – it wasn’t a mistake. Anything the left can do to weaken the country, it will try. Killing this magnificent airplane was an act of spite.
The line to build it is full of F 35 parts. There is no space to put that at the Marietta Plant where it was built. It would be hard. I hated it was ended. It was so cool to look up and see one on its shake down flight. The F-16 chase planes looked old by comparison.
Still see them once in a while. They come back to the nest to get their stealth coating upgraded.
Obummer didn’t like the F-22. Obummer knew better.
Lockheed is still building F-16’s, C-130’s, and the F-35. My late dad worked for Lockheed and was involved in the ship building side towards the end of his career. He was involved with the Whidbey Island class landing ship for the Marine Corps.
There was a complaint from someone in Congress that converting oil tankers would be less expensive to land Marines. My dad had a meeting with the Commandant of the Marine Corps. The Commandant knew my dad had fought in the Pacific during WWII. He told my dad; You know as well as I do that you cannot seize a beach with an oil tanker. Notwithstanding the naval expertise of the member of Congress the Whidbey Island class moved forward.
What about drone attack jets? Can’t we go in that direction? Top Gun is cool, but it’s expensive….
I think we will get there. But there’s a lot of steps in between.
A few quick shots from this old earth pig…
Like a lot of ground pounders, I tend to have a somewhat jaundiced view of our “Airedale” brethren and their expensive equipment. That being said, my USAF classmates at Carlisle Barracks in 2008 convinced me that the F-22 was well-worth the investment, and one bada** aircraft.
The F-35? Not so much. Actually, a POS that does nothing well except line the pockets of retired flag officers (and soon-to-be retired flag officers).
A SECDEF worth his salt would have the F-35 line shut down right now (like, yesterday) and tell all the major contractors and subcontractors to start producing Raptors. Yup, that means retooling and re-hiring old technicians. If they refuse; tell ‘em to “see me in court; but no payola until it’s all settled…like in a decade or two.”
Someone should also be producing more of the A-10.
Drones can be effective against static targets. It would have to be able to “see” an F-22, or an F-35.
The approximate radar range of various US fighters, exact ranges may be classified.
The Israelis have flown the F-35 in combat, and they like it.
Reviews are mixed, but the F-35 isn’t the dog it has been portrayed as. This is one description of the Red Flag exercise that took place four years ago.
As a force multiplier for groups consisting of older aircraft, the F-35 has possibilities. I would just as soon have both.
I love to hear they’re still building C-130s; a magnificent flying truck, and a heck of a gun platform.
I got a ride on one from Osan AB to Yokota AB that was filled with (don’t tell anybody) secret radio receiving equipment. Fun trip.
What, you trying to get impeached or something?
The production line is pretty cool.
They are scheduled to end the current J run in a few years. One hopes that will be replaced with a K line.
The best thing to replace a Herk with is another Herk!
The two greatest aircraft ever built. Best fighter in history. Best ground support plane in history. Think A-10s headed for the junkyard.
The two Home Run big military aircraft are the B-52 and the C-130. Both are astonishingly capable and can be used for probably 100 years.
Contrast that with the C-5, which is a shop queen. Imagine if the USAF had adopted the 747 instead. We would have had three home runs.
Here! Here!
There is absolutely no reason to cancel the F22!
There is absolutely no credible argument to
be made to cancel the F22. None. It’s replacement the F35 after only 29 years in development isn’t cutting the mustard so why would you throw away it’s best replacement?
I was going to do a post on the F35 ; the latest problem is that it can’t or shouldn’t fly in a thunderstorm because it can’t withstand a lightning strike. Huh? And this is supposed to be our all purpose fighter bomber?The F35 has numerous problems , so many in fact that DOD has almost given up trying to fix them all.
One of our biggest problems is that our military design and development culture has gone sour and corrupt.
Back in the early nineties after our military industrial complex under Reagan had designed the F-22, the B-1 and the Patriot ABM in just a few short years, our first Uniparty President, George H W Bush decided to yank the aerospace industry out of “crazy” out of the box thinking California and take them back to the DC Swamp for what gawd dammed reason I don’t know except that ol’ HW Bush allegedly hated California.
Let me explain why that is important. Most of the aerospace industry, like Lockheed, Hughes Aircraft, Douglas Aircraft, Lytton Industries, Rocketdyne and others started and grew up in “free thinking” Southern California where people were known and still are known for trying out “crazy” ideas that led to things like the F-22 and B-1 in a culture that cherished innovation.
Doug, you said your Dad worked for Lockheed. Growing up in Southern California back in the day it was not uncommon for kids to have friends whose Dad was an aerospace engineer. It was just a thing.
So HW Bush just had to take Aerospace industry back to the DC swamp to change it from a culture that couldn’t wait to design the next astonishing whiz bang thing to one that that can’t wait to come up with a new scam to fleece taxpayers at the same time that our Femi-Nazi University culture decided those nerdy young boys that came up with all these engineering gadgets were really toxic little monsters that needed to be punished and vilified. So now that great Aerospace engineering culture is pretty much gone and except for people like Elon Musk we ain’t pumping out innovative engineers like we used to and so be prepared for the consequences when perhaps in the near future America’s military technological dominance may soon be a thing of the past.
“A pyrrhic victory for Obama now that the new threats come from China and Russia”…but..but…I don’t see how this is possible. I have been assured by all the Best People that Government is very good at long-range planning, it is just individuals and Evil Corporations that are focused on the short term.
I definitely agree that the F-22 should still be in the force; however, the F-35 has a role as well since it is the only stealth Naval fighter we have. I would like to see F-22’s forward deployed i.e. Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea. I also want the fleet to have a stealth capability, which is the F-35 (for better or worse). I think the mistake of the F-35 was mission creep. If you look at the requirements for a good Ground based multi-mission fighter, a good naval multi-mission fighter, and a good STOVL fighter, building a single platform to meet all those roles is going to be a series of compromises. I think probably the F-35 is the best that could be done given the circumstances. Probably it would have made more sense to keep the F-22 in the Ground based role. Dedicate the F-35 to the STOVL role, and either look at a naval version of the F-22 or build a dedicated Naval stealth fighter.
And now with Rapid Dragon and relatively fearsome bomber or at least a cruise missile delivery platform.
The C-5 refurbishment process has greatly reduced that. The modernized C5s are amazing.
Unlike the B-52, the Herk is the longest run military plane ever. I hope it keeps going, because it is my favorite plane. Also good for my hometown.
Israel has no alternative.
They have used it for limited strikes a few hundred miles away at most.
It can’t go long range (because the insane wide fuselage to accommodate the F-35B lift fan makes it draggy as hell). I do not believe the rumors of them flying to Iran unless the Saudis refueled them.
Not good at air-to-air (the drag causes it to lose energy too fast in any close range maneuvering and the small weapons bay prevents us from developing long range missiles).
Not able to internally carry air-to-ground missiles of any decent size due to those small weapons bays.
Indeed. Probably longer than we think. For example, the AF has been talking about space-based sensors for a long, long time…and is only now in the process of developing E-7 Wedgetails to replace E-3s (which are headed to the boneyard already). That giant leap into space ain’t happening any time soon.
It certainly puts most of its eggs in the stealth basket. I think it is probably a pretty good STOVL aircraft, but a lot of compromises because of that mission to its other missions.
Good to hear that.
My image of them was formed when I was at Kelly AFB during Vietnam. The C-5 repair depot people were very busy because they had to get rehabbed way more often than other aircraft of the era.
The C-5A addressed a lot of issues. I worked on the upgrade to the flight engineer station. It enhanced narrowing down problems to specific components.
I did not work on the $7,000 coffee maker.
EDIT: The C-5B was the one I worked on. The flight engineer station improved the diagnosis of line replaceable units (LRUs) that were having problems.
Excerpted from a related post from Mike Fredenburg at Epoch Times:
Air Force Wants To Replace Highly Effective Modern A-10 With ‘Flying Tinderbox’
“By scrapping the A-10, the Air Force is guaranteeing more Gold Star families will be
according to Charlie Keebaugh, president of the largest group of tactical-air-control party airmen.
The 2024 version of the National Defense Authorization Act (pdf) allows the Air Force to retire 42 A-10 Thunderbolt 2s in 2024, with the remaining 220 or so to be retired with prejudice by 2029. This retiring of the A-10 “Warthog” is predicated on the fantastical disproven idea that the A-10, which to this day is the most cost-effective planein the Air Force’s inventory, can be replaced by the F-35.
This power play by the Air Force is just another chapter in the long, ongoing saga of senior Air Force leaders using every tactic, including underhanded tactics, threats, and rigged testing, to justify retiring the A-10. It certainly isn’t about improving our country’s close air support (CAS) capabilities that have saved countless American lives. Instead, it’s about converting A-10 maintainers to F-35 maintainers in order to satisfy the F-35s endless, ravenous appetite for maintenance and support. And it’s about killing off the plane that will continue to show up the F-35 as long as it continues to fly.
Before talking about the respective CAS capabilities of the A-10 and F-35, an understanding of what’s meant by CAS is necessary. Joint Western military doctrine defines CAS as “air action by fixed- and rotary-winged aircraft against hostile targets that are in close proximity to friendly forces and which require detailed integration of each air mission with the fire and movement of those forces.”
More specifically, CAS pilots must be able to coordinate in real time and near real time with their certified joint terminal attack controllers (JTAC), to be able to dynamically adjust targeting and be able to relay enemy positions and movements back to their JTACs in real time. In a real CAS mission, the plane will be flying close enough to frontlines that even if it’s stealthy, it will still be seen on radar and by plain old human eyes.
In terms of what you want in a CAS plane, the engineers and experienced CAS pilots who designed the A-10 in the mid-1960s concluded that a CAS attack plane must be able to operate near the frontlines from an austere airfield with short runways,…..have low maintenance requirements and high reliability, be able to carry a large weapons load including anti-armor capability, be tough enough to survive small arms fire and be resistant to the kind of anti-air weapons one will find at the frontline of a ground battle, have long range and endurance, have a speed of at least 350 knots, have great low-speed maneuverability, ……..Continued
conrtinued from my last post with excerpts form an article from Mike Frederburg of the Epoch Times:
“While the F-35 certainly can fly fast enough, it fails to meet any of the other CAS criteria. And while the F-35, a flying fuel tank, does have decent range when flying stealthily, its inability to fly out of austere air bases located near the frontlines means that it will spend most of its fuel flying back and forth from the battle. In contrast, the A-10, with its ability to fly from austere makeshift airfields with short, unimproved runways, can be based mere minutes from the frontlines and can spend hours in or near the battlefield. This, plus the fact that the A-10 can conservatively double the number of sorties per day of an F-35, means that an A-10 will minimally be able to spend four to eight times more time at or near the frontlines delivering lifesaving, mission-advancing support than an F-35.”
What About the Guns and ‘Danger Close’?
“One of the critical missions that a CAS plane needs to be able to execute is a “danger close” mission. This is an operation in which the CAS plane will be attacking enemy troops and equipment that are within 50 meters of friendly troops. Consequently, explosive ordnance use is restricted or not used out of fear of harming or killing friendlies. In these cases, the A-10’s fearsome GAU-8 Avenger 30-millimeter cannon is vastly superior to the 25-millimeter cannons that the F-35s mount. And much to the chagrin of enemy forces, the A-10 carries 1,174 rounds of ammunition, five to six times what the F-35 carries, allowing it to make multiple attack runs per sortie. However, these comparisons are pointless when it comes to the F-35A, whose gun is hopelessly inaccurate and damages the plane when it’s fired.”
“Finally, equipment critical to protecting the F-35 from going up in flames was either stripped off or left off due to weight considerations (pdf). This arguably makes the F-35 the most fragile plane in the U.S. fighter inventory. Not only is the F-35 highly vulnerable to small fragments common to anti-aircraft artillery fire and near missile misses, but it can’t fly anywhere near lightning, while the A-10 is capable of flying in weather conditions that will ground all other aircraft.”
Read the whole article because the comparisons just on getting worse the more you read.
As a trainer designer, I was taught ” if you try to be a jack of all trades, you will end up being master of none”. That axiom directly applies to the design of the F-35; too many conflicting and redundant design parameters trying to. be too many things at once just ends up being a very, very expensive plane that doesn’t fit the bill it needs to.