60 New F-22s for USAF

[JointStrikeFighter]

The Air Force’s chief of staff was careful to withhold his professional military advice until Defense Secretary Robert Gates gets it, but Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters this morning that he would not “dispute” comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs late last year that the service would get an additional 60 F-22s, for a total of 243.

Schwartz then poured cold water on any hopes the Japanese and Australians might have of buying F-22s, saying some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export. However, he said “it was a possibility” that allies could pay for planes that were modified extensively enough to eliminate the export concerns. Given how expensive that would be, Schwartz has probably put the kibosh on export sales.

The Air Force chief of staff defended the decision to scale back the long sacred Air Force requirement of 381 F-22s, saying the service had performed honest and objective analysis to determine the new number of planes. “I’ll be happy to defend the numbers once they become available,” he told us, adding that the new fleet size offers “moderate risk” to the nation.

Of course, this doesn’t necessarily mean that 60 is the exact number everyone has decided on, but Schwartz didn’t try to pour cold water on it either… He did say the final decision should be out very close to the congressionally mandated date of March 1.

In addition, Schwartz hinted the service would probably find money in its own budget to pay for more F-22s if that is the decision. However, he didn’t directly address the question, saying the service generally pays for what it buys.

Asked about John Young’s comments last November that the F-22’s mission capable rate was too low and expected enhancements too expensive for the country to afford, Schwartz said “the truth of the matter is” the F-22’s rate is 60 percent including stealth issues and is “in the mid- to high-70s without low observable” issues. Looking at the system overall, the F-22’s reliability “is respectable,” he said.

And Schwartz reiterated a long-standing position of the military, namely that jobs are not a criteria for him and his colleagues to consider when they make decisions about which weapons to buy. However, he made clear that other parts of the government — can you say Congress? — do have this responsibility and he knows they will act accordingly.

On other Air Force issues, Schwartz threw a dart at John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, saying that CSAR-X is a joint requirement, “notwithstanding the acquisition executive’s views…” Young has questioned whether the CSAR-X requirement is valid, saying other assets such as the V-22 could do the same job.

Finally, Schwartz offered a very good line about whether the Air Force should worry about its roles in view of Gates’ oft-repeated comments about balance and the right mix of forces, which many have interpreted to mean the Air Force and Navy will have to scrap systems designed during the Cold War. The service’s “contribution is what we should focus on, more than the attribution…”

http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/02/17/af-li ... t-of-luck/

[Guardsman Bass]

Good news that they're at least getting the 243, not so good that it's a cut-back from 381. How few can they produce without the production of the parts needed for it becoming prohibitively expensive for the manufacturers to make in terms of the profit expected?

[K. A. Pital]

Why do you need a hundred more 5th generation planes when your economy is ailing? Isn't the US basically the safest place on Earth anyhow?

[Singular Intellect]

Why do you need a hundred more 5th generation planes when your economy is ailing? Isn't the US basically the safest place on Earth anyhow?

I don't think the US is in dire enough straights to completely forego the dick waving contest.

[Kanastrous]

As the nation sinks into the viscous bubbling quicksand, it will sink supine so that the last glimpse of America before it goes under will be its impressive world-beating dick waving goodbye.

[MKSheppard]

Why do you need a hundred more 5th generation planes when your economy is ailing? Isn't the US basically the safest place on Earth anyhow?

Because you know, the majority of our fighter fleet is 30~ years old?

[Vympel]

The Air Force chief of staff defended the decision to scale back the long sacred Air Force requirement of 381 F-22s, saying the service had performed honest and objective analysis to determine the new number of planes. “I’ll be happy to defend the numbers once they become available,” he told us, adding that the new fleet size offers “moderate risk” to the nation.

"Moderate risk" to the nation. Right, the United States itself is under threat if it doesn't get a big fleet of F-22s.

[Kanastrous]

Aren't airframe life and upgrade capacity more important than age?

For example, the B-52 still appears to be effective, after having outlasted a number of aircraft intended to replace it.

Right, the United States itself is under threat if it doesn't get a big fleet of F-22s.

We'd be under the threat of not having a big fleet of F-22s.

[K. A. Pital]

Because you know, the majority of our fighter fleet is 30~ years old?

And you need a large bunch of 5th generation fighters right amidst an economic crisis because... hmm, you want to start some sort of war as part of a solution to this crisis? I mean, 100 fighters make a difference between victory and defeat... right?

[MKSheppard]

For example, the B-52 still appears to be effective, after having outlasted a number of aircraft intended to replace it.

Except those B-52s have a very low number of airframe hours, having spent the majority of their lives sitting alert duty on the pad at SAC bases. Not so with the F-15 fleet; remember that midair distengration of a F-15 a bit back?

[Beowulf]

Because you know, the majority of our fighter fleet is 30~ years old?

And you need a large bunch of 5th generation fighters right amidst an economic crisis because... hmm, you want to start some sort of war as part of a solution to this crisis? I mean, 100 fighters make a difference between victory and defeat... right?

Because we need to replace a bunch of old 4th gen fighters, and we might as well replace them with something that won't be obsolete the day they're built?

[K. A. Pital]

Because we need to replace a bunch of old 4th gen fighters, and we might as well replace them with something that won't be obsolete the day they're built?

And of course that can't wait! If you build 250 a year, that constitutes some sort of "risk", you should build 380, because 380 is soo different from 250. Seriously... what? That's bullshit. Defending it only makes it more funny.

Not so with the F-15 fleet; remember that midair distengration of a F-15 a bit back?

Airframe fatigue is inevitable when you're using an old fleet; but I doubt a 100 new fighters (and consequently ~100 retired old airframes) would decrease the change of failure substantially. Or at all.

[Beowulf]

Because we need to replace a bunch of old 4th gen fighters, and we might as well replace them with something that won't be obsolete the day they're built?

And of course that can't wait! If you build 250 a year, that constitutes some sort of "risk", you should build 380, because 380 is soo different from 250. Seriously... what? That's bullshit. Defending it only makes it more funny.

Err... 250 a year? Try more like 20 a year. And the most likely result of us shutting down the F-22 line is that production ends permanently. There won't be a chance to build any more. Considering that the future air superiority fighter fleet will consist of however many F-22s we build along with the 178 F-15C we're upgrading, an extra 60 F-22s is worthwhile. It's an extra 16% of the fleet that will be new, as opposed to being older than the pilots who are flying them.

If you really want to take that tack, why is the Russian government supporting development of a new "5th" generation fighter when it's economy is going further into the shitter?

[Illuminatus Primus]

Because you know, the majority of our fighter fleet is 30~ years old?

And you need a large bunch of 5th generation fighters right amidst an economic crisis because... hmm, you want to start some sort of war as part of a solution to this crisis? I mean, 100 fighters make a difference between victory and defeat... right?

The right-wing solution the crisis:

Civilian economy? THE FREE MARKET WILL PREVAIL. CUT EXPENDITURES, CUT EVERYTHING, CUT TAXES! Oh, and military Keynesianism?

[K. A. Pital]

Err... 250 a year? Try more like 20 a year.

In that case there's likewise no difference between 20 and 30 a year - both are miserably low numbers.

If you really want to take that tack, why is the Russian government supporting development of a new "5th" generation fighter when it's economy is going further into the shitter?

I do wonder why. The difference is that we are producing 4+ generation fighters. Also, the state of US and Russian aerospace is not even remotely comparable. What is a vital lifeline to an industry threatened by brain drain and 20 years of malaise in Russia is not the same in an industrially developed nation which never stopped investing in aerospace.

And even that vital lifeline is far less important than the well-being of our people, so I do not see that fighter as necessary. Neither do I think that Russia producing 0 5th generation fighters constitutes some sort of "risk".

[Tanasinn]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the blood, sweat, tears, and dollars were spoken for on the F-22 program prior to the economy shitting its pants, correct?

Better the U.S. get something for its investment. I can't imagine the manufacturers would be too happy if, after all of this, they got told that we weren't buying.

[Vympel]

Airframe fatigue is inevitable when you're using an old fleet; but I doubt a 100 new fighters (and consequently ~100 retired old airframes) would decrease the change of failure substantially. Or at all.

Pretty much "or at all". The USAF's fleet is so large that it'd take a huge amount of new fighter aircraft to reverse the extremely high average age of their aircraft. 60 new F-22s won't make a dent. Come hell or high water, the USAF's size is going to drastically contract over the coming years, F-22 or no F-22, F-35 or no F-35.

In the meantime, the Russian state arms program to 2015 provides for the purchase of both Su-35s and MiG-35s. The future Russian fighter force will be a small amount of PAK FAs supplemented by a larger force of Su-35s and MiG-35s (and Su-27SMs, Su-24M2s, Su-25SMs in the shorter term).

That should be cheaper than building the equivalent of just F-22s and F-35s, but I doubt Russia can manage such a modest goal in the short term. First flight of the PAK FA was supposed to be this year, now its 2010.

[K. A. Pital]

Pretty much "or at all".

I expected as much. When the procurement numbers are so small it's irrelevant if you order 20 or 30 craft. Basically, you just need to order something for the plants not to fall into malaise and decay, losing equipment and engineers, but ordering 10 more craft isn't going to do any wonders for the US fleet. So the old age of F-15 and the possibility of them desintegrating from fatigue won't be rectified at all by another hundred new F-22s.

[FedRebel]

Why do you need a hundred more 5th generation planes when your economy is ailing? Isn't the US basically the safest place on Earth anyhow?

What do you think makes America so safe?

Anyways a recession doesn't mean that we stop everything and wait, new things still get built

For example, the B-52 still appears to be effective, after having outlasted a number of aircraft intended to replace it.

B-70: Killed by Act of SECDEF (McNamara uses then powers of his office to withhold funding authorized for production of the aircraft)

B-1: Tinkered into obsolescence (went from a Mach 2.2 strategic bomber to a Mach 1.5 low altitude penetrator)

B-2: Proved to be just too damn expensive

Sure the BUFF is doing well now, but keep in mind what it's doing now is a far, far cry from what it was and still is expected to be capable of.

The B-52 is STILL our frontline nuclear bomber, problem is...

A: The B-52 exists in too few numbers (you see somebody thought it'd be keen to play 'French Revolution' with a few hundred of the aircraft) as it is we have less than a hundred in service now, spread across all of TWO bases.

B: Critical components of the aircraft (wing spar) can no longer be produced, the BUFF was intended to last til the 1970's NOT the 2040's (or based on present USAF trends...the 2070's, and beyond!)

C: Given the advances in fighter in air defense technology, the B-52 doesn't have the same capability against a first world nation as it did 40 years ago, A-stan and Iraq were/are peanuts compared to then Soviet and now Russian defenses

[Akkleptos]

It would be funny in a sad way if, say, the Russians or the Chinese were to meet the new bunch of F22 with something like thousands of super-efficient and deadly jet drones that costed each less than 1% of what a single F22 does. The F22 would be probably superior in a one-on-one dogfight -except for the inability to make high-G maneuvers that are no problem for unmanned aircraft- but in a real combat situation they'd be outnumbered like 100 to one, having a handful of $50,000 drones taking out the precious 100+ million-dollar fighters, probably using just little more AI than a modern SAM.

Unfeasible? Maybe, but seeing just how much money has been sunk into the F22 R&D, coming up with a reasonably effective drone by comparison seems cheap.

Actually, speaking of SAMs, wouldn't enemies just need to launch a bunch of SAMs almost simultaneously when they learned they were facing F22s? After all, nothing can avoid several of them at once, IIRC.

On the other hand, having superior fighters will probably save lots of pilots lives, and good pilots are costly to train and maintain (drills, training flights, planes lost during exercises, etc), so that's one good reason to have a new state-of-the-art fighter.

[darthdavid]

It would be funny in a sad way if, say, the Russians or the Chinese were to meet the new bunch of F22 with something like thousands of super-efficient and deadly jet drones that costed each less than 1% of what a single F22 does. The F22 would be probably superior in a one-on-one dogfight -except for the inability to make high-G maneuvers that are no problem for unmanned aircraft- but in a real combat situation they'd be outnumbered like 100 to one, having a handful of $50,000 drones taking out the precious 100+ million-dollar fighters, probably using just little more AI than a modern SAM.

Unfeasible? Maybe, but seeing just how much money has been sunk into the F22 R&D, coming up with a reasonably effective drone by comparison seems cheap.

Actually, speaking of SAMs, wouldn't enemies just need to launch a bunch of SAMs almost simultaneously when they learned they were facing F22s? After all, nothing can avoid several of them at once, IIRC.

On the other hand, having superior fighters will probably save lots of pilots lives, and good pilots are costly to train and maintain (drills, training flights, planes lost during exercises, etc), so that's one good reason to have a new state-of-the-art fighter.

While I have no doubt that a drone swarm could be effective, the F-22's big advantages are stealth and supercruise. Supercruise will allow the plane to get places faster while burning less fuel and the stealth will be helpful in just about any conflict (HINT: If you can't detect it you probably can't hit it with a missile, no matter how many you fire ).

[Starglider]

Unfeasible? Maybe, but seeing just how much money has been sunk into the F22 R&D, coming up with a reasonably effective drone by comparison seems cheap.

Your tiny cheap drones will not be able to carry a useful radar, so they will have no chance of spotting an F-22. At $50,000 they will almost certainly be subsonic, so they will have no chance of catching an F-22. Since your projected cost is rather less than a single short-range AAM, they are unlikely to have any useful armament. The only problem an F-22 is going to have with this midget drone swarm is running out of missiles. If an enemy was stupid enough to bet their air defence hopes on the cheap drone swarm the best solution would probably be to take a few B-1s, load them up with a hundred or so AMRAAMs each, and swat them all down while flying around with impunity. No actually that's the second best solution, the best solution would just be to send B-2s to flatten the base your tiny drones are launching from before they can even get airborne. There's also the question of where you're going to get the pilots to fly hundreds of drones, since current AI can't handle air combat to any significant degree.

Actually, speaking of SAMs, wouldn't enemies just need to launch a bunch of SAMs almost simultaneously when they learned they were facing F22s?

Sure, if the F-22s are sporting enough to fly close enough to your SAM sites that you can actually acquire them. Remember that SAMs that can reach an F-22's operating speed and altitude are expensive, and that your air defence sites loaded with numerous big expensive missiles will be priority targets for air defence suppression strikes (by aircraft and cruise missile).

After all, nothing can avoid several of them at once, IIRC.

The number of SAMs required to bracket the target sufficiently to prevent escape goes up very quickly as the target speed increases (and the SAM's effective engagement circle at the target altitude shrinks).

[K. A. Pital]

What do you think makes America so safe?

You want spelled that out in big letters? Here's a hint: LOCATION.

[Akkleptos]

While I have no doubt that a drone swarm could be effective, the F-22's big advantages are stealth and supercruise. Supercruise will allow the plane to get places faster while burning less fuel and the stealth will be helpful in just about any conflict (HINT: If you can't detect it you probably can't hit it with a missile, no matter how many you fire ).

Big advantage, yes.

(his whole post)

I see, I greatly overestimated the capacities of cheap drones and SAMs against the F22. Just a bit before conceding: how many SAMs -and what kind- would you use if you had to take down an F22? Or how many superdrones (let's take them a pair of notches up, at, say 150-200 thousand dollars each, with whatever they might need to effectively target and chase down an F22) for accomplishing the same purpose?

I'm writing from the historical perspective that nothing is unbeatable/undownable/unsinkable.

Why do you need a hundred more 5th generation planes when your economy is ailing? Isn't the US basically the safest place on Earth anyhow?

What do you think makes America so safe?

You want spelled that out in big letters? Here's a hint: LOCATION.

Surely enough, the US might have come out victorious of the two world wars, but not as relatively unscathed, had it been sitting right next to Europe (of course, the whole lot of history would be different... we would have had Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans etc. all over the place)

[Starglider]

Just a bit before conceding: how many SAMs -and what kind- would you use if you had to take down an F22?

You'd have to ask Sea Skimmer or Stuart. A high-level-penetrating F-22 cruises at better than mach 1.6 and 50,000 feet (actual performance is classified of course). Large SAMs like Patriot and SA-10 can get up there, but it takes time and if the F-22 moves out of the range of the tracking radar by the time the missile gets within terminal guidance range it won't hit the target. There are possible ways to defeat the stealth, such as multistatic radar, but I don't know enough about the systems involved to give you a good answer.

Or how many superdrones (let's take them a pair of notches up, at, say 150-200 thousand dollars each, with whatever they might need to effectively target and chase down an F22) for accomplishing the same purpose?

That still isn't a very useful drone. The unit cost of a Predator (not including ground support infrastructure) is about $4M and that has an air-to-air combat value of zero (well, maybe you could take down a helicopter with one). The F-22 is quite capable of defeating tens of aircraft of F-16 quality, up until it runs out of missiles, and the unit cost of an F-16 is still $25M or so. Of course that's a multirole aircraft, perhaps you could build an air combat optimised drone with a couple of AAMs and F-16 equivalent speed, range and sensors for $10M. By spamming a hundred of those into the airspace you may force an F-22 to fly through your drone swarm on the way to its objective, and limit its freedom to maneuver enough that you take it down (after losing several of your drones to the F-22s AAMs). So you spent ~$1B on a force that can stop a ~$120M aircraft. But wait, there won't be one F-22, there will be a squadron of them, who will knock down all your drones from beyond their effective range as they futilely attempt to swarm the squadron (this will happen even faster if the F-22s are datalinking from a friendly AWACS and don't even have to use their own radars).

I'm writing from the historical perspective that nothing is unbeatable/undownable/unsinkable.

Yes but spamming (any reasonable number of) units doesn't help if there's a fundamental qualitative difference, as evidenced by WW1 infantry vs machine guns.