F-22A in a spot of bother (major report)

[MKSheppard]

What makes you think it's the same people, apart from your habit of lumping the entire world into two sides on every issue? Someone who was prominent in the media and posting political commentary in the 1970s would be >30 years older today, and probably retired.

Cough Cough. Pierre Sprey; CDI, et al. Cough Cough.

Even if it's new people, why the fuck is it that the second class battleship fallacy never seems to die?

Today, when we fight robed weirdoes living in caves armed with RPGs and roadside bombs, it's harder to justify spending vast amounts of money on an airplane solely designed to defeat imaginary Russian super-planes. That money could have been spent in other ways.

Teh F-15C/D models now have a speed limitation after that mid-air breakup a while back; and they're not getting any younger; and advanced F-15/F-16 class beaters are being exported around the world; in the form of various Sukhois, reducing the edge we'd have in any future conflict from being decisively in our favor, to baseline with slight advantage to USAF.

The F-22 restores that decisive advantage.

Remember, the F-22 is going to serve for the next 40 years in the USAF; so it's got to be able to face up against threats in 2040 with a decent chance; in much the same way a F-15 built in 1979 is still decently capable against the 2009 threat.

[Darth Wong]

I understand why any military would always want to be decisively superior to any other military on the planet in every qualitative way. There's an obvious impetus. However, maintaining constant decisive superiority is incredibly expensive and drains resources from your overall economy that could have been used for other things. Every other country in the world tries to get by with mere military parity or competency; the US militarily outspends the rest of the world combined because they insist on much more, and they have real trouble drawing a line between what they need and what they want.

Again, I understand the reasons why the military thinks this way, but they have become accustomed to basically bullying the civilian government for what they want, which harms the original purpose of the military. Remember, the military exists for the good of the country, not the other way around.

[Alyeska]

If the F22 is 4 times as expensive to fly as the F15, but is effectively worth 12 of them in combat, the F22 isn't exactly a bad deal.

The problem is, that isn't true in any current or likely near future combat. The F-22 is less capable at ground attack than an F-15E, and against air forces as primitive as Iraq's or Iran's the USAF would suffer negligable losses even without the F-22s. The F-22 is helpful for air defense penetration and suppression in the opening days of a campaign, but there are other options for that; B-2s, cruise missiles, semi-expendable UAVs etc. The F-22 would be vastly more useful than an F-15 only in hypothetical future conflicts against opponents with strong air defences, decent pilots and fighters of late fourth generation quality or better. Of course the US should absolutely be planning ahead for such conflicts, as should everyone else, but as usual long-term planning is anthema to Congress (and it seems, Secretary Gates).

Slight problem. The F-22 is not a replacement of the F-15E. It is a replacement of the F-15 A through D only.

[Starglider]

Slight problem. The F-22 is not a replacement of the F-15E. It is a replacement of the F-15 A through D only.

The initial version of the F-22 perhaps, but the current version can use a variety of air-to-ground weapons including SDBs. These capabilities were directly cited as a justification to retire the F-117; the F-22 has taken over its deep penetration and strike mission. Had F-22 production been continued it would in fact have been able to replace the F-15E, but now when those airframes do wear out the USAF will have to make do with F-35s (which were supposed to be an F-16 replacement, not an F-15 replacement).

[Alyeska]

Slight problem. The F-22 is not a replacement of the F-15E. It is a replacement of the F-15 A through D only.

The initial version of the F-22 perhaps, but the current version can use a variety of air-to-ground weapons including SDBs. These capabilities were directly cited as a justification to retire the F-117; the F-22 has taken over its deep penetration and strike mission. Had F-22 production been continued it would in fact have been able to replace the F-15E, but now when those airframes do wear out the USAF will have to make do with F-35s (which were supposed to be an F-16 replacement, not an F-15 replacement).

Able does not mean that it was. The F-22 was never intended to actually replace the F-15E. For starters, the F-15E is still fairly new and the production line is still running. It was only ever really intended to replace the F-15 A-D as air superiority. And in that regard its a fine replacement and significantly better. Something designed as a superiority fighter that can also fill in for the F-117, thats a good thing. Your claiming the F-22 is bad because it can't replace the F-15E. It was never intended to. That doesn't make the F-22 a failure.

[Starglider]

Your claiming the F-22 is bad because it can't replace the F-15E. It was never intended to.

Wow, how did you get so completely turned around? I claimed that the F-22 can replace the F-15; I didn't specify a version but I referenced the F-15E because that has actually seen significant use in recent conflicts, whereas the F-15C hasn't. The F-22 design process assumed the same growth path as the F-15 - design for air superiority and add air-to-ground later - and this is exactly what has happened, in a rather shorter timespan than for the F-15 in fact. The F-22 is already a superior replacement for both the F-15C and F-15E; its stealth allows it to bypass and destroy air defences, its supercruise and altitude extend weapon range, and once the defenses are down you can safely put external stores on it to extend range and payload to F-15E levels. It is still a vastly superior air-to-air combatant even carrying external stores.

The problem is, exactly as you say, that the F-15E doesn't need to be replaced... yet. It is perfectly adequate for existing conflicts; even the F-15Cs would be ok if they didn't have airframe fatigue and maintenance issues. But the F-15E will stop being viable long before the F-22 will be, and there's nothing else to fill that capability gap except the F-35, which has a whole other set of issues.

[Jim Raynor]

EDIT: fixed quotes

The F-22 is helpful for air defense penetration and suppression in the opening days of a campaign, but there are other options for that; B-2s, cruise missiles, semi-expendable UAVs etc.

There are all of twenty B-2s in existence, and they are based in the continental United States. It takes a long ass time for them to even perform a single mission. There are a lot more cruise missiles, but multiple aircraft sorties will easily deliver more firepower over time than the few dozen Tomahawks deployed with each strike group. UAVs are quite frankly wanked out at this point; America is the world leader in that area and it has all of a couple hundred of them which are all slow as shit, lightly armed, and better for recon purposes anyway.

The F-22 would be vastly more useful than an F-15 only in hypothetical future conflicts against opponents with strong air defences, decent pilots and fighters of late fourth generation quality or better. Of course the US should absolutely be planning ahead for such conflicts, as should everyone else, but as usual long-term planning is anthema to Congress (and it seems, Secretary Gates).

Future preparation is the reason to keep the F-22, because the F-15 probably won't be viable in the 2030s or 2040s. I love the F-22, and understand why the military wants more of it to maintain its dominance with. But I think Wong made a good point too, about America's extremely high standards regarding its military might.

If the F-35 works as it is supposed to, would it be enough to trust the future of the American military with? Of course the F-35 isn't even operational yet. At least we know the F-22 works, even with these newly reported maintenance difficulties.

[Ace Pace]

If the F-35 works as it is supposed to, would it be enough to trust the future of the American military with? Of course the F-35 isn't even operational yet.

They are different planes retard. It's equivilent to asking why is there both an F-15 and an F-16 in todays inventories.

[Jim Raynor]

If the F-35 works as it is supposed to, would it be enough to trust the future of the American military with? Of course the F-35 isn't even operational yet.

They are different planes retard. It's equivilent to asking why is there both an F-15 and an F-16 in todays inventories.

Wow go fuck yourself asshole. What the fuck is your problem? You don't think I know what the fuck these different planes are?

The reason the F-16 was bought was to have a bigger fighter fleet at a lower cost. But the fact is that both the F-15 and F-16 are fighter aircraft that can also bomb shit, just like the F-22 and F-35 will be. They DO perform redundant roles (and please don't be a nitpicky dipshit and go "hur hur F-15E is the version that bombs shit"). The question is whether the F-22 is needed IF the F-35 works and is still way better than anything that's not the F-22, and we follow the logic that Wong described where America doesn't need to maintain a ridiculous level of military supremacy (outspending the rest of the world combined).

It's like you were going out of your way to start shit.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

UAVs are quite frankly wanked out at this point; America is the world leader in that area and it has all of a couple hundred of them which are all slow as shit, lightly armed, and better for recon purposes anyway.

World Leader in deployment of UAVs, but technology wise, the Israelis are pretty good at making UAVs and might be comparable in some ways. Though the Israelis in general do not use turbofans for their UAVs possibly because of different requirements.

[Julhelm]

If the F-35 works as it is supposed to, would it be enough to trust the future of the American military with? Of course the F-35 isn't even operational yet.

They are different planes retard. It's equivilent to asking why is there both an F-15 and an F-16 in todays inventories.

Wow go fuck yourself asshole. What the fuck is your problem? You don't think I know what the fuck these different planes are?

The reason the F-16 was bought was to have a bigger fighter fleet at a lower cost. But the fact is that both the F-15 and F-16 are fighter aircraft that can also bomb shit, just like the F-22 and F-35 will be. They DO perform redundant roles (and please don't be a nitpicky dipshit and go "hur hur F-15E is the version that bombs shit"). The question is whether the F-22 is needed IF the F-35 works and is still way better than anything that's not the F-22, and we follow the logic that Wong described where America doesn't need to maintain a ridiculous level of military supremacy (outspending the rest of the world combined).

It's like you were going out of your way to start shit.

The F-15 and especially the F-16 were never intended to have any anti-ground capability - In fact the USAF slogan at the time was 'Not a pound for air to ground'. Then the F-16 was substantially upgraded to be more multi-role once it became apparent the navy had a much more capable plane in the F-18, which of course traced it's lineage to the YF-17 the airforce had rejected.

[Sea Skimmer]

I understand why any military would always want to be decisively superior to any other military on the planet in every qualitative way. There's an obvious impetus. However, maintaining constant decisive superiority is incredibly expensive and drains resources from your overall economy that could have been used for other things. Every other country in the world tries to get by with mere military parity or competency; the US militarily outspends the rest of the world combined because they insist on much more, and they have real trouble drawing a line between what they need and what they want.

What we need is a plane which is superior now so it will be equal in the future. This isn’t the 1950s any longer when the military can get two or even three new jet fighter designs per year, whatever is bought now must be good enough to last another thirty years. That’s a damn long time to project what our enemies might do, or who they might even be.

The F-15 was far better then any other fighter when it rolled out, so much so that people insisted we could get by with upgrades of existing planes. The military successful y defeated those critics, and the result is the US can still fly an F-15 with confidence today. It is however now no better then equal to a number of foreign designs, and certainly inferior to at least two.

Trying to cut corners on design for cost now will just ensure that we need a replacement much sooner, and for far more money in total. Cutting corners on production ensures that the fleet will age quickly, and have no fresh aircraft in warstocks to be rotated into service, so we can't make the force last a long time no matter what we want to do.

Again, I understand the reasons why the military thinks this way, but they have become accustomed to basically bullying the civilian government for what they want, which harms the original purpose of the military. Remember, the military exists for the good of the country, not the other way around.

Yeah but the military is really not asking for that much, its just that everyone else demands fuckloads of money for things we never had the federal government pay for before. In the 1960s, before even the Nam war broke out US military spending was over 60% of all US federal government spending and about 9% of the economy. If either of those figures was still true today, the military budget would be more then twice as big as it is today. Heck even 60% of the US federal spending which is not funded through deficit would still be hundreds of billions more for the military.

The last time spending was proportionally anything like as low as it has been the last 15 years it directly led to the near defeat of the US by North Korea, a nation that had existed for all of five years and had a relatively small pile of Russian hand me downs for armaments. Meanwhile we drive UP the cost of many pocurment programs because in ordered to save money one year, congress will cut R&D budgets. That means work goes slower then optimal, extra years get tacked on (which also leads to ever more changing requirements being factored in) and the end result is a much more expensive program. Then they decide to save more money by slashing production numbers, and then wonder why each weapon now costs so much more. This kind of retarded environment ensures that the military has no inactive at all to offer realistic cost projections in the first place.

[Darth Wong]

What we need is a plane which is superior now so it will be equal in the future. This isn’t the 1950s any longer when the military can get two or even three new jet fighter designs per year, whatever is bought now must be good enough to last another thirty years. That’s a damn long time to project what our enemies might do, or who they might even be.

OK, there's that "need" vs "want" thing again. How is it that other countries manage to get by without this requirement?

The F-15 was far better then any other fighter when it rolled out, so much so that people insisted we could get by with upgrades of existing planes. The military successful y defeated those critics, and the result is the US can still fly an F-15 with confidence today. It is however now no better then equal to a number of foreign designs, and certainly inferior to at least two.

Fair enough. However, I am curious how it was determined that a 40 year design cycle results in an optimal cost structure. How do Russia and the EU do it?

Trying to cut corners on design for cost now will just ensure that we need a replacement much sooner, and for far more money in total. Cutting corners on production ensures that the fleet will age quickly, and have no fresh aircraft in warstocks to be rotated into service, so we can't make the force last a long time no matter what we want to do.

Same question: how do we know that it would cost more money in total to roll out a new lower-cost fighter plane design every 20 years, instead of rolling out SuperFighter every 40 years?

Yeah but the military is really not asking for that much, its just that everyone else demands fuckloads of money for things we never had the federal government pay for before. In the 1960s, before even the Nam war broke out US military spending was over 60% of all US federal government spending and about 9% of the economy. If either of those figures was still true today, the military budget would be more then twice as big as it is today. Heck even 60% of the US federal spending which is not funded through deficit would still be hundreds of billions more for the military.

The fact that the military budget was even larger in the past does not mean it is necessarily a healthy size now. The US outspends every other country in the world on military budgets combined.

The last time spending was proportionally anything like as low as it has been the last 15 years it directly led to the near defeat of the US by North Korea, a nation that had existed for all of five years and had a relatively small pile of Russian hand me downs for armaments.

"Near defeat of the US by North Korea?" I don't recall hearing about North Korean tank divisions rolling through California. What you mean is "near failure of the US foreign intervention in Korea". At no point was the US actually in any danger.

Meanwhile we drive UP the cost of many pocurment programs because in ordered to save money one year, congress will cut R&D budgets. That means work goes slower then optimal, extra years get tacked on (which also leads to ever more changing requirements being factored in) and the end result is a much more expensive program. Then they decide to save more money by slashing production numbers, and then wonder why each weapon now costs so much more. This kind of retarded environment ensures that the military has no inactive at all to offer realistic cost projections in the first place.

So you feel that the solution is to commit fraud on a grand scale which makes almost all normal political corruption scandals look like absolutely nothing?

[erik_t]

Fair enough. However, I am curious how it was determined that a 40 year design cycle results in an optimal cost structure. How do Russia and the EU do it?

The Eurofighter, as an example, was formally proposed amongst several European nations in 1979, satisfying (among others) a British new-fighter specification first issued as early as 1972. The program was organizationally mature-ish around 1985, when the EAP technology demonstrator was first flown. The first flight of the mechanically-functional Eurofighter prototype took place in March of 1994. The first production-standard electronically-functional Eurofighter first flew in 2002, and operational capability was achieved in December 2005. The Eurofighter replaced the Panavia Tornado in RAF (and other) service, which entered service in 1979, effectively a 26-year generation.

On the US side, F-15 achieved IOC in 1976, the F-22 in mid 2005: a 29 year product lifecycle. The timelines are startlingly similar to my mind, although the governing circumstances were not.

For other aviation examples, both the A320 and 737 are to be replaced in the middle of the next decade (as of 2006... I suspect this will slip to late-2010s before all is said and done). A320 was introduced to service in 1988, the 737 Classic (the second generation with large-diameter underslung engines) in 1984. This will be, again, a 25-30 year generation.

I struggle to think of modern jet aircraft families that have a product lifecycle substantially shorter than this.

[Darth Wong]

Given the stratospheric costs of trying to achieve rah-rah decisive superiority that will last for three decades, even if we accept that it must take 30 years to develop a new plane, why not just have two parallel staggered projects if you're so paranoid about falling behind at any time?

I'll leave aside the question of why the US "needs" to have equipment which is decisively superior to everyone else at all times, since it's pretty obvious that's simply accepted as doctrine, and is not subject to question.

[Akkleptos]

In other words:
US... Your superplane is fucked.

[erik_t]

Given the stratospheric costs of trying to achieve rah-rah decisive superiority that will last for three decades, even if we accept that it must take 30 years to develop a new plane, why not just have two parallel staggered projects if you're so paranoid about falling behind at any time?

I'm not really sure on this one. I think a large part of it is commonality; the F-15 and F-16 share an engine, for example.

[Alyeska]

Given the stratospheric costs of trying to achieve rah-rah decisive superiority that will last for three decades, even if we accept that it must take 30 years to develop a new plane, why not just have two parallel staggered projects if you're so paranoid about falling behind at any time?

I'll leave aside the question of why the US "needs" to have equipment which is decisively superior to everyone else at all times, since it's pretty obvious that's simply accepted as doctrine, and is not subject to question.

While the F22 is expensive, its not as expensive as it first seems. When compared to any other air superiority fighter, the F22's effectiveness actually makes its overall cost cheaper. The F22 is rated to be about as capable as 12 F15s. Except that its cost is less less then half of that. The F22 costs maybe what 6 F15s would cost us right now, but is as effective as 12 of them. No, the F22 isn't cheap, but its more efficient with its expenditures when compared to other weapon systems. So the F22 is the most cost effective weapon we can field right now. For a fairly small number of airplanes, we have something that is vastly better then what we have had previously. Add in the incoming F35 which utilized a significant degree of the F22s R&D costs and is significantly cheaper and you've just created a nice High-Low setup for the next 30 years.

[Alyeska]

In other words:
US... Your superplane is fucked.

Do you have anything constructive, or for that matter intelligent to add?

[Vympel]

While the F22 is expensive, its not as expensive as it first seems. When compared to any other air superiority fighter, the F22's effectiveness actually makes its overall cost cheaper. The F22 is rated to be about as capable as 12 F15s. Except that its cost is less less then half of that. The F22 costs maybe what 6 F15s would cost us right now, but is as effective as 12 of them. No, the F22 isn't cheap, but its more efficient with its expenditures when compared to other weapon systems. So the F22 is the most cost effective weapon we can field right now. For a fairly small number of airplanes, we have something that is vastly better then what we have had previously. Add in the incoming F35 which utilized a significant degree of the F22s R&D costs and is significantly cheaper and you've just created a nice High-Low setup for the next 30 years.

There's a couple of problems with the "1 F-22 = 12 F-15s" formulation however.

1. 1x F-22 cannot sustain as many sorties as either 6 or 12 F-15s, obviously; and

2. I'm not sure how they decide 1x F-22 is worth 12x F-15s, but historically, no matter how superior one side's planes are, the more planes each side puts in the air, the exchange ratio between the two combatants approaches parity.

[Darth Wong]

While the F22 is expensive, its not as expensive as it first seems. When compared to any other air superiority fighter, the F22's effectiveness actually makes its overall cost cheaper. The F22 is rated to be about as capable as 12 F15s. Except that its cost is less less then half of that. The F22 costs maybe what 6 F15s would cost us right now, but is as effective as 12 of them.

How are these multipliers determined? Can an F-22 be in 12 places at once? I suppose they're just saying that in simulations, an F-22 could shoot down twelve F-15s in a hypothetical dogfight before it got shot down itself. But it's a bit of a stretch to go from that to the conclusion that an F-22 is actually as functionally useful as twelve F-15s.

No, the F22 isn't cheap, but its more efficient with its expenditures when compared to other weapon systems. So the F22 is the most cost effective weapon we can field right now. For a fairly small number of airplanes, we have something that is vastly better then what we have had previously. Add in the incoming F35 which utilized a significant degree of the F22s R&D costs and is significantly cheaper and you've just created a nice High-Low setup for the next 30 years.

Same question.

[Vympel]

If the critics are correct (re: where the availability rates should be right now as opposed to where they are), it's especially problematic going forward - almost half of your (tiny) fighter force won't even be able to get in the air at any given moment.

[Alyeska]

How are these multipliers determined? Can an F-22 be in 12 places at once? I suppose they're just saying that in simulations, an F-22 could shoot down twelve F-15s in a hypothetical dogfight before it got shot down itself. But it's a bit of a stretch to go from that to the conclusion that an F-22 is actually as functionally useful as twelve F-15s.

Very true. I forgot these details. I believe its a direct force on force comparison in a single engagement. That is partly why the Airforce goes for the High-Low concept. Get a decent number of expensive but highly capable fighters, then a large force of cheaper fighters to fill the ranks.

[MKSheppard]

2. I'm not sure how they decide 1x F-22 is worth 12x F-15s.

With actual DACT training. They simply keep throwing more and more F-15s and F-16s at a single F-22 until the F-22 dies most of the time. That ratio is about 12-15 now.

[Vympel]

Given the problems the USAF is encountering with it's F-22s (that it has also suffered in the past, and continues to suffer, with the B-2) I have to wonder how Russia is going to pull off it's 5th generation 'stealthy' fighter design. We already know it's meant to be stealthy (including internal weapons bays), capable of effective supercruise, and primarily an air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack.

We also know the Russians have been using RAM coatings for a while now to reduce the RCS of their existing aircraft. However, I don't see how they're going to avoid problems like this unless the stealth on the PAK FA is going to be designed according to less stringent requirements.

I mean heck, UK/Germany/Italy didn't bother with stealth for the Eurofighter Typhoon (besides some minor RCS reduction measures), nor did France with the Rafale. The only nations looking at stealth fighter development are the USA, Russia, and perhaps China with the "J-XX".