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

[CmdrWilkens]

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?

Because then you have to spend twice as much on R&D, well not twice as much but near close enough. The point with desginign one generation at a time means that you can have wide commonality of avionics, software, hardware, and a host of other parts even though the airframe and otehr major components may differ. if you offset yourself into two half generations then each half generation needs to get progressively better which means it cannot take advantage of that R&D commonality but must reach the next half generaiton forward on a seperate budget. Given that you wouldn't be trying to get 30 years of viability but just 15 or so instead you may be able to cut down on the costs but you have to pay for it twice over.

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.

Sure its subject to question but the US as a nation has decided to forge a path of having a decisively superior air force and we do have that right as a nation to determine it is within our needs to do so.

[Vympel]

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.

Fair enough, but how are they doing it? One by one? Because an F-22 literally doesn't have enough missiles to shoot down 12 F-15s/ F-16s at once, IIRC.

If it's only small groups, it's not really a proof of concept.

[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?

Because then you have to spend twice as much on R&D, well not twice as much but near close enough. The point with desginign one generation at a time means that you can have wide commonality of avionics, software, hardware, and a host of other parts even though the airframe and otehr major components may differ. if you offset yourself into two half generations then each half generation needs to get progressively better which means it cannot take advantage of that R&D commonality but must reach the next half generaiton forward on a seperate budget. Given that you wouldn't be trying to get 30 years of viability but just 15 or so instead you may be able to cut down on the costs but you have to pay for it twice over.

Could you please explain why a pair of parallel development projects would be unable to use any commonality? This seems to be an important part of your cost-doubling argument, and I don't see how it logically follows at all.

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.

Sure its subject to question but the US as a nation has decided to forge a path of having a decisively superior air force and we do have that right as a nation to determine it is within our needs to do so.

I hate it when people respond to a question about whether something is right or necessary by saying that they have the right to do it. That's not an answer at all. You also have the right as an individual to overeat until you're a monstrous 1100 pound blob, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. And calling something a "need" rather than a "want" because you have decided that it's a "need" is just plain dishonest. If it were actually a "need", you'd be able to justify it with something better than "we decided it's a need".

[Vympel]

I'd submit that the US' current trajectory is not even conducive to sustaining the dominant Air Force it has now. Today's USAF is the product of the Reagan defence build-up, and it's not sustainable. The average age of the majority of the aircraft is ridiculously high (17-25 years or something, can't be bothered to check right now) they rack up an insane amount of hours, and there's not enough money to bring the age of the force down unless something gives.

[MKSheppard]

We need absolute decisive air superiority, because our plans always assume that the US will be forced to fight from a position of numerical inferiority in the first days of a war -- like only 36-48 fighters hurriedly flown overseas to a hot spot having to hold their own against 150-200 enemy aircraft.

[Darth Wong]

We need absolute decisive air superiority, because our plans always assume that the US will be forced to fight from a position of numerical inferiority in the first days of a war -- like only 36-48 fighters hurriedly flown overseas to a hot spot having to hold their own against 150-200 enemy aircraft.

And you need to be able to do that because ...?

This is a shell game. I ask why the US needs this capability when no other country does, and you answer that you need it in order to do certain things that ... no other country does, like fighting a full-scale war anywhere in the world on short notice. Why do you need to be able to do those things?

[CmdrWilkens]

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?

Because then you have to spend twice as much on R&D, well not twice as much but near close enough. The point with desginign one generation at a time means that you can have wide commonality of avionics, software, hardware, and a host of other parts even though the airframe and otehr major components may differ. if you offset yourself into two half generations then each half generation needs to get progressively better which means it cannot take advantage of that R&D commonality but must reach the next half generaiton forward on a seperate budget. Given that you wouldn't be trying to get 30 years of viability but just 15 or so instead you may be able to cut down on the costs but you have to pay for it twice over.

Could you please explain why a pair of parallel development projects would be unable to use any commonality? This seems to be an important part of your cost-doubling argument, and I don't see how it logically follows at all.

Because those parts, and I'm thinking rather specifically of avionics and the like, will be at least a half generation out of date when the new plane enters service. That means at the end of its service life instead of being comparable to the rest of the world it would be at least half a generation behind. In turn this means you have to develop a new set of avionics, controls, engines, and electronics that is a generation ahead of where the craft will enter service. While you MAY (and I stress may) be able to use some parts you likely won't. Double is probably an overstatement but the point remains that you will have to spend additional money because each half generaiton of electronics will need its own funding.

Sure its subject to question but the US as a nation has decided to forge a path of having a decisively superior air force and we do have that right as a nation to determine it is within our needs to do so.

I hate it when people respond to a question about whether something is right or necessary by saying that they have the right to do it. That's not an answer at all. You also have the right as an individual to overeat until you're a monstrous 1100 pound blob, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea. And calling something a "need" rather than a "want" because you have decided that it's a "need" is just plain dishonest. If it were actually a "need", you'd be able to justify it with something better than "we decided it's a need".

Because the "need" we are talking about is a geopolitical one. The US wishes to remain in position as a world dominating superpower able to influence and guide events to its liking. In turn this requires a military force equal or superior in such facets over all competitors. We could argue about whether the US "needs" to be a superpower but, and this was my point, that is the sort of discussion that is almost impossible to have.

[Darth Wong]

Because those parts, and I'm thinking rather specifically of avionics and the like, will be at least a half generation out of date when the new plane enters service. That means at the end of its service life instead of being comparable to the rest of the world it would be at least half a generation behind. In turn this means you have to develop a new set of avionics, controls, engines, and electronics that is a generation ahead of where the craft will enter service. While you MAY (and I stress may) be able to use some parts you likely won't. Double is probably an overstatement but the point remains that you will have to spend additional money because each half generaiton of electronics will need its own funding.

These kinds of components are significantly upgraded even within a single airframe over its life cycle. Why would they be a full half cycle behind if this continuous R&D work is copied to the staggered parallel project? You make it seem as if Project B must go back 20 years to get Project A's out-of-date avionics from its inception.

Because the "need" we are talking about is a geopolitical one. The US wishes to remain in position as a world dominating superpower able to influence and guide events to its liking. In turn this requires a military force equal or superior in such facets over all competitors. We could argue about whether the US "needs" to be a superpower but, and this was my point, that is the sort of discussion that is almost impossible to have.

Not really. You just admitted that the US wishes to do this, not that it is forced to do this by unavoidable imperatives such as survival. It is clearly not a "need"; it is a desire. One which must be balanced against other factors, such as a monster budget deficit.

[Sea Skimmer]

Fair enough, but how are they doing it? One by one? Because an F-22 literally doesn't have enough missiles to shoot down 12 F-15s/ F-16s at once, IIRC.

If it's only small groups, it's not really a proof of concept.

They do that stuff full scale with the listed numbers of aircraft, though in several different manners governing if killed aircraft can return to play after going in a penalty box, or with unlimited ammo just to see how high the rape level really could go. You can also throw in the variabuls of only one side or neither side having the support of AWACS controllers or the support of jamming aircraft.

But the thing is, why does it have to shoot them all down? Shooting down even four enemy planes in one lone sortie would be a huge victory and probably cause the enemy formation to turn back from an offensive mission. Real life air combat is not an utter fight to the death every single time thing. As fitted now its eight internal, four external missiles. If that new AAM is ever fielded, then F-22 will have a modest 21 internal missiles.

The point of the war games is that it takes at least a dozen F-15 aircraft just to cover enough sky to actually gain a kill position on a single attacking F-22. Otherwise the F-22 is effective enough to score its kills and supercruise away. That ability to disengage at will, as well as initiate combat first reliability due to stealth should allow a an F-22 unit to simply make a series of hit and run attacks to which the enemy just has no response. He’ll he scattered all over the sky and by the time he’s done reassembling some kind of formation so much fuel will have been burned up maneuvering

The F-22 gains its real advantage when it operates in groups anyway; exercises have pitted 4 F-22s against as many as 48 opposing fighters flying in multiple groups. Most of that seems to be done out over the Gulf of Alaska, where the military has truly huge areas of airspace it can let the F-22 fly supersonic in. The ranges out in Nevada aren’t big enough!

Similar trials involving the Typhoon have show it can take on three F-16s reliably and win… but that means four of them and a Typhoon goes down while it would still have missiles to use. This is not nearly so impressive, and a fully equipped Typhoon is about two thirds the production cost of an F-22. R&D was about half as much but then the thing also doesn’t even have an AESA radar.

[Ma Deuce]

The F22 costs maybe what 6 F15s would cost us right now, but is as effective as 12 of them.

A new F-15 with modern avionics and systems would cost around $80 million, or about two-thirds as much as an F-22. Even the supposedly "cheap" F-35 could easily end up costing close to $100 million per unit even when you factor in it's planned 3,000 unit production run. That doesn't seem like a very attractive "high-low mix".

[Dark Hellion]

If I am not mistaken, one of the reason that so many countries can get by with the militaries they have is because they know that in the event of a major conflict that they are going to be on the U.S. side and will get support from carrier groups and F-22s and all that money we spent on them.

If geopolitics was a flag football game over who got to play in the park most of Europe is reliant on the U.S. coming in and playing quarterback if Russia gets upitty and decides to steal the sandbox. The U.S. needs these weapons because militarily someone needs to have them (for brutally obvious reasons if you look at the history of civilization) and it isn't in Europe's interest to invest in them if the U.S. is going to get it anyway.

Simply put, the world while moving towards multi-polarity is still generally built upon the fall of the Soviet Union and the collapse of the bi-polar world of two superpowers fighting proxy wars into the world of American Hegemony. It isn't in the interest of the Hegemon to give up this position unless failure to do so would result in collapse, and despite the amount the U.S. spends militarily, there is no threat of it collapsing under the weight of this spending, given both the historical fact that we have spent far higher percentages of GDP in the past, and the simple fact that there are economic manners which threaten far worse that are basically unconnected to this spending. If the rest of the world wants the U.S. to spend less and develop less, than they will have to fill the void that that will leave with their own spending, because the march of military technology isn't going to slow down as long as countries like China and Russia are going to continue development, and you must maintain at least some parity to protect the interest of your own citizens otherwise a hostile power can just run roughshod over you.

[Darth Wong]

If I am not mistaken, one of the reason that so many countries can get by with the militaries they have is because they know that in the event of a major conflict that they are going to be on the U.S. side and will get support from carrier groups and F-22s and all that money we spent on them.

Against whom? Since the US outspends every other country in the world combined, who is this enemy super-military against whom everyone must rely on US assistance? You mention China and Russia, but the US easily outspends both of them combined.

[Stark]

And is the suggestion that the US should have such a massively expensive military procurement process for the benefit of Europeans?

[Akkleptos]

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

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

No, I think the statement is self-explanatory.

Besides, there's nothing I can say that hasn't been addressed in full and at large by Lord Wong.

By continuing to push the F22's agenda, one of two things is going to be made quite clear and evident...
Neither is going to be the USA's ability to recognise a failure after it costs them 62,000 million (as of 2006).

Now, you would say: Why do you say the F22 is a failure, when it's freaking fantabulous!

And I'll say that with maintenance demands like that, I'd call call bloody Tinkerbell a failure.

Thank you very much.

[Simon_Jester]

If I am not mistaken, one of the reason that so many countries can get by with the militaries they have is because they know that in the event of a major conflict that they are going to be on the U.S. side and will get support from carrier groups and F-22s and all that money we spent on them.

If geopolitics was a flag football game over who got to play in the park most of Europe is reliant on the U.S. coming in and playing quarterback if Russia gets upitty and decides to steal the sandbox. The U.S. needs these weapons because militarily someone needs to have them (for brutally obvious reasons if you look at the history of civilization) and it isn't in Europe's interest to invest in them if the U.S. is going to get it anyway.

No, that's why Europe needs the US to have a massive air force full of improbably advanced aircraft. Which is a very different question from why the US needs said air force.

[Starglider]

You mention China and Russia, but the US easily outspends both of them combined.

There are several reason why the US is obliged to spend a lot more to counter these threats;
1) The US has allies right next to China and Russia (and North Korea and Iran etc). The US has to project power across many thousands of km to come to their defense, whereas the opposition only has to travel a few hundred km.
2) Variations in purchasing power means that a comparison based on raw GDP is misleading; the disparity is smaller if GDP adjusted for purchasing power parity is considered.
3) China and Russia both operate conscription. The US does not. Combined with the difference in payroll costs and the cost of foreign basing for US forces, this creates a massive numerical advantage in favor of the threat forces. The single biggest reason for the huge US procurement and R&D spending is to try and compensate for this numerical disadvantage with superior technology. This is understandably expensive.

Against whom? Since the US outspends every other country in the world combined, who is this enemy super-military against whom everyone must rely on US assistance?

You'd need a super-military to do a ground invasion of the US, but you don't need one to threaten US allies. Russia just invaded a European country for the first time since 1968. Regardless of whether that action was justified, it has been generating a steady stream of concerned speeches and made it a little easier for European militaries to justify spending increases.

[Simon_Jester]

Against whom? Since the US outspends every other country in the world combined, who is this enemy super-military against whom everyone must rely on US assistance? You mention China and Russia, but the US easily outspends both of them combined.

If we (wrongly) take it for granted that we need to be able to assist anyone and everyone, then we need far more force than it would take to crush any one country. We need to be able to keep an eye on the North Koreans and attack Iran and glower menacingly at Russia and all the other random policy goals the country can fantasize about. If we only have enough forces to overwhelm one powerful nation, then everybody else will be going on the rampage while we're tied down dealing with that one nation.

So we wind up "needing" to do something like Britain's two-power rule, wherein we have a military equal not just to the forces of any foreseeable enemy, but strong enough to defeat a combination of enemies while keeping all other potential enemies at bay. At which point you need a ridiculous amount of firepower. The flaw here is the assumption that the US needs to be a world policeman, not in the estimate of the force level it would take to do the job.

[Darth Wong]

You'd need a super-military to do a ground invasion of the US, but you don't need one to threaten US allies. Russia just invaded a European country for the first time since 1968. Regardless of whether that action was justified, it has been generating a steady stream of concerned speeches and made it a little easier for European militaries to justify spending increases.

Even at the height of US military spending, the US never seriously expected to be able to hold back the Russian juggernaut. That's why they retained the nuclear first-strike option. And again, we're getting into this whole "need vs want" debate. The US does not need to play Globocop. They want to assume that role, under the self-aggrandizing assumption that the world just can't get by without them.

There may be some truth to the notion that US allies can reduce their military spending by taking advantage of America's insanely high level of military spending, but that in no way justifies US spending. If your neighbour spends a zillion dollars to build a super-duper security system which covered the entire block, you might not bother buying your own security system. This does not actually make his decision a smart one, especially if he bought the goddamned thing with his credit card and can't pay the bills.

[Starglider]

The US does not need to play Globocop. They want to assume that role, under the self-aggrandizing assumption that the world just can't get by without them.

The US isn't doing it for thrills. Well, it does appease the fundy vote that want to invade random Islamic countries and the mouth breathing hyper-nationalists, but those aren't major factors in decision making. The US maintains the capability to defend assorted global allies because it makes those allies reliant on the US (allowing the US to extract assorted concessions), because it keeps rival superpowers contained (by preventing them from defeating local powers in detail, either militarily or Finland-style intimidation) and because the US doesn't want the EU or Japan from having their own powerful, independent militaries that could intefere with US interests or even one day pose a direct threat.

Whether the benefits to the US are worth the cost is another question.

[Vympel]

If we (wrongly) take it for granted that we need to be able to assist anyone and everyone, then we need far more force than it would take to crush any one country. We need to be able to keep an eye on the North Koreans and attack Iran and glower menacingly at Russia and all the other random policy goals the country can fantasize about. If we only have enough forces to overwhelm one powerful nation, then everybody else will be going on the rampage while we're tied down dealing with that one nation.

The sad thing about this is that if there's one thing the Iraq War demonstrated, an operation against an easily defeated tin-pot like Iraq was enough to tie down the majority of the US military so that it wasn't a credible full-spectrum threat against anyone else.

[Guardsman Bass]

The US does not need to play Globocop. They want to assume that role, under the self-aggrandizing assumption that the world just can't get by without them.

It depends on what you define "need" as. In the strictest sense of needing security to prevent an invasion of the homeland, then no, the US doesn't really need the massive military. They could probably get by on a TBO-like force.

But once you get beyond that, into areas of economic connections and strategic resources, it's a lot more complicated. The US has some pretty solid economic ties worldwide that play a major role in our economy, so it is very, very helpful to be able to ensure that somebody can't do something to disrupt those - like mining certain harbors or waterways, or harassing US ships, or threatening any states that try to form economic connections with us that might be seen as impeding the interests of the locally dominant power.

Think of the Strait of Malacca, for example, which is a major transit point for shipping. In the strictest sense of protecting the homeland, the US doesn't need the ability to punish states who might be tempted to close it for military purposes (and since the US is a big, powerful country, it's almost guaranteed that we're going to have a good share of enemies), but it would be very, very beneficial to the US if we could have the ability to guarantee that the route remain open. "Interest" and "need" tend to blur in this area, particularly since few states are particularly autarkic anymore, so these things are very important.

[Starglider]

The sad thing about this is that if there's one thing the Iraq War demonstrated, an operation against an easily defeated tin-pot like Iraq was enough to tie down the majority of the US military so that it wasn't a credible full-spectrum threat against anyone else.

That was almost entirely due to the occupation. The actual invasion was even faster and more one sided than the first Gulf War. Defending an ally against foreign aggression would be comparable to what happened in 1990, which left the US looking very good (in fact it was a major contributor to all the 'hyperpower' talk and Project For A New American Century type silliness in the second half of the 90s). The US would only get tied down if it insisted on counter-invading the aggressor and then trying to set up a democracy there, as opposed to installing a compliant dictator or junta (the way great powers traditionally used to solve the problem).

[K. A. Pital]

Whether the benefits to the US are worth the cost is another question.

It's the question that was asked, actually. Not whether the current US approach has benefits or not, but whether there is any sort of dire need as opposed to a want to be a military hyperpower. Your point was that being a military hyperpower has benefits, but it didn't in any way prove that the US needs to be one.

Project For A New American Century type silliness

You find the desire for constant military and political domination in the world for centuries stated as official doctrine of an organization "silly"? I find it not silly coming from a military hyperpower influential political club. In fact I find it discomforting.

[Ma Deuce]

Besides, there's nothing I can say that hasn't been addressed in full and at large by Lord Wong.

Whom I don't ever recall taking the position of the F-22 being a "failure", rather than simply an unjustified expense.

And I'll say that with maintenance demands like that, I'd call call bloody Tinkerbell a failure.

It still costs less to buy and maintain than two F-15s while being more effective than two F-15s, hence is more cost effective. So how does that equal "failure"?

[Darth Wong]

But once you get beyond that, into areas of economic connections and strategic resources, it's a lot more complicated. The US has some pretty solid economic ties worldwide that play a major role in our economy, so it is very, very helpful to be able to ensure that somebody can't do something to disrupt those - like mining certain harbors or waterways, or harassing US ships, or threatening any states that try to form economic connections with us that might be seen as impeding the interests of the locally dominant power.

Oh right, and no other country has to deal with any kind of international trade, right?

American exceptionalism knows no bounds.