Ken, over on his blog, brings up some good arguments for keeping the F-22 Raptor program in place. I started to write a comment on his blog and realized I was ranting. And rambling all over the place. So making that comment on his blog probably wasn't appropriate. Ken makes the decisive argument on readiness and I can't really argue with it.
But...
I can see some of the reasons to cut the Raptor as valid. And to be honest much of the parts shortage was engineered to create the need for a new fighter by making it difficult to maintain the F-16 and F-18 inventory in a program of planned obsolescence. The same way it's now difficult to maintain the A-10 (and thankfully someone finally realized that keeping a close support airframe in the field was necessary) and we have to butcher half the inventory to keep the other half in the air.
The F-22's mission really doesn't exist any longer, just as the B-2's doesn't either. Sure, you can shoehorn it into a different mission, but the Chinese and Russians (our closest competitors) current and on-board airframes aren't progressing either. Having seen the MIG-29 in person, it's a much better craft than I was ever lead to believe (and those Russian pilots are crazy, just saying). We are about equal (currently).
I don't buy the argument that the future AF will only be UAVs. There are still missions that need a pilot in the seat, and if we ever get into a hot war with another country that has an air force, a UAV can't dogfight. But the F-22 is not necessarily the airframe we need.
It's very expensive. And its flexibility of configuration starts to negate the ease of maintenance bonus. I wish I had access to Jane's, because most of the info I have is from the 90s when the initial designs were being floated. But as I remember its range is dependent on mid-air refueling, wasn't all that great to begin with, and TOT sucked (something like less than 3 minutes). Now, granted, at super cruise (MACH+1) a few minutes is far too long for any tactical need, but in its attack bomber configuration, 3 minutes is enough for one run at a target. Considering the flight will also have to provide its own fighter cover, that time becomes small.
The problem, and here I agree that we need the F-22, is that development of any new fighter would put operational deployment out to something like 2016 (if we started NOW). The F-16 has a projected operational life to 2012, 2014 with certain modifications. However, these figures were predicated on a continuing Russian and Chinese airframe progression (which hasn't happened).
And then you have the planned obsolescence with part supply. Much of the parts' dies and molds have been destroyed. Yeah, love that part of the contract General Dynamics, (swearing like a sailor here).
As to having the National Guard and Reserves playing a larger roll in wars, that started before Gulf I as a part of having the Soviet Union collapse and a partial realization that the two-war strategy was no longer valid or needed. Also I'll just mention Checkered Flag (IIRC, although I think they've renamed them as "Rodeos") and how well the reservists and guard perform in those competitions. Normally they clean the active-duty teams' clocks. (Although that might have changed with the current war)
What I would like to see if a much smaller airframe resdesigned as a general strike craft. But not one that can replace the A6 for load, or F-18 (Navy) for fighter capability. It can't do both well and keep good specifications. The attack role can be handled by UAVs and Stratospheric bombers with JDAM (yes, it's a crime that we're still flying B-52s, and the B-1B is just crap, even with the restructured frame). What we need is an interdiction fighter that has the new stealth functions, tie-ins to the battlecube (or whatever the AF is calling it now, the Army is using LANWarrior), range, time in air, and ability to engage over the horizon (fire by radar). Or what was called a "support fighter" brought up to the late 20th century. With advances in rocketry and global positioning, some of the old functions of the attack role have changed drastically. And we might want to look at copying the Navy and having a navigator/weapons seat and forget this "the brave young men in their flying machines" mystique. The F-22 is not really built to be a dog-fighter (IIRC). We already made that mistake in Vietnam. Do we need to relearn it?
There are other programs that have been cut. The Army lost its heavy, tracked artillery (Challenger I think it was called). And for good reason. Its basic design mission no longer existed. It crowded out smaller field pieces that would have been more beneficial in the recent past (and possibly in Afghanistan in the next two years depending on what our final mission turns out to be). And the damn thing couldn't be transported by any existing airframe. The only aircraft that could lift it is a Russian Heavy Lift vehicle. Considering the original design of the Challenger was to fend off a Russian (Soviet) advance across Europe, I don't think we would get a chance to rent those craft.
Also, warfare has changed drastically in the past decade. Not only in the types of war we're fighting (kind of hard to fight the conflict we did when our war footing was based on fighting mechanized troops coming through Eastern Europe), but in how we actually fight. We are at another Civil War moment. Our weapons have out stripped our tactics and strategy. The F-22 is a casualty of that. But only if we learn the lessons of the past and look at the new world.
Yes, Russia is resurgent. It still can't field a blue-water fleet for more than a few months. China could be (and IMHO will be) our next major military competitor. China is looking at acquiring their first aircraft carrier, so they're somewhat behind. However, they have nuclear submarine technology now (their contention they also have a sea based nuclear tipped missile is still dubious). They do have some good missile technology, and we'll have to be able to counter that (Aegis Cruiser here we come).
So that's my thoughts. Yes, we need a new airframe. It needs to be cheaper to maintain and operate than our current aircraft. We need to have an offensive capability. We need to be able to project power across the globe to protect and obtain our strategic goals. I just don't think the F-22 is what is needed anymore.
No comments:
Post a Comment