Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22

You conveniently ignore the fact that the F-15A was also (and continues to,
in its MSIP form) still flying during the timeframe the ATF requirements
were developed. Total F-15A and F-15C production for the USAF was in the
order of around 760 aircraft. The 800 number for the F/A-22 was a *total*
program requirement, to include attrition replacements, etc.--compare it to
the *total* number of F-15 models produced for the USAF (760 A and F mods,
120 B and D mods, and 200 E mods, equals 1080). So it appears that if you
dump the E mods from the equation, you are looking at about 880 F-15's
procured as dedicated air superiority fighters--meaning that the old
still-looking-at-the-Cold-War requirement of 800 F-22's was indeed inline
with the existing F-15 situation at that time.

Boeing state:-
"During the past three decades, Boeing has produced more than 1,500
F-15s. The U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard operate five F-15
models: the E and it's A, B, C, and D predecessors. Only the F-15C
air-superiority variant is to be replaced by the F-22 Raptor. A team
led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney produces the
F-22."

Can you point top where the requirement changed from all F15A/B/C/D to
just F15C's, and where the 800 or indeed the 750 number equates to
just C's and what sort of justification that a much more capable
fighter would need more airframes??.

It wasn't originally conceived as a one for one replacement for the
F-15, but a new top teir bomber/fighter, born from a study that said
both the F-15 and F-16 would soon be obsolete because of the new
russian fighters being produced.

It was never intended to replace the F-16. Period.


The original designs submitted for the ATF ranged from 17,000lbs upto
an astonishing 100,000lbs, are you sure they had the F-15 in mind
then?:-).

You are apparently wandering away from the discussion at hand.

Its what were arguing about!!, If 7 companies are asked to design
the next generation F-15C, why such a disparity of designs, it only
makes sense if the TAC-85/ATF design criteria was markedly different
and specified capability's only! and not as a request to replace
aircraft X criteria.




If he "goes all out" and tries that and succeeds, your numbers no longer
matter; 200 aircraft sitting on an airfield that is unusable are just as
worthless as 80 aircraft sitting on that same airfield. Of course, to do
this he has to run a gauntlet of not only fighters, but also depending upon
his route USN surface-to-air assets and regardless of his route the
inevitable Patriot and Avenger systems that will be defending the critical
bases. Then there is the matter of the USAF now buying into the F-35B...

If your talking in simplistic terms then quality only makes up for a
limited enemy numerical advantage, If your talking about the whole box
and dice then your numerical advantage of Surface to air
assets/Patriot etc etc will of course take their toll.

Your going to have to clearly define what your arguing about!, If you
saying the silver bullet force of F-22 depends on several multilayer
assets to make up for their lack of numbers, then you'll get no
argument from me.

You seem to be arguing that on one hand they are all that's needed to
defeat a greatly numerically superior air force, and on the other the
vastly more capable US ground/air/sea assets would have sorted that
same air force out thus rendering your F-22 fleet as superfluous.

We seem to have the same opinion!!!.


All thing being equal that should have been the case,

What?! Read up on Lanchester--he specifically addressed the situation where
side A has equipment that is twice as good as side B's, but side B has twice
as much of it. His Square Law indicates that under that that scenario, with
a 100% better force in quality terms, the smaller force still loses. Using
his model, the casualties we should have sustained during both of the Gulf
conflicts should have been horrendous--but they were not. Lanchester is nice
for tabletop gaming, not so nice for real modern combat, at least when
applied from the aspect of simple brute mass advantage,

The results were for a coalition force with 100's of top tier
aircraft against what? how many top tier assets did Iraq have?.

Iraqi Awac's??
Iraqi Joint Rivets??
How about top tier fighters???.

They didn't even have much second rate air assets, what they had
plenty of was third rate assets that were mostly unserviceable.

What were arguing about is a silver bullet air force v's a numerically
superior force of _capable_ fighters.

I agree that a technological superior force with a numerically
superior advantage will beat an opposing force easily.


Early raids into bordering countries would have severly hampered the
coalition buildup and deployment, I would have immediatly attacked any
bordering country that allowed foreign troops to land, first by Air
attack then followed up by land forces.

You'd have been too late--they had to attack and seize the SPOD's and APOD's
*before* the US could get forces into Saudi Arabia. Attacking afterwards
merely ensures you **** off the US public by killing our "tank bumps" (what
we called the 82nd troopers when tossed into a desert environment versus an
enemy heavy force). usually not a wise move.

That's was the trick! get Iraqi ground Forces onto Saudi airbases and
port installations, They were the areas that would have made the build
up 100 of times more difficult, two days of demolition work should
have sorted it out quite nicely, I'm stunned as to why it wasn't done.

IRAQ's strategy of just sitting there waiting to get pummeled doesn't
seem to be the hallmark of a good commander, and as such should not be
viewed as a good model to base any doctrine on.

But it is a darned good model with which to debase the Lanchesterian
conclusions,

It misses half of the equation, those numbers _have_ to be used
offensively, if there defensive then it just means more targets.


Don't put words into my mouth, it might be' wise' to have that
technology, but ask the Russians who's economy collapsed under the
strain of trying to have it all, if it was ultimately worth it.

Our economy has not collapsed, and despite the periodic economic slump that
we have *all* experienced, it appears to be quite sturdy. And we are not
trying to "have it all"--that is why we have cut the F/A-22 program back to
its current 269 aircraft level as of last count.

I was pointing out the Russian couldn't afford the top tier military
equipment, this directly lead to their 'defeat', and as such the
weapons they were trying to procure did not defend them from the
threat that 'beat' them.


All I'm asking is if the F-22 is worth it, and all I'm hearing is
jingoism's with some unhealthy paranoia thrown in...

LOL! All I am hearing from you is outdated mass arguments and allusions to
immediate economic ruin if we proceed with the current limited production
run for the F/A-22; neither are particularly convincing arguments.

I have never suggestesd the US will crumble economicallty if the F-22
purchhase goes ahead, All I have said is I'm not convinced the
capability of that one system ist worth the cost of development and
production, I can say that other programs will suffer because of the
F-22 purchase, and they may have provided a greater counter to real
threats for the price.


So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the
program?
Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
role...?

You would do exactly what the USN did when they cancelled the A12, or
what the USAF did when the Valkyrie was scrubbed, Think about the
Arrow, TSR2 etc etc...
Did any of those cause the government to fall, society to crumble?, a
bruised nation pride is the worst thats on offer.

Go read up on the early fielding problems withthe F-15 and its reliability
concerns. Then come back and tell me that the F/A-22 program is really any
different in that regard.

The ramifications to the cancellation of the F-22 are not as great
as you make out...
It would perhaps be better if the USA technological edge was not to
far ahead, then maybe your politicians would not be so gung ho, in
having a hair trigger on the military option!!, the world may be
safer that way!.

Ah, your true sentiments finally come out! The old, "Those nasty 'mercans
got too much advanced military stuff for their own good, and I really don't
like how they dare to use it!" Get back to the topic at hand and stop trying
to wiggle red capes in hopes of misdirecting the discussion, OK?


True sentiments yes, but I bet there not what you think...

Its not the 'nasty mericans' at all, I would think that way about any
nation that had any capability so far ahead of any potential threats.

How would you feel towards a tiny country having nuclear weapons!
Cuba for instance!!!.

Not too keen on it are you?, how exactly do you feel about those nasty
Cubans having nukes?.

OK how about some of those countries to the south of you??
No??

You are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the
next
operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case
of
rushing them into service,

Hmmm at the present time has engineering and development finished,
no!!, is it close to finishing... no, are there any major obstacles to
overcome?... yes quite a few, then why the hell did they start limited
production 3 years ago???...
Thats why I'm asserting its been rushed into production (for
political reasons because its much harder to cancel a program with
'production' aircraft flying)

You have lost your status as an unbiased observer, and when you start
talking about a program that has been ongoing for some eighteen or twenty
years as being "rushed into production", then you need to stop, wipe off
your glasses, take a deep breath, try to forget your anti-US bias, and
rethink your argument.

Rethink!!!,
Answer this
Is the Raptor ready for production?.

Yes or No



In 1998 general Mushala stated "I doubt that any of the 339 F-22's
that I build would be the same" due to technological obsolences, this
can only have got worse in the interveining years as more 'production'
aircraft have joined the ranks without the required development work
having been completed.


The JSF is the aircraft to deal with threats in the next decade, the
F-22 just seems to be superflous.

Haven't you also been rather critical of the JSF? Odd...


Yes I have doubted some aspects as many people have attributed costs,
abilities and systems to what is still very much a paper plane...

So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus
far. I
have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22

Rants!!!, I can't honestly recall any Rants!!!, I'm very sceptical
about claims that some big budget items are necessary, nay vital to
the very fabric of society....

Yes, rants. When was the last time you acknowledged anything *good* about
the F/A-22? You recently went to great lengths to try to demonstrate that it
was incapable of attaining a sufficient combat radius,

Sufficent combat radius for what?, the parameters of the mission have
not been disclosed, the range stated was shorter than several people
had envisioned, why can I not question it?, FYI I was under the
impression it was going to be further than it was...

only to get handed
your head on a platter by an honest-to-goodness aerospace engineer type who
thumped your assumptions. I have yet to see you acknowledge any positive
points of the F/A-22 (i.e., supercruise, stealth, data fusion, etc.),



Supercruise, Stealth, Data fusion, are all worthy of note, so is the
sticker price, I'm impressed with the Engines, it seems from the
limited information available to posses enough thrust as it seems to
be a near turbojet in design (low BPR), as for important things like
MTBO I havn't a clue, perhaps its still in development with regard to
those sort of things!.

You only get to hear 'good' things form the manufacturer and USAF, the
bad things come from watchdogs and other interested parties, you tend
to side with the former, I with the latter.


and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased
analysis
of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of
your
single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22,


Unbiased! I never ever claimed to be unbiased, but my 'single-minded
animosity towards the F/A-22' is a figment of you imagination, I just
don't accept that its good value, its a fine aircraft that pushed
several boundries, for an enormous price.

Name those good qualities.

Supercruise, Agility... are the only definate measures that can be
asertained, LO values remain cloaked in euphamisms and as such cannot
be subjectivly measured Insect sized and bird sized are not on the SI
scale, and are meaningless, The Eurofighter Team are not exempt from
marketing type statements, My favourite is 'from some aspects the
Typhoon has a smaller radar than the F-117", its simpely meaningless.


so it is obvious that further
discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.

Are they ever right???, comanche? ;-)

I ask again are they ever right about anything, could they be right in
the case of the F-22?, or is there anything bad about the F-22 you
want to share with us or is it all rosey???.

Cheers

FYI, Commanche had its share of detractors even within the green-suited
crowd, and has seen a big chunk of its original raison d'etre assumed by the
UAV, not to mention the switch from being prepared to deal with a massive
armored assault directed at central Europe to having to deal with a more
widely ranging threat scenario. The F/A-22 has also been impacted by the
change in the threat map--but we still need to be able to conduct offensive
counter air operations and stealthy stike missions against the threat of a
good enemy IADS that includes opposing fighter aircraft of the Su-30 or even
Rafale-class (not knowing who the French will deign to sell them to in the
future). Hence the wisdom behind the "silver bullet" theory.

Brooks

Cheers
John Cook



John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk