Another "praise the Raptor" article

[Clux4]

Interesting read!! Pretty much confirms what I was thinking. Reputable sources help too.
I agree Sir. The long term threat is always going to be unpredictable. Hence the argument from both sides of the fence.

I think much of the problem with the F-22 critics today is that the F-22 is playing the role of a strategic (deterrence) weapon unlike any other fighter in the inventory. The leap is probably hard for people to comprehend. Yeah, I am sure we spent billions of dollars on all those nukes we built during the cold war. And we never launched any against USSR. So was it worth the R&D money and the man hours on alert?

 

[magnetfreezer]

And we never launched any against USSR. So was it worth the R&D money and the man hours on alert?

Are we speaking Russian and have friends in the Gulag?

 

[bunk22]

That has got to be one of the most simplistic, biased and inaccurate briefs I have ever seen.

Agreed.

 

[HeyJoe]

That has got to be one of the most simplistic, biased and inaccurate briefs I have ever seen.

Most of what is being advocated in those briefs is due to influence on Reformer's minds of what aerial combat would be like over the Fulda Gap in height of Cold War hence skewing of their stats to how many more aircraft you could buy with same dollars you invest in the F-22. They wanted many, many relatively simpler and much cheaper day fighters like the F-86 hence their praise of the F-5.

They take a lot of stats out of context and disregard impact of training (or lack thereof). Vietnam exchange rates were poor initially for the F-4, but Navy did something about it (search on Frank Ault) and drove rate as high as 20:1 before a Marine F-4 was lost bringing it down to 12:5. And Stevenson knows all about that statistic because he served as editor of TOPGUN Journal, the very place that instituted the training that turned things around. And where was mention of the Republic F-105 Thunderchief? They lambast P-47 unfairly and ignore its younger brother, the Thud whose successful encounters with MiGs over Vietnam occured when it was assigned a strike or SEAD role.

 

[HackerF15E]

it seems like a smart move to cut production and invest in the more conventional A/C.

And which aircraft would that be?

 

[Fog]

IMHO, the USAF needs the capabilities of the F-22 but I don't purport to know exactly how many that should be. I strongly believe the USAF has way too many F-15C's that are, (a) old, (b) often G-limited, and (c) are also single-mission a/c that haven't been available for use in Afghanistan & Iraq. If SecDef or President, I would send the oldest half of our F-15C's to the boneyard & replace them with Block 60 F-16s & F-35s ASAP. Just my 2 cents & worth what you paid to hear it.

 

[KBayDog]

The Abrams tank and the Apache were laughed at as well in their initial development stages, could anyone imagine if we'd gone into the Gulf War with the M-60 tanks and so forth?

I can, because we did.

 

[HeyJoe]

I can, because we did.

That's right vvv 210 of them as a matter of fact served in 1st MEF

 

[picklesuit]

Sen. McCain speaking in the SASC right now on CSPAN2 on this subject...

Basically he made the point that the F-22 serves a limited; capable, but limited; air-to-air role that is not applicable to the wars we are fighting. He pointed out that we have not used it in the current wars we are fighting, and that the F-35 will serve a much more inclusive role, via the USMC, USAF, and USN getting the most out of the JSF for their expected roles in the war. He then went on to make, what I think, was the most important point about government spending.

He said (I am paraphrasing here) that we cannot continue a defense program merely to create jobs. While we all are sympathetic to the jobs that will be lost when the F-22 is shuttered, that is not the point of the DOD. We are here to defend the country, not make jobs. We have other departments within the government that can spend money for the purpose of job creation. (again, I paraphrased)

His speech yesterday on the subject:
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/ind...ecord_id=7551a6b0-b23c-39c1-3296-627b4b463b4e

Sen. Levin of Michigan is co-sponsoring their amendment to kill the F-22:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdncxK::


Some arguments used in this amendment were paraphrased by a "non-profit organization"

http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/alerts/national-security/ns-f22-20090713.html

 

[flyn4pride]

I read an article on how Sen. McCain feels about the f-22 and his legislation to cancel the program on my way into work this morning and thought it was quite interesting. IMO I think the f-22 is a great plane but it was designed for a war that we are not fighting today. Not to say one day in the future we won't fight that war, but there are much more capable a/c to handle today's situations than the f-22. True at this time in our economy it is hard to cut a program associated with lots of jobs, and I agree with Sen. McCain that there are other departments that can spend money to create jobs, so it should be interesting to see what happens to the legislation

 

[Lawman]

And which aircraft would that be?

A Tanker Maybe? :icon_wink

 

[Ralph]

A Tanker Maybe? :icon_wink

Or a UAV.

 

[gonad]

Most of what is being advocated in those briefs is due to influence on Reformer's minds of what aerial combat would be like over the Fulda Gap in height of Cold War hence skewing of their stats to how many more aircraft you could buy with same dollars you invest in the F-22. They wanted many, many relatively simpler and much cheaper day fighters like the F-86 hence their praise of the F-5.

They take a lot of stats out of context and disregard impact of training (or lack thereof). Vietnam exchange rates were poor initially for the F-4, but Navy did something about it (search on Frank Ault) and drove rate as high as 20:1 before a Marine F-4 was lost bringing it down to 12:5. And Stevenson knows all about that statistic because he served as editor of TOPGUN Journal, the very place that instituted the training that turned things around. And where was mention of the Republic F-105 Thunderchief? They lambast P-47 unfairly and ignore its younger brother, the Thud whose successful encounters with MiGs over Vietnam occured when it was assigned a strike or SEAD role.

I agree with what you said. Despite what some say about the brief, there can be some points to take home (quanity has a quality). Some points certainly are taken out of context, however perhaps some points balance the pendulum of the advocates. Sprey, as you know, was a part of a team that helped to reform the Pentagon's way of business... however, the milk has already been spilled. A big problem was the initial decision to aquire the F-22 - I'm not sure if cutting the program now would be a step in the right direction as Sprey would seem to suggest. The "A" model of anything has certainly had a few drawbacks, I suspect if they would leave the production lines open of the F-22 to include the F-22B,C, or D models it may be worth the cost long term... especially if the enemy catches up.

As far as training goes, from what I've read of Sprey and Boyd... the conventional thinking on training pre-Vietnam was largely influenced by trying to predict the next war based on advances in technology and to some degree SAC. (I could be wrong on that) - but hopefully we are not trying to predict that stealth will give us some extreme, overwhelming advantage. It would not be suprising if someone is/has developing something to exploit the F-22 altogether.

 

[HackerF15E]

the conventional thinking on training pre-Vietnam was largely influenced by trying to predict the next war based on advances in technology and to some degree SAC. (I couldn't be wrong on that) - but hopefully we are not trying to predict that stealth will give us some extreme, overwhelming advantage. It would not be suprising if someone is/has developing something to exploit the F-22 altogether.

The same could be said of the alternative line of thought that favors UAS and wants to kill (?) the Raptor.

 

[trongod46]

This discussion is almost impossible to have in an unclassified forumn, those of you stating the capabilities of this and that, dont really know the true tac air disadvantage we are at right now. We are not top dog with aircraft or missles right now, the F-22 is a needed jet, granted we dont need it now (GWOT), but I sure as hell would not want to press into Korea/China without some of them in front of me.