Valid and important point about the "military-industrial complex". Nothing has changed in the post WWII era with respect to this.

Obviously there are finite resources and there is a balance between fighting today's wars and being prepared for tomorrow's. Every time this discussion occurs I think of the guys on the morning of 7 Dec 1941 who were wearing WWI-era doughboy helmets and clutching M1903 rifles. I have to wonder...is it ever worth it to be "dead right"?

Good point. It's a serious debate with serious consequences. I'm very comfortable on the side with my Sec Def and on the opposite side of those who stand to remain in power and stand to continue making money off their side of the argument. It's a clear conflict of interest that is transparent in my opinion and there are better ways to achieve air superiority. Actually, not just better....but essential to maintain. I'm talking again about UAVs for air superiority. A bazillion air-to-air UAS at a buck-oh-five a pop will obliterate the gold plated F-22s in a heart beat. I know the capability exists...it's not hard to imagine. Just because we don't have it advertised doesn't mean we don't have it and we certainly could have it very quickly.

Judging by this very interesting paragraph in Secretary Gate's speech from today...I'm thinking I'm not the only one that thinks so. The Sec Def said:

"Air superiority and missile defense – two areas where the budget has attracted the most criticism – provide case studies. Let me start with the controversy over the F-22 fighter jet. We had to consider, when preparing for a future potential conventional state-on-state conflict, what is the right mix of the most advanced fighter aircraft and other weapons to deal with the known and projected threats to U.S. air supremacy? For example, we now have unmanned aerial vehicles that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles. The president’s budget request would buy 48 of the most advanced UAVs – aircraft that have a greater range than some of our manned fighters, in addition to the ability to loiter for hours over a target."

Notice how he talks about the "right mix" of aircraft and "other weapons" to deal with threats to "air supremacy" and then starts talking about UAS and how many missions they can simultaneously do... The writing is on the wall and it only makes sense as I've been saying all along. I can't wait until the first air-supremacy UAS is unveiled...not built.....unveiled.

US Senator Hatch opposes amendment to stop production of the F-22A Raptor

WASHINGTON – Speaking on the Senate floor today, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) opposed a proposed amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to discontinue production of the F-22A Raptor.

Sen. Hatch’s complete remarks on the Senate floor follow:

Mr. President, though I have been an active participant in the Judiciary Committee’s Sotomayor confirmation hearings, I have followed with great interest the floor debate on continuing the production of the F-22A Raptor.

Unfortunately, over the years I have heard a number of incorrect assertions made about this aircraft, and I have tried to correct them. But after listening to this week’s debate and reading misleading articles, especially in the Washington Post, about the F-22’s performance and capabilities, I believe the Raptor’s opponents have hit bottom – and have begun to dig.

Therefore, I would like to set the record straight about the F-22 and its extraordinary war-winning capabilities.

Fact number one: The F-22 is, and will continue to be, the pre-eminent fighter/bomber for the next 40 years.

The F-22 is the stealthiest aircraft flying today. Unlike the recently retired F-117 Nighthawk and the B-2 bomber, of which we only have 20, the F-22s can be deployed on stealth flight operations not just at night, but 24 hours a day. This one-of-a-kind capability provides our combatant commanders with unprecedented flexibility to engage ground and air targets at a time of their choosing – thus denying any respite to the enemy.

The Raptor is equipped with supercruise engines that are unique because they do not need to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic flight. This provides the F-22 with a strategic advantage by enabling supersonic speeds to be maintained for a far greater length of time. By comparison, all other fighters require their engines to go to after-burner to achieve supersonic speeds, thus consuming a tremendous amount of fuel and greatly limiting their range.

The F-22 is the deadliest fighter flying today. During a recent military exercise in Alaska, the Raptor dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft. Further advantage resides in the F-22’s radar and avionics. When entering hostile airspace, the F-22’s sensor-fused avionics can detect and engage enemy aircraft and surface threats far before an enemy can hope to engage the F-22. At the same time, its advanced sensors enable the F-22 to be a forward-surveillance platform capable of gathering crucial intelligence on the enemy.

Often overlooked, the F-22 is a very capable bomber. It can carry two GPS-guided, 1,000-pound Joint Direct Attack Munitions bombs or eight small-diameter bombers.

Fact number two: The F-22 is not a Cold War dinosaur. It is designed to meet and eliminate the threats of today and tomorrow. As the longest-serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I know full well the greatest air threat of today and tomorrow is, and will continue to be, the advanced integrated air defense system.

Such a system is composed of two parts. The first component is advanced surface-to-air missile systems such as the Russian-made S-300. The second are highly maneuverable and sophisticated fighters like the Su-30, which have been sold to China and India. Coupled together, these anti-access systems make penetrating hostile airspace extremely difficult, if not deadly, for those aircraft lacking the F-22’s advanced stealth technology and sustained supersonic speeds made possible by its supercruise engine. It is also important to remember the mainstays of our aerial fleet – the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 – are not stealth aircraft and are not equipped with supercruise engines.

Unfortunately, integrated air defense systems are relatively inexpensive, placing them within the purchasing potential of nations like Iran with its seeming insistence on developing nuclear weapons.

The advanced integrated air defense system is exactly the threat the F-22 was designed to neutralize. In addition, the F-22 will almost simultaneously be able to turn its attention to other ground targets that threaten the national security of the U.S. and our allies.

In a related argument, some argue the United States should devote more of its military resources toward bolstering its counterinsurgency capabilities. This is a fair point. Unwisely, the United States did permit its counterinsurgency capabilities to atrophy after the Vietnam War. As events in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown, we continue to pay dearly for that error. However, as we reconstitute our ability to successful prosecute counterinsurgency campaigns, we cannot make a similar mistake and undermine one of the fundamental foundations of our military strength: hegemony in the air.

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates said this January, “Our military must be prepared for a full spectrum of operations, including the type of combat we’re facing in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as large-scale threats that we face from places like North Korea and Iran.” I could not agree more, and the aircraft that will enable our nation to decisively defeat our adversaries in the air is the F-22.

Mr. President, others point out the F-22 has not been deployed in support of our operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is true. However, there were recent plans to deploy the F-22 to the Persian Gulf. But according to the July 9, 2008, edition of the widely respected Defense News, the Pentagon overruled those plans, citing concerns about “strategic dislocation.” This means the F-22 is hardly a dinosaur. It is a weapon that can change the balance of power in a region and deter our adversaries.

Fact number three: 187 F-22s is an insufficient number to meet the minimum requirements of our National Military Strategy.
Mr. President, our nation’s military requirements are decided upon in detailed studies of the threats our nation and its allies confront. These studies also recommend force structures to deter and, if necessary, defeat threats to our national security.

Accordingly, the Department of Defense and the Air Force have conducted a number of studies to determine how many F-22s are required to meet our National Military Strategy.
I am unaware of any comprehensive study that has concluded F-22 production should cease at 187 aircraft. Specifically, unclassified excerpts from the Air Force’s Sustaining Air Dominance Study stated “180 F-22s was not enough,” and the Department of Defense’s TACAIR Optimization study concluded the procurement of additional Raptors “was the best option.” On April 16, these conclusions were reinforced by comments made by General Norton A. Schwartz, the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, after the F-22 procurement termination was announced. General Schwartz stated “243 [Raptors] is the military requirement.”

Opponents of the Raptor will most likely dispute this, pointing to comments made by General Cartwright during his July 9 testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee. During his testimony the General stated the decision to terminate production of the F-22 is supported by a “study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force.”

However, my staff has inquired about this study and was informed a recently completed comprehensive, analytic study does not exist.
No doubt, the Joint Staff has prepared some justification for F-22 termination. Yet I believe it is only natural to question the objectivity of any assessment which justifies previously reached decisions.

Unfortunately yesterday, Mr. President, my suspicions about this so-called analysis were proven correct when Geoffrey Morrell, the Pentagon’s Press Secretary stated General Cartwright was referring to “not so much a study [as a] work product.”
Therefore, I believe the Congress should place great significance on the June 9 letter by General John Corley, the Commander of Air Combat Command, who stated “at Air Combat Command we have a need for 381 F-22s to deliver a tailored package of air superiority to our Combatant Commanders and provide a potent, globally arrayed, asymmetric deterrent against potential adversaries. In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term. To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.”

Mr. President, I believe these are important words from the four-star general who is responsible for the Air Force Command which is the primary provider of combat airpower to America’s war-fighting commands.

Fact number four: The Washington Post article that alleged technical and maintenance difficulties of the F-22 was misleading and inaccurate.

In fact, Mr. President, the Air Force has written two rebuttals to this article. After viewing the first rebuttal, I found it striking the Air Force stated six of the points made in the article were false, four were misleading and two were not true.

Specifically, the primary assertion made by the Post was the F-22 cost far more per hour to fly than the aircraft it is replacing, the F-15. However, this is misleading. Only when you include all of the one-time costs that are associated with new a military aircraft is this true. A far more accurate measurement is to compare variable flying hours. The F-22 costs USD 19,750 per hour to fly versus USD 17,465 for the F-15. The F-15 costs less to fly, but the 1960s-designed F-15 does not have nearly the capabilities of the F-22.

The article asserts the F-22 has only a 55 percent availability rate for “guarding U.S. airspace.” This is misleading. Overall, the F-22s boasts a 70 percent availability rate, and that has been increasing every year over the past four years.

Finally, the article states the F-22 requires significant maintenance. This is true. But the Post article misses the critical point: the F-22 is a stealth aircraft. Making an aircraft disappear from radar is not accomplished through magic. It is achieved through precise preparation and exacting attention to detail.

I believe we can all agree it is far better to expend man hours to prepare an airplane that will win wars than to buy replacement aircraft after they have been shot down – not to mention the moral cost of not exposing our pilots to unnecessary dangers.

Fact number five: The F-22’s detractors argue erroneously that the Raptor’s role can be filled by the F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter. But the Raptor and the Joint Strike Fighter were designed to complement each other, not be substituted for each other.

The F-22 is the NASCAR racer of this air-dominance team. Fast and unseen, the Raptor will punch a hole in an enemy’s defenses, quickly dispatching any challenger in the air and striking at the most important ground targets. The Joint Strike Fighter is the rugged SUV of the team. Impressive, but not as maneuverable or capable of sustained supersonic speeds, the F-35 will exploit the hole opened by the F-22 and attack additional targets and directly support our ground forces.

This is not to say the F-35 is not a highly capable stealthy aircraft. But the F-35’s role is to supplement the F-22, not substitute for it. Only by utilizing the strengths of both aircraft do we ensure air dominance for the next forty years.

Fact number six: Our allies recognize the critical capabilities of the F-22 and are eager to purchase the aircraft.

This is one of the most compelling reasons for purchasing additional numbers of F-22s. The Japanese and Australian governments have consistently approached our government about purchasing the Raptor for themselves. If the F-22 is such a boondoggle, why would these nations be willing to spend billions of dollars to purchase them? Australia already plans to purchase up to 100 F-35s. Why does it need the Raptor? Perhaps it is because these nations realize a number of the threats to their security can only be defeated using the F-22 Raptor.

Mr. President, in conclusion, we have an opportunity to ensure this and future generations continue to benefit from one of the foundations of our national security: the ability to defeat any air threat and strike any target anywhere in the world. The world is changing; threats are growing. Today we have an opportunity to ensure those air threats are met. I hope my colleagues will join me and vote against the Levin–McCain Amendment.

The "NASCAR racer" of the air dominance team?

Oh, jeez.

I'm glad to see I wasn't the only person to have winced at that phrase.

Here's a good article from Wired Magazine on COIN vs F-22: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/200...t-fighter/

Unfortunately, an incompletely researched paper that is too focused on tagging the F-22 as some kind of cause for this issue. The truth is that the USAF has been shunning COIN and light CAS for DECADES...it's not just an advent of the F-22 era.

The reality is that ever since "Vietnamization", and the subsequent retirement of the A-1 Skyraider, the USAF has officially been out of the light strike/COIN business. There have been BIG pushes by various factions both inside and outside the USAF, starting with Air Force Systems Command's 'Pave COIN' program in 1971, for the USAF to acquire a COIN aircraft. Although there were several viable aircraft that participated (and were very successful) in Pave COIN, the USAF elected to focus on the A-X program instead, which years later yielded the A-10.

The early P-51 Mustang based "Piper Enforcer", which 'won' the 1971 Pave COIN competition by a country mile, competing against the OV-10, the A-37, the Helio Stallion, a modified Beech Bonanza, the American Jet Super Pinto, and others:


Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, several manufacturers of light strike and COIN aircraft lobbied both the USAF and congress, and met stiff opposition from Air Staff. In the mid-80s, Piper successfully convinced Congress to FORCE the USAF to at least evaluate a COIN aircraft (the Piper PA-48 Enforcer) by specifically inserting it as a USAF budget item. The USAF did as it was told...Piper built the airplanes, and the USAF begrudgingly tested them, all the while openly telling people that regardless of the test, they were NOT going to be purchasing the airplane for operational use.

The two prototype PA-48 Enforcers, a derivative of the "Pave COIN" Enforcer pictured above:


Remember also that in the years leading up to Desert Storm, the USAF was trying to purge the A-10 from the service. Many of them had all ready been transferred to the ANG/Reserve, and there were even serious discussions with the US Army to transfer them over! Even though the USAF's experiences in Desert Storm 'saved' the A-10, further pushes to also acquire light strike/COIN were rebuffed. Somewhere I have a 1991 Air University paper (either ACSC or War College, I don't remember) that pushes the creation of a Special Ops COIN squadron, in the same idea that the Air Commando squadrons were in Vietnam.

This is one area where the "fighter mafia" for certain has been at fault with "pointy-jet syndrome" -- and it's not just an advent of the 21st century, nor is it the 'fault' of F-22 obsession. It's been that way for a long, long, long time.

Interesting.

Personally I think the desire for COIN aircraft like these above is total bullshit. We don't need them. I'd love to fly them but we don't need them and the FAC(A) role is definitely not needed.

FAC-A not needed?

 

Perhaps in the conflict we're currently in, where friendlies are scattered everywhere, where there isn't a FSCL, etc.

 

In other conflicts that are of a more conventional nature and involve a FLOT that is moving (and, more importantly, places that there is not a JTAC/JFO yet still a need to find/fix/kill targets real time), there is absolutely, positively a need for FAC-A.

A FAC-A is there to do what? Develop SA and direct airstrikes? The sensors on the UAS will be able to handle all that without a dedicated observer.

The traditional single seat FAC-A plus the traditional single seat fighter are easily combined these days.

Posted By Rynizzle on 20 Aug 2009 03:40 PM
The traditional single seat FAC-A plus the traditional single seat fighter are easily combined these days.

Although I'm not a proponent of single seat, fast-jet FAC, this is certainly a more realistic option in the nonpermissive environment than the "UAVs can do it!" option.

Conceptually, you may be right.  A UAS will lower personnel exposure to anti-aircraft fire, which has always been the problem with FAC-A (being a AAA/small arms/MANPAD magnet).  Loiter times and sensors and "one-G, zero-knot" oversight will allow a precision in finding/fixing targets that is not currently available.

Unfortunately, this is still a 'fantasy' argument since there is not a currently-operational UAS (RPV?) that can legitimately fill this role.  On top of that, there needs to be a capability in the bandwidth-denial/jamming environment.  FAC-A is not a role that can just be shit-out by any ol' fighter jet off-the-cuff when the satellites get shot down or denied -- it is a specific capability that takes qualification and currency to efficiently execute.

 

All of that, however, is a complete sideshow to the real push behind COIN aircraft.  The idea behind these aircraft now -- as it interestingly always has been -- is to have a low-tech, low-cost aircraft that is cheap to buy, easy to maintain, and can be given away to associate nations as military aid.  In the 60s, it was AT-28s for the Vietnamization and Operation Farm Gate.  Also in the 60s and 70s, it was modified P-51s for fighting brush wars in Central America, South America, and the Far East (Peace CONDOR, Peace HAWK, Peace PONY, etc).  In the 80s it was A-37s and Hueys for Central America and some African nations.

The idea is that most of these partner nations have a significantly smaller GDP to buy with, a less advanced infrastructure (and less-well funded military) to maintain with, less range required by the aircraft because of less distance to enemies, etc.

The current requirement specifies that the aircraft have dual use as both a trainer and an attack aircraft, ISR, and COIN capabilities.  Obviously the target audience would be the burgeoning Iraqi and Afghan Air Forces.

Since a UAS/UAV/UCAV/RPV can't fill role #1, and the countries do not have the SATCOM/other infrastructure required for successful operation, that makes them a non-starter for the COIN role.

Why can't a UAV fill the role?  Maybe I'm envisioning something different with FAC-A than you are.  I'm familiar with a Predator talking a Gunship onto several targets in Afghanistan.  Is that not a FAC-A function?

We're in that same place this conversation has gone the last couple times we've had it. "Can" do it is not the same as "best", or more importantly, being "capable of doing it in a non-permissive environment".

Current equipment can do it fine in the current war, yes. The counter to that is that with JTACs everywhere, there isn't really much demand/need for FAC-A anyway, especially given the philosophy of the past two years in Afghanistan that says avoiding civilian casualties is more important than actually killing bad people.

But, I'm talking about a different combat scenario...one that actually involves FSCLs, FLOTs, and contested use of the air. More importantly, robust GPS and SATCOM denial or jamming.

Without venturing too far into the OPSEC environment, it's safe to say that current unmanned equipment cannot hang in that scenario. Preds, Reapers, Avengers, Global Hawks, etc, aren't properly equipped to perform that. Operators of those aircraft aren't properly trained, certified, practiced, or proficient in that role, either. FAC-A involves a lot more than simply finding, fixing, and tracking targets. Active management of assigned aircraft assets and battlespace management are equally as important roles. Current UAS technology doesn't provide the SA on things *away* from the target area which is necessary to do that.

My point is, it's all good and well to say "a UAV *could* do it", but it's pure fantasy until there is actually iron out on the ramp that can make it happen. Sure, there's a lot of things that are *possible* given time/money/effort, but that same argument applies across the board to all potential aircraft types that only exist in somebody's ACSC paper or a CAD machine somewhere.

Good article on the death of the F-22 by Newsweek: http://www.newsweek.com/id/215825/page/1

My favorite part:

Many fighter-pilot generals—the most fervent advocates of building more F-22s—continue to resist these changes. Their motives aren't entirely parochial. Many worry that 187 F-22s simply aren't enough for the long-term needs of national defense. "The concern among many leaders in the Air Force," says one general, "is that this obsessive focus on today's wars is jeopardizing our security in the future." These generals imagine a future war against, say, a resurgent China or a revitalized Russia.

Gates gets that. But the official Air Force studies that justify a fleet of 387 F-22s assume the United States fights two major wars simultaneously against foes that each possess an air force nearly equal to ours. Such a scenario is dubious and, in any case, very distant. It was, in fact, these studies that convinced Gates that he was right to halt the program at 187 planes. "It's very difficult to come up with two very sophisticated threats that might materialize at the same time," says a senior officer who has supervised analytical studies about weapons needs. Even if the nearly impossible came true—if the U.S. did fight two wars at once against major powers—at least one Pentagon analysis concludes that F-35s could handle the second threat nearly as well as F-22s, according to a senior officer who participated in the study. The F-35—a smaller, cheaper plane, which Gates wants to buy in large quantity—is not quite as good as the F-22 in shooting down planes but much better at destroying surface-to-air missile batteries.

Posted By Rynizzle on 22 Sep 2009 05:11 PM 

at least one Pentagon analysis concludes that F-35s could handle the second threat nearly as well as F-22s, according to a senior officer who participated in the study. The F-35—a smaller, cheaper plane, which Gates wants to buy in large quantity—is not quite as good as the F-22 in shooting down planes but much better at destroying surface-to-air missile batteries.

This is the part that scares me the most.  People haven't even *started* picking apart the capabilities of the F-35.

I think that it is a huge problem that so many leaders are hanging their entire future on the F-35, which according to USAF people in the know, doesn't even perform *as well* as the aircraft it replaces (the F-16).

We are all in for a BIG letdown (and significant problem with our overall capability) if the F-35 ends up being a turd.

I was in the same boat with the F-35's until a buddy of mine told me to go and do a little more research on the F-35. The general public is going to really have their eyes opened especially when the realize the stealth carrying capabilities(If that is the correct vocabulary.). I do believe that this plane could be beneficial even if we did bring the munitions to the out side giving up some of its capabilities.