News Is the F-22 Raptor Worth the Cost Amid Modern Military Challenges?

[berkeman]

I flew down to NASA Langley in a Piper Arrow today. Outside the office of where I visited was an F-22 flying RIGHT over our building for an air show. IT WAS AWSOME!

A few years ago, my (now) ex-wife worked at NASA/Ames. They used to have an annual air show, with the Blue Angels a regular attraction. NASA employees and their guests (me) were invited to the Friday sighting practice, and so I was standing next to the end of the runway (in the olden days, before liability concerns were over-riding) when the Blue Angels took off in formation. In afterburner.

Holy Mother of God! One of the split FA-18s banked right over us at the end of the runway, in full burner, and pulled vertical. Holy crap! Awesome ear-hammering sound, your whole body getting blasted with sound waves, and so proud of your country and our pilots and troops. Very special moment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While we were eating lunch on in the quiet solitude of an Oregon forest, on the bank of the McKenzie River [a rafting trip], two F-18s went over low and fast. Time to change the shorts! I about jumped out of my skin!

 

[mheslep]

I would say this is a complicated matter, and probably one which should have waited for the completion of the QDR.

Why? It is not too complicated for Sec. Gates. He's made a decision, its over barring a miracle from Congress.

At the moment, do we need F-22s for engaging in asymmetric warfare? No, we don't. Could we use them to do so? Yes, we could: by configuring the F-22s with internal and external stores of JDAMs and SDBs.

Yes, and that would a grotesque waste of money for something that could be accomplished with another platform for much less.

However, what will we be dealing with in the future? The F15 fleet is aging rapidly and is a 30 year old airframe. Foreign fighters are already surpassing the F-15 and F-16 in capability and are being exported in large numbers. Furthermore, advanced air defense systems are being developed in fielded.

Do you have a source for the 'surpassing' claim? This also misses the point that US pilot training and capabilities, as an overall force, nobody comes close to.

It is a central tenet in US doctrine that we maintain air superiority. The F-22 for the considerable future will allow us to maintain air superiority with much less risk.

The 183 on order, in combination w/ other platforms will more than do that job.

It can also serve as a precision strike aircraft; for this reason the F-117 fleet was retired as the F-22 was more capable in that role.

So can 15's and 16's and 18's for much less money.

Thus, we need to ask ourselves as a country what are priorities are:
How do we value defense as compared with economic stimulus/social spending etc.?
Do we want to focus our capabilities on combating insurgencies at expense of our conventional capabilities?

This is def. contractor flag waving nonsense. The US already spends nearly as much as the http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png" When it gets down 3x China instead of 30x, then we can talk in these terms.

As far as the F-35 goes, is it important? Yes. Can it replace the F-22? Not really. The F-22 and F-35 each fill their own niche: the F-22 as the powerful air dominance fighter and the F-35 as the versatile strike fighter.

True, nor do we need it to.

 

[jhae2.718]

Why? It is not too complicated for Sec. Gates. He's made a decision, its over barring a miracle from Congress.

True...the complicated part comes from trying to predict future trends, which we seem to do poorly, to say the least.

Yes, and that would a grotesque waste of money for something that could be accomplished with another platform for much less.

I would agree; buying F-22s solely as a bomb truck using external stores would be a complete waste of money. But since we already have 183 of them, I see no reason not to use them, if only to recoup on our investment. It can't be that more expensive expensive to deploy the F-22s we already have than F-15s.

Do you have a source for the 'surpassing' claim? This also misses the point that US pilot training and capabilities, as an overall force, nobody comes close to.

As far as the use of the term "surpassing"; perhaps I should have been a little more reserved. One can really only speculate to these measure without having access to data from actual encounters between different aircraft. Aircraft such as the Su-35bm are, most likely, at least as good as the F-15, but the variable of pilot skill is one that is difficult to take into account. I would say that we have one of the best pilot training programs in the world, as well as having the resources to support large numbers of flying hours. As far as other aircraft, the Sukhoi PAK-FA will be interesting to see, if it is indeed unveiled this year as planned, if only to see how the American and Russian aerospace industries approached aircraft design for what is essentially the same role.

The 183 on order, in combination w/ other platforms will more than do that job.
So can 15's and 16's and 18's for much less money.

Currently, I would agree with you. I think, however, that to assume that will be the case for the next few decades would be a risky proposition.

It would be interesting to see how the economics of buying more Raptors compares with that of maintaining and upgrading decades old airframes.

This is def. contractor flag waving nonsense. The US already spends nearly as much as the http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png" When it gets down 3x China instead of 30x, then we can talk in these terms.

I was not trying to allude to any such meaning; I was just attempting to state that these procurement issues are simply a question of what we think as a nation should be our spending priorities. It would be nice if we could buy F-22s for the same price as F-15s, but thinking that would be unrealistic. This can really be reduced to an exercise in optimization: capability/need vs. cost. I wonder if anyone has applied the knapsack problem to fighter acquisition...

True, nor do we need it to.

The future is probably in UCAVs. Currently, though, we need to maximize our air power, which is one of our greatest advantages, regardless of the platform. If there is a better solution, we should run with it. If not, we should stick to the F-22.

What the problem really comes down to, I would argue, is the increasing cost of aircraft. What the aerospace industry needs to do is determine methodologies to keep a ceiling on costs. As long as aircraft cost several hundred million apiece, or even a billion like the B-2, the numbers purchased will be severely limited, and thus platforms will be flown long after their intended retirement date. One only needs to look at the KC-135, which is now projected as being flown until airframe age reaches 90 years old. Here to arises another problem: the broken acquisitions system at the Pentagon. To see this just look at the KC-X.

Our main priority needs to be to maintain our lead in the aerospace industry, and streamline the process of developing new aircraft to reduce costs and be more competitive. We can't let the defense contractors become so bloated and inefficient as to drive costs up; programs need to be lean and streamlined to maximize capability and minimize cost.

 

[mheslep]

..It would be interesting to see how the economics of buying more Raptors compares with that of maintaining and upgrading decades old airframes.

At 2x to 5x the cost (22/15), I don't think its much of a mystery. The US has successfully maintained the B-52 for 5-6 decades.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095411&postcount=34

What the problem really comes down to, I would argue, is the increasing cost of aircraft. What the aerospace industry needs to do is determine methodologies to keep a ceiling on costs. As long as aircraft cost several hundred million apiece, or even a billion like the B-2, the numbers purchased will be severely limited, and thus platforms will be flown long after their intended retirement date. One only needs to look at the KC-135, which is now projected as being flown until airframe age reaches 90 years old. Here to arises another problem: the broken acquisitions system at the Pentagon. To see this just look at the KC-X.

Our main priority needs to be to maintain our lead in the aerospace industry, and streamline the process of developing new aircraft to reduce costs and be more competitive. We can't let the defense contractors become so bloated and inefficient as to drive costs up; programs need to be lean and streamlined to maximize capability and minimize cost.

The only way to do that IMO is be firm about killing bloated programs. Contractors get away these prices in part because of the 'risky', 'bad guys are catching up', 'current AF is old can't do it' arguments. IMO opinion these arguments can and should be dismissed for decades to come, otherwise we'll get more gold plated platforms.