"All that is seriously awesome, but what's the USAF planning as a replacement for the F-15?  You know, the aircraft that we already have that's over 30 years old."

 

This is not a Democrat or Republican issue, this is a reality issue.  You don't buy planes because they are cool.  You buy them because you have a need for them, or in this case you don't buy them because you do not have a need for them. 

 

F-22 production will finally stop under a Democrat, but the program has been cut by one administration after another including both Democrats and Republicans. 

"The F-35 may be the bee's knees, but it can't do everything, and it can't get here fast enough.  And the talk of "we won't need an air superiority fighter anytime soon" strikes me as being the same kind of talk like "The Japanese will never master carrier aviation" and "al-Qaeda could never really hit the US"..."

I disagree, Rufus.  There is one conventional scenario that could literally happen at any time: China vs. Taiwan. 

 

I know, I know...the dreaded Chinese boogeyman.  Still, the threat exists.  I think we should take it seriously, at least to say, okay, it could happen and we need to be ready.  Right now, I'd say we'd do okay.  We have the carriers (which would shoulder most of the burden) and what F-22s would be needed could get there quickly.  So if China went nuts and attacked Taiwan tomorrow, we could handle it.

 

But what about 5-10 years down the road? No more F-22s, while the F-15 gets older.  The F-35 should be in service by then, but in relatively small numbers.  The US would be forced into flying obsolescent aircraft against Chinese services that are getting newer and probably better (a point you yourself pointed out in responding to Hamlicar on Chinese tech).  Maybe we'll do okay, maybe we won't--but that's a heck of a gamble to take, given the stakes involved.  Which would you rather do--send an American into combat in the very best, or send him into combat into "well, we couldn't be bothered in acquiring the very best; good luck!"  The US has always prided itself on having the technological edge on numerically superior opponents, but now we're losing both.

 

Yes, there is no X number of air superiority platforms...but there should be at least some number established.  Do we need over a thousand? Nah.  Do we need more than 187? Yes!  I say that because, while the F-35 is going to be a great aircraft, its job is mainly to drop bombs on people.  Saying that the F-35 can shoulder the air superiority mission is like saying the Rafale is an air superiority fighter.  It isn't.

 

I have never been able to see a reason why the F-22 couldn't be kept in low-level production: it provides jobs and gives Americans the best rather than "good enough."  Democrat or Republicans aside, then: why not?  Because we need to cut costs?  Pardon me while I laugh, because the cost of keeping the F-22 in production is a fraction of the $787 billion Obama and Congress pissed away last year for nothing at all.  You'll forgive me if I think that Frank, Pelosi, and Reid 1) don't know what the F-22 is, 2) don't care since they can't fly home in it and 3) see the military as their own personal piggy bank for pork projects.  And yes, given time, I imagine I could find plenty of Republican pork that could be cut in favor of more F-22s. 

 

I like the idea that my neighborhood now has sidewalks paid for with stimulus money, but I don't care much for the fact that the F-15s flying over my head on occasion are older than I am and have been known to fly apart in midair.  Because those pieces might land on me, and the pilots are friends of mine.

The choice to stop F-22 production was entirely budget driven and not based on a proper threat analysis since that analysis indicated more were needed.

 

The choice to stop F-22 production was not based on force structure requirements.  It is in fact idiotic to field 1 1/2 wings of air superiority fighters.  The proper thing to do would have been deciding exactly how many wings or sdqn's were required for the air superiority role and making sure there were enough aircraft purchased. 

 

The USAF plan is to keep 178 F-15C's in service past 2025 in the air superiority role along with the F-22.  The USAF clearly believes it needs more than 1 1/2 wings of air superiority aircraft.  The only question is whether the F-15 is good enough for the next 20 years because given how few F-22 units there the odds are at the start of some future conflict we will have an F-15 unit engage the enemy not an F-22 unit.

 

There was further utility in the F-22 beyond simply air superiority.  There is now no chance of an F/A-22 or EF-22.  A single pilot, single engine, single generator, F-35 can not perform many required missions.  It is in fact ridiculous there are no plans for a twin seat version of either the 22 or 35 given the requirements.  

 

A nation of 300 million is not properly insured against potential risks with 180 F-22's.  One simply can not have it both ways and state the F-22 is our magical golden BB that will ensure our air dominance for the next 25 years and thus we can buy "just enough" when this number does not fill enough units when we already have states fighting over air superiority units.

 

The US constantly finds itself unprepared for the next conflict and has a demonstrated inability to predict future threats with enough accuracy that some margin of insurance is not warranted in planning.  We got the fall of the USSR wrong, Iraq's intent in 1990 wrong, Libya's nuclear program wrong, Iraq's WMD program in 2003 wrong, and missed other little things like 9/11 and 12/7/41.  The notion that we will not begin another conflict with a surprise attack on one or more of our very few F-22 sqdn's would not appear to be a good bet.

 

Canceling F-22 looks fine now on many levels.  Let us all hope it looks like an equally good idea 15 years from now.  Furthermore let us all hope we do not have another conflict where the ROE precludes us attacking enemy air bases and thus we can only engage enemy aircraft in the air.

 

 

 

This gets right back to why F-35 production makes no sense.  The advantages the F-35 has over our late 4th gen types are meaningful only in the context of massive high-tech conventional war -- and even then only in the opening stages of such a war.  For the conflicts that we do need to prepare for the F-35 is less capable, if only because it costs more to buy, operate, maintain, and deploy.

 

Which is why canceling a relatively small number of F-22s in favor of the development of the F-35 simply makes no sense at all.  Keeping the F-22 in low rate production would ensure we have a 5th gen fighter in sufficient numbers in case they are needed, and the other types we have available right now to recapitalize our air forces for the conflicts that really are likely.

"This gets right back to why F-35 production makes no sense.  The advantages the F-35 has over our late 4th gen types are meaningful only in the context of massive high-tech conventional war -- and even then only in the opening stages of such a war.  For the conflicts that we do need to prepare for the F-35 is less capable, if only because it costs more to buy, operate, maintain, and deploy."

 

The goal of the F-35 program was to create an aircraft with 5th generation capabilities at a price similar to that of the aircraft it was replacing.   Now there are of course questions about whether or not they will succeed in that goal, but that was the idea.  There is no question controlling costs, both procurement and operating, were major requirements of the F-35 program.

 

The idea is that the F-35 will be capable of fighting a massive high-tech conventional war from day one... and will be equally capable of flying around with all kinds of junk hanging under its wings to fight the next low-tech war/mopping up action. 

 

The big question will be the costs.  If as you say the F-35 proves to be overly costly, then the program will have failed to achieve one of its major requirements.

 

 

"Which is why canceling a relatively small number of F-22s in favor of the development of the F-35 simply makes no sense at all.  Keeping the F-22 in low rate production would ensure we have a 5th gen fighter in sufficient numbers in case they are needed, and the other types we have available right now to recapitalize our air forces for the conflicts that really are likely."

 

The F-22 can not replace the F-35.  No number of F-22s will substitute for F-35s because they are simply too highly specialized and can not undertake most of the F-35's missions.

 

The F-35 CAN however perform in an air-to-air role, and will be second only to the F-22 in that regard. 

 

As far as buying additional 4th generation fighters... sadly this was mismanaged years ago.  The US Air Force never should have stopped its procurement of tactical aircraft while waiting for the F-22 and F-35.  It was irresponsible and just plain bad policy to have done so.  They should have continued to buy at least a few dozen new F-16 block-60s and Strike Eagles per year all through the 2000's to hedge against delays in the 5th generation programs. 

 

That said, at this point I am not sure it makes sense to reverse course and start buying 4th generation planes when the F-35 really should be entering service in just a few years, especially considering there is no money in the budget.

 

 

 

 

The big question will be the costs.  If as you say the F-35 proves to be overly costly, then the program will have failed to achieve one of its major requirements.

 

It's pretty clear that has already happened.

 

The F-22 can not replace the F-35.  No number of F-22s will substitute for F-35s because they are simply too highly specialized and can not undertake most of the F-35's missions.

 

The F-22 cannot replace the F-35 on a one-for-one basis, but that is not what I am arguing for.  A reasonable number of F-22s plus a majority of updated 4th gen types can do all the missions, both first-day-of-war and not, that a fleet of F-35s can.  And they will do it overall more cost-effectively.

 

The F-35 is nowhere near as effective in air to air as an F-22.  It relies solely on its VLO characteristics in air to air, has less combat persistence than the F-22 in air to air, and has no contempt of engagement ability against a foe that is able to detect it.   The F-35's air to air capability is sufficient for a strike fighter, but does not guarantee air dominance the way the F-22's does.

 

As far as buying additional 4th generation fighters... sadly this was mismanaged years ago.  The US Air Force never should have stopped its procurement of tactical aircraft while waiting for the F-22 and F-35.  It was irresponsible and just plain bad policy to have done so.  They should have continued to buy at least a few dozen new F-16 block-60s and Strike Eagles per year all through the 2000's to hedge against delays in the 5th generation programs. 

 

Completely agree.

 

 

We can either buy a A) few more F-22s and a lot more 4th gen fighters, or B) about the same numbers of F-35s at a higher average unit cost AND a higher average operational cost AND pay for the F-35's development.  In terms of budget it's a no brainer.

Quoting myself:

 

 

And that assumes we ever even field the F-35.  For me the nightmare scenario is not that we buy the F-35 and pay too much in acquisition and operational costs, it's that we continue funding the F-35 development until it inevitably fails.  The more delays, the higher the unit cost; the higher the unit cost, the less purchases; the less purchases, the higher the unit cost.  Eventually more and more potential customers reduce orders or pull out, and the whole house of cards collapses.  And when it does, we've spent even more years not recapitalizing our forces, and throwing money away we no longer have.

"It's pretty clear that has already happened."

 

 It is fair to say that the F-35 is currently over budget, but that doesn't mean it won't eventually meet its affordability targets.  (or at least come close)

 

There are countless examples of weapon systems that had very troublesome developments but ultimately turned into model programs.  Just look at the C-17, it was a nightmare of a program during its development and early production but it did ultimately prove to be an excellent performer.

 

would be an excessively warm characterization of your remark, Rufus, but the following:

 

 

is not true. 

 

Since the decision-makers do not like to be second-guessed on ending programs (viz., Apollo), the institutional memory of the F-22 program is being dispersed.  People are taking other jobs or simply retiring.  I don't know how much of the plans let alone the tooling will be preserved but Signs Point To No. 

 

One thing the US defense industry should insist on, systematically, is preservation of the tech base for each new weapons system.  Hamilcar and I have discussed this in the past.  With CAD/CAM/CNC, TQM process, and knowledge management tools, there is no reason why (as with the B-1 in a lower key) key tooling and processes should not be kept warehoused and ready to be reconstituted.  But reconstituting the F-22 program now (or very soon) will be arduous at best. 

 

Absent this preparation I think that low rate ongoing production, just to keep the plant warm (as well as to facilitate development of upgrades), is the best possible use of the defense dollars it would cost.  The potential value is enormous and the expenditure nominal.