"Analysts" challenge F-22 Raptor

[HeyJoe]

Just when F-22 thought it was safe to go out in the streets, the lingering Boyd Lightweight Fighter Mafia strikes again under the auspices of the Center for Defense Information. Pierre Sprey, long departed from halls of Pentagon shows up back on the scene in company with James Stevenson (more of a Defense critic to my mind than a true "analyst"). See a synopsis of their views and their briefs at: http://www.cdi.org/program/document.cfm?DocumentID=3389&from_page=../index.cfm


After reading both briefs, it appears to me that these gents are still stuck in WWII and Korean large air battle mentality and what it bode for skies over Europe in the Cold War. They seem to want to have a modern version of the F-86 and discount the impact of latest radars and missiles that actually work. They seem to be content to share their views with others of like minds from their armchairs without consulting the folks in the cockpit whom I believe might see things a bit differently whether you believe in the F-22 or other latest generation fighters/strike fighters (these guys think F-16 is bloated, detest all Hornet variants and think F-14 and F-15 are gargantuans...they like the F-5E however).

 

[Brett327]

You know the interesting thing about his whole position is that the F-16 and 18 were built based on EM requirements that Boyd and his posse came up with for their light weight fighter. They wanted a minimalist approach, not even to include radar. Ya right THERE'S a great idea in today's arena. It's a GREAT airplane when it's slick, but it's just not useful anymore.

They are some brilliant minds, but like you said their stuck in the past with their approach.

Cope India taught us a lot, and one of the biggest things is that we NEED platforms like the F-22. Other recommendations are that we get away from the multirole mindset we've gotten into, jack of all trades master of nothing, and go back to the days of VA, VF, etc. Be great at one thing, not good a a lot of things. The Raptor and other programs are needed to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Someone smarter than me said, we don't want a fair fight.

Concur with all. Unfortunately, paradigm shifts of that nature usually result from a serious a$$ kicking. Let's hope that our penny pinching doesn't make that proposition a fait accompli.

Brett

 

[HeyJoe]

Does size matter?

I think thats Top Gun's point... Cope India was an ass kicking, just not a real one. Reading the NSAWC journals sure scared the **** out of me though, and I can barely sort and shoot on time.

I think you're getting to the point that Sprey and Stevenson are missing. They get wrapped around the axle on size of aircraft (beautiful graphics of comparative size in their brief) as if all encounters begin on visual sighting and if that is what determines the winner. As you allude, "sorting and shooting" imply a BVR setup. They are fixated on a WVR scenario. Given a, say, 40nm setup with opponents closing at or near mach, that gives you less than a minute to detect, sort and shoot. Granted, most BVR engagements can end up WVR before missiles time out, they want to sacrifice everything for a supreme (and relatively small) ACM machine that can be produced cheaper to get more of them. Even if that was possible, I don't think DoD will let any service start increasing numbers of air-to-air capable machines to satisfy their premise that we need hordes of fighters to prevail. The cold war is over and there just isn't a peer competitor that can generate those type numbers to oppose us. Maybe China down the road....

I also take issue with no mention of quality of person in the cockpit related to the trainign they have received. Stevenson using the predicted operaitonal use of the B-17 as a historical example seems out of place...in same timeframe, the AVG took a relatively inferior fighter (early export version of P-40) and challenged higher performance Japanese Army fighters that often had superior numbers (kinda like their premise?). By use of superior tactics that were somewhat unorthodox to some, the AVG racked up an unprecedented exchange ratio (even after revisionist history treatment). And their aircraft was relatively larger and so were the Navy and USAAF fighter pitted against Zeroes elsewhere in the Pacific. Tactics properly applied by well trained pilots are a factor not even mentioned by either defense critic..........they mention Vietnam and Stevenson touches on Topgun (where he says he was editor of their Journal) in earlier public addresses in which he comments on impact of relevant training (increase in exchange ratio to WWII levels after institution of Topgun training approach) whereas USAF exchange rate remained low.

Both Sprey and Steveson selectively use history where it suits them and ignore larger lessons that undermine their premise. Easy to do from an armchair.....they need to get away from DC and to a Ready Room..........

 

[Flash]

These guys need to read up on a little history. The first brief highlighted 'combat tested' aircraft in red but did not highlight the F-14/15/16/18. I guess the past 25 years of combat in the Middle East for all of those aircraft is just not worth mentioning. Especially the record of the F-15, what is it's kill score? 85/90-0? Yeah, I guess that is not good enough.......

 

[HeyJoe]

These guys need to read up on a little history. The first brief highlighted 'combat tested' aircraft in red but did not highlight the F-14/15/16/18. I guess the past 25 years of combat in the Middle East for all of those aircraft is just not worth mentioning. Especially the record of the F-15, what is it's kill score? 85/90-0? Yeah, I guess that is not good enough.......

I'm willing to bet they know all about recent history, but choose to ignore anything that doesn't fit their views...even in WWII history.......I take exception to their first sight being tied to relative size and ultimately better excahnge rates...just about everything we flew against Japanese Zero was larger and less maneuverable so how did we do so well then....by their reasoning, Bong and McGuire in their P-38s should have been toast and the Marianas Turkey Shoot a Japense victory.....there's more to it than they allude to.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Cope India taught us a lot, and one of the biggest things is that we NEED platforms like the F-22. Other recommendations are that we get away from the multirole mindset we've gotten into, jack of all trades master of nothing, and go back to the days of VA, VF, etc. Be great at one thing, not good a a lot of things. The Raptor and other programs are needed to stay ahead of the rest of the world. Someone smarter than me said, we don't want a fair fight.

Wait a minute, what NSAWC journal were you reading? Not to tread the verboten line of tactics, but the scariest part of that (to me) wasn't "the Sukhois! the Sukhois!" it was the fact that a few modest upgrades in sensor and missile capabilities to the MiG-21 bridged the gap between them and the F-15. And percentage-wise, the MiG-21 is the threat worldwide.

The problem with both your suggestions is that it ignores reality. Defense spending ain't exactly unlimited. And jee, what's the priority here... killing terrorists on the ground, or indulging in fantasies of massive air-to-air battles?

If the Chair Force had any sense of the real fiscal limitations, not to mention the real lessons served, they would have invested in...

a) A new Fox-3 missile with ranges comparable to AA-10C and PL-12.

b) Totally new and state-of-the art EW and ELINT capability, instead of begging and pleading for the USN/USMC to do it for them.

Instead, they made a fighter which was really expensive, really fast, and really stealthy. And really one-dimensional. Once again, lack of perspective, as the F-117 was shot down by an SA-3, something which should have shot down my father in Vietnam...

 

[Lawman]

Wait a minute, what NSAWC journal were you reading? Not to tread the verboten line of tactics, but the scariest part of that (to me) wasn't "the Sukhois! the Sukhois!" it was the fact that a few modest upgrades in sensor and missile capabilities to the MiG-21 bridged the gap between them and the F-15. And percentage-wise, the MiG-21 is the threat worldwide.

The problem with both your suggestions is that it ignores reality. Defense spending ain't exactly unlimited. And jee, what's the priority here... killing terrorists on the ground, or indulging in fantasies of massive air-to-air battles?

If the Chair Force had any sense of the real fiscal limitations, not to mention the real lessons served, they would have invested in...

a) A new Fox-3 missile with ranges comparable to AA-10C and PL-12.

b) Totally new and state-of-the art EW and ELINT capability, instead of begging and pleading for the USN/USMC to do it for them.

Instead, they made a fighter which was really expensive, really fast, and really stealthy. And really one-dimensional. Once again, lack of perspective, as the F-117 was shot down by an SA-3, something which should have shot down my father in Vietnam...

Dont forget they arent getting what many appear to say is a sufficient number of Uber-Fighters. Last count was right around 180 total, how long would you guys estimate it will take for 180 aircraft to run through their airframe lives especially at our present ops tempo?

I see this (and granted from my limited experiance I know) as a great example of the Air Force not being a team player in holding up its end of the mission. Where is the Tanker that unfortuantely due to the Boeing Fiasco is long overdue. Where is the money to put into the C-5 that is despirately in need of life extension cash (the most recent crash and the crash over Greece being prime examples of how old those aircraft are getting). Now they apparently have people pushing for the development of what could be called a Medium Class Long Range Bomber ( http://www.janes.com/defence/news/idr/idr060404_2_n.shtml ). Im not saying each service didnt have or still have its white Elephant (Commanche, Arsenal Ship, etc...) but it really seems like the Air Force leadership has sold its soul to get this aircraft at the cost of putting the total effectiveness of the Armed Forces at risk. It will be interesting to see how this pans out and whether it comes back to really bite some people.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

Dont forget they arent getting what many appear to say is a sufficient number of Uber-Fighters. Last count was right around 180 total, how long would you guys estimate it will take for 180 aircraft to run through their airframe lives especially at our present ops tempo?

Sounds a lot like the hysterical claims of the USAF back when the Cold War was first starting... remember the B-36? How it would be able to win all wars single-handedly with transcontinental trips carrying nuclear weapons? How it cost the Navy the contract on a carrier... because, after all, it made carriers obsolete?

Then a "real war" happened... a limited, non-sexy, non-ideal war. In Korea. The B-36s were too valuable an asset and were never used for that, and instead we used older B-29s and carrier aviation.

One could use the same parallel between the "new, sleek, cutting edge" XB-70 and the "old, obsolescent" B-52, huh? Now it's not the bomber mafia controlling the Chair Force, but the fighter mafia. What is it that A-4s says? The more things change...

The USAF will hold back their precious little F(not A)-22s in irregular wars on terrorists and insurgents, saving them for the massive war with China against "The Sukhois! The Sukhois!"