F/A-Catch 22

The F/A-22 program presents a catch-22:

Aim Points had an article (before it mysteriously disappeared) with some harsh criticism of the F/A-22. 

I found the article on POGO's website.  Here is the POGO teaser:

"In concert with the Project On Government Oversight (POGO), Col. Everest Riccioni (USAF ret.), a pioneer in combat fighter design, has published his critical analysis of the Air Force’s F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet program."

Go read the POGO Release here.

Also, the No Angst Zone had an excellent post last Saturday with a good recommendation.

Here is why I believe there is a catch-22:

First, the projected number of F/A-22 aircraft has dwindled to a mere 180 fighters.  A small number of jets would be spread too thin and may not be enough to win a decisive air campaign.  A year ago, Indian air forces scored multiple victories in mock dogfights flying Russian Sukhoi and MiG as well as French Mirage fighters against our F-15s and pilots.  This sparked some debate amongst air strategists.  Yet, the F/A-22 has superior flight characteristics including stealth that would dominate enemy fighters.  I believe the United States should never be in a fair fight.  So how many do we need?  How many can we afford?  Fantastic technology can be overwhelmed by mass.  Without the F/A-22, how many lives will be lost once the "playing field" is leveled?  By the way, the U.S. may sell F-16s to India and Pakistan.  Parity anyone?  Mass beats technology...technology trumps mass...ugh, the argument continues.

Second, "the F/A-22 role no longer exists."  The Soviet Union dissolved.  That is a fact.  Yet, roles and platforms often change on the battlefield.  At the height of the Cold War, no one envisioned employing a B-52 as a "tactical" conventional bomber...until someone did it.  How do we know exactly how the F/A-22 will be used?  Plus, the F/A-22 technology is vastly superior to anything else out there.  The F/A-22 tips the balance in favor of the United States...perhaps not in the way we might envision...SAAS grads, are you paying attention?

Third, "the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 fleets can fill the gap with advanced avionics packages."  Currently, this is true.  Yet, how old is the airframe on an F-15C?  Can pilots still fly these old jets at the edge of their performance envelope without stressing and cracking the airframe?  Do we continue to mortgage our future on older technology?  What about our obsolete tanker fleet?  If the F/A-22 can't refuel on the way to the battlefield, then it is a very expensive weapon with a limited range (if it makes it across the ocean by itself).  What else are we giving up "out of hide" by pursuing the F/A-22?

Having said all that (and believe me there is more)...the catch-22 is this: We have spent far too much time and money in F/A-22 technology to simply give up...yet, by continuing to fund this program, the Air Force delays on other pressing needs (i.e., tankers, special forces platforms, heavy launch capability, etc).  Shrinking the size of the fleet or slipping the delivery schedule to the right (i.e., surviving another budget year) isn't much of a strategy.  It sort of reminds me of Social Security.  The professional Acquisition Corps knows what I am talking about. 

Personally, I believe the Air Force has lost momentum on public opinion in favor of the F/A-22.    I wouldn't feel this way if I hadn't read all the opposing articles out on the Internet and in the MSM.  These not only influence my decision, they influence others.  If my opinion is uninformed...then enlighten me (us).  Frankly, the PA strategy could be better...the other services are successfully selling their story.

What frustrates me is there is great discussion (pro and con) on the F/A-22 "around the water cooler" and "at the ops counter" that doesn't go anywhere.  No one outside the Air Force hears these discussions.  Instead, decision makers are left with either 'glaring' reports and editorials (see previous posts on F/A-22...you'll need to scroll down since this post appears at the top) or 'glowing' reports from the SecAF, CSAF, and other senior leaders.  Lobbyists?!...please. 

Aside: Where do you think Members of Congress are getting their information in the digital age?  Hmmm

Finally, what is missing is informed discussion from those of us who will inherit the final decision.  Hopefully this post will spark discussion.  Just as it does no good for the Air Force to bury the story (as Aim Points did today)--it does no good for you to sit silent.  People will fill the void with alternative messages.  I don't believe Air Force members are indifferent...so speak up.

For more discussion on the F/A-22, click on the F/A-22 category on the right sidebar.  There are some great comments from "wildbill" and "monckywrench." 

Comments

[Mike]

Your comments on the PA side of things raise some good points: in the mind of the American public, who is currently fighting the GWOT? Answer: the Army, the Marine Corps, and Special Forces. Who was recently in the news for Tsunami relief? Answer: the Navy. What has been in the news recently regarding the USAF? Answer: the over-budget, "unneeded" F/A-22, the grounding of the C-130E fleet, and the KC-767 scandal.

What service is, in the eyes of the American public, without a mission?

Answer: the USAF.

[wildbill]

Anyone who thinks that the F-22 is a viable program just need to read Col Riccioni’s latest paper on the F-22. All cheerleading aside by the Air Staff and the fighter pilot community wanting the latest air-to-air toy there are questions that need to be answered. Since the Raptor has failed in its 4 primary design promises how can any decent manager and steward of the public trust want to continue to poor money down a bottomless pit?
Senior leadership is SACRIFICING THE FORCE in its mindless pursuit of yet another air-to-air fighter and in the end will make us less secure
The Air Force needs tanker replacement, upgraded AWACS and is in desperate need of replacement C-130 A/C since the E models are falling apart. This plus all the delayed or cancelled modifications that have been discussed earlier to the existing F-15E and F-16 fleet. It’s pretty bad when F-15I and F-15K aircraft are being delivered to foreign customers and are better equipped avionics wise than our own E models.
What I can see happening later this year is since our own leadership will never admit that the program is flawed is that the Secretary of Defense will have to pull the plug on this one, much like what happened to the Army Comanche helicopter program.

[Major Mike]

A couple of things from my perspective...as background, my last job was in the N83 section of the CINCPACFLT staff in Hawaii...a requirements officer. I handled all fixed wing fighter A/C, aviation ordnance, USMC issues, etc. for the Navy staff. Lessons learned the in planning cycle environment.

If the plane can't meet the requirement...you can't buy it. Requirements are written to ensure incremental capability increases over existing equipment...preventing buying new, just to get new. So, no workie, no buyie. So if the F-22 program manager cannot bring it in to specs, or without a reasonable assurance that it will meet specs sometime in the near future at a minimal cost, is shouldn't be bought.

Don't export it if you don't want to fight against it. I wrote a paper that became (at least for a short period of time) State Dept policy, NOT to sell AMRAAM to Thailand with some F-16s, circa 1997. The logic was, that we wouldn't want to fight against it in an expitidionary environment. The AF was pissed because the AMRAAM was the deal maker and it was tied to upgrades at home...sound familiar? At least while I was still in, this policy held. So, be careful, if you get to exporting versions of our Cat 4 fighters in order to get upgrades at home, when your new weapons programs fail and are cancelled...be prepared to fight your own top of the line equipment with what you have. One angle to Air Supremecy/Superiority is the technological advantage we enjoy...don't sell too soon or too cheaply.

Lastly, remember, we have about 4 jillion Cat 4 fighters, that are manned by the best pilots in the world. In a straight up fight we may lose a few, but in very short order we will still gain and maintain Air Superiority.

Program managers make or break the procurment process...probably time to fire the PM and get some new blood in there and kick the crap out of the contractor, sorry but from my experience, that works the best.

[Mike]

Your last point is a point I raised on my blog: if we don't keep the F/A-22, we will still be able gain air superiority, but at a steeper cost of pilots, something the U.S. hasn't experienced in numbers since the Vietnam War.

[Mike]

Continuation: the effect that would have on public relations and public opinion needs to factored into the equation as well. If the F/A-22 is totally cut, with none procured, the USAF needs to make sure the proper authorities are held accountable when American pilots start dying in larger numbers than previous wars because they no longer have the huge advantage we have traditionally had.

[Major Mike]

Unfortunately, we rarely roust them out of retirements and haul them back in for their courts-martial. Truly some programs are difficult to manage, but if the F-22 needs to become viable, the the AF will have to make it so. The contractor can only be relied on to process and bill for change orders, delay delivery, and schmooze the brass to keep the pressure off. This cost overrun phenomenom, is not new, but the payoff has to be HUGE in the end, if it doesn't promise to be...bye bye F-22.

[wildbill]

“If the F/A-22 is totally cut, with none procured, the USAF needs to make sure the proper authorities are held accountable when American pilots start dying in larger numbers than previous wars because they no longer have the huge advantage we have traditionally had.”

This dog won’t hunt. What huge advantages are we talking about? Korea? Couldn’t possibly be Vietnam were the AF and Navy suffered horrendous losses at the hands of the NVAF. To much faith was put into BVR engagements with radar missiles and IFF. Now 40 years and untold billions later we have decent radar missiles but our IFF is still a joke.

The radical claims of the magical silver bullet that overwhelm the enemy with high kill rate have always been a myth in the modern era. A myth derived from computer simulation and canned scripted testing and manufacturing wanting to sell their new airplane. In real world testing like the Aimval-Aceval exercise that Col Riccioni refers to in his March 8, 2005 paper show what happened when F-5 flew against F-15’s. In this exercise when 4v4 sorties where flown the F-15 kill/loss ratio dropped all the way to 2-1.
During my own career I’ve seen the same thing when we would deploy to Nellis. I used to be amazed when the Aggressors would hand our Eagle Drivers their heads out on the range. Now that I’ve learned a few things on tactics and aircraft performance capability I understand how this happed.

Why does the F-22 have to become viable? The only possible justification of procurement is if we fight the Chinese. Now that said let’s look at the numbers, 180 aircraft built, 40 in a training role, 50 in Europe, 50 in the Pacific leaving 40 in the states. OK a squadron of 25 A/C, 1 in phase, 1 in load barn, 1 in K-ball, 22 left and lets be generous 90% of these FMC That leaves 19 to generate sorties with or in the case of the 50 in PACAF 38 jets maybe 40. The Chinese field approximately 120 SU-30’s with 40 on order for 06, first deliveries of 250 J-11 (SU-27 clone) are on going, first deliveries of 500 J-10 all due by 2010 has started. In addition there are over 1000 J-7 and J-8 aircraft flying and while termed obsolete by today’s standards they have been going through various upgrades in both avionics and weapons.

What other opponents are out there? Who else can afford these new generation jets (Raptor, Typhoon, Flanker) and operate them effectively? So what real advantage does this high cost plan bring to the battle? Some proponents will say stealth. Ok then some questions need answers. In radar signature how do we simultaneously defeat high frequency fighter radars and low frequency ground based systems? To launch missiles do we not have to turn on the radar at some point thereby eliminating electronic emissions stealth? And of course thermal emissions, with two enormous PW119 out the back which are then vulnerable to detection by many of the IR sensors that are available.

So by pressing on with the full F-22 buy we end up spending the full 70 BILLION dollars for 180 A/C that realistically have no one to fight except for the Chinese. This of course does not count other costs that no one talks about. For instance 1 billion a year for operations and maintenance, the cost of establishing a depot system, the cost of cleaning up any parts obsolescence in the avionics system plus whatever money is poured down the development drain to utilize the F-22 as a tactical bomber.
The net result like I have said before is a down sized force that cannot project power like today and a plane that has no relevance in 4th generation anti terrorist warfare.