F-22 Raptors are having problems

[MechAg94]

Regardless of what some of you want, since WWII, our primary strategy in air combat has been to build superior aircraft with the best trained pilots.  "Build them cheap, stack them deep" doesn't mean crap when you are losing 30 or more planes to every one shot down.  Eventually you will either lose too many experienced pilots or your pilots will refuse to fly.  This happened in WWII with the Germans and Japanese.  Unless you want to go back to Vietnam days when we our kill ratio was much worse. 

From everything I have ever heard, the difference between an amateur and a well trained and skilled pilot is huge.  That does not change just because we have a bunch of missiles and other stuff.  And you want to put that well trained and skilled pilot in the best aircraft you can build.

[birdman]

Yeah, but they have studied the lesson the Japanese didn't learn before WWII.


Don't go to war with your biggest trading partner.

Not what I meant (china vs US), I was considering an imperial china--expansion to include their local sphere--oceania islands, "southern resource area", etc., basically relying on us not initiating armed conflict to prevent their takeover of a ton of random countries near them.  Just as it would be unwise for them to initiate a direct conflict with us (being their largest trading partner), that works both ways--would we risk major war to defend those around china?  The jury is still out--but there are lines of reasoning that suggest it is possible for them to imperialistically expand without us doing anything other than complaining loudly.

[MechAg94]

I can agree with that.  I have always gotten the impression the chinese weren't interested in conquering the world.  However, defending their "sphere of influence" might end up including a lot of things. 

Also, I have heard a number people talk about how unstable China is.  Would they be able to withstand a shooting war where some of their infrastructure got knocked out?  Not to mention that most of their population is concentrated in certain areas which I believe would make them vulnerable.  I don't think they are the big bad Goliath some would make them out to be.

[MicroBalrog]

According to the article we have 158 already, order capped at 188. Actual cost is over 400 million each, triple advertised cost. And for what? China and Russia don't have significant air assets to justify this project.

This includes research costs. Cost would have been reduced per-unit had they made more, and you know this.

Also PAKFA:

[Waitone]

The same brain trust that told us prior to Vietnam that plane on plane combat with guns was a thing of the past.  Well, we got our plows cleaned by the NV.  So much so that we have a whole quiver full of great dog fighting planes.  That same brain trust is telling us now we've fielded out last fighters and /or ground attack planes.

Various military have tried to take the humanoid out of the loop without success.  I suspect our growing robotics is the same.  I see lots of applications for flying robots on the battlefield.  I question the elimination of the human loop.

[French G.]

The fallacy of the "cheap" airplane is that it is inferior. We hold a qualitative edge over pretty much every thing out there and can continue to do so with evolutionary upgrades.

Have the stealth for penetration missions and spearheading for the other planes.

The reality is we don't have enough combat aircraft now. Also, we will never commit to buying enough F-22s, ever. No political will. The reduced numbers of planes will lead to reduced aircraft manufacturers, another bad thing in a war. Planes will be lost, no matter how cool. F-22s are essentially irreplaceable in our political and economic environment.

For every measure there is a countermeasure. I work with adversary pilots who train our pilots by employing tactics to close the BVR gap and get in close. The more sensors and technology there is, the more there is to spoof. The F-22 is awesome, not unbeatable.

[Balog]

Look at the enormous logistical train these level of fighters have. 4000 man hours maintenance for each hour of flight. And huge support infrastructure requirements. Bomb/missile attacks on the support train achieve air superiority far better than some romantic notion of dogfighting with the ChiComs. UAV's to take out support infrastructure are cheap and effective.

[Balog]

And even if we agree that fancy pants fighter jets such as this are essential to America maintaining its edge in global force projection, this project has been a colossal failure. All this time, all this money, not one damn combat mission. Meanwhile, those billions are not being put into upgrading things we actually need for the wars we're currently fighting, like better body armor/NOD's/comms etc. It pisses me off that when I was in Iraq we didn't have enough comm gear or nvgs to go around, a lot of what we had was old and in bad shape etc but the Chair Force was pissing billions away on this crap. I know the old joke about the .mil always preparing for the last war: in this case, I just want to see them preparing for the wars we're actually fighting.

[French G.]

Look at the enormous logistical train these level of fighters have. 4000 man hours maintenance for each hour of flight. And huge support infrastructure requirements. Bomb/missile attacks on the support train achieve air superiority far better than some romantic notion of dogfighting with the ChiComs. UAV's to take out support infrastructure are cheap and effective.

Damn skippy. Nuke Memphis, TN late on a weeknight. Fed-ex gone and the military, even the lower tech parts, would grind to a halt. Scary how much we absolutely depend on Fed-ex and DHL for our national security.

[birdman]

The same brain trust that told us prior to Vietnam that plane on plane combat with guns was a thing of the past.  Well, we got our plows cleaned by the NV.  So much so that we have a whole quiver full of great dog fighting planes.  That same brain trust is telling us now we've fielded out last fighters and /or ground attack planes.

Various military have tried to take the humanoid out of the loop without success.  I suspect our growing robotics is the same.  I see lots of applications for flying robots on the battlefield.  I question the elimination of the human loop.

Hence my statement about the same logic in Vietnam.  However, in both Vietnam and recent conflicts, BVR use has been limited, not due to capability, but ROE (in both a see/identify and a "who shoots first")--in a large scale air superiority battle with modern aircraft, BVR use will be the dominant method (and the one where we, even with superior munitions, don't have the edge against an adversary with large numbers of 4th gen, or comparable numbers of lower capability 5th gen).  Also, BVR in Vietnam was dominated by the sparrow, whose semi-active guidance virtually assured range closure to dogfighting ranges...modern (aim120) systems do not have this limitation so tactics have evolved to maintain distance and fight with BVR's when fighting a modern (china) adversary (same for their tactics as well...it's "avoid the dogfight" since results are more predictable for a non-dogfight engagement)

I'm sorry, but the age of the dogfight is over--why risk the pilot and aircraft when your LO capability and weapons give you the advantage only beyond visual range?  And given that case, a mothership/swarm (manned fighter with a bunch of UCAV's) is the most cost effective method of prosecuting such an engagement.

By definition, radar/IR low observability results in beyond visual range tactics.

[MechAg94]

It has been said before.  They said it before Vietnam and then the guide missiles were unreliable and leadership demanded visual confirmation of targets before firing. 

I don't think we are there yet with remote vehicles.  We'll see how things look about 10 years or more from now. 

The other thing I would say is that it has been a while since there was high intensity conflict between countries with modern air forces.  It is hard to say what such a conflict would end up looking like.  At the present time, I think we could wax any other air force in the world and I would like to make sure that doesn't change.  We started WWII behind the curve and I don't think we should plan on doing that again.

[Balog]

Budgeting is a zero sum game. For every billion wasted preparing for a future war, we are not addressing the war we are currently fighting. This boondoggle isn't just pissing away tax money. It's getting people hurt and killed.

[birdman]

Budgeting is a zero sum game. For every billion wasted preparing for a future war, we are not addressing the war we are currently fighting. This boondoggle isn't just pissing away tax money. It's getting people hurt and killed.

Trust me.  Additional expenditures on immediate needs wouldn't have any measurable effect on current casualties.  Investments 5-10 years ago, yes, but between the rapid fielding initiative and other things, all the low hanging fruit has been picked, and all the major improvements for this type of conflict have been implemented.  We could take all the f-22 and f-35 funding and dedicate it to soldier system improvements for the current conflicts today and it would have little to no impact--unfortunately, for the kind of conflicts we are in, we have driven casualties to the lower bound of what is physically possible.  All the money in the universe isn't going to have a signficant impact.  You are right, budgeting is a zero sum game, and investments in future stuff reduce the casualties then, and over time, are the best way to deal with the zero sum nature.  The reason why it took 5+ years of this war to get to this point is because of the attitude you suggest--we spent money pre-GWOT fighting/procuring for the "current" conflict (cold war) not the next one (COIN)...and now you are suggesting the same mistake be made?  Sorry, but you are incorrect.

[Balog]

I disagree. Unless there has been a massive change since 2006 there are still a lot of things that are not being supplied because of lack of funds. Maybe everything has changed drastically in 5 years and there are no longer shortages/crappy equipment being used, but I highly doubt it.

I also strongly disagree that the hyper advanced jet fighter is the way to prepare for future wars.

[roo_ster]

Balog:

US Army & USMC has done a potful of "RFN" procurement since we first started doing nasty things to nasty people in Astan in 2001.

Matter of fact, I'd say most all of the ground forces procurement of NEW (not previously-developed) items short-circuited the usual acquisitions process in the name of expedience to get out things like the Interceptor armor, MRAP, etc.   

In some cases, that was a complete no-brainer.  "Buy more AN/PVS-14s without jumping through all the usual hoops?  Yessir!"  In other cases, not so much (Interceptor & USMC variant incompatibility with MOLLE rucks, MRAP trafficability off road).

According to the folks at the highest levels in the Army, they are going to try and go back to the more traditional approach to acquisitions, with more systems engineering rigor.  That has the disadvantage of being the old approach with all its shortcomings, but the advantage of spotting and eliminating some of the most glaring deficiencies before the equipment is fielded.

It is not just the Air Force that is shifting focus.  Both Army and USMC understand that they need to re-focus AWAY from COIN and such in Iraq & Astan and back on to other threats.  That is why Army is looking hard at GCV, re-building Abrams & Stryker, and why USMC is doing the same with its acquisitions folk and systems.  Those other threats are much more capable of hurting us at a distance and the systems developed to deal with them will be of that sort.

[seeker_two]

I remember seeing an episode of "Dogfights" where they predicted that the B1 Bomber would be converted into a long-range anti-aircraft missle launch platform for 50+mile standoff distances. I could see that happening....and I could see the B1 or B2 being revamped to also control 2-4 drone fighters to do the same thing, though missles are a whole lot cheaper than drone fighters.

I don't see drone fighters being useful for anything other than long-range CAP over friendly territories or suicide missions. Long-range attacks are better suited for manned aircraft....unless it's a suicide mission. Long-range drone bombers might be a great idea....but I'm not sure that they'd be better than missles....

I think the next development will be improvements in missle guidance and non-nuclear missle yield. Think Hellfire missles with the punch of a Tomahawk missle....or a Javelin that can hit like a Davy Crockett w/o the nuclear fallout.....

[birdman]

I disagree. Unless there has been a massive change since 2006 there are still a lot of things that are not being supplied because of lack of funds. Maybe everything has changed drastically in 5 years and there are no longer shortages/crappy equipment being used, but I highly doubt it.

I also strongly disagree that the hyper advanced jet fighter is the way to prepare for future wars.

Not only what rooster said, but also, I made a very clear point about procurement/lack of procurement and it's effect on casualties.  You don't seem to get it, so I'll be clearer this time.  The casualty rate for US deployed, non-SOCOM forces is not much more than NON deployed, non-SOCOM forces (roughly 400-600k man-years in AF and 600-700k man-years in Iraq, with ~6000KIA, or roughly 4-6 KIA per 1000 per year, while the death rate for the 18-45yr old population as a whole is 1-2 per 1000 per year).  what that means is the maximum POSSIBLE reduction would be a factor of 2-3x, and would be basically, not being there at all (non-deployed).  To reduce casualties by even 20-30% would require an expenditure of effectively the entire budget, if it could be done at all--since while you could give everyone an MBT, that would reduce casualties by that level, but you couldn't perform the mission.  Compare this to previous conflicts...for instance, Vietnam (10+/1000), WW-II (23+/1000), and really, we have made great strides---or do you think giving EVERYONE armor was easy?

Before you go off ranting, cite facts.  I would like you to find me one analysis or think of one thing that says there are things we could procure RIGHT NOW that would reduce casualties by even 1 per 1000 man-years--for a cost of less than $20 billion per year.  you can't, because if you could, you would have the military beating down your door to buy it.  

Now, I've actually had to DO these analyses, talk to the people getting hurt and killed about what we can do, spent innumerable sleepless nights figuring out how to help, and even invested my own money to develop stuff to help our troops and keep them safe...so don't come at me with BS, you literally don't know what you are talking about.  

You even state you have no facts post 2006, and even then you have only individual experience and anecdote, but that isn't what we are addressing, we are addressing the military as a whole, and the procurement/RDTE budgets--you may have had to serve with crappy gear (i don't know your background), but funding wouldn't have speeded that up...unless the funding was 5 years before we started.

As for the next war, most experts I know agree, this is the last major COIN we fight for a while...the next wars are going to be conventional, country on country, in a combined arms conflict.  Not only that, you deride advanced fighter as being unimportant...the US has enjoyed effectively a perfect record since late WWII in establishing air superiority, and it's only because of that that we can have the low casualties we do...ever bother to look up what the casualty rates are on ground forces when they don't have friendly air superiority?  I'll give you a hint, look at the Iraqi casualties in the air war of the fist gulf war.   Given that most major military powers are developing 4/5gen fighters and have the numbers of 3/4gen to stand toe-to-toe with our existing inventory, we need a future silver bullet to even hope of obtaining air superiority--and that is the f22/f35.

Again, I don't believe you know what you are talking about in this case.

[Balog]

You're certainly better informed than I am, so perhaps you're correct. You're also definitely more emotionally invested, so I think I'll leave you to it.

[birdman]

I remember seeing an episode of "Dogfights" where they predicted that the B1 Bomber would be converted into a long-range anti-aircraft missle launch platform for 50+mile standoff distances. I could see that happening....and I could see the B1 or B2 being revamped to also control 2-4 drone fighters to do the same thing, though missles are a whole lot cheaper than drone fighters.

I don't see drone fighters being useful for anything other than long-range CAP over friendly territories or suicide missions. Long-range attacks are better suited for manned aircraft....unless it's a suicide mission. Long-range drone bombers might be a great idea....but I'm not sure that they'd be better than missles....

I think the next development will be improvements in missle guidance and non-nuclear missle yield. Think Hellfire missles with the punch of a Tomahawk missle....or a Javelin that can hit like a Davy Crockett w/o the nuclear fallout.....

The B-1R was killed by air force fighter mafia (reduced the number of pilots per missile flown), same reason the UCAV has had to push hard to move forward.  

Long range attacks are better for unmanned than manned--it's the long duration missions where the advantages of unmanned become most apparent.

As for higher conventional yield, most thing s are going the other direction--better to be more precise and use a smaller weapon than bigger.  A 5 lb warhead in the right place will destroy ANY ground or air vehicle, and less than 10 of those would cripple any ship in the navy.  The big breakthroughs in weapons have been/are going to be smaller variable lethality (variable yield conventional explosives, DIME, and non-kinetic effect munitions) warheads with multi-mode guidance to ensure precision in all environments, and to maximize the number carried.

As an example of this, we have already made SDB's with composite cases to reduce their lethal range (no frag, only blast), and we have even dropped INERT bombs on targets--(because at 300-500mph, a 500lb bomb doesn't need explosives to obliterate most targets if it hits within 2-3m of an aim point)

The future is a UCAV carrying 20-100 small (APKWS to HELLFIRE size) multi-purpose weapons, with a swarm controlled by either a mothership manned system for CAP /CAS operations, or remote HQ for deep strike /SEAD / interdiction missions.

[birdman]

You're certainly better informed than I am, so perhaps you're correct. You're also definitely more emotionally invested, so I think I'll leave you to it.

Hey, sorry for the ad hominem, it wasn't right.  Yeah, I am pretty emotional about it...I didn't mean to take it out on you, but I don't like the amount of blame that gets thrown around on a lot of things in the military, and some things recently (the ch-47) have pissed me off about this topic.  Back in 1999 I had funding from DARPA to research methods of defending helicopters from RPG's and MANPADS, because "we aren't going to let Somalia happen again"---well, we had a solution, they were interested, but we couldn't get funding because it wasn't the current war...so it gets pushed back and pushed back....and never gets funded--instead, because we didn't plan for the next war, we procured cruise missiles and standoff air weapons in the 90's (thinking all conflict would be Kosovo or Sudan, or the like) not MRAPs or up armor HMMWV, or defending against RPG's.  Now we have that, but the next war will not be COIN.

  So I'm in a bad mood because this weekend's casualties were absolutely preventable, but that isn't an excuse to insult you, I'm sorry.

[Balog]

Perfectly understandable, no hard feelings.

[41magsnub]

This includes research costs. Cost would have been reduced per-unit had they made more, and you know this.

Also PAKFA:

Isn't that the jet Clint Eastwood flew with his mind?   

[MechAg94]

From what birdman said, I recall seeing a show on a multiple warhead bomb that would spread anti-armor munitions across an entire armored column and essentially take out a couple dozen vehicles with one bomb. 

[birdman]

From what birdman said, I recall seeing a show on a multiple warhead bomb that would spread anti-armor munitions across an entire armored column and essentially take out a couple dozen vehicles with one bomb. 

SFW sensor fused weapon--single bomb case disperses 10 devices, each of which hovers, spins, and throws out 4 independent warheads...each warhead acquires a vehicle and fires a self forging fragment into it.  The idea was 1 B-1 equals 24 of these bombs, 240 devices, 960 warheads...over an area of a few square miles...so one plane takes out a division of tanks.

We actually used one in Iraq...took out a whole column of trucks and APC's...I believe most of the after action reports from both sides were of the "WTF was that?!" variety...the rest of the column surrendered.

Random other note, in the first gulf war, a group of iraqis surrendered to a drone.  What they didn't know was it wasn't the drone...the drone was just doing targeting for the USS wisconsin...who had earlier destroyed a whole bunch of crap.  The iraqi's heard the drone buzzing around and surrendered...to a UAV...because they didn't want their earlier "little plane = WTF levels of destruction" to happen again.

[MicroBalrog]

And even if we agree that fancy pants fighter jets such as this are essential to America maintaining its edge in global force projection, this project has been a colossal failure. All this time, all this money, not one damn combat mission.

What kind of argument is this?

The Osprey spent 18 years from first flight to its formal introduction. 26 if you count from program commencement. And yet it is an amazingly useful thing.