July 16, 2008
America’s air force misses the target
As trailed, I have written my FT column this week on the F-22 fighter and whether it is worth the money. I conclude that the current US position - to buy a limited number and refuse to sell others to its allies - is militarily questionable and financially crazy. You can read it here and comment below.
Thanks, by the way, to commenters on my earlier post who made some very informed remarks on the subject.
“One of these $350m aircraft dipped and fluttered around the sky above the Farnborough air show this week in a bravura show of agility.”
Costs are already sunk on the development. Each production LOT gets about 5-10% cheaper. The next LOT would be about $120 per. …. How much would each F-15 or F-16 … or F-35 cost if you only built less than a 190?
And then this…
The US will buy only 183 and intends to make do instead with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, a forthcoming stealth aircraft that is cheaper and more versatile.
Best you look at the status of the F-35 program. The hype of low cost is courageous considering it has only 1% of its flight testing done.
The F-35 is in no way a F-22-lite. And of course once large area SAMs and enemy aircraft are down, I don’t need a stealth aircraft for much. Which means USAF buying gobs of unproven F-35s is a fools errand considering all the other airframe recapitalization that needs to be done and that new build F-16s are cheap and good enough once the F-22 breaks the big threats of an enemy air defense.
Then this…
It would require a “fifth generation” stealth fighter – either an F-22 or an F-35 – to see them off. The US should have plenty of Joint Strike Fighters: it has ordered about 2,400 for its air force, marines and navy, which are due to enter service in 2011.
Little of that is true. The F-35 has stealth only (assuming it proves itself) and has no super-cruise or high altitude. What “order for 2400″ are you talking about? USAF has cut its orders in half and will only be able to afford 48 jets a year when full rate production starts. Navy has cut orders too. Reason? Lack of money. 4 other countries (F-35 JSF Team members) are out for a competition for their next fighter (JSF is not an absolute) If EVERYONE doesn’t order to plan, the price of the jet goes up … alot… and that doesn’t count any more development problems or delays. Doubtful that there will be an IOC of 2011 considering everything that still has to be done with a flight test program moving at a snails pace.
Consider that new gen Flankers ( not your daddy’s SU-27) are significantly more advanced. The PacRim, flush with cash from a new world economy will be buying these even more in the coming years.
“The Russians never got out of the fighter-building business. They are delivering aircraft to nations around the world that outperform anything else we have — except the Raptor,”
-General Jumper-
William Powell, General Jumper qualifies in F/A-22 Raptor, AF.mil, January 13, 2005
Posted by: ELP | July 17th, 2008 at 11:58 am | Report this commentIt’s truly a shame, what is happening with the F-22.
F-22 is an outstanding aircraft, the best in the world at what it does. Actually, the F-22 changes the strategic equation every time its wheels leave the runway. You can ask me how, and the most I can say is “electronically.”
How badly do US forces need the F-22? Well, there’s not a soul (OK, not a sane soul) in the Pentagon who really believes that the US will “fight” the Russians or Chinese within the next 50 years or so. It just ain’t gonna happen. There’s far too much to lose in an all-out confrontation.
But you can certainly find US planners who believe that US forces will fight against others equipped with Russian and Chinese equipment.
Call me old fashioned, but I think that if US forces should ever have to fight Russian or Chinese equipment (like the Su-27), then the US pilots and other players at risk should go to war with the best aircraft in the sky. That would be the F-22.
Sad to say, the F-22 does not quite fit the current DOD institutional emphasis on nation-building and counter-insurgency. F-22 is just too high-end, or so they say. (Although the US higher-ups have squashed any plans to deploy the F-22 to Iraq to show its stuff in that electromagnetic environment. So we’ll never know, eh?)
And yes, the F-22 is pricey. Good things tend to be pricey. You don’t always get what you pay for in this world, but you almost never get what you don’t pay for.
In a better world, the USAF would buy 250 or so F-22s (300 is better, but…). And the foreign military sales process would put another 150 or so F-22s in the hands of the Japanese and Australians, making for an air-supremacy arc from Antartcica to Greenland and beyond, covering the entire Pacific Basin. If the UK or Germany wanted to buy a few dozen of F-22s, well that would work as well. Cover the Atlantic while we’re at it.
But the Pentagon is too worried about the current two wars, and the looming funding gap as the wars play out. So from the top-down, the Pentagon is trying to sideline the F-22.
Removing the Sec of the USAF and the Chief of Staff were part of the house-cleaning process. When Sec. Def. Robert Gates picked Adm. Kirk Donald of Naval Reactors to “investigate” the Air Force, the result was foregone. Adm. Donald is a straight shooter, and “nobodys’ boy” in any respect, but whhen you choose your advisors you choose your advice. Gates picked a Navy Nuke.
Gates was tired of the USAF trying to end-run the DOD policy wonks and go straight to Congress for more F-22s. So the nuclear weapons issue became the perfect foil to rid the meddlesome service of its apostate priests.
It’s now a battle in the Pentagon and Congress between those afflicted with “This-War-itis,” and those suffering from “Next-War-itis.”
When it comes to discerning the weather in northern Alrington, the fate of the F-22 is as good a barometer as any.
Posted by: Byron | July 17th, 2008 at 7:30 pm | Report this commentNAVALIZED F-22’s NEEDED???
If the F-22 was capable of being produced in a navalized version- which it presently isn’t- it would be in high-volume production today… and the under-development F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (and its a,b,c variants) would be the programme being given the move to the metaphorical back-burner…
The US’s closest allies such as the United Kingdom and Australia- which have active aspirations for new & improved-capability sea-based airpower- ought to be tempering their arms-and defense-policy cohesion with the US->>> by proposing a multi-national project to re-design the F-22 into a version deployable from aircraft carriers…
If successful the resulting orders from the navies (and airforces) of all participating nations would lower the F-22’s unit costs to a less inordinately excessive level than today’s…
This likely would result in substantially raising of the F-35’s unit costs- which, incidentally are already well over $220m each as of July-2008’s projections… but so what… the F-22 is- reputedly- a far better aircraft, with significantly more capabilities, speed, range and payload-carrying capacities… not to mention its already ‘proven’ radar-evading attributes
This kind of an approach might also ‘force’ the UK to drop the functionally-foolish proposition for the Royal Navy’s planned new ‘big deck’ aircraft carriers: to have these warships built without catapult-launch of fixed wing aircraft capabilities… since navalized F-22’s would require catapults…
Dropping the F-35 for the F-22 ought to be considered
Roderick V. Louis,
Posted by: Roderick V. Louis | July 17th, 2008 at 8:45 pm | Report this commentVancouver, BC, Canada,
ceo@patientempowermentsociety.com
With regard to John Gapper’s article, “America’s air force misses the target” Published in today’s Financial Times, the article really misses the point and exposes a lack of appreciation of defence procurement processes.
During the Second World War, when for example some 40% of British GDP was devoted to the defence effort, new equipment could go from the drawing board to the front line in a matter of months. Witness the plethora of fighter and bomber aircraft developed during the conflict.
In the late 1950s, the British Master General of the Ordnance bemoaned the fact that it was taking upwards of 2 years to get equipment into production.
A combination of sustained peacetime, a static foe during the Cold War and evolution of the services sector in Western societies has led to defence engineering and manufacture becoming increasingly specialised. The “peace dividend” of the early 1990s was a further nail in the coffin for the industry and for fast defence acquisition.
The average time from concept to in-service is nearer two decades, bringing us to the issue of the F-22. Would anyone have bet their stock portfolio or home in 1988 as to the world of 2008 ? A world pre-internet, cell phone was a novelty, Big Bang had just happened in London, Russia was seen as the big enemy, UAV’s were model aircraft.
The world is complex and whilst trends can be discerned, on the whole the system is unpredictable. In addition, equipment built many years ago finds itself being used for different applications with success beyond the ideas of designers and procurers - take the BAE Systems Nimrod aircraft now being used for airborne command and control, The canberra aircraft served for 50 years.
The F-22 will definitely have its day in the sun, and most certainly could not be built at a whim, when storm clouds finally gather.
Posted by: Jeffrey Bradford | July 17th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this commentThe F-22 certainly impressed observers on its one appearance at Farnborough Air Show this year. It won the noise/vibration index race by setting off more car alarms than Eurofighter Typhoon; it appeared to be able to hang vertically in the air; and its radius of turn in climbs blew people’s minds.
Posted by: Hadrian2 | July 17th, 2008 at 10:53 pm | Report this commentThat said, it’s an expensive piece of kit to sit on the tarmac while America fights in two theatres, and US Air Force plans to double the authorised procurement appears to have scant justification.
Good article but, ahem, what’s this about the F15 being a Vietnam era fighter?
I should cut that our of the online edition if I were you.
Posted by: Chris Stephen | July 18th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentThis is a typical article written by a business commentator with no knowledge of the aerospace and defense business. To be sure, the F-22 program has been fraught with problems of every kind, funding cuts at the whim of Congress at inopportune and stupid times, bad management during certain times, and the Air Force wanting everything in one package.
Having worked on this program for more than three years, I can safely tell you that it is the most capable fighter airplane ever invented. It assures Air Dominance and ensures our pilots never enter a “fair fight”.
Initially 750 units were required, and then the inevitable “death spiral” ensued which brings us down to the 183 we are seeing now. This number was arrived at by Don Rumsfeld, and his successor, Mr. Gates stuck with it. The Air Force claims they need 381 to fill out 10 full squadrons, replacements, training, development work, etc. What is the real number needed? I don’t know, but neither do you Mr. Gapper. No one does, and anyone who claims different is lying. It does seem a shame to try to replace the forefront of our air superiority forces, the 30-35 year old F-15Cs, with only 183 aircraft.
This number also contributes to the false statements about a $350 million dollar airframe. The flyaway cost is 120-150 million dollars. Reducing the number of units and then crying foul about price per unit including development costs is disingenuous at best, and idiotic at worst.
The F-22 is not now and has never been a “mistake”. 30-35 year old fighters need to be replaced, and not with warmed over versions of the same old thing. You must stay ahead of your adversaries technologically. The JSF is a fine aircraft, but as others have said it is years away from becoming operational, and it is no F-22 when it comes to capability.
You cannot penetrate modern air defenses and air forces (i.e. Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, and anyone they sell their SAMs and newer fighters to) with old F-15s, F-16s, B-52s, F-18s, and B-1s. Beating up on Iraq and Afghanistan is not an indication of our ability to handle the most sophisticated deterrents and threats.
Mr. Gapper, I would encourage you in the future to do a little more research and talk to people familiar with the aircraft before just mindlessly reciting the F-22 critics talking points.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Posted by: dpraptor22 | July 18th, 2008 at 3:06 pm | Report this commentDP
Many good and thoughtful comments here…
One item that needs a reply… the “navalized” version of the F-22. Sorry, but that won’t work.
Carrier-capable Navy aircraft are designed from the inside out. Every item is designed with catapult shots and arrested landings in mind, as well as servicing the aircraft in the salty flight-deck environment.
How tough are Navy airplanes? Heck, the nose-wheel on the airplane I used to fly was bigger & stronger than the main mount of an F-15.
By the time you “navalize” the F-22, you will have an entirely different bird. You will have to call it the F-52 or something. Because it won’t be the F-22 any more. It’ll be bigger, heavier, more internal metal and bolts to keep it all stuck together.
Really, you could land an F-22 on the carrier deck… once. Then you’d commence the accident investigation and take photos of the landing gear smashed through the wings.
The Navy went with the F-35, for better or worse. (Ahem… I have an opinion on that as well. Not tonight, dear.)
The key thing about the F-35 is that it was developed from day-one as an international program. The US took the money of other nations to have enough to fund the program. And now we are obliged to deliver something.
The F-35 is light years ahead of what is already standard within NATO and other allied forces. So it’s a great leap forward. But is it up to the capabilities of the F-22? Afraid not.
As another writer noted, the F-22 is the air supremacy bird of this world, bar none. If you want to own the skies, you want the F-22.
Operationally, you would use the F-22 in the early phases to degrade the opponent air defense system. Then the “older” aircraft (F/A-18s, F-15Es, Typhoons, etc., and cruise missiles and UAVs, et al.) can get in and do their thing.
Really, it’s a terrible mistake for the USAF not to be able to buy more Raptors. We’ll rue the day we ever began to wind down the production line.
And some day in the future, some SecDef will say something like… “You go to war with the Air Force you have, not the Air Force you wish you might have had.” Oh wait a minute, didn’t someone already say something like that?
Well, you go to war with the leadership you have. Not the leadership you wish you might have had.
Posted by: Byron | July 18th, 2008 at 8:52 pm | Report this comment