July 14, 2008
The world’s best fighter aircraft goes slow
Well, the star of the show was certainly the star of the show. In time-honoured tradition, I have just been standing on a balcony at the Farnborough air show, with plugs in my ears, watching fighter aircraft doing manoevres.
This year’s Farnborough highlight was the F-22, the world’s best - and most expensive - fighter aircraft. It is a stealth fighter made by Lockheed Martin and Boeing, with Pratt and Whitney supplying the engines and the only air force that has them is the US one. Foreign governments are not allowed to buy them.
It does feel odd to be watching the beauty and balletic elegance of fighter jets at air shows, given that their mission in life is to destroy things. In the F-22’s case, it does not do much bombing of ground targets but could beat any other aircraft in a fight.
However, the F-22 is unquestionably stunning to watch. Its most surprising trait, for an aircraft that can travel at Mach 2 and launch missiles at supersonic speed, is that it can come to a virtual halt in the sky.
Indeed, such is its aerodynamic stability that it can hang in the sky and then appear to slide backwards in a manner that suggests it must have stalled. The pilot then lets the aircraft flop sideways before eventually easing it out of its dive.
After watching that, the F-16 workhorse that followed it with a bunch of rolls and loops looked quite pedestrian.
The question of whether the F-22 is worth the money is, of course, another matter. The United States Air Force has so far taken delivery of 122 of them and its initial order runs out at 183. After that, the USAF must lobby to get more.
You can calculate the price in various ways but F-22s definitely cost a minimum of about $180m each. Since the US wants to keep them to itself, costs cannot be defrayed among other air forces in the manner of the Joint Strike Fighter.
I plan to return to the subject of air power and whether military aircraft are worth the money in the age of asymmetric warfare in my column later this week. All comments gratefully received.
Isn’t it rather questionable to assert the F-22 is the best aircraft in the world? It appears to be much less maneuverable than the Russina SU-37, not to mention the Berkut (forward swept wing) variant and thus at a loss in a close in fight. Further, fights at longer range would depend on missles, an area in which the US has been notable laggard in the last decade or so. It does have superior stealth technology, but that can be and has been (Yugoslavia) defeated.
It clearly is the most expensive aircraft in the world.
Posted by: P.John Thomas | July 14th, 2008 at 6:09 pm | Report this commentJust out of curiosity John, on what ground is based your assessment that the F-22 is the best fighter aircraft in the world? I do hope that you are not just a relay for the USAF chest beating…
Posted by: Christian G. | July 14th, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentIndeed the F-22 is a very significant jump from it’s predecessor, the F-15. It comes with all kinds of bells and whistles. Can perform all kinds of awe inspiring acrobatics. Yet, how many dogfights take place at next to zero forward airspeed? So, awe aside. How will it stack up against REAL PILOTS? Lets face it, as the others point out, the Su-37 and Su-47 are equally capable of the same acrobatics. So we are back to what I believe is a statement made by Baron Manfred von Richthofen. a.k.a. The Red Baron. “It’s not the crate you’re flying, but who’s flying the crate.” So, let’s all get over the Cold War romanticism of the West-East rhetoric. Armchair quarterbacking and chest pounding by foolish civilians gets good people killed.
Posted by: Rick Morrison | July 14th, 2008 at 8:07 pm | Report this commentIn war games with simulated combat the best pilots from NATO, not just the US, in other NATO fighters all had the same experience with the F22. They never saw it and then they were “killed” or they saw it and couldn’t lock radar on it and then they were “killed”
Posted by: garysaus | July 14th, 2008 at 8:42 pm | Report this commentRich Morrison writes: “So we are back to what I believe is a statement made by Baron Manfred von Richthofen. a.k.a. The Red Baron. “It’s not the crate you’re flying, but who’s flying the crate.”
Some years ago, the Russian defence minister, while touring an Israeli Air Force base during a historic first visit to Israel following the demise of the Soviet Union, asked the then IAF commander, Major-General Budinger, which were better: the American or Russian jets? The general’s diplomatic answer was: it is the athlete who wins a race, not his running shoes.
However, that is no longer true (and was not even at the time when Budinger uttered his well-placed statement). It is well known that modern fighter aircraft technology has far outstripped any human capability, just like chess computers consistently beat most human players (today that would include even the world champions).
Fighter pilots of yore sometimes lament this situation, for it is no longer individual human skills which count. In fact, a similar situation ensued with the electronic gadgetry and stabilisers added in recent to formula one racing cars. The solution adopted by the racing authority: to disallow their use, in order to reintroduce the driver’s skills into the race. In essence, to relaunch the sport, which had morphed into a technological playground, not a human competition.
Posted by: RCS | July 14th, 2008 at 11:04 pm | Report this commentThe F-22 is a waste of money. The future belongs to fighting UAVs which have a smaller radar cross-section, are more maneuverable, and are far cheaper.
Posted by: Bill | July 15th, 2008 at 2:40 am | Report this commentMemo RCS: Wasn’t there once a UK government white paper that said that UAV’s were about to take over, and no fighter with capabilities beyond those of the English Electric P1 Lightning would ever be needed? That was forty years ago!
Posted by: Prose | July 15th, 2008 at 3:58 am | Report this commentGreat, so which country will be the next target? I’m sure the Americans can always find new target for their wonderful killing machines.
Posted by: Joko | July 15th, 2008 at 5:19 am | Report this commentFor all the SU-37 fans, it is not questionable at all. It has been well established among aeronautical and military experts that the F-22 is the most lethal and advanced fighter in the world. No chest-thumping needed to make that claim, it is simply the best plane out there and as Gary pointed out, it went 144-0 against highly trained pilots in wargames in modern aircraft. The avionics and RCS are so advanced that many opposing fighters don’t even see it. They’re dead before they even know it.
Posted by: Christopher | July 15th, 2008 at 6:13 am | Report this commentI was in Farnborough shopping on Tuesday last week and heard the very loud noise of a low flying jet. Along with the rest of the proles, I stood in wonder watching this jet plane doing manoevres - at one point it went vertically up into the sky and appeared to be about to fall backwards. Mindful that crashes can and do happen at Farnborough Air Show for which the jet was clearly practising, us proles were a little nervous.
I now realise thanks to your article that I was watching the F22. Other than the Concorde (RIP) and WW2 veteran aircraft, it is one of the few aircraft that brings people to a standstill.
I don’t know where this puts us geopolitically, but one stands in awe of the technology. And what fun it must be to fly it.
Posted by: Anne | July 15th, 2008 at 9:37 am | Report this commentThe American military excels, again, at technology.
America soldiers entered the meat-grinder of WWI at the eleventh hour only to die by the tens of thousands in the forests of France. In WWII the American military would have fought to a stalemate at best (which would have been a victory for Germany) without the Soviet Union. American technological advantage in Vietnam was light years ahead, as it is in Iraq.
Yet what was the last war the Americans, who have one of the best fighting forces in world history, won? I can think of the wars against Mexico and Spain, but there must have been others.
There’s always the next one, of course.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 15th, 2008 at 10:57 am | Report this commentPaskalis said : “Yet what was the last war the Americans, who have one of the best fighting forces in world history, won? I can think of the wars against Mexico and Spain, but there must have been others.”
Hey man, do you really know where Spain is and what it is ?
Just for your general knowledge, the last war in Spain was the Civil War during the 30’s…
Posted by: InFTWeTrust | July 15th, 2008 at 1:42 pm | Report this commentThe Yanks pay a lot of money to get a lot of hubris.
Posted by: Ian | July 15th, 2008 at 2:01 pm | Report this commentDid not the Germans have the technology edge with V2 rockets and jet powered fighters in 1945 ? The Russians supposedly beat them by running tens of thousands of peasants armed with pitchforks etc at the stretched German armies until the weapons jammed or ran out of ammunition.
as an individual who writes staff requirements the f-22 raptor is a brilliant construct till its stealth characteristics are defeated.that day is nigh and if the usaf are asleep they will get a rude shock sooner than later.the radar technology to defeat it is already being tested. now it will be whose BVR missiles are launched first!!at 180m a piece i wonder if even the usaf can afford to lose say 10 raptors on day one of the next war.time to think again!!
Posted by: captain devindra sethi i.n. | July 15th, 2008 at 2:26 pm | Report this commentTo Anne et al -
The aerobatic you found so enthralling is called a ’stall turn’ and has probably been performed since the start of military avation. I once peformed this manoeuvre myself in a military glider (Horsa) over 60 years ago.
I would add that Farnborough has no influence whatsoever on the geopolitical situaton of this country.
Posted by: Ken Beard | July 15th, 2008 at 3:08 pm | Report this commentOne can safely assert the F-22 is the world’s foremost air superiority aircraft.
Nonetheless, as the USAF realizes, numbers are crucial in combat. Allow me to expound. Matched up against modern fourth generation fighters, such as the SU-27, the F-16s are significantly overmatched. F-15s fare better but as a previous poster stated, Sino-Russian advances in BVR missiles, IRST, and possibly AESA radars give them the edge. Hence, the USAF recognizes it’s of paramount importance to secure a fighter in sufficient numbers that can compete with current and emerging adversaries’ capabilities. The F-22 is that very fighter. Despite that, the USAF knows that in major combat they will be shot down. Then, the ability to field superior numbers at the decisive point to achieve nonlinear effects will be needed. 183 F-22s are insufficient to adequately equip the 10 air wings. Certain analysts have proposed reorganizing fighters in a model akin to strategic bombers in which they are tasked to a theater. However, this approach grossly simplifies the complexities of operating effective air wings and more importantly preparing the battlefield. Consequently, the USAF is rushing to fill a potential “fighter gap” which could arise due to improbable technological advancement beyond the F-22 or a probable disparity in numbers.
In regard to a cost-benefit analysis of the F-22 in an asymmetric environment, Secretary Gates himself raised this point. In fact one can partially attribute the firing of the Secretary of the Air Force Wynne and Chief of Staff Moseley to rankling over 381 or 183 jets. An important factor in this conversation remains the budget: the Department of Defense knows it will go down. Therefore, Secretary Gates is attempting to grace the fall by cutting back on unessential programs. However, I have to respectfully disagree—as the Air Force did. Aircraft tailored for asymmetric warfare will be suited for that and that alone. Conventional high performance aircraft can concentrate on fighting relatively symmetric foes while assisting in an asymmetric capacity. The important thing to remember is an army can fight an asymmetric conflict with conventional forces; it cannot do the converse. Currently and even more so in the future, the F-22 is a vital aircraft for continuing American air dominance.
As a parting note, emphasis on the potential role of UAVs in air combat has exponentially increased over the past decade. Concept demonstrators such as Boeing’s X-45 have performed impressively. Over the long term, the Air Force must allocate an increasing portion of resources to such programs. However, manned fighters will continue to retain the edge for fifth and sixth generation fighters.
Cheers,
Posted by: Timothy Walton | July 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm | Report this commentTimothy Alexander Walton
Federation of American Scientists (fas.org)
Be careful about declaring the “age of asymmetric warfare”. This was the mantra of the late 70’s and 1980’s. Many analysts spoke of the end of large scale land warfare. Of course the next decade started with such a war (Gulf War I). The US Military, and any other one with expeditionary capability, must be prepared to fight high and low intensity wars, sometimes at once (Gulf War II).
Posted by: AndrewW | July 15th, 2008 at 3:53 pm | Report this commentThe Spanish-American War was a military conflict between Spain and the United States that began in April 1898. Hostilities halted in August of that year, and the Treaty of Paris was signed in December.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 15th, 2008 at 4:42 pm | Report this commentPrecisely Mr. Walton. I wonder if the Strategic Security project at FAS will be putting out anything on the air wing/tasking assessment soon.
Posted by: Franco Lolan | July 15th, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Report this commentThe F-22 undoubtedly best flying tactical fighter machine, with SU37, SU47 though may not be popular but some close by. The place of action is the GCC region. Dubai Air Show the F-22, and SU37, SU47 should provide a uniform platform, for outsourcing, business development, promotion, possibly joint venture with the UAE for outsourcing production
Posted by: Interconnect | July 15th, 2008 at 8:57 pm | Report this comment[ the f-22 raptor is a brilliant construct till its stealth characteristics are defeated.that day is nigh and if the usaf are asleep they will get a rude shock sooner than later.
captain devindra sethi i.n. ]
Your logic is a flawed. Whatever weakness you believe awaits the Raptor applies many times more to any other aircraft.
Also, you ignore the way in which the Raptor operates in concert with other weapon systems, including those that identify and/or destroy enemy radar and missile sites.
And your argument overlooks the peerless suite of “battlespace” electronics in the Raptor.
Your argument seems more influenced by envy than rigor.
Posted by: Joe | July 17th, 2008 at 1:09 pm | Report this commentFor all of the people who are questioning the Raptor’s reputation — there is more to the Raptor than Stealth and supermaneuverability. It can Supercruise at Mach 1.7+ while fully loaded with fuel and missiles. Just for comparison, the Typhoon can supercruise at 1.1 when stripped down. It can fly 10,000 feet higher than any other fighter in service. It’s missiles can be launched supersonically which adds double the range to any missile it carries.
It has the most powerful and sophisticated AESA radar in the world with electronic warfare capabilities. And it’s data fusion capabilities allow the pilot to be more efficient and effective than his adversary.
It not only far exceeds any other fighter on paper, but in war games with NATO aircraft, it is so far untouchable. 144-0 kill ratio in the 2007 Alaska wargames. At Red Flag, the Australians in F-18s couldn’t get weapons lock when they could see the Raptor through their canopy.
I’m looking forward to the next Cope India.
-Mark
Posted by: mark | July 18th, 2008 at 3:13 am | Report this commentPerhaps it’s best that two opposing generals face each other around a table and, like a game of “Fish”, each takes turns slapping down a card listing the statistics of their various equipment.
The side with the better stats wins.
Posted by: Paskalis | July 18th, 2008 at 10:44 am | Report this commentPaskalis, no, it’s not like that. It’s more like playing cards with the entire deck available to play at any time. Simultaneously, the other player slugs you while you’re trying to figure out which cards to play and cheats throughout the game. Anyone believing that any marvel of technology, especially in small numbers, will win the day will be rudely awakened in time of conflict.
Posted by: Franco Lolan | July 18th, 2008 at 4:31 pm | Report this comment[ Anyone believing that any marvel of technology, especially in small numbers, will win the day will be rudely awakened in time of conflict.
Franco Lolan ]
Thanks for the heads-up, Sun Tzu. Nobody here is making the simplistic assertion that you warn about.
Posted by: Joe | July 19th, 2008 at 1:08 am | Report this commentThe F-22’s demonstration display actually shows manuevers that can be employed in a tactical situation. Also, it does have air-to-ground capability that F-22 pilots have successfully tested. Furthermore, it is NOT the most expensive aircraft. The B-2 stealth bomber is rated around $1.157 billion in cost, whereas the F-22 is around $120 million.
Posted by: G.S. | July 22nd, 2008 at 5:03 pm | Report this commentI wrote that it was the most expensive fighter aircraft. The B-2 is a bomber.
Posted by: John Gapper | July 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 pm | Report this commentThe F-22 avionics and radar system is really 7th generation.
Posted by: JCH | July 23rd, 2008 at 11:57 pm | Report this commentThis allows the Raptor a great advantage over any other fighter currently in design.
For the cost of one of these planes, the U.S. could build 7200 schools in Afghanistan.
See this:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/7/13/6490/24206/322/550886
That’s double the number of schools in the entire country! Which would do more to bring peace and goodwill from the Middle East to the west? Of course, no large corporations profit from building schools, so we all know which option will be chosen.
Posted by: JJC | July 24th, 2008 at 5:28 pm | Report this commentJJC — Pace the inherent silliness and sloppiness of your argument (1 plane = 7200 schools), I see a few tiny, baby, little problems just off the top of my head:
1) Who is going to build these schools?
2) Who is going to staff (i.e., teach at) these schools?
3) Who is going to attend these schools?
4) Who is going to protect these schools from the Taliban and other fellow travelers, who will likely be inclined to destroy them as highly visible symbols of Western cultural and political imperialism?
5) Who is going to determine and enforce the curriculum? (Nasty problem if all of those schools somehow turned into radical islamist madrassas, no?)
6) Where are you going to site these schools?
While essential to our Western view of society, education is no panacea. Being educated does not make you peaceful. Witness the bloody history of Western Europe, for example, whose citizens have been among the best and most broadly educated populations in history. If you do not count little hiccups like Bosnia, it has only been in the last 60 years or so–during most of which time said peace resembled more of a (nuclear) standoff between armed camps–that Europeans have stopped slaughtering each other and various other unfortunates around the world wholesale.
Schools are important, yes. But when you factor in the entire social transformation required to change a society like Afghanistan into a peaceful member of the world community, those nasty F-22s begin to look like a rather simple and–sad to say–cheap “solution.”
Posted by: The Epicurean Dealmaker | July 25th, 2008 at 5:35 pm | Report this comment