The F/A-22 is the world's greatest air superiority fighter; however, if the F/A-22 is removed from the stage, America's current air superiority fighter, the F-15C, holds the same title. American tax payers should not have to foot the $133 million per aircraft bill for an aircraft whose mission can be accomplished by an F-15 that costs only $31.1 million each. Recall the scenario in the opening paragraph of this paper. A MiG-29 shot down by an F-15 is just as destroyed as if it were downed by the ultra-expensive F/A-22; only the American taxpayer will sense the difference.
The F/A-22 is the world's greatest air superiority fighter; however, if the F/A-22 is removed from the stage, America's current air superiority fighter, the F-15C, holds the same title. American tax payers should not have to foot the $133 million per aircraft bill for an aircraft whose mission can be accomplished by an F-15 that costs only $31.1 million each. Recall the scenario in the opening paragraph of this paper. A MiG-29 shot down by an F-15 is just as destroyed as if it were downed by the ultra-expensive F/A-22; only the American taxpayer will sense the difference.
An impressive paper - unfortunately it takes present day assumptions as given in the future.
I think the offensive capability of the F-22 is for making fightersweeps ahead of B-2 en route to destroy missiles in their siloes.
The airdefence capability is to be understood in a broader context!
First of all is the partnership with the F-35, both the American and those of allies. It is a development of the hi-lo partnership between F-15 and F-16.
The F-15 works in many context as the tactical reserve of F-16 operations.
An area defended by F-16's might not have serious problems, thus the F-16's are able to handle them. But an enemy will use the concentration of force and concentrate their attack - this will (as intended) put the F-16's under so hard a pressure and saturisation, that the enemy will - with great likelyhood - achieve their aim!
The F-15 are meant to bolster the defence where the F-16's are cumbling.
This could be analysed in the same way for offensive operations, where not all F-16 missions need escort.
The problem with the F-15 in a non-ferry configuration is range and reaction time. This can be compensated by more F-15 squadrons - and especially F-15 operational facilities (airbases etc.)
Now the F-22 can provide tactical reserve - with it's great speed, range and endurance - IN THE AIR. This means it is possible to redirect them to the troublespot, when resistance is encountered and not just antipated!
The calculations are naive in the extreeme!
An AirBase is by no means a cheap facility to run - refuelling points are cheaper, but have their capacity-gobbling problems.
Let's take an example:
Suppose the North Atlantic (including the Arctic) is to be covered with airpower.
That could be done with a base in Alaska, in Canada, Thule, (perhaps Mestersvig as a refuelling and rearming point), Keflavik and Bodų. 5½ bases with F-35's: This will cover the Arctic. It will need 3-4 squadrons of F-35's
Now covered with F-15's as backup it will demand 2 or 3 squadrons and their facilities. It is thinkable that the same need could be met with ONE squadron.
To analyse a warplane without putting it into the tactical context is bound to lead to wrong conclusions. A new fighter with new capabilities WILL change the tactical concept - and oprational dispositions - that is why it is build: The F-22 is not build to be a better player - it is meant to change the game!
It is meant to make the forces of the opposition irrelevant.
while i agree with everything you say, and we probably need F-22s, i do believe we need an alternative to it, like most likely an updated verson of an F-15. F-22's maintenance cost will probably be a lot higher than the F-15 and we probably will not have more than 200 at the max and we need to start looking for some other aircraft that can complement the F-22 in the future and that maybe the F-35 but what if it is not.And It will probably help the aerospace industry since lot of flight lines are closing down(f-18 in 2010,C-17and couple of others) and the aerospace industry will most likely downsize and lot of very experienced people will lose jobs.
Oh it seems pretty certain the F-35 will take over from the F-16.
But I do agree, that there will be a lot fewer units around. That will be due to a number of operational reasons:
1. With moderne smart weapons, there is a smaller need for offensive operations, as you don't need a sqadron of Phantoms to haul iron bombs, when one F-16 can do the job with a single smart bomb. Correctly placed a 2000 lb bomb will go a long way to ruin the bad guys day.
2. There are fewer targets in general: Gone are the days, when round the clock bombing of the Russian horders was the issue. AirDefence-wise it should be noted, that neither Serbia nor Iraq felt any overwhelming desire to contest the western air dominance - not for long anyhow, walking back to the airbase is not a pilots favoured mode of transportation.
3. There has been a lot of talk about stealth - not that I“m knocking it - nobody would design radar reflectors like the B-2 and the F-15 today. The real issue is networking, where the devise detecting, firing and guiding the missile towards it's target rarely is the same physical unit.
4. The important issue is however the new engine in the F-22 and the F-35. Compared to the task of designing and constructing a good aircraft engine, it is relatively (I wrote relatively!) easy to wrap aluminium foil and clingfilm around said engine. There has been many mediocre aircraft build around a good engine - the F-100 Super Sabre springs to mind - but no good aircraft build around a poor engine - F-14 not withstanding.
The F-14 had to use every mechanical, aerodynamical and material trick in the huge libraries - just to defend the carriers before the enemy could sink it.
The F-14 was a maintainance nightmare. It flew reasonbly on occation, but as an airplane estimated in it's military totallity - Lord have mercy.
The central issue is thus the new engine. From what I can guesstimate, it has an improved specific fuel consumption.
Now before we all suit up in Greenpeace sandals: The sfc. is of the utmost importance considering range. It appears that the F-35 has 30-40% more operational range, than the Taifun and the Gripen on internal fuel.
External fuel, though warrented in some missions, is a pain.
a) You pay a high drag price, which means, that the range increase is about ½ of what the fuel carried should indicate.
b) Takes up weapons stations and is more unfortunate in aircombat: It doesn't help very much, if you have to drop tanks the second the enemy blunders in your way - the mission is scratched! Or you will most likely not have the return fare - fuelwise.
To summerise: There are fewer enemies, the airspace is larger, the range of aircraft is larger and their weapons are more accurate: This does translate into a smaller airforce - plane and personel wise.
Will it hurt industry? Of course it will! When people stop killing each other in an organised way, weapons manufacturers experience a declining market!
The trick is to have build the most advanced weapons before the industry is reduced. Also because the most effective weapons do not have to be replaced due to casualties.
When the Baltic Nations joined Nato, Denmark disbanded my corps (Observer Corps). Sad; but no so sad. As a soldier I had performed - the enemy gave up the idea of killing me.
The industry will greatly suffer because aircraft cost more and less are being bought,and that is bad here in the US since our defense sector is so big.
F-35 and Gripen are deigned to do similar kind of missions but the approach is very different.Gripen is conceived as a low maintenance and low cost multirole fighter that can operate is harsh conditions and takeoff from improvised runways and etc. While the F-35 is a fighter that is suppose to compliment the F-22, if the air force had its way it would want 1500 F-22 but we cant do that and that is the reason we have the F-35, so we can have a more cost effective plane and thus have more of them.I just thing for small country looking for a modern and capable fighter Gripen is a better choice rather than waiting to see how the F-35 comes out.But my opinion are probably biased since i love the gripen .
By the way what is the Observer Corps, never heard of it.And what exactly did you do, just curious.
The F-22 Raptor is the best investment for the United States Air Force, because it is the only Western fighter capable of engaging in A2A combat against Sukhoi Aviation Corporation's vaunted Flanker family of air superiority fighters and taking control of the skies with impunity, thanks to its all-aspect stealth, advanced avionics and maneuverability.
In sufficient numbers, the Raptor can win air dominance in two, maybe even three theaters of war.
Air dominance means protection and freedom of movement for ground and naval forces from enemy air attack. Period.
__________________
F-22 Raptor: The ultimate Sukhoi killer
You can buy 2 F-35 for the price of one F-22, And an F-35 is fully capable of engaging an Su-30 and win that fight.
Another thing is how often will it be combat ready after a mission. The B-2 needs to have a big ground crew that have an extra work load to get that plane back to its full capability after a mission, that might also be true for the F-22.Maybe you can better inform me on this matter.
You can buy 2 F-35 for the price of one F-22, And an F-35 is fully capable of engaging an Su-30 and win that fight.
Another thing is how often will it be combat ready after a mission. The B-2 needs to have a big ground crew that have an extra work load to get that plane back to its full capability after a mission, that might also be true for the F-22.Maybe you can better inform me on this matter.
Luftmeldekorpset was a military arm, that reported lowflying aircraft - just like the Royal Observer Corps. Now the airdefence of Denmark - in reality - is over the Baltic and the lowfliers are observed with the radars, that replaced the lighthouses for naval control of shipping.
Gripen is an OK aircraft, but tailored to swedish requirements. I does not have the required range. Period. I've seen the jumping through hoops to persuade otherwise - scant success.
If we aim for an Initial Operational Capability of around 2015 - which seems to be in the cards, you will have 10-20 years of service, with the F-35 you have 30-40 years. Believe me: Introducing a new type into service is hell on earth - a small airforce, like the Danish, can barely introduce one new type each generation of pilots. The testpilot introducing the F-16 was Colonel on the airstation introducing the Merlin.
The cost of aircraft and their lifetime cost is nothing compared to the cost in the organisation. F.i. The Merlin has been very costly, because the basing was changed - which meant the experienced groundcrew and mechanics go into retirement with the SeaKing. Now the timing was so opportune, that they were to retire anyway, so change of basing was in the cards.
If You recall the competition surrounding the F-16 deal: The alternatives Viggen and the Mirage F1. Both types have retired 10-15 years ago - the F-16 is still flying.
Buying the Gripen instead of the F-35 will mean Denmark will have to fit its policy in the Baltic and elsewhere to the ability of the plane. The F-35 is designed to fit our - and Nato - policy. The Gripen will make os do what we can, while the F-35 will make us do what we want.
In case of the Draken - many years ago - it was a question of having a bombtruck, that could dumb the maximum amount of bombs on the enemy before it was shot down.
The reason Drakens have been flying in private companies to provide training was, that we had to carry huge amounts of spares, because Sweden in wartime is an unreliable supplier. So when the Draken retired we had a huge stock of otherwise worthless spares. I can't see the Danish Government doing business again with those crooks.
The other side of the coin is that Sweden is a very unreliable and expensive source of spare parts - and a fighter wing doing anything worthwhile uses a lot of spares - whereas the US time and time again has proven affordable and efficient.
F.i. when we wanted to top up our our stock due to normal peacetime attrition, we got second hand US aircraft at bargain prices - had to update them at our own cost - fair enough. With the F-100 we just had to pay for the transport.
Gripen is in fact a no-starter, as the french quickly realised the Rafale was - and refused to offer it:
1. Operationally it is a dog! To get the range needed, you either have to:
a) Maintain a lot of small airfield in the Baltic countries and on remote locations on Greenland.
b) Let it tote long range tanks, which will ruin any sort of stealth - compromising the integrated airborne concept, where all units can direct any missile fiired from any aircraft. Furthermore it will give away an offensive mission hundred of miles away - negating the advantage of smart weapons.
c) Buy a squadron of tankers - where a fuellingstation in the sky is bound to attract attention - and they are costly.
All of this is "doable"; but nearly any alternative is to be preferred.
The F-18 and the Taifun have the advantage of twinengines, which some find preferrable over remote arctic areas. Personally i doubt it, but it is an issue that will have to be looked into.
2. Sweden is not a Nato-member, and has other purposes and aims. They have in the past proved themselves to be troublesome as suppliers. The US is an allied, that in their own interest will bend over backwards if we have a problem.
3. Choosing Gripen means we will have to start looking for its replacement before it enters service, as it will have a short life expectancy - same problem the Taifun and the F-18 has.
4. The F-35 will enable Denmark to fulfill commitments ranging from Thule to St. Petersburg - to a large extend within existing treaties and base arrangements. It will allow us to liase closely with Norway, and probably the Netherlands and Belgium. The last mentioned could be regarded as a reserve within Nato: If Denmark or Norway are pressed they could throw in a squadron where most needed.
You can buy 2 F-35 for the price of one F-22, And an F-35 is fully capable of engaging an Su-30 and win that fight.
Another thing is how often will it be combat ready after a mission. The B-2 needs to have a big ground crew that have an extra work load to get that plane back to its full capability after a mission, that might also be true for the F-22.Maybe you can better inform me on this matter.
The problem is not the Su-30.
The problem is that the partnership between the F-35 and F-22 is in itself a tactical concept. AND a concept that allows integration with allies.
This means that the penny counting between types is irrelevant, as much bigger costs are involved.
The alternative to a string of allied is hugely expensive: F.i. several carrierbased taskforces.
Actually, the Flanker family of air superiority fighters is the most advanced Eastern fighter in any non-Western air force.
Although the Raptor may be more expensive than her little sibling, the Lightning II, the F-22 is far more capable in A2A combat and good A2G capabilities, like JDAM and SDB dropping at supercruise speeds.
The Raptor has superior maneuverability (aided by 2D TVC), supercruise (PW F119) and enhanced survivability (all-aspect stealth).
Only the F-22 can handle the Flanker (any variant) in A2A combat and prevail.
The F/A-22: A More Cost Effective Alternative
.
Linear Mode
