5 ms·

The article repeatedly claims: "The F-22A Raptor is the only US fighter aircraft design in existence or planned which has the capability to penetrate and surviv

The article repeatedly claims: "The F-22A Raptor is the only US fighter aircraft design in existence or planned which has the capability to penetrate and survive the advanced air defence weapons now proliferating globally". I'm no air defense expert, but why do I have a hard time believing this? Existing fighters, bombers and drones seem to work fine with most of the countries the US is dealing with right now. If the US has to go to war with a Russian or Chinese armed adversary, would small fighter planes play a huge offensive role anyway?

TylerE 13y ago
Yes, hugely. Ground attack fighters are basically THE first wave going in to take out things like rader and C&C equipment. Missles can get in, but they have limited search capabilities.
- ceejayoz 13y ago
  The F-22 isn't a ground attack fighter, though.
  - skyraider 13y ago
    It does have ground attack capability and given its stealth capabilities, is probably a good fit for the role and maybe even a better fit than other ground-attack aircraft in the US arsenal.
skyraider 13y ago
Sure, fighters, bombers and drone work excellently when your adversaries have few if any functional modern aircraft, or when their ground defenses are so vulnerable and/or disorganized that (often risky) strikes can take them out. However, there is more than one type of adversary. It is important to control the air, or the adversary will be able to deny the air and probably the ground and/or sea to you. In that sense, whatever is playing a huge offensive role very likely depends on air superiority. RAND runs studies on the effectiveness of the (quickly aging) US fighter fleet. There are quite a few of these out there and generally the conclusion is that US aircraft like F16s (cheap multirole fighter) and F15s (fighter/bomber or air superiority fighter) designed (and sometimes even built) in the 70s and 80s, even when equipped with modern electronics, don't have a clear advantage (assuming they don't fall apart on the way to the battle - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov06,0,7052818.story#axzz2jjwv2XGO http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov...).
ISL 13y ago
Air superiority is prerequisite to relentlessly bombing your opponent into submission. Fighter aircraft were very important in the second world war. The Syrian rebels have suffered mightily from air attacks. Most American experience with war in recent decades has come against technically unmatched opponents. If the US were to go to war against a better-equipped and better-trained foe, the ease with which the primary military campaigns succeeded would be blunted considerably.
- nostrademons 13y ago
  And battleships were very important in the first world war, and cavalry charges were very important in the civil war, and muskets were very important in the revolution. Proponents of aircraft carriers had to fight very hard to get funding or attention right up until WW2 began; everybody was focused on building battleships right up until Pearl Harbor. The point is that you're always fighting the last war. In the meantime, technology changes, and the concrete details of what worked in the last war won't work in the next one. The lesson you should learn is not "air superiority is important", it's "being facile with the latest technology and understanding how it might apply on the battlefield is essential". I would bet money that the next big war will be fought with cruise missiles, UAVs, microchips, satellites, and infantry on the streets.
smacktoward 13y ago
Most of the countries the US is dealing with right now don't have any kind of modern air-defense network, or really even any air force. So US aviation can make use of the skies over the battlefield uncontested. A battle against an adversary who has those things (like Russia or China) would be different; the US would need to be able to seize control of the air, and hold it. Small fighters would indeed play a key role in that process, because they would be the ones who would have to sweep the skies clean of enemy fighters so that other aircraft (bombers, transports, etc.) could travel through them safely. If the battle zone is inside the adversary's air defense network, that would mean they'd have to be able to survive traveling through that network as well. I would bet money that within thirty years this mission will be entirely handed over to UAVs/drones, since they're cheaper to operate and actually have some advantages over manned fighters -- a drone can turn harder than a manned plane can, for instance, because it doesn't have to worry about the G-forces killing the pilot. But technology is not quite there yet today.
- r0h1n 13y ago
  You're absolutely right. Billion-dollar fighter jets may be a gravy train for the Pentagon and defense contractors, but they may not be all that useful in most war arenas the US is likely to encounter today. Arguably the best illustration of this was the infamous "Millennium Challenge 2002", a massive war game involving 13,000 troops and $250M. Embarrassingly, the US army got "defeated" within just the first few days by a ragtag bunch of fighters, propeller plans, recreational boats and low-tech communication. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq "At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt. What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory"."
balakk 13y ago
One of the biggest advantages for the F-22 is stealth. Conventional air defence systems like the S300 are phenomenally effective against non-stealth aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29 Air superiority is pretty much mandatory for any US ground movement - they wouldn't step into any hostile territory unless they clear the air.
- fancyketchup 13y ago
  The problem is that it isn't clear that the F-22's biggest advantage will actually work in the real world. Radar cross-section is highly frequency dependent, (guess how they shot down an F-117 in Bosnia, a plane, which made even more sacrifices in the name of stealth) and there is little evidence that the F-22 is any less observable in a multi-static radar environment (which, oh, by the way, China has been developing). This problem is only going to get worse as time goes on and DSPs get more powerful. So, given that stealth is the F-22's entire reason for being, I'd categorically state that canceling the boondoggle was one of the smartest things our government has done in quite a while.

TylerE 13y ago

Yes, hugely. Ground attack fighters are basically THE first wave going in to take out things like rader and C&C equipment. Missles can get in, but they have limited search capabilities.

ceejayoz 13y ago
The F-22 isn't a ground attack fighter, though.
- skyraider 13y ago
  It does have ground attack capability and given its stealth capabilities, is probably a good fit for the role and maybe even a better fit than other ground-attack aircraft in the US arsenal.

skyraider 13y ago

Sure, fighters, bombers and drone work excellently when your adversaries have few if any functional modern aircraft, or when their ground defenses are so vulnerable and/or disorganized that (often risky) strikes can take them out. However, there is more than one type of adversary. It is important to control the air, or the adversary will be able to deny the air and probably the ground and/or sea to you. In that sense, whatever is playing a huge offensive role very likely depends on air superiority. RAND runs studies on the effectiveness of the (quickly aging) US fighter fleet. There are quite a few of these out there and generally the conclusion is that US aircraft like F16s (cheap multirole fighter) and F15s (fighter/bomber or air superiority fighter) designed (and sometimes even built) in the 70s and 80s, even when equipped with modern electronics, don't have a clear advantage (assuming they don't fall apart on the way to the battle - http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov06,0,7052818.story#axzz2jjwv2XGO http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f156nov...).

ISL 13y ago

Air superiority is prerequisite to relentlessly bombing your opponent into submission. Fighter aircraft were very important in the second world war. The Syrian rebels have suffered mightily from air attacks. Most American experience with war in recent decades has come against technically unmatched opponents. If the US were to go to war against a better-equipped and better-trained foe, the ease with which the primary military campaigns succeeded would be blunted considerably.

nostrademons 13y ago
And battleships were very important in the first world war, and cavalry charges were very important in the civil war, and muskets were very important in the revolution. Proponents of aircraft carriers had to fight very hard to get funding or attention right up until WW2 began; everybody was focused on building battleships right up until Pearl Harbor. The point is that you're always fighting the last war. In the meantime, technology changes, and the concrete details of what worked in the last war won't work in the next one. The lesson you should learn is not "air superiority is important", it's "being facile with the latest technology and understanding how it might apply on the battlefield is essential". I would bet money that the next big war will be fought with cruise missiles, UAVs, microchips, satellites, and infantry on the streets.

smacktoward 13y ago

Most of the countries the US is dealing with right now don't have any kind of modern air-defense network, or really even any air force. So US aviation can make use of the skies over the battlefield uncontested. A battle against an adversary who has those things (like Russia or China) would be different; the US would need to be able to seize control of the air, and hold it. Small fighters would indeed play a key role in that process, because they would be the ones who would have to sweep the skies clean of enemy fighters so that other aircraft (bombers, transports, etc.) could travel through them safely. If the battle zone is inside the adversary's air defense network, that would mean they'd have to be able to survive traveling through that network as well. I would bet money that within thirty years this mission will be entirely handed over to UAVs/drones, since they're cheaper to operate and actually have some advantages over manned fighters -- a drone can turn harder than a manned plane can, for instance, because it doesn't have to worry about the G-forces killing the pilot. But technology is not quite there yet today.

r0h1n 13y ago
You're absolutely right. Billion-dollar fighter jets may be a gravy train for the Pentagon and defense contractors, but they may not be all that useful in most war arenas the US is likely to encounter today. Arguably the best illustration of this was the infamous "Millennium Challenge 2002", a massive war game involving 13,000 troops and $250M. Embarrassingly, the US army got "defeated" within just the first few days by a ragtag bunch of fighters, propeller plans, recreational boats and low-tech communication. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/sep/06/usa.iraq "At the height of the summer, as talk of invading Iraq built in Washington like a dark, billowing storm, the US armed forces staged a rehearsal using over 13,000 troops, countless computers and $250m. Officially, America won and a rogue state was liberated from an evil dictator. What really happened is quite another story, one that has set alarm bells ringing throughout America's defence establishment and raised questions over the US military's readiness for an Iraqi invasion. In fact, this war game was won by Saddam Hussein, or at least by the retired marine playing the Iraqi dictator's part, Lieutenant General Paul Van Riper. In the first few days of the exercise, using surprise and unorthodox tactics, the wily 64-year-old Vietnam veteran sank most of the US expeditionary fleet in the Persian Gulf, bringing the US assault to a halt. What happened next will be familiar to anyone who ever played soldiers in the playground. Faced with an abrupt and embarrassing end to the most expensive and sophisticated military exercise in US history, the Pentagon top brass simply pretended the whole thing had not happened. They ordered their dead troops back to life and "refloated" the sunken fleet. Then they instructed the enemy forces to look the other way as their marines performed amphibious landings. Eventually, Van Riper got so fed up with all this cheating that he refused to play any more. Instead, he sat on the sidelines making abrasive remarks until the three-week war game - grandiosely entitled Millennium Challenge - staggered to a star-spangled conclusion on August 15, with a US "victory"."

balakk 13y ago

One of the biggest advantages for the F-22 is stealth. Conventional air defence systems like the S300 are phenomenally effective against non-stealth aircraft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-300_%28missile%29 Air superiority is pretty much mandatory for any US ground movement - they wouldn't step into any hostile territory unless they clear the air.

fancyketchup 13y ago
The problem is that it isn't clear that the F-22's biggest advantage will actually work in the real world. Radar cross-section is highly frequency dependent, (guess how they shot down an F-117 in Bosnia, a plane, which made even more sacrifices in the name of stealth) and there is little evidence that the F-22 is any less observable in a multi-static radar environment (which, oh, by the way, China has been developing). This problem is only going to get worse as time goes on and DSPs get more powerful. So, given that stealth is the F-22's entire reason for being, I'd categorically state that canceling the boondoggle was one of the smartest things our government has done in quite a while.