A Friday, September 25 article from Roll Call indicates that the Senate Defense spending bill has eliminated two Gulfstreams for Congressional Member use. Considering the massive and utterly unsustainable budget deficits that this government is now running, this is good – these aircraft are a waste of taxpayer dollars for the benefit of those like Nancy Pelosi who clearly do not deserve it.
This report comes the day after Politico reports that Sarah Palin has broken with John McCain and supports continued F-22 production. In addition to lauding Sarah Palin for coming out of her “comfort zone” of issues like energy policy and making a foray into defense issues, I also applaud her recognition that this aircraft serves a role in defending America from threats such as Russia and China.
With all due respect to Secretary Gates, his decision to close out the F-22 production is short sighted and wrong. It is true that the F-35, a smaller, less expensive aircraft which can be produced in greater numbers would have a decisive role in providing air support in areas in which air defenses are likely to be light or non-existent – Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003, and places like Somalia today are well suited for this multi-role fighter. However, the “high-end”, strategic threats – Iran, China, Venezuela – which possess modern, dense air defenses would require suppression from a more capable platform, and which possess advanced fighters like the Russian built SU-30MK and which consistently beat the existing “high -end” F-15 in Air Force simulations, require a high end fifth generation fighter to ensure air supremacy . Furthermore, stable allies such as Japan, Australia, and Israel have requested to purchase F-22 which would help the current account deficit and, more importantly, allow allies in “bad neighborhoods” (Japan with North Korea, Israel with most of its neighbors) deter aggression from some of the world’s most dangerous tyrants.
Unfortunately, Obama, Gates, McCain, et al are determining DoD procurement and Sarah Palin is not, so the F-22 production line is as good as shut down. The air supremacy which this nation has enjoyed since World War II is most likely gone with it. Remember this when a dictator goes on the march.
Neil Stevens
Steve Maley
Great Article on the F-22
drrhythm (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 1:43PM EST (link)Mike my friend, you hit the nail on the head.
Let me start by saying that my long time best friend is an F-22 driver. I’ve known him since kindergarden, and he progressed rapidly through OCS, basic and advanced Air Force Training, and began flying F-15′s for a number of years before being given the honor of flying the F-22.
From what he has been able to tell me (he’s always very careful to make sure to keep conversations “unclassified,” the F-22 is just ridiculous. They literally have to dogfight dissimilar aircraft with one hand tied behind their back (they turn off or limit thrust vectoring, no BVR engagement, etc).
The plane is designed for one thing: to destroy enemy aircraft from beyond visual range while remaining undetected. It is an amazing capability, but also an expensive one. The concern is that, if we found ourself in a large scale conflict, that an enemy could overwhelm a few F-22′s with sheer numbers.
The key error in the Obama administration’s thinking is that they are equipping themselves as if the next war will be the current war, not in anticipation of what could happen in the future.
Additionally, having advanced weaponry like the F-22 is an ace in the hole should China, North Korea, or a number of other countries with a substantial military start beating their chests. It gives us an ability to maintain air dominance on the battlefield.
I believe a general recently pointed out that not a single US soldier has lost his life from attack from an enemy aircraft since Vietnam. That’s because our entire military doctrine is based on achieving air supremacy before all else, so that our soldiers can fight under a friendly sky.
The Key Question Remains...
tsquare (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 2:09PM EST (link)Just how many F-22s do we need? 100? 200? 300?
Also won’t the foreign purchases serve to keep the line open… perhaps for as long as we get a new administration? Assuming that Obama will let the sales go forward.
Re: Key Question
Mike Gesner (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 2:20PM EST (link)The original estimate for the F-22 fleet size (in 1991, immediately after airframe downselect) was 650 aircraft. We obviously won’t get that. That being said, the current (and apparently final) number is now 187, which was described as “well short of establishing the fleet size we need” in an August Wall Street Journal piece by Gen. Tony McPeak (yes, one and the same who co-chaired the Obama national campaign).
As for foreign sales – do you think that foreign governments will buy a plane that, for whatever reason, we don’t continue to buy ourselves, regardless of how capable it may be? The experience of the F-20 Tigershark comes to mind immediately – it was envisioned as a less expensive aircraft which would have similar capabilities as the F-16 and specifically meant for export – great aircraft, but nobody wanted to buy what we didn’t. Our allies expect us, rightfully so, to “eat our own dog food”. If the USAF buys no more F-22s, the allies will look elsewhere and the production line dies.
“Doveriai, no proveriai” (Trust, but verify) – Ronald Reagan, as spoken to Gorbachev.
Comrade Obama's "friends" wouldn't like it if he sold F-22s
Achance (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 2:31PM EST (link)to any country that might actually need them, e.g., Israel, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea or if we had enough to put a credible presence in striking distance of Russia’s western borders.
First time I ever saw one, I thought I was watching a radio controlled airplane until I got it in perspective. The only aircraft I’ve ever seen with roll and turn rates even in the same league is an A-10, but of course it is much lower and slower. At least we have a wing of them at Elmendorf (ANC) should the Russians or the NorKors get frisky.
In Vino Veritas
Good Question on the F-22
drrhythm (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 2:54PM EST (link)Tsquare,
My F-22 pilot buddy told me that once the line is shut down, it would take years to start up again, so no matter what, the key is that it would have to be kept going somehow if we ever decide we need more.
In answer to how many do we need? More than 187. Keep in mind that high tech military aircraft need a lot of maintenance to stay flying. Especially in a conflict, some percentage of them (more than you think) we be grounded for maintenance. The wear and tear on fighters especially is high.
I would like to see at least 300-400 in inventory. That way we could reasonably deploy them in force in multiple locations if need be.
Keep in mind also that certain Russian and European fifth generation fighters are beginning to outclass our f-15′s, -16′s, and -18′s. It’s been a long time since we’ve been in that position.
Air Supremacy is the pillar on which our entire military operates.
The F22 is an awesome aircraft
RoguePolitics (Diary) Friday, September 25th at 6:11PM EST (link)Saw it at OshKosh and Sun-n-Fun.
How many is enough? I don’t know. A bunch is a good start.
Here are some pictures I took at Oshkosh of the F22.
http://dreamsfrommyforefathers.com/F22.htm
“So much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don’t even know that fire is hot.” George Orwell
“Ancient Rome declined because it had a Senate, now what’s going to happen to us with both a House and a Senate?” Will Rogers
When the American spirit was in its youth, the language of America was different: Liberty, sir, was the primary object. Patrick Henry
http://theprecinctproject.wordpress.com
Because the Republican Party is NOT going to fix the Republican Party.
http://americanamendment.com/
Because Washington is NOT going to fix Washington.