FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.

[Michel[_2_]]

FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml



FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS
Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
Issue Brief
Jul 16, 2008


This summer marks the tenth anniversary of a powerful metaphor for the
decline of U.S. air power. Air Force Gen. David Deptula was piloting
his F-15C fighter (supposedly the best fighter in the world) over Iraq
in 1998 when all of the cockpit instruments suddenly went dead. He
feared he was going to die, but he managed to fly the crippled plane
back to its base, where mechanics discovered that insulation on aged
wiring had rotted away and caused a short circuit. Then Deptula
discovered he was flying the same F-15C he first flew as a junior
officer in the Pacific in 1978.



Ten years later that same plane is still flying in the Pacific, a
testament to how easily Pentagon policymakers can lose sight of what
really matters when they get distracted by big ideas and the concerns
of the moment. Rather than follow through on plans inherited from the
Clinton Administration to replace F-15s with the more agile and
survivable F-22 Raptor, the Bush Administration decided to embrace
military transformation and embark on a global war against
terrorists. To free up money for those initiatives, it repeatedly
sought to kill the F-22 before the Air Force got the 381 planes it
said it needed to sustain force rotations in a prolonged war.



Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will
sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a
sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that
unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. In other words, it
doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. Not
surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an
invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. The
next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of
the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
preparedness...



1. Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most
important capability U.S. forces have. Without it, soldiers and
sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft,
and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing
and airlift.



2. U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new
surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not
stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. Additional
danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15.



3. Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war
fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air
dominance in the future. Many Air Force fighters operate on flight
restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related
maladies.



4. The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was
designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff
of competing roles. It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering
and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air
dominance mission.



5. Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been
spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five
administrations to develop the plane. So the real question today is
whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by
buying enough planes.

[Rob Arndt[_2_]]

On Aug 1, 8:34�am, Michel > wrote:
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml
>
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> Jul 16, 2008
>
> This summer marks the tenth anniversary of a powerful metaphor for the
> decline of U.S. air power. �Air Force Gen. David Deptula was piloting
> his F-15C fighter (supposedly the best fighter in the world) over Iraq
> in 1998 when all of the cockpit instruments suddenly went dead. �He
> feared he was going to die, but he managed to fly the crippled plane
> back to its base, where mechanics discovered that insulation on aged
> wiring had rotted away and caused a short circuit. �Then Deptula
> discovered he was flying the same F-15C he first flew as a junior
> officer in the Pacific in 1978.
>
> Ten years later that same plane is still flying in the Pacific, a
> testament to how easily Pentagon policymakers can lose sight of what
> really matters when they get distracted by big ideas and the concerns
> of the moment. �Rather than follow through on plans inherited from the
> Clinton Administration to replace F-15s with the more agile and
> survivable F-22 Raptor, the Bush Administration decided to embrace
> military transformation and embark on a global war against
> terrorists. �To free up money for those initiatives, it repeatedly
> sought to kill the F-22 before the Air Force got the 381 planes it
> said it needed to sustain force rotations in a prolonged war.
>
> Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will
> sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a
> sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that
> unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. �In other words, it
> doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. �Not
> surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an
> invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. �The
> next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of
> the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
> preparedness...
>
> 1. �Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most
> important capability U.S. forces have. �Without it, soldiers and
> sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft,
> and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing
> and airlift.
>
> 2. �U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new
> surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not
> stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. �Additional
> danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15.
>
> 3. �Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war
> fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air
> dominance in the future. �Many Air Force fighters operate on flight
> restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related
> maladies.
>
> 4. �The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was
> designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff
> of competing roles. �It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering
> and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air
> dominance mission.
>
> 5. �Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been
> spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five
> administrations to develop the plane. �So the real question today is
> whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by
> buying enough planes.

With F-15s, F-117s, and B-2s falling out of the skies thesedays, the
F-22 will not give any return with its astronomical unit price and the
few hundred (more like 100) will never replace the number of a/c it
was intended to. As for air superiority, that has yet to be proven...

Rob

[John Carrier]

SNIP All

I'm a fan of the F-22, but I think we could do better than an article by
this individual. Despite the impressive creds, an "Institute" from which to
base, most everything she publishes is party line eyewash for the USAF.

R / John

[Tiger]

Michel wrote:
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.
> http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml
>
>
>
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> Jul 16, 2008
>
>
> This summer marks the tenth anniversary of a powerful metaphor for the
> decline of U.S. air power. Air Force Gen. David Deptula was piloting
> his F-15C fighter (supposedly the best fighter in the world) over Iraq
> in 1998 when all of the cockpit instruments suddenly went dead. He
> feared he was going to die, but he managed to fly the crippled plane
> back to its base, where mechanics discovered that insulation on aged
> wiring had rotted away and caused a short circuit. Then Deptula
> discovered he was flying the same F-15C he first flew as a junior
> officer in the Pacific in 1978.
>
>
>
> Ten years later that same plane is still flying in the Pacific, a
> testament to how easily Pentagon policymakers can lose sight of what
> really matters when they get distracted by big ideas and the concerns
> of the moment. Rather than follow through on plans inherited from the
> Clinton Administration to replace F-15s with the more agile and
> survivable F-22 Raptor, the Bush Administration decided to embrace
> military transformation and embark on a global war against
> terrorists. To free up money for those initiatives, it repeatedly
> sought to kill the F-22 before the Air Force got the 381 planes it
> said it needed to sustain force rotations in a prolonged war.
>
>
>
> Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will
> sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a
> sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that
> unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. In other words, it
> doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. Not
> surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an
> invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. The
> next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of
> the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
> preparedness...
>
>
>
> 1. Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most
> important capability U.S. forces have. Without it, soldiers and
> sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft,
> and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing
> and airlift.

Agreed....



>
>
>
> 2. U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new
> surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not
> stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. Additional
> danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15.
>

That is why we have a F22 & are building a F-35. To take up where the
f-14/15/16/18 left off as the best in the sky.



>
>
> 3. Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war
> fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air
> dominance in the future. Many Air Force fighters operate on flight
> restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related
> maladies.

Agreed. It is a problem and those planes will be retired.


>
>
>
> 4. The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was
> designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff
> of competing roles. It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering
> and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air
> dominance mission.


Most fighters start that way. But sooner or later they become bomb
droppers. Like it or Not.

>
>
>
> 5. Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been
> spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five
> administrations to develop the plane. So the real question today is
> whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by
> buying enough planes.


Ah, the punch line finally.............. ATTN. F22 FAN CLUB Your not
getting 381 planes. Stop this endless begging for more. It's not
happening. The Fan club for this plane is more rabid than the Hannah
Montana bunch. Learn to love The F35 Lightning II till we start flying
Rebel X wings or Colonial Vipers. The great repeat of the Battle of
Britain is not happening. We need Bridges that don't fall into rivers
more than we need 381 Mig chasers. By the way Give the Naval air &
Marines some credit. I doubt The non F-22 users would just sit back let
you do all this air dominance alone.

[Ian B MacLure]

Michel > wrote in news:ccb194e1-c4ee-4997-ae95-
:

Where is Corny ( HCobb ) and what have you done to him?

IBM

[Andre Ilausky]

John Carrier schrieb:
> SNIP All
>
> I'm a fan of the F-22, but I think we could do better than an article by
> this individual. Despite the impressive creds, an "Institute" from which to
> base,

I sometimes wonder just how big this operation really is. The "Senior
Advisory Board" and "Working Group" mentioned in some of his articles
sounds pretty impressive, with lot's of retired Admirals, Generals,
Congress staffers, people in the defense industry etc.

> most everything she publishes is party line eyewash for the USAF.

Loren Thompson is not a woman.

[hcobb]

On Aug 2, 1:19 am, Andre Ilausky > wrote:
> Loren Thompson is not a woman.

The fees the contractors pay him to pimp their products could buy a
very high class woman indeed.

-HJC

[John Carrier]

"hcobb" > wrote in message
...
> On Aug 2, 1:19 am, Andre Ilausky > wrote:
>> Loren Thompson is not a woman.

My bad. Thought it was a different Georgetown PHD.

R / John

[eatfastnoodle]

On Aug 1, 10:34*am, Michel > wrote:
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml
>
> FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS
> Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Issue Brief
> Jul 16, 2008
>
> This summer marks the tenth anniversary of a powerful metaphor for the
> decline of U.S. air power. *Air Force Gen. David Deptula was piloting
> his F-15C fighter (supposedly the best fighter in the world) over Iraq
> in 1998 when all of the cockpit instruments suddenly went dead. *He
> feared he was going to die, but he managed to fly the crippled plane
> back to its base, where mechanics discovered that insulation on aged
> wiring had rotted away and caused a short circuit. *Then Deptula
> discovered he was flying the same F-15C he first flew as a junior
> officer in the Pacific in 1978.
>
> Ten years later that same plane is still flying in the Pacific, a
> testament to how easily Pentagon policymakers can lose sight of what
> really matters when they get distracted by big ideas and the concerns
> of the moment. *Rather than follow through on plans inherited from the
> Clinton Administration to replace F-15s with the more agile and
> survivable F-22 Raptor, the Bush Administration decided to embrace
> military transformation and embark on a global war against
> terrorists. *To free up money for those initiatives, it repeatedly
> sought to kill the F-22 before the Air Force got the 381 planes it
> said it needed to sustain force rotations in a prolonged war.
>
> Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will
> sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a
> sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that
> unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. *In other words, it
> doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. *Not
> surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an
> invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. *The
> next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of
> the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
> preparedness...
>
> 1. *Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most
> important capability U.S. forces have. *Without it, soldiers and
> sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft,
> and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing
> and airlift.
>
> 2. *U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new
> surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not
> stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. *Additional
> danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15.
>
> 3. *Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war
> fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air
> dominance in the future. *Many Air Force fighters operate on flight
> restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related
> maladies.
>
> 4. *The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was
> designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff
> of competing roles. *It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering
> and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air
> dominance mission.
>
> 5. *Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been
> spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five
> administrations to develop the plane. *So the real question today is
> whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by
> buying enough planes.

Gates reaffirmed again recently that the top priority of US military
is asymmetrical warfare against insurgent&terrorists. F-22 doesn't fit
either role too well. I figure the next administration won't be too
keen on F-22 either considering the budgetary pressure and the
geopolitical situation the government has to face. Under these set of
circumstances, it's hard to argue for F-22 when budget crisis

[tankfixer]

In article <23e9408b-9dd3-4194-8bb7-5b1c7fe50f73
@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, says...
> On Aug 1, 8:34?am, Michel > wrote:
> > FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml
> >
> > FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS
> > Loren B. Thompson, Ph.D.
> > Issue Brief
> > Jul 16, 2008
> >
> > This summer marks the tenth anniversary of a powerful metaphor for the
> > decline of U.S. air power. ?Air Force Gen. David Deptula was piloting
> > his F-15C fighter (supposedly the best fighter in the world) over Iraq
> > in 1998 when all of the cockpit instruments suddenly went dead. ?He
> > feared he was going to die, but he managed to fly the crippled plane
> > back to its base, where mechanics discovered that insulation on aged
> > wiring had rotted away and caused a short circuit. ?Then Deptula
> > discovered he was flying the same F-15C he first flew as a junior
> > officer in the Pacific in 1978.
> >
> > Ten years later that same plane is still flying in the Pacific, a
> > testament to how easily Pentagon policymakers can lose sight of what
> > really matters when they get distracted by big ideas and the concerns
> > of the moment. ?Rather than follow through on plans inherited from the
> > Clinton Administration to replace F-15s with the more agile and
> > survivable F-22 Raptor, the Bush Administration decided to embrace
> > military transformation and embark on a global war against
> > terrorists. ?To free up money for those initiatives, it repeatedly
> > sought to kill the F-22 before the Air Force got the 381 planes it
> > said it needed to sustain force rotations in a prolonged war.
> >
> > Today, the Pentagon doesn't have a coherent plan for how it will
> > sustain global air dominance over the next 30 years without a
> > sufficient number of F-22s, because it has convinced itself that
> > unconventional warfare is the wave of the future. ?In other words, it
> > doesn't think U.S. air dominance will be challenged. ?Not
> > surprisingly, some potential adversaries like Russia see this as an
> > invitation to begin competing again for command of the skies. ?The
> > next administration needs to step back from all the trendy ideas of
> > the past eight years and focus on some basic facts about military
> > preparedness...
> >
> > 1. ?Air dominance -- the ability to control airspace -- is the most
> > important capability U.S. forces have. ?Without it, soldiers and
> > sailors on the surface are constantly in danger from hostile aircraft,
> > and friendly aircraft cannot safely accomplish missions like bombing
> > and airlift.
> >
> > 2. ?U.S. air dominance is at risk today around the world from new
> > surface-to-air missiles that can shoot down any plane that is not
> > stealthy or shielded from detection by electronic jamming. ?Additional
> > danger comes from new foreign fighters that match or surpass the F-15.
> >
> > 3. ?Even without these new threats, the current fleet of cold-war
> > fighters is so old that it cannot be counted on to provide air
> > dominance in the future. ?Many Air Force fighters operate on flight
> > restriction due to metal fatigue, corrosion and other age-related
> > maladies.
> >
> > 4. ?The F-22 is the only fighter the U.S. is building that was
> > designed mainly as an air dominance aircraft rather than as a tradeoff
> > of competing roles. ?It can conduct bombing, intelligence gathering
> > and information warfare, but these do not detract from the air
> > dominance mission.
> >
> > 5. ?Most of the money required to build 381 F-22s has already been
> > spent, and cannot be recovered -- including $24 billion spent by five
> > administrations to develop the plane. ?So the real question today is
> > whether warfighters will get a good return on that investment by
> > buying enough planes.
>
> With F-15s, F-117s, and B-2s falling out of the skies thesedays, the
> F-22 will not give any return with its astronomical unit price and the
> few hundred (more like 100) will never replace the number of a/c it
> was intended to. As for air superiority, that has yet to be proven...
>

It's kinda hard for F-117 to fall out of the sky Rob.

--

War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things.
The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic
feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight,
nothing which is more important than his own personal safety,
is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made so and kept so by the exertions of much better men than himself.

John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873) English economist and philosopher.

[Andre Ilausky]

hcobb schrieb:
> On Aug 2, 1:19 am, Andre Ilausky > wrote:
>> Loren Thompson is not a woman.
>
> The fees the contractors pay him to pimp their products could

Cite? So when he slams a program, like e.g. DDG-1000, Northrop Grumman,
Bath Iron Works, Lockheed Martin, BAE, L-3 Communications, Raytheon etc
just didn't pay him enough to pitch it?

> buy a
> very high class woman indeed.

And here I thought you would like him:

<http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1274.shtml>
HOW THE AIR FORCE FELL SO FAR
[...]
The forced resignation of the Air Force's top civilian and uniform
leaders last week is the latest chapter in a chronicle of decline that
has been unfolding for decades. [...]

[T.L. Davis]

On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Michel >
wrote:

>FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.
>http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml
>

(SNIP)

Not relevant now, but I'd feel safer if it were Northrop F-23s coming
off the assembly line.

It made me nervous when Lockheed took over General Dynamics, for
Lockheed's sake. Despite GD's great success with the F-16, they
became the king of cost overruns with the A-12, resulting in
cancellation (?) of the program by our pal Dick Cheney (also
responsible for destroying the tooling for the SR-71). Now the F-22
looks like "A-12 Lite". True, we have actual functional aircraft
being produced, but at a huge cost, with all the technology we can
cram in per square inch.

Does tech = a robust aircraft?

Rumsfeld thought tech equaled or substituted for troop numbers, "the
electronic battlefield", etc., etc. Works great in theory, and in
practice most of the time, but apparently can be overcome by what are
in comparison primitive countermeasures (IEDs).

Not in any way disputing airworthiness or performance, but the Intl
Date Line debacle was hard to believe given the cost per unit
aircraft. Kind of like sending F-4s to Vietnam with no guns.

Assuming equal stealth (if the Russkis have a plasma equivalent),
what's the outcome of an Su-35 vs. F-22? Minus the hype. please. How
many F-22s could we afford to lose should a newly enriched Russian
Federation or the PRC choose to mass produce the Sukoi
supermanuverable models?


T.L. Davis