Twelve reasons to support the F/A-22

[Henry J Cobb]

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=108-03312004
> The following is an opinion-editorial from the April 2004 issue of Air
> Force Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert S. Dudney:
....
> Some believe OMB schemed with the F/A-22's critics in the Pentagon to
> stack the deck against the fighter. They observe that USAF won't be
> allowed to take part in the review and can only answer questions when
> asked.
>
> The study will probably wind up this summer. We can expect to hear a
> number of plausible-sounding reasons for why it would be OK to
> decimate the F/A-22 program. Those arguments will either ignore or
> fudge certain facts, presented here for handy future reference.
....
> The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter
> anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for
> other US forces.

So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program?

-HJC

[Tarver Engineering]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=108-03312004
> > The following is an opinion-editorial from the April 2004 issue of Air
> > Force Magazine by Editor in Chief Robert S. Dudney:
> ...
> > Some believe OMB schemed with the F/A-22's critics in the Pentagon to
> > stack the deck against the fighter. They observe that USAF won't be
> > allowed to take part in the review and can only answer questions when
> > asked.
> >
> > The study will probably wind up this summer. We can expect to hear a
> > number of plausible-sounding reasons for why it would be OK to
> > decimate the F/A-22 program. Those arguments will either ignore or
> > fudge certain facts, presented here for handy future reference.
> ...
> > The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter
> > anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for
> > other US forces.
>
> So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program?

Any way this turns out, the fighter mafia screwed the pooch on this one.

[Ed Rasimus]

On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:

>http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=108-03312004
>...
> > The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter
> > anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for
> > other US forces.
>
>So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program?
>
>-HJC

SEAD, by it's very definition is a long-term requirement for tactical
air operations. It isn't linked to an aircraft, but to a mission. Air
defenses are designed to deny an attacker access. They can be
surface-to-air assetts or air-to-air assetts.

The stealthy pentration capabilities certainly indicate an ability to
operate "autonomously". Your statement (from observation of your past
bias) seems to be asking if "autonomous" means without other
supporting systems. And, the answer is that on Day 1, the Raptor can
penetrate the enemy air defenses and insure first, air dominance and
second minimal effectiveness of surface systems.

Don't fall into the "yesterday's war" syndrome of thinking that SEAD
means Weasels, or SEAD means F-16CJs, or SEAD means stand-off jammers,
HARMs and chaff dispensers. It simply means what the words say,
suppressing enemy air defenses.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8

[Henry J Cobb]

Ed Rasimus wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2004 07:35:27 -0800, Henry J Cobb > wrote:
>>http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=108-03312004
>>...
>>
>>>The F/A-22 is the only fighter able to autonomously counter
>>>anti-access threats on Day 1 of a war and thereby open the way for
>>>other US forces.
>>
>>So is SEAD a near-term or a long-term requirement of the F/A-22 program?
>
> SEAD, by it's very definition is a long-term requirement for tactical
> air operations. It isn't linked to an aircraft, but to a mission. Air
> defenses are designed to deny an attacker access. They can be
> surface-to-air assetts or air-to-air assetts.
>
> The stealthy pentration capabilities certainly indicate an ability to
> operate "autonomously". Your statement (from observation of your past
> bias) seems to be asking if "autonomous" means without other
> supporting systems. And, the answer is that on Day 1, the Raptor can
> penetrate the enemy air defenses and insure first, air dominance and
> second minimal effectiveness of surface systems.
>
> Don't fall into the "yesterday's war" syndrome of thinking that SEAD
> means Weasels, or SEAD means F-16CJs, or SEAD means stand-off jammers,
> HARMs and chaff dispensers. It simply means what the words say,
> suppressing enemy air defenses.

Sorry, I was too terse again.

Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile
ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or will
the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so?

If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the
F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform?

Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air
defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require
jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever have
a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A
stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the
frequencies it's jamming.)

-HJC

[BEN FULL]

Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following:
> Sorry, I was too terse again.
>
> Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile
> ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or
> will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so?
>
> If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the
> F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform?
>
> Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air
> defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require
> jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever
> have
> a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A
> stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the
> frequencies it's jamming.)
>
> -HJC

I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any SEAD
package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off
jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were
operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any environment
with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no matter
how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible.

£0.02 supplied.

--
BMFull

[Jim Thomas]

And let us not forget that the X-45A is the prototype of a UCAV to do
SEAD. This is likely to be the ultimate answer for this mission.

"BEN FULL" > wrote in message >...
> Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following:
> > Sorry, I was too terse again.
> >
> > Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile
> > ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or
> > will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so?
> >
> > If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the
> > F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform?
> >
> > Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air
> > defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require
> > jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever
> > have
> > a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A
> > stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the
> > frequencies it's jamming.)
> >
> > -HJC
>
> I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any SEAD
> package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off
> jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were
> operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any environment
> with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no matter
> how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible.
>
> £0.02 supplied.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Jim Thomas" > wrote in message
om...
> And let us not forget that the X-45A is the prototype of a UCAV to do
> SEAD. This is likely to be the ultimate answer for this mission.

And the X-43A drops JDAMs.

> "BEN FULL" > wrote in message
>...
> > Henry J Cobb.exe failed a turing test with the following:
> > > Sorry, I was too terse again.
> > >
> > > Will the F/A-22 be required from day one to be able to track hostile
> > > ground air defense assets and drop bombs or launch HARMs at them or
> > > will the SEAD mission be handled by other platforms until 2012 or so?
> > >
> > > If the "Weasel Raptor" development is delayed or canceled will the
> > > F/A-22 itself still worth buying as strictly an air-to-air platform?
> > >
> > > Also is F/A-22 stealth good enough to fly over say North Korea's air
> > > defenses unaided or will every "first day of the war" mission require
> > > jammer support and if so when will the United States military ever
> > > have
> > > a stealthy jammer? (This isn't quite as silly as it may seem. A
> > > stealthy jammer is seen only when it's active and only on the
> > > frequencies it's jamming.)
> > >
> > > -HJC
> >
> > I would say that, judging by past opertations by the US military, any
SEAD
> > package whether stealthy or not, would be assisted by at least stand off
> > jamming. During the strikes on Serb military installations, F-117s were
> > operating under a standoff jamming umbrella. Operating in any
environment
> > with an anti air threat would warrant a force protection package no
matter
> > how good the F/A-22 is. It certainly isnt invincible.
> >
> > £0.02 supplied.