Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the F/A-22s.

Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.

China might move for a limited "internal affairs" war by attacking
Taiwan and discover after the fact that the US really does care.

So in say 2012, China's missile bombardment has destroyed all the
airbases in Taiwan and the only thing keeping them from moving in is a
CAP of Super Hornets over the island.

In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.

So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

Why are we not surprised?


There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
F/A-22s.

While I am one of those folks in favor of minimizing the F/A-22 buy (the
Silver Bullet approach seems quite satisfactory), just how do you come up
with only two?


Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.

Ah, you chose the two nations which we are arguably the *least* likely to
get into a shooting war in the next few years...


China might move for a limited "internal affairs" war by attacking
Taiwan and discover after the fact that the US really does care.

So in say 2012, China's missile bombardment has destroyed all the
airbases in Taiwan and the only thing keeping them from moving in is a
CAP of Super Hornets over the island.

Yeah, and their lack of sealift, the existance of the Taiwanese Navy, and
hordes of mobilized Taiwanese Army troops waiting for them has nothing to do
with this equation, huh?


In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.

Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player, until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh? In which case the
F/A-22's supercruise capability and reduced (compared to F-15C's)
requirement for tanking support, not to mention its overall improved combat
effectiveness (meaning less aircraft required to do the job) becomes of
value. Nor is the PRC scenario the only one where the F/A-22 could be a
valuable asset; imagine any conflict where we have to execute offensive air
superiority missions far from available bases (i.e., an Afghanistan scenario
where the bad guys have *some sort* of IADS including fighters, even those
of lesser capability than the Su-30). You can send eight or twelve F-15C's
on a mission, or maybe four F/A-22's, which on a one-for-one basis are both
more effective and require less tanking support--you gain a net reduction in
tanking support, cheaper operating costs (paying for flying hours for four
aircraft versus twelve), etc.

Then consider that the F/A-22 is very likely to spawn a morphed version
dedicated to the strike role (those F-15E's won't be around
forever)--another reason that maintaining a minimal production effort for
the F/A-22 would be valuable in the long run.


So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

FYI, if you have not noticed the watchwords of the day are preparation to
meet unpredictable/unforseen threats--get your head out of the Cold War era
"we know who we'll be fighting and where it will go down" toilet, Henry.
What if things go south in one of those Asian nations currently buying
Su-27's or Su-30's? What if a future India becomes tangled up in a regional
fight that we decide we have to get in on? Sorry, but there are no
guarantees as to who/where/when we will have to fight. You recently posited
in this NG how we should supposedly put F/A-22 production on "hold" for a
few more years while we (laughably) conduct a much more rigorous testing
program; as many posters pointed out, that proposal was ridiculous. What is
this animosity you have towards the USAF in general and the F/A-22 in
particular based upon? You are sounding more and more like the Tarverbot.

Brooks


-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the F/A-22s.
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

I guess the relevance will come into sharp focus after a few more
F-15s disintegrate from airframe weakening due to 15-20 years of use.
The relevance is, what else is there that can command the air
dominance role?

"Jeb Hoge" wrote in message
om...
Henry J Cobb wrote in message
...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
F/A-22s.
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

I guess the relevance will come into sharp focus after a few more
F-15s disintegrate from airframe weakening due to 15-20 years of use.
The relevance is, what else is there that can command the air
dominance role?

F/A-18E.

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 11:31:28 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
wrote:


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

Why are we not surprised?


There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
F/A-22s.

While I am one of those folks in favor of minimizing the F/A-22 buy (the
Silver Bullet approach seems quite satisfactory), just how do you come up
with only two?


Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.

Ah, you chose the two nations which we are arguably the *least* likely to
get into a shooting war in the next few years...
we will go up against thier equipment like we always do, and both
china and Russia are designing aircraft to go against the F-22


China might move for a limited "internal affairs" war by attacking
Taiwan and discover after the fact that the US really does care.

So in say 2012, China's missile bombardment has destroyed all the
airbases in Taiwan and the only thing keeping them from moving in is a
CAP of Super Hornets over the island.

Yeah, and their lack of sealift, the existance of the Taiwanese Navy, and
hordes of mobilized Taiwanese Army troops waiting for them has nothing to do
with this equation, huh?


In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.

Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player, until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh? In which case the
F/A-22's supercruise capability and reduced (compared to F-15C's)
requirement for tanking support, not to mention its overall improved combat
effectiveness (meaning less aircraft required to do the job) becomes of
value. Nor is the PRC scenario the only one where the F/A-22 could be a
valuable asset; imagine any conflict where we have to execute offensive air
superiority missions far from available bases (i.e., an Afghanistan scenario
where the bad guys have *some sort* of IADS including fighters, even those
of lesser capability than the Su-30). You can send eight or twelve F-15C's
on a mission, or maybe four F/A-22's, which on a one-for-one basis are both
more effective and require less tanking support--you gain a net reduction in
tanking support, cheaper operating costs (paying for flying hours for four
aircraft versus twelve), etc.

Then consider that the F/A-22 is very likely to spawn a morphed version
dedicated to the strike role (those F-15E's won't be around
forever)--another reason that maintaining a minimal production effort for
the F/A-22 would be valuable in the long run.


So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

FYI, if you have not noticed the watchwords of the day are preparation to
meet unpredictable/unforseen threats--get your head out of the Cold War era
"we know who we'll be fighting and where it will go down" toilet, Henry.
What if things go south in one of those Asian nations currently buying
Su-27's or Su-30's? What if a future India becomes tangled up in a regional
fight that we decide we have to get in on? Sorry, but there are no
guarantees as to who/where/when we will have to fight. You recently posited
in this NG how we should supposedly put F/A-22 production on "hold" for a
few more years while we (laughably) conduct a much more rigorous testing
program; as many posters pointed out, that proposal was ridiculous. What is
this animosity you have towards the USAF in general and the F/A-22 in
particular based upon? You are sounding more and more like the Tarverbot.

Brooks


-HJC

"Kevin Brooks" wrote

... until recently I too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player, until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?

Okinawa is history. I'd say in less than 10 years, we will be gone. The giant
F-16 clone (F-2 ??) will probably be based there with nationals.

Besides, the ZZ on the tail was won through cowardice during the Korean war.
There hasn't been a General yet that would let the Wing change the letters.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.

Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player,
until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is
within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread my post again.

Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.

Can you name a base that doesn't require either a permission slip or all
day flying there and back every time the F/A-22 cycles through it's
limited load of internal missiles?

If you use the wing hardpoints for missiles or fuel you give up a lot of
that stealth.

I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending $11.7 billion
dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.

Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I
too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player,
until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is
within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?

I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread my post again.

No, and nice sidestep of the "only two nations" bit...


Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.

No, it does actually does not really require their approval. The latitude
for the US to use Okinawa bases as it saw fir has been codified in treaty
format since as early as 1952: "Such forces may be utilised to contribute to
the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to
the security of Japan..." Note the "and" in that sentence from the original
agreement. When the treaty granting reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control
was negotiated, the following clause was included: "the return of the
administrative rights over Okinawa...should not hinder the effective
discharge of the international obligations assumed by the United States for
the defence of countries in the Far East including Japan." Note the use of
"including".

See: http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-1.html


Can you name a base that doesn't require either a permission slip or all
day flying there and back every time the F/A-22 cycles through it's
limited load of internal missiles?

As I just showed you, Okinawa does not require a permission slip. Nor, at a
range of a bit over 500 miles from Taiwan, does it require F/A-22's to fly
"all day" to get there. More like a bit under one hour at likely economical
cruise speed.


If you use the wing hardpoints for missiles or fuel you give up a lot of
that stealth.

As shown above, not really required. And if it *were*, then dropping the
tanks would do a reasonable job of stealthing her back up, at least as far
as any likely PLA fighter or nascent AWACS radars are concerned.


I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending $11.7 billion
dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.

But we are not spending $11.7 billion to add the "A".

Brooks


http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

-HJC

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:


So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

-HJC


Indonesia trying to take soem of Australias land for their population
explosions? thats IIRC is within F-22 range of Okinawa/Guam and you'd
probably have the aussies damn glad to put them up in a base somewhere
around.

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending 11.7 billion
dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.

But we are not spending $11.7 billion to add the "A".

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

Read the report.

-HJC