Posted by
Duck Archer on Friday, January 02, 2009 7:25:30 PM
In Part One, we outlined the need for stealth to replace all-metal aircraft.
Now, in Part Two, we take a look at specific needs for the F-22.
2. Why F-35 is not a substitute for F-22 – or vice-versa
a. F-22 is ‘air superiority’.
- True, any airplane can ‘drop bombs’, but so can balloonists from their gondola, and aviators from World War One airships (aka Zeppelins). Want wings & heavier-than-air craft? Why not buy a bunch of biplanes? No, the same reasons that those three extreme examples are wholly unsuited to high-precision bombing today, also apply (with a little less force) to the F-22: it currently has no real ground-attack ability nor training -- nor anti-ground munitions-using doctrine or experience. When the enemy starts shooting, we live in a reality world, not a wishes world.
- F-22, from avionics to airframe, is designed for controlling vast volumes of air. It's designed to successfully fight multiple targets from stand-off positions.
- The movie "Top Gun" showed how, in limited ways, such a supreme air-superiority fighter can also fight -- and usually survive -- in dogfights. But "Top Gun" was too focussed on story, instead of flying, to really show all the significant (& lethal) caveats of pushing an air superiority plane into close combat.
b. F-35 is ‘ground-attack’ with 'dogfight' anti-air capability.
- Again, we must consider all alternatives before we've accuartely framed the discussion. In this different role, balloonists, airship aircrews, & biplane pilots can shoot machine guns at fast airplanes, and fire anti-air missiles ... And we have the same problem again, in reverse, as the F-22 trying to fit into a bombing role. The F-35 is structured for 'multirole' missions, with the munitions, avionics, and electronics that fit the ground-focus role, with a little air-focus capability.
- Ground-attack attributes don’t equate well to air-superiority. If they did, A-10s would already have assumed a true anti-air role against more than the occasional helicopters. Again, ‘design limits’ is why the F-15s are air-superiority, while only the modified version (F-15E) is ground-attack capable. Design Limits are also why the F-16 can bomb and dogfight, but relies on the F-15 (except the E model) for broad-area air control in which to attack free of distraction from significant enemy counterattack.
- F-35s are not designed to succeed in an area-defense air superiority role. To control volumes of airspace, we'd need several F-35s with their short-range radars & missiles, for every F-22 it'd take. Now, suddenly, we have just seen INCREASED the procurement & training cost, upon realizing the quantity required to replace F-22s with many times the number of F-35s that are necessary to do the equivalent job ... and to do the job less-well. I repeat: to do an equivalent job, not the same job. F-35 cannot replace the F-22, at least not economically in either bucks nor lives.
c. “F-22 Strike”?
- There don’t seem to be any real engineering plans for a Strike-F-22. Nor do we know of any funding for same. But I predict a ‘Strike F-22’ will eventually come along, whether currently conceived or not; I see no change in the same forces that long ago pushed that ground-attack mod onto a heavily-modified F-15 package (fortunately, to great success).
- Also fortunately, for our military successes in the last two decades, we had the '81-'86 Reagan Buildup specifying funds for vital equipment & training, including for a robust fleet of Strike Eagles (F-15Es). But like the F-15 compared to the F-16, such plans for an 'F-22 Strike' would only allow an expensive version of the F-35 -- even if more capable for the cost. F-15E is NOT the same plane as the F-15C and F-15D; it's bigger and totally re-worked, even if outward appearances are a close match. Reality is that most of what makes a plane different isn't the appearance, but the innards: construction materials, electronics suites, pilot-friendly data displays, etc. F-15E looks like a very large F-15D. But that's where resemblance ends. Beyond 'the book's cover', the ‘strike’ mod is NOT the same plane as the original 'air-superiority' edition.
- One last note on a strike mod. Anybody realistically see a congress or an administration increasing defense spending any time in the next several years? I thought not. Until that increase comes, the F-22 & F-35 are complimentary, not duplicative … forcing a square peg into a round hole will break the peg or the hole, or both. Forcing a plane into a role it's not designed for will break the plane & pilot, or doom the war plan to defeat. It's a reality world, not a wishes world.
d. F-22 & F-35 are complimentary.
- F-35 equates to the F-16, while the F-22 equates to the F-15. F-35 is an essential F-22-complimentary ‘multi-role aircraft’ … certainly, F-35 is needed not just because it’s less expensive.
- The two marvelous planes are complimentary by intent. This combat construct of complimentarity echoes in the physical design of each plane. But experience also shows 'one size fits all' just doesn't work with airplanes, despite 'multirole fighter' being the design dream for decades. So, in a reality world, not a dream world, F-22 & F-35 are not equivalents, due to the limits of aeronautical science & engineering, and due to intelligent operations concepts that settled on only two different designs for a warfighting package that can control the air in nearly any conflict.
- Specialized airplanes are the way to have a balanced air fleet. “One size fits all” airplanes are a good way to lose lots of pilots & planes – expensive ones – in nearly any role they’re tasked to fly & fight.
Bottom line:
When considering the need for the F-22: most presentations concentrate on high-end threats.
Don’t forget the realities of science & engineering!