F-22 Editorial For Maggie

[Pangloss62]

I post the below for Maggie because I know she's into jets and stuff and would likely have a thing or two to say about the F-22. This editorial was in our Atlanta Journal Constitution because we make these jets a few miles from here in Marietta, GA.


F-22 fighters expensive, unnecessary
By CAITLIN TALMADGE
Caitlin Talmadge is a doctoral candidate in the security studies program at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Published on: 08/15/06

In recent weeks, U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) has been battling to extend Lockheed Martin's contract for the Pentagon's most advanced fighter jet, the F-22 Raptor. Congress should be tearing up this contract, not pouring an additional $1.7 billion into it.

At $265 million a pop, the F-22 is the most expensive, least-needed weapons system in U.S. history. Canceling further production would save $11 billion over the next five years.

The Air Force developed the F-22 in the 1980s as a replacement for the F-15, then the United States' premier air-to-air combat fighter against the Soviet air force. Although the Soviet threat collapsed, the Air Force continued to pour billions into this new supersonic stealth fighter.

But the last 15 years have confirmed what many early opponents of the plane suspected: The biggest threats to American aircraft come from missiles on the ground, not planes in the air. It is much cheaper and simpler for an adversary to build a network of surface-to-air missile (SAM) sites than a fleet of fighter aircraft — something that Iraq, Serbia, Hezbollah and other opponents have all shown they understand.

In an effort to justify building this Cold War contraption, the Air Force claims that the Raptor can handle ground threats. In 2002, the service even briefly added an "A" to the plane's name to indicate that it could handle the ground "attack" mission in addition to the aerial "fighting" mission for which it was designed.

But turning a highly tuned air-to-air fighter into a ground-attack airplane is like buying a thoroughbred racehorse to use as a pack animal. Moreover, because the F-22's weapons bay was intended to carry only the relatively small missiles used in air-to-air combat, it's a pack animal that can carry only a tiny load — just two bombs.

Additionally, to counter the most serious ground threat, the next generation of SAMs, the F-22 would need a long-range version of a special type of weapon known as a High-Speed Advanced Radiation Missile. But this missile is so large that it would have to be carried on the outside of the plane.

Unfortunately, external weapons carriage would dramatically increase the F-22's visibility to radar, destroying the stealthiness that the Air Force used to justify the plane's exorbitant cost in the first place.

The Air Force has already procured 98 of these fighters and is planning to buy 183 in total — 187 if Chambliss has his way. But at a time when U.S. ground forces are stretched thin fighting a "long war" against terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, the Raptor seems irrelevant. Where is al-Qaida's air force?

Potential conflict with China is often the unspoken reason for buying the F-22, and the Pentagon is right to watch Chinese military modernization closely. But the United States spends 10 times what China does on defense. The Pentagon's own February strategy review gives little reason to believe conflict with China will occur in the next several years, when the Air Force insists the Raptor will be needed as a "bridge" between old and new planes.

Regardless, massive investment in a new fighter is unwise. Fighters need bases relatively close to the site of conflict. Recent U.S. experiences with Turkey and Uzbekistan suggest that allies may not always be politically comfortable providing these. Because the F-22 is not designed to take off or land on an aircraft carrier, lack of base access could be a serious impediment to an Air Force strategy weighted toward fighters.

Whether or not it continues producing the F-22, the United States will possess the greatest air force the world has ever known. The existing fleet of F-15s and F-16s can be refurbished or expanded for billions less than the cost of the F-22. The United States is also investing billions each year to build more than 2,000 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters, which will also help ensure U.S. air superiority for the foreseeable future.

Chambliss' best argument in favor of the Raptor is that the United States has already invested billions in it. But as the adage goes, when you're stuck in a hole, stop digging.