OK, anyone who has followed this site for any length of time knows I am not a big fan of Lockheed. And I try very hard to keep most of my postings here on the lighter side. But the proposed cancellation of the F-22 Raptor program by Defense Secretary Robert Gates really has my furry ears steaming. (Seriously. I can smell burning hair.)
Don’t get me wrong: I’m the first to agree that we tend to plan for the last war, and that the time may have come to rethink just how important our expensive air force is to the overall strategic picture. Personally, I think the new high ground is in space, and we should be building space-based weapon systems, but that is not a sentiment politicians are likely to embrace. Likewise, drones and other robotic weapon systems are changing the face of warfare in ways that can only be guessed at right now. But some combat roles tend to remain, even in the face of 21st technology. One of them is the foot soldier. Another is the armored warrior, whose latest manifestation is the main battle tank. Yet another is the long-range indirect fire weapon, whose humble origins as a catapult have led to the terrifyingly modern ICBM.
And then there is the bird of prey. Those who do not wish to travel only by night (and these days, even the cloak of night is little defense) must find a way to deny control of the sky to the enemy, lest he swoop in from above sowing death and discord. That is the job of the air superiority fighter. And no one has ever won air superiority with second rate equipment.
You can trim the fat from the USAF in a lot of places, but the F-22 is the wrong place to look.
The argument among Raptor critics is that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (isn’t doesn’t have a catchy name yet) will be a more cost-effective replacement. Given the track record of previous multi-service, committee-designed fighters (cough F-111 cough cough), color me skeptical. The F-35 is a glorified bomb truck designed to fill in for the aging lawn darts (F-16’s) in our arsenal. It was never designed to seize control of the skies from a hostile air force.
Air superiority fighters are not an option for the air force. They are what make all other air missions possible. Hitler forgot this during World War II and it cost him the air war. A cursory look at the combat performance of our own planes in the Gulf War will make it quickly apparent that the F-15 was the tip of the sword when it came to our air superiority in that conflict. The mud movers could not have done their job nearly as effectively if the Eagles had not swept the sky beforehand. How long do you think an A-10 would last without air cover? I’m guessing a Stuka pilot would know.
You can build all the drones or strike fighters you want, but they will be swatted down like so many flies unless you have control of the air. The F-15 can no longer keep doing this, because their cold war era airframes have been worn out in all our recent military adventures. The F-22 WILL do it, and the R&D is already paid for. They only get cheaper from here on in.
If you want to save money by ridding the air force of cold war relics, I suggest abandoning the strategic bomber, long since rendered obsolete by ICBM’s and cruise missiles, which has been enjoying a prolonged death scene that would makes Rasputin’s demise look sudden. Heck, the air force just voluntarily axed half their B-52’s in an effort to prevent cancellation of the F-22. I doubt they’d miss the other half.
You could probably safely scrap a few ICBM’s, too. We only need to blow up the entire planet once.
There are many weapons that a peace-loving country can do without. One of the most obvious lessons of past wars is that a strong economy is your best defense. Our economy won both World Wars, wars we entered with a decidedly second-rate air force. Our economy won the Cold War, by outspending and ultimately bankrupting Russia.
I suppose that Gates is thinking along the same lines. Why build it now when you don’t need it? Why not save the money and build it later if you do?
But it is no longer possible to produce weapons systems like the Raptor on demand when needed. The days of pencil pushing designers hatching a Mustang after a month at the drawing board are over. It takes ten years or better to design and test a modern fighter. We cannot afford to wait until someone identifies a clear threat requiring their existence. By then, it would be too late. We have to build them now, and hope they will never be needed. Yes, it is expensive, but it is far cheaper than the alternative.
War is expensive. If you don’t want to build Raptors, then build a world with enough food and fuel for everyone. But until there is enough to go around, there will be war.
The winner will be the one holding the high ground.
Hopefully in a Raptor.
