Fixing the Raptor

The Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is the best fighter jet in the world. It's faster, longer-legged, more maneuverable and packs better sensors than anything else flying. But there's one inexcusable gap in its capabilities. Unlike even older fighters, the Raptor can only receive data from external sources; it can't send. Raptor pilots have to get on the radio and tell others what they see on their radars. This at a time when rapidly sharing information between planes, ships and ground forces is the arguably the key to U.S. military power.

I asked the Raptor jockeys at Virginia's Langley Air Force Base about this last year and they shifted uncomfortably in their seats while feeding me some line about how voice comms work just fine. Then they quiety stressed that fixes were being planned. Now those fixes are finally firming up, according to Aerospace Daily & Defense Report:

The F-22 Raptor's "embarrassing success" has created a need for rapid modification of the fighter, says Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, chief of Air Combat Command. ACC wants a stealthy "tactical target network" data link that can quickly pass key parameters on enemy targets without giving away its position. In initial exercises, the F-22 "was much better at [intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance] and absorbing signals than we had anticipated," Keys says.

Keys went on to say that fixes were planned for the 2008-2013 period, by which time all 180 Raptors should be in squadron service at Langley and in Alaska and New Mexico. The general didn't exactly specify which datalink would be fitted, but recent Air Force experiments, as reported in Defense News last summer, might offer a clue:

The proposed Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) proved its mettle during a recent two-week exercise in Nevada, allowing troops and military platforms to swap information with Internet-like speed and ease. F-15 and F/A-18 fighter jets took in information about proposed targets, gathered sensor data, and sent it to ground stations to be fused with other data for more precise targeting, Boeing Advanced Systems President George Muellner said May 11. “And it’s all machine-to-machine,” Muellner said.

-- David Axe, cross-posted at Ares and War Is Boring

UPDATE 01/29/07 2:44 PM: "The stealthy Raptor fighter and intelligence-gathering aircraft is ready for war, but probably not the war we've got, Air Combat Command's chief, Gen. Ronald E. Keys, tells Aviation Week."

Essential electronic surveillance systems may be too sensitive--overwhelmed by the density of U.S. and allied emitters--to be useful in the electronically polluted environment of Baghdad, the main focus of the new U.S. military surge.

"If war breaks out, I'm sending the F-22," Keys said last week. But not for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. "I didn't buy the F-22 for Iraq. We're looking for what can sop up intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance [ISR] in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is the investment [of sending the F-22] worth it? Is it a good idea or just an attractive idea? Will it complicate the air component commander's problems for no gain?"

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Final Part)

"If the United States is to maintain air dominance, it needs the [Lockheed Martin] F-22 [Raptor]," 1st Fighter Wing Captain Elizabeth Kreft said point-blank at the end of our Aug. 10 meeting.

The threat, Raptor advocates contend, is a dual one: the latest Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker derivate fighters and "double-digit" surface-to-air missile systems such as the S-300.

Users include:

S-300: Armenia, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Hungary, India, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovakia, Syria, Ukraine and Vietnam

Su-27/30/33: Angola, Armenia, Belarus, China, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Mexico, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Venezuala (rumored) and Vietnam

Critics including fighter designer Pierre Sprey say the earlier generation of U.S. fighters such as the Lockheed Martin F-16 Viper and Boeing F-15 Eagle are adequate to defeat Flankers. Raptor friends point to exercises such as the infamous (and perhaps rigged) Cope India as evidence that the Viper and Eagle can be bested.

My own take: Sure, the F-15 and F-16 might be equal or even slightly superior (when pilot training, weapons and joint and industry support are considered). But for how long, in light of continued Flanker development? And since when is parity enough? Don't our pilots deserve better?

As for those S-300s ... The U.S. military has perhaps become accustomed to operating in permissive air defense environment such as Iraq and Afghanistan. Granted, helicopter pilots might not agree that these places are all that permissive. But there certainly is no real threat to the fast-movers and high-fliers that haul the cargo, spot targets and come to the rescue of pinned-down Marines. In this context, the Air Force has spent a decade mostly running down its Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses force; the Raptor promises to revitalize the capability and ensure global access for legacy aircraft and the future Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning.

Speaking of which, some critics ask, why can't we cut the expensive Raptor in favor of the cheaper Lightning? While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe, the F-35 is a mediocre performer. Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, "The problem with the F-35 ... is speed. It doesn't have the capability to supercruise. Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy."

For the most dangerous air battles and attack missions, F-35 squadrons will rely on F-22s for support. That's an unavoidable state of affairs when you design an airframe to replace slow- and low-flying Lockheed Martin A-10 Warthogs and Boeing AV-8B Harriers as well as light and flexible F-16s and Boeing F/A-18 Hornets. The F-35 is a compromise. Potentially a very successful compromise, but still ...

We've already sunk $25 billion into Raptor development. That money is irrecoverable. Further jets cost only around $115 million (perhaps twice as much as a new F-16) and will get even cheaper. We should get a good return on our investment. A good return, in my estimation, means a full fleet of at least 381 Raptors in 10 or more full-strength squadrons. That should guarantee air dominance for another 30 years or more.

--David Axe

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part Four)

The vaunted Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor is less a nimble, sharp-eyed bird of prey than a sluggish, half-blind buzzard, according to noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey. He cites several figures to support to his claim:

* The F-22 has higher wing loading than the Boeing F-15A, meaning more weight on the wing and less maneuverability

* The Lockheed Martin F-16C Block 50 with a General Electric 110 engine out-accelerates the F-22 with its two Pratt & Whitney 119s -- at any altitude

* The F-22 has a lower thrust-to-weight ratio than the F-15A

* The F-22 pilot's rearward and downward visibility is inferior to the F-16 pilot's

The result, Sprey contends, is that the F-22 will lose in dogfights against older, supposedly inferior aircraft.

The fighter jocks of the first operational Raptor unit, the 1st Fighter Wing at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, scoffed at the notion during my Aug. 10 visit.

"I don't know what people have been reading, but this thing is a monster," Brigadier General Burton Field said. "It's more maneuverable than anything out there."

"We will turn inside anybody," Captain Phil Colomy seconded.

Exercises have tended to corroborate these pilots' contentions. At Northern Edge in Alaska in June, the 27th Fighter Squadron's Raptors killed 108 F-15s and F-16s for no losses. In one four-hour engagement teaming F-22s and F-15s against other U.S. aircraft, the Raptor team killed 83 and lost just one Eagle.

To explain this apparent disconnect between the Raptor's flight performance and its exercise results, Field and Colomy point to aspects of the F-22's design that Sprey ignores, such as:

* An advanced flight control system that renders smarter aircraft reactions to control inputs: The F-22, like the F-16, is an aerodynamically unstable aircraft that relies on computer systems to stabilize it in flight and translate pilot inputs into aircraft movements. The sophistication of the computer is a factor in the maneuverability of the aircraft.

* Large control surfaces: The F-22 features some of the largest elevators, flaps, fins and stabilizers on any fighter aircraft ever built. The single-piece stabilizers are as large as an F-16's entire wing. Control-surface design is another key factor in maneuverability.

* Thrust vectoring: The P&W-119s terminate in vertical thrust-vectoring nozzles that can direct 35,000 pounds of thrust apiece 20 degrees up or down, improving turning ability. Confronted with the criticism that these nozzles incur a weight and drag penalty, Colomoy laughed and pointed to a nearby F-15's large, unmoving nozzles. "You've got to have nozzles," he said. "The only difference with these is that they move." In other words, they're no heavier or draggier than any other nozzle.

The one criticism that the Raptor fliers can't counter is that the jet's canopy affords poorer visibility than the F-16's. It's true: the F-22's canopy is slightly obstructed by the intakes and the spine, but this flaw hasn't resulted in any lost dogfights in recent exercises.

--David Axe

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part Three)

At Langley Air Force Base, Virginia, 27th Fighter Squadron pilot Captain Phil Colomy opened his presentation on the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor with a video of inert bomb impacts set to a rock soundtrack. Clip after clip showed 1,000-pound Boeing GBU-32 Joint Direct Attack Munitions slamming into derelict trucks and digging craters in sand.

The footage was from the squadron's recent weapons camp at Hill Air Force Base in Utah, where Raptors climbed to higher than 50,000 feet, accelerated to faster than Mach 1 then dropped JDAMs 20 miles or more from targets. According to 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field, all 22 drops resulted in direct hits at greater accuracy than any other aircraft has ever achieved with JDAM.

From 2002 to 2005, the F-22 was known as the F/A-22, emphasizing its ground-attack capability hauling two internal JDAMs or (in the future) eight 250-pound Small Diameter Bombs. "We were trying to tell a story, trying to say that the F-22 is not just a better [Boeing] F-15C," Field explained.

Wing spokeswoman Captain Elizabeth Kreft pointed out that, during the period of the "F/A" designation, James Roche, a former sailor, was Air Force secretary. The dual designation has been standard in Navy tactical air since the early 1980s with the Boeing F/A-18A Hornet.

But with the major fights over Raptor funding over and with Roche having stepped down, this year the Air Force switched the Raptor's designation back to the traditional F-22. But lest anyone take this to mean that the Raptor is once again just a fighter, Field pointed out that the Raptor's only truly unique capabilities lie in the ground attack realm. "Shooting down other aircraft is not what the F-22 is best at." (Though it is pretty good at this -- check back for Part Four.)

Where the Raptor truly excels is in the high-energy, long-range delivery of smart bombs in a high-threat environment. The weapons camp was a basic demonstration of that capability.

Colomy brought up a schematic of Iran's integrated air defense network featuring overlapping radar coverage and the latest Russian-made surface-to-air missiles. The systems' detection and engagement ranges were plotted with circles based on their performance against legacy Air Force aircraft such as the Lockheed Martin F-16C and F-15E. Next Colomy brought up a slide that showed the effect of the F-22's superior speed and stealth on the performance of the same air defenses. Their ranges were halved, leaving huge gaps in the network.

"There's no shortage of bomb droppers in the Air Force," Colomy said. "But can they get close enough?"

With its front-aspect stealth and its ability to supercruise faster than Mach 1 at high altitude over long ranges (contingent on adequate tanking), the Raptor can sneak up on enemy defenses then release a pair of JDAMs with far greater energy than other aircraft can manage. That means more destructive weapons effects and fewer sorties to roll back air defenses. "We use the F-22 to clear a path for other aircraft," Colomy said.

Thus has evolved the Raptor's new niche. In light of the tiny production run of just 183 jets, Raptors will equip only seven squadrons -- effectively a "silver-bullet" force. Rather than replacing F-15s wholesale, the Raptor will complement modernized F-15s and work alongside legacy aircraft to enhance their capabilities. While Raptor-Eagle teams clear the skies, ground-attack Raptors will poke holes in integrated air defenses so F-16s, F-15Es, Lockheed Martin F-117s and strategic bombers can bring their firepower to bear.

Some background here.

--David Axe

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part Two)

In a fight against other airplanes, the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor's stealth capabilities are useless, claims noted fighter designer Pierre Sprey, since the Raptor must radiate to detect the enemy, thus announcing its location to everyone in the vicinity with a Radar Warning Receiver.

Under these circumstances, a Raptor is no better than any late-model fighter such as the Sukhoi Su-27 series, which is considerably cheaper.

Not so, said the Raptor jockeys of the 27th Fighter Squadron at Langley Air Force Base, Virginia.

"I'm going to be able to see him before he sees me," Captain Phil Colomy assured me. He was refering to radar detection, not visual.

How so? I asked. If you radiate, everyone's going to know where you are. To use Sprey's analogy, it's like using a flashlight in a dark room. Sure, you can see the bad guy, but he can see you too.

Colomy just smiled. 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field spoke up:

"Enemy RWR can't detect radiating F-22s," he said. "We haven't had a problem with that."

I asked if that had something to do with the Raptor's Raytheon APG-77 Advanced Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar, which uses many tiny nimble radar beams instead of one big, slow beam.

Field just smiled. This is classified, but widely known to be true.

Basically, here's how it works. RWRs are like any sensor: they operate at a certain fidelity lending a certain degree of dependability. If you radiate only briefly or only a little, RWRs aren't going to be able to pin you down. A small, smart, well-directed beam -- such as that from any new AESA -- is too fleeting for a firm fix. It's like using a flashlight in a dark room, but snapping it on then off in a fraction of a second.

One day RWRs will catch up to the new AESAs. But for right now, the radars have the advantage. What this means is that the F-22 can use its radar without entirely sacrificing stealth. That's on top of the other advantages of the AESA.

--David Axe

Raptor ... or Turkey? (Part One)

There ain't a lot of love for the ol' F-22A Raptor outside of Air Force and Lockheed Martin circles these days. Critics, especially author James Stevenson and F-16 designer Pierra Sprey, both from the Center for Defense Information, have called the Raptor an overweight, gas-guzzling, unaffordable turkey. Their presentation on the F-22 has inspired a number of scathing articles. The bottom line, Sprey told me in June, is that the Air Force has forgotten how to design fighters ... and besides, fighters are irrelevant in today's conflicts. If the Air Force were truly interested in winning wars, Sprey said, "it would buy more A-10s" to support the grunts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But the folks at the 1st Fighter Wing, which will fly 36 F-22s alongside 24 F-15Cs from Langley Air Force Base in southern Virginia, told me (in so many words) that Sprey is full of it.

"One thing we've done really well in the United States is not predict the next war," 1st FW commander Brigadier General Burton Field told me last week. "[So] the Air Force, a while back, started concentrating on ... capabilities across a spectrum."

The F-22 represents the high-end of that spectrum. Yes, it is expensive. No, it is not suited to all fights. But if and when it comes time to take down integrated air defenses to achieve air dominance, especially in a conventional conflict, the F-22 is the best weapon around. "As long as you own the air," Raptor jockey Captain Phil Colomy said, "you have the freedom to do what you want on the ground."

Surprisingly, despite the Raptor's strong air-to-air record in recent exercises (108 kills to no losses at Northern Edge), it's the aircraft's air-to-ground prowess that Field and Colomy are most excited about. They said that with strong front-aspect stealth, high ceiling, long range (when properly tanked), and the ability to cruise faster than Mach 1, the F-22 can get to distant battlefields, surprise air defenses and lob Joint Direct Attack Munitions farther than 20 miles to kill them. No other aircraft can do that, Colomy said.

As for Sprey's criticism -- based on a cursory glance at technical data -- that the F-22 is a poor performer, former F-15 pilot Colomy pointed to the aircraft's huge control surfaces, powerful engines and advanced flight control system. "We will turn inside anybody."

But even if it is a kick-ass performer, the Raptor remains disproportionately expensive. Cuts to the program mean the Air Force will field only 183 F-22s against a requirement for 381. That's just seven operational squadrons, three fewer than the Air Force needs to give each rotational Air Expeditionary Force a Raptor component. Plans are already afoot to improve F-15s to soldier on alongside F-22s, but that's a stop-gap. Bottom line: "We need more Raptor squadrons," Field said.

In subsequent posts, I will address some of the particulars of Sprey's criticisms ... and the Raptor fliers' responses.

Check out my F-22 pics at Flickr!

--David Axe

Axe Visits Langley

Today I'm off to Langley Air Force Base, home of the $300-million F-22 Raptors of the 1st Fighter Wing. Is the Raptor the greatest fighter plane ever built ... or a massive turkey, as some critics contend? Finally I'm going to lay to rest all the controversy. Everybody get psyched ... and look for posts and photos tonight as soon as I can get to it (stupid foiled bomb plot!).

--David Axe

Army's Out-of-Control "Future"

As gut-wrenching as today's Times story on runaway Pentagon spending is, the article doesn't touch on what's quickly becoming the biggest defense contracting boondoggle of them all.

Reporter Leslie Wayne pulls out some great factoids in her piece today.

For instance, contractors on the Joint Strike Fighter, a next-generation fighter jet, received their full bonus award of $494 million from 1999 to 2003, even though the program was $10 billion over budget and 11 months behind schedule.

Contractors in the F-22A fighter jet program, over the same time period, received 91 percent of their performance bonus, or $849 million, even though the current phase of the program was $10 billion over budget and two years late.

And a handy chart shows that the per-unit cost of the F-22 was 189 percent higher than originally expected.

But that same chart shows the Army's massive Future Combat Systems modernization program costing a mere $127 billion -- up a paltry 54 percent since it was introduced.

Which was true a couple of days ago.

Now, however, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has a new estimate: $300 billion, to revamp about a third of the Army's gear.

And remember, these costs are soaring in the earliest days of the program, before Future Combat's major hardware purchases are set. The new-fangled tanks, the family of ground robots, the fighting vehicle replacements -- in other words, the collective heart of the program -- are still enormous question marks. How much do you figure the price of FCS will go up, once those projects are set?

That's one of the reasons why Sen. John McCain -- one of Congress' few truly good guys on this issue -- has been pushing the Pentagon to adopt "fixed price" contracts for weapons R&D, instead of the insane "cost-plus" agreements, which give defense firms huge bonuses, even when their projects spin out of control.

But, of course, spinning projects out of control has become a contractor business strategy. Just look at what's happening with the F-22 and JSF. So the Lockheeds and Boeings of the world are fighting McCain's provisions, hard. If they win, how much do you think Future Combat will cost next year?

B-52s Axed for More Raptors

Air Force chiefs want their new stealth fighters, bad -- so bad, they're willing to scrap some of their best-performing planes early, in order to free up cash for their controversial, next-generation jet.

Inside Defense reports that "nearly half the B-52 bomber force and the full U-2 spy plane and F-117 stealth fighter fleets" will be retired ahead of schedule, under a Pentagon budget plan endorsed by the Air Force. It's part of "a bid to save $16.4 $2.6 billion and boost spending" for the F-22 Raptor program.

About a year ago, a similar Pentagon "Program Budget Decision," or PBD, cut $10 billion out of the F-22's budget. Originally designed to duel with Soviet fighters, the Raptor seemed to be a plane without a mission; the Air Force touted the F-22 as everything from a cargo lifter to an IED-stopper. A fleet of 277 Raptors was downsized to 179 -- despite a massive PR campaign from the Air Force.

This PDB, Inside Defense notes, "would allow the Air Force to inject an additional $1 billion into its prized F-22A program," and add a grand total of four planes to the Raptor roster.

Cuts to the long-range B-52 bomber fleet would reduce the inventory from 94 aircraft to 56... The Air Force is banking on $4.6 billion in savings with this early retirement: $680 million in the procurement accounts and $3.9 billion in personnel reductions associated with a smaller B-52 fleet...

The Pentagon also plans to terminate the B-52 Stand-off Jammer System, an electronic attack capability, saving $1.1 billion across the five-year spending plan, according to the PBD.

Convincing Congress to go along won't be easy, however.

Similar attempts in recent years -- including moves to stand down B-1B bombers, KC-135E aerial refueling aircraft, and the F-117 -- have met stiff resistance on Capitol Hill. But this time around, the Pentagon appears to be taking a new approach in proposing to retire three programs at once.

“Now they’re going for the whole enchilada,” Christopher Bolkcom, an aviation expert at the Congressional Research Service, said. “You can see that they seem to be launching a frontal assault.”

UPDATE 12:36 PM EST: "Privately, the Air Force sold the B-52 SOJ [stand-off jammer] on the merits of the very large antennas" that would jam the most dangerous enemy radar, Bolkcom tells Defense News. "If the B-52 is replaced with a smaller jamming platform, one may wonder how these frequencies will now be jammed, or whether the original argument for the B-52 was valid."

UPDATE 2:42 PM EST: "Remember, this is the same Air Force that tired everything it could to retire the A-10s early," Murdoc reminds us. "What is it about these guys that drives them to retire the most effective planes in the inventory for expensive new fighters?"

Raptor on the attack

Supersonic Raptor Drops First Guided Bomb on Military.com:

Since July, Raptor program have flown seven JDAM supersonic separation test missions under a variety of conditions. The aim is to prove the JDAM can safely separate from the aircraft.

But none of the previous tests used a JDAM guidance system.

"This was the first Raptor supersonic guided JDAM. The first one to guide to a target," said Maj. John Teichert, the 411th Flight Test Squadron's test pilot for the mission.

This release marks a dramatic increase in the stealth jet’s air-to-ground capability by clearing the first phase of the JDAM supersonic envelope, he said.

"The supersonic envelope allows the Raptor to release precision air-to-ground weapons at long stand-off ranges while performing its global strike mission," Major Teichert said.

The supersonic JDAM capability allows the Raptor to deliver the weapon from a much greater distance than any other aircraft.

As long as it was intentional. Given the fact that the USAF just decided to remove the 'A' designator from the Raptor, Murdoc's wondering if the bomb just fell off in mid-flight once the decision that the Raptor was no longer an 'attack' plane had been made.

Seriously, though, this is a good thing. While the Raptor is primarily an air superiority/dominance fighter, taking down radar installations and missile sites is a critical part of air dominance strategy and this fits in with the "kick in the doors" mentality that many use with respect to the Raptor. Just remember "Fighter...The Raptor is a fighter."

The Raptor will begin testing the 250-pound Small Diameter Bomb (SDB) JDAM next year.

--cross-posted by Murdoc

Raptor: Just a Plain Ol' Fighter, Again

Defense News is reporting that the Air Force is planning to drop the "A" from the F/A-22 Raptor:

Three years after the U.S. Air Force added an “A” to highlight the F/A-22 Raptor’s ability to drop bombs, the service is dropping the extra letter from the stealthy jet’s designator.

The plane, which is expected to officially enter service in the coming weeks, will henceforth be called the F-22A — with the trailing letter indicating a first variant, not an extra role.

So it's losing an 'A' but gaining, er, another 'A'. Anyway.

In September 2002, Gen. John Jumper, then-Air Force chief of staff, added the “A” to emphasize the aircraft’s ground-attack capabilities. The switch came as the airplane was being assailed by critics inside and outside the Pentagon as too expensive for the post-Sept. 11 world.

“This isn’t your father’s F-22,” then-Air Force Secretary Jim Roche said in a 2002 interview.

Since then, several Air Force officials have called the aircraft even more flexible and capable than the F/A designator indicated. Classified capabilities, unknown to the American public and U.S. lawmakers alike, mean that the plane might as well have been called the FB-22 bomber, F/E-22 surveillance plane, F/EA-22 electronic attack aircraft, or even an RC-22 signals-intelligence platform, they said.

I noted a couple of weeks ago that so many additional roles were being shoehorned onto the Raptor that it was becoming the F/A/R/C/E-22. Not because it's a poor-performing plane (it isn't) or because these additional capabilities are useless (they aren't), but because so many non-fighter capabilities were being hyped so loudly on this very expensive project that it was beginning to look more than a little silly.

If a 150-million-plus dollar fifth-generation air superiority fighter cannot justify itself based solely upon its ability to defeat enemy aircraft when all the chips are down, no add-on capability to destroy IEDs along convoy routes is going to help sell anyone on it. And make no mistake. The Raptor is a 'when all the chips are down' aircraft. Between the limited numbers the Air Force will be getting and the significant expense of each plane, expect them to attend only the most important parties.

As noted at the time, adding more capability to an already-impressive fighter is great. For instance, IEDs are the biggest problem our troops face right now, and if there's anything anyone can do to help, let's get them on it ASAP. But don't tell us the Raptor can not only fight other planes but it can also drop bombs and expect us to suddenly stop caring about the price tag or questioning the program's place in today's military.

Adding the 'A' for 'attack' was pretty silly to begin with. The simple capability to carry and use ground-attack munitions isn't enough to qualify, otherwise virtually every combat plane in the inventory would be wearing an 'A'. It's all about the role that the plane is going play. And, despite the capability to use GPS-guided JDAMs, does anyone seriously believe that our limited number of very expensive F-22s are going to be playing a significant role in the ground attack and close air support roles? They'll only do so if F-16s, F-15Es, and the A-10 'Warthogs' are unavailable.

So while this is a welcome move by the Air Force, it probably shouldn't impact our expectations of the Raptor one way or the other. Before it was an 'F/A', it wasn't going to do a whole lot of ground attack. When it became an 'F/A', it still wasn't. So this change back to good old 'F' hasn't really done much to alter things.

But did you notice how the switch back from 'F/A' didn't happen until the first squadron of Raptors, nearly finished with a rather impressive string of exercises and demonstrations, is just about to become fully active?

And it occurs to me that the presence of an 'F/A' Raptor might hurt the case to justify a true fighter-bomber version of the Raptor, the FB-22. Lockheed continues to push for such a beast, but some may wonder if we need a Raptor fighter-bomber when we already have a Raptor fighter-attack plane.

Voila! We don't have a Raptor fighter attack plane anymore, do we? (Or am I just being cynical?)

--cross-posted by Murdoc

F/A/R/C/E-22 Raptor...cleans windows too!

A friend gave me the idea for the Fighter/Attack/Recon/Cargo/Electronic warfare version of the F-22 Raptor not long after the added the 'A' designation. Now they're hyping it as an electronic anti-IED platform, noted at the POGO blog. The source material is only available via paid subscription, so I can't give you any details. But at a time while some are calling for cuts in F-35 production to build additional F-22s, I've got to wonder how serious this claim really is. I don't always agree with POGO (folks, that's 'understatement'), but I've got to agree with them on this one.

First, let me be very clear: If the F-22's electronics suite is capable of countering IEDs, let's bring it on. If all that's needed is a slight modification to the existing hardware or some new software, that's a no-brainer. The POGO entry seems to make it sound like they're talking about an anti-IED specialty variant of the Raptor. I find that extremely unlikely. Most probably they're talking about upgrading them all to include the capability.

Second, they've been hyping the electronics capabilities of the Raptor for some time, and that's a good thing. Here are a couple interesting ones from C4ISR Journal: Supersonic SIGINT Is Back: ISR Sensors Built Into F/A-22, JSF Fuselages and Agile radar beams: Active electronically scanned arrays energize fighter performance.

But this claim, coming right now, seems a bit contrived. Maybe Murdoc's just a bit jaded. I'd sure like to know more details about the proposal, but, then, I'm sure the IED makers would, too.

Anyway, if Raptors can do it, let's go for it. However, I'm not expecting to see F-22s screaming down to clear roads ahead of supply convoys. And, as useful as anti-IED capabilities may be, they aren't a good reason to make decisions regarding hundred-million dollar air superiority fighters.

Now, if they'd just add a camera and a little cargo bay, the Raptor would really and truly be a F/A/R/C/E. It's not that the F-22 is a farce. Despite the high cost, no one seems to be debating the fact that it's an awesome machine. But these attempts to sell the thing as a major player in the type of war we're currently fighting appear to be little more than shallow PR campaigns. I've had a little yellow post-it note on my computer monitor for a long time as a reminder of the farce idea, just waiting for the right moment. This seems to be it.

UPDATE: Noah points out that this is another "part of a broader move to try to jam IEDs from above -- a move that has met with only limited success." It's been noted on Defense Tech here and here previously.

He also reminds me that a quick check of the Raptor Watch category here on Defense Tech will yield additional wacky justifications for the F-22. Like any good multi-billion dollar defense program, there's no shortage of them.

Finally, I got a look at the source article (paid subscription required) and Lockheed is looking to add this anti-IED capability beginning with the Block 30 model, but declines to give any specifics:

Block 30 Raptors will add air-to-ground radar, better attack capabilities against integrated air defense systems, Link 16 data link and a core Small Diameter Bomb ability through 2009. The EA capability against IEDs, not one of the aircraft's main missions as originally outlined, comes as the company looks to solidify its advanced fighter's relevance over the next 40 years, especially while the United States engages in a global war on terrorism.

They also continue to push for a bomber version of the Raptor.

UPDATE 2 : Received this in an email:

How about minesweeper, too?

Heh. I'll see your "minesweeper" and raise you a "hedgerow cutter"!

UPDATE 3: Also via e-mail: Defense Industry Daily had a great post on F-22 and F-35 electronic warfare back in October.

--Cross-posted by Murdoc

RAPTOR READY FOR WAR -- MAYBE

The controversial F/A-22 "Raptor" stealth fighter "is months away from being declared war-ready, but the Pentagon is still trying to decide where it fits in its vision of future warfare," observes the Washington Post. (In a related video, a Raptor squadron commander says his group will be ready to fight in December of '05.)

The Bush administration has proposed cutting $10 billion from the program over the next five years, leaving enough to buy fewer than half the 381 planes the Air Force says it needs. And the plane will have to compete, in an age of budget deficits, with plans to refurbish the Army and fund an even more expensive fighter program, the Joint Strike Fighter, which is still years from delivery.

How many Raptors the Pentagon buys -- no one expects the program to be killed -- is part of a debate over what kind of wars the nation's leaders should fear most: a large-scale battle with another industrial power, where the Raptor could dominate, or skirmishes in rogue states such as Iran or Syria, where ground forces would lead. (via Sploid)

RAPTOR'S RUSSIAN BOOGEYMAN

Air Force chief of staff Gen. John Jumper has been working overtime, ever since the F/A-22 "Raptor" stealth fighter program got slashed by the Pentagon leadership.

First, he flew one of the jets himself, at nearly Mach 2, to show off how cool the Raptor really was. Then, he had a team of F/A-22s buzz by the Super Bowl.

Now, according to Inside Defense, he's telling "lawmakers that the U.S. military's ability to dominate the skies may be threatened by a Russian aircraft that has not yet been built, and which aerospace analysts believe may never fly."

Gen. Jumper... warned “the design for the Sukhoi 40 is on the boards right now,” in a Feb. 8 hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Defense analysts said Jumper was referring to Russia's plans for a fifth-generation fighter that is to replace the Su-27 Flanker and MiG-29 Fulcrum. A design for this new fighter aircraft program, known as the PAK FA, is being crafted with a prototype expected in 2006 and production beginning in 2010, according to a May 6, 2004, Aviation Week article.

Aviation industry analysts, however, believe the enormous costs required to design and build such an aircraft... are beyond the means of the Russian government.

Use of this fledgling Russian aircraft program to make the case for the F/A-22 raised the eyebrows of some analysts. One, who asked not to be named, called it a “pitiful argument.”

THERE'S MORE: Over on the Defense Tech forum, reader NH mounts a strong, well-reasoned defense of the Raptor. Check it out.

RAPTOR'S SUPER BOWL SHUFFLE

The Air Force's next-generation stealth fighter, the F/A-22, is in big trouble. So the service is looking to the Super Bowl to save the jet.

The Pentagon's proposed budget for next year calls for a cut of $15.5 billion in funds for the so-called "Raptor," trimming the fleet of F/A-22s from 277 planes to 180.

In response, the Air Force brass is mounting a major league PR campaign for the fighter. Last month, Air Force chief of staff John Jumper flew a Raptor over Florida at nearly Mach 2, to show the plane off. Now, the Project on Government Oversight notes, a pair of the jets will buzz by Jacksonville's Alltel Stadium during the Super Bowl festivities.

"We are enthusiastic to showcase the air dominance capabilities of the F/A-22, and the Super Bowl is the perfect venue to do so," Brig. Gen. Jack Egginton, commander of the 325th Fighter Wing, tells the AP.

Go Iggles!

RAPTOR BACK IN ACTION

This has absolutely nothing to do with the $10 billion fight over the stealth fighter's future, of course. But the AP is reporting that the Air Force "has cleared its F/A-22 Raptor fighter jet to fly again, two weeks after it was grounded because of a crash in Nevada."

RAPTOR DOWN

Things just went from bad to wose for the controversial F/A-22 jet. One of the stealth fighters has crashed in the Nevada desert, says the Las Vegas Review Journal. The pilot is okay. But no one's sure, yet, why the jet exploded during takeoff at Nellis Air Force Base.

With defense budgets starting to tighten, no project is feeling the squeeze more than the controversial, $40 billion F/A-22 jet. Initially designed back in the 80's to tangle with Soviet MiGs, the so-called "Raptor" has been left without a mission, critics charge. And that $40 billion price tag could double before the full order of 277 planes is complete.

What happens to the Raptor now? It's unclear. But, for the moment, the seven other F/A-22s stationed at Nellis Air Force Base are grounded, pending inspection.