P. Sprey, (fighter mafia) again speaks out against the failing F-22 program.

-- and the myths of BVR and stealth.

“The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria” / "The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't"


A short review of yet another report;

www.niemanwatchdog.org...

Here's a great pdf doc which covers everything in detail.

It's clear, precise, to the point.

www.cdi.org...

Exactly what I have believed for years.

At unprecedented 355 million a pop plus armament and hundreds more for maintenance, it's an incredible waste of funds.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by iskander]

There is another thread already on this in aircraft projects and by the way this is a stupid article.

Are you kidding me?

You actually call people who are directly responsible for F-15/16/18 stupid?

Are you sure you know who these guys are?

Why don't you look up Pierre Sprey James Stevenson and the "fighter mafia".

If it wasn't for these guys Eagle/Falcon/Hornet would never have been made. They are the ones who pushed the programs through bureaucracy and personally worked on the design/development etc.

www.sftt.org...

www.cdi.org...

What they are saying about Raptor/JSF is so simple it's not funny, and it's that instead of a flying Rolex, USAF needs weapons of war, and in sufficient numbers.

Here's more reality.

While impressionable teens romanticise about the stealthy BVR magic of the "super fighters", people who fought in wars and whose job it is to protect the lives of the next generation, for years have been screaming that the "super weapon" mentality of the Cold War can no longer be afforded.


Here is a UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES briefing of March 24 06

armed-services.senate.gov...

If dead try this;

armed-services.senate.gov...

Here's a report to a Congressional Committee;

Effectiveness, survivability, deployability, and sortie generation were tested by the Air Force in the F-22's "Initial Operational Test and Evaluation" in 2004. The test report is not available, but the Air Force states the F-22 was "overwhelmingly effective" but only "potentially suitable." The GAO noted: "Officials rated the sortie generation area as unsatisfactory. Problems were noted in aircraft reliability and maintainability, including maintenance of the aircraft's critical low observable characteristics." See this report at www.gao.gov... The Air Force told the GAO that these problems would be fixed before the F-22 went operational in December 2005. No new GAO report on this subject is yet available.

The list goes on.

The reality is that Raptor/JSF are best in "channeling" tax payers money into the pockets of the defense industry, while Europeans and Russians are steadily moving towards effective and cost efficient 5th gen solution.

It's just how it is.

Hmmmmm while Spey and his figter mafia was an impressive force no doubt and helped mold some great planes, that does not mean he is on point or accurate all the time. IMHO he has missed the boat on the F-22.

Your argument about guantity over guality is an interesting point, but misses the mark IMHO. It did not work for the USSR during the cold war why should it work now?

The F-22 is on point for future conflics the US may face. Why? The entire US military doctrine is based largely in part on having air superiority or close to it. The Raptor will no doubt achieve it to a tee. Its AESA radar system will also hearald the comming of a totaly new strategy for planes of its type: Electronic attack. The a/c is still in test so do we know all of its true capacities?

ALso the technology created and researched during the life of the F-22 program will pay dividens elsewhere.

The naysayers have always been there. Yes aircraft like the 14/15/16 were pushed through despite all the naysayers like those that have coaleced around the F-22

Originally posted by iskander
You actually call people who are directly responsible for F-15/16/18 stupid?

I believe he said the article was dumb, which quite frankly is true, many of the points made are oversimplifications and some are just plain false. While Mr. Sprey may be a smart man his agenda toward the F-22 is making him ignorant to several very crucial facts which would make his analysis of the Raptor and its program look like a 5th grade research paper.

Like Fred said, the F-22 was designed for Air Superiority and it will perform that role better the any current or near term US fighter. However its not limited to just Air Superiority, according to publicized information its equipped for A2G, EW and Signal Intelligence Roles as well.

Originally posted by iskander
...while Europeans and Russians are steadily moving towards effective and cost efficient 5th gen solution.

First and foremost, the Raptor’s price is very reasonable for an aircraft with its capabilities. The cost given by the critics is over inflated with R&D money and is not representative of the cost of each plane.

Second, what makes these non-existent European and Russian 5th Gen fighters so much more “effective” and “cost efficient” than the Raptor?

By the way here is the link to the other current thread concerning this same article.
Link

[edit on 30-4-2006 by WestPoint23]

FredT, have you had the chance to familiarise your self with the material provided? Such as briefing pdfs and various Committee hearings?

It it wasn't for the FM crew its the Vietnamese who would have air superiority in Nam, and it is the FM crew that wrote the book on Top Gun.

They are the very guys responsible for F-15/16 AND the A-10. Pretty important achievements IMHO, and considering such immense contributions, I for one listen to what those guys have to say.

FM crew is not the only ones who are speaking out about the profit based Raptor/JSF program, its also the Congress, USAF etc and the list goes on.

The naysayers also happen to be USAF officials which question their own ability to afford and field Raptor/JSF while F-15/16s are about to be retired.

It was very clearly stated, that a major concern is that after F-16 is retired, USAF will no longer have an actual dog fighter, which time repeatedly proved to be absolutely necessary in order to achieve air superiority.

JSF Pratt and Whitney engines were dumped in favor of Rolls Royce btw, entirely do to the absurd replacement/maintenance cost for the P&Ws.

Let me put it as simply as I can possibly can, it never has been about quality verses quantity, and always been about layered defence networks.

Among others, both Sprey and Stevenson repeatedly pointed pointed out that Soviet doctrine relied on coordinated multi layered defense strategy.

In the case of VVS, Soviets traditionally relied on tried and proved "troika" strategy.

1) Dedicated Short range Front line Fighter (MiG-29)
2) Long range Air Superiority Fighter (Su-27)
3) Dedicated super-sonic long range interceptor. (MiG-31)

We on the other hand always get sold on the "jack of all trades" flying Rolex type of nonsense.

We do not have a dedicated short range FLF, we do not have a dedicated super-sonic interceptor, and the Tomcat is simply no longer.

Even given the most basic scenario, In order to achieve air superiority and considering the per unit cost ratio, a single Raptor will have to face and defeat 12 SU-30s and survive.

Even it the Raptor is able to absolutely guarantee 6 SU-30 BVR kills, it will be simply overwhelmed by the remaining 6 Flankers.

In case of a layered defense network, the situation becomes so grim that it's exactly what the "naysayeres" have been screaming about.

It's simply obvious that air superiority is all about putting birds in the air manned by fresh pilots. Domination of the area and area denial, simple as that.

The main strength of Air superiority capability is in its political deterrent value.

Conventional military conflicts are governed by such political deterrents, and it's exactly what the Raptor/JSF programs threaten to undermine.

Relying on lone "super star fighters" and sacrificing the fleet is like doing away with infantry and solely relying on snipers. It's plain dumb.

For the price of a single Raptor, we can have a dedicated super interceptor, long range air superiority multi purpose fighter and a front line fighter.

Given our technological base we are more then capable of building a combo that will outmatch anything in the air right now and near future.

Instead we are again forced to put all of our eggs in one basket and hope that our bluff holds out.

Just not right.

As far as I can tell the F-22 is designed to perform all of those roles. And from what I've been hearing from pilot's reports, it performs each of those tasks quite admirably.

Something that people often fail to realize is the aircraft can't just be put up in the air in an instant. It takes time to fuel the jets and load it's ordinance. This means that in the event of an emergancy you'll probably only have time to scramble one fighter, at best. To me it seems like common sense to only have to launch one fighter instead of three in the event that you need to scramble a fighter.

Something that people often fail to realize is the aircraft can't just be put up in the air in an instant. It takes time to fuel the jets and load it's ordinance. This means that in the event of an emergancy you'll probably only have time to scramble one fighter, at best. To me it seems like common sense to only have to launch one fighter instead of three in the event that you need to scramble a fighter.

I'm not sure who those people are that don't realise such basic things, maybe ones that never seen an airplane before, but since WWI it's been called a scramble, and the more birds put in the air the higher the chances of defending the airbase.

How scrambling a single bird against 12 makes sense to you I don't care ponder upon, because it's sheer nonsense.

It's kind of like this, a single bird can only be in one place at a time and defend a limited area, while three birds, oh what am I doing.

Never mind.

What I'm saying is that these days scrambles don't happen as fast as they used to. These days you're not going to have time to put three birds in the air as soon as the radar picks up something. It just sounds like common sense that it's better to be able to put up a plane that can take down the highest priority threat no matter what it is rather than scramble one of three planes and hope it can take down whatever's coming.

Now about three planes being better than one for covering air space, it depends on the quality of the airplanes. In the case of the F-22 it's not as much of an issue since the USAF has quite a few refueling planes, and the F-22 has the ability to perform supercruise. The only limiting factor is the amount of missiles one can carry, which I believe is actually more than six if you carry a few externally. Now although that makes the fighter much less stealthy that doesn't eliminate it's ability to dominate at BVR range combat, which is what the F-22 was primarily designed to do best.

Iskander even if the total USAF consisted of only the Raptor fleet and even if you add all the Su-27’s and all its variants together with the Mig-29’s and give them a magical 100% mission ready you still do not get those insane number opposing the Raptors. Remember the F-22 does not hunt by itself its flies in packs, if you manage to scramble up 50 Su-30’s against... let say 8 Raptors they would kill as many as they could and disengage. Our pilots are not trained for suicide missions and showing off in WVR. By the way which country in a "basic scenario" is going to scramble up 12 Su-30’s for every F-22 we have in the sky?

Originally posted by iskander
Are you kidding me?

You actually call people who are directly responsible for F-15/16/18 stupid?

Are you sure you know who these guys are?

Why don't you look up Pierre Sprey James Stevenson and the "fighter mafia".

If it wasn't for these guys Eagle/Falcon/Hornet would never have been made. They are the ones who pushed the programs through bureaucracy and personally worked on the design/development etc.

www.sftt.org...

www.cdi.org...

What they are saying about Raptor/JSF is so simple it's not funny, and it's that instead of a flying Rolex, USAF needs weapons of war, and in sufficient numbers.

Well the JSF is cost effective and can be rpoduced en masse. The F15/16 are not surviveable in todays acess denail IADS and are incapable of fighting flankers.

Originally posted by iskander
Are you kidding me?

You actually call people who are directly responsible for F-15/16/18 stupid?

Are you sure you know who these guys are?

Why don't you look up Pierre Sprey James Stevenson and the "fighter mafia".

If it wasn't for these guys Eagle/Falcon/Hornet would never have been made. They are the ones who pushed the programs through bureaucracy and personally worked on the design/development etc.

www.sftt.org...

www.cdi.org...

What they are saying about Raptor/JSF is so simple it's not funny, and it's that instead of a flying Rolex, USAF needs weapons of war, and in sufficient numbers.

The Raptor is a weapon of war and unless you actually know enough of the JSF i suggest you dont speak. The JSf is very cost effective and cheap,unit costs are very low and we can replace all of our legacy fighters with something much more capable and reiable. I'm not saying we dont need 381 raptors we need a a suffiicent amount like 300 backed up by JSF's. The F15 and F 16 dont have the overwhelming superiority they used to provide before. Nor are they surviveable in todays acess denial IADs consisting of double digit sams.

* Current Russian fighters are already on par with America’s best fighter, the F-15. Europe's and Russia's newest class of fighters will surpass the F-15; they are set to roll off production lines by 2005
* At least three foreign aircraft threaten to surpass the F-15’s performance in the near future: the French Rafale, the Eurofighter 2000 and the Russian Su-35. Some foreign aircraft are already at parity with the F-15
* Nations are already denying America access to airspace around the globe by obtaining low-cost, but sophisticated, surface-to-air missile systems
* Highly capable surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems pose a formidable challenge to the F-15’s survivability. Advanced SAM systems, because of their relatively low cost, are a quick and easy way for countries to modernize their air defense systems
* Estimated twenty-one countries will possess the most advanced systems by 2005

www.f22-raptor.com...

* When we meet the enemy, we want to win 100-0, not 51-49
* The F-22 will be able to get to the fight faster and engage the enemy longer
* Parity or inferiority in air dominance is unacceptable; either one means more friendly casualties and a longer, more uncertain campaign. The American people do not want an even match; they want decisive, overwhelming superiority and minimum casualties with no protracted conflict
* Downsizing U.S. forces means that in future conflicts, at least initially, we are likely to fight outnumbered – making the revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 essential for national security
.

www.f22-raptor.com...

Your first article is full of many things that are just outright wrong which has already been adressed in this thread. www.abovetopsecret.com...

How do you expect the detractors to be credible if they get the facts wrong about the Raptor and JSF. You read the first article blindly without even checking the facts. The main weakness in the F/A 22 critics arguments are they expect world conditions to not change in the future and stay the way things are. The soviet threat doesnt exist but their technology's threats sure do. What capapbility do you want for 2020 or 2025.If we cancel it now and realize we need it in some conflict and dont have enough time to build a replacement then what !
What if we need them in a conflict in 2012 or 2015 or something like that. We need an insurance package not a bunch of hyundai/kia fighters which cant deliver quality in the future and not meet doctrine. Please act more polite in your posts iskander.
Remmeber flankers,Su 35, and advanced sams. Not to mention the F/A 22 can engage and disenage in fights at will it can easily face 6 flankers ,take them out,run away without getting caught or seen. Since it can supercruise. The flankers would run out of fuel just trying to chase it since its going mach 1.5-1.7.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by urmomma158]

[edit on 30-4-2006 by urmomma158]

I have read the book "Boyd" by Robert Coram. Of particular intrest to me was the portions of this book where Boyd crunched the numbers detailing performance data of our planes during the Vietnam War and then cruched the performance data numbers for Soviet aircraft. His conclusions were that we were flying the wrong aircraft for the job in Vietnam. THat the Soviet designs were mostly superior in performance to our designs.
According to Robert Coram this continued into the time Boyd was assigned to the Pentagon where he came into contact with the people who would become the Fighter Mafia. Out of this group of thinkers came the people who worked on the F15,F16, and F18 designs. Also of much intrest was the design and functionality of the A10 Warthog.
I pretty much agree with Boyds conclusions about military design and thinking. Also agree with the messed up state of the politics behind military purchasing and politics. I have seen some of this first hand as I am involved in the shipbuilding trade. Great amounts of Robert Coram's book on Boyd are dedicated to this political/military procurement system and the politics behind it.

This book "Boyd" by Robert Coram is a very intresting and informative read ..not just for his conclusions about fighter aircraft/tactics but also for where Boyd's thinking took his ideas..to private industry as well as ground strategy for troops.

Someone I know who has gotten out of the Marines at Camp Lejune ..told me he has seen Boyd's picture at the base and that his principles are being or are already employed by the Corps. I find this very intresting as Marines ordinarily do not think highly of Air Force peoples...as a whole.... due to this inter service rivalry.

According to this book Boyd lived long enough to see his principles successfully put to the test in the first Gulf War. Our people ...once the green light was given ..went through thoses guys ...like you know what....through a goose in the air as well as on the ground.

THe F 22 Raptors are arriving steadily here at Langley Air Force Base..just about 2 miles up the road from me. I saw three of them preparing for final checks at the end of the runway ..on Thursday. I have wondered from the begining how much was hype and how much was politics...or even truth about them. Peace time will not fully tell..it will take their first several actions to see the truth of the programs.
I do know that every program has its teething problems. This I have seen first hand.

Thanks,
Orangetom

The Raptor is a weapon of war and unless you actually know enough of the JSF i suggest you dont speak.

Oh my apologies, I didn't know that you are the all wise and all knowing master of the JSF project.

I'll just make sure to ask your personal approval when I reference works by the very people that made F-15 happen. I'm sure you must be in the industry and have some sort of top level security clearance and access to information the rest of us simpletons will never dream of.

The JSf is very cost effective and cheap,unit costs are very low and we can replace all of our legacy fighters with something much more capable and reiable.

I just posted on the reliability and maintenance problems of the JSF project, which is yet to be realised, not to mention bloated run-away budget and the fact that P&Ws were already dumped in favor of Rolls Royce.

Are you old enough to pay taxes btw?

This link - www.f22-raptor.com...

is an excuse for the very run away budget in question. How else is the DOD supposed to justify the outrageous 355 mil sticker price for a single unit to the Congress and the American people that are stuck with the bill?

How do you expect the detractors to be credible if they get the facts wrong about the Raptor and JSF. You read the first article blindly without even checking the facts.

Simple, "fighter mafia", also know as "the ones who know". What the hell have you ever done for National Defense to question people that dedicated their whole lives to defend our nation?

The main weakness in the F/A 22 critics arguments are they expect world conditions to not change in the future and stay the way things are.

Wrong, it's exactly what they are talking about.

The soviet threat doesnt exist but their technology's threats sure do. What capapbility do you want for 2020 or 2025.If we cancel it now and realize we need it in some conflict and dont have enough time to build a replacement then what !

Capability for 2020 is not in question when even NOW we can't afford the numbers requared FOR NOW, not the distannt future. Again, exactly what the FM guys are talking about.

What if we need them in a conflict in 2012 or 2015 or something like that. We need an insurance package not a bunch of hyundai/kia fighters which cant deliver quality in the future and not meet doctrine.

Well again I'm sure that do to your secret work for the aircraft industry you must know more then the guys that wrote the book on Top Gun, so I'll just leave it up to your professional opinion, right?

Please act more polite in your posts iskander. Remmeber flankers,Su 35, and advanced sams.

What?

Not to mention the F/A 22 can engage and disenage in fights at will it can easily face 6 flankers ,take them out,run away without getting caught or seen. Since it can super-cruise. The flankers would run out of fuel just trying to chase it since its going mach 1.5-1.7.

Again, It must your top secret clearance to know for a fact that F-22 "easily" downs 6 Flankers.

Kind of like a Ninja, right? Slips in under the cover on darkness, then WHISH, WHOOSH and BAM, just cuts all of the bad guys to pieces with its super Ninja sword, and then POOF, a cloud of smoke and it just disappears in the night.

Wow, it's like, really radical, dude.

Out of sheer respect and admiration for your professional work I'll just take your word for it, even over those silly FM guys.

Super cruising Flankers are nothing new btw, so that "out of fuel" scenario must be a part of your classified top secret "Flanker fuel drain" research that you must working on there.

Excuse for me bringing this to light, but though >Pierre Sprey< may have some brains and respectability, what exactly is he saying that was or has not been said concerning his pride and joy the lightweight fighter F-16, or for that matter the other MWS (Modern Weapons Systems) platforms such as the F-15, the F-117, the Apache, the Abrams, the Bradley, the B1 and B2 bombers, the Stryker, the Burke class DDGs, or any other past introduced MWS? If I am not mistaken on this, each and everyone of the above named and unnamed MWS platforms, prior to or upon introduction into service, were labeled and decried as pieces of crap, garbage, and money not well worth being spent.

So now the F/A-22 is up for the crap talking and waste of tax payer money rhetoric. Whats new here? Nothing.






seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Excuse for me bringing this to light, but though Pierre Sprey may have some brains, what exactly is he saying that was not said concerning his pride and joy the lightweight fighter F-16, or for that matter the other MWS platforms such as the F-15, the Apache, the Abrams, the Bradley, the B1 and B2 bombers, the Stryker, or any other newly introduced MWS? If I am not mistaken on this, each and everyone of the above named MWS platforms, prior to or upon introduction into service, were labeled and decried as pieces of crap, garbage, and money not well worth being spent.

So now the F/A-22 is up for the crap talking and waste of tax payer money rhetoric. Whats new here? Nothing.

I love the Eagle, and even though it is another example of a flying Rolex mentality, it does its job damn well, even though the pilots still have to do the "walk of shame" and pick up pen caps of the strip so the engines wont explode.

F-16 killed more US pilots in price time crashes then enemy ever did.

Wire chafing, FBW and other major problems gave it the worst safety record of any US fighter.

Apache requires so much maintenance that it spends most of its life being gutted by the crew then in the air.

Abrams is a one trick pony and also sufferers from constant mechanical failures.

Bradley is a complete (15 billion) travesty that Israelis would not even buy dirt cheap until it was not re-equipped to their own specs. Even after that they avoided it like the plague.

Stryker is yet another blunder which by the accounts of the very troops that use it, is "good as long as you drive in on the paved roads".

When combat loaded and rigged with gates to stop RPGs, troops have to change out the entire tire set up to three times per day to stay operational, and that's until the trany goes out entirely.


B1 flopped do to its immense cost and the lower cost of the stripped down B2 lost the initial advantages factored in the original design.

Same story as with F-111.

The point in the over bloated Raptor/JSF is that we can NO longer afford to waste our hard earned tax dollars to line the pockets of the defense industry racket, and in the new world we actually have to walk the walk, and not just intimidate our enemies by outspending in the arms race.

Originally posted by iskander
The point in the over bloated Raptor/JSF is that we can NO longer afford to waste our hard earned tax dollars to line the pockets of the defense industry racket, and in the new world we actually have to walk the walk, and not just intimidate our enemies by outspending in the arms race.

Actually, "we" can afford such "over-bloated" spending and will continue to do so for quite sometime in the near future. As with any newly designed, created, tested, and implemented MWS platform, some either cut the mustard and perform admirably or some do not and simply become true waste of taxpayer money. The argument over the F/A-22 being such a MWS platform is one where the jury is still out and the fat-lady has yet finished singing.

I do think it is quite clear that though Pierre Sprey argues along the same lines as you, he is "old school" and has failed to realize that the U.S. Air Force doctrine has shifted away from WWII and post-WWII WVR engagements. The F/A-22 is designed to optimize BVR engagements, as well as succeed at WVR engagements. Criticism of his stance and beliefs can go on, but again for what reason should they? The bottom line here is that he, as with his "fighter mafia," are saying nothing new here concerning introduced MWS platforms. Its all redundant, especially when damning to hell something because of its price rather than what it can do, IMHO. Till it is firmly proven what the F/A-22 can do or cannot do in actual air-to-air combat, Sprey, as with others, as with you and I, are simply giving our 'for' or 'against' conjectured reasonings and arguments. In the end, time will only tell and "a waste" remains relative.






seekerof

[edit on 30-4-2006 by Seekerof]

Actually, "we" can afford such "over-bloated" spending and will continue to do so for quite sometime in the near future.

The Outstanding Public Debt as of 01 May 2006 at 06:48:20 AM GMT is:

>>


The estimated population of the United States is 298,621,900

So each citizen's share of this debt is $28,033.25.

The National Debt has continued to increase an average of
$2.06 billion per day since September 30, 2005


www.brillig.com...

So are you suggesting that we adopt a strategy that basically employs 1000's of lower tech aircraft, layer them in huge aluminum clouds (forgetting for the time being the virtual shortage of trained pilots) and again go with quantity over quality?

As Seekerof and others have pointed out. The USAF's doctrine is very different now. Technology is now such that BVR engagements are realistic not the Vietnam era debacle that is burned in our memories.

Military aircraft are complicated animals and complex machines even 'rugged" Su-27's still require alot of maint. I found your example of FOD walkdowns amusing as an example of the F-15's fragility but the reality is that any turbofan / turbine engine is susectable to this. We do a FOD walkdown before we fire up our BK-117 on medical transports. Does that make the BK-117 a pile of junk Everything has its disadvantages and advantages. its funny you bag on every major weapons systems as if they were some sort of collosal failure. In fact almost all of them have proven thier worth in combat. While the intial accident rate is regretable with the F-16 please show me a comparable fighter that did not go through teething pains in its development cycle. If the craft was as bad as you made out hthen why were so many made and sold to so many?

etc etc etc.