F-22 Debate Is About More Than Fighters

Discussion in 'The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr' started by Marlin T, Aug 2, 2009.

  1. Marlin T

    Marlin T Well-Known Member

    Jul 8, 2005
    New Mexico
    F-22 Debate Is About More Than Fighters

    Is it just me or is it apparent that the Dems just don’t get it?

    Posted by Mackenzie Eaglen

    U.S. military primacy built nearly a generation ago has guaranteed freedom of the seas and threat-free skies for U.S. ground forces in current operations. These tremendous capabilities are being taken for granted as investment in maintaining superior and technologically-advanced equipment in sufficient quantities is of diminishing importance for Pentagon leaders and civilian policymakers.

    The Air Force and Navy both face serious projected gaps in strike fighter inventory. A fighter gap is essentially a deficit between the services' fighter aircraft inventories and their operational requirements based on emerging and possible air threats to U.S. security.

    Contrary to popular perception, the F-35 is not a replacement for the F-22A. Buying more F-35s does not alleviate the need for additional F-22s. These platforms were designed to operate in tandem and perform complementary missions: The F-35 needs sufficient numbers of F-22s to clear the skies before it may operate unencumbered. The F-22 has the added advantage of flying at supersonic speeds without using an afterburner, conserving fuel and reducing its heat signature--a capability the F-35 lacks. The F-22 also clears the skies and ensures sophisticated enemy air defenses do not take down unmanned aerial vehicles, as well. In a conflict against an enemy with a capable air force, UCAVs might become easy prey to enemy fighters with active electronically scanned array radar.

    Congress needs to consider the future capabilities of states that may potentially challenge U.S. fighter aircraft in the coming decades as fifth-generation fighters become the mainstay of the future force and legacy aircraft retire. These capabilities include foreign advanced attack aircraft, jammers, infrared search and tracking sensors, ultra long-range missiles, surface-to-air missiles, radar detection, anti-stealth technologies, and electronic warfare.

    Large production runs of air superiority fourth-plus-generation fighters equipped with fifth-generation technology, such as the Su-35BM in Russia and China, could put the U.S. Air Force with its fewer numbers of F-22s and an aging F-15C fleet at a serious disadvantage. History and the ongoing technological arms race suggest that it would be dangerous for the U.S. to assume that the F-22 will have no equal and thus have a decisive advantage over any other fighter aircraft for the next 20 years.

    The F-22 debate reaches beyond fighters to federal spending priorities, fundamental shifts in defense policies and priorities, and the future of the U.S. military. While Congress is moving to end the program of record, the reality is that the planned buy was cut short due to arbitrary budget constraints. The military requirement for 243 F-22s remains unchanged and unfulfilled even as Air Force leaders have repeatedly testified they need this many air superiority F-22s based on the current national military strategy.

    The bottom line is clear: The military is unable to sustain today's capabilities with current funding levels. The F-22 debate should be about an inadequate Air Force budget since that is what drove the decision to end the program at 187 fighters.

    The limited F-22 purchase would essentially only allow the Air Force to fly unchallenged in one theater of operations, not two. Because it takes about 100 airplanes to field a wing of 72 operational aircraft, 187 F-22As really yield only about 125 combat-coded planes. With a normal attrition rate of one plane per year, that leaves roughly 100 operational planes in the long-term.

    General Schwartz, Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force, has said the traditional margins of U.S. military technology are diminishing. Investment in future technology advances and sufficient quantities of platforms is required to remedy this shift--and the F-22 represents this larger debate.

    Mackenzie Eaglen is Research Fellow for National Security Studies in theDouglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation
  2. Danwin22

    Danwin22 Active Member

    Oct 31, 2008
    longwood, Florida
    As a former USAF member I am worried about the democrats doing their normal thing and turning their back on the military.

    We have a lot of old aircraft still flying and sooner or later they will become a maintenance problem and the stress of combat will cause failures.

    We have the ability to give us air superiority but even when we are at the top of our game we still lose aircraft to enemies. To deny our pilots the best we can give them is criminal.

    Obama has Holder working on prosecuting members of the Bush administration for anything they can dig up when they were doing their best to protect America.

    I hope future administrations will prosecute Obama and his gang for all the things he is doing to ruin America.

  3. artabr

    artabr New Member

    Mar 3, 2008
    New Iberia, Louisiana
    They just don't get it. :( :mad:

  4. DEADEYE1964

    DEADEYE1964 New Member

    Nov 22, 2008
    Dallas, Tx
    The Democrats talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say that the F-22 is for air combat and are not used in Iraq or Afganistan so they want to kill the program and weaken our military. The last I heard was they were going to pull ALL the troops out and bring them home, it seems like I heard something like that prior to NOVEMBER 4TH. If you weaken our National Security, the economy means nothing. They are going to undo in one year what it took years to put together. They are more interested in bailouts than SECURITY.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr F-22's deploy to Osan Mar 31, 2013
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr gona watch the debate tonight? Oct 19, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Are You Going To Watch The Debate? Oct 9, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr Who won the debate? The Hilderbeastie of Trump? Sep 27, 2016
The Fire For Effect and Totally Politically Incorr 4 miles from tonight's debate Sep 26, 2016