The Hugh Hewitt Show

Listen 24/7 Live: Mon - Fri   6 - 9 PM Eastern
Call the Show 800-520-1234

The Air Force Association ( On The F-22

Thursday, April 9, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The AFA weighs in. Bookmark the website for the best information as the debate on shutting down F-22 production heats up.

The debate over the F-22 has the same “feel” as did the debate over contracting out the operation of U.S. ports during the Bush Adminstration –one of those occasional and important moments when the U.S. public reacts quickly and almost uniformly against a high profile decision which simply does not make sense with their collective understanding about national security needs. As with the ports deal, the “experts” led by President Obama and Secretary Gates are telling us we just don’t understand the situation –in this instance that we don’t need and cannot afford more F-22s even though it is by far the dominant fighter plane on the planet, and even though less than 200 planes seems a ridiculously low number of top tier fighter planes on which to rest the country’s air superiority.

The ports deal failed when members of Congress heard from their constituents that they were deeply troubled by the broad outlines of the proposal. I think that the public may react the same way to the shortchanging of American national security. The cost of an additional 60 planes is hardly the cost of a single bank bailout, and measured against the nearly 800 billion dollar “stimulus” plan designed to “create or save” jobs, the idea of shutting down the F-22 production lines is close to incomprehensible except as an expression of reflexive anti-military budget-cutting.

UPDATE: An e-mail from Major Mike:

Hot Shots! Part Deux…Or, How I Learned to Love the Best and the Brightest

In a mere three months, the Obama Administration has accomplished what I understand is an almost impossible feat; they have actually shot down the F-22.[# More #]

A few months ago, through the retired, underground, former-Marine-Officer network I was sent a description of an encounter between seven F/A-18s and a single F-22. And while exaggeration and lore have always been a part of the fighter mystique, in this case the descriptions of the actual engagements were credible when compared to what I know to be the classified operational capabilities of the aircraft.

Without risking a stint in the Federal prison system with some angelic cell mate named “Bubba,” suffice it to say the F-22 made the Hornets look like a bunch of irritating mosquitoes on a hot Michigan summer night. It was pretty clear that the Hornets were unable to reliably target the F-22, while the Raptor was able to methodically drop the F/A-18s like a can of extra-strength Raid on steroids.

As a former crew member of F/A-18Ds, I was a little perturbed that these lousy Hornet drivers couldn’t at least sneak in a Rammer (AMRAAM) shot on this guy, and shut up all the hype. But apparently it proved impossible. And, even though the F-22 is unfortunately an Air Force asset and cross-service compliments are hard to come by, appears the Air Force has something here. Sorry…had something.

Until The Best and The Brightest re-mix, EP edition.

Bear with me for a mild excursion.

My last job in the Corps was as a requirements analyst for CINCPACFLT in Pearl Harbor, HI. I know…tough duty. I was responsible for budgetary positions on all things Marine, all things tactical fixed-wing aviation, and for all things that fell off, or were launched off airplanes and went boom, a.k.a. air delivered ordnance.

As such, I was given an opportunity by the State Department to comment on a proposed sale of F-16s to the government of Thailand. As is typical, attached to the deal was the sale of the aforementioned Rammer to the Thais. The deal hinged on the sale of the AMRAAM because the Thais were anxious to get a Gen 4 fighter with a launch and leave capability. The Air Force (all services for that matter) usually get something out of these deals…such as avionics upgrades, service life extension programs (SLEPs), or some other upgrades paid for by the purchasing country, suffice it to say, the Air Force was pushing for the sale.

I am sure the Air Force was more than a little peeved when the Department of State agreed with my assessment that the Rammer not be sold (at least in 1998) to a Third World country.

My reasoning was simple, strategically we have become a lean an mobile force that is often sent quickly, and lightly (read as, undermanned) to hot spots to put our fingers in the dike until we can get sufficient combat power in the vicinity to credibly forestall any contingency. These excursions are usually preceded with US Navy aircraft carriers, which by their very nature have limited recourses and consequently limited tactical advantages over their land based foes.

In order to preserve this significant tactical air-to-air advantage it was important NOT to sell the AMRAAM technology. A formidable launch-and-leave missile such as a FOX-3 cannot be given, even to an ally, when it might be compromised out into the future. I was in Korat, Thailand in 1992 when all that stood between an advancing Thai Army and a take over of the legitimate government was the Thai Marine Corps. So don’t preach political stability.

Our forces are entitled to every tactical advantage this country can build and afford EVERY time they are put into harms way.

As McNamara and his merry band of bean counters discovered after the premature deaths of zillions Pentagon calculators, war is often less an exemplary execution of some grand strategy, but more a collection of small, if not, improbable tactical victories.

Fortuitous weather at Bastogne. Immeasurable courage at Normandy, Iwo Jima and Tarawa. Complete surprise at Inchon. Each a collection of small, but fortuitous events that turned the tide in our favor. No calculators please.

Because the operational nature of war doesn’t lend itself to higher math, it is important to arm (literally) our forces with EVERY tactical advantage possible when put ashore with expeditionary responsibilities. This kind of tactical advantage precludes us from becoming victims to our foes luck, and almost brings relevancy to a calculator when talking about military operations.

A weapon like the F-22 also has significant strategic implications. With a potential seven-to-one kill ratio (minimum?) the US would be able to deploy fewer F-22s to maintain the same net tactical advantage as a Gen 4 aircraft (F-16, F18, F15) deployment. Lessening the need for strategic lift. Lessening the need for the transport of ammunition. Reducing the overall need for support personnel and thus shortening the overall logistical tail. All while maintaining a significant tactical advantage.

All without a calculator.

In an era where $100M buys six months of research on the sexual development of the Columbia Torrent Salamander, or where tens of billions pays out a few more bonuses to moronic derivatives traders and their savant lending institutions, sixty more F-22s seems like a pretty good spend of taxpayers’ monies.

But I guess value is not en vogue with Hot Shots! Part Deux.

Whatever happened to TI calculators?

AdvertisementAdvertise With Us

More On the F-22

Thursday, April 9, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

The latest in the e-mail conversation, begun below, which I am happy to mediate:


Thanks again for posting, and your updated post with a reply email does make some excellent points, and shows what happens when you type an email stream of thought and don’t fully edit your writing. Many assumptions built in to my thought process.
1. No missile is perfect, but proper positioning before you fire makes it pretty close, and the F-22’s ability to get in position before engaging without much if any threat to itself is why I paint such a rosy picture of the AMRAAM and Sidewinder. Also, the maneuverability of the Su-37 is greatly important when you get in close for Visual ID’s and dogfights. I dare say if we get into a guns/Sidewinder fight against these guys we may not have the upper hand (but that excludes the superior training our pilots enjoy). I admit to a bit of the early Vietnam-era mentality of “the dogfight era is over,” but I think that mentality is as true now as it ever will be. The dogfight will never go away, but then the F-22 is very capable in a dogfight.
2. I figured my “control the world” comment would be recognized as hyperbole. No question we will rely upon legacy aircraft, but then we always have. I DO want more F-22s, I just feel that 30 year old ships are a higher priority when our battles are going to be primarily against dispersed organizations like Al-Qaeda. The F-22 is vital in wars against nation states, but it also has one fatal flaw: it requires a land based runway. We showed that we can build airbases quickly in Afghanistan, but then we didn’t need a strong air-superiority fighter like the F-22 there. Would we be able to build such a base against Russia or China? We’d use bases in Korea or Japan most likely, but then you have the issue of attacks on those bases by enemy aircraft. Carriers are much more flexible in their positioning and their AEGIS/SM-2 defense through Ticonderoga and Burke class ships provide a pretty thorough defense.
3. The GCI certainly a problem, but that’s just more reason for a capable strike force. They cannot see you if their radar systems are burning hulks of steel killed by Wild Weasels missions (or more famously, Apache strikes like in Desert Storm). Iraq had a very capable GCI system that did it little good against the very legacy platforms we are discussing (supplemented of course by F-117s)
Ultimately, the emailer and I agree on many things I think, we just have slightly different priorities. I admit that as a SWO, I am both less educated than an F/A-18 driver in the finer points of aerial combat, as well as biased towards shipbuilding. That, however, doesn’t disprove my bigger point: Strike aircraft are more important than pure air superiority fighters in our future battles, and newer, more capable ships (such as the aforementioned Zumwalt class) provide a better force projection/homeland defense platform.
I wish that the F-22 had some strike capability, the flexibility that would offer would make the F-22 a much more vital aircraft. There should have also been a Naval version, as carrier based aircraft have shown that they are more useful in rapid response, unless there happens to be a friendly runway nearby that is secure.
All in all, we need to upgrade all the branches, improved tanks/APCs, helicopters, aircraft and ships. But if we have to pick and choose where the money goes, despite their cost, I think ships are the best investment.
Jason Kercheval

More On The F-22 and President Obama’s First Pentagon Budget

Wednesday, April 8, 2009  |  posted by Hugh Hewitt

A spirited, nearly two-hour discussion on the push by the Obama Administration to end production of the F-22 was the centerpiece of tonight’s show. (Earlier posts from today on this subject are here and here.) I remain convinced that no great power should ever abandon the production of a war-fighting platform vastly superior to anything that great power’s enemies could field. Increasing the disparity of forces increases security, and the cost of full production of the F-22 is insignificant compared to the security it provides and the massive deficits now unfolding. Proponents of other endangered systems should resist falling for the zero-sum game put forward by the Administration that says, for example, that if we are to build more ships, we have to cut back on aircraft etc. The military needs 6% of GDP at a minimum, and has bumped along –even during these years of war– at around 4%. We do need more ships and more soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines paid at they rate they so richly deserve. The point is that we can indeed afford this robust expenditure, and the shuttering of the F-22 not only destroys high-tech excellent jobs and crucial industrial production capacity, it also diminishes our edge over near-peer competitors.

The Obama Administration has taken its first step towards a progressively expanding assault on military preparedness with this its first Pentagon budget. Conservatives and Republicans especially but independents and center-left Democrats as well, have to recognize this budget as the first and potentially decisive battle in the effort to keep the American military the greatest –by far– military in the world. It is up to the Congress to draw this line in the sand and force the Adminstration to avoid the errors of the “peace-dividend” Congresses of the ’90s. GOP leaders like Romney, Huckabee and Gingrich also have to make this a centerpiece of their public presentations. President Obama could have avoided becoming just another anti-military liberal, but this budget shows that he is of a piece with his starve-the-Pentagon predecessors.

It should be a robust discussion, though, and smart e-mails like this one will always be welcome:

As a Navy Surface Warfare Officer (Inactive Reserve now) plus my own desire to always be learning, I know a lot about a lot (as the
backbone of the fleet we have to know how to work with everybody else and thus what everyone else can do).

A few points:

First of all the Russian Aircraft mentioned [on the show] is the Sukhoi SU-37. It’s an incredibly acrobatic aircraft, but it’s essentially useless in modern warfare. The vectored thrust technology that they developed is tops in the world, allowing the plane to do things that are amazing (including flipping over on a dime to shoot behind himself). This technology is wonderful but waste don this airframe as I will explain in a second.

The F-22 is far an away the best air superiority fighter in the
world. It’s stealthy even beyond the F-117s that made such an impact in Desert Storm, so the enemy never sees it coming. It’s fast, currently (unless something changed recently) the only aircraft in the world that can supercruise (faster than the speed of sound without afterburners). It has some vectored thrust as well, so it’s very maneuverable (capable of maneuvers that the pilot would be killed during). But those things are only the tip of the iceberg.

The radar on the F-22 is currently undetectable by radar warning
receivers, as it uses a form of phased array. This means that the
enemy fighter will not even know the F-22 is there (no warning
receiver, plus no detection because of stealth) until the AIM-120
AMRAAM missile’s own radar lights off. At that point all the enemy can do is eject, because that missile is so supremely perfected that it has a cone of no escape, where no aircraft can escape the missile regardless of countermeasures used. The enemy’s position is even worse if the F-22 moves in close to use an AIM-9 Sidewinder, because that missile uses no radar, only Infrared, so the only warning the enemy will have, if any, is if he happens to see the missile coming (not likely).

Further, the F-22 can engage numerous targets at once. This and
several other key components are force multipliers. It’s common for a flight of 4 F-22s to go up against some of our own best pilots in F-15s, F-16s, etc. numbering 4 times their number or more during training and not only do all 4 F-22s survive, but they usually kill everyone else without being detected. A flight of 8 F-22s can
basically deny the airspace of Iraq or similar countries, and so 187 F-22s if well maintained and stocked with repair parts can control the world. Only when faced with the numbers that only a Russia or China can throw at us might there be a problem, and then only because of a lack of missiles. They’d have to constantly rearm and get back in the fight.

That, by the way, is why the Su-37, as great an acrobat as it is, is
useless. It’ll never see us coming in F-22s. They are a real problem against F-15s, -16s, -18s, etc. In fact the have a superior IR missile in the AA-12 Archer.

While I would like to see a few more F-22s, it has been discussed for some time whether we should make many, basically since before they started making them. Modern warfare doesn’t require much in the way of air superiority, because no one comes up against us in the air, or if they do, we see them so far away with our AWACS airborne radar that we get in behind them no matter what airframe is in the air. This is why the F-35 is the more important airframe. Aircraft must be multi-role like the F/A-18, because 90% of war missions are strikes or close air support, which the F-22 cannot do yet, if ever.

I’d love to call in and discuss further if you want to spend more time on the subject. Basically, I am disappointed in general by the President’s apparent Defense spending (or lack thereof). We need new ships terribly.

Jason Kercheval
Houston, TX

Lefty defenders of the president sense the political peril the president has courted by unveiling such a profound build-down in his first budget, and thus get used to seeing such smoke-screen observations as Matthew Yglesias’ “the U.S. military already account[s] for half of global defense spending.” After years and years of asymmetrical war, it should be obvious even to Matt that America’s percentage of global military spending is irrelevant to whether or not the U.S. military can protect America and American interests around the world. The U.S. defense budget might be 70% of the world’s total spending and not be enough, or 25% and be sufficient. What matters is the ability to deter attack and the ability to destroy enemy capabilities in whatever combination they appear. As the dominant aircraft in the skies today, the F-22 is one weapons system that guarantees American control of key battle-spaces –if there are enough of them. Why would we ever want to play that number close to the margin of error?

But bad arguments in defense of a bad defense budget are to be expected, though not accepted.

UPDATE: Another great e-mail, this from a F-18 pilot:

Hi Hugh–

I read the email you posted by Jason Kercheval on his assessment of the F-22 as it relates to future air combat missions the US Air Force would need to perform. He has some of his facts right, but has some big gaps in his understanding of the F-22’s role in the BIG PICTURE. A SWO should probably stick to commenting on surface warfare.
First, Jason overestimates the effectiveness of any missile in combat. They are not magic bullets and for every increase in capability of a missile, there is a corresponding and sometimes disproportionate leap in countermeasures against that capability. What I mean by that is, the Russian Su-27/30/37 all have countermeasures that can defeat and diminish the effectiveness of our missiles, both the radar guided AMRAAM and the IR guided Sidewinder. The reason that a incredibly high powered and maneuverable aircraft is needed is for when you get the “the merge” (where you pass as close as physically possible to an adversary head to head). At that point, all the fancy radar missiles in the world don’t do you much good–what counts is superior training in basic fighter maneuvering, superior thrust and maneuverability; namely the ability to put your nose on another aircraft and shoot them. It’s really that simple. They designed the F-22 as an air superiority fighter because that is exactly what it is–superior in all aspects. It’s difficult to detect by radar and it is likely that you would get the first shot with your radar missiles. When those missiles fail, the F-22 still maintains the upper hand because it will get to the merge with superior energy (ie, thrust available) and superior turn performance (ie, you can put your nose on your adversary anywhere he goes). As you have stated, the F-22 is needed because it truly is a superior aircraft in all respects, and the very fact that we have them deters potential aggressors. Parity, or just slightly better, with your adversary is not the goal–you want them to be totally and completely outclassed in every respect. That’s what the F-22 does. Also, given the base assumption in US military doctrine that air superiority will be our within a few days or hours of any conflict starting, the F-22 goes a long way toward making that a valid starting point for our strategic planners for decades into the future.
Also, Jason is correct that the F-22 is a force multiplier, but six squadrons is not sufficient to cover two major theater wars and homeland defense simultaneously, as US doctrine requires. I would say exactly twice that number would be the bare minimum to make sure the that trained aircrew and maintenance personnel, parts and deployment stamina are available. That number would require us heavily leaning on the legacy platforms (F-15/16/18) to do the workhorse jobs of close air support until the F-35 fully comes online. As I’m sure you’ve mentioned before, the Pentagon doesn’t say, hmm, this number of aircraft or artillery pieces or infantry division would be nice to have. They look at the total security requirements that US needs around the world to conduct two theater wars and homeland defense and arrives at the fleet numbers based on that analysis. The original number of F-22s they sought to procure was not just a number picked out of a hat.
Lastly, Jason paints a rosy of a picture of our capabilities against potential adversaries in the air. However, we are not the only country that has an early warning or Ground Controlled Intercept (GCI) system. Everyone does–it’s a fairly basic technology and hard to jam. Most of the air combat scenarios we would find ourselves in will be over our adversary’s territory, where they will have more than sufficient GCI coverage to be able to vector their aircraft with tactical effectiveness and counter our 4th generation fighters (F-15/16/18). Trust me on that one. The way you prevent another nation from challenging us in the air is to continue production of the F-22 thereby guaranteeing the potential adversary that they will inundated with a weapon systems that doesn’t play by the rules of GCI-based tactics.
Space fails me to go any deeper into it, but more F-22s is the best way to ensure American air dominance for the next several decades. The F-35 will also be needed to fill the workhorse roles of close air support, but the F-22 is how we will own the skies in the battles of this generation.

Page 1092 of 3265 1 1,089 1,090 1,091 1,092 1,093 1,094 1,095 3,265
Invite Hugh to Speak
Back to Top