Warbird Information Exchange

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.

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.

I wonder if the Northrop YF-23's would have had as many problems if they had been chosen instead....

Any criticisms of capabilities are due to not knowing the true information (e.g. it is classified)....

The average unit flyaway cost for the F/A-22 in 2003 was about $178 million, while the unit flyaway costs for future annual buys were projected before the budget decision to decrease to $127 million, $111 million, and $108 million in fiscal years 2007, 2008, and 2009 respectively [that is to say, roughly double the unit flyaway costs of the single engine F-35]. With the program will be truncated in 2008, the less expensive aircraft in 2009 and beyond will not be bought and unit costs are projected at $135 million in 2007 and $149 million in 2008 (increases associated with close-out of production).