Quote Originally Posted by tankersteve View Post
However, like Ken (not that I am his peer), I think some of the argument is not that credible. For instance, do you have to escort ISR if it is unmanned, small, and stealthy?
It's situational, but yes, it would require escort to operate over denied territory - otherwise they'd get shot down. They don't have any of the threat-mitigation advantages of manned aircraft currently - they are low speed, not maneuverable, lack basic defensive aids, etc. But in reality I think it's unlikely we'd see that situation to begin with - the current crop of ISR UAV's are not exactly designed to be escorted or operate in high-threat environments. Once true UCAV's come along, then that will change.

I don't want to appear to be 'Air-bashing' but the key arguement that I think the AF has missed is 'affordability'.
Don't worry, that's not bashing! But I think the Air Force would agree with you! While the fighter community loves the capabilities of the F-22, they are not happy about the price tag because it has resulted in many fewer aircraft being produced at the end of the day (originally it was going to be 700). Of course, no one should feel sorry for the Air Force on that count, because it deserves much blame for the state of things. The Air Force has proven itself completely incompetent at procurement.

How bad is the threat of advanced capability fighter aircraft? Can a viable threat buy, maintain, train, and fly an advanced 4th or 5th Gen fighter force? Do we see that as likely? Would a lot of slightly less capable, yet much more affordable aircraft do a better job? Mass (quantity) has a quality all its own.
Today it's not that bad (absent China and Russia), but down the road things will probably get worse from an air-to-air standpoint. The Air Force position is that the F-22 is going to have to last for 30-40 years or more, so the service is, in part, looking at the long-term threat. There is some validity to that, but again, the AF has made its own bed and deserves a lot of blame.

The main problem today from a threat perspective is actually ground-based air defense which is very capable and much simpler to operate for most nations than a fleet of aircraft.

What if we had brand new F15s, with the latest electronics built right in, with the newest engine variants, with every update other countries have developed, etc? Perhaps made even better than the originals, with stronger materials, better engineering for superior maintenance access and reliability? Is it capable, especially if we could afford many more of them (at the rate of 3x or 4x as many F22s) of accomplishing much of what the F22 could do? Obviously stealth would be a limit, but it seems that the stealth requirement has turned our fighter fleet into a night-focused force.
The F-15 is still being produced, with variants for, I believe, Korea and Singapore. These latest models are very capable - better than our own in many ways, with a lot of the latest gear. But even these aircraft are $110 million a copy, which is only 25-30% cheaper than an F-22. Obviously opinions vary, but most in the AF (including me) believe that extra cost is worth it for the tremendous leap in capability. We'll still have F-15's of course and they will still be around for quite a while.

I've said elsewhere on this forum that if I could turn the wayback machine to the late 1990's, I would have canceled the F-22 and done what you suggest here. It would have saved us a lot of money and allowed time for many of the F-22's technologies to mature. Kicking the development can down the road about 10 years would have been wise, but unfortunately that didn't happen. The aircraft is done and in full-rate production, so the "cancel the F-22" ship sailed some time ago. The question is how many should we buy and for that I don't have an answer, though I think 183 is a bit low when a 40-year time-span is considered. The Air Force is going to ask the new administration for 60 more aircraft, which would cost about $3-4 billion a year for three years and is 140 aircraft less than the service has been asking for the past few years. We'll see what happens.

I am not just stirring the pot, but hopefully learning about (and maybe even appreciating) my brothers in blue a bit more.
Stir away! It's all good.