Thursday, March 04, 2010
RAPTOR vs. LIGHTNING II
[I'm blogging!!!] The F-35 development program is fast becoming a complete disaster. It's way behind schedule and over budget. Now, here's a good piece that's asking -- is the F-35 even militarily vital?
In hindsight, I think DefSec Gates got it exactly wrong and backwards: The F-22 should have been continued and the F-35 canceled. Even if Sukhoi gets its fifth generation fighter into real production, it won't be more than a match for the F-22. It will tip the balance of air power only if it can overwhelm with numbers. With only 180 or so F-22s, that's a possibility, although it will be a stretch for the Russians to actually field that many planes in even a decade. Nevertheless, the issue is a basic one of how air power works: There's air superiority, and then there's air power. Over the next decade, if you have real air superiority, do you need the kind of stealth that the F-35 (supposedly) offers in a strike aircraft? Not really, at least not in most conceivable conflicts. And, if the question is even close, is it necessary to take the risks and pay the outrageous costs to get the F-35 into production and operation? Wouldn't it make more sense to concentrate our technological superiority on the one place where it matters most -- getting control of the sky -- and then count on that to make our current mix of strike aircraft viable for many years to come?
The F-22 assembly line has been shut down. But it could be re-opened. And if it were, it would produce a proven, operational aircraft that, right now, can guarantee absolute air superiority. But not with just 180 aircraft.
Would Gates and Obama have the courage to stop and reverse course on the choice they've made between the Raptor and the Lightning II? Probably not. But I'm pretty well convinced that it would be the right thing to do.
GB, THHotA [I'm blogging!!!!]
posted by Greg 7:02 AM
|
|
