Two Decades of Dreaming and Hard Work

Go to any Internet search engine and type "F-22" in the search field. Most of the hits returned will likely be related to PC sim titles. Naturally, military sim enthusiasts are concerned when a major fighter program is cut, not just as PC software consumers, but as humans with a genuine interest in future technologies that can make the world safer. In my experience simmers are competitive, but principled; rational, but idealistic; peace loving, but aggressive. Generally, they are a good bunch of folks who deserve an explanation of the recent threats to the F-22 Raptor program.

All F22 images from Air Combat Command

I remember the pride I felt upon first reading of this promising new Advanced Tactical Fighter that would replace the F-15. I still marvel at an aircraft that cruises at supersonic speeds without using afterburners, detects virtually any enemy first while itself avoiding detection through stealth, and outmaneuvers any foes via thrust vectoring. I followed its progress with enthusiasm throughout years of both praise and criticism.

From early on, there were serious doubts about stealth technology, the aircraft's role, and of course, cost. The success of the F-117 in Panama and the Gulf War eventually squelched doubts about stealth technology. As the Soviet Union collapsed and the U.S. military downsized, opponents of the F-22 characterized the aircraft strictly as a cold war fighter designed to take control of a large scale air war with the Soviets.

Today, some critics still maintain that the F-22 is no longer needed without a Soviet Superpower. The charge that the F-22 is a huge financial gamble persists and is the most serious. Yet, the money kept rolling in, as the F-22 continued to demonstrate its potential to one day dominate the air over any battlefield.

First Everything

Anyone who has simulated flight of the F-22 Air Dominance Fighter in Total Air War understands the F-22's "first look, first shot, first kill" ability. The key words are Air and Dominance. The purpose of the F-22 is to establish absolute control of the skies over any battlefield.

Air Force Gen. Richard E. Hawley, Commander, Air Combat Command, affirms the need for U.S. expeditionary forces to establish "a sanctuary free from enemy aerial attack as they disembark at ports and airfields." He further asks "How dominant will we be if the AWACS, JSTARS, Rivet Joint and other information-gathering systems are subject to attack?" Future air battles may not be as one-sided for the U.S. as the Gulf and Kosovo Wars.

Perhaps the most deceptive argument for discontinuing the F-22 is that if Americans could simply be patient until the year 2010, they would see production of the Joint Strike Fighter. Congressmen hoping to substitute the JSF for the F-22 in order to cut spending must stop looking at this as an either/or proposition. These two aircraft have been designed for two different roles with different manufacturing processes.

A good way to understand the differences in the F-22 and the JSF is in comparing the F-15 to the F-16, respectively. When I think of the F-15, the words advanced, superior, and expensive come to mind (to date, an F-15 has never been shot down). When I think of the F-16, I think versatile, low-cost, foreign sales. At this moment in history, we need both products over the battlefield, the F-15 to completely dominate the air, and the F-16 to do a little of everything well. In the same way, future air operations will call for the presence of both a superfighter like the F-22 and a workhorse like the JSF.

The Joint Strike Fighter program makes sense both militarily and economically. Besides making improvements in stealth and maneuverability over today's aircraft, the JSF's multi-service design makes it a strike aircraft that will serve just about everyone except the Coast Guard.

The U.S. Air Force, Navy, Marines and U.S. allies all want it. The numerous contracts for the plane as well as the large numbers of aircraft planned for production make it more affordable. This is to say nothing of the lower cost onboard systems which are not as advanced as those of the F-22.

There will be "a high degree of commonality between service variants and a single production line," says Boeing, a JSF contractor. Ironically, one of Boeing's JSF customer needs for the Air Force is "complementing the F-22A." Doesn't this sound like the multirole fighter that will replace the F-16?

Two: "Buddy Spike"

Without following through on the F-22 investment, the U.S. will not have the world's dominant fighter during the year's leading up to 2010. This leaves a gap of up to ten years without a superior fighter to compete with the Su 37, the Russian response to the F-22.

The gap will have to be overcome by increasing the number of F-15's, upgrading the F-15 (how do you upgrade a non-stealth airframe to stealth?), or relying on other upgraded aircraft like the Navy's F-18E/F Super Hornet. Keep in mind that the F-15 will be about 40 years old when the JSF arrives. If the U.S. goes to battle with the best product, both the pilot risk and the cost can be reduced (a smaller number of F-22's can do the job of many F-15's).

There's a reason that Europe's upcoming superfighter was called the EF 2000. The Eurofighter was supposed to be in service by the year 2000. While its production has been under way for a year now, delivery has been delayed until 2002.

Chris Worning, Dasa’s Eurofighter test pilot, comments on Eurofighter Typhoon..

"The most modern fighter that I had flown previously is the F-16 and I tend to compare Eurofighter with a much superior engine performance and compared to the F-16 Block 50, the Eurofighter maximum take-off weight is typically only 20% higher but we have 40% more thrust.

2 Seat Variant of Typhoon.

"Even more significant is the fact that the high thrust of the PW229 is reached by an almost 100% augmentation in reheat so when we compare dry power, Eurofighter has 75% more thrust. This leads to a much lower fuel consumption in combat situations and is one of the factors that allow us to 'supercruise' (flying supersonically without reheat) which we have now demonstrated on many test flights."

In discussing the F-15's competitors, Gen. Hawley, states "the MiG-29, SU-27, Mirage 2000, Rafael and Eurofighter 2000 each have performance advantages in some areas such as acceleration, radar capability, and/or firepower. These aircraft are aggressively marketed worldwide and we face improvements in both the quality and quantity of potential threat aircraft."

The Eurofighter is expected to outperform the F-15, but will not approach the effectiveness of the F-22. Competition between the Eurofighter and aging U.S. fighters is beginning to heat up. The Europeans are reported to be already selling the Eurofighter to anyone interested. The U.S. will be in the odd position of deploying an air supremacy fighter (the F-15) which will overwhelm neither enemy nor ally.

If the U.S. wants, it can deliver F-22's by about the same time the Eurofighter appears. While the U.S. may overcome the technological edge of other aircraft by seizing the numerical advantage, there's just something that seems wrong about the Air Force not flying the best.

Foreign military sales can be crucial to a fighter program in that the increased production volume obtained reduces the per-aircraft cost to the US military. If the F-22 continues, the US State Department will be able to choose which country gets a chance to buy the F-22 and what sort of a downgraded design will be made available.

Several countries, most notably Japan, have been clamoring for the right to procure some F-22s. The presence of F-22's in Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan would be a strong deterrent to the North Korean and Chinese threats.

So far, the Defense Department has stonewalled on foreign sales. The point is, the foreign market would add to the US's falling balance of payments, help keep the F-22 costs low, and provide a political tool for the U.S. government. Also, lining up foreign sales of the F-22 might undermine the possibility of the Eurofighter being seriously considered by any first world power.

Stealth Politics

Instead of threats from SAM's, or BVR missiles, the F-22 is being shot down by friendly fire from the very institution that spawned its existence, the United States House of Representatives. "I was there" in the Cobb Galleria Center on the night of November 8, 1994 where Republican Congressman Newt Gingrich announced to a crowd of ecstatic supporters that his party would now control congress for the first time in 40 years.

News anchors were in tears. Democrats were scrambling for cover. The world was shocked. This was a night that both dreams and nightmares came true. As Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr. Gingrich's new conservative Congress would bring a "revolution" by implementing their Contract with America. The man I saw around town and in my favorite Mexican restaurant and in my local barbershop was now one of the most powerful in the world. The 9,200 Georgians employed by Lockheed Martin's Aeronautical Systems Division in Marietta, Georgia could take comfort in Newt's position during an era of defense cut-backs and base-closings.

Mr. Gingrich went on to implement the Contract with America and in the end, became a casualty of his own ideals and combative personality. He easily won re-election in 1998, but casting aside his pride and accepting the blame for Republican losses nationwide, he resigned from Congress. This left Bob Livingston of Louisiana as the next in line for Speaker of the House, but soon he also stepped down after admitting to misconduct uncovered by Clinton sympathizers after the Lewinsky and other scandals surfaced.

This meant that a mild-mannered moderate Republican from Illinois named Dennis Hastert would be Speaker. In defense of his wish to make cuts in the F-22 program, Hastert says "We need to concentrate on those things that work." Back in Georgia, moderate Republican, Johnny Isakson won Newt Gingrich's seat in Georgia's 6th congressional district. Isakson is currently the most junior member of the delegation.

Recall that Georgia is also the home state of Senator Sam Nunn, former Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. In his last three Senate elections, the popular lawmaker carried at least 80% of the vote. Mr. Nunn was considered an authority on national defense matters. Members of both parties recognized him as objective and informed. He is said to have been approached by the Clinton Administration to replace Les Aspen as Secretary of Defense after the Somalia fiasco.

Mr. Nunn retired from Congress in 1997. This left no dominant political figure to protect the military industry and bases located in the state of Georgia. Ideological enemies of Gingrich and Republicans eager to prove themselves bipartisan sharpened their knives to carve up some Georgia pork.

The 1.8 billion dollar cut was kept off the radar screen by the House Appropriations Committee, and when announced, caught opponents off guard. This stealthy political tactic prevented debate and built quick momentum to fight capable opponents among the civilian, political, and military sectors.

The sudden move to cut the program seems strange coming so soon after the Kosovo victory, where air superiority, high altitude bombing, and stealth were underlying tenets. If the F-22 could have been deployed against Yugoslavia, it might have given the program a needed PR boost. Imagine the headline "F-22 Performs Magnificently Over Kosovo" juxtaposing the headline "F-22 Program Slashed by Congress."

Benefits of Partisan Politics

This is when the politics behind the F-22 get really crazy. In a bizarre tangle of irony, The Clinton Administration, traditionally no friend of the military industrial complex, supports the F-22 program. Whenever feasible, the Whitehouse likes to appear to the right of Republicans. Such a convoluted polarization underscores just how little differences are left between the two parties. Partisan politics may not be a bad idea in some cases.

Okay, more irony. Defense Secretary William Cohen was one of the first to speak out against cutting the program. In a letter to Congress, he stated that he "could not accept an FY 2000 defense bill that fails to fund the F-22 fighter program." He went on to say that "This decision, if enacted, would for all practical purposes kill the F-22 program, the cornerstone of our nation's global air power in the 21st century."

The Clinton Administration both astonished and silenced opponents by choosing the former Republican Senator from Maine to replace outgoing Secretary of Defense, William Perry. Cohen's Senate confirmation vote was a resounding 99-0. The result is a Republican working inside a Democratic Whitehouse opposing Republicans.

Corporate Warfare

The original Advanced Tactical Fighter bid included three contractors: Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin), General Dynamics, and Boeing. Lockheed was team leader and the work was split roughly three ways. Later, Lockheed bought General Dynamics, giving them 2/3rds of the F-22 program. Besides its stake in the F-22, Boeing is also the principle contractor of both the F-15, F-18E/F Super Hornet and heads a team competing against Lockheed Martin for the large and lucrative JSF program.

Over the last 20 years, Boeing has fought hard to enter the fighter aircraft manufacturing arena where Lockheed has a long and successful history. The two are natural competitors. Publicly, cooperation between the two companies is reported to be good. However, one source close to Lockheed Martin tells me that "once in a while you hear something said negatively about Boeing's effort." Another believes that Boeing may be doing a little corporate foot-dragging on the F-22. Is Boeing filibustering on the F-22, since they stand to benefit from more F-15 orders if the F-22 is cut?

Build it. Don't build it. Build it. Don't...

The concern about soaring spending projections is valid. There's nothing wrong with cutting or canceling a program that is not meeting expectations or is out of control financially. In the late 1980's, Congress proposed terminating the F-22 program, but 10 years and 20 billion dollars later is somewhat late for a fiscal epiphany.

High-tech fighter planes have traditionally cost much more than estimates, yet Lockheed Martin maintains that they can stay under their cap of 72 million dollars, even agreeing to absorb some costs if overruns occur. Furthermore, Tom Burbage, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, states that the F-22 "requires only half the maintenance personnel and a third of the maintenance of an F-15." These statements make the recent cuts by the House more puzzling during this "budget surplus" era.

I'm Pro-Life On The F-22

Amazingly, the mainstream media has kept silent about the F-22 issue, opting instead to travail over next year's New York Senate race and the Kennedy family updates. Considering the importance of the F-22 program, we've heard very little debate about it. Why aren't more defense-conscious Congressmen forcing this issue to the front lines? Where has the public been?

This Is Not A Game (I Mean, Sim)

It's too early for a eulogy and too late for abortion. Remember that the F-22 program has not been cancelled. The Senate wants it, the House doesn't. The two must work out a compromise in conference. The country is too far past the drawing board and too close to production to give up.

Due to the cut-backs and precipitation in morale that have occurred under the current Administration, I believe that the next ten years will be a crucial and trying time for our military.

The F-22 must be allowed to defend the citizens of the U.S. in the future. Besides saving the lives of American military personnel, the U.S. has a chance to establish a "peace through strength" doctrine with conventional weapons. This is a big opportunity for the U.S. to make a quantum leap in air superiority. If the U.S. wants to remain a superpower, build the F-22. If not, don't. I have one thing to say to Congress: find a way.

Find out more about the F-22 here: F22 Raptor, and F22 Updates.

There is also some very thoughtful discussion of the recent F-22 events appearing in the COMBATSIM.COM™ Real Military Forum.. (When you get there scroll down the page.)

Emory Rowland reviews military sims for Gamepen and Gamezilla. He is an occasional contributor to COMBATSIM.COM™