I claim absolutely no expertise in matters of defense. I have never served in the military, and never fired a gun in anger. I have, however, a simple question:

Given that the timeline for building any kind of defensive capability is at least 10-15 years (starting today for something new), and our ability to predict the strategic geopolitical situation is simply very, very bad (not because of incompetence, but because of the inherent impossibility of doing substantially better), why are we so confident that giving up this colossal technological advantage over any other potential adversary is such a wise thing to do?

That is exactly what I was thinking and said in my own comment on here. I'm not in the military but I am something of an authority on aviation and closing out the F-22 in this manner is very unwise. At the start of the first Gulf War, we hardly had enough desert camo BDUs for all our troops . . . because we didn't foresee during the Cold War fighting a major land war in a desert environment. For that matter, our helicopter aircraft were not able to cope with the desert sandstorms because we never considered developing such a capacity in them. When we sent Apache attack helicopters to Bosnia, we had a hell of a time getting them in place to be of any use because that aspect of supply chain logistics in a remote mountain environment in bad weather was not tested properly. To close out a whole weapons system which has not other analog in our current Air Force is simply myopic.

Because by the time a need for an F-22 like craft has emerged, it will be obsolete.

But if we imagine the unlikely event of a hostile superpower suddenly emerging from nothing, we will happily note that the blueprints for the F-22 are still with us.

But your argument can be applied to any piece of technology, regardless of it's merits. Sure, it's possible that ten years down the line I'll need a hummer. But that doesn't mean I should be wasting my money on it today.

We already have 187 of the things, and they sit in hangars doing nothing because there's nothing for them to do. A technologically competitive rival superpower is not going to emerge overnight. If we ever do need to order up more, we'll have plenty of warning.

If there is really no viable current use for them, out of that 187 can I please have just one? I swear I will give it back if the USAF ever needs it!

@ NickBanglo:

Fred Kaplan does note that the next generation of fighter jet, the F-35, is in the pipeline.

Also... WE ALREADY HAVE 187 OF THEM!

Seriously, that's more than the total strength of the average air force. What we've done is not get rid of the F-22. We've just halted production at 187. How the hell many do people think we need, anyway? People seem to think that, just because we're not building another 20 or 50 or 100 of the things that we're somehow rolling over and surrendering to the world.

Heck, I'm in favor of scrapping the LCS. This would not be the death knell of the Navy, contrary to some opinions.

:-)

According to Secretary Gates, intelligence he's seen indicates that a Russian fifth-generation fighter will reach initial operational capability "about 2016" and China will field a fifth-generation fighter "about 2020." Add to this the FACT that once production lines are shut down, there won't be an option of ordering up more...

<link>

pwoxby:

@ NickBanglo:

Fred Kaplan does note that the next generation of fighter jet, the F-35, is in the pipeline.

The next generation of useless fighter? Hooray!

The risk is not great. Here's why:

The F-22 is an "air superiority" fighter, which means it is primarily for air-to-air combat over a battlefield. There are only a few countries that can make high-performance fighters that can even compete with the previous generation of fighters. Russia is the only one which is not a solid ally of ours.

Defense forecasts can be inaccurate, but building an advanced fighter aircraft is a large undertaking that requires lots of facilities and testing, and so there is a lot of intelligence to go on. We probably have a pretty good idea where the Russians are with their next generation of fighters.

There are also newer technologies, like unmanned air vehicles, that could surpass the F-22's capabilities within a few years. UAVs do not have pilots, whose susceptibility to G forces limits how quickly airplanes can be designed to maneuver. We are the leaders in UAV technology as well.

The F-35 is designed to be a strike fighter, to penetrate air defense systems and deliver bombs to the ground, as well as having air-to-air capability. That is a much more practical choice.

wayhey1:

pwoxby:

@ NickBanglo:

Fred Kaplan does note that the next generation of fighter jet, the F-35, is in the pipeline.

The next generation of useless fighter? Hooray!

Meh. The F-35 is an extremely versatile, multi-purpose weapon system that replaces three absolutely vital but aging (or already retired) platforms (F-16, F/A-18, F-117). Of all the major systems in the works for the DoD, this is probably the most important and useful one.

RobinOlds(GR8AmericanHero):

According to Secretary Gates, intelligence he's seen indicates that a Russian fifth-generation fighter will reach initial operational capability "about 2016" and China will field a fifth-generation fighter "about 2020." Add to this the FACT that once production lines are shut down, there won't be an option of ordering up more...

<link>

So in your expert opinion, how many do you think we'd need to face this looming threat of the Russians and Chinese building a plane that probably won't be any better than an F-35 in 8-12 years time? Another 20? 200? 2000?

NickBanglo makes a good point regarding our lack of forseeability, but what that runs up against is the notion of scarcity. Ideally we would build every weapon system conceivable to counter future possible threats, but the reality is that we have finite (if vast) resources. So you have to make a judgment call at some point and accept a certain amount of possible future risk.

It's like the whole concept some have had since 9/11 that, if it increases our security to do x, then we must do x no matter what. Sometimes the better alternative is to not do x because it is too expensive or not compatable with our society, and to simply accept an increase in risk.

The F-22 is an awesome fighter plane, but the chances of us engaging in an all out war with a major power that can counter our 190 current F-22's (we all have nukes anyway, which makes all out war very unlikely) is so slim in the next 20 years that building more seems foolish.

C-Tips:

RobinOlds(GR8AmericanHero):

According to Secretary Gates, intelligence he's seen indicates that a Russian fifth-generation fighter will reach initial operational capability "about 2016" and China will field a fifth-generation fighter "about 2020." Add to this the FACT that once production lines are shut down, there won't be an option of ordering up more...

<link>

So in your expert opinion, how many do you think we'd need to face this looming threat of the Russians and Chinese building a plane that probably won't be any better than an F-35 in 8-12 years time? Another 20? 200? 2000?

Well, actually, the F-35 won't be as good as the F-22 in the air to air role for several reasons, mostly because it only has one engine and half the thrust of the F-22. Any damage to that single engine brings the plane down. The F-35 is definitely not "the next generation" of fighter aircraft. Aside from being new, it probably won't be any better than our old F-15s in air to air.

Still, that probably won't matter. As some have pointed out, the number of peer competitors who might build a credible threat aircraft are very few. However, just a few words of caution:

1) Any UAV vs manned aircraft combat is likely to confirm the value of a pilot. The control lag is enough to give most manned aircraft the critical edge. A "G" advantage is only good if you pull in the right direction. Let's test a UAV pilot's ability to stay in a vertical rolling scissors against a manned opponent before we make any claims we can't support.

2) Anyone care to describe how much our Air Force and Naval Aviation outclassed the North Vietnamese at the beginning of that war? Now, without googling, try to guess within five hundred how many fixed wing aircraft we lost in the Vietnam War. And we would have lost more if we had not kept and increased our technological superiority.

Well, actually, the F-35 won't be as good as the F-22 in the air to air role for several reasons, mostly because it only has one engine and half the thrust of the F-22. Any damage to that single engine brings the plane down. The F-35 is definitely not "the next generation" of fighter aircraft. Aside from being new, it probably won't be any better than our old F-15s in air to air.

Certainly the F-35 isn't as fast as the F-22, but it is a true stealth platform, so it should be far, far more survivable even in the air-to-air role than the non-stealthy F-15.