No, they do not provide the same air superiority, nor even the same air-to-ground capability. It’s not even close. And, for the record, the F-35 is slated to replace both the AF F-16 and the older Navy F/A-18 models.

Certainly with upgrades we could keep a qualitative edge for another decade. The AF is looking at an AESA radar upgrade for the F-15C/D fleet that will cost around $10 million just for the radar – the systems integration and required avionics upgrades will cost another $10 million per airframe. That will correct several deficiencies in the current F-15 fleet, but many airframes are already being retired because they’ve passed their service lives. In a decade most of the C/D fleet will have to be retired. What then?

We could buy the F-15K model, which is still being produced, for a little over $100 million a copy, not including the already sunk development costs. F-22′s will cost 35-50 million more than that for a generational leap in capability. When you look at the competition, such as the SU-30MKI, the choice should be a no-brainer. The F-15 will simply be outclassed by the newer fighters that will proliferate in the coming decade. Same with the F-16 and F/A-18.

You can’t keep the F-15/F-16 going forever. At some point they have to be replaced because the airframe technology becomes obsolete – in exactly the same way that the all-metal mono-wing technology of WWII replaced the previous generation of WWI aircraft. And jet-powered aircraft replaced WWII aircraft, and then supersonic aircraft replaced those. In short you can’t keep upgrading old airframes forever, even if you bolt new-fangled toys on them. If that actually worked we could bring back our F-4 phantoms, slap some AESA’s and AMRAAMs on them and be good-to-go. But things don’t work that way.

So when do we replace these aging fighters? If not now, when – and with what?

The criticisms of the AF seem all revolve around the fact that many people do not like the F-22. Fine, what is the alternative?

F-15, F-16, F/A-18. All provide the same air superiority. All could continue operations and production with improvements for at least another 25 years and most likely still rule the skies.

We killed the F-14 too early IMO but I was never wild about that aircraft for logistical reasons.

I would caution that thinking the “old” style is not useful for the future though. I remember clearly when “guns’ on aircraft were never going to be needed again (eg. the F-4 Phantom in Vietnam.) Had to back peddle on that one!

I’m not going to even bother addressing the idea of “disbanding” the AF because I think it’s ludicrous, but also because there is zero chance of it happening. The one thing I will say is people seem to underestimate the costs of such a merger.

The criticisms of the AF seem all revolve around the fact that many people do not like the F-22. Fine, what is the alternative?

This is a program that is past development and into production – a program begun in the 1980′s. Much of the reason the R&D for this aircraft took so long was because of changing requirements caused by the change in the strategic picture. It is not an obsolete aircraft – quite the opposite if one understands its capabilities in terms of the American way of war.

The idea that the F-22 or the AF is focused on “past wars” is really strange – will air supremacy cease to be a requirement for US operations in the future? Doubtful.

Unlike what has previously been mentioned, strategic bombing is not the primary mission of the AF. If you actually look at what the AF defines it’s missions as, you’ll see that Air (and space) supremacy is at the top of the list.

Note the word “supremacy.” That is intentional. That means the ability to operate completely unhindered. Such supremacy is a REQUIREMENT for all of our military doctrine and operational planning. If you want to take away the F-22 – fine, but you’d better replace it with something that will guarantee the US air dominance we’ve enjoyed since the Korean War. Personally, I think buying the F-22 is cheaper in the long run than beginning from scratch because about 60% of the cost is already paid for.

Finally, I don’t think people have an appreciation for what the AF is actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan – probably because most of it is behind-the-scenes. The one mission that gets visibility is close-air-support and the AF is wrongly blamed when civilians are killed because of it. You see, CAS is a service the AF, Navy, Brits and even the Dutch and French (in Afghanistan) provide for the ground forces. The combined air forces allocate aircraft for CAS based on what the ground force wants. Authorization to release ordnance comes from the ground forces. The coordinates for CAS missions come from the ground forces. Unlike the hyperbole one hears from the uninformed, the AF has almost no influence in the amount of CAS used because it’s the ground force that decides when and where to drop.

Superdestroyer: Helicopters cannot perform many of the tasks for which fixed-wing aircraft are used.

“Abolish the AF” argument

Training all pilots to do carrier operations as well as land-based ops, and training all rotary-wing pilots to do shipboard and water ops as well as land ops, is a good idea, certainly. But why only abolish the Air Force, which has long been considered more important than the Navy and which is so glamorous as well as useful it competes all the time with the Army?

What about unifying all of the armed forces?

I’ll give it one more shot.

It would be foolhardy to say there never will be another war that requires a strategic air campaign and neither Farley nor I are arguing that there won’t be.

But the Navy’s arsenal, as was seen in the opening acts of both Gulf wars, with the addition of certain Air Force components for the sake of the “Abolish the AF” argument, would in my view be satisfactory.

Neither I nor Robert Farley are arguing that we should get rid of the Air Force because we don’t need their traditional skills. We do.

But we arguably do not need a separate service branch that is extraordinarily bloated and focused on past wars, not present ones. The other service branches arguably can do the Air Force’s job just as well.

All of this is so much talking, of course, because the Air Force isn’t going away. But these still are issues well worth addressing.

But getting rid of the Air Force simply because we don’t need their traditional skills today, right now, in this fight? Seems a bit short sighted to me. We lose air superiority we lose a lot more than if we simply pull out of some ultimately irrelevant nation with hardly any military at all. To assume that the role the Air Force plays will never be needed again in the future does not seem wise to me.

So, the CENTCOM commander may not want or need an air superiority fighter but the PACOM commander probably want one.

Also, if the CENTCOM commander does not have a requirement for an air superiority fighter, then what is their requirement. I doubt that opperations can be supported with rotary wing aircraft.

Were fighting aginst AK-47, RPG-9 and homemade EFPs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Iran and China have conventional forces as well. We should strive for air superiority. MOUT and guerrilla-terrorist warfare is a separate subject. Nobody is denying that it is serious (particularly in “failed states”) but we cannot neglect forces such as are being developed by China as well as by Iran and for that matter, Russia.

We need to spend money on all of this stuff.

And yes, I have seen the waste (and worse) with contractors (similar to what we have seen in Iraq, I’ll simply say) and yes, there are potential money pits galore (aircraft carriers, with aircraft designed to be used on them, probably outdo submarines in being money pits and contractor gold mines — both the vessels and the aircraft can “need” upgrading either in tandem or in alternation $$$).

Development costs were spent in the 1990s and eaerly 200s. They $$ are spent wheter we built 1 plane or no planes.

I have seen NASA spend billions to develop a new low cost STO Space Shuttle replacement and never build one. All that money was spent and all we have is the research developemtn effort for it.

A NEW JET in 2007/2008 costs $145 million MAX !!!!

Paid for – already spent money is not how much a jet cost in the current defense budget !

You guys are misleaders and create false (Lies) information by mixing apples and oranges.

You can’t make case that we cannot afford a F-22 in 2008 becuase of the money we already spent in 1990s. In fact you make a perfect case of what fools we would be not taking advantage of the $$ investment.

What a bunch of BS !!!

For you to mislead people about the cost of buying a new F-22 in the 2008 budget and is shameful !!

This would be true if you ignored the develpment cost of the aircraft and just counted manufacturing costs.

However, that’s not how we judge the cost of all our other weapons systems so I don’t see why the Raptor should be judged differently than say, a submarine or artillery piece.

Numerous sources quote the “Fly-Away” costs.
From the New York Times the 2006 costs were $130 million each, and the latest I read for 2007 is that each costs $135 million. The 2007 Defense Bill procurred 20 jets plus spare parts & other services for 2.9 Billion that is $145 million each if you want to include the xtras.

For you to mislead people about the cost of buying a new F-22 in the 2008 budget and is shameful !!