By Paul Tobey -- Letter to the Editor
Tuesday, July 20, 2009
As our heads continue to spin over the mind boggling trillions of dollars the government is pouring down the drain on Wall Street, GM and countless other pork projects, the Herald-Tribune has chosen to condemn one that actually provides tangible infrastructure benefits to our national security and saves an estimated 100,000 highly skilled jobs. Much of the Herald-Tribune’s July 19 editorial is either misleading or incorrect concerning the controversy over the production of F-22 Raptor fighters. Some research into the issue reveals a much different picture than what the Herald-Tribune paints. Space does not allow for a full examination of the editorial, but the main points are as follows:
The F-22 is not a one-dimension fighter. The F-22 not only brings unquestionable air dominance, but also the ability to penetrate hostile air space while undetected to deliver strikes against enemy targets. Those are enormous tactical and strategic warfare advantages in times of war. The F-22 is expected to maintain its edge over opposing forces for the next four decades. It is an axiom that no nation has ever lost a war while maintaining air superiority. Conversely, no nation has ever won a war without air superiority. The kill ratios of the F-22 in joint services simulated air combat exercises have typically run at an astonishing 100+ to 0. Wars are not won on a “just enough” basis, but by the game changing edges such as the F-22. Just as the now retired F-117 was able to do during the opening stages of both Gulf Wars.
Secretary of Defense Gates opposes expanding the F-22 fleet beyond 187 aircraft because he believes future wars will be insurgencies ala Iraq and Afghanistan. Mr. Gates has reconciled his budget decisions by assuming that will be the case over the next 20 years or so. I.e., he has unilaterally changed the prevailing war fighting wisdom to fit his decision to cut the F-22. Can we really believe that in the next 20 to 30 years, we will not be faced with a situation where our ground forces will not depend on air dominance; where we would not want the skies clear so our A-10s and Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) can operate freely; and where the US military won't be called upon to strike a highly defended target?
I don't doubt that Secretary Gates is sincere in his views about the armed forces we need. But it's troubling that his area of responsibility is the only main function of the administration's budget where financial prudence reigns. We need to prepare for what others might well do, not what we hope or think they'll do.
By Mr. Gates’ own admission, the Russians and Chinese are much further along in the development of their 5th generation fighters than previously thought. Russia and China are, respectively, in advance development of Su-30MKK and J-10 fighters. The Russians are also deploying S-300 air defense systems in Iran and Syria. With Iran’s development of nuclear weapons, the S-300 becomes a direct threat to the U.S. and Israel. North Korea, Venezuela and Cuba are also customers for those potent weapons systems. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, only last week declared the introduction of the Russian made S-300 into Iran as a “game changer”.
The editorial goes on to state Sec. Gates also opposes production of more F-22s because funds are better spent redirecting them to a more versatile fighter, the F-35. That is simply not the case. In reality, the F-35 will not survive in a combat environment of Su-30MMKs and J-10 fighters and the SA-300 defense system because it only has “stealth-like” characteristics and several other deficiencies. The F-22 is a "stealth" aircraft. Plus, it has many more advanced features, which make it far superior to the F-35, an aircraft not yet in production and subject to the vagaries of pre-production testing.
The enormous strategic deterrence and war fighting qualities of the F-22 have also prompted serious purchase interest by America’s close allies -- Australia, Japan and Israel. All are prepared to absorb the higher unit costs of the F-22 to protect their national interests against rogue nations in both the far and middle east regions.
Below are just two amongst many other misleading statements:
"…procure more F-22 fighter jets than the armed forces want or require"
There are no air force generals that believe a fleet of 187 F-22s is sufficient. Those sharing that opinion are Air Force Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz and the commander of the Air Combat Command, Gen. John Corley. Both respectively believe the proposed limit represents a medium or high risk to national security. Both have previously stated the “right number” to be about 245. The former Secretary of the Air Force, Michael Wynne, and Air Force Chief of Staff, General T. Michael Moseley, are both vocal supporters of procuring more F-22s.
"The fleet will already be too large at that size, according to many experts…"
Just last week, a representative of the DoD was asked before a congressional hearing to produce an analysis of how and why DoD came to its conclusion that 187 aircraft was sufficient. The response was that DoD had one, but a few days later was forced to admit that they did not. The “experts” reside in the air force staff and not in the ranks of DoD’s political appointees. And the real “experts” are not in agreement with Mr. Gates.
