F/A-22 Raptor Has No Role As a Bomber, Legendary Fighter Pilot Says
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; dated June 17, web-posted June 22, 2004)
Plans by the U.S. Air Force to make the F/A-22 tactical fighter more politically appealing by creating a bomber version of the aircraft should be scrapped, former legendary fighter pilot, aircraft designer, strategic bomber analyst, Air Force Colonel Everest Riccioni says in an upcoming paper supporting these views. His comments come as the Senate and House tussle over funding for the program.
There is no proper, “justifiable niche” for the F/A-22 fighter aircraft to be modified for an air-to-surface/ground support role, or bomber, Riccioni argues in his paper. Riccioni, now retired, has no financial associations with any defense contractors, including his former employer Northrop Grumman.
“The F-22’s original design for stealth and supercruise makes it singularly resistant to modification,” writes Riccioni, the legendary fighter pilot, member of the so-called “Fighter Mafia,” and pioneer of supersonic cruise technology in the 1970s and the Lightweight Fighter Program. “Bombs must be carried internally on stealthy aircraft. The internal weapons bay of the F–22, designed to contain only air-to-air missiles, is necessarily small and it can carry at most only two 1,000 lb, bombs together with a few air-to-air missiles.”
“This puts the Raptor squarely in competition with the very accurate, highly specialized, proven, stealthiest strike aircraft in the world, the F-117 Nighthawk. But the F-117 carries two 2,000 lb bombs - twice the bomb load of the F-22 - at half the F-22’s cost.”
“Here we go again,” said POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian. “The Pentagon is once again trying to make an overpriced and unneeded weapons system more appealing to the public by adding bells and whistles. The only winners are the defense contractors who fatten their bottom lines.”
Among the other conclusions of Riccioni’s soon to be released paper, “History of the USAF F-22 Raptor Acquisition: A National Tragic-Comedy”:
--The F/A-22 Raptor originally was expected to cost “not a dollar more than the F-15C,” according to Riccioni. (In March 2004, the General Accounting Office estimated that the Air Force would only be able to purchase 218 F/A-22’s with the $72 billion total cost of the program. Based on those numbers, the aircraft would cost roughly $330 million each to develop and build.)
--The F/A-22 has no role that can’t be filled by today’s current U.S. fighter aircraft. “Al Qaeda doesn’t train, enlist, or use fighter pilots,” Riccioni writes. “Terrorists do not employ fighter forces. There is no need for new air superiority fighters.”
--The reduced numbers of F/A-22 aircraft will adversely affect the Air Force mission. “Most important - 175-250 fighters do not allow for multiple, simultaneous missions like the thousands in our F-15, F-16, and F-18 fleets can perform,” his paper concludes.
--The F-22 was defined and conceived during the Cold War to penetrate deep into Russia, achieving air superiority, to break up the expected large formations of Warsaw Pact bombers that were to enter and destroy Europe. Now the threats have been removed, Riccioni argues.
The U.S. Senate version of the 2005 Defense Authorization bill cuts $280 million from the F/A-22 fighter aircraft program and “is a step in the right direction,” Brian added.
Debate on the Senate version of the 2005 Defense Authorization is expected as early as this week. The House version of the bill would fully fund the Air Force request for 24 F/A-22s at a total cost of $4.2 billion while the Senate’s would cut the number to 22 aircraft, or $3.9 billion, giving the Air Force time “to improve its production delivery schedule.”
The Senate provision reflects growing concerns about the need for this extraordinarily expensive system during these times of growing deficits. Production of this unneeded, Cold War aircraft should be halted. Even if the F/A-22 were operational during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan it likely would never have left the hanger.
(Source: Project On Government Oversight; dated June 17, web-posted June 22, 2004)
Plans by the U.S. Air Force to make the F/A-22 tactical fighter more politically appealing by creating a bomber version of the aircraft should be scrapped, former legendary fighter pilot, aircraft designer, strategic bomber analyst, Air Force Colonel Everest Riccioni says in an upcoming paper supporting these views. His comments come as the Senate and House tussle over funding for the program.
There is no proper, “justifiable niche” for the F/A-22 fighter aircraft to be modified for an air-to-surface/ground support role, or bomber, Riccioni argues in his paper. Riccioni, now retired, has no financial associations with any defense contractors, including his former employer Northrop Grumman.
“The F-22’s original design for stealth and supercruise makes it singularly resistant to modification,” writes Riccioni, the legendary fighter pilot, member of the so-called “Fighter Mafia,” and pioneer of supersonic cruise technology in the 1970s and the Lightweight Fighter Program. “Bombs must be carried internally on stealthy aircraft. The internal weapons bay of the F–22, designed to contain only air-to-air missiles, is necessarily small and it can carry at most only two 1,000 lb, bombs together with a few air-to-air missiles.”
“This puts the Raptor squarely in competition with the very accurate, highly specialized, proven, stealthiest strike aircraft in the world, the F-117 Nighthawk. But the F-117 carries two 2,000 lb bombs - twice the bomb load of the F-22 - at half the F-22’s cost.”
“Here we go again,” said POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian. “The Pentagon is once again trying to make an overpriced and unneeded weapons system more appealing to the public by adding bells and whistles. The only winners are the defense contractors who fatten their bottom lines.”
Among the other conclusions of Riccioni’s soon to be released paper, “History of the USAF F-22 Raptor Acquisition: A National Tragic-Comedy”:
--The F/A-22 Raptor originally was expected to cost “not a dollar more than the F-15C,” according to Riccioni. (In March 2004, the General Accounting Office estimated that the Air Force would only be able to purchase 218 F/A-22’s with the $72 billion total cost of the program. Based on those numbers, the aircraft would cost roughly $330 million each to develop and build.)
--The F/A-22 has no role that can’t be filled by today’s current U.S. fighter aircraft. “Al Qaeda doesn’t train, enlist, or use fighter pilots,” Riccioni writes. “Terrorists do not employ fighter forces. There is no need for new air superiority fighters.”
--The reduced numbers of F/A-22 aircraft will adversely affect the Air Force mission. “Most important - 175-250 fighters do not allow for multiple, simultaneous missions like the thousands in our F-15, F-16, and F-18 fleets can perform,” his paper concludes.
--The F-22 was defined and conceived during the Cold War to penetrate deep into Russia, achieving air superiority, to break up the expected large formations of Warsaw Pact bombers that were to enter and destroy Europe. Now the threats have been removed, Riccioni argues.
The U.S. Senate version of the 2005 Defense Authorization bill cuts $280 million from the F/A-22 fighter aircraft program and “is a step in the right direction,” Brian added.
Debate on the Senate version of the 2005 Defense Authorization is expected as early as this week. The House version of the bill would fully fund the Air Force request for 24 F/A-22s at a total cost of $4.2 billion while the Senate’s would cut the number to 22 aircraft, or $3.9 billion, giving the Air Force time “to improve its production delivery schedule.”
The Senate provision reflects growing concerns about the need for this extraordinarily expensive system during these times of growing deficits. Production of this unneeded, Cold War aircraft should be halted. Even if the F/A-22 were operational during the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan it likely would never have left the hanger.
)