The Air Force wanted to send the F-22 to the Middle East and Defense Secretary Robert Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran, among other factors. This comes from a single usually reliable source with knowledge of Air Force policy and operations.
Then-Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne sent a memo to Gates last December in which he made the recommendation, as well as laying out several major arguments for Air Force budget requests for the F-22 and bomber research and development, according to our source.
Central Command had approved the deployment request and we understand several Arab governments were also supportive of the Air Force effort. The main opposition to the request, we hear, came from Ryan Henry, principal deputy to the undersecretary of Defense for policy, who worried that Iran would interpret the deployment of the countrys most capable fighter as a regional escalation at a time when rumors were sweeping the region that the US was planning strikes against Irans nuclear facilities.
The argument for deployment of the sophisticated fighter was that the US needed to take the lead in the air war in the region. Right now, the United Arab Emirates deploys the most sophisticated fighter in the region, using the F-16 Block 60 50. Sending the F-22 would have allowed the US to field the worlds top fighter and provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently posseses.
Read the rest of this story and other killer acquisition content at our new site, DoD Buzz.
– Colin Clark
{ 40 comments… read them below or add one }
The F22 is a great plane and I don’t know as I really am pro or con to Sec Gates reasoning. However, things seem to going well, even winding down in Iraq, so I hate to break the USAF’s heart, but we don’t need the F22 in Iraq. We most certainly would if we strike Iran, so maybe forward deployment makes sense now.
Anyone for re-opening the A10 production line and cranking out another couple hundred? Maybe they have some in storage. Seems to me that’s a plane we can’t get enough of.
>Gates has said the F-22 is largely designed for war against a near-peer competitor such as China >or Russia, not for use against insurgents or terrorists.
Gates should stop such double standard. Gates said Air Force should do more, so the Air Force said they will bring in Raptors, and now Gates is telling to NOT do more.
M-1 is largely designed for war against a near-peer competitor such as China or Russia, not for use against insurgents or terrorists, but was brought to Iraq to fight terrorists.
MLRS is largely designed for war against a near-peer competitor such as China or Russia, not for use against insurgents or terrorists, but was brought to Iraq to fight terrorists.
JSTARS is largely designed for war against a near-peer competitor such as China or Russia, not for use against insurgents or terrorists, but was brought to Iraq to fight terrorists.
More stupidity from the Air Force, using the middle east as a stunt to show off and not considering the consequences. They need to stop pursuing their own political agenda and get with the program.
Putting a high capability stealth aircraft in the region at this time won’t help stabilize Iraq and might very well destabilize it, if the Iranians feel it means a strike is imminent.
Right now we have F-16s orbiting Balad in a counter-mortar team role. That is retarded. Retarded. Using F-22s in that mission is double retarded. It wouldn’t demonstrate the multi-role utility of the F-22 as much as it would demonstrate the fact that we are building the wrong kind of aircraft for this fight because fighter pilot generals hate ground support as much as they hate lift – the Air Force’s two most critical missions. You win wars on the ground no matter what the Red Baron wannbes believe, and if you can’t support the ground fight (or can only do it by forcing a grossly expensive platform that into a mission for which it was not designed) then you can’t help win the war and should resign to make room for someone who can. I hope Gates fires them all, kills the F-22, and builds more F-16s and A-10s with the savings.
All sending the F-22 in would of done is make most of the world think we are about to bomb Iran and then oil would spike yet again. The F-22 has no role in Iraq or Afghan right now. The AF only wanted that as a way of countering Gates former arguement of the Raptor playing no role in our current wars.
The M-1, MLRS and artillery pieces were all sent to Iraq to take out Saddam. Now they are used much les in the fight against insurgents. But the up armored humvees and MRAPS were sent into Iraq to fight insurgents.
pedestrian:
When Gates said that he wanted the Air Force in the fight, I don’t think he meant he wanted them zooming their brand new Ferraris over grunts heads. I’m guessing he wants them to put in long hours doing tedious work like everyone else, and thats means flying drones for the AF. As for the M-1, that was pretty hand early on – and nobody minds the extra armor. The MLRS, I don’t know – you could be right. The JSTARS, you have no idea how much the ground commanders love the data the pours out of those things – data thats very handy at tracking back which vehicle left what present by the roadside…
I’m sure the F-22 can have all sorts of snazzy optics and counter IED gear installed on it, but so could a Cessna. It might not be a good idea to expose our top fighter to the likely sigint and elecint efforts of old and possibly future enemies.
Havent we been using the B2 in iraq and afganistan?
this just sounds like more political grandstanding and face-punching………
This is retarded.
The F22 would have been valuable collecting intelligence from the regional actors, notably Iran and Syria.
You don’t win a negotiation by pulling all your cards and binding your hands together. You win by offering the other guy carrots while having him glimpse the big stick you hold. The more capabilities you gain in the stick department, the less likely you will actually get into a fight with him.
You WANT him to be scared. You WANT to wear him out.
Gates has been an able bureaucrat who can get what he wants done and maintain Congressional support. It’s good of him to inject a sense of feet on the ground reality into the DoD. However, it’s not clear to me that what he wants makes sense all the time or that he is an exceptional strategic thinker.
Those Gates-fans that are singing the praise of the greatest SecDef ever, sing too early.
Sometimes with a new piece of equipment you’ve got to get it dirty before you really know what you’ve got. Desert duty would certainly get the F-22 dirty. Much could be learned by deploying the F-22 to Iraq or Afghanistan. It is more likey the Iranians would think we are afraid of deploying the plane, if we don’t, than that we are planning to attack them if we do. Not a lecture, just an observation.
The F-22 can perform counter-insurgency tasks & recon tasks but it’s not the best aircraft for either.
Vince has an interesting idea – building more A-10s. During the Gulf War, A-10 pilots preferred to kill tanks with Maverick missiles while flying above the practical ceiling of shoulder-launched SAMs & 23 mm guns. They had to make themselves vulnerable in order to use the GAU-8. Maybe the way to go is an updated A-10 with modern avionics & a smaller 30 mm gun in place of the GAU-8. How about a 2 seat version where the backseater flys a UAV that finds targets for the A-10?
The USAF needs more F-22. Sec Gates has more-or-less proclaimed that for ANY new procurement the system “must” be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight. So the USAF wants to send the F-22 to Iraq to show Gates (& other detractors) what it can do. PLUS the F-22 could do wonders (with the proper diplomacy) to convince Iran that we ARE serious and ARE willing & able to do what must be done if it continues along its current path. But Gates can’t have EITHER of those…
Im all for the A-10, in fact id rather fly one than the F-22 (call me crazy but I love the old bird), but lets get real. The F-22 in Iraq would give us counter capabilities against Iran, and Iran would think twice before attacking a fighter that is capable of 9-0 kill ratio any day of the week. Iran is a threat and its about time we act like big boys and show them our toys pack a big punch.
TDS4S,
Who said anything about the F-22 performing a counter-mortar team role? Last I checked that is not the ONLY role the USAF is playing in Iraq…Although the F-22 performing said role WOULD demonstrate that it COULD perform said role.
We don’t have to build ANY “kind” of aircraft for this fight. Aircraft currently in inventory are MORE THAN capable for this fight. What we do have if a current fleet of F-15A-Ds (the YOUNGEST of which was procured in FY1985) that have been operating under significant flight restrictions for more than a decade just to keep them flying and sooner than most are willing to admit (even to themselves) will become too costly to maintain even IF they COULD be kept flying.
The fighter pilot generals don’t hate ground support or lift but they know that without air superiority ground support or lift are exceedingly costly if not all but impossible. Just TRY to win a war on the ground today without air supperiority – or worse with enemy air superiority… Air superiority is an Air Force’s MOST critical mission because it is THAT mission which ALLOWS other missions to even be performed.
I hope the next Secretary of Defense realizes that their job is the Secretary of DEFENSE & that they are SUPPOSED to be the #1 supporter of US defense rather than the #1 detractor.
It is idiots like you [TDS4S] that would have had us fighing Korea with ONLY the same weapons systems that we faught WW2 &/or had us fighing Vietnam with only 1950s weapons systems &/or et cetera…
Damn that’s a sexy plane
This is actually quite ironic. When Secretary Gates blasted the F-22 for not flying a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, he convientently neglects to mention that the only reason the F-22 hasn’t flown any missions there is because he won’t allow it.
Good Evening Folks,
Could we be seeing a trip wire for military intervention Iran with deploying the F-22 to Iraq. It’s no secret that Iran has about 58 old F-14A and that the Air Force has been war gaming air to air with those F-14′s for about a year now at Nellis. I’m sure the F-22 had it licks at the F-14 in virtual world.
Using the F-22 against Iran would I guess estlabish that the U.S.A.F. is still relative to U.S. defense, or does it?
Sec. Gates and Adm Mullen are at least up front againt any military action in Iraq, but didn’t we see this same dog and pony show in 02-03?
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
We could use the F-16 to shoot down the Iranian F14′s. An F22 vs. F-14 = overkill.
Of course, we shouldn’t even be talking about war with Iran.
They have COMBAT READY troops while we are still stuck in Iraq. For the Right to even be thinking of this shows their stupidity.
Its incredible how pathetic America’s administration is.
We were suppossed to be at war with Iran two summers ago.
>Putting a high capability stealth aircraft in the region at this time won’t help stabilize Iraq >and might very well destabilize it, if the Iranians feel it means a strike is imminent.
That is a invalid reasoning. Iran is ALREADY involved in Iraq sending EFPs, Hezbollah advisors and covert agents, and training Mahdi Army inside Iraq and Iran. You can not make things worse when its already the worst.
>It might not be a good idea to expose our top fighter to the likely sigint and elecint efforts
>of old and possibly future enemies.
In terms of technology and the price tag, that is a valid reasoning that makes sense, but my point is rather Raptor has the features to fight counter insurgency or not. If Gates meant he does not think so, then it does not make sense to me and nothing but an invalid reasoning. I would also want to mention weapons that were desinged for conventional warfare does not mean its uncompatible with assymetric warfare. The opposite may be true as well. There are weapons that may have hidden potentials which may fight both, and weapons such as M-1, MLRS, and JSTARS proved its capabilities in MULTIROLE, fighting both types of war.
>Sometimes with a new piece of equipment you’ve got to get it dirty before you really know what
>you’ve got.
That is a valid point. In fact, problems were spotted for CROWS and MV-22 as a result for getting dirty, and experience building up will allow fix for those problems. Dynamic real world events give valuable feedback.
>The F-22 can perform counter-insurgency tasks & recon tasks but it’s not the best aircraft for either.
Partially true, there are other options, but Gates is still wrong if he meant Raptors are not useful for counter insurgency.
>The USAF needs more F-22. Sec Gates has more-or-less proclaimed that for ANY new procurement the
>system “must” be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight.
That’s probably what the truth is behind the back.
>We were suppossed to be at war with Iran two summers ago.
I agree it is valid to say that there is enough reasoning to go to war against Iran in the near future, but two years ago is not the correct time. The point is the strength of terrorists in Iraq, and at this moment, Al Qaida and Mahdi Army is declining in strength. You cannot go to war against Iran while there are Al Qaida and Mahdi Army ready to be paid and do a favor for Iran. However, the declining strength of the two are indicators that may conclude to be safe to attack Iran (limited strike) now while large number of troops are in Iraq.
>They have COMBAT READY troops while we are still stuck in Iraq.
Invalid. They are ALREADY involved with Iraq. I’ll beat your concerns. If US strikes Iran even by terms of limited war, what the regime will fear first is revolution. Iran will fear revolution that it could not sacrifice its COMBAT READY force that will be occupied to counter revolution at home ground. Iran is a multi ethnic country, and the regime is very unpopular. Iranians say they believe that even one bomb dropped on Iran may lead to revolution.
“Iran is ALREADY involved in Iraq sending EFPs, Hezbollah advisors and covert agents, and training Mahdi Army inside Iraq and Iran”
It would be interesting to see some actual evidence for these claims.
It would also be intersting to see any justification for why the F-22 (rather than any other piece of kit) is needed in Iraq. It’s certainly not an obvious one.
Just wait until the F-35 takes over the roles of the F-16 and A-10. Laughable. So what do we do then? I guess it will be an all Predator fight.
DC2
What my fellow ground pounders seem to forget about the Air Force is that the last time a U.S. soldier was killed by ordinance dropped/fired from an enemy aircraft was in the 1950′s! (I’m not counting the USS Stark) That’s called AIR SUPERIORITY and we seem to take it for granted these days. Without air superiority the snake eaters, tankers and grunts sit in their barracks playing cards. Oh, and they also scan the skies looking for Jabos.
Pedestrian,
We believed the same thing about Iraq in early ’03 that the moment the war started the whole army would desert and the country would be delivered to us on a plate.
While Iran is certainly involved with sending weapons and training our way, there’s a big difference between doing that covertly and openly attacking us because they have no longer have anything to hide or lose. Bombing Iran would give them that excuse and could unravel everything we’ve fought for in Iraq for the last couple years. For them to send whole formations of troops across the border would be suicidal of them, there are plenty of other military options available to them (such as the thousands of rockets and missiles they say they have pointed as Iraq and Israel).
The reason for sending the F-22 is in the lede: to “provide ISR and targeting capabilities that no US or allied plane in the region currently possesses”.
The reason for not sending the F-22 is in the lede: “Iran would interpret the deployment of the country
The reason for not sending the F-22 is in the lede: “Iran would interpret the deployment of the country
DarthAmerica,
You just don’t get it. THE #1 reason why the USAF “wants” to send the F-22 to Iraq is because if the BS policy of Sec Gates that any/all new procurement “must” be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight. So the USAF “wants” to get the F-22 into the current fight to prove to Gates that it is & CAN be of significant benefit.
Iran DOES want a nuclear weapon, they want it to “wipe Israel off the map” & bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the “end of days”. Pull your head out of the ground & wake up to what is going on!
F-22s in Iraq would be a sign to Iran that when we say stop enriching Uranium & pursuing nuclear weapons we MEAN it & are prepared to do what is necessary to stop them if need be.
I didn’t say the Secretary of Defense is supposed to be a cheerleader. The Secretary of Defense IS, however, SUPPOSED to SUPPORT US defense rather than undermine it as Gates & his predessesors have. Gates SHOULD be working on a roadmap to get the USAF every F-22 it wants rather than seeking to deny them & his denying to allow the F-22 to go to Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with preventing the USAF from proving its utility/effectiveness even in the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight.
That could mean anything from mining parts of the gulf to increasing the violence in Iraq and undermining the progress there where Iran has been instrumental in securing.
__________________________________________________
Bullshit. Iran would NEVER help the US secure Iraq. In no way is that in their national interest. The stabilization of the Shia South is an Iraqi and US perogative, and its progress is a sign of eroding Iranian influence.
Ostensible Iranian cooperation in this regard is an effort to preserve their Iraqi assets while heading off a confrontation they know they will lose at this juncture.
The key reason is that Shia Iraq is _not_ their stooge, as some presume. They are self-interested political entities seeking independence from _both_ Iran and the US, while establishing their power base. They are not interested in destroying Iraq for Iran and US power allows them to counter Iranian influence.
Thus, Gates is not trying to head off action by a magnanimous foe (Iran) who is in a position of advantage. He is trying to prevent Iranian desperation in the face of escalating pressure and decreasing options while tempering temptations for an ally (Israel)to initiate military strikes.
DarthAmerica,
NOBODY said that the F-22 was the “ideal” platform for the fight in Iraq OR that it is needed for the fight in Iraq. And F-22s are costly to operate whether they are flying in Iraq or anywhere else. ;)
But Gates seems to think we are losing the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & therefor everybody needs to foget about developing the weapons systems which may very well be NEEDED in order to win the next war in order to save us from defeat in the current one. The reality is the exact opposite. We are (& have been) WINNING the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight, our losses are at unheard of low levels and there are NO “new” weapons systems that are needed in order for us to be doing significantly better.
For the 3rd time (since STILL do not get it) THE #1 reason why the USAF is even considering sending the F-22 to Iraq is because of Gates’ BS policy that in order for any weapons system to continue developement &/or procurtement it “must” be applicable to the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight so the USAF “wants” to send the F-22 to Iraq to show to gates that it IS (plus there is the deterrent/convincing of resolve effect that the F-22 COULD have on Iran). But since Gates does not want the USAF to get any more F-22, he has nixed the plans. It is like if your boss said to you that in order for you to keep your job you “must” secure some deal with a client but he/she won’t let you even talk to said client.
What have I asserted that can’t be verified by most anyone with decent research skills or logically explained?
DarthAmerica,
You are too full of yourself. I understand MUCH more than you know & appearantly more than you since you are so fooled by the “news”. F-22 going to Iraq is ALL about politics (internal politics between the USAF & the Secretary of Defense more so than politics between the US & Iran).
Sec Gates knows FULL WELL what the F-22 can do & that if he allows the F-22 to deploy to Iraq then he will have to conceed that it IS useful for the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & therefor there is justification under his own BS policy for the USAF to get more of them. But Gates wants the PUBLIC to be fooled into thinking that the F-22 is only useful in a WWIII/major world war vs near pear enemies so he can justify his BS desire to prevent the USAF from getting all the F-22s it NEEDS.
Your understaning of the Iranian leadership is SEVERELY lacking. The Irania leaderships is MORE THAN just religiously motivated, religion DRIVES virtually everything they do. Ahmadinejad believes that his purpose for being is to bring forth the return of the 12th Imam & the “end of days” (& the Mullahs have ACTIVELY encouraged that) & that obtaining a nuclear weapon to “wipe Israel off the map” is the way to do it. Iran’s interest in Iraq has more to do with religion & the belief that Iraq will be the seat of power once the world has been “cleansed” of all infidels than world/regional politics. To them, politics are simply a tool to further their religious beliefs. It is important to understand that the Iranian leadership actually WANTS the return of the 12th Imam & the “end of days” & they believe that by making it happen that they will be rewarded.
Iran knows that the west does not want war & Iran sees that as a sign of weakness which emboldens them. Iran does not fear war with the west, they embrace war with the west as the way to bring forthe the return of the 12th Imam & the “end of days”.
Iran isn’t earning a seat at the table in negotiations over the fate of Iraq & has no intentoin to unles it is at IT’S table & everyone is there to submit to THEIR will.
Yes the the SecDef sets policy the DoD carries out BUT the problem is that Sec Gates’ policies are NOT pro US defense!
Yes when you hear things in the media about “generals want this” or “generals are upset about that” ect., these are often times carefully constructed leaks designed to influence you one way or the other in order to compel decision makers one way or another. That is why the news reports are that “Gates nixed the plans, citing the strategic danger from the deployment if it were misread by Iran”. When those of us who happen to have a somewhat understanding (you really do need to look at much more than just one news report) recognize that IS NOT what it is REALLY about & that BS about Iran misreading it is the “cover”.
DarthAmerica,
Read the rest of this story and other killer acquisition content at our new site, DoD Buzz. ;)
You are missing something from only reading this one…
DarthAmerica,
Thank you so much for proving beyond a reasonable doubt that you are smoking something & that you have not understood ANYTHING the Iranian leadership has said in the past oh I don’t know DECADE… :)
F-22 deployment to Iraq COULD have bearing on any decision to fund more because in so doing the F-22 would prove its utility in the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight & Gates’ BS assertion that it has none would be exposed for the BS that it is & thus Gates could no longer use his BS polity that any/all new weapose sytems developement/procurement “must” be applicable to the the current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight as an excuse to not support the USAF NEED for more F-22s.
I didn’t say the political consequences of sending the F-22 to Iraq are not valid concerns but you in your blissful ignorance fail to realize that said consequences are NOT necessarliy going to be negative or lead to an “escalation” of anything other than Iranian realization of US resolve. What I DID say is that that excuse if “cover” for the REAL reason Gates does not what the F-22 to go to Iraq.
WHAT progress being made between the USA and Iran over Iraq? Other than coalition forces kicking the Iranian proxy soldier’s but & Iran’s POSSIBLE realization that their support of the insurgency in Iraq is NOT having the desired effect.
DoD Buzz is a “sister site” to DefenseTech being actively promoted by Christian here on DefenseTech. I guess you need to send a message to Christian that he needs to stop this & sever all ties with DoD Buzz since it is so wrong most of the time. The DoD Buzz IS THE SAME ARTICLE posted here on DefenseTech except that the post on DefenseTech is truncated. What you missed is the parts of the article which were truncated (as well as insite provided from other reports). ;)
Yes I know that there is MUCH MORE to the USAF than how many F-22s it has and manned air to air combat but the USAF DOES have a very clear requirement for more F-22s in order to fulfill its obligations in the decades to come.
Try reading this for some perspective.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1266.shtml
DA,
While I respect your opinions on many things, mostly on bashing the free-for-all anti-American Eurotrash Pinko trolls that plague this site, an appeal to authority on the internet under a pseudonym just simply does not have that ring of authenticity that you might like.
I hardly think deploying F-22s to Iraq makes much sense; let’s not rush $180 million dollar Ferraris, as someone else said, to the sandbox, especially as they are so new and the squadrons are still learning how to use them, maintain them. In Iraq, within range of a lucky mortar shell? Um, no thank you. Now, to Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, maybe.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, back channel communications, war is the last and final option, etc, etc. War is and should be the last and final option.
But at the end of the day, if the choice is between a nuclear-armed Iran and war, and $10/gallon gas among other things, then I choose war.
IGM, I Got Mine, I served, and I’m a citizen. That’s my say-so. That’s all I need. The reverse Chicken-hawk thing, drop that BS. Unless you want to drop name, rank and serial number, post your decorations and awards, your tours, etc – and if anyone really cares, which, unfortunately, I really don’t (sorry, bro, I’ll listen to your arguments, but set aside my own faculty of reason on your say-so, or even Gen Petraeus’s) – you are just another anonymous commentator.
DA, like I said, I do not disagree with you on many specific points in regards to defense appropriations: we do need EW and BMD, and more, a new assault rifle (the M-16 is nearly as old as my father now), and the restoration of several more divisions, etc, etc.
I do disagree with the general notion that Gates is the second coming of some cigar-chomping, kickass Christ in the Defense Department. He is an average SecDef. He doesn’t have Rumsfeld’s faults. Maybe that is enough. But the success on his watch is almost singlehandedly Petraeus’s. Again, see above (Gates is not = Rumsfeld).
I’m honestly too bored with the F-22 arguments, pro and con. My take is simply: we have the goddamn thing, let’s buy enough of them to have a deep bench. I like the F-22. It is valuable. It replaces the F-117 and now the F-15. We need more, buy more. Cut pork – the hippy musuems, the bridges to nowhere – to pay for ‘em. I respect you have an opinion; but save it. :) Again, no desire to re-argue what I have almost neglible impact on.
On the other hand, third world countries can absorb a severe increase in the cost of food/fuel (both are, after all, linked) without mass starvation. It will hurt and I am sure some will die, but then again, third world countries are almost by definition shitholes. We would stand 34th in line in blame behind every corrupt dictator than ruined their country and their secret police, their already self-inflicted tragedy, etc, etc. That’s where the hardship is most severe, where people are most vulnerable, and where we have the least influence.
The worldwide hardship line falls flat for me. But then again, in my cold heart, I chuckle every time some pockfaced freshman waives a Chomsky pamphlet claiming that bombing Al Shifa (the, um, drug factory/NBC facility) killed 100,000 magical people. I do the same whenever I hear 3 Trillion Dollar War (!!!) and that the US killed 1 million people in Iraq (!!!).
Life is already tough for those folks. Nobody wants to make it worse. But a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable.
* I use my personal, military experience all the time; it is a major component of my life, very valuable, and, sometimes, a very convenient club to whack the ignorant and the plain moronic.
DarthAmerica,
YOU are the one content to read the internet and believe the rhetoric & YOU are being naive. YOU are the ono who needs to open your mind to what is REALLY going on.
The whole point of what I have been saying is that if all you do is read/listen to the “news” without BOTH checking to see if what the “news” is saying is even accurate AND “connecting the dots” from multiple “news events” in order to obtain a MUCH BETTER (more accurate) understanding of what is REALLY going on then you DON’T have a clue what is REALLY going on. Gates nixing USAF plans to send F-22′s to Iraq (which is itself MORE about Gates’ BS current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight at the expense future wars than anything else) is MORE about Gates not wanting to support the USAF getting more F-22s than ANYTHING to do with Iran. Unfortunately you have to have been paying attention a while before THIS “news even” to realize that. Iran is the rhetoric in this case.
Yes F-22′s in Iraq would signal only one thing & that one thing is that the US is SERIOUS about Iran NOT obtaining nuclear weapons & that it IS prepared to do what is necessary to prevent it.
What you are missing in your F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s argument is that our F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s are in need of replacement (not only because of more capable threats then when the F-15s, F-16s & F/A-18s were procured but because, even though they can be upgraded, they CAN NOT FLY FOREVER). The F-22 is the replacement for the F-15 & the F-35 is the replacement for the F-16s and F/A-18s. Note that the USAF plan to keep 178 F-15C Golden Eagle beyong 2025 ASSUMES the USAF getting 381 F-22 – the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles are to AUGMENT the 381 F-22s NOT make up for the USAF not getting 381 F-22s.
More F-22s ARE needed. More than 381 would be desirable. The USAF would love to have more than 381 of them. And it WILL eventually need more than 381 unless an even newer fighter is introduced to replace the 178 F-15C Golden Eagles (don’t give anyone the BS that the F-35 is that new fighter because IT ISN’T – we will have a hard enough time getting enough F-35s to replace the aircraft it is slated to replace much less to replace any F-15s). Anyone who says one has to produce a single example of a realistic conflict scenario where they would be necessary and where assets we already have would be inadequate is full OF SHIT because the US military is not built on single conflict scenarios.
2001 Quadrennial Defense Review
”
The force-sizing construct
DarthAmerica,
YOU are the one not supporting your arguments. What have I not supported?
I never said it is BS to discuss situations where a particular platform is necessary. I said Gates ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ policy is BS. We are WINNING the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ & our losses in the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ are & have been DRAMATICALLY LOW so there is no need to sarifice our ability to win future wars in order to win (or even do significantly better in) the ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’.
The USAF HAS made a strong & valid case for it NEED for at least 381 F-22 but F-22 detractors don’t care and NOBODY has made ANY valid case whatsoever for the USAF not getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS.
It is NOT about more F-22s over other needs. Getting more F-22s would not effect ANY other needs (more urgent or not). The amount of money needed to get 381 F-22s is a DROP IN THE BUCKET @ ~$3 billion a year (constant dollars of course & likely do DROP with a multi-year full commitment) if the rate of 20 aircraft per year were to continue until the USAF had the 381 it NEEDS. To put that into perspective ~$3 billion is ~0.097% of the $3.1 trillion FY2009 US budget, ~0.58% of the $515.4 billion FY2009 US defense budget & ~2.1% of the $143.8 billion FY2009 USAF budget.
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY IT! IT IS NOT ABOUT WHAT BENFIT THE F-22 WILL BRING TO THE WAR IN IRAQ BUT THAT THE REASON THE USAF HAS EVEN SUGGESTED SENDING THE F-22 TO IRAQ IS BECAUSE OF GATES’ BS ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ POLICY & THAT THE PRIMARY REASON GATES NIXED THE PLAN IS BECAUSE OF HIS OPPOSITION TO (as apossed to support of) THE USAF GETTING ALL THE F-22s IT NEEDS!
I never said F-22s SHOULD be deployed to Iraq. I never said F-22s were NEEDED in Iraq either. I have even said that F-22s in Iraq is not the most efficient use of the F-22s or the most efficent way to do the things that F-22s would do in Iraq. If it were not for Gates’ BS ‘current low-intensity/counter-insurgency fight’ &/or Gates opposition to the USAF getting the 381 F-22s it NEEDS, the USAF would not likely have even suggested sending F-22s to Iraq except for as part of a consigency plan for conflict with Iran.
Oh yeah, US assests in Iraq are SOOO vulnerable that we should not even both having them there. LOL
DA,
Yes, basing the F-22 in Iraq would be risky, but that was never really in the cards, We dont base RC’s U-2′s and B-1′s there, why would we base F-22′s there? The logical place to base them is Quatar, where we base Combat Sent, Rivet Joint, U-2, and any other low density high demand asset. Force protection is a concern, but its a concern with other assets as well, and those assets have been flying in the region for years.
DarthAmerica,
The details of the USAF study are classified but the results that the USAF NEEDS AT LEAST 381 F-22s to fulfill all its responsibilities in the coming decades is not.
You can site NO in depth study that says the USAF can get by with 187. But since you are so ignorant let me give a little (VERY TRUNCATED) history lesson on how it is we got to the 187 currently committed to being funded. The current adminstration under its “long term” defense plans determined that it could commit to a multi-year agreement to fund 183 F-22s through the FY2009 budget (the last budget the current administration would be involved in). BUT that determination of any further F-22s would be passed off to the next administration. As part of the FY2009 war supplemental bill 4 additional F-22s are to be funded to replace a number of aircraft losses that have occured bringing the current total to 187. NO study/evaluation based on actual USAF requirements, commitments, responsibilities has been done to determine that 183 (or 187 OR ANY NUMBER OTHER THAN THE 381 THE USAF STUDY FOUND) is enough F-22s – 183 comes simply from the number that was determined would be funded through the FY2009 budget!
It is not USAF pilots who say the USAF needs 381 F-22s, it is the USAF. And the USAF did not just pull a number out of thin air but actually conducted an in depth study to determine how many it needed.
You don’t have to have been to Iraq to be fully aware that Balad is NOT the only location in the region F-22s could operate from or that they would not likely operate from ANY location they would not be safe from attack. Think about it, we defeated Iraq TWICE operating our fighters from bases NOT IN IRAQ.
Sorry but it is not 1991, US air defense systems are MUCH more capable today then they were in 1991. ;) ANY aircraft Iran sent to attack our F-22s would be shot down by our F-22s before Iran even knew what hit them. Don’t believe the hipe of Iran’s missile capabilities. Iran has NO ground attack missile system capable of reaching locations F-22s would operate from which the US could not shoot down.
DA-
I did read what you said, which is why I commented on it. And in my comment I mentioned that the US currently flys any number of Low Density/High Demand aircraft out of Al Udeid. Those LD/HD planes are very valuable in thier own right, and yet they are still based close to Iran. If Al Udeid is so vulnerable then why do we continue to base Rivet Joint, Combat Sent, JSTARS, AWACS, U-2′s and B-1′s there?