Fifth-Generation Fighter Aircraft – Questions & Doubts
"The F-22 is a fifth-generation fighter to all intents and purposes, offering some specific advantages over the F-35 in certain aspects." President of Boeing Israel, Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry, raises questions regarding Israel's fifth-generation aircraft. Opinion
David Ivry
| 05/01/2018
F-22 fighter jets (Photo: AP)
The June 26 – July 9 2017 issue of the weekly magazine Aviation Week presents some impressive statistics regarding the involvement of US F-22 stealth fighters in aerial combat operations in Syria and Iraq. The report contains quotes from a conversation with the commander of the US F-22 squadron, who told the magazine that some 1,150 F-22 sorties had been flown until May 28, 2017, of which 497 were Close Air Support (CAS) sorties, with the F-22 fighters delivering GBU-32 JDAM precision-guided munitions and GBU-39 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) glide munitions, so as to avoid unnecessary casualties among civilians.
Apparently, the F-22, originally designed and built as an air superiority fighter with impressive air-to-air capabilities, being a stealth fighter, namely – possessing a very small Radar signature opposite most Radar systems – is very difficult to spot. Consequently, the effectiveness of ground-based air-defense systems and the airborne Radar systems of other interceptors operating against it is very low. Nevertheless, the Americans decided to employ this fighter and take advantage of its characteristics in strike missions as well, especially since April 6, 2017, the day when the US forces executed the cruise missile attack against the Syrian airbase out of which the Syrian fighters that carried chemical weapons had departed.
It would seem that the F-22 can operate almost freely throughout Syria, despite the threat imposed by the state-of-the-art Russian-made air-defense systems – an impressive accomplishment in itself. As this fighter is practically invisible, it is used as a multirole platform, namely – as a strike fighter and not just as an air superiority fighter – a concept that is very similar to the doctrine according to which Israeli air power is employed.
US F-22 fighters delivered 1,572 munitions in 497 strike sorties, namely – about three munitions per sortie on average, or potentially three targets destroyed per mission. Owing to its stealth characteristics, the F-22 fighter carries a small number of munitions in an internal bomb bay rather than on external weapon stations.
At the same time as this report, other media reports addressed the cost of the F-35 program, which should have been low, thereby leading the production of F-22 fighters to be discontinued. The cost of the famous F-35 program amounts to US$ 400 billion.
The obvious question here is whether the F-22 production line should have been maintained instead of switching to the manufacture of a new fighter aircraft. The F-22 is a fifth-generation fighter to all intents and purposes, offering some specific advantages over the F-35 in certain aspects, like supersonic cruising without afterburners.
It is reasonable to assume that a massive F-22 production line would have led to reduced costs and we would have a new block that had already incorporated the lessons learned from the operational employment of this fighter – while the F-35 is not really operational as yet. The figures made available lead to the conclusion that in addition to the cost of the aircraft proper, some US$ 100 billion have been invested in related activities, such as the development of the aircraft and avionics, testing and adaptation of ordnance – most of which had already been paid for in the context of the F-22 program.
Some US$ 30-50 billion could have been saved if we had kept the F-22 program going instead of embarking on the F-35 program. This is a huge amount of money. Israel received US$ 30 billion through US Aid over a period of ten years, and that was the primary source for the entire empowerment of the IDF – which maintains Israel's qualitative advantage in this region.
Presumably, the proponents of the F-35 program will not accept the potential savings I have presented. Figures are a very flexible thing, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it would have been more appropriate to upgrade existing platforms to the latest generation of avionics and state-of-the-art weapon systems than to develop a new platform and fit it with the same avionics and weapon systems. It is reasonable to assume that in the meantime, the F-22 fighter would have undergone another upgrade, out of which it would have emerged as a superior and more advanced aircraft than the F-35, which had been characterized in the early 2000s.
Another obvious question is when we can expect to see more unmanned fighter aircraft being employed in the context of routine operations. Would it not be more appropriate to invest the amounts invested in the development and testing of the F-35 in an unmanned platform, while the F-22 fulfills its function within the Order of Battle, through an on-going production line, as a multirole fighter carrying a diversified range of ordnance?
Admittedly, the milk has already been spilled and cannot be put back into the jug, and it is true that Israel had the only justifiable choice for acquiring the F-35 fighters, but we should always ask ourselves before making a decision regarding a new platform – is this justification absolutely clear, or would it be more appropriate to upgrade?
***
Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry is President of Boeing Israel. He was the Commander of the IAF, Chairman of the National Security Council, and Israel's Ambassador to the United States.
"The F-22 is a fifth-generation fighter to all intents and purposes, offering some specific advantages over the F-35 in certain aspects." President of Boeing Israel, Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry, raises questions regarding Israel's fifth-generation aircraft. Opinion
F-22 fighter jets (Photo: AP)
The June 26 – July 9 2017 issue of the weekly magazine Aviation Week presents some impressive statistics regarding the involvement of US F-22 stealth fighters in aerial combat operations in Syria and Iraq. The report contains quotes from a conversation with the commander of the US F-22 squadron, who told the magazine that some 1,150 F-22 sorties had been flown until May 28, 2017, of which 497 were Close Air Support (CAS) sorties, with the F-22 fighters delivering GBU-32 JDAM precision-guided munitions and GBU-39 SDB (Small Diameter Bomb) glide munitions, so as to avoid unnecessary casualties among civilians.
Apparently, the F-22, originally designed and built as an air superiority fighter with impressive air-to-air capabilities, being a stealth fighter, namely – possessing a very small Radar signature opposite most Radar systems – is very difficult to spot. Consequently, the effectiveness of ground-based air-defense systems and the airborne Radar systems of other interceptors operating against it is very low. Nevertheless, the Americans decided to employ this fighter and take advantage of its characteristics in strike missions as well, especially since April 6, 2017, the day when the US forces executed the cruise missile attack against the Syrian airbase out of which the Syrian fighters that carried chemical weapons had departed.
It would seem that the F-22 can operate almost freely throughout Syria, despite the threat imposed by the state-of-the-art Russian-made air-defense systems – an impressive accomplishment in itself. As this fighter is practically invisible, it is used as a multirole platform, namely – as a strike fighter and not just as an air superiority fighter – a concept that is very similar to the doctrine according to which Israeli air power is employed.
US F-22 fighters delivered 1,572 munitions in 497 strike sorties, namely – about three munitions per sortie on average, or potentially three targets destroyed per mission. Owing to its stealth characteristics, the F-22 fighter carries a small number of munitions in an internal bomb bay rather than on external weapon stations.
At the same time as this report, other media reports addressed the cost of the F-35 program, which should have been low, thereby leading the production of F-22 fighters to be discontinued. The cost of the famous F-35 program amounts to US$ 400 billion.
The obvious question here is whether the F-22 production line should have been maintained instead of switching to the manufacture of a new fighter aircraft. The F-22 is a fifth-generation fighter to all intents and purposes, offering some specific advantages over the F-35 in certain aspects, like supersonic cruising without afterburners.
It is reasonable to assume that a massive F-22 production line would have led to reduced costs and we would have a new block that had already incorporated the lessons learned from the operational employment of this fighter – while the F-35 is not really operational as yet. The figures made available lead to the conclusion that in addition to the cost of the aircraft proper, some US$ 100 billion have been invested in related activities, such as the development of the aircraft and avionics, testing and adaptation of ordnance – most of which had already been paid for in the context of the F-22 program.
Some US$ 30-50 billion could have been saved if we had kept the F-22 program going instead of embarking on the F-35 program. This is a huge amount of money. Israel received US$ 30 billion through US Aid over a period of ten years, and that was the primary source for the entire empowerment of the IDF – which maintains Israel's qualitative advantage in this region.
Presumably, the proponents of the F-35 program will not accept the potential savings I have presented. Figures are a very flexible thing, but I have no doubt whatsoever that it would have been more appropriate to upgrade existing platforms to the latest generation of avionics and state-of-the-art weapon systems than to develop a new platform and fit it with the same avionics and weapon systems. It is reasonable to assume that in the meantime, the F-22 fighter would have undergone another upgrade, out of which it would have emerged as a superior and more advanced aircraft than the F-35, which had been characterized in the early 2000s.
Another obvious question is when we can expect to see more unmanned fighter aircraft being employed in the context of routine operations. Would it not be more appropriate to invest the amounts invested in the development and testing of the F-35 in an unmanned platform, while the F-22 fulfills its function within the Order of Battle, through an on-going production line, as a multirole fighter carrying a diversified range of ordnance?
Admittedly, the milk has already been spilled and cannot be put back into the jug, and it is true that Israel had the only justifiable choice for acquiring the F-35 fighters, but we should always ask ourselves before making a decision regarding a new platform – is this justification absolutely clear, or would it be more appropriate to upgrade?
***
Maj. Gen. (ret.) David Ivry is President of Boeing Israel. He was the Commander of the IAF, Chairman of the National Security Council, and Israel's Ambassador to the United States.
