F-22 versus F-35

In Gregg Easterbrook's "Bad Predictions" column (linked in the previous entry), he has a few paragraphs about the US Air Force and its F-22 and F-35 aircraft. Knowing almost nothing about modern combat aircraft, I thought it'd be both entertaining and informative to pass the link along to someone who had more than a few clues about the subject. Chris Taylor takes it from there:

All planes do the same job all the time
Or: They do if you're a "journalist".

ESPN's Gregg Easterbrook takes the time to lambaste the F-22 and its supporters in his annual TMQ Bad Predictions Review. Makes for a funny read, but it's absolutely, factually incorrect on almost everything it mentions about the embattled fighter.

. . . "Vega 31" is proof that even the vaunted F-117 could be tracked and bagged by modern-day air defence systems, yet we are supposed to believe that no other adversary the US will face off against in the next 30-40 years will bother to upgrade their air defences, because... well just because.

. . . The F-35 has benefited from F-22 development and production, notably in integration of mission systems and avionics. Lockheed Martin, prime contractor for both aircraft, is on record as trying to commonize the complex electronic systems aboard each aircraft [. . .] F-35 technologies are cheaper because they were first developed for the F-22. Innovations in the F-35 will be back-fitted to the F-22 fleet, as time and funding priorities allow. The Air Force does plan for its assets to be upgraded over the course of their lifetimes. That's why there are still Eisenhower-vintage KC-135s and Kennedy-vintage B-52s still flying today.

The F-35 is purpose-built to be a cheaper multi-role (but primarily ground attack) fighter, a replacement for the F-16 and F/A-18. I am sure it will be a stellar combat system, like its predecessors. But it is not built to tackle the same challenges as the F-22, any more than a Formula One car and a World Rally Car are built to tackle the same course. The F-35 is a good compromise between stealth, air dominance, ground attack and ELINT — but it will never be as capable in any single role as an aircraft excusively designed to fulfil that role. That is the tradeoff inherent in multi-role birds; always has been, always will be.

To be fair, the original article is not primarily about the US Air Force . . . this is a short segment in a column that's theoretically about football (but his other topics are often at least as interesting as the NFL-stuff).

Update, 7 April: Defense Secretary Gates makes it official — he's hoping to cut off the F-22 production run after four more planes are built (making it 187 in total, well short of the USAF's plan for 300), but increasing F-35 orders to 2,443 (which implies a worldwide production run of around 4,500). Details here.

The budget rolled out Monday for Congress to consider looks remarkably different from the budget Gates authored while working for former President George W. Bush; so does the economy.

North Texas congressional delegation members said ending the F-22 program was a bad call that could hurt local employment.

"The world remains a dangerous place, and this vital program is integral to maintaining a strong national defense," said Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville. "Now is not the time to impose policy decisions that will only add more workers to the ranks of the unemployed."

Other congressional leaders applauded the Pentagon's new direction.