The McGraw-Hill Companies
Aviation Week
MEMBER CENTER
LOG IN | REGISTER | SUBSCRIBE
Blogs Forums Photos Videos My Aviationweek

Blog Search

Search all Aviation Week.com blog content

Bookmark and Share
Blog Image
A Defense Technology Blog
The Memes That Killed The F-22

It would take a roomful of media scholars a month to dissect two days' worth of blog and columnist comment on the Senate's almost-certainly-terminal blow to the F-22 program. On the other hand, there is little denying that several memes - that is, ideas that replicate like viruses, to the point where people repeat them without needing to cite their sources - appear in many commentaries. I would guess that a large majority of the chattering classes hit at least four of the following seven: .

Meme number 1: The F-22 hasn't been used in Afghanistan or Iraq. In itself this is a statement of the obvious. What makes it a meme is the corollary that the F-22 is militarily irrelevant. However, there are many capabilities that haven't been used in those theaters - submarines, for instance - but nobody seems to panic as we keep spending money on those.

Meme number 2:  The F-22 was an airplane that the Pentagon did not want. Since when has the Pentagon been of one mind? The right number of F-22s was the subject of controversy within the Pentagon;  and the firings of the two top Air Force leaders a year ago were clearly related to that argument. 

Meme number 3:  The F-22 is a Cold War weapon and therefore obsolete. Again, no argument, the requirement was written in the Cold War - but the same can be said of supercarriers and submarines, the Virginia being a downsized Seawolf. The Joint Strike Fighter's basic requirement document, although it is post-Cold War, precedes the current conflict, Bosnia and the other unexpectedly messy contingencies that have followed Desert Storm. It wasn't designed to chase Terry Taliban around the Af-Pak border, any more than the F-22 was.

Meme number 4: The F-22 was designed to shoot down enemy fighters, and there are few of those so we need few F-22s.  But as anyone who was around for the start of the project knows, the combination of speed, altitude and all-round stealth was aimed - absolutely and intentionally - at defeating SAMs. 

Meme number 5:  The F-22 is an unreliable hangar queen - the WaPo said so. So coincidentally, just before a narrow vote, all sorts of Pentagon sources decide it's their duty to leak all kinds of negative (but arguable) stuff about the F-22. It might have been that way. Barney might be a real dinosaur. 

Meme number 6:  The JSF will cost "half as much" as the F-22. It's more correct to say that the F-35A may get to that point (the B and C certainly won't), once full-rate production gets going, if from now on the program performs far better than any previous Pentagon project. Which, so far, it has not done. Even then, to do this it has to break the model under which similar aircraft, built under similar circumstances, tend to cost about the same amount in terms of dollars per pound of empty weight. Nobody has done that yet, either. 

Meme number 7: The F-22 takes money away from the "warfighters" and their real needs. Apart from being a handy emotive criticism of any weapon that you don't like that's not a container-load of body armor or a one-war-wonder MRAP, it's not correct. What the USAF has been talking about for years is - given that you're going to maintain a fighter force - what the right mix of F-22s and F-35s might be within a given budget.

Upshot: Regardless of whether you think it was smart or not to kill the F-22, the public argument has been dominated by assumptions that are, at best, unproven. 

Tags: ar99f-22jsf
Email this post
User Image
I believe that given funding for software upgrades -- which Murtha said he would like to switch his authorizations for funding to -- an emerging strength of the F-22 will come from some of its unique applications of physics. As long as its stealth is relevant, it can put together the electronic order of battle for an area of interest almost instantaneously. It can also get very close to emitters (within 15 mi. if directly overhead) which improves the ability to conduct information operations, network mapping, electronic warfare and attack. Who knows what will emerge from the Next Generation Jammer and the Multi-Purpose RF programs. Anyway, great list, great points and I nominate you to follow Gates as Secdef.
7/24/2009 7:19 AM CDT
User Image
Jeb Hoge wrote:
This would have been really useful A WEEK AGO. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a grand debunking of the memes that at least had an impact on sinking F-22 production might have at least created some reasonable doubt in the minds of the Congresscritters who didn't have a determined interest in killing it.
7/24/2009 8:32 AM CDT
User Image
Aviator8 wrote:
May I add to your combination noted in number 4 - thrust vectoring, and supercruise. If and/or when stealth becomes irrelevant, a requirement for the remaining F-22 attributes remains. And...if and when the politically correctness fades and the need arises not only in the US but the Pacific (Australia, Japan for instance) and elsewhere the line may start up again out of sheer necessity.
7/24/2009 8:57 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Jeb - A good point. We've been hammering on all these points for the past year. However, I think the bigger factor was that Congress suddenly realized that they were running against a President with whom the mainstream media are infatuated.
7/24/2009 9:09 AM CDT
User Image
Total wrote:
Wait, your arguments essentially boil down to "well, that may be true, but it's true of other things as well," or "Hey, those mean opponents of the F-22 made actual *arguments* against the plane...that's not fair."

And since when isn't Barney a real dinosaur?
7/24/2009 9:26 AM CDT
User Image
ghemago wrote:
I was surprised as Barak Obama kept Gates in his position. Then I was more surprised to see he was staying and nobody was arguing about his role. Now I'm even more puzzled with the President directly threatening a veto to push through Gates's F22 and F136 decisions.
Gates has really charmed Obama...
Any insider from Washington D.C.?

I'd really like to understand how much Obama understands of the whole matter and what are his priorities for fundings and how he counters the very reasonable objections many of us made in this blog. One thing would buy me would be: "I know things I can't tell you". It will then be history to judge his term...

Would it be so crazy to ask the President some answers in this blog?

PS: in a few months the Eurofighter will be labeled in the ads as "The most advanced in production fighter in the world"
7/24/2009 9:30 AM CDT
User Image
Bill Sweetman wrote:
Total - To take one example: Why not stop building submarines? Because we think that there may be times in the future where we need to do sea denial and the other things that submarines do. Same goes for a dominant air-to-air fighter.
7/24/2009 9:31 AM CDT
User Image
Solomon wrote:
OUTSTANDING POINT TOTAL! It amazed me how much spin the F-22 is able to impart on its behalf. Overlooked are all the negatives of this airplane. Its as if IT IS THE SECOND COMING! Also overlooked is the fact that such Senate stalwarts such as John McCain also supported killing it. Advocates of the plane are suddenly forgiven of all wrongs when just a month ago they were cynical, stupid, idiotic etc...(Murtha anyone?). This whole conversation is devoid of reason.
7/24/2009 9:33 AM CDT
User Image
sferrin wrote:
Solomon: Let's hear the negatives. *Real* ones that is. And let's keep it objective.
7/24/2009 9:48 AM CDT
User Image
ghemago wrote:
No matter how much negative Solomon can be about cost, design, hangar queen, maintenance problem and bla bla bla, the final fact is that the F-22 in the air will kill anything, not only in a 1:1 shootout but also in a much higher rate (3-4-5:1) and will penetrate state of the art air defences like not even the F-35 will ever do in 2035.
7/24/2009 10:00 AM CDT
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >> Last
Most Recent Tags
Defense Industry News
Recent Photos
Industry Insight: Defense & Technology Insight by
Raytheon
Selected Videos