The Raptor stealth jet started out as a fighter. But with fewer and fewer opponents willing to duel in the skies, backers of the ultra-pricey plane began looking for more and more things for the Raptor to do.
So the F-22 became, for a time, the F/A-22 ("A" is for attack). It was pushed as a reconnaissance (or, "R") plane, then as a flying explosives-jammer ("E" or "EA" asset, for "electronic attack"). Even a bomber ("B") version was drawn up.
Finally, DANGER ROOM pal Murdoc got so frustrated with the whole thing, he decided to give the Raptor a new designation... the F/A/R/C/E-22, with a "C" for cargo.
It was all a joke, of course. Just a little friendly poke at how the Air Force keeps looking for justifications in today's conflict for tomorrow's sleek fighter. Nothing anyone would take seriously, right?
Apparently not. At a Congressional breakfast this morning, Air Force Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. David Deptula took Murdoc's designation about three steps further. "It’s not an F-22, it’s an F-, A-, B-, E-, EA-, RC-, AWACS… 22."
*...a prime example of how far astray the myopic “platform /
price” logic will lead you is evident with the F-22. There has been no shortage of F-22 criticism claiming that “It’s too high-tech (read: expensive)
for today’s enemy,” or “There’s no enemy fighter to justify the F-22.”
*
Regarding the lack of a comparable enemy fighter, would these critics rather we make our weapons choices in favor of the ones where the enemy has the same or better equipment?
*But more to the point of capabilities, these arguments only consider the F-22 as an air-to-air fighter – the implication being that if there is no significant air threat, it’s an unnecessary expense. However, the F-22 is not just an “air-to-air” platform—and here is where traditional nomenclature constrains understanding of capability—It’s not an
F-22, it’s an F-, A-, B-, E-, EA-, RC-, AWACS….22. *
*It’s a flying
ISR sensor that will allow us to conduct network-centric warfare inside adversary battlespace from the first moments of any conflict in addition to its vast array of attack capabilities; and, the fact that it’s not opposed by like fighters means we can make use of those robust capabilities all the more! *
*From that angle, the “expense” argument loses steam pretty quickly, as does the “no comparable enemy jet” argument. *
- It’s the focus on capabilities that will dispel the myth that there is no place for the F-22
in securing our Nation’s future security. It’s more accurate to say there’s no place it CAN’T go.*
But is that the case, really? Check out what Air Combat Command chief Gen. Ronald E. Keys said in January:
"If war breaks out, I'm sending the F-22," Keys said. But not for operations in Iraq or Afghanistan. "I didn't buy the F-22 for Iraq.
We're looking for what can sop up intelligence, reconnaissance and surveillance [ISR] in Iraq and Afghanistan. Is the investment [of sending the F-22] worth it? Is it a good idea or just an attractive idea? Will it complicate the air component commander's problems for no gain?"
I wish he was joking. But he's not.
