Pilot Explains What Isn't A Good Choice For Libya

[SrWoodchuck]

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/29/an_ex_harrier_pilot_explains_the_difference_between_firing_at_other_airplanes_and_s?wpisrc=obnetwork

 

 

 

MARCH 31, 2011

 

 

An ex-Harrier pilot explains the difference between firing at other airplanes and shooting at targets on the ground

 

Posted By Thomas E. Ricks Tuesday, March 29, 2011 - 10:57 AM Share

 

Here's an insider's explanation of why the Air Force's hot new F-22 fighter jet is exactly the wrong aircraft for shooting at Qaddafi's forces on the ground in Libya.

 

By Col. David Gurney (USMC, ret.)

Best Defense office of strafing and bombing

 

There aren't many things more fun than strafing targets on the ground, and for tactical jet pilots, there are few activities more dangerous (or in the case of a F-22 Raptor, more stupid). The 20mm six-barreled Gatling gun on the F-22 is mounted for an air-to-air knife fight (inside a half mile). The M61A2 features high rates of fire and a tremendous muzzle velocity, but there are only 480 rounds of ammunition, just over four one-second bursts). This ammunition was not designed for ground targets, it was specially designed to blow up other aircraft. The Raptor also lacks the armor and the price tag required for fecklessly dueling Grunts who own automatic weapons and hate pilots who make more money and look better than they do.

 

What most non-tactical jet pilots don't know is that air-to-air and air-to-ground cannon are mounted differently. An aircraft with an air-to-mud cannon is at a gunsight depression disadvantage in a dogfight, and the opposite is true for fighter pilots who wish they were heroic attack pilots. Consider for a moment. If your primary mission is to make earthmen miserable, the axis of your cannon will be depressed from the longitudinal axis (fuselage) of your aircraft. This allows pilots to enjoy a more shallow dive and therefore leisurely opportunities to perforate the rabble and break their toys. Fighter pilots, conversely, have cannon that are biased above the longitudinal axis, because most of our enemies don't like to get shot and are pulling as many G's as they can to keep from getting their jump wings. If your gun is pointing up a few degrees, you don't have to pull your nose all the way to the bogey's jet before your glowing "death dot" is resting on the back of his helmet. This also means that F-16 and F-22 pilots have to strafe in a steeper dive and shoot quicker to keep from suffering cement poisoning.

 

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

In the words of Fred Thompson's character in Tom Clancy's great movie, The Hunt for Red October:

 

"This thing will get out of hand.....and we'll be lucky to live through it....."

[Pepper]

SrWoodChuck

 

Great article. Good comment from reader there:

That said, I imagine the biggest issue is fuel -- the T55 gets about 300 miles on its 250 gallon tank. This is about half-way (one way) from Benghazi to Tripoli. The rebels are smart to keep their captured armor as mobile pillboxes, especially because of difficulty ensuring no mishaps to tailing tankers..

 

(These two cities are about as far from each other as Sacramento and Salt Lake City).

 

So the warfare comes to look like a Toyota-branded "Road Warrior."

 

I had said elsewhere it looks like a [southern] turkey shoot gone mobile but Toyota branded road warrior is better.

[Pepper]

The 1000 or so ragtag rebels, many of whom are wild ones who want you and kids dead, don’t deserve the sacrifice of one single U.S. Soldier, nor that of his/her family.

 

From HotAir

[SrWoodchuck]

Pepper! Thanks!

 

Toyota's have become much bigger machines......since I owned my old 1978 20-R. I put a shell on it & used it for work, fishing trips, pheasant hunts & even took it on my honeymoon [2 weeks of camping in Yellowstone & the Tetons.]

 

Back then, Toyota's were better suited for Love.......not War!

 

I thought this comment was interesting [in bold]:

 

 

 

 

AXURE

11:41 PM ET

March 29, 2011

a gun argument makes no sense

 

Dear Mr Ricks,

 

This is a very nice guest post indeed. However, it makes no sense with regards to F-22 in Libya.

 

No-one in their sane mind would suggest attacking ground targets with a gun. The only aircraft that are designed to do that in a hostile environment are A-10s. (And they do indeed, as shown yesterday in Misrata port.) Everything else, from F-15s to Rafales will (and did) attack ground targets from a safe altitude with guided bombs and missiles. No-one will unnecessarily risk taking a random bullet from an AK-47. Or to take the argument to the extreme - the B-2 has no gun whatsoever, and yet it was used exclusively for air-to-ground.

 

The reasons why F-22s didn't participate are the following:

 

1) Libyan air defences were pretty ancient and could be taken out with old-school stuff, like TLAM. (Raptor a2g is planned against state-of-the art Russian & Chinese radars and air defences, like S-400.)

 

2) F-22 have a very limited overall a2g capability. (Basically, just JDAMs and SDBs.)

 

3) Flying F-22 in full combat stealth could reveal their characteristics to other forces operating in the region. (When F-22 flies for air shows, it always carries a device that magnifies its radar cross section to keep real specs secret.)

 

4) The cost of relocating F-22s to Europe. Other USAF planes were based in Europe, had all their ground support there. (And B-2s flew round mission from US.) You would have to move a lot of stuff to Italy to make it work.

 

But guns is not one of the reasons...

[Pepper]

However, six years after declaring initial operational capability, the F-22 is still waiting for a radar that picks up targets on the ground.

 

See this comment

 

"I want an honest anwer, is the F22 a $143 million hanger queen, a $26 billion boondoogle, or can it fly unchallendged over Libya tomorrow without a massive suppression campaign preceding? It’s 1 or the other. Does it not bother you profoundly that no DOD or news reporter has even mentioned the stealth F22?

Does it even exist, fly, or just sit mean looking with no bite or fight?"

[SrWoodchuck]

Thanks for the links, Pepper.

 

Here is one good reason that F-22's might be stuck in the shed:

 

 

 

By Analyst on March 24, 2011 6:38 PM | Reply

 

The probable reason is that some allies have ESM suit which can analyse radar and communications war modes of F22, including the British or the French (including Rafale).

It would be counter productive to take even a small risk that some better ECM systems which embed some counter F22 software could be sold abroad.

F22 is a silver bullet deserved for China, not for a second rate operation where nobody needs it.

Moreover a failure (see F15 exemple) could happen to a F22 (remember F117 in ex Yugoslavia) and nobody want some part sold to Chineses.[/i]

 

By Analyst on March 25, 2011 5:20 PM | Reply

 

It seems that Rafale was the first to enter Libya for reconnaissance and strike or air superiority, without preliminary SEAD, whatever at low or medium/high altitude.

It would be quite interesting to know return of experience concerning this plane, and how efficient was this plane and especially its radar geolocation capabilities and ECM, or its use of AASM and networking.

For now, it seems it is the most potent fighter bomber on the theater due to those abilities, that F35 will provide next (plus stealth of course).

 

........and do these two posts from your link, resemble anyone that we may "know?"

[AceRimmer]

I'd say that the F-22 isn't needed in Libya because it's an air superiority fighter as opposed to air to mud like the A-10, which is shredding Libyan armor. No sense chancing a crash or shootdown of a Raptor when Qaddafi's air force is already gone.

 

Leave this one to the Eagles and Falcons, both of which are better equipped for air and ground attack, and keep the Raptor home.