Comments on: Raptor … or Turkey? (Part Three)

By: Wembley

Wembley — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 15:28:24 +0000

This looks great for fighting the war before last (or do I mean the one before).
Not sure what future war it would be good for, but while the UCAVs are doing the real work this one will look terrific at air shows.
This thing was designed about 20 years ago, development cycles for unmanned craft are a fraction of that. Is anyone really fooled?

By: skrip00

skrip00 — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 14:41:20 +0000

Oh please. $120 mil is nothing. A brand new F-15C costs roughly $80 mil. How many times more effective is the F-22A than the F-15?
My point is: Its cheaper to unify to two or three airframes and have lower maintenence costs. So the fleet is: F-35A, F-22A, and F-15E+.
With all three tac roles falling onto those three airframe types.
Upgrading current F-15Cs is a bandaid solution. The F-15 cannot be upgraded anymore. Its airframe lacks the growth space.
The F-22A has alot of growth space for a century’s worth of growth.
Its stealth will still be a major advantage even with improvements in radar.
UCAVs have nowhere to go, but to be self deployed weapons systems. Not having a pilot is a major disadvantage in many cases.
This is a total repeat of the USAF/US Army arguments of the 1950s. They basically stated: we dont need carriers or even fighters because we can win through long range missiles and nuclear weapons.
Oops.

By: JIDude

JIDude — Wed, 16 Aug 2006 03:47:55 +0000

UCAVs might be lots cheaper and stealthier, but pilots run the Air Force and they don’t want a situation where video-gamer players rule the roost.

By: sglover

sglover — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 21:34:04 +0000

Ach! So many cynics and nay-sayers and crypto-Islamo-fasco-terro-mongers! Look at these disloyal comments:
“The question of the need for a(nother) global air superiorty weapon when the annual US military budget is 9 times more than China and more than the next 25 top spenders combined has a simple answer: no. There is no bomber gap, missile gap, fighter gap, etc.: the only real gap is between humanity and reality.“
“Selling them to Israel or some other country and $120 ea. is only a good and profitaable business because taxpayers footed the development bill.“
“The recent conflict with the terrorists in Lebanon proved the limits of airpower. Important, yes, but hardly a war winner, if it ever was.“
Don’t any of you realize that the F-22 is just, like, a neat thing to have? Why do you insist on muddying the waters with a lot of esoteric concepts like “cost” and “effectiveness”?!?

By: Nicholas Weaver

Nicholas Weaver — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:44:10 +0000

Finally, I have SOME google-based suggestion that combat radius is 1400km. (But what speed?) Awfully impressive, however, and says a lot for clean design aircraft, regardless of whether the stealth will work a year from now. [1]
This is 60km more than an F16 which is dragging twice as much tonnage in bombs and using the large drop tanks. (again, what speed?)
I would hope than for >10x the cost of an F16, you’d get a longer increase in range than my commute to work, however.
[1] China will undoubtedly remember this lesson as they build their inevitable UCAVs.

By: DS

DS — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 20:30:48 +0000

dammit…when are they going to stop playing games and bring out the billion dollar flying saucers with optical stealth, electrogravitistic generators and deathrays…sheeeesh. for 250,000,000 dollars i’d like to believe we have something better than freakin JDAM’s…

By: Noah

Noah — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:47:56 +0000

Omitting development costs from per unit costs is absurd. Development costs of any product are amortized over the total production run.
Selling them to Israel or some other country and $120 ea. is only a good and profitaable business because taxpayers footed the development bill.
The question of the need for a(nother) global air superiorty weapon when the annual US military budget is 9 times more than China and more than the next 25 top spenders combined has a simple answer: no. There is no bomber gap, missile gap, fighter gap, etc.: the only real gap is between humanity and reality.

By: skrip00

skrip00 — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:35:07 +0000

“The long range only applies if you have tankers or drop tanks, the combat range is probably pretty dismal (one of the few things about the F22 that google doesn’t find!, but I would worry that low fuel fraction, supercruise burns fuel, and no external stores -> no drop tanks).“
F-22A’s unrefueled range with an internal weapons load, is far longer than the F-15’s ever could be with drop tanks.
The F-22A is the world’s longest ranged fighter aircraft on internal fuel alone.

By: Robot.Economist

Robot.Economist — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 19:33:14 +0000

I think Nicholas W. on this one, the F-22’s cost is still out of proportion with the threat it is designed to counter. It might be smarter to cut 20–30 Raptors out of the current program to refurbish our fleet of F-15Cs.
I still don’t see why USAF rushing to replace its older assets in the middle of large missions in the Middle East and Asia. What would be the harm of putting some of their purchases off by 5–10 years?
As I have said before, USAF needs to balance its spending on future capabilities with its current operational needs around the world. The Army is making the same mistakes with its FCS and Land Warrior programs.

By: Mike Burleson

Mike Burleson — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 18:32:42 +0000

The recent conflict with the terrorists in Lebanon proved the limits of airpower. Important, yes, but hardly a war winner, if it ever was.