I guess I’m going to have to dive in here…though I’m reluctant to because the sides are so polarized in the issue.
The fight in the Senate is going on over the added funding for F-22s inserted into the 2010 DoD budget by Raptor allies in states with key Raptor manufacturing facilities. Sens. McCain and Levin are on the administration’s side on this one, arguing that the budget should stick with the 187 plane plan. Obama has said he’ll veto the DoD budget bill if it includes any (seven in the Senate, 12 in the House) additional F-22s over his plan.
Advocates argue that 187 is far too few aircraft to maintain air superiority in the future, even one still dominated by US airpower. And the undercurrent also flows with job-loss worries — particularly in Georgia, where a large portion of the manufacturing will be done.
They’re both right.
On the one hand we have Winslow Wheeler and his bros arguing that the F-22 is the poster child for a Pentagon procurement system run amok and that it’s aided and abetted by a Congress always looking for pork to fry up for its constituents. And on the other, there’s an eloquent argument made by Air Force Association president Lt. Gen. Mike Dunn that the 187 F-22s is really 100 operational F-22s and that’s way too few even for the most optimistic scenarios.
Arguably it’s not about raw numbers — people can debate 200 vs. 800 vs. 100 all day long. On the one hand, it seems to me a good idea to have the most advanced fighter in the world in our inventory — and to have a good amount of them (no fair fights). But on the other hand it has been frustrating that the Raptor has taken so damned long to field. I’ve been in the defense reporting biz for a while and I can remember doing stories in F-22 development (and even the competition for the Raptor) and seeing some stat that the components on it were from the 1980s…that’s a problem.
So maybe the F-22 is the B-2 of the fighter world. We need to call it a loss and keep a silver bullet fleet to satisfy all the constituencies involved and turn the chapter on this one. As far as I’m concerned, the future belongs to unmanned aircraft and it may be that we’ll go counter to our usual practice and throw dozens of cheap drones at an air superiority problem in the next two decades rather than send up one or two Gucci fighters to knock down Mig-15s, if you know what I mean.
So I’ll reluctantly side with McCain/Levin/Obama on this one (though I don’t think it’s worth vetoing the entire defense bill over seven more Raptors). But I’ll be sad to witness the final death throes of the manned fighter air superiority era…
– Christian
{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }
I agree with you, Christian. The Air Force needs to get into a two-tier fleet mindset, with a smaller, cutting-edge air superiority element, and then a much less expensive exploitation element comprised of drones. Then, hopefully, the USAF can return to its intended role of supporting the boots on the ground.
“But I’ll be sad to witness the final death throws of the manned fighter air superiority era…” What on earth does that mean???
Do you really think the US Air Force will give up on advanced, manned fighters that easily? Ridicilous…..
that was the most middle of the road, agree with all sides article you’ve ever posted. it doesn’t matter. the fans of the F-22 will be after you now! good luck bro!
How long before someone calls you a “traitor” in the comment thread? I have an over/under of 5 hours.
Has anyone ever looked at the cost of “freezing” a production line, keeping the tooling and machining in limbo, maintained by a skeleton crew as an alternative to building every unit we’ll ever need and then trashing the whole assembly?
Why not build 187 now, and pay a yearly “storage” fee to keep the possibility of future F-22s open? Is the cost any worse than building and maintaining fighters we don’t need right now, that only degrade the minute they leave the factory?
Continuing from below – With aircraft in particular, our issue seems to be more with production capability than anything else. We got into this situation where we don’t have the ability to restart production on anything once the run is finished, so everyone screams like chicken little to get as many units as possible out the door before the lights go out.
Hence, why not spend our defense money on assuring production capability, rather than on producing unneeded units that degrade and require constant funds the minute they join the fleet?
hey Total, i’ll take that bet and double it…someone will call him a traitor in one or two hours.
“hey Total, i’ll take that bet and double it…someone will call him a traitor in one or two hours.”
Ah, a kindred spirit! Excellent. He posted it at 1:21 PM, so two hours is already past, but I like your enthusiasm.
From the Senator’s statements on the Senate floor.
Floor Statment of Senator John McCain on F-22 07/ 13/09
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IP9Hnmn6_OY&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eflightglobal%2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fthe%2Ddewline%2F&feature=player_embedded
Senator Johnny Isakson on the F-22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w05CEDYt5F0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eflightglobal%2Ecom%2Fblogs%2Fthe%2Ddewline%2F&feature=player_embedded
Christian is a traitor.
All kidding aside, long term strategy implores us to have more than 187 Raptors in the fleet. Training accidents and age will eat into that number over time. Maintenance down time will also impact the force, at least on short notice contingencies. If multi-theater deployments are required, and no one has clear enough a crystal ball to say we couldn’t, we may face a day when we can’t have enough of the “first team” for every fight. It’s easy enough to complain about the F-22′s price tage today, but tell that to the pilots of tomorrow that may be forced into a fight with less than the best. There are too many “what if’s” to limit our capability to maintain complete air supremacy for generations to come. 187 Raptors does just that.
Yeah, the F-22 would do so much to help our guys on the ground in Afghanistan…..the real reason they are trying to amend the budget to buy more in order of relevance is A) Keeps jobs in several key states B) Placates the Air Force fighter mafia
HAs nothing to do with what we really need sadly..
I just can’t help recalling when the first Raptors flew across the international date line and half the computers flaked out.
This is a tough issue. Unmanned aircraft are the future of combat aircraft. How long will it take to provide air superiority in a UAV?
On the other hand Raptor is here today and is a significant leap from our aging F-15 fleet. Additionally, more aircraft means economic benefits. Both in the manufacture of the aircraft and in the assorted spares. This is a production line and supply chain that is in place and functional today. Funding additional aircraft will maintain jobs that otherwise would be phased out soon. It certainly would provide a better stimulus for the economy (by keeping this sector flat) than what the current multi-trillion dollar stimulus packages are doing for us.
The “guys on the ground” are doing just fine. What would significantly improve the American infantryman’s ability to kill the enemy? A new rifle? Fine, I agree. Cut some pork or useless social welfare program* for one or two years and the entire U.S. military has funds for the new rifle. But don’t obfuscate the issue of F-22 funding with arguments or needing money for “the guys on the ground.”
*I call them useless from my firsthand observations growing up in a “distressed community” filled with the unemployed, questionably educated and drug-addicted. I lived the life of government handouts. I saw what it did to a once thriving city. Millions upon millions were thrown at my home town in all manner of welfare, educational and stimulus programs. And the place of my birth continued to deteriorate to this day. Social spending does nothing but perpetuate poverty. It saps the will to stand on your own two feet. I’ve seen it firsthand too many times.
As a fan of both the F-22 and new tech (that works, and helps) the grunts slinging mud and kicking doors. We just saw how modern air defense can change the air war and the Ace in the hole is the F-22. The JSF isn’t even proven yet (see ELP blog) and even with the F-22′s paint and computer problems for a state of the art flying super computer its still an amazing piece of kit. Not to say what the next war is, but this may be the perfect plane for those of ‘next waritus’
“The “guys on the ground” are doing just fine.”
Yeah, I’m sure the guys on the ground wouldn’t appreciate knowing that low flying, hard hitting air support was just one radio call away….. guess you’ve never heard of Close Air Support (CAS) justbill….you must be active duty Air Force.
The first time I saw paper drawings of the YF-17 (F/A-18) was in 1969. Last time I checked, the production line was still open.
MIg-15′s? Really? It’s not 1952. I would never trust drones with air to air missions. They can’t even effectively handle the COIN mission.
If Hugo Chavez decides to attack Columbia or Honduras, it won’t be with Mig-15′s. His SU-30′s could tie up 1/3 of our F-22 fleet all by himself, assuming, of course, that we still want to protect our own hemisphere.
Um no a few dozen if that many SU 30 are not going to tie up 1/3 of our raptors.
Fighters are not the only factor in a fight… AWACS are important so are tactics but more importantly the PILOTS are what matter most.
Chavez and his su 30s need pilots and as of late no force in the world can match the quantity and quality of US pilots and planes.
The pilot makes the plane. Otherwise the russian junk may have done better in the middle east wars. But they have not, have they?
The USAF overestimates our enemies to make a case for toys plain and simple.
NO more F-22s…
FIRST OFF I LOVE THE MILITARY AND ITS TOYS!
I believe that military is the best spending as it secures us and provides numerous technological wonders which filter to the civilian market Internet, Plastics, Computers 3 big ones off the top of my head.
Social programs should be cut first of course before the f22. As others have posted they are bribes for votes which keep people dependent on the gov and nothing more.
The reason i say stop production is because it is clear that
A: UCAVs are the near and long term future. The latest round of war has pushed forward the UCAV timetable by about two decades. Software is the only obstacle. The hardware is already there. And in the real short term the UCAVs could be made without the air to air software. The air to air combat portion of flight could be flown by pilots in simulators. They would be extra deadly since they are flying without fear of death or gforce issues. The AI for combat could be installed later by some guy with a usb memory stick.
B: The other big reason being that we have air superiority and won’t have any real competitor for the next 20 years anyway. China Russia a joke small outdated fleets of aircraft. More importantly their pilots are not trained like the USA our tradition is established long held and refined. It would take russia india china anyone at least a decade, probably more, to establish those schools/cultures and then train enough quality pilots to put up a fight even if they had the aircraft WHICH THEY DO NOT. Su XX MIG XX blah blah blah never combat proven never built in numbers.
So take advantage of the situation and make a revolutionary leap with ucavs and put us 50 years ahead instead of more f22s which only puts us 10-20 years ahead.
We are not under immediate threat from conventional weapons planes tanks ships massive troop formations. The rest of the world combined does not stack up to American hardware. Take away our rules of engagement stop carring about borders and political bs and we are unstoppable. We may not have enough people without a draft to occupy everywhere by we can lay everywhere to waste without much trouble doing so.
We have 12 or so carrier groups the rest of the world combined might have that many and none them stack up to the Nimitz class.
Our air force is the largest AF in the world Followed by and not in this order the US navy/marines,US af reserve,US national guard, and maybe some other US orgs.
To answer KragCulloden’s question regarding freezing the production line: no chance. The knowledge required to build a high technology item like a fighter aircraft is highly perishable, and even a shutdown of a couple of years is enough to take the production capability almost back to square 1. Problems range from the big things (supplier stops making special material X, which is needed for critical components) to little details (what’s the trick to unmolding that part again?) I work in high tech with a product nowhere near as complicated as the F-22, but I’ve also had the experience with the problems inherent in restarting an idle production line a few years later. It isn’t pretty…
I may be beting a dead horse here but for the uninformed out their the russians are fielding the pak-fa in 2 years this plane is thought to be the equal to the f-22 if not superior. This plane will combine the most advanved russian radar, stealth, thrust vectoring, internal weapons bays, ect… this plane will also be produced at f-35 cost that means large numbers of aircraft. Also the russian s-300 air defence system is capable of tracking 100 targets at once and engaging 12 simultaniously. It has a lot of people worried. plus the su 35 is a gen 4 plus aircraft which is capable of engaging any american legacy aircraft and winning. Our fleet is old the gap between gen 4 and gen 5 is large, we need f-22′s in large numbers. The only plane capable of penetrating Chinese air defences is the f-22 acording to Ret. General Richard Myers. Just because Americans have a tendency to think their number 1 dosen’t make it so.
I see few people here who understand the technology they speak so highly of.
Aaron makes the first reasonable consideration regarding UAV’s. Pilot-less flight in air-to-air combat is decades away. Anyone who thinks otherwise really doesn’t have a clue about engineering.
Others here seem to be muddying the waters with regard to the argument.
Fact: The current fleet of F-15′s will require replacement in the coming decade.
Fact: The current F-15 is also a maintenance hog. Anything this high performance is a maintenance hog.
Fact: Advanced aircraft take a decade to design and field. The first F-35 squadron (60 aircraft) is still four years away.
Fact: The F-22 exists and is currently being fielded.
To those who will argue it’s not seeing combat, I say, “Why should it?” Why use a sledge hammer when a fly swatter will do? Why send it out to be studied by our adversaries if you don’t need to.
I’m all for developing UAV’s for COIN and/or CAS, but what good are those platforms if you can’t maintain air superiority. EVERYTHING, our combat forces require demands the maintaining air superiority. If, God forbid, we ever have to face a modern military in combat, the grunts on the ground will know how the Taliban and insurgents are feeling.
Our populace no longer has the political will to fight an all-out war, so we better have the ability to fight a very smart war, and that is in part provided by the F-22.
As has become custom from President Obama, and many others, he is demanding a result without a solution or an alternative. So, if you’re going to argue against the F-22, provide real scenarios and real technological alternatives to the problems at hand.
Obama’s solution is talking if that doesnt work bribery. If that doesnt work begging. Ifthat doesnt work well we havent gotten that far yet. But hey! its only been a year!!!
“Just because Americans have a tendency to think their number 1 dosen’t make it so.”
Yeah well just because the Air Force wants to convince you that the boogeyman is coming and only the F-22 can protect us doesn;t mean it’s real either….
Aaron has a good point. The weak link to UCAVs and UAVs is the network. Think of the aerial version of FCS. There will be an aerial version of Iraq or Afghanistan that shows that the network alone is not sufficient to win wars. Like Iraq and Afghanistan, the military will resort to the aerial version of old-fashioned armor and boots on the ground: manned aircraft. Assuming there are any left…
Yes, aviators have been too smug and now there are plenty of people to laugh at their hubris. But if we predict the death of manned combat aircraft too quickly, we become vulnerable to the weaknesses of unmanned aircraft. Right now the weakness is the network.
While I agree the future is much more drones, it is in our interest to sell the F22 to Japan and Australia so that there are more F22′s in the Pacific, where we are most likely to have a conventional conflict. So we should sell them 50 each if they will take that many. This would be a huge and free force multiplier.
How many of you have actually seen combat? Have been a FAC(A) or a JTAC or been involved in Air Superiority missions or Air to Ground missions. When you have spent time doing any of those things then you should speak your mind. It’s not all Air Force out there guys. The navy has their new F-18 E&F models and as a WSO on the F model and haved served in every role mentioned above I can state that the f-18 is a great aircraft for multi role missions. The F-22 is an air superiority aircraft and that’s important. The air force has always tried to maintain that role and the F-22 is an exceptional aircraft and the men and women that fly them are great people. As far as the UAV’s i’m all for them as a surveillance platform, a marking platform, and even a covert strike platform but an air to air platform give me a break. Not now probably not ever. The human with all their faults can still make an aircraft do amazing things that no manual says can be done and outmaneuver and outsmart out adversaries.
Please don’t drop the F-22 – if ever we needed a plane with that power it’s now & the future.Don’t let the other armed forces down.I’m 75 yrs & a Korean War F-86 pilot. The F-22 is a god send & a deterent at this time & future. The F-35 cannot compete with the F-22 except for the cost per aircraft but you only get what you pay for.Lets stay on the top at this time of war & peace!!!!!
The F-22 is not expendable.
If you don’t have control of the air you die. The F-22 is in production NOW, its not a prototype like the UCAV or a do-everything wannabe like the F-35.
Keep the F-22, sell it to Japan and Australia and build more F-18s. Cancel the F-35, or proceed with just the Marine variant.
If you want UCAVs start work on a CAS version. Those A-10 (saved my butt thank you) are getting old and nothing is on tap to replace them.
ADA.. Death From Below!
This is the problem. No one knows what wars we will be fighting 10 years from now. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a liar.
So when people cry about the poor soldiers on the ground, talk about “how does this help us in Afghanistan”, or otherwise act as though these are the last wars we will fight, I dismiss them out of hand.
Yes, we need to support troops on the ground, but not everything in our military needs to be directed towards blowing up Samir and Achmed in a cave. There WILL be other wars. Nuclear submarines, aircraft carriers, and ICBMs are similarly useless against guys riding camels. Does that mean we should eliminate them?
The need for the F-22 isn’t in 20 years against the next top of the line Russian fighter. It’s in 5 years. The problem is that the F-15 is too old and needs replaced. And it needs replaced NOW. So what will we use to replace it? Will we use the $140M F-22? Will we use a renewed F-15 (Stealth) which has not yet been tested and has no price tag? Will we use an F-35 JSF that has yet to enter production and also has no price tag? Will we design a new airplane? The F-22 is the only answer I see as realistic. At $140M per additional new aircraft, it is expensive, but not unaffordably so. We have to replace the F-15s with *something*, and whatever we replace them with will be pricey.
I believe we will continue to have a need for air superiority in the future. I don’t know this for a fact, but I believe it. I do not believe that UAVs will supplant manned fighters as air superiority any time in the near future. They are certainly not ready to do so TODAY.
Regardless of how quickly the Raptor should have been fielded, regardless of how much money development cost, it is still the finest fighter that exists today. It is a better fighter than anything in development by anyone in the world. Ten year old equipment or not, it is still the best. So do we buy the best, or do we continue to put off purchasing new aircraft until… when?
Sigh…
I wish I knew what was really going on, with this program.
Yes, the AF was *remarkably* stupid in insisting that this plane be designed so that you *could not* put a tailhook on it…
Yes, we spent way too much making this plane with ‘Stealth’ technology of marginal value, which then limits the people we can sell it to.
What really matters is, does this plane work the way it’s supposed to, or not?
If it’s got greater “on target” availability due to supercruise and being designed for easy maintenance, and all the electronics work the way they’re supposed to, then, yes, we should be buying more of them, AND selling them to our Allies, including Japan and Israel…
{Given that ‘stealth’ doesn’t work all that well, I’m not a big fan of hoarding this ‘secret’ all to ourselves, at the expense of being able to afford enough of them to make a difference!}
If, on the other hand, as some claim, it doesn’t meet any of the specifications it was designed for, it’s a LOT of money for a plane that carries very little ordnance…
RE: Atomic Walrus:
Thanks for replying.
RE: Knowledge retention – I understand, but knowledge can be captured – ever gone through an ISO-9000 cert? Its tedious and boring but it does accomplish the mission of capturing knowledge and technique for future use in the absence of the current do-er.
As to suppliers – keep buying the parts and warehouse them. Keep QA/QC folks on staff to inspect parts as they arrive, but warehouse them instead of assembling them.
Again, the point is not so much to save money, but spend money smarter – no one believes we actually need 800 F22s right now…so save the capability to produce them instead of building dozens and dozens of useless, aging, consuming aircraft right now.
As a young flyer in the AF flying a old bird (B52), the F22 is needed now and in numbers F15s are capable aircraft but ours are old. The air force’s procurment strategy should not be based on the current because legacy A/C are doing fine, but should be based on a future threats (China, Russia, Iran, and NK) These countries have advanced IADS that could hurt us bad. Congress and our national leaders should take a look at basic AF doctrine, Airpower is key to all operations and the F22 provides the air dominance portion of that equations. The F22 is better then the F35 which is designed to complement not replace the F22. Sell the F22 to our allies to bring the cost down and buy more F22 or buy more legacy fighters one of them needs to happen we should porform the latter buy F22s it provide a deterent we need.
Christian,
How do you expect drones to obtain air supremacy when the enemy is attacking your communications and disabling satellites? That’s exactly what serious adversaries will be doing 10 to 20 years down the line. You can bet on this because it would be insane not to.
What war will be fighting in 10 years? That’s obvious, it will be Afghanistan, we are just starting over essentially there this summer. We are just starting to put in place a strategy that might turn things around. It won’t even go as ‘smoothly’ as Iraq since it lacks things like any sort of legitimate resources, manufacturing, or educated population.
We can afford one military, not two. The one we need, or the one the bought off lobbyists whispering in the bought off congressman’s ears are telling us we need.
We are going to be in Stan at least 10 more years I bet and on the ground in Iraq the same. We are likely going to be involved in some kind of COIN ops in Africa for God knows how long. Depending on what you like to believe things going very badly in Mexico is a real possibility.
None of those scenarios are going to require super cruising stealth fighters. This non sense talk of a war with China is Discovery Channel/Xbox BS. The #1 and #2 world economies are not going to go to war with one another, period, because they both want to keep making money off each other. That is a universal constant.
Russia? Please, spare me. They build junk, period. We have walked all over their best. The country itself is a farce. How long did it take them to stage and take on the great country of Georgia? Gimme a break, Russia is a joke.
North Korea? Tell the international financial markets anyone doing business with them will have their assets frozen by us and NK would starve/freeze/and implode.
We need to start shopping smarter. No one is saying get rid of the F22s we have, it is just that the situations where we might need them are highly unlikely. The situations we are going to confront or are very likely to confront, we don’t have enough of what we do need.
Surely the reason you have an air force is to maintain superiority and deterant value.from what I’ve seen,the f-35 is incapable of doing this.I think our Govt. is mad to consider buying them and the US mad to close production.Perhaps those in the future will see them as negligent in their duties.Talk about drones as air superiority is just pie in the sky,maybe I’ll get up in a hang glider with a hand grenade.
I for one am a supporter of more F-22s for a number of reasons. The first being that just because we are in the lead position with almost unquestionable air supremacy against any foe in the world currently, does not equate to us always keeping it.
I am also not a fan of cutting the production of the proven capable F-22 to increase production of the as yet to be fully tested F-35. The F-35 is not fully tested for any specific version and it only has 1 engine. I mean 1 engine as what it uses as far as how many powerplants per plane not the replacement engine issue. The F-22 as it currently stands will also not be exported, yet the F-35 will be. This means that any of our export partners on the F-35 will now be at equal with us as far as air capability. The F-22 would give us an advantage there. We never know who will turn into a future adversary, case in point is Iran. Up until the 1979 revolution, they were part of the project that eventually created the F/A-18.
The problem is not the plane, its the price of the bird. If DoD would have controlled the cost overruns, this would not be an issue. Folks, if the plane cost as much as the F-15 or even the F-35 does per plane, the question on numbers would not be on the table and everybody knows it.
Obama wants us to return to the old Brewster Buffalo days when all our enemies had better war fighting equipment than we did and American’s died miserable deaths in cheap aircraft that can barely fly much less fight.
According to the Community Organizer we only need the AF to transport Pelosi and others around the world on junkets. Air Supremo is only needed to look good and reduced funding can be used to support another turtle tunnel or un-need bridge or perhaps another grant to ACORN.
We should expect weakeness in the face of growing enemies to reflect the words to despots that seem to laughed at more and more.
Does anyone remember the wonderful Govt wanted to retire the A-10 Thunderbolt (warthog), that is until it proved to be such a overwhelming bird during Iraq 1? We have aircraft that can be up graded, and geadually increase the numbers of the F-22. As it is now, America is still air superior , and we can keep it that way if the “people” in DC can use something called common sense.
Even if the F-22 gets cancelled, the technology developed for it can still be kept in production.
For instance, its engines can be used on new F-15s and F-16s (although I understand the F-35 has a more powerful powerplant), its stealth coatings can be used on new F-15s and F-16s, and I understand that its AESA radar has already been fitted on some F-15s already. Building new F-15s and F-16s with F-22 technology would help preserve the cutting edge.
Either that or the Navy could be compelled to go in for a navalised variant of the F-22, which would help lower unit costs, although they seem to have already taken steps toward an unmanned future with their X-47 experiments.
In any case, what’s the use… the ATF competition should have been won by the YF-23 in the first place.
Adding seven or 12 Raptors would not tip the balance in the unlikely event the U.S. would have to fight a near-peer competitor. So the argument of adding so few F-22s through the 2010 budget to enhance our national defense is weak at best; more likely it
Why do we keep this plane from our allies? The line would be kept open, and it would give our allies superior capabilities. If we need more, the line is still open. The JSF may not be ready for awhile, so sell the Japanese, Israeli’s, Australians F-22′s. We need another air-superiority fighter. F-15 is nearing its end, and I don’t know much about the F-15SE. Wat to do?
Allies…..by that do you mean Israel who will galdly sell the technology from the F-22 to the Chinese as they did with the Lavi design that we funded? Or like the Patriot missile technology that we so graciously provided them with and they sold to China?
Sell the F-22 to Japan, Australia and anyone else EXCEPT Israel.
Oh, and the reason they don’t sell/export it is it contains some very critical technologies which we don’t want falling into enemy hands…hence the reason there is no talk of seeling/gifting them to Israel.
“Allies…..by that do you mean Israel who will galdly sell the technology from the F-22 to the Chinese as they did with the Lavi design that we funded? Or like the Patriot missile technology that we so graciously provided them with and they sold to China?”
The Patriot missile story has never been confirmed. The F-16 technology transfer came at a time when the US was selling similar technology to China (read up on the Super 7 project, for example).
Japan, on the other hand, sold a six axis lathe to the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, allowing the Soviets to manufacture submarines screws that made their entire fleet dramatically more quiet. This changed the entire strategic balance because soviet attack, and more importantly, ballistic missile submarines could no longer be reliably tracked by the US SOSUS system. As betrayals go, it does not get much worse than this.
This is the reason why the US is still wary of transferring advanced military technology to Japan today.
But vote “Yes” on Operations: USELESS DIRT 1 and 2.
It wasn’t Japan per se that sold the propeller milling equipment but one Japanese company, Toshiba. Simple case of corporate greed….remember that when you buy a laptop or TV.
No, I’m not happy with everything that Israel has done…
but I am far from convinced that there is anything on the Raptor that is all that impressive, in terms of technology.
The F-15 was a decent plane, in it’s day, but that day passed about 15 years ago, and Su-35s, in the hands of the Indian Air Force, have already embarrassed us at least once, and done the same to the French flying Mirages…
The Gripen, the Typhoon, and several other planes have already shown themselves to be better than legacy equipment left over from the 70s!
So, it’s either the F-22, or the F-35, because we don’t have anything else coming down the pipeline.
Yeah, the White Sox Fan in the White House isn’t very interested in buying us all the brightest, shiniest, newest ‘toys’, and I can’t say that I blame him!
It’s not that the planes are all that bad (though I can’t really call the F-22 ‘proven’, yet), or that we don’t have a use for them…
But, we’ve been spending like drunken sailors for most of 49 years, now (Nixon balanced the budget ONE year while he was in office, and no one has, since then!), and we’re running out of people to borrow from.
So, buying a large fleet of combat aircraft that are going to be obsolete in 20 years doesn’t impress him as the best possible use for the funds he CAN get, now, and I can’t really argue that point, either…
He’s inherited a “No Win” scenario from President Hoover, er, Bush, and he’s now trying to do his best possible FDR impression.
As I recall, FDR wasn’t exactly popular with everybody, either…
Would I buy more F-22s? Irrelevant, because I don’t have the information on how the plane *really* works, nor do I have a list of all the things we could be buying for the same amount of money…
Israel has already started to reevaluate their military allocation strategy thanks to the recent bloody nose they received. Their number 1 conclusion: you can’t win a war with air superiority.
The F-22 is cool, there is no doubt about that. But will it win a war? Will it even contribute to winning a war? It feels like a Proof of Concept that can be used to design a different class of fighter. It’s shown that stealth an be integrated into a fighter (sorry, the F-117 was not a true fighter). It’s shown that shared radar feeds can be used to fight a non-LOS air battle. Now it’s time to apply those principals to a less advanced dedicated A-to-A airframe.
The Air Force needs to stop cramming every toy it can into a single craft. Decide what you want: a moderately stealthy air superiority craft with a phase radar system. OK, awesome, now build it. No no no, stop trying to cram in the extra crap. Focus. Know what you want to stick to it.
The same mistake is being made with the F-35. The original concept of the plane was great. Don’t make everything top of the line, just integrate the concepts of other planes. Moderate stealth. Moderate A2G capabilities. Keep the cost low so thousands can be fielded by the U.S. and its allies. But everyone wants their little pet project added to it. Now we’re looking at a bloated craft that can do everything but costs a fortune.
Really time for the Air Force to learn how to stop scope-creep and stick to their game plans.
The problem is that, thanks to shortsighted budgeting from 15+ years ago, we face the prospect of having our air superority fighters fall out of the sky. There’s no way to salvage the F-15. We have to replace them with something.
Unfortunately, the only thing we have in production is the Raptor. The Eagles must be replaced, and no amount of politicking will change that. So the question is, do we buy more Raptors? Do we count on buying the JSF? Or do we buy some other aircraft? Those are our only 3 options. No amount of Air Force hate will change that.
We built a grand total of 881 F-15 Eagles, and that does not include 200+ F-15E Strike Eagles.
183 F-22A Raptors is not enough to replace those no matter what way you lay down the numbers. “The Cold War is over” is not a justifiable argument to destroy our air superiority fleet.
Also the talk of more F-35As for the USAF? With the same politicians who cut down our F-22A purchase so much, there is no way we will be able to get enough F-35s to fill the USAF’s requirement to replace F-16s alone!
Just pray that our country comes to it’s senses by 2012 and the F-22 is resurrected as the F-22B. Or F-22C if that designation was reserved for something else.
As far as UCAVs go, none of the UCAVs in development offer a credible air-to-air capability. Really all they will have is the AIM-9X for self defense. These UCAVs are designed to be relatively slow but stealthy aircraft with a long loiter time, built for strike and reconnaissance missions. They are not air superiority aircraft and there are many more concerns with using UCAVs for such a role.
“There’s no way to salvage the F-15. We have to replace them with something.”
You can always build new and upgraded F-15s to replace the old ones. Can you imagine the performance of the Eagle with F119 or F135 engines? The powers-that-be should also put their focus on researching new AAMs to replace the AMRAAM.
BTW, most of the F-15′s kills in the Middle East were already confused by ECM, killed by BVR Sparrow shots, after being stalked by AWACS planes, not from World War 1 -style dogfighting.
Way to much ignorance to reply to all so just a couple extreme cases…
The Cenobyte,
For the cost of 187 F-22s you could only get ~262 F-15SE or ~291 F-15E.
drago,
Sorry but there is technology & capability in the F-22 that can can not be applied to the F-15 &/or F-16. What you are saying is akin when the F-15 came out after we built a couple hundred of them we should have cancelled the program & went back to building F-4s…
“It wasn’t Japan per se that sold the propeller milling equipment but one Japanese company, Toshiba. Simple case of corporate greed….remember that when you buy a laptop or TV.”
I thought it was Mitsubishi. Imagine if GE wanted to sell such a piece of equipment to any country. Would the US government find out? Of course. Did the Japanese government know? Of course. Did they stop it? No.
You do remember the F-35 don’t you ?
Yes, I remember the F-35. I remember that it’s not yet finished and hasn’t been tested much.
I also saw on the news that an F-15E went down today, and not due to hostile fire. Both crew were killed. If it turns out that it was due to an aging fuselage, will people finally agree that they need replaced?
I’d rather see more money go into weapons platfors such as the AC-130, UAV, and cruise missles rather than more fighters. I’ve been in the USAF 13 years and let’s face it, we support the front line troops more than anything. I know I’d feel much safer knowing that an AC-130 was off circling in the distance waiting to deliver precision engagement right on my target rather than having a super expensive fighter sitting on the ground waiting for a mission. In terms of UAVs, throw A/R capabilities into one and you have an unprecedented capability. Plus, take into consideration maintenance costs of the F-22. It’ll take far longer to troubleshoot when compared to a C-130.