Comments on: Vote ‘No’ on More F-22s

By: Andy

Andy — Tue, 25 Aug 2009 02:27:58 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:23:35 +0000

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?

By: polaris

polaris — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:05:03 +0000

You do remember the F-35 don’t you ?

By: citanon

citanon — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:34:48 +0000

“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.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 02:41:55 +0000

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…

By: drago

drago — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 01:59:39 +0000

“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.

By: ReconTeam

ReconTeam — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 21:57:33 +0000

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.

By: Brian

Brian — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:37:55 +0000

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.

By: Razer

Razer — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:17:01 +0000

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.

By: William A. Peterson

William A. Peterson — Thu, 16 Jul 2009 01:29:01 +0000

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…