Another F-22 thread

[Captain Vlad]

Something I was wondering about while reading up on the whole '187 F-22's' thing...some USAF higher-ups have apparently supported Gates assertion that that's all we'll need, and while I'm aware that military folks tend to back up their superiors...the question I have is why?

By all reports, it's supposedly one of the greatest fighters ever built, and can more than fill the role of the F-15's it's slated to replace, right? Sure, we may not be in a conventional war right now. We may not be in one for quite some time, but the U.S. Military generally prefers to be prepared for one.

So the question that keeps rolling around in my head is this: Is there something wrong with the F-22? Or if there isn't, is it possible it's the pinnacle of a type of aircraft that the USAF upper management believes is about to become obsolete?

[Task Force]

I think that the f 22 will be replaced by something better soon... It is a good plane now.... but boeing, or lockheed, or some one will comeout with a new plane...:yep: and then they will be saying... I want that plane, I want that plane...

[Raptor1]

The F-22 is expensive...I think that pretty much covers it :06:...

[CastleBravo]

The F-22 is expensive...I think that pretty much covers it :06:...

With an administration which thinks butter is better than guns. That is the answer.

I'm sure I saw this before...the Carter Administration. Clinton wasn't much better.

Either the US will be seen as strong or week, and much of it depends who is president. Where do you think the US stands now?

[Zachstar]

What is "Wrong" With the F-22 is the simple fact that at best it is a replacement for the F-15C not the E

What I mean by that is it is a defensive weapon by nature. It carries good but few missiles and by far the worst is its ability to only drop 2 ground weapons.

Granted Granted it was not built for such. It was built to thwart any attempt of a soviet air invasion of our allies or ourselves. But the F-22 cant do jack against people with IEDs. Where drones have such a advantage multiplier it is not even funny.

The F-22 is the last major air combat fighter the F-35 will do better as the F-16s replacement. And its in a position to sell a great many to allied nations. But both can be overwhelmed by masses of drones which we will see as we approach the 2030s and possibly sooner.

So it suffers at both ends. Until the drones it wont be much needed. After the drones they can use group tactics to defeat its stealth capabilities and trash it (You kill 5 of the flock the other 20 are still after you)

[Max2147]

The F-22 is expensive...I think that pretty much covers it :06:...
Exactly. The F-22 has one and only one major fault: its price tag.

As far as USAF higher-ups siding with Gates, all those things are usually a result of backroom politics inside the Pentagon. The USAF brass probably realized that Gates' decision is final, so they decided to back him up to stay in his good graces, in the hope that he'll give them more money for other stuff later on.

Remember, what happens inside the Pentagon is never about keeping our country safe. It's always about getting the most money for your service and your program.

[Platapus]

Remember, what happens inside the Pentagon is never about keeping our country safe. It's always about getting the most money for your service and your program.

Sad but true words. :nope:

[Zachstar]

Which is why it is very important to support the work going on in the nonmilitary sector that may help the military sector one day.

Universities all over the nation are developing tech that will mean cheaper components for advanced craft for the military in the future.

[CastleBravo]

What I mean by that is it is a defensive weapon by nature.


Wrong! The F-22 is an air-dominance weapon. It is often referred to as the high ground by many.

[Zachstar]

Wrong! The F-22 is an air-dominance weapon. It is often referred to as the high ground by many.

Air Dominance over the United States or an Allied Nation or MAYBE in the opening stages of a major war (You know just to slap around the enemy experienced a little)

There is no use afterwards. You don't see them in Iraq do you? They do they job the F-15Cs did before a few seconds faster then go back to their climate controlled hangars for the next episode of desperate housewives.

If we were attacked they would do a good job of hitting the first wave of enemy aircraft. Yet then again the remaining work can be done with F-15s and even F-16s. Not to mention the badboy F-18s once the other forces get involved.

And by the time the enemy gets enough numbers of some uber craft that can wipe a F-15 away by looking at it. It wont be manned.

[CastleBravo]

Air Dominance over the United States or an Allied Nation or MAYBE in the opening stages of a major war (You know just to slap around the enemy experienced a little)

There is no use afterwards. You don't see them in Iraq do you? They do they job the F-15Cs did before a few seconds faster then go back to their climate controlled hangars for the next episode of desperate housewives.

If we were attacked they would do a good job of hitting the first wave of enemy aircraft. Yet then again the remaining work can be done with F-15s and even F-16s. Not to mention the badboy F-18s once the other forces get involved.

And by the time the enemy gets enough numbers of some uber craft that can wipe a F-15 away by looking at it. It wont be manned.

Well all your points have a place. But perhaps not all the future points. Why remove the technology from the issue. The F-15 was thought to be a dinasour at the time, now its 200-0 in air combat.

[Zachstar]

I know its a tad off topic but do you not believe drones are the future?

The F-22 advantage is stealth right? If you can keep the stealth features maybe even the supercruise and have 20 of em. You not only can do the job of the first and wipe out anything in sight. But if one gets knocked out it is not a disaster requiring a congressional hearing.

Programming a drone is not difficult think about what our enemies can do with multitudes of small drones using hacked onboard computers from just about any modern electronic device. Look what they did with IEDs and small drones flying very low are almost invincible to SAM systems.

Now think what WE can do with serious drones.

[Max2147]

UAVs are the future, for sure. It's just a matter of how long it takes to get the technology right.

[CastleBravo]

Well I guees only in our current atmosphere of resignation (*\surrwnder Obama)will the F-22 and its human pilot come up. If you believe people are less effective than UAV's that is ok, but men on the spot seems more effective to me.

[Captain Vlad]

It does seem like we're on the cusp of a 'drone revolution' and the way a lot of them work, there's still a human being in the loop. But we've been here before. Britain canceled pretty much every manned aircraft program in the '50's since drones were going to take over the skies, but they ended up paying for it.

Sure, we've come a lot farther along, technology wise, and the concept of battle drones is more viable now. But it's been proven that relying on what technologies seem to be the wave of the future is risky at best. Maybe that's why they want at least 187 of them.

I personally feel the air-to-ground capability is a more important issue, but that can, at least partially, be improved upon.

Like I said, I've not seen a thing that indicates there's anything physically wrong with the aircraft, but some of the USAF types don't seem all that enthusiastic about her, so I wondered.

[Zachstar]

Well it has to be treated well on the ground. I don't know if they still require dedicated hangars but I did read recently that Iraq diddn't have the facilities for long term operations of them there.

Of course you cant leave drones hanging around either. But I would imagine you can easily pack a bunch of drones into one hangar.

Now I will admit I am in love with drones. I see them as the lifesavers of the men and women who have to endure Iraq. That report on 60 minutes just about brought me to tears.

[Max2147]

I'm not terribly comfortable with the term "drone." To me that implies an unmanned aircraft that performs a pre-programmed mission automatically. I think we're a long ways away from having that sort of aircraft as an air superiority fighter.

Instead, we'll probably use UAVs with a human operator on the ground, on a one operator per plane basis. In essence the operator will be the pilot, flying the plane like he'd fly a simulated plane in a video game. So we will still have a human making the important decisions during the mission.

[SUBMAN1]

The F-22 is expensive...I think that pretty much covers it :06:...

What he said. The Air Force needs more money since it doesn't have enough money already. America is going broke, and the F-22 is just the tip of the iceberg.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

Wrong! The F-22 is an air-dominance weapon. It is often referred to as the high ground by many.

Exactly. It may be one of the last aircraft still capable of enemy penetration. No modern fighter in inventory of any nation has airspace penetration of a well equipped foe anymore. It's just not possible.

-S

[goldorak]

Exactly. It may be one of the last aircraft still capable of enemy penetration. No modern fighter in inventory of any nation has airspace penetration of a well equipped foe anymore. It's just not possible.

-S


Maybe, but then whats more effective, a fleet of a mere 100 F-22 or 500 F-15's ? I mean shear numbers are important also. You can suppress enemy air defenses by sending hundreds of fighters instead of 10 or 20 F-22's.
Really the F-22 project is like the space shuttle, something that was given to the aerospace industry to keep them occupied, while the world around them changed completely. The F-22 is a fighter for another era just like the seawolf submarines were. The Navy was coerced in abbandoning the seawolf because of its enourmous cost and because its primary foe just vanished/collapsed, while the air force on the other hand kept their pet project.
Billions of $ for a single B-2 for what ? Nuclear detterence that can be achieved with SSBN's ? Using a B-2 for conventional bombardment missions where a B-52, or B-1B's would have done the job just as well ?
The F-22 is just the natural evolution of this line of thinking. You'll come at a point where the cost of the aircarft is so great that it will be absurd to put in harms way.

[Aramike]

Maybe, but then whats more effective, a fleet of a mere 100 F-22 or 500 F-15's ? I mean shear numbers are important also. You can suppress enemy air defenses by sending hundreds of fighters instead of 10 or 20 F-22's.
Really the F-22 project is like the space shuttle, something that was given to the aerospace industry to keep them occupied, while the world around them changed completely. The F-22 is a fighter for another era just like the seawolf submarines were. The Navy was coerced in abbandoning the seawolf because of its enourmous cost and because its primary foe just vanished/collapsed, while the air force on the other hand kept their pet project.
Billions of $ for a single B-2 for what ? Nuclear detterence that can be achieved with SSBN's ? Using a B-2 for conventional bombardment missions where a B-52, or B-1B's would have done the job just as well ?
The F-22 is just the natural evolution of this line of thinking. You'll come at a point where the cost of the aircarft is so great that it will be absurd to put in harms way.Very good post. :up:

[antikristuseke]

Maybe, but then whats more effective, a fleet of a mere 100 F-22 or 500 F-15's ? I mean shear numbers are important also. You can suppress enemy air defenses by sending hundreds of fighters instead of 10 or 20 F-22's.
Really the F-22 project is like the space shuttle, something that was given to the aerospace industry to keep them occupied, while the world around them changed completely. The F-22 is a fighter for another era just like the seawolf submarines were. The Navy was coerced in abbandoning the seawolf because of its enourmous cost and because its primary foe just vanished/collapsed, while the air force on the other hand kept their pet project.
Billions of $ for a single B-2 for what ? Nuclear detterence that can be achieved with SSBN's ? Using a B-2 for conventional bombardment missions where a B-52, or B-1B's would have done the job just as well ?
The F-22 is just the natural evolution of this line of thinking. You'll come at a point where the cost of the aircarft is so great that it will be absurd to put in harms way.

Much like the grand battlefleets of WW1.

[Zachstar]

I think the "cost to put in harms way" Argument is one of the best I have seen yet against the F-22

Even with economies of scale. 800 F-22s will still make each individual F-22 expensive as heck.

So it ends up the same situation as the B-2.

The B-2 has one primary function. Taking the war to the enemy's homeland. Its meant to blow up "The big one" DEEP behind enemy lines. Not maintain a front or hold a piece of ground.

The times you see the B-2 go in Iraq or whatever is just the B-2 doing a F-117s job (And sometimes even a B-52s) to get it out of storage for a bit and look flashy for the cameras and congress. The F-22 will do a bit more than that but it is not in Iraq.

[roman2440]

It has very little to do with the cost, while that is a factor, its not the driving factor in reducing the amount of F-22s we go with.

The primary factor is found when you examine the primary role the plane is designed for. Its got top marks for latest gen stealth and a high level of speed and manuever. These attributes make it a killer air-to-air weapon, capable of hitting enemy planes without retribution. Capable of sneaking past defensive installations and attacking rear gaurd areas - with I imagine a primary role to defeat enemy sensor aircraft. It has limited ground engagement abilities without sacraficing what it would need most in such a situation (only 2 ground attack weapons can be stored internally, any additional have to be store externally and thusly seriously reducing the stealth capability).

This is a weapon designed to fight against another major player in a stand up fight. It'd designed to defeat cutting edge Opfor air defense.

The problem is, that type of scenario has become less and less likely over the past few decades, and is continuing to trend in that direction. When you are sitting in the big chair, you're going to look at your potential threats both short term and long term. Currently any threats on the table don't require a lot of the F-22's ability to defeat modern air defenses. A few yes, but not the kind of numbers they thought they might need even just a few years ago.

If you want ground attack capable craft, you go for the F-35, if you don't need stealth you've got the existing airframes. If you want scouting, why in the heck would you even think of an F-22? It all boils down to the F-22 being the ultra-cool expert you bring along in case you run into the specific problem he is built to deal with, but realizing that the other 10 guys you brought along will likely be all that you need. So when you plan ahead you limit how many of the experts you buy, and utilize the savings to purchase a greater number of your other tools.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

The problem is that the F-35 is starting to become Virginia to the F-22's Seawolf - reduced basic ability in hopes of being cheaper, but not a worthy actual decrease in price. This destroys the raison d etre for both.
The only real advantage a F-35 has as a bomb truck is slightly better internal bombload. 2 TWO thousand pound bombs internal vs 2 ONE thousand pounders. That ends the short list of its advantages, and what's left is inferior kinematics and stealth.

As for the existing airframes, in the previous F-22 thread, I had posted a list of developments from the 1980s that shows how the modern battlefield is becoming a very dangerous place for such aircraft.
American air supremacy in combat with those aircraft is greatly because their enemies have not gone very far in acquiring significant numbers of many of these abilities. This kind of situation can hardly be expected to last forever.

One must note BTW that there is nothing wrong with planning to fight for big wars. In fact, regardless of rarity, big wars are a military's raison d etre. Only AFTER you satisfy the need for big wars that are meant to defend your most vital interests (such as your territory) should you branch out in other things like "Low Intensity Conflicts" in places of peripheral interest.

[Aramike]

It has very little to do with the cost, while that is a factor, its not the driving factor in reducing the amount of F-22s we go with.Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, funded on this scale completely has to do with cost.

The question I have along with the White House is what war do we lose without this aircraft? What war does this plane tilt towards our favor?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Potentially any war against an opponent that figures to buy and learn to operate all the equipment I've mentioned on the previous thread.

It might not go quite so far as military defeat. But Americans are used to quick, easy victories. Any doubt that they can do this will mean restraint on their part where otherwise they may decide on a bombing campaign more because they can do it with impunity than because it is nationally vital. Any time they hold back, the other side wins.

[Letum]

Americans are used to quick, easy victories.


Which war(s) got Americans "used to quick, easy victories";
WW1, WW2, Korea, 'Nam or Iraq?

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Which war(s) got Americans "used to quick, easy victories";
WW1, WW2, Korea, 'Nam or Iraq?

Remember even in WWI and WWII, America "enjoyed" some of the lowest casualties. There is a "healthy" sized list, but look at the others (say the USSR list) and...

But I was talking Desert Storm I, mostly. That was the one that started it all.

Look at Iraq II. Regardless of the morality of that one, in casualties it just wasn't that bad for the Americans by most standards. Except for American ones. It is the price of DS I, which probably permanently knocked at least 2 zeroes off American tolerance to casualties.

It seems that you are getting offended at my implication that they are soft. Yes, I'll argue Americans are relatively soft in this respect. This is not such a bad thing when you consider Americans did a lot of things RIGHT to get to the point where they can get this soft. Japanese soldiers in WWII were very "hard" against losses, for all the good it did THEM.

However, it also means America must CONTINUE to do the right things to keep its precious advantage for as long as possible.

[Safe-Keeper]

Either the US will be seen as strong or week, and much of it depends who is president. Where do you think the US stands now?The US has just had eight long years under a "with us or against us" cowboy, and you saw how well the International community reacted to that. There's more to international politics and diplomacy than flexing your muscles, insulting those who disagree with you, and throwing threats around like a monkey with a lifetime's supply of dung.