Another F-22 thread

[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]

Originally Posted by Raptor1

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

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]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

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]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

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]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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.

[antikristuseke]

Originally Posted by goldorak

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]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

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]

Originally Posted by Letum

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.