Adios F/A-22?

[SupremeKaioshin]

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

God...no!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, the key words in that newspaper clipping is "may cancel"

Oh, the SU-27, EF-2000,and countless others are far superior to the F-15.

No way the F/A-22's getting scrapped. They have already sent one to Langley AFB.

[Druna Skass]

Screw it, just axe the F/A-22 program in favor of a VF-0 program.

[Graham]

It'll never happen, but as a fan of the EF-2000, I gotta say it would be really great (and funny as hell) if the US ended up buying several hundred Typhoons to replace the F/A-22, F-16, F-15 & JSF

Graham

[Mislovrit]

What we really need is to invest all that DoD money into some nice killer robots... something that will apease the doves by "not getting our soldiers killed" and something that will sate the bloodlust of the hawks with "robotic chopping knives death attack".

Problem is all those doves are raising hell over how many insurgants(sp) and the few civilians, the CoW forrces have been killed.

[Isamu Atreides 86]

Screw it, just axe the F/A-22 program in favor of a VF-0 program.

we have to wait for a huge space ship to crash land in the Pacific before we can do that....

Edited April 13, 2004 by Isamu Atreides 86

[ewilen]

We had air superiority over Korea and all we could manage was a draw.

100% Correct.

We had air superiority over Vietnam and we lost.

To quote Sgt. Barnes, washington kept trying to fight the war with one hand tied around their balls (a.k.a. they kept trying to force the enemy to fight "our war on our terms" rather than meet them head on on their level.

We have air supremacy over Iraq and things are looking pretty dicey.

See above, subsitute 1964 for 2004.

That's my point. Air superiority means something in a conventional war. It doesn't help nearly so much when you're fighting an insurgency. In fact, airpower applied inappropriately, as a substitute for proper counterinsurgency methods, is absolutely counterproductive.

Furthermore (addressing Uxi's point) "battles" are a conventional war concept. I know it's terribly unfair, but guerillas win by avoiding battles and playing rope-a-dope.

[Noyhauser]

Eliot Cohen once said

Air power is an unusually seductive form of military strength, in part because, like modern courtship, it appears to offer gratification without commitment.

thought I might throw that one in there.

[SupremeKaioshin]

If we ever go to war against China, I'd want the F/A-22 up against Chinese J-11's(Flankers)and JH-7's. The Chinese are also developing the Jianjiji-12 fighter to counter the F/A-22.

[Jolly Rogers]

On the off chance that the little green men attack us, we should at least have some decent fighters to defend ourselves besides harsh language, the flu, and computer virus...

[Anubis]

The whole point of having air superiority is to KEEP it, not wait until someone comes up with something better, which has ALREADY happened, mind you, and THEY will keep developing better while we sit on "what's good enough". Thus we need the stomping power of the F-22, so we have it when we need it, and can use our real experience wth this next-gen aircraft in order to craft new and better aircraft in the future.

If this trend continues, we'll be sending F-15's and F-18's against SV-51's.

[Akilae]

On the off chance that the little green men attack us, we should at least have some decent fighters to defend ourselves besides harsh language, the flu, and computer virus...

Alright... I know where the flu and virus references come from... but I can't for the life of me remember which movie "harsh language" is referencing...

[JsARCLIGHT]

Here's a hint:

"We can't have any firing in there. I want rifles and grenades slung, flame units only."

"WHATTA WE SPOSED' TO USE AGAINST 'EM, MAN? HARSH LANGUAGE?"

[KingNor]

The whole point of having air superiority is to KEEP it, not wait until someone comes up with something better, which has ALREADY happened, mind you, and THEY will keep developing better while we sit on "what's good enough".  Thus we need the stomping power of the F-22, so we have it when we need it, and can use our real experience wth this next-gen aircraft in order to craft new and better aircraft in the future.

If this trend continues, we'll be sending F-15's and F-18's against SV-51's.

"which has ALREADY happened"

huh?

why do we need the stomping power of the f-22? show me where our fighters have come up anywhere short? in the first iraq war the A-10 cause 75% of all military machinery losses, the f-15 has never been defeated in combat and the f117 can fly in nearlly un-detected and to strike with insane persision.

i've been told btw, that the iraqi military, before we were done with it, was considered one of the top militarys in the world? they are using VERY recent weapons, most of wich are chinese (i think, or russian). those tanks our abrams cut through are considered second inline with ours. same with many of their fighters.

people complain so much about the iraqi war, that it's another vietnam, that its a quagmire, that we're loosing. its so sad people say that, people in the know realize the iraqi war was one of the most decisive military confrontations in the history of war, there has never been a declaired war where one side covered so much ground, took so many prisoners, defeated so many targets and lost so few friendlys in the amount of time the desert war took place. we won the war. wich is now over btw. we an't at war with iraq anymore we're occupying and rebuilding.

even if an enemy country was to create some fighter that is slightly better than our current fighters, it's been througly documented that our pilots are the best traiend in the world, i'm entirely confident our pilots could hold out just fine against lesser trained pilots in fancy new planes. its happend before.

i agree the f-22 is a very very cool plane, the wave of the future, hell its NEAT TO LOOK AT TOO. but for right now its just not nessesary.

do you understand the level to wich we dominate the air? its damn near total, the iraqi airforce, wich was a formidable amount of planes and technology, basicly never left the ground. and its not like we were fighting some back water military.

they've already pretty much got the entire f-22 ironed out anyway, i'm sure if some extreemly hostile contry was to come up with the next SUPER fighter, totally with out us knowing it and was flying around with 30 to 1 kill ratios we'd be able to start cranking out f-22's in a matter of weeks or months.

"If this trend continues, we'll be sending F-15's and F-18's against SV-51's."

i'll take a jet that fire very big long range missles over a jet that wants to box with its fists any day :

[the white drew carey]

"I like to keep this around for close encounters."

*cha-chick

"I heard that."

[mikeszekely]

Hoo boy. To think I was worried about introducing politics...

That article is interesting David, but...

We had air superiority over Korea and all we could manage was a draw.

We had air superiority over Vietnam and we lost.

We have air supremacy over Iraq and things are looking pretty dicey.

For all its marvelous technology, the F-22 isn't necessarily a forward-looking weapon. It is very much made to fight the last war, not the next.

"One of those time-tested lessons is the concept of “air superiority.” To the uninitiated, it is the concept of controlling the airspace over the battlefield so that air, land and sea forces can conduct operations without interference from enemy forces."

We had a stalemate in Korea and a loss in Vietnam due ineptitude with which we fought on the ground in both conflicts.

As for the Iraq war, neither were "dicey." Both wars were decisive victories, militarily. The second war in Iraq really has been over since the president declared major combat to be over. Now, it is true that more US troops have been killed since the end of the war than during the war, and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about that.

In any case, the simple fact is that just because the F-15 has had a spotless record for the last 30 years does not mean that its record can hold up for another 30 years. Besides, cutting the Raptor program doesn't recover the money that's already been spent on it, which is part of the cost per plane. As you cut the number of Raptors to be built, you might save some money, but the cost per plane goes up. So I say build more Raptors, and if the government needs extra money to pay for the war in Iraq, cut the ridiculous salaries of the Washington fat cats.

[Akilae]

One more off topic quote from me, now that I can pinpoint the quote... "Game over man! Game over!!" mm... need to get myself the Quadralogy....

On topic now...

Anyhow... air supremecy, while key in any war, is not sufficient.

Let's see... we didn't win Korea because the Chinese threw their entire army across the Yalu River, and we were ill prepared to fight against massed armies (US troops were still using semi-automatic rifles... the Korean war is one reason why weapons development happened the way it did in the US). In Vietnam, despite us bombing the crap out of them, we lost mostly due to low morale... consider that the Tet Offensive was actually a military win for us... but we weren't prepared to think that the North Vietnamese could even go on an offensive (same thing happened at Battle of the Bulge, although we handled that better...).

Iraq? We didn't just send the fighters and bombers in, we sent in our heavy armour and infantry to crush whatever they had on the ground. The "air supremecy" part was just an opening act.

Further proof that air supremecy doesn't win wars: World War II.

However, it WOULD be awfully nice to be prepared to snatch air supremecy right at the outset, instead of having to play catch up later on. The Germans had air supremecy in the early days of World War II, catching the Allies with their pants down (not only that... their entire mechanized army caught the Allies with their boxers down too...). Imagine how the war might have gone if Spitfires, Mustangs, and B-29s had all been ready in 1939... then again, that's a moot point, since politically and socially, the US was not ready to fight in 1939...

Anyhow.... enough of my spiel. My point: closest war we've fought that's even remotely close to what we might expect in the future would be Vietnam, and on the big picture, our air power did nothing to help us win (Although "We Were Soldiers" was cool with all the air support. )

[J A Dare]

The whole point of having air superiority is to KEEP it, not wait until someone comes up with something better, which has ALREADY happened, mind you, and THEY will keep developing better while we sit on "what's good enough".  Thus we need the stomping power of the F-22, so we have it when we need it, and can use our real experience wth this next-gen aircraft in order to craft new and better aircraft in the future.

If this trend continues, we'll be sending F-15's and F-18's against SV-51's.

Actually, if current trends continue, we'll have 16 year old pimped faced video game geeks remotely flying UCAVs against SV-51s!

[Nightbat]

even if an enemy country was to create some fighter that is slightly better than our current fighters, it's been througly documented that our pilots are the best traiend in the world, i'm entirely confident our pilots could hold out just fine against lesser trained pilots in fancy new planes. its happend before.

You know this is the kind of arrogance that will have you surprised and your @$$

handed to you at the same time

Vietnam war: Phantoms and their pilots were "So good" they didn't need no steenkin' guns

to take out those Mig 17's

"Surprise":

here comes a Mig 21 carrying Pilots that have less experience than the Phantoms'

and start blowing them out of the sky

"Woops?!?!"

were these guys as abundant as the chinese troops during Korea, vietnam would

have been an arial massacre

[David Hingtgen]

Iraqi air war:

A few MiG-25's, which everyone knows is about as good a dogfighter as a B-52.

A somewhat larger force of MiG-29's, flown by less-experienced pilots with little training.

Finally, the main force with the best pilots and training was Mirage F1's.

That is not a top of the line air force. Better than some, but certainly nothing notable. A bunch of Super Flankers or Rafales would be FAR more effective than that, and would beat the F-15 every time, unless we had like a 10 to 1 numbers advantage. (Another reason we need a LOT of F-22's)

And I've gotta reiterate the "appropriate" use of air power. Air power (heck, and cruise missiles) are often misused as a very expensive way to carry ordnance and blow stuff up, when something else could do the job faster and better. Best example: Vietnam. A certain bridge (one of the many bridges the US went after) hadn't been taken out, despite nearly a year of air strikes, and 100 air crews lost in the attempt. So they brought in the USS New Jersey. BOOM. It was gone in an hour. Not merely a broken span or pylon like an LGB strike would leave, but practically vaporized. Use the right weapon, the right way.

[SupremeKaioshin]

Here's a hint:

"We can't have any firing in there. I want rifles and grenades slung, flame units only."

"WHATTA WE SPOSED' TO USE AGAINST 'EM, MAN? HARSH LANGUAGE?"

Aliens

"Hudson!!" - Corporal Hicks

"I say, we take off, and nuke the place to morbid. It's the only way to be sure" - Ripley

"That's it, game over man, game over!" - Hudson

Edited April 13, 2004 by SupremeKaioshin

[ewilen]

As for the Iraq war, neither were "dicey." Both wars were decisive victories, militarily. The second war in Iraq really has been over since the president declared major combat to be over. Now, it is true that more US troops have been killed since the end of the war than during the war, and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about that.

The conclusion I draw is that a war isn't over simply because one side declares victory.

Or if you prefer to see the present unpleasantness as a new war entirely as compared to Gulf Wars I & II, then I would say this war's outcome is very much in doubt, the F-22 wouldn't make a bit of difference, and in an age of limited budgets McCain is quite correct to present this as a question of paying for Iraq or buying military systems which definitely will not be needed for at least a decade.

Furthermore, as I wrote in the other thread, by the time China, Russia, or whoever may achieve not only technological parity with our present frontline fighters but the numbers, training, and infrastructure to challenge our command of the sky in a conventional war, there may well be entirely new and better technologies which we will want to apply to the tactical problems of achieving and using air supremacy. The more debt we build up now--by whatever policies, but let's focus on currently unneeded weapons systems--the less able we will be to develop and exploit those future technologies.

[Druna Skass]

[i'll take a jet that fire very big long range missles over a jet that wants to box with its fists any day :

I'd take the jet that could shoot down those missiles.

You seem to be comparing the U.S. to Iraq's excuses for a military. They are on two completly diffrent levels so of course the U.S. steamrolled Iraq.

[one_klump]

The problem is that everyone is so confident because we steamrolled the Iraqi army, that they don't think that we need anything better. The problem is, the Iraqi military was comparable to the Flintstones military, and we could have blasted them in the 1970's.

What happens when a real threat rears its ugly head?

On another note, these Iraqi insurgants remind me of stubborn Americans.

Imagine for a second if the USA was invaded. The Government was destroyed, and a foregin military was sitting around trying to enforce a new government.

Would your normal Joe Schmo take this sitting down? I would like to think that he wouldn't.

I would like to think that the people would band together to at least get the idea through the invaders head that we are not going to take this lying down!

just my $0.02

[Lightning]

Screw it, just axe the F/A-22 program in favor of a VF-0 program.

we have to wait for a huge space ship to crash land in the Pacific before we can do that....

remember that asteroid that NASA supposedly found? be hilarous if it's our big-huge-alien-spaceship that we're waiting for....

[J A Dare]

That is not a top of the line air force.  Better than some, but certainly nothing notable.  A bunch of Super Flankers or Rafales would be FAR more effective than that, and would beat the F-15 every time, unless we had like a 10 to 1 numbers advantage.  (Another reason we need a LOT of F-22's)

Can you clarify what makes an air superiority fighter superior over another? Is it more based on weapons system (radar & missiles)? Or more on flight performance? Are the Super Flankers and Rafales really that much better than F-15s? If that's the case, would upgrading F-15 weapons system and making ACTIVE modifications be more or less expensive than production of F-22s? Sorry for all the questions resident aero guru.

[Skull Leader]

(I mean, look at the B-25.... I'm talking about a plane produced 20 years before I was born and isn't scheduled to leave service until about 50 years after I die!)

Wow, they're still flying the Mitchell!?!

I think you mean the B-52.

yeah yeah... damn keyboard! I count on you guys to know what I mean

[Skull Leader]

Here's a hint:

"We can't have any firing in there. I want rifles and grenades slung, flame units only."

"WHATTA WE SPOSED' TO USE AGAINST 'EM, MAN? HARSH LANGUAGE?"

Aliens

"Hudson!!" - Corporal Hicks

"I say, we take off, and nuke the place to morbid. It's the only way to be sure" - Ripley

"That's it, game over man, game over!" - Hudson

ahem, it's "nuke the place from ORBIT"......

LOL, if we had a VF-EX project, that would solve all our problems ^^

[David Hingtgen]

J A Dare: yes. The Super Flanker can out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, out-gun, out-radar, out-missile, and just about anything else, over the F-15. The F-15 has no advantages, other than if it jettisons every single thing it has, it can out-run the Flanker. Which is probably the best tactic at this point.

As for F-15 vs other new planes---it's all the electronic gizmos mainly (missiles+radar especially), plus much greater agility. Basically--they pick it off at long-range, and if it happens to become a close-in fight, they're much more agile.

The F-22 however, has incredibly advanced gizmos, and is extremely agile. Probably not #1 in every category vs every other plane, but overall most likely the best.

IIRC, all the "simulations" usually show the F-15 losing 10-1 against most of the planes I mentioned, with the F-22 winning 2-1 against the planes I mentioned. (Of course, 2-1 is considered pretty poor by US standards, but it's a heck of a lot better than 1-10)

Edited April 14, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[SupremeKaioshin]

The SU-37 Super Flanker would fly rings around the Eagle. So would the Rafale!

[KingNor]

Imagine for a second if the USA was invaded. The Government was destroyed, and a foregin military was sitting around trying to enforce a new government.

Would your normal Joe Schmo take this sitting down? I would like to think that he wouldn't.

I would like to think that the people would band together to at least get the idea through the invaders head that we are not going to take this lying down!

just my $0.02

i can agree with you. but on that note.

my government didn't have half my family tortured and killed because i disagreed with my countrys leader.

good point though. i can easily see why the iraquis might resent the americans there. its a pretty messed up country. lots of egotistic maniacs and ultra macho types. i'm glad i live in the USofA

[the white drew carey]

From some basic info I've found, the Rafale costs about $50-60 Million U.S. Whereas the estimated cost of the F-22 is about $200 mil.

We could afford at least 8 upgraded F-15's for the price of one Raptor (assuming the price of an F-15 is about $15 mil, add in a couple more mil for the upgrade).

I think part of the problem is that the government is downsizing the military by opting for more specialized, expensive machinery, wehn what we should be doing is staying on the cusp of current technology but providing large number of trained units into the field.

Then again, who needs new technology. They keep trying to axe the A-10, one of the most outdated frontline jets out there, yet it still keeps proving it's worth.

Maybe we should start making some of the venerable P-57 Mustangs again. Those worked just fine.

[mikeszekely]

From some basic info I've found, the Rafale costs about $50-60 Million U.S. Whereas the estimated cost of the F-22 is about $200 mil.

We could afford at least 8 upgraded F-15's for the price of one Raptor (assuming the price of an F-15 is about $15 mil, add in a couple more mil for the upgrade).

I think part of the problem is that the government is downsizing the military by opting for more specialized, expensive machinery, wehn what we should be doing is staying on the cusp of current technology but providing large number of trained units into the field.

Then again, who needs new technology. They keep trying to axe the A-10, one of the most outdated frontline jets out there, yet it still keeps proving it's worth.

Maybe we should start making some of the venerable P-57 Mustangs again. Those worked just fine.

But as David pointed out, the cost per plane includes the original development costs, so the fewer F/A-22s we buy, the more each one costs. Today, we're only supposed to buy just under 300, but the original order was for nearly 800.

[mikeszekely]

As for the Iraq war, neither were "dicey."  Both wars were decisive victories, militarily.  The second war in Iraq really has been over since the president declared major combat to be over.  Now, it is true that more US troops have been killed since the end of the war than during the war, and you can draw whatever conclusions you wish about that.

The conclusion I draw is that a war isn't over simply because one side declares victory.

Or if you prefer to see the present unpleasantness as a new war entirely as compared to Gulf Wars I & II, then I would say this war's outcome is very much in doubt, the F-22 wouldn't make a bit of difference, and in an age of limited budgets McCain is quite correct to present this as a question of paying for Iraq or buying military systems which definitely will not be needed for at least a decade.

Furthermore, as I wrote in the other thread, by the time China, Russia, or whoever may achieve not only technological parity with our present frontline fighters but the numbers, training, and infrastructure to challenge our command of the sky in a conventional war, there may well be entirely new and better technologies which we will want to apply to the tactical problems of achieving and using air supremacy. The more debt we build up now--by whatever policies, but let's focus on currently unneeded weapons systems--the less able we will be to develop and exploit those future technologies.

It wasn't simply one side declaring a victory. The victory was pretty obvious. Sticking around long enough to make sure another despot doesn't step into the power vacuum left by the old regime and having soldiers killed by civillians who don't want us there isn't the same as fighting a war with that country's military, and in fact, I don't see it at a war at all.

Russia may not have achieved technological parity with the F/A-22, but with fighters like the Su-37 they've clearly surpassed our current crop of active fighters. Russia also happens to need money badly, and are likely to be less discerning about who they sell military equipment too. As for China, we've already seen that they've bought Flankers, and it's not a good idea to take China lightly. With the economic reforms they've set up over the last 15-20 years, they've gotten to a point where they have one of the highest percent increases of GDP from year to year. If that growth keeps up, they will eventually become a superpower.

The Rafale too, is a concern. Not because I'm particularly worried about an air war with France, but because (like Russia), France has a history of selling fighters to whoever has the money. And like the Flanker, the Rafale is more than a match for the F-15.

Saying that it's unlikely that the US would fight a conflict where the Raptor would really be necessary is like an ostrich sticking its head in the sand. World War I began because of a single assasination. No matter how stable the political climate seems, anything could happen. Weapon systems like the Raptor are planning for the future, and the notion that a fleet of upgraded F-15 can do the Raptor's job is just wishful thinking.

I think you're correct in saying that air superiority alone can't win a war. You need a dedicated effort on the ground. But a dedicated ground effort can't win either. Air superiority is necessary to make sure the guys on the ground are free to do their job.

You're also correct in saying that the war in Iraq must be paid for. I simply disagree that the Raptor is uncessary and that funding for the war should come from the Raptor program. There are plenty of other places where the government is pissing away money that could help pay for the war. I believe I've already mentioned the ridiculous salaries being paid to the people in Washington. Need more money? Back out of the ISS... hell, almost everyone else has. Eliminate NASA altogether and privatize our space industry. If the government had a monopoly on computers the way it does on space, we'd still be using mainframes that filled an entire room. Private industry will find ways to do it faster, cheaper, and more efficiently. If that's still not enough, do a little research on your local senator, and seen how many stupid pet projects he's wasting federal money on. You'll find a lot more there that's uncessary than the Raptor.

[Weaseldancer]

IIRC, all the "simulations" usually show the F-15 losing 10-1 against most of the planes I mentioned, with the F-22 winning 2-1 against the planes I mentioned. (Of course, 2-1 is considered pretty poor by US standards, but it's a heck of a lot better than 1-10)

Actually from what I have seen in trials so far, the F-22 has about a 70-1 kill ratio against the F-16s its flown against. Considering its capabalilities and all the money we have spent developing it, I sure would hate to see the program get the axe.

One of the main advantages the F-22 has right now is that it doesn't have to actively guide a missile all the way into its target. It can fire a missile, move on to the next target and the first missile will still be locked on the first target.

[the white drew carey]

But as David pointed out, the cost per plane includes the original development costs, so the fewer F/A-22s we buy, the more each one costs. Today, we're only supposed to buy just under 300, but the original order was for nearly 800.

HERE is a site that details the cost f the F-22. Towards the bottom is the gist of it.

This looks more realistic than $200 mil a plane (as is stated in the low-rate). As it stands I'm guessing they'll end up about $125 mil a plane.