posted
*nod* The conclusion was that a dedicated fighter plane wasn't as necessary as something a bit more multidisciplinary. I'm not sure I agree, but...
posted
Ild conclude that against a nation capable of matching you toe to toe losses would probably outpace replacements which would eventually force you to use mutlipurpose planes anyways so lets skip the middle man make the MPP a bit better at airsup and thus you can have more and cheaper.
IP: Logged |
posted
It's been dying a long time. I don't doubt that the F-22 is an amazing machine, but when you're hearing commercials on the radio daily from the manufacturer about how Americans need to write their Congressman to save their product...not a good sign.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not to mention it was totally unreliable. Bruce Willis destroyed an F-35 by himself, what chance does an F-22 have?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
With the current geopolitical climate, America doesn't have a lot of need for a dedicated air superiority fighter. It's been a while since we've fought a war where the opposing air force made it off the ground. I'm wary of losing that advantage, especially with the rising tide of unmitigated evil coming from China, but I think it's about time we stopped putting the military so far ahead of other domestic concerns.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Meh. The F-22 program never really made sense in a world where major powers have nukes anyways.
I don't think that's true. Nukes are too much of a risk to use, as retaliation in kind would mean massive losses on all sides. Having a good conventional army is still very important, and aviation is a big part of that.
And
quote:Besides, the F-22 program is largely superseded by the F-302.
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: With the current geopolitical climate, America doesn't have a lot of need for a dedicated air superiority fighter. It's been a while since we've fought a war where the opposing air force made it off the ground. I'm wary of losing that advantage, especially with the rising tide of unmitigated evil coming from China, but I think it's about time we stopped putting the military so far ahead of other domestic concerns.
posted
I think we already have like 180 of them being built or have been built. I could be wrong but they are going to be keeping the 180 we have or are in the pipeline but cancel any more orders
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's a difference between canceled and stopped production. There will still be around 187 F-22's in operation, the USAF just won't get as many as they hoped for.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Meh. The F-22 program never really made sense in a world where major powers have nukes anyways.
What?
Air superiority has been critical to wars and the threats of wars for decades now, in contests between rival powers which both have nukes. I'm not sure I follow your reasoning.
quote:With the current geopolitical climate, America doesn't have a lot of need for a dedicated air superiority fighter. It's been a while since we've fought a war where the opposing air force made it off the ground. I'm wary of losing that advantage, especially with the rising tide of unmitigated evil coming from China, but I think it's about time we stopped putting the military so far ahead of other domestic concerns.
Well, you don't just build planes for what you need today.
That said, if the F-22's intended role is being fulfilled by other planes, then canceling it seems quite prudent to me.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin: I tend to follow that chain of reasoning differently. Nukes are too much of a risk to use, as retaliation in kind would mean massive losses on all sides. Therefore, war between countries with nukes is fairly unlikely.
Thus, when the US feels the itch to start the next war, it will probably be with a non-nuclear power which pretty much by definition is no real threat in the air anyways.
Rakeesh: Like? I recall all sorts of wars by proxy, but nothing all that significant. Besides, we're talking about major powers in the here and now with access to ICBMs and nuclear-armed submarines.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if other countries who posses nukes start a conventional war against each other or against the US? I would understand the reluctance to do so but they could assume that while they're not using their own nukes, their enemy won't either. A "game over everyone" weapon is not a weapon that would likely be used, in my opinion, and nukes fall in this category right now.
Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged: There's a difference between canceled and stopped production. There will still be around 187 F-22's in operation, the USAF just won't get as many as they hoped for.
This seems an excellent point to me. Surely we can maintain our existant forces at a much lower cost than constantly manufacturing new planes. To the best of my knowledge, our existing Air Force already has a large step over virtually anyone else who might field fighters, and that's not likely to change in the near future.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:To the best of my knowledge, our existing Air Force already has a large step over virtually anyone else who might field fighters...
This isn't true, I'm afraid. The older F series -- the F-14, F18, etc. -- are very old and are becoming extremely expensive to maintain and repair; furthermore, newer fighters from other countries are getting closer to matching their abilities.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: What if other countries who posses nukes start a conventional war against each other or against the US? I would understand the reluctance to do so but they could assume that while they're not using their own nukes, their enemy won't either. A "game over everyone" weapon is not a weapon that would likely be used, in my opinion, and nukes fall in this category right now.
Eh, sure, if you're the country with nuclear arms that's winning the war, it makes little sense to use nukes. But if you're losing, and you're a little bit unhinged, that big red button might get awfully tempting.
Posts: 3564 | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by jebus202: Eh, sure, if you're the country with nuclear arms that's winning the war, it makes little sense to use nukes. But if you're losing, and you're a little bit unhinged, that big red button might get awfully tempting.
Well, I expect such wars would end before one side totally conquered the other. One side making significant gains does not necessarily mean that the other one is facing annihilation. Anyway, I hope we won't get to see a test of my theory. Posts: 4519 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Corwin: I guess that depends on how optimistic a person you are.
If you're optimistic and think human nature is magnanimous. Then it may be possible to conceive of a a scenario in which a major power with nukes allows itself to lose battles without pulling out the nukes.
If you're pessimistic like me, then I think the likely scenario in which a major power loses battles is to pull out the nukes. The temptation to destroy a whole carrier task force or a conventional army with just one weapon is just too tempting.
(And both kinda rely on being optimistic enough to believe that people are nice enough not to do a first strike with nuclear weapons in the first place)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:To the best of my knowledge, our existing Air Force already has a large step over virtually anyone else who might field fighters...
This isn't true, I'm afraid. The older F series -- the F-14, F18, etc. -- are very old and are becoming extremely expensive to maintain and repair; furthermore, newer fighters from other countries are getting closer to matching their abilities.
Case in point, last year a F-15C model literally fell apart mid flight. They had to ground the entire F-15 fleet til they were sure the other wouldn't do the same. The main problem is we've far exceeded the expected flight life of the airframe. The main problem is the F-22 cost way to much. It cost the country $29.9 million for each F-15C. To pay $137.5 million for it's replacement, even with inflation is kind of crazy, it would be hard to convince me to get the same number of F-22 as we had F-15's. Especially with the long series of problems the F-22 has had.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: With the current geopolitical climate, America doesn't have a lot of need for a dedicated air superiority fighter. It's been a while since we've fought a war where the opposing air force made it off the ground. I'm wary of losing that advantage, especially with the rising tide of unmitigated evil coming from China, but I think it's about time we stopped putting the military so far ahead of other domestic concerns.
I agree. Most of the wars/peacekeeping missions we've fought over the past fifty years have been against impoverished nations armed with AK-47s. We don't need a powerful military, and spending three times what the rest of the world combined does is just idiotic.
China already wields considerable economic power over the US, and doesn't need to go to war with us to obtain our cooperation. And even if it did, it wouldn't, since its economy is so closely interwoven with ours. The military-industrial complex is a giant suck of money we don't need to indulge.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:To the best of my knowledge, our existing Air Force already has a large step over virtually anyone else who might field fighters...
This isn't true, I'm afraid. The older F series -- the F-14, F18, etc. -- are very old and are becoming extremely expensive to maintain and repair; furthermore, newer fighters from other countries are getting closer to matching their abilities.
The newer Russian and Chinese planes, J-14/13 and Mig 1.44 and the newer Flanker Su-47, the ones with the delta wings are meant as competitors to the F-22.
IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but no one believes even for a moment that they'll be serious competition. But since they're cheaper, they might be competition in numbers, which is where we as a country are weakest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yup, no other country has a plane that can touch the F-22. And yet, on the whole it was an expense justified only by yesterday's wars.
It will, I think, be our last manned air superiority fighter.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Yup, no other country has a plane that can touch the F-22. And yet, on the whole it was an expense justified only by yesterday's wars.
It will, I think, be our last manned air superiority fighter.
Oh dear god I hope not, I am fundamentally against Drone/AI controlled fighters, just imagine if someone manages to hack into those during a war, or heck JAMS them.
Actually what source do you have that the Mig 1.44 and the Su-47 won't be competition? The Soviet Union was the primary probably enemy for a reason, the J-13/14 are being designed as stealth fighters do you have proof that these weapon systems won't be a "serious challenge" as you say without resorting to jingoism?
IP: Logged |
posted
While the number of F-22 will be low the US will buy around 2400 F-35's so it's not like the US will have a shortage of advanced air craft out there. It just won't have a huge number of the cream of the crop.
Posts: 796 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: ... Oh dear god I hope not, I am fundamentally against Drone/AI controlled fighters, just imagine if someone manages to hack into those during a war, or heck JAMS them ...
Or if they turn on us and start believing in one God or alternatively, looking like the Governator.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Like? I recall all sorts of wars by proxy, but nothing all that significant. Besides, we're talking about major powers in the here and now with access to ICBMs and nuclear-armed submarines.
And air superiority in those many proxy wars wasn't valuable? You'll have to have a pretty darn convincing argument to get that...wait for it...to get that off the ground *snicker.
And you are aware of the role the USAF and the VVS played in the nuclear weapons policies of both the US and the USSR? The plan was never, "Press button, launch nukes."
---------------
quote:Oh dear god I hope not, I am fundamentally against Drone/AI controlled fighters, just imagine if someone manages to hack into those during a war, or heck JAMS them.
It's not as though that isn't an issue already. I'm sure you're aware just how little of the actual work involved in keeping a warplane in the air and fighting the pilot does. He or she gives the commands, certainly, but the days of the control surfaces being connected straight to the cockpit are over.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I never said that air superiority wasn't valuable in proxy wars. Thats a strawman and you know it.
What I said was that the F22 doesn't make sense in a world where major powers have nukes.
In this world, which is our world, the most likely wars in which the US will be involved in are ones of its own choosing against non-nuclear powers. After all, this is what the US has been doing for many years now.
Against these second-tier nations, the F22 isn't needed for air superiority, period. American spending on the military is so out-sized, even its second line of fighters can handle them without barely a scratch and it will for a very long time, especially with drones entering the picture.
Additionally, even IF China or Russia is able develop a fighter that is equivalent to the F22 (and thats a *big* if), they won't sell it to their allies anyways, just like how the US doesn't sell the F22 to its allies anyways.
So the F22 is limited to the hypothetical in which the US goes *directly* at war with another major power, not through a proxy, but directly. This is very unlikely. And in this hypothetical, you need a world thats gone crazy enough to have major powers go toe-to-toe to the extent that the marginal difference in performance between an airforce which F22 in slightly larger numbers or the F35 (and others) in slightly larger numbers makes a difference ... but not quite so crazy that someone just doesn't press a button to end the whole discussion.
This window of likelihood is so narrow, it just doesn't make much sense to throw a lot of money at it when compared to all the other things that the cost of an F22 could be spent on. Thats a lot of body armour and IED-proof vehicles for example. It is just not cost-effective.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I never said that air superiority wasn't valuable in proxy wars. Thats a strawman and you know it.
It's not a strawman unless all those proxy wars in which air superiority was valuable weren't actually significant. Maybe in hindsight, decades down the road one could argue they were insignificant, but I doubt the people in those wars would, either in the proxies themselves or the people who fought or sponsored them.
quote:What I said was that the F22 doesn't make sense in a world where major powers have nukes.
That's true, you did say that. I took that to be a dismissal of the importance of air superiority in the modern world. Insofar as you didn't say that, I was mistaken-sorry about that.
quote:In this world, which is our world, the most likely wars in which the US will be involved in are ones of its own choosing against non-nuclear powers. After all, this is what the US has been doing for many years now.
Here's where things get rocky. We already have historic examples of a world in which the major powers had nukes and the capability to launch them at any time on any target, with or without air power. The Cold War, of course.
And in that struggle, air superiority was important. If all you're saying is that the F-22 specifically is not important, then I agree. Stealthed bombers are what's strategically vital in such cases.
quote: This window of likelihood is so narrow, it just doesn't make much sense to throw a lot of money at it when compared to all the other things that the cost of an F22 could be spent on. Thats a lot of body armour and IED-proof vehicles for example. It is just not cost-effective.
I wholeheartedly agree. I think, however, that we ought to maintain an air superiority fighter (in quite small numbers) so we can continue to advance in design, manufacture, piloting, training, etc. 'Seeds' so to speak. Because the truth is, things change. We'll need it someday, and I'd rather us not be rusty.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Here's where things get rocky. We already have historic examples of a world in which the major powers had nukes and the capability to launch them at any time on any target, with or without air power. The Cold War, of course.
But what we don't have are examples of a world in which those powers actually directly fought and were presented with compelling cases to nuke something. Unless you count the fact that we already know that the US is already trigger-happy enough to use not one, but two nukes just to make a point.
In any case, the Cold War is over and we don't really have anything analogous to it now. What we do have is the US picking and choosing where to do its War on Terror, or overseas contingency operations, or whatever.
quote: If all you're saying is that the F-22 specifically is not important, then I agree.
quote:But what we don't have are examples of a world in which those powers actually directly fought and were presented with compelling cases to nuke something. Unless you count the fact that we already know that the US is already trigger-happy enough to use not one, but two nukes just to make a point.
I'm not sure how such an example would be necessary to prove your initial point, but we're largely in agreement anyway, so *shrug*. That's also why I'm just going to register disagreement with the 'fact' you've cited, and leave it at that;)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually what source do you have that the Mig 1.44 and the Su-47 won't be competition? The Soviet Union was the primary probably enemy for a reason, the J-13/14 are being designed as stealth fighters do you have proof that these weapon systems won't be a "serious challenge" as you say without resorting to jingoism?
the f-22's avionics combined with its radar evasion would pretty much thrash anything offered in either russia or china's tentative fifth gen offerings. Just a fact. We wasted a kajillion dollars on these things and they're mostly useless as an expenditure but it at least bought us those bragging rights.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:the f-22's avionics combined with its radar evasion would pretty much thrash anything offered in either russia or china's tentative fifth gen offerings. Just a fact. We wasted a kajillion dollars on these things and they're mostly useless as an expenditure but it at least bought us those bragging rights.
In retrospect we could certainly have stopped (or at least substantially downsized) our spending in those fields. But that's kind of - no pun intended - the cost of doing business.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The F-15 had about a 4-1 potential kill ratio versus equivalent gen migs when they started phaseout; today, Russia, China, Iran, India, North Korea, and Pakistan have produced/are producing technology that puts them on par with the F-15, which puts them on par with our fourth gen.
During the elmendorf Red Flag exercises between the F-15 and the F-22, it was absolutely no contest. A single F-22 pilot could mark upwards of eight targets dead without even being seen by the fourth gen avionics. We're pretty jealous about maintaining this kind of competitive air-war edge, and the other nations of the world would really like to get their hands on an F-22, so the raptor is strictly a no-export thing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying we shouldn't have seriously downsized. I'm saying in in the present it's sometimes difficult to know when, exactly.
Downsizing spending after the F-15 is one example. It probably would have been prudent, I'll agree. But it's hard to say on something that important what the future will bring. I mean, the program started when, about 25 years ago, right?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah plus I guess the line of reasoning was prudent. I mean, when we began producing F-15's, think about the technology level that it was built around. jimmy carter was president and you were awesome if you had a personal computer that was slightly smaller than a barn. It was safe to assume that electronics and avionics would evolve beyond that point and we should have a plane that was built from the ground up to incorporate new technology
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is hardly a done deal, it still has to get through Congress, and Congressmen from various districts will be hard pressed to kill almost a hundred thousands jobs, even though current plans have the production lines running to 2011, I believe.
The Air Force is never going to get the 750 they were originally slated to get, but I'll be surprised if Gates' axe swings true. I think they'll keep the line going for another couple dozen, and then it'll shut down. But for the moment that's fine.
The F-22 is unmatched in the world. Between the avionics, stealth capacity and radar, it's a generation ahead of anything Russia or China have. But, Russia and China probably have it matches for maneuverability and supercruise, as does the new Eurofighter that a lot of countries are signing on for. The F-35 is an excellent airplane, and will be more than fine to be the main workhorse of the air force for things like air to ground combat, especially since we don't envision a serious conflict against Russia or China for the next decade or two, so why build hundreds of super expensive planes just to fight two countries that there's a small chance of fighting?
It doesn't mean Lockheed Martin and Boeing aren't already at work on the NEXT generation fighter. I'm sure they are. And it doesn't mean that in the future if tensions mount we can't, for a price, build more F-22s. But for the moment, I'm perfectly happy with 200 or so of them.
The F-15, during its several decades long service, NEVER lost an air to air combat fight, even F-15s we sold to other countries that fought in battles without American pilots. If the F-22 can blow away the F-15 (and it can), I don't really feel bad about only having a couple hundred if an F-15 can't even find them. F-117s and F-15s are old school now.
Blayne -
I think Russia and China's newest planes are quite on par with the the F-35, if that makes you feel any better. Though I'm not sure which F-35, as there will be multiple models for different purposes, like a navy variant for carrier take off and landing, and a Marine VTOL variant.
I've read in several places that because of the large amounts of excess space and energy provided by the non-VTOL versions of the F-35 (since it was designed with this in mind), experiments are already being done with putting lasers on them.
I'm quite happy with a mixed F-22 and F-35 with phasers air fleet.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just read two adjacent thread titles as Babylon 5 canceled and F-22 drinking game. The first is not news. The latter is somewhere between maglev chicken and Astronaut Heroin on the list of bad ideas.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I've read in several places that because of the large amounts of excess space and energy provided by the non-VTOL versions of the F-35 (since it was designed with this in mind), experiments are already being done with putting lasers on them.
Why am I getting images of Dr. Evil?... Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Something I didn't see mentioned in my scan of the topic-- the majority of cost for a project is R&D. Once you are into production it's relatively cheap and cutting a production run short significantly increases the cost per unit.
Just an added variable to the calculus of the whole thing.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dantesparadigm: I just read two adjacent thread titles as Babylon 5 canceled and F-22 drinking game. The first is not news. The latter is somewhere between maglev chicken and Astronaut Heroin on the list of bad ideas.
posted
I was reading an interview with Fareed Zakaria today where he praised the decision to cut the F-22 program, and one thing he said got me thinking.
He said, in referring to the lack of necessity for such a machine, something along the lines of 'when was the last time a US fighter was even in a dogfight?'
The answer is the Gulf War of course, and even then it wasn't much of a fight. Half his Air Force never even made an attempt to tangle with our planes, another group fled the country, and the token few that did were smoked. It brings up the question of deterrence though. The reason we're so rarely in a dogfight these days is because no one wants to mess with our planes. It's why our No Fly Zones are so effective, because they're a virtual net over whatever area of space we aim to control.
The assumption seems to be that, since we've encountered very little resistance in the air for the last 30 years, we must not need to build very fancy plans if no one even wants to tangle with the F-15, but I'm starting more and more to think that this is a very shortsighted, and rather misguided view of military conflict in the back half of the 20th century.
So while I still don't think that almost a thousand F-22s are necessary (an F-35 can still accomplish most of the mutlti-role missions we use on a daily basis), I do think we should consider a large enough number for the sake of deterrence. Other countries aren't going to stop trying to build planes that are just as good or better, but we've already put the time and money into building the fighter that's a leap ahead of them all, we might as well build enough to make sure we get the same 30 years of supremacy that the Eagle gave us.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: The assumption seems to be that, since we've encountered very little resistance in the air for the last 30 years, we must not need to build very fancy plans if no one even wants to tangle with the F-15, but I'm starting more and more to think that this is a very shortsighted, and rather misguided view of military conflict in the back half of the 20th century.
Story of American military spending, really. Look what we did right out of WWII, until the Cold War gave us a smack in the nose.
I think one possible plan would be to build and maintain training in enough F-22s to fight and win our single largest 'expected' war. Base them here in the states, and if something comes up, well, warplanes aren't the toughest things to move, after all.
That way we don't have to put out the massive money for, say, putting F-22s in every American airbase on the planet, but we would still maintain our spending on further development (to maintain that gap), and we'd still maintain the practical ability to deploy that gap in a war, without also suffering the big expenditure of paying for it to be ready for fights where they'd be very unnecessary.
Call me crazy, call me a warmonger, but I don't see anything wrong with maintaining that years-ahead edge we've got in airpower.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: He said, in referring to the lack of necessity for such a machine, something along the lines of 'when was the last time a US fighter was even in a dogfight?'
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
