Originally Posted by
KC10 FATboy
Valid points, no offense taken, and just you know, this isn't a "tanker guy jealous because the fighter guys are getting new toys." I enjoy having debate like this.
I agree there are short comings with UAVs. If we already have the F-22 for Air Supremacy, why do we need the F-35? Does the F-22 suck? Are there shortcomings (don't discuss this here obviously)? And if is so, why are there?
If we are buying the F-35 to be a fighter (air-to-air), but we are going to employ it as a bomber, I think that is a mistake. 99% of the fighters I've refueled (F-14, F-15, F-16, F-117) were employed to be a bomber, but, the air-to-air capability was there.
For the record, I hate UAVs. I hate the thought of our machines fighting the enemy. I just don't think it is ethical. But then again, our enemies today don't seem to want to play by the rules.
-Fatty
Air supremecy is just one of those items that F-22 and F-35 bring to the table. However when I say air supremecy, I don't just mean the ability to fly around at will without being shot at from an air to air threat. So why JSF, because it's cheaper per copy(relatively speaking) and it has a very robust air to ground capability as well that necessarily isn't captured with F-22. Can the Raptor perform that mission? Sure, but in a limited role. It's the same reason we have or had at one time 6 different airplanes(A-6, A-10, F-14, F-15, F-16, and F/A-18) to do arguably the same mission, dropping bombs.
I don't discount the spending required to maintain or sustain these programs, nor do I support robbing from Peter to pay Paul at the expense of degrading another community's mission but at some point the food fight for $$ has to be won and in the case of JSF with the international support and funding it has, that will win out IMHO.