Originally Posted by
ToiletDuck
I am glad that we are looking for more "reliable" means to fight insurgents in 3rd world playgrounds.
As am I, but that is very short sighted. While we are looking for means to fight our current war, our enemies are planning how to win the next war!
They are wanting to shut down one aircraft program. I'm not for it I want the F-22 here but the price tag is a little ridiculous for a day to day fighter, that's just my opinion. If you want to invade a foreign country with a sophisticated sam setup that's what the bombers are for.
Ugh.....bombers against an air defense system! Check out the BUFF stats from Vietnam. You gonna strap your butt into a buff and ride it through a integrated air defense?
What's the reliability of the F-22? What's the MX cost on one of those things? Durability is a huge part. An aircraft you have to take apart every few flights in desert environments doesn't help much.
How about the reliability/MX cost of our 15/16 fleets. We have already had a 15 fall apart in flight. Reliability is going down and MX costs are only going up by trying to salvage our aging airframes.
I'd personally like to see a cheaper yet capable aircraft that can be more easily produced in large numbers with perhaps a less amount of bells and whistles. Rugged and reliable.
Wouldn't we all....but it's a pipe dream. Those "bells and whistles" are going to keep pilots alive to fight another day.
These arguments about needing the latest technology have been used in the past. Look at the F-4 and how it didn't have guns. Look at the A-10 and B-52 and how long they've outlived their "useful" lifespan.
The F-4 quickly gained a gun and we have learned from that lesson. Hence, the reason the 35 has a one! The hog and buff are great planes but they are sitting ducks if we don't have a significant fighter force to keep the wall of Flankers or the SAMS off their backs!
Just my opinion don't shoot me down. I like the involvement of the debate on this one. Everyone has good points. Like I said I love reliability and maybe it's just me but it seems like the more faith you put into all the cutting edge technology the more room there is for it to let you down. I'm still in love with the A-10. It's a perfect example. Our last wars have had major opposition from insurgents. Why spend $120mil on an aircraft to drop a bomb on guys when a $25mil aircraft can do it just the same. (i dunno real A10 cost just kinda figured lol)
No shooting here....just enjoying some good debates going here.
We send that 120 mil a/c to go drop a bomb because in the war of tomorrow, that 25 mil a/c may never reach the target. In Vietnam, if we wanted a bridge destroyed we would send a 4-ship dropping 3-6 bombs a piece and hope for a hit. Not to mention many of those jets never came home! (not saying they were incompetent...those guys had ballz o' steel. They did the best with what they had to work with.) Now we can send one jet with reasonable expectations that it will only take 1 bomb to take the target out! That's what makes the price worth it. (note: these numbers may not be totally accurate, but you get my point)
I'm not saying the 22 is the end all fighters. But the swap out rate of F-22 vs. F-15, does scare me a bit. They seem to think the F-35 will fill the gap....MAYBE (that's a big maybe) it will, if we get all 1700 that we are slated for, but history has shown that we will not see anywhere near that number. Need not look any farther than the F-22 currently and the Viper in the 90's.
Lets also not forget that if we stay on the current path, many of our ANG alert sites will not have any planes to defend our country with, in the near future. The Eagle and Viper fleets are old and aging at an accelerated rate with the current ops tempo. We can't fly them forever!