another one bites the dust
#11
I can't make a judgement whether or not they are worth the cost. However, as an extremely loyal Block 50 lover, I can honestly say there is no amount of money that will make the F-16 even 70% of the F-22. Ditto for the Eagle. And I think I'm being generous.
In two weeks at Red Flag flying against F-16s and F-15s, our simulated 'kill ratio' was in the area of 400-10.
In two weeks at Red Flag flying against F-16s and F-15s, our simulated 'kill ratio' was in the area of 400-10.
BUT
We've sacrificed a ton of force structure to pay for it all over the USAF.
We've gotten rid of a lot of cockpits and pilots to pay for it.
We've sacrificed a ton of flying hours to pay for it.
We have a ridiculously small amount of airframes to show for it (that carries a smaller amount of ordnance).
We have an aircraft that has zero impact on either of the two wars we're currently fighting.
I've flown many a Red Flag and I don't believe the exercise has the level of realism that it used to have. Particularly in the area of enemy com and radar jamming.
Too much is secret to be really discussed but it's clear that if the F-22 can't dominate BVR, we've bought the wrong airplane. If Russian or Chinese jamming is better than we've guessed (have we ever underestimated that capability?), the non-HMS non-AIM-9X two ship of F-22's will be supercruising it's way to an out-numbered visual merge against more maneuverable adversaries with high off boresight missiles and HMS.
I'm a flag waiving USAF officer and believe we need a strong military, but I'm not convinced the USAF made the right decision to sell the farm to get this specific airframe.
Now we've painted ourselves into a corner and have no real other option.
I'm hoping I'm wrong and, unlike many times in our past, we've got an unjammable radar firing an unjammable missile.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post



