My counter-counter points....

No one has ever claimed that money has been the obstacle to a robust UAV capability in this conflict. There are a lot of obstacles...manning, UAV operator training, doctrine, etc...but none of them are truly money.

True, but nor are they a true threat to our overall national security. And show me a weapons system in the world that would deter them. UAVs certainly wouldn't.

I bet they do. Our arsenal might not keep them from building their own, but they sure as hell will keep them from using their own. They might be crazy, but they aren't suicidal.

Al Qaeda: true, but again, show me a weapons system that will.

On Chavez: We might not change his ideology, but we sure can influence his actions. He's not buying a fleet of Flankers, missiles, and SAMs to counter our UAV threat or the Brazilian Air Force's fighter fleet. He's buying them to counter the conventional air power of the United States. While we could roll over him right now, the truth is he's just a few large checks away from becoming somebody. Reference previous post...we don't have the national will to take losses. If we have a stick we can wield that he cannot counter, we have influence over him. If our military might can't overwhelm him with few/no losses, he has influence over us because we lose political and diplomatic options. We'll find ourselves again begging France, China, and Russia to vote our way at the UN Security Council. That will fail every time and we'll be impotent. Speak softly and carry a big stick.

 

I know a bunch of people/projects they are forking the money over for ....it's a shame it's in another interest area.

 

During previous wars the United States was never dedicated to so many new technologies at one time. Yes there was R&D with high cost per project but there was also a definitive path they wanted to follow. Currently we have newer nuclear subs, newer stealth battleships, newer stealth aircraft, new UAVs, armored troop transpots, tank designs, satellite protection programs, tankers, etc. and that's just what we all know about. I don't feel the end of the F-22 means the end of the US dominance. I am glad that we are looking for more "reliable" means to fight insurgents in 3rd world playgrounds.

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. 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. The United States is broke and simply needs to be more economical with it's money. Take that $120mil jet then tack on the interest the gov't pays on it to take the loan from the people. The compound that loan to the loans it already has and maybe we'll start to understand why we're so far in debt and not looking like we'll be bouncing back anytime soon. 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.

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. I don't think figters have ever been the deterrents of a nation. I don't see them touted by developing countries near as much as their progresses in missiles, nuclear, and naval capabilities. I'm not saying they don't have a place. Not by any means. I just don't think the end of a program is the end of the country and frankly we still can't afford it. It's that new home we want but can't buy. Maybe the F-35 can change that.

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)

 

Duck, you are right. The end of the F-22 line is not the end of the world.

But you mistakenly tout the F-35 as a more reasonable alternative. Not to make this classified or anything, but that little jet obviously cannot carry the ordnance or travel the range as the larger F-22. It does, however, have all the "bells and whistles" and has the price tag to match. It is overall cheaper because it has one motor and most of the technology in it was already paid for during the F-22 development. If the F-22's R&D costs were spread out over 700+ airframes vs the 183, then it would look a hell of a lot cheaper too.

Is the F-35 really such a value when it would take 2 or more of them to take down the same number of fighters or ground targets as a single F-22 would?

And by the way, our bomber fleet is hardly the tool for "invading a foreign country with a sophisticated sam setup." We've got literally a handful of B-2s, very few B-1s, and a bunch of 1950s era B-52s. Besides the B-2s, we'd sooner send a winnebago full of lightly armed ROTC cadets to invade a country than we would send our bombers to get slayed by even the most vintage of integrated air defense system. You made some good points in your post, but this was not one of them.

 

Every brief I have ever heard about the F-35 states that the airplane will be another generational leap. One of the selling points was that this aircraft would be the FIRST in history not to have current (meaning the start of development) technology; but rather the absolute newest technology at the time. According to the last brief I last saw/heard - some of the technology for the F-35 has even developed yet.

Maybe I'll get some more information here in a few days. The F-35 team is coming around to give a series of briefs.

USMCFLYR

 

Regarding the F-355, I never believe the hype from the manufacturer or the program's supporters. The F-22 has had a lot of hype, and it has not lived up to the hype as of yet. It may be good, but it is far from infallible - especially in the worst-case war scenario (high EA / multiple numbers / high ops tempo / etc) that we supposedly bought it for. What are their MR rates? The other limfacs are not appropriate for an open forum, but it isn't the end all be all.

As far as the cancellation is concerned, I would call the actions of the USAF leadership willful negligence and hold them more at fault - I wouldn't put any of their motivations past their own political gain.

First of all, they put ALL of their eggs in the F-22 basket. To buy 187 F-22's they scrapped the F-117, tried to scrap the F-15 (they got a lot of them), tried to scrap the B-52, and who knows what else. They knew long ago that the buy would probably not exceed the 180's (and certainly would not go past the 200's), but they were willing to replace over 500 Eagles with them. Double the ops tempo and half the missiles in the air - not a good combination. Not to mention, they stopped spending money on the F-15 in the late 90's (except for some software upgrades) until the F-22 buy was set in order to make it look like we needed the F-22 that much more. It wasn't coincidence that the V2, HMS, etc came out after that point.

The leadership acted like kids in a toy store when the best solution all along would have been a fleet mix that ended up being more like 1 F-22's for every 4 or 5 F-15's.

 

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!

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?

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.

Wouldn't we all....but it's a pipe dream. Those "bells and whistles" are going to keep pilots alive to fight another day.

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!

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!

 

Our ability to overwhelm anyone in conventional warfare is based on control of the skies first (and in most cases the ocean too). High-performance stealth aircraft are needed to penetrate and disable advanced (or even not-so-advanced) air defense networks. This then allows all of the lower-cost, lower-stealth aircraft to get in and do their job: enable and support the ground forces.

I think we could get away with a mix of 22's, 35's, and 15's. Despite what someone else said about them being worn out, the F-15 is still in production so we could buy new ones with advanced EASA radars. An F-22/F-35/F-15 mix could probably do the air dominance job...you just send the right package to do the job at hand. The package will include mixed aircraft types in many cases.

 

So imagine what will happen when we try to do the same job with less than half the aircraft (and with less robust aircraft at that).

 

Remember that this is just the president's proposed budget. Congress will reinsert the F-22 when they realize how many of their constituents they will put out of work.

#1 job of a politician is to get reelected.