I don't believe for a minute that the Congress and the DoD will allow national security to falter. I also don't think a single weapons system is will make or break the ability to accomplish a mission.

To me, Gates' proposal to kill the F-22 sends a dual message:

1.) DoD procurement is out of hand and fiscally irresponsible. I hope the days of buying a $700 hammer are gone. The American people deserve the most bang for the buck (hey, a war pun!).

2.) DoD funds should prioritize real and current missions above potential threats. If we can't buy body armor for troops on the ground now, should we really be spending all our money to develop sharks with friggin' laser beams on thier heads?

 

The technological developments made by the F-22 program are great and do help lower the cost of the F-35, but it is true that even the F-35 will have things the F-22 does not and they are still in development. Obviously details cannot be shared here.

Despite this, I do not like stealth. Not only does it drastically increase development costs, but maintenance costs are extreme as well. It is very important in air power to have as much control over the EM spectrum as possible, but there are cheaper ways to accomplish the goal in a very similar manner. The Air Force fell in love with stealth and so the did the public and congress. Stealth has a value to a point, but I feel there are other and cheaper ways to accomplish the same goal in most, but not all, circumstances.

I wonder if Boeing is salivating over what might come from the JSF as well? We let all of our airplanes go too long without replacement. Navy and Marine F/A-18 A and C models are in dire need of replacement as are the F-15C and many of the F-16s out there (not to mention tankers and bombers as well). They have to be replaced by something, even if you do reduce overall numbers. Boeing has a "good enough" answer with the Super Hornet that can work for the Navy/Marines (well, most of it) and it is upgradable as well. Who knows, if the Air Force jumped on board then there might even be enough money to straighten out the pylons and then it would have some better performance.

 

Question for you guys/gals in the know on this. When is the last time that fighters (U.S. or otherwise) have been involved in a dogfight? By this I'm not talking about a BVR engagement, but a real turning dogfight. Southern Africa in the early 80's is about the best I can do. Seems that that is the type of engagement where the F22 would shine, and I don't know that it happens anymore. Although, I would assume that if we were involved against a truly capable Air Force (e.g. India, Russia, China) the likelyhood of a turning fight is greater.

Hate to see the F-22 program end so early, but have to admit that is more because I like airplanes, all kind of airplanes (except Shorts Bros. airplanes ), than that I know it to be the best platform for current and anticipated engagments.

 

The last time there was a turning dogfight hmm…. I would probably say in the early 80’s as well when the Israelis fought. Of course I could be wrong.

Does anyone know if there was a turning dogfight when Iraq fought Iran?

Besides those two incidences, your guess is as good as mine.

I guess army aviation came out good on this new proposal since there are orders for more helicopters. Anyone know specifics about what kind of helicopters they have in mind or do they mean helicopters in general?

 

In August 1981 two F-14As of VF-41 were approached by two Libyan Sukhoi SU-22. The lead Sukhoi pilot fired an air-to-air missile at the F-14s; the F-14 pilots engaged and destroyed both SUs. In 1989, two Libyan MiG-23 Floggers engaged two VF-32 F-14As from USS John F. Kennedy (CV 67) that were flying Combat Air Patrol missions close to the Libyan coast. The MiG-23s were determined hostile and they downed both Floggers.

During Gulf War I, the F-15 accounted for 36 of the 39 Air Force air-to-air victories.

 

Hey KC-10, in the Gulf war, did any of them pass the merge and enter into a turning fight or were they all pretty much destroyed before a turning fight could ensue?

 

Ya got me grinnin', just like the Turkey was going to have the 'new and improved engine' technology when they 'are developed shortly' argument. We all know how that came out. Marketing has done well to sell the current crop of fighter pilots on the plane <bg>. Navy got rid of single engine A-7's for dual mission, two engine Hornets in part to minimize the single engine combat risks, etc. McDoug sold the plane to the Navy when they weren't even really looking. Now that was a good marketing team! Take the USAF loser Northrop YF-17(lost to GD F-16), sell the Navy, USMC (by force), and Northrop on why it was smart to reutilize all that fine technology for a new dual mission Navy/Marine bird. Cost savngs, leverage technology, dual engine reliability in combat yadi yadi.
Guess I'm an old geezer, and only in my forties. Still serving, seems many, not all, have forgotten the desires of our likely enemies. The 'missiles only argument' come to mind. We won't turn in a fight blah, blah.... They ain't backing down, it goes forward. We can repeat lost lessons, but it's costly for a reason.
Oh well.....

 

Any chance of the Lancer going back into production?

 

The F-22 would never want to get inside the visual area - no fighter does if it can help it. The F-22 shines in the BVR world - with its' radar, weapons, and global SA.

USMCFLYR

 

Salty -

Well....we all have to believe in something don't we
I remember that I was in line to be one of the first Marine Osprey pilots!
Just chose CH-46s and you'll be perfect for the transition **they** said.
Glad to see it finally make a deployment in my twilight years!
All I can pass to you is what the unclass briefs put out. Who knows what is really going to happen.
I won't be around to see any of it in any case. I just saw the inside of a Piper Matrix with its' Avidyne avionics suite. I'm ready to move up - - - uh - - I mean on in my aviation experience

USMCFLYR