Good Bye F22

[NSXrebel]

I also think they should cut back on the F-22. JSF/F-35 will do most of what the Raptor can, for less money. What it falls short on, we can make up in numbers of other aircraft we do have. Not only that, but the JSF will have a large percentage of commonality between all it's variants, reducing maintenance cost, as opposed to the F-22 which all of its parts are unique to it.

Same thing happened with the C-130J program, lots of cutbacks. I don't know how many, if any, active duty squadrons got the C-130J. My last unit in the CA Guard, had all there planes replaced by J models. In fact, air guard units are the only ones I have seen with the C-130J. I haven't flown in over a year, so I don't know what has changed.

The Marine Corps has replaced it's active duty fleet with KC-130J's. Granted there are only 3 active duty squadrons. Don't know what the plans are for their 2 reserve squadrons, as they have newer KC-130T's built in the 80's, those were bought and paid for by the respective states they are located in.

Another program that has exceeded cost expectations is the MV-22 Osprey. I'm currently attached with VMMT-204 Marine Medium Tiltrotor Training Squadron. I can tell you, the Osprey is here to stay, and is not going anywhere. In fact, we just had the last CH-46 squadron in the coast return from deployment, and getting ready to retire/decommission the squadron in preparation for transition to the MV-22. That's it, no more CH-46's in the east coast. West coast(Miramar/Camp Pendleton) is next.


I agree wish should maintain some sort of air superiority, but lets remember, the rest of our fleets are flying aircraft half a century old, and in some cases older!

 

[ca2822]

F-35 will do most of what the Raptor can, for less money. What it falls short on, we can make up in numbers of other aircraft we do have.

What other aircraft are you talking about? The aging F-15 that first flew in 1972?

And I agree - there are other airframes in the inventory that need to be updated or replaced entirely for the future.

 

[NSX_Dreamer]

Re: not quite, and here's why...

...
I won't get into why we even need a single F-22, as I'll save that for another thread if a necessitating topic needs addressed by what I may know (or how little I know, but wish to share)... for those keen for insight, it has to do what happened nearly 50 years ago from a lil' remote spot named Badaber; what transpired was necessary & gave us a reality-check in waking us up. And that's that...

interesting, what do you mean by this? I'm very curious. :smile:

 

[KooLaid]

As an Air Force officer who has worked on the F-22, it really pisses me off for all these arm chair quarterback running their mouth. If you think you know better than us .....then get off your butt and enlist or go to OTS.

It's called asymmetric warfare.......if you can't understand that then you're in the right career field.

Hey idiots.... a war with China and Russia would be nuclear. Plenty of highly ranking officers from all services were against the F-22 (plus other cold war relics). There is only so much money and it means to be allocated properly.

I think Obama and Gates are on the right track. Our Intel budget and assets has been neglected for years. Read the Art of War.

Second the day is coming for UAV period (not for all things). The F-22 already passes the limits of a human being's capabilities.

Vance ......there is something call security classification ......as to what we can tell the public about our capabilities and what we do.....re-read Steveny post.

As someone who also works with and for DOE, I can assure you that you have no clue.

Whats your rank?

Nevermind, you separated.

I'll have to mention it around the halls, who knows- maybe Bill or Paul would be interested in picking one up for the ultimate in ego, or I mean air superiority.

Crap, I hope it is not too late to place my order. I'll take one and paint it spa yellow and have it duck behind enemy lines and drop skittles, or do my own fly-by before pre-grid at the next race.

They aren't that bad, what are they like ten grand an hour to operate?

I got it... I got it... it's here in my wad just give me a moment. :biggrin:

Mention to Bill that they'd make GREAT christmas bonuses or stocking stuffers

 

[NSXrebel]

What other aircraft are you talking about? The aging F-15 that first flew in 1972?

And I agree - there are other airframes in the inventory that need to be updated or replaced entirely for the future.

Just because an F-15 first flew in 1972, doesn't mean all F-15's were made back then. Same thing with C-130's, first ones flew in the 50's, not all were made back then. We're up to to J models now, although there have been R and T models for the Navy/Marine Corps.

The Navy's Super Hornet is its latest and greatest F/A-18 , E and F models. Super Hornet replaced the aging F-14 Tomcats, and will also replace Navy EA-6B Prowlers with the E/A-18G "Growler".

This brings up another question about the Marine Corps. They plan to replace their F/A-18s and AV-8Bs with the JSF/F-35, but I don't know what they will do with their EA-6B's since the Marine Corps doesn't fly the Super Hornet.

 

[ca2822]

Just an interesting thing to look into... another potential 5th gen fighter - I couldn't find much information on it: Sukhoi PAK FA (Russians refer to it as the T-50).

 

[ca2822]

Just because an F-15 first flew in 1972, doesn't mean all F-15's were made back then.

Valid point. But slapping on technological upgrades for future engagements will only carry its lethality for so long. As of today, yes, the F-15 is still a very lethal weapon that does not have any real competition (spare the 22). But do you really think the world is finished with traditional nation v. nation warfare? Possible, but unlikely. Will the F-15's of today and the 187 F-22's be able to secure an air battle 20, 30 years from now?Doubtful.

 

[NSXrebel]

Valid point. But slapping on technological upgrades for future engagements will only carry its lethality for so long. As of today, yes, the F-15 is still a very lethal weapon that does not have any real competition (spare the 22). But do you really think the world is finished with traditional nation v. nation warfare? Possible, but unlikely. Will the F-15's of today and the 187 F-22's be able to secure an air battle 20, 30 years from now?Doubtful.

Don't forget we also have F/A-18, F-16, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, EA-6B, UAV's and soon F-35 aircraft, plus all other sorts of Bombers. I'm fairly confident that with that arsenal plus the few F-22's that we have, we will not lose air superiority anytime soon.

 

[ca2822]

Don't forget we also have F/A-18, F-16, F-117, A-10, AV-8B, EA-6B, UAV's and soon F-35 aircraft, plus all other sorts of Bombers. I'm fairly confident that with that arsenal plus the few F-22's that we have, we will not lose air superiority anytime soon.

Again, very true. But I'm not talking about Air-to-Ground combat. Air-to-Air superiority. F-18, F-16 are phenomenal aircraft - but not suited to fly against 5th gen fighters. F-117 was retired. A-10 is primarily a CAS mission. UAVs are not dominating fighters and even the UCAVs coming out, they are not air dominating aircraft. In order to use those aircraft effectively in their bombing roles, the air needs to be controlled. Future 5th gen aircraft developed will aim to be comparable or superior to the F-22. And what people fail to realize is that not all 187 F-22s will be combat ready. You have to think about the attrition to training, mishaps, and maintenance will knock that number down significantly.

 

[NSXrebel]

Again, very true. But I'm not talking about Air-to-Ground combat. Air-to-Air superiority. F-18, F-16 are phenomenal aircraft - but not suited to fly against 5th gen fighters. F-117 was retired. A-10 is primarily a CAS mission. UAVs are not dominating fighters and even the UCAVs coming out, they are not air dominating aircraft. In order to use those aircraft effectively in their bombing roles, the air needs to be controlled. Future 5th gen aircraft developed will aim to be comparable or superior to the F-22. And what people fail to realize is that not all 187 F-22s will be combat ready. You have to think about the attrition to training, mishaps, and maintenance will knock that number down significantly.

Do we really need that many more Raptors? The original number of Raptors to be purchased was +700. We have the F-35 coming which can do most of what the F-22 can, for a much lower price.

 

[ca2822]

Do we really need that many more Raptors? The original number of Raptors to be purchased was +700. We have the F-35 coming which can do most of what the F-22 can, for a much lower price.

Obviously Air Force 4 stars, the Chief of Staff, and SecDef have much more expert knowledge on what the Air Force and ultimately the United States needs in terms of resources to function. And yes, the oringal number was +700, which I would agree is a bit ridiculous. That number was botched down significantly after the realization that funding was not feasible for that number of aircraft. Last summer, General Schwartz said that he believed 381 F-22s were too many, but 183 were too few. His analysis ultimatley concluded the Air Force needed 243 F-22s, but the US is stopping short at 187. That is 187 aircraft to replace 522 F-15s.

The F-35 can indeed do much of what the F-22 can, for a much lower price. The issue at hand, however, is the completely different roles and that extra air-to-air advantage the F-22 that the 35 cannot do. Its basically and argument of budgeting and a long-term vs. short-term focus. Are we OK with a less than adequate number of F-22s now? I'd say so. The near future? Most likely. 25 years from now? Who knows. Again, that's forthe military analyists, intel, and the 4 stars to determine.

 

[NSXrebel]

Obviously Air Force 4 stars, the Chief of Staff, and SecDef have much more expert knowledge on what the Air Force and ultimately the United States needs in terms of resources to function. And yes, the oringal number was +700, which I would agree is a bit ridiculous. That number was botched down significantly after the realization that funding was not feasible for that number of aircraft. Last summer, General Schwartz said that he believed 381 F-22s were too many, but 183 were too few. His analysis ultimatley concluded the Air Force needed 243 F-22s, but the US is stopping short at 187. That is 187 aircraft to replace 522 F-15s.

The F-35 can indeed do much of what the F-22 can, for a much lower price. The issue at hand, however, is the completely different roles and that extra air-to-air advantage the F-22 that the 35 cannot do. Its basically and argument of budgeting and a long-term vs. short-term focus. Are we OK with a less than adequate number of F-22s now? I'd say so. The near future? Most likely. 25 years from now? Who knows. Again, that's forthe military analyists, intel, and the 4 stars to determine.

How many aircraft out there in the world that are equal to or superior to the F-22 right now? Personally, I think nothing comes close to it at the moment, except maybe the F-35.

So we only get 187 Raptors. Each Raptor can take on at least 10 current fighters. Lets just say we have 50% operational capable F-22s at any given time, that's 90 Raptors. Those 90 Raptors could theoretically take on 900 current fighters out in the world right now. Find me a nation that has anything remotely close to 900 fighters that are close to the F-15 or even F/A-18 Super Hornet in capability.

Now add in the rest of our fleet of F/A-18 and F-16 fighters, and it's over. And we don't even have the F-35/JSF in the picture yet. Trust me, we're not gonna lose air superiority anytime soon.

 

[Miner]

This brings up another question about the Marine Corps. They plan to replace their F/A-18s and AV-8Bs with the JSF/F-35, but I don't know what they will do with their EA-6B's since the Marine Corps doesn't fly the Super Hornet.

I thought there are Marine squadrons with Super Hornets?

An F-22 is vastly different in role than an F-35. There is commonality in design, but very different in what they do.

The F-14 did one thing very well, and that was protect the carrier. The F-15 does many things well, which is why it is still in service.

New, multipurpose A/C such as the F-35 is very much a jobs program. LM has divided R&D and Production in such a way that almost every state has an economic stake in its "success." Don't get me wrong, it is an impressive plane, but I'm not sure it will be the mother of all aircraft.

Miner

 

[ca2822]

How many aircraft out there in the world that are equal to or superior to the F-22 right now? Personally, I think nothing comes close to it at the moment, except maybe the F-35.

So we only get 187 Raptors. Each Raptor can take on at least 10 current fighters. Lets just say we have 50% operational capable F-22s at any given time, that's 90 Raptors. Those 90 Raptors could theoretically take on 900 current fighters out in the world right now. Find me a nation that has anything remotely close to 900 fighters that are close to the F-15 or even F/A-18 Super Hornet in capability.

Now add in the rest of our fleet of F/A-18 and F-16 fighters, and it's over. And we don't even have the F-35/JSF in the picture yet. Trust me, we're not gonna lose air superiority anytime soon.

I don't think your rational for the 90 vs. 900 fighters is very sound. And 18/16s against a 5th gen fighter has already shown not to be much of a challenge during Red Flag. Again, the issue isn't about today - it's about the future. Of course we're not going to lose our superiority of the air anytime soon. Hell it might not even happen at all. What I merely state is short-sighted projections about potential future enemies/conflicts/5th gen fighters may end up being detrimental to the advantage of force the US has had for so long.

 

[NSXrebel]

I thought there are Marine squadrons with Super Hornets?

An F-22 is vastly different in role than an F-35. There is commonality in design, but very different in what they do.

The F-14 did one thing very well, and that was protect the carrier. The F-15 does many things well, which is why it is still in service.

New, multipurpose A/C such as the F-35 is very much a jobs program. LM has divided R&D and Production in such a way that almost every state has an economic stake in its "success." Don't get me wrong, it is an impressive plane, but I'm not sure it will be the mother of all aircraft.

Miner

Marine Corps flies F/A-18C/D Hornets, not the Super Hornets.

I don't think anyone has said the F-35 Lightning II is/will be the mother of all aircraft. Given it's capabilities, it will perfectly complement the "few" F-22 Raptors that we will be getting. I repeat, the F-35 is not an F-22 replacement, nor is it superior, but it sure damn comes close.

I don't think your rational for the 90 vs. 900 fighters is very sound. And 18/16s against a 5th gen fighter has already shown not to be much of a challenge during Red Flag. Again, the issue isn't about today - it's about the future. Of course we're not going to lose our superiority of the air anytime soon. Hell it might not even happen at all. What I merely state is short-sighted projections about potential future enemies/conflicts/5th gen fighters may end up being detrimental to the advantage of force the US has had for so long.

You speak as if we're getting rid of the F-22 completely. Of course F-15/16/18's will have a hard time against a 5th gen fighter, but we also have the F-22 on OUR side. Those planes, while older, are still very capable and can assist/complement the Raptor. We're not getting rid of the F-22 program, but some of you seem to think we are. You think the rest of the world has fleets of nothing but 5th gen fighters? Govt is just cutting back on their numbers.

 

[ca2822]

You speak as if we're getting rid of the F-22 completely. Of course F-15/16/18's will have a hard time against a 5th gen fighter, but we also have the F-22 on OUR side. Those planes, while older, are still very capable and can assist/complement the Raptor. We're not getting rid of the F-22 program, but some of you seem to think we are. You think the rest of the world has fleets of nothing but 5th gen fighters? Govt is just cutting back on their numbers.

No, I understand we are not getting rid of the F-22 completely. You are missing the point. Yes, the rest of the world does not have fleets of 5th gen fighters. What do you think some of the rest of the world is working toward though? Cutting back numbers on the F-22 program to a number that is insufficient, according to what military advisors, is the wrong way to do business. I completely understand that fact that in today's type of warfighting, F-22s have no place. What people are failing to look toward are potential future situations where an F-22 program cut short isn't going to cut it. Would the US do some overtime to produce 22s in the case that another nation had a comparable or superior fighter? I would hope so, because 187 F-22s minus the numbers to training, loss, and maintenance wouldn't do much good.

Of course F-15/16/18's will have a hard time against a 5th gen fighter, but we also have the F-22 on OUR side. Those planes, while older, are still very capable and can assist/complement the Raptor.

A hard time. That's very understated considering at Red Flag the 22s took a victory of 244-2 against F-16s and F-15s. In today's world, yes, the 16/15 are still very lethal an opponent for other aircraft. Tomorrow... maybe not so much.

 

[Miner]

Marine Corps flies F/A-18C/D Hornets, not the Super Hornets.

I don't think anyone has said the F-35 Lightning II is/will be the mother of all aircraft. Given it's capabilities, it will perfectly complement the "few" F-22 Raptors that we will be getting. I repeat, the F-35 is not an F-22 replacement, nor is it superior, but it sure damn comes close.

The F-35 is a baby brother to the F-22. But a very different mission.

If I want to blow up a tank, give me an A-10 Warthog. Still better than a 5th gen fighter at that task.

Miner