F/A-22: To Fly High or Get its Wings Clipped

[F-15 Eagle]

I'm afraid you guys misread my post.

I never said don't buy support aircraft I just said fighters are more important. 381 F-22s and 1800 F-35s is a must if we want to still be a superpower and to replace aging F-15s and F-16s.

Again I still think we should buy more tankers and transports but that does not mean there more important than fighters let alone bombers.

It would help if you correctly read everything that I said.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It would help if you correctly read everything that I said.

I dont think i misunderstood you. The crux of your contention could summed up buy this sentance.

Again I still think we should buy more tankers and transports but that does not mean there more important than fighters let alone bombers.

This indicates that you misread my post. What makes you think a single fighter, or ten is more important than tankers, transports, AEW&C & airbourne ISR. The platform is only small part of the wider intergrated system. Therefore its importance is proportional to that. (2nd time i have stated this)

I never said don't buy support aircraft I just said fighters are more important. 381 F-22s and 1800 F-35s is a must if we want to still be a superpower and to replace aging F-15s and F-16s.

The USAF's superpower status is not defined by what fighter it is equiped with, hell its not even defined alone by its airforce. Even if the USAF decided it didnt wanna fight anyone anymore the global reach, persistance and capability of the USN would maintain the US's superpower status.

Anyway the platform is not the defineing factor in air combat capability. This isnt 1939 you know. With the wider USAF intergrated system with all of its C4ISR capability + persistance & projection tools (KC & C) even if the USAF was equiped with F-4's or MiG 29's it would still be the most powerfull airforce on the planet, by far (again the 2nd time i said something) and be capable of defeating any opposeing force and dominateing virtually any battlespace on the plannet given commitment. Therefore Tankers are far more important than what model fighter you have.

 

[Waylander]

The U.S. can afford more F-22s they just don't want to pay for it. Plus the more F-22s you buy then the lower the price will be.

Do they?
It is not as if the services have so much money that they don't know where to put it.
And are you willing to pay more taxes or see even more overall budget being reassigned to the armed forces?
And all this in the light of a glooming recession?

 

[gf0012-aust]

I'm afraid you guys misread my post.

I never said don't buy support aircraft I just said fighters are more important. 381 F-22s and 1800 F-35s is a must if we want to still be a superpower and to replace aging F-15s and F-16s.

Again I still think we should buy more tankers and transports but that does not mean there more important than fighters let alone bombers.

It would help if you correctly read everything that I said.

Perhaps you need to articulate your vision a bit more clearly then. The crux of your argument appears to take a warfighting platform centric view.

That in itself flies in the face of what constitutes US warfighting capability. Logistics defines capability as it governs the end game critical vectors of persistence, projection and gives comfort to political will and intent as well as platform reach

Thats why some countries are continental powers (eg china) some are inter theatre/global (concurrent capacity to fight geographically separated continental events) eg USA and some are regional (eg Brasil)

Pointy platforms are a small portion of the capability matrix, and an 80% increase in F-22's requires a significantly greater than 80% increase in the support tail. No support tail? - hello tarmac queen.

 

[swerve]

...
The U.S. can afford more F-22s they just don't want to pay for it. Plus the more F-22s you buy then the lower the price will be.

The lower the system unit price will be. The marginal unit price (the cost of building one more) isn't likely to come down much more than it already has done. The reduction in system unit price from buying more is merely because the fixed costs (development, etc) are spread over more units.

You seem to think that you can actually spend less money by buying more. Sorry, it doesn't work like that. Buying more always costs more: it's just that the ratio of what you pay to what you get improves.

 

[Sea Toby]

We are buying around 180 F-22s to replace very old F-15s. We are buying over 1700+ F-35s to replace F-16s and F-18s, among other aircraft such as the obsolete A-10s and ageing Harriers. How many nations have over 2000 aircraft in their air forces?

 

[Waylander]

That's exactly the point. I just don't get why some people are so afraid.

I mean the US dwarfs any possible enemy it could meat in the air with it's combination of numbers, capabilities and force multipliers.
And the Armed Forces as well as the US as a whole have much bigger problems right now than the purchase of some barely needed additional F-22s.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

We are buying around 180 F-22s to replace very old F-15s. We are buying over 1700+ F-35s to replace F-16s and F-18s, among other aircraft such as the obsolete A-10s and ageing Harriers. How many nations have over 2000 aircraft in their air forces?

We need more F-22s to replace the F-15s, 187 is not enough. Something more o the scale of 381 is enough. There are 3 reports from the Pentagon saying we need at least 220 F-22s but the USAF stills wants 381.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

Unfortunately, the US cannot afford more F-22s at $200 million an aircraft, so the USAF will have to settle for aircraft that run around $100 million or so. Not many nations will have 180 interceptors, much less over 1,000 F-35s. The simple truth is in the eyes of Congress and the government the US has too many aircraft as is. Especially when the US needs to replace its fleet of tankers and transport aircraft.

I think they need to replace there fighters as well because less face it the F-15 is from the 70's and if it was a car it would be labeled as an antique. What I think they need to do is to get a new joint strike fighter except this one is built primary for the role as an interceptor, instead of a land attack primary role like the F-35, this time they can put a little bit of more elements from the F-22 (Twin engine so on so on), and that way Australia Japan and Israel will be happy. Plus Turkey is going to have to replace it's F-4 and find a different interceptor soon.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

I think they need to replace there fighters as well because less face it the F-15 is from the 70's and if it was a car it would be labeled as an antique. What I think they need to do is to get a new joint strike fighter except this one is built primary for the role as an interceptor, instead of a land attack primary role like the F-35, this time they can put a little bit of more elements from the F-22 (Twin engine so on so on), and that way Australia Japan and Israel will be happy. Plus Turkey is going to have to replace it's F-4 and find a different interceptor soon.

F-35's prirmary role is not "land attack". Mutirole means A2A & A2G equally well. If its primary mission was attack, then it would be the A-35 not F-35 (F-111 & F-117 asside). Remember the F-35 will be the primary air superiority asset of the USN (in the foot steps of the mighty tomcat ) therefore its A2A capability is allready excellent, without modifications. The only real differences between the two (things that the F-35 does not have) are the high bypass ratio, TVC F-119 engine vs the low bypass ratio F-135/136 (which is much more powerfull anyway), and VLO that it optimised for a wider range of wavelengths. Everything else is comperable. Infact the F-35 will posess a number of systems that the F-22A will not, such as the (EO)DAS, EOTS & HUI that will all have a significant effect on A2A.

 

[Atilla [TR]]

F-35's prirmary role is not "land attack". Mutirole means A2A & A2G equally well. If its primary mission was attack, then it would be the A-35 not F-35 (F-111 & F-117 asside). Remember the F-35 will be the primary air superiority asset of the USN (in the foot steps of the mighty tomcat ) therefore its A2A capability is allready excellent, without modifications. The only real differences between the two (things that the F-35 does not have) are the high bypass ratio, TVC F-119 engine vs the low bypass ratio F-135/136 (which is much more powerfull anyway), and VLO that it optimised for a wider range of wavelengths. Everything else is comperable. Infact the F-35 will posess a number of systems that the F-22A will not, such as the (EO)DAS, EOTS & HUI that will all have a significant effect on A2A.

At least a dual engined version of a f-35 would be nice, longer range and better trust to weight more payload much much faster.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

At least a dual engined version of a f-35 would be nice, longer range and better trust to weight more payload much much faster.

2 F-135/6 engines would mean a whole new design and a drastic reduction in range. This would cost billions of dollars for a better T/W ratio and a drastic reduction in action radius and persistance (unless you increased the size of the platform by 1/3). So in addition to less much range (or a totlaly new platfrom) & billions of $$$ spent on aditional development, this would also drive the unit price up significantly and probably put the program back by about 3~5 years, all for better T/W & T/D ratio's.

It wouldnt nessisarilly have a much higher top speed anyway. Top sprint speed is not just a function of trust vs drag, inelt design has much to do with Mach 2+ performance. Thats why the F-14 & F-15 had variable geometry inlet design. However these inlets are not featured on the F-22 or F-35 because of the effect on frontal RCS (which is significant).

So you would pend all that money & time & sacrifice range and unit price, all for better acceleration??? Somehow that doesnt make any sence to me..

 

[Sea Toby]

Oh, I get it. You would rather fund all of the Raptors for the USAF and zero Lightnings for the Navy. GREAT! 11 aircraft carriers with no airplanes aboard. No naval aviation and the same for the USMC. Surely the USAF will have to have all of the reduced number of Lightnings too.

Sorry. I think Congress will think differently.

There is another thread about naval aviation getting fewer planes that its carrier air groups are becoming smaller and smaller. isn't it about time the USAF gets trimmed too.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I think they need to replace there fighters as well because less face it the F-15 is from the 70's and if it was a car it would be labeled as an antique. What I think they need to do is to get a new joint strike fighter except this one is built primary for the role as an interceptor, instead of a land attack primary role like the F-35, this time they can put a little bit of more elements from the F-22 (Twin engine so on so on), and that way Australia Japan and Israel will be happy. Plus Turkey is going to have to replace it's F-4 and find a different interceptor soon.

The F-35 is not a attack aircraft, its a muti-role strike fighter like the F-15E, F/A-18, F-16, F-22, Eurofighter and Su-30/35. It does both ATA and ATG missions. I have no idea really why people still call the F-35 a bomber only aircraft, I'm cluless on that. But I still agree with you, we need more 5th generation fighters, not repairing old 4th generation F-15s from the 70s and 80s.

Remember the F-35 will be the primary air superiority asset of the USN (in the foot steps of the mighty tomcat ) therefore its A2A capability is allready excellent, without modifications.

Yes the F-35C will be the primary air superiority jet for the U.S. Navy along with the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet. I also see the F-22 and F-35 working together to achive air superiority for the USAF, they will both be the primary ATA fighter for the USAF.

On a different note: I'm also woundering how many Super Hornets does the U.S. Navy currently have, and how many are they plaining to build? I'm thinking somewere like 460 Super Hornets plus 90 E/A-18s.

Oh, I get it. You would rather fund all of the Raptors for the USAF and zero Lightnings for the Navy. GREAT! 11 aircraft carriers with no airplanes aboard. No naval aviation and the same for the USMC. Surely the USAF will have to have all of the reduced number of Lightnings too.

Sorry. I think Congress will think differently.

There is another thread about naval aviation getting fewer planes that its carrier air groups are becoming smaller and smaller. isn't it about time the USAF gets trimmed too.

Nobody ever said cancel the F-35 order or cut the U.S. Navy fighter fleet. Or for that matter, they are never going to cut the USAF fleet ether. The U.S. needs to build more fighters and the U.S. Navy does too, so there wont be any cuts because no one in D.C. or the Pentagon wants to even think about defense cuts.

 

[Sea Toby]

I have hopes that once the tanker and transport aircraft programs are completed, they might be able to re-open the Raptor line with even more improvements. But until then, the air force needs to concentrate on the Lightning IIs. Keep in mind the F-15Es were the last Eagles built, and are not that old yet.

I trust the air force built enough Raptors to replace the Nighthawks. The Lightning IIs from what I have heard are better than the earlier versions of the Eagles, and better than any Falcon or Hornet.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have hopes that once the tanker and transport aircraft programs are completed, they might be able to re-open the Raptor line with even more improvements. But until then, the air force needs to concentrate on the Lightning IIs. Keep in mind the F-15Es were the last Eagles built, and are not that old yet.

I trust the air force built enough Raptors to replace the Nighthawks. The Lightning IIs from what I have heard are better than the earlier versions of the Eagles, and better than any Falcon or Hornet.

Do you know what will replace the F-15E? Could it be a FB-22 by building 80-100 of them? Maybe the F-35 since it is better than the F-15 and has already been built.

 

[Sea Toby]

I have read what you have, and that the Pentagon and this government wants to end the program at 180 aircraft. The GAO didn't even want to start the F-22 program. Neither political party wants to build more aircraft at $200 million a copy. Only Georgia congressman.

But you never know what the next government will do. I would not say the Raptor program in the future won't return.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The F-35 is not a attack aircraft, its a muti-role strike fighter like the F-15E, F/A-18, F-16, F-22, Eurofighter and Su-30/35. It does both ATA and ATG missions. I have no idea really why people still call the F-35 a bomber only aircraft, I'm cluless on that. But I still agree with you, we need more 5th generation fighters, not repairing old 4th generation F-15s from the 70s and 80s.

The only ones I've seen who call it a "bomber" are kids and screen scrapers.

It does however fulfill an attack role - it's designed to be a multi-role, multi-mission platform, so can do attack profiles.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I have read what you have, and that the Pentagon and this government wants to end the program at 180 aircraft. The GAO didn't even want to start the F-22 program. Neither political party wants to build more aircraft at $200 million a copy. Only Georgia congressman.

But you never know what the next government will do. I would not say the Raptor program in the future won't return.

Well at least their still going to build the F-35 and the new 2018 bomber.

As I have said this many times before the F-35 can internally carry 4-6 AAMs for air superiority missions or 2-8 bombs and 2 AAMs for deep strike missions. Externally you can carry many more AAMs to barrage the enemy air force or carry more bombs and carpet bomb the place, it has a bigger payload than legacy fighters and even the F-22.

The F-35 has more internal fuel and less drag so it has longer range than the F-15. The F-15 pilots are told not to go past Mach 1.5 1000mph(even though they never go past Mach 1.6 in combat) but the F-35 can go up to 1200mph or Mach 1.8 so technically the F-35 is faster.

The F-35 is better than the F-15 but it wont be in service until 2013 at the earliest and the F-15s need to be replaced now and the only aircraft in production now is the F-22. But the USAF will only get 187 F-22s, so I hope the F-35 is worth the almost $1 trillion that we will pay for it.

 

[gf0012-aust]

The F-35 has more internal fuel and less drag so it has longer range than the F-15. The F-15 pilots are told not to go past Mach 1.5 1000mph(even though they never go past Mach 1.6 in combat) but the F-35 can go up to 1200mph or Mach 1.8 so technically the F-35 is faster.

The F-35 is better than the F-15 but it wont be in service until 2013 at the earliest and the F-15s need to be replaced now and the only aircraft in production now is the F-22. But the USAF will only get 187 F-22s, so I hope the F-35 is worth the almost $1 trillion that we will pay for it.

technical superiority is based on platform deliverables against a tasking profile. its got nothing to do with max operational deployment speed.

Thats why everyone moved away from building mach 2+ manned aircraft in the 80's. The quality and expectations paradigm shifted 30 years ago.

Speed is relative to requirement - and companion asset impact.