F-22 - Worth It?

[TeaAndScones]

I think everyone can agree the F-22 is one of the greatest leaps in aircraft design texhnology. Combining stealth and agility and situational awareness all into one package. However, that's all very well and good, but did we need it?

 

The F-22 was concieved through the ATF program, which was at the response of a hypothetical Russian super-fighter. (From what I've heard) Of course, this never came to be. Plus, soon after, the Soviet Union collapsed, and the threat of a new super-fighter gone with it. So the F-22 was still evaluated and built anyway. But its purpose was gone.

 

Although Russia is now working on the PAK-FA, they're not so much a volatile country as they used to be. (They're actually quite poor relative to USA.) They're probably just working on a fighter to defend their own country with. Today, North Korea is the big worry, especially after a few days ago, after they threatened the US with force after B-52's were discovered near Korean airspace.

 

Although N. Korea's nuclear capabilities are unquestionable, their air force is something else. It consists mainly of MIG-21's and -23's, and a few -29's. Even our F-15's and F-16's could take them.

 

All I'm saying is, is that does the US need that firepower? Its a little bit overkill in my opinion. It's also cost the tax payer millions of dollars, for an aircraft that in the eight years its been in service, the closest its ever been to combat is escorting a TU-95 away from American Airspace. (F-4' were soing that in the 70's, I mean come on.) Not to mention, the US has had plenty of oppertunities to showcase its combat capability in many recent conflicts, such as the 2011 Libyan campaign, which brings into question why they're so shy about bringing out their big toys to play.

 

Its probably had more use in its use in airshows and license for use in Video Games than in actual combat. In today's world, maybe it would have been more economical to produce the F-22 in smaller numbers, (If they're so good anyway, why do we need 187 of them?), and followed up with the F-35 as top priority. (If they hadn't of cocked it up so much.)

 

Please post your opinions. :)

[Stipe]

Totally agree.

[+MigBuster]

Okay - no such thing as overkill in war - the objective is to wipe them out with minimum casualties to yourself - especially in today's political climate where casualties are not tolerated as much by the populous.

 

The F-22A is in service - so the point of whether its needed is mute

 

So what service did the F-106A see exactly - was that not required?

 

Deterrent is also a useful tool.

 

The technology developed has been built upon to go into the F-35 - it is in the US interests to keep a lead in the field for many reasons

 

The program was capped at ~187 which is a tiny number (note 554 x F-16s written off since 1978) - it s silver bullet force - why risk one getting shot down over NK or Libya where they are not really required.

 

The F-22A replaced the F-117A also - why do people get hung up on the notion of air combat without realising that the F-22 can get past modern double digit defences far easier than any 4th gen crap.

 

 

Russia - no longer the USSR (Soviet empire) - is a lot poorer sure - but potentially the PAK-FA gives them a superior fighter than any legacy F-15s given the right avionics and engine.

 

China are not exactly poor - see the flying prototypes for the J-20 and J-31

 

The USAF develops systems with the future in mind - you cant just develop something that advanced if its suddenly required in a few weeks - and you cant just assume NK will be the next war.

[+JediMaster]

The F-22 is not there to shoot down enemy "F-22s." It is there to defend friendly bombers and shoot down enemy MiGs over heavily-SAM defended territory without worrying so much about said SAMs.

 

Just because the other guy's planes aren't as great doesn't mean he doesn't have better SAMs.

 

Forget about how good their planes are, it's irrelevant. Yes, our F-15s are likely still better than their planes, but it doesn't matter if the F-15 is better when it gets nailed by an SA-20 long before it can fire on their MiGs, does it?

 

As for the F-35, the entire reason the F-22 program was capped where it was supposedly was so the funds could be diverted to the F-35 and get it done faster. That sure worked well, didn't it? The F-35 was supposed to cost between $30-45m each, depending on model. They're currently costing the SAME as the F-22s that were coming off the line at the end ($140m), and they do even LESS than the F-22s can do, and the F-22s are still getting upgraded to do more.

 

Building fewer F-22s after all the R&D was spent wouldn't have saved much at all. Building more of them would probably have been a smart bet, one reason the F-22 hasn't been used yet (among many) is the whole "why waste such an expensive plane in a place that cheaper could do?" We don't want to risk losing an F-22 in a dumb non-combat mishap when other planes can handle what's going just fine. After all, Libya was a joke in both air defense and fighter forces, why would the F-22 be needed? Likewise Iraq and Afghan resistance was too small for that.

 

In simple terms, the "expensive" F-22 program, with a plane that worked, was cut short to help out the "cheaper" F-35 program and that has NOT worked because the F-35 program was designed with a fundamental flaw--that we could build a plane from the first example to a production standard. Instead, the F-35 is equivalent to every plane that came before it, with problems found during testing that need reworking and other fixes, extensive computer modeling helped out ZERO in that case, and now the entire program is screwed up because of that mistake...and make no mistake, that IS the fundamental problem with it. Had a standard "design it, build it, test it, fix it, put it in production" pattern been used, the program would've taken longer (in the initial estimates, ironically it will probably take LONGER this way) and certainly would've been cheaper (although the estimates were this way was to have been cheaper).

[+ST0RM]

It's already bought and paid for. Having it as a hip-pocket asset is always something to keep the next guy guessing it good. It forces them to try and counter that next move.

 

Now, has the USAF pissed away it's capabilities. Yes! I dont agree on how restrictive they have been with it. Sending it into places to "project power"? It has yet to be tried under any type of combat. It missed Libya in fear of it's technology being lost and has yet to be seen over Afghanistan. It's got a bomb dropping capability but...

 

Is it worth it? Yes. The Eagles are old and the numbers have been severely reduced. We need a fighter than can lead the others into a high threat environment. Should we have purchased more? Yes, but Lock-Mart failed to deliver on their contract and we had to cut the numbers to afford what we did get. Sound familiar?

 

-S

[+streakeagle]

There is always an opportunity cost.

If you don't build strong enough defenses, you may tempt an enemy into a war he thinks he can win.

If you build your defenses too strong, you may bankrupt your country.

Clearly, the US realized the situation resulting from the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Nearly every major program was cancelled.

Sea Wolf subs: only 3 built.

Commanche LHX: never went into production.

The F-22 had already reached prototype in the early 90s, so it was "finished", but with a production of only 200 compared to the original intentions of 800 then 400.

The F-15 and F-16 were needed not just to overcome design limitations, but because the F-4 fleet burned up their flight hours in Vietnam.

While the F-22 might be "overkill" in terms of its price/effectiveness compared to the enemy, the F-15 and F-16 fleet at best is close in performance to the Su-27/MiG-29 fleet AND over thirty years old!

The Navy was far more practical in replacing aging aircraft with an evolved, cheaper F/A-18E/F Hornet, but the Su-27 can literally fly rings around an F/A-18E based on power/weight and wing loading.

The only way to know for sure which path was the correct one in major national decisions would be to have alternate time lines to see the consequences.

Anything else, even "20/20 hindsight", is nothing more than pure speculation.

Has the United States wasted a lot of money topping off the treasure chests of defense contractors since the end of WW2? Most certainly.

But somewhere along the way, a NATO/Warsaw Pact World War 3 was avoided and the enemy completely collapsed economically.

[+acesfakia]

...i just want ...to say ...that in the red flag...the HAF was there...and the first day.....!!!!!.....was shoot down a f-22...from a greek f-16 52+......from the rear and back....!!!!!

....that is a fact.....!

I can say it because...was my friend....the pilot..!!

It is a nice future plane....but...shoot it down...by a f-16 52+.....

Nobody was expect it....that....!! And from that day ...the f-22...was not in the red flag....!This happen before some time....now a year ago..

[+Zurawski]

War is about attrition... The side that can inflict greatest damage to the enemy with the least amount of collateral, military and civilian loss it the winner.

 

The F-22 ensures full and complete air superiority...

 

The premise of "more-than-enough" is a feel good sentiment born from a society that has lost appreciation for the freedom born from complacency.

 

IMHO...

[+MigBuster]

...i just want ...to say ...that in the red flag...the HAF was there...and the first day.....!!!!!.....was shoot down a f-22...from a greek f-16 52+......from the rear and back....!!!!!

....that is a fact.....!

I can say it because...was my friend....the pilot..!!

It is a nice future plane....but...shoot it down...by a f-16 52+.....

Nobody was expect it....that....!! And from that day ...the f-22...was not in the red flag....!This happen before some time....now a year ago..

 

...........and that what - makes the score about 400 for 2 for the F-22 in exercises

[+KnightWolf45]

if you want peace prepare war thats an old roman saying the got 3 centurys of peace in Europe wend did we ever got that much peace againg?

why beacouse they prepare and have a big well expensive army wend they got it donw rome got the boot!

[+acesfakia]

...ok...but ..if some one early plane ..2 gen,,,can shoot down it...just image....what can do it ...the russian's....3 o 4 th gen.....

Now all tthe war's are ....in the Monitor...with a satelite....!

[+ST0RM]

...ok...but ..if some one early plane ..2 gen,,,can shoot down it...just image....what can do it ...the russian's....3 o 4 th gen.....

Now all tthe war's are ....in the Monitor...with a satelite....!

 

Nobody has ever claimed it was unbeatable. In fact it's not even a real dogfighter. It's meant more in an interceptor role, to sit at altitude, nearly invisible and clear out enemy jets. It's been proven that in a turn fight, it can be beat by a good pilot. The Super Hornet did it, the Brits and Germans in the Typhoon and now your HAF claim. I'll buy it. But a determined and well trained pilot in a decent jet, like the Blk52 Viper, can beat it.

 

I knew a F-15E pilot who was on exchange with the GAF flying the Tornado IDS at Buchel. Not a dogfighter at all, but he got several gun kills on MiG-21s during a joint exercise. My point being that everything can be beat if you are determined and are trained well.

 

-S

[+MigBuster]

...ok...but ..if some one early plane ..2 gen,,,can shoot down it...just image....what can do it ...the russian's....3 o 4 th gen.....

Now all tthe war's are ....in the Monitor...with a satelite....!

 

Unfortunately its completely irrelevant and tells us nothing in regards to an actual dynamic war situation

 

Also irrelevant - but anyway the F-16C B52 is classified as a 4th Gen jet, the other Jet rumoured to have won in an exercise was an EA-18G which is a 4.5 Gen jet

[+Typhoid]

Nothing is ever worth the co$t before the shooting starts. After the shooting starts, the cost is never too high.

 

If you don't have it in place before the shooting starts, it's too late to go get it.

[+JediMaster]

Especially today. The days of churning out carriers and planes by the thousands within a year after a war starting are long gone. Today you have to plan for your war 20 years in advance.

[+Gepard]

The F-22 is a technical masterpiece.

But the battleships between WW1 and 2 were technical masterpieces too. And they had nearly no effect on WW2 warfare.

The same is with the F-22. No really need in the real world. A nice to have, but how many soldiers life saved the F-22 in AFG or Iraq? In contrast to the old and outdated non glamorous A-10.

[+Typhoid]

The F-22 is a technical masterpiece.

But the battleships between WW1 and 2 were technical masterpieces too. And they had nearly no effect on WW2 warfare.

The same is with the F-22. No really need in the real world. A nice to have, but how many soldiers life saved the F-22 in AFG or Iraq? In contrast to the old and outdated non glamorous A-10.

 

How well wil the A-10 do against late model Flanker series fighter opposition?

 

If you have a fantastic crystal ball that can determine for certain that we will never, ever face fighter opposition anywhere, then perhaps we don't the F-22, F-35's, F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. How well does your crystal ball work on stock picks.....................?

 

So far as the Battleships in WWII - quite a lot of soldiers who were supported by or engaged by shore bombardment in amphibious landings might disagree with you! Not to mention all the aircraft the BB's shot down while screening the fast carrier task forces.

[+Gepard]

How well wil the A-10 do against late model Flanker series fighter opposition?

 

If you have a fantastic crystal ball that can determine for certain that we will never, ever face fighter opposition anywhere, then perhaps we don't the F-22, F-35's, F-15's, F-16's and F-18's. How well does your crystal ball work on stock picks.....................?

 

So far as the Battleships in WWII - quite a lot of soldiers who were supported by or engaged by shore bombardment in amphibious landings might disagree with you! Not to mention all the aircraft the BB's shot down while screening the fast carrier task forces.

 

Some true arguments, but how often the A-10 has faced Su-27 opposition in the last 10 years?

 

And the battle ships were never used in the role they were intended when they were built.

[Derk]

...ok...but ..if some one early plane ..2 gen,,,can shoot down it...just image....what can do it ...the russian's....3 o 4 th gen.....

Now all tthe war's are ....in the Monitor...with a satelite....!

It could have been shot down by a Meteor or a Hunter, anything with guns. Not important, no reason to think that you can handle it by just fielding enough F 16's.............

[+MigBuster]

Some true arguments, but how often the A-10 has faced Su-27 opposition in the last 10 years?

 

And the battle ships were never used in the role they were intended when they were built.

 

Well the Taliban, Iraq (2003) etc have not had any air power to throw up - but there are air forces with such threat aircraft (and many other types) in existence - its not a hypothetical threat

 

If you read the thread its totally irrelevant what is being faced now - its whats required in the future that matters.

 

The Battleship was rendered obsolete by the aircraft carrier (even more technically advanced) - the last being built in the 40s then the concept was scrapped

 

When something comes along and renders stealth obsolete then you can that analogy - but I don't see how you can use it here.

Edited March 25, 2013 by MigBuster

[+Typhoid]

Some true arguments, but how often the A-10 has faced Su-27 opposition in the last 10 years?

 

And the battle ships were never used in the role they were intended when they were built.

 

irrelevant. It is what the future may hold that one plans forces for.

 

And actually, the battleships were used in several engagements, particularly in the Solomons and PI invasion. That they were not used as originally intended does not mean they weren't useful and did not perform a vital service.

 

Things do change and what one builds something for may not be how that something is eventually used. But if you need it and don't have it, you are SOL.

Edited March 26, 2013 by Typhoid

[+Julhelm]

F-35 does a lot more things than the F-22 - for example the entire deep strike mission which the F-22 can't do since it lacks a bay large enough to carry anything other than SDB's. Arguably the F-35 will also turn out to be more than a match for any opposition in BVR & WVR combat since it has unlimited situational awareness courtesy of EODAS.

[+Gepard]

For the future the F-22 is not good enough. It has its advantages only by their stealth potential. In WVR dogfights it is beaten very often. Eurofighter had done it and F-16s too.

You will answer, the F-22 is intended to fight from distance. But this is only possible as long the enemy has no stealth planes.

The PAK FA is said to have the same stealth factor as the F-22. If this is true, then the time of BVR superiority for the USAF is gone. Then WVR dogfights will be again. And this is a job the F-22 cant really do.

 

But this is an hypothetical scenario. Which major Air Force could face the US. Russia? China? Forget it.

The danger of today and tomorrow will be assymetrical. No high tech fighter planes but gras root terrorists. Good luck with the F-22.

100 newly build state of the art A-10 would be much more better.

[+JediMaster]

Will everyone STOP with the irrelevancy? This is irritating me beyond belief. Why do you continue to harp on the thing that matters least?

 

The F-22 is not supposed to be the "best fighter against other fighters." That is NOT the idea, so STOP saying "oh, it fails at this," because that's not its mission!! It's not supposed to go up and get in dogfights with every enemy plane out there in 1 v 100 scenarios.

 

It's supposed to be a stealthy missile carrier! It's supposed to go up and fight about as well as an F-15 in DENIED airspace. What the hell good is your F-15 or F-16 with its "superior" dogfighting ability if the stupid thing is shot down an SA-xx long before it gets in range of the enemy fighters?

 

It's stealthy AGAINST GROUND DEFENSES...why? Because 95% of US fighter losses in the past 50 years have been to SAMs and AAA, so don't you think that's worth guarding against? Being able to fight on even terms with an enemy fighter in airspace that is 100% lethal to any other allied platform is what it's all about!

 

No, everyone would rather argue about angels dancing on pinheads, sorry, I mean how it will perform against some other as-yet not-in-production POSSIBLY-as-good-as-F-22 plane. Anyone can make a prototype. Make an operationally viable force that is an actual threat and THEN we can compare it to what the F-22 can do. BTW, I'm putting the F-35 in that because it's not in service yet either as apparently the program managers there expected godlike abilities from their programmers and when they failed to be Hercules-at-the-keyboard, the entire program fell down and is still trying to recover.

 

I suppose the F-117 was a major failure because we didn't have a fleet of hundreds of them to carpet bomb Iraq in 1991? I mean, that's what bombers do, right? Look at WWII!! The B-17 and B-24 worked that way, but the F-117 couldn't, so it must have been a big fail.

[+ST0RM]

Will everyone STOP with the irrelevancy? This is irritating me beyond belief. Why do you continue to harp on the thing that matters least?

 

My p***s is bigger than yours.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Probably not...