Budget Cuts : Raptor Or Jsf

[Burncycle360]

F-23? I say we can afford a 100% cut in the F-23, since there's no such thing.

 

The YF-23 was the competitor to the F-22 during the ATF program. It lost and went to the boneyard.

 

Did you mean the F-35?

Nah, he was replying to a comment I made smitty

 

We've painted ourselves into a corner.

 

That is SOP my friend

[V42]

F-23?  I say we can afford a 100% cut in the F-23, since there's no such thing.

 

Did you mean the F-35?

130168[/snapback]

 

Yes, the F35. It was early and I was posting quickly before leaving for work.

[Brad F]

I don’t think most people understand the CONOPS of the F/A-22 and the F/A-35 and how they are interrelated. To put it simply, the F-22 is the catalyst for US armed forces power projection because it is the linchpin for SEAD/DEAD/Destruction of C4ISTAR. You simply cannot expect BAI platforms such as the F-35/F-18E-G/F-16C-E etc. and conventional interdiction platforms such as the F-15E/F-117 to be able to operate in very high threat environments with double digit SAM/Su-3X (or LFI/PAK-FA) woven into netcentric IADS. Not only will those aircraft require support from jamming/decoy/AWAC assets, current VLO airframes such as the B-2 and F-117 need raptor support because longwave IRST technology is getting much better, and mobile SAM threats (ie pop up attacks) that led to a F-117 shoot down over Serbia are inevitable. Note the F-117 doesn’t have anything like the B-2’s APR-50 DMS or the ALR-94 on the F-22 to counter the pop up or hidden SAM threats.

 

Again the comparison between the F-22 and F-35 need to be examined closely. The F-35 is a BAI optimized airframe, including subsonic cruise and maneuvering envelope, coupled w/ narrow band LO features with a inverse “pac man” shapped RCS polar profile tuned to defeat X and Ku threats. The LO treatments are also optimized for economy of production and exportability, hence the narrow band emphasis.

 

The F-22 has had considerable mission creep since its inception. While its airframe is optimized for the deep penetration SSC attacks deep into central Europe (AWACS killer), it retains a considerable A-G ability. The vast majority of the F-35 A-G systems such as EOTS and DAS are spin offs of current systems (EOTS is based on the Sniper XL) and thus aren’t unique to the program. The only real advantage the F-35 has at this point is the ability to carry 2000lb rather than 1000lb bombs, and even this could be addressed in follow on blocks of raptors. Most infurstructure/IADS targets don’t require 2000lbs class weapons, and the GBU-32 w/ a BUP was designed for the F-22, giving it robust harden target abilities.

 

SSC is such an advantage that it is literally like going from the propeller to the jet engine in the late 1940s. It gives you so much in terms of pole energy for not only your missiles but also your winged and ballistic gravity weapons. Also nearly as importantly, it gives you the ability to deny an engagement altogether, simply run around BARCAP/HAVCAPs. Lastly it gives you the energy to react to inbound threats if you are counter detected. Finally, it gives you higher sortie generation since the F-22 and F-35 are both nominally ~600nm radius airplanes with 2 bombs and defensive missiles (the vast majority of deep interdiction strikes rarely had more than two bombs, unless it’s a bomber), but with a large SS persistence in the F-22 you can seriously increase your war winning sortie rates, even if you are airframe deficient. Coupled with wide band VLO with small 4 RCS spikes on your RCS polar gives you an absolutely winning combination.

 

Team Rapture is absolutely whipping up on the 422nd F-15/16s but unfortunately, the USAF really should have demoed the ability to attack IADS. That would have been very classified stuff but to the Senate Armed Services Committee it would have shown beyond a doubt the real capabilities of the airplane. Crushing OpFor aggressors 385-1 is impressive, but even as people here seem to think that the killing fighters is only a “cold war” mission. What is a “Cold War” mission anyway? The ability to defeat high end threats? Duh, I think that’s a capability we’d like to have in the future, we don’t know who is going to be our trading partner today and our enemy tomorrow. If Rumsfeld really wanted to skip generations (and destroy the R&D and procurement process, broken as it is), then F-35 should have been axed. What is it giving us that we don’t all ready have? With UCAVs coming real soon, on a nearly parallel developmental timeline, we sure don’t need it to drop bombs. For CAS missions? Why do we need a $50+ million dollar airframe to do that? So our flyboys can keep their jobs. If you really want to streamline the military you do like the airlines are trying to do, you move to common airframes. It would be cheaper to kill the JSF, go with more raptors, dump the JSF R&D money into UCAV, personnel (hello remember we have people that need to pay bills) bombers and munitions. That would give you the same or more capabilities that you’d have w/ F-22/F-35 + legacy mix. Remember, the F-22 WILL NOT cost double the F-35, it will cost, at most $20M an airframe. The JSF is a nominal $250 Billion project that is facing complexities similar to the F-22 (double the amount of code for instance), it WILL get more expensive.

 

I just hope that A.) Rumsfeld leaves within a year as been speculated B.) They get this embarrassing Iraqi fiasco under control (along with our national budget) so they can get back to hopefully the –280 before the line closes.

 

Brad

[Ol Paint]

Brad,

 

Excellent post, but there are too many aircraft that need a JSF replacement--the STOVL version, primarily--to permit axing the program. However, if the USAF were to withdraw from the program, or scale back their involvement, they might free up enough money to purchase the needed numbers of F-22s. The USN has to have a second string to its bow, or a problem requiring grounding of the F/A-18E/F could cause a crisis, and the STOVL JSF is the only program out there to replace the AV-8B for the RN and USMC (and the Spanish and...) This is what is putting the F-22 in a bind: no "jointness." The F-22 can get flogged as "it's only the silly AF zoomies that WANT it, we have all these other people that NEED the JSF," pulling on heartstrings rather than relying on analysis of missions.

 

Is the F/A-18E signifcantly stealthier from the forward aspect than the F-16 (enough to make a tactical difference)? If it is, and the AF really needs a stealthier F-16 replacement, perhaps this would be a better choice. The infrastructure replacement (spares, tooling, etc.) to complete the change might not be worth it from a total-cost standpoint.

 

[Edit: As an aside, the Indian Navy seems to have wised up to the "dead end" of STOVL fighters. Although they are tactically valuable, the STOVL market seems to be too small to support the continued development of such aircraft. They've gotten around this by going to STOBAR carriers with MiG-29s--I wonder how much this consideration played in their decision?]

 

Douglas

[Josh]

The point is, the F-22 is developed and while the AF could theoretically back out of the F-35, the other versions of the plane *will* be developed--and their version is, ironically, the simplest and cheapest of the marks. At this point the question is largely how much money the USAF has and how they want to allocate it to the flyaway costs of two different a/c, because both a/c either have or will be developed. All the USAF can really decide on is the mix--and I suspect that while the F-22's capabilities are too good to completely pass up, the F-35's price is equally two good to pass up.

[Rubberneck]

I also like how the Air Force added the "A" to the nomenclature so it's the F/A-22.

 

Anything to keep the program open.

[tanker_karl]

What is the cost impact of the US Navy ordering 1,200 JSF instead of 1,700 ?

 

I understand R&D is amortized over a lower number of airframes, but I neither know the R&D total amount, nor the expected overall production run for JSF (including the USAF, US Navy, USMC, UK, Italy,...). Does anyone have an estimate for that ?

 

Also, when it comes to flyaway cost (R&D exclusive), would the drop from 1,700 to 1,200 have a significant impact ? Then again, I understand fixed production costs (e.g. machinery) would be amortized over a smaller volume, but I have no idea of how the manufacturing costs splits between fixed and variable throughout the supply chain.

 

Also note that fixed costs may be actually be considered as variable (once a certain threshold is reached, you might need to add fixed costs such as production equipment to satisfy any further increase in the quantities produced).

 

While I doubt there are precise information out there on manufacturing costs breakdown, someone may have done some estimates.

[swerve]

<snip> and the STOVL JSF is the only program out there to replace the AV-8B for the RN and USMC (and the Spanish and...)  <snip>

 

[Edit:  As an aside, the Indian Navy seems to have wised up to the "dead end" of STOVL fighters.  Although they are tactically valuable, the STOVL market seems to be too small to support the continued development of such aircraft.  They've gotten around this by going to STOBAR carriers with MiG-29s--I wonder how much this consideration played in their decision?]

 

Douglas

 

Interesting question. Another one is how much it cost to develop a carrier-capable MiG-29.

 

I suspect the lack of future of the Harrier (reached the end of its development potential), the long time before the F-35 will be available, & an unwillingness to be dependent upon the USA as a sole-source supplier of naval fighters were all factors. The new ship(s) to accompany the Gorshkov appear likely to be based on the Cavour, but bigger - design is being overseen by the Cavours builders. Both Gorshkov & the new ship(s) should be big enough to operate Rafales, so they have an alternative to Russia for planes if necessary. And Russia needs India as an arms market more than India needs Russia as an arms supplier, so there's very little risk of political pressure being exerted by Russia via arms sales.

[Smitty]

I also like how the Air Force added the "A" to the nomenclature so it's the F/A-22.

 

Anything to keep the program open.

 

 

Or, perhaps, to reflect the changing mission of the aircraft.

[Tony Williams]

I also like how the Air Force added the "A" to the nomenclature so it's the F/A-22.

 

Particularly since the primarily strike-oriented JSF is still just known as the F-35...

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and Discussion forum

[swerve]

Or, perhaps, to reflect the changing mission of the aircraft.

130864[/snapback]

 

F-100 - most of its career as primarily strike

F-104G - mixed role

F-105 - primarily strike

F-111 - primarily strike

F-4 - mixed role

F-16 - mixed role

F-117 - entirely strike

F-35 - primarily strike

 

I don't see any As in those designations. It breaks the rules of nomenclature established when the joint USN/USAF system was established. It sounds silly if said out loud ("F stroke A 22"). It looks silly.

 

Purely political, a la F-18. I refuse to use it, & will stick with F-18 & F-22. If the projected bomber derivative of the F-22 is built (a good idea, I think - what says the forum?) & called FB-22, as suggested, I'll use that. But I'll never call it an F/B-22.

[Smitty]

I don't see any As in those designations. It breaks the rules of nomenclature established when the joint USN/USAF system was established. It sounds silly if said out loud ("F stroke A 22"). It looks silly.

 

 

I agree it is political, and awkward, but it's part of a concerted effort to combat the misconception that the F-22 is an air superiority aircraft only.

[Daan]

I believe that the total F-15 losses in Iraq were, let me check my figures here, Zero.

 

No, three F-15Es have been shot down (lost in combat) so far:

 

18 Jan 1991 88-1689 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

20 Jan 1991 88-1692 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

07 Apr 2003 88-1694 SJ 335 EFS Combat Loss (Operation 'Iraqi Freedom')

 

According to http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/

[Brad F]

Brad,

 

Excellent post, but there are too many aircraft that need a JSF replacement--the STOVL version, primarily--to permit axing the program.  However, if the USAF were to withdraw from the program, or scale back their involvement, they might free up enough money to purchase the needed numbers of F-22s.  The USN has to have a second string to its bow, or a problem requiring grounding of the F/A-18E/F could cause a crisis, and the STOVL JSF is the only program out there to replace the AV-8B for the RN and USMC (and the Spanish and...)  This is what is putting the F-22 in a bind:  no "jointness."  The F-22 can get flogged as "it's only the silly AF zoomies that WANT it, we have all these other people that NEED the JSF," pulling on heartstrings rather than relying on analysis of missions.

 

Is the F/A-18E signifcantly stealthier from the forward aspect than the F-16 (enough to make a tactical difference)?  If it is, and the AF really needs a stealthier F-16 replacement, perhaps this would be a better choice.  The infrastructure replacement (spares, tooling, etc.) to complete the change might not be worth it from a total-cost standpoint.

 

[Edit:  As an aside, the Indian Navy seems to have wised up to the "dead end" of STOVL fighters.  Although they are tactically valuable, the STOVL market seems to be too small to support the continued development of such aircraft.  They've gotten around this by going to STOBAR carriers with MiG-29s--I wonder how much this consideration played in their decision?]

 

Douglas

130745[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Hi Douglas,

 

I would say that the too many foreign aircraft need replacement. You look at how NAVAIR has literally fallen from grace (and still falling, now they are looking at roughly the same number of cut raptors ~180 airframes). The Supper horror was shown up again and again during OIF by the aircraft its supposed to replace in just about every measure save MX. The Clinton Administration gave them a choice between the SH and A/F-X so they went with a supped down short legged strike platform that had a once over and was sent out the door The Marines want a STOVL replacement, which is fine they need one and the F-35B probably fits this well. Let these two carry the program along with foreign investment. the USAF doesn't need it.

 

I think your spot on regarding the lack of jointness in the F-22. This airplane has so much "US only" spec equipment and capability that it’s very doubtful that anyone, save England, would be cleared to get the full spec airplane. Even then, the “export” version may only be cleared to very select few, Japan perhaps, or Australia. The USAF is their own worst enemy, they are trying to hold its true capabilities close to their chest (normally not a bad idea) but in the process they are doing a lousy job of selling this thing to congress, who in reality are the only ones who can kill the airplane.

 

I have sincere doubts that the SH has a significant RCS advantage over Have Glass II –16s with weapons and tanks. However, you do see panel alignment in the SH which is a critical design element for reducing X/Ku signature. Its been reported that the SH has a frontal RCS signature of 0dBsm, or 1m2. I’m sure that as you move off the frontal aspect even small amounts this figure jumps significantly. Because the SH is the only “conventional” Gen 3-4 platform to exhibit this, I find it very difficult that the Typhoon or Rafale are exhibiting –5 to even –10dBsm (0.5-0.1m2) reduction across the frontal aspect. The RAM would have to be thick and extensive. Lossy laminates do a good job when they are properly designed into the airframe with proper shaping, but it takes very thick applications to make any sort of dent in RCS without these design elements which goes down the toilet with external stores. I think the USAF would be bettered suited to sticking with the F-16, with upgrades, until UCAVs proliferate into the service. One problem they are facing now is that these damned things are getting expensive too. The flip side is you don’t have to fly them nearly as much, and you don’t have 1 or 1.5 pilots per airframe, perhaps a tenth of that.

 

Another point to consider is the attrition rate from Class 1 mishaps is significantly higher for the single engine F-16 vs. the two engine F-15. This is the primary reason the USN has too engines for blue water ops. Another CONOPS requirement flushed to shoe horn this political program down the services throats. The USAF has created this monster and I’m sure they’d like to slay it.

 

Brad

[pluto77189]

No, three F-15Es have been shot down (lost in combat) so far:

 

18 Jan 1991 88-1689 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

20 Jan 1991 88-1692 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

07 Apr 2003 88-1694 SJ 335 EFS Combat Loss (Operation 'Iraqi Freedom')

 

According to http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/

131016[/snapback]

 

 

Shot down by SAM's. Vietnam era SAMs. Imagine if they were using something the Russians made within the last 20 years? They have some nasty stuff now, comprable to te patriot Pac-3( which I believe is very close to a 100% hit rate on enemy missles and friendly aircraft...sept that one F-16 that got lucky)

 

they have some Sams designed to take out E-3's with 200 miles range.

 

The F-15's will be very vulnerable to them, and would be severly limited in their ability to perform over enemy territory. The F-22 not only will be hard to detect by fighters, but also(and more importantly)enemy radar and SAM defense. It's supercruise will give it's already small radar signature a much smaller window for SAM's to attack it.

 

F-15's and F-16's have never been shot down by enemy aircraft in combat. Awesome record, unprecented. Both are nearly 100-0. Very nice.

 

In Iraq, they never had much of a threat. We can't sit back and think they're going to be able todo that over and over for the forseeable future. Russia's building fighters that'll outfight the F-15's ,and many nations are buying them. The threat isn't Russia, but the Cold war fighter threat still exists, just not in same place as before.

 

We don't know who/what we'll be fighting against in the next 20 years. there is a good chance that someone out there will have technology that would make F-15's very bad places to be, should we go to war with them. We can't stagnate and hope thatthe next person to F with us has as crappy an airforce as Saddam. What if there IS a problem with Taiwan? What if we have to protect them from China? We'll be glad we have F-22's.

 

Gearing up for the Cold War prepared us for whatever came around the corner. What if we were not planning WWIII before Saddam invaded Kuwait. Would we have bothered to have F-117'2, TLAMS, F-15's, M-1's?

 

Really, most of the F-15 and F-16 kills came 20 years ago. That's a long time.

[Daan]

F-15's and F-16's have never been shot down by enemy aircraft in combat. Awesome record, unprecented. Both are nearly 100-0. Very nice.

 

Though I agree with the rest of your post; this one isn't entirely correct as a Greek Mirage-2000EG shot down a Turkish F-16D several years ago (8 Oct 1996) during one of their frequent air skirmishes/incursions in each other's air space. I saw HUD-footage of the Mirage on some site, but I forgot which.

Secondly, a Pakistani F-16 pilot managed to shoot down his wingman's F-16 with a sidewinder during a dogfight with Soviet aircraft.

[FormerBlue]

No, three F-15Es have been shot down (lost in combat) so far:

 

18 Jan 1991 88-1689 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

20 Jan 1991 88-1692 SJ 335 TFS Combat loss (Operation 'Desert Storm')

 

07 Apr 2003 88-1694 SJ 335 EFS Combat Loss (Operation 'Iraqi Freedom')

 

According to http://www.f-15estrikeeagle.com/

131016[/snapback]

Very good, my bad.

3 were lost. That would be 2 more than lost to a bird strike. 11 E models lost total, 4 (one pranged on landing if I'm reading it right) in the ME, the same number as lost to accidents by the unit in NC. I'd suspect that's a Langley unit loosing aircraft in NC but I'm too lazy to look and it doesn't matter.

 

Stunning. I guess it's time to scrap the lot. Few billion dollars and we can reduce the loss of 3 to 0. I'm game.

 

Cold war is over. Odds of needing heavy A2A versus needing A2G in future wars? F-35s will be purchased. The Air Force can make it a zero sum game I guess. "F-22s or nothing" might get them a shock. Prediction:

F-22 program scapped.

Air Force just happens to figure out how to survive and get mission accomplished anyway.

[FormerBlue]

Shot down by SAM's.  Vietnam era SAMs.  Imagine if they were using something the Russians made within the last 20 years?  They have some nasty stuff now, comprable to te patriot Pac-3( which I believe is very close to a 100% hit rate on enemy missles and friendly aircraft...sept that one F-16 that got lucky)

 

they have some Sams designed to take out E-3's with 200 miles range. 

 

The F-15's will be very vulnerable to them, and would be severly limited in their ability to perform over enemy territory.  The F-22 not only will be hard to detect by fighters, but also(and more importantly)enemy radar and SAM defense.  It's supercruise will give it's already small radar signature a much smaller window for SAM's to attack it. 

 

F-15's and F-16's have never been shot down by enemy aircraft in combat.  Awesome record, unprecented.  Both are nearly 100-0.  Very nice. 

 

In Iraq, they never had much of a threat. We can't sit back and think they're going to be able todo that over and over for the forseeable future.  Russia's building fighters that'll outfight the F-15's ,and many nations are buying them.  The threat isn't Russia, but the Cold war fighter threat still exists, just not in same place as before. 

 

We don't know who/what we'll be fighting against in the next 20 years.  there is a good chance that someone out there will have technology that would make F-15's very bad places to be, should we go to war with them.  We can't stagnate and hope thatthe next person to F with us has as crappy an airforce as Saddam.  What if there IS a problem with Taiwan?  What if we have to protect them from China?  We'll be glad we have F-22's.   

 

Gearing up for the Cold War prepared us for whatever came around the corner.  What if we were not planning WWIII before Saddam invaded Kuwait.  Would we have bothered to have F-117'2, TLAMS, F-15's, M-1's? 

 

Really, most of the F-15 and F-16 kills came 20 years ago.  That's a long time.

131098[/snapback]

 

 

What if the Soviet Union re-appears? What if the Germans decide to invade Russia? What if the French decide to take Russia?

 

Future wars will be fought against semi-developed countries. Semi-developed countries without enough money to buy exotic weapons. China isn't an issue. Hint: The people on Taiwan are ethnic Chinese (most anyway) and will eventually broker a deal with the mainland. They are already trading heavily via Hong Kong.

 

Price is a factor. There isn't money enough to provide marginally useful toys.

[pluto77189]

Though I agree with the rest of your post; this one isn't entirely correct as a Greek Mirage-2000EG shot down a Turkish F-16D several years ago (8 Oct 1996) during one of their frequent air skirmishes/incursions in each other's air space. I saw HUD-footage of the Mirage on some site, but I forgot which.

Secondly, a Pakistani F-16 pilot managed to shoot down his wingman's F-16 with a sidewinder during a dogfight with Soviet aircraft.

131184[/snapback]

 

 

From what I've read, I wouldn't really qualify it as "combat" since there wasn't really a war going on. did the F-16 pilot have any reason to expect a fight?

If so, then that would count.

[pluto77189]

Very good, my bad. 

3 were lost.  That would be 2 more than lost to a bird strike. 11 E models lost total, 4 (one pranged on landing if I'm reading it right) in the ME, the same number as lost to accidents by the unit in NC.  I'd suspect that's a Langley unit loosing aircraft in NC but I'm too lazy to look and it doesn't matter.

 

Stunning.  I guess it's time to scrap the lot.  Few billion dollars and we can reduce the loss of 3 to 0.  I'm game.

 

Cold war is over.  Odds of needing heavy A2A versus needing A2G in future wars?  F-35s will be purchased.  The Air Force can make it a zero sum game I guess.  "F-22s or nothing" might get them a shock.  Prediction:

F-22 program scapped.

Air Force just happens to figure out how to survive and get mission accomplished anyway.

131199[/snapback]

 

No, F-15E's are not air superiority fighters, they are fighter-bombers--ground attack aircraft designed to drop metal tubes of death onto the enemy. the replacement for the f-111. They are fairly new aircraft.

The F-15C is older, and needs replacement for it's role, air to air.

 

The F-22 will do that, plus replace the F-117 in deep strike roles.

 

A2G is no good with heavy SAM cover. You need to take that out. The F-15E is a massive radar target, and a sitting duck to modern SAMs. The F-22 is a superior A2G platform for surgical strikes than the F-15E, the F-117, or the F-35.

 

We will probably need it as an air superiority fighter, but we WILL need it's ability to do the job of the F-117 better and faster.

 

This is why they put the A in there. It's still the F-22, even though it's going to drop bombs. They just want to make sure you people remember that.

 

Stealth for a utility aircraft is nice, but it is somewhat excessive. When you consider the limited armamant of the F-35 in a clean configuration, it becomes clear that it'll end up loaded with external stores. Then why bother with stealth?

 

The F-22 will be more deadly than the F-35 in strike roles. It can carry more internal weapons, and fly them faster over enemy territory. Add the fact that it's a lot stealthier, and the F-35 seems very odd. the F-35 has the ability to carry larger weapons, which is nice now, when the main bomb is the 2,000 hammer Jdams. With the SDB coming around, the neat matchox shaped internal bays of the F-22 become much more useful. 8 SDB's will fit in the F-22's main bays. think they'l get 8 of them in an F-35? How about adding 2 Aim-9's?

[Jeff]

Aren't we forgetting the B-2? The F-22 isn't supposed to be the prime dirt mover. It's not like it's the F-22 or nothing in stealth A2G.

[pluto77189]

Aren't we forgetting the B-2? The F-22 isn't supposed to be the prime dirt mover. It's not like it's the F-22 or nothing in stealth A2G.

131244[/snapback]

 

 

Sure, the B2 is nice. But the F-22 is supersonic, and can defend itself. It's supersonic ability gives it's already small signature even less of a window for which it is vulnerable to enemy attack.

[Kenneth P. Katz]

Putting aside the issues of whether the F/A-22A is worth purchasing at $130 million each, and whether any likely threat justifies it, the Raptor is going to be an incredible flighter if it works as promised. Long range, supercruising, stealthy, LPI AESA radar, datalinked between aircraft, AIM-120 missiles -- there will be nothing in its class. Unseen, it will sweep over enemy territory and if if the enemy flies, he dies, probably never ever seeing what kills him. A Su-30 or a Rafale might not be much more effective against an F/A-22A than a Sopwith Camel.

 

Imagine its 2010 and Iran is a confirmed nuclear power, with a shiny new air force of Su-30s or Rafales or J-10s, and the United States decides to disarm Iran. Flying out of Diego Garcia, a few squadrons of F/A-22As could probably establish air supremacy over Iran so that the bombers can take out the targets.

[gewing]

imo

 

f-22 has too limited range. Oh well. That is a tradeoff.

 

IRST might be a threat to it.

 

Putting aside the issues of whether the F/A-22A is worth purchasing at $130 million each, and whether any likely threat justifies it, the Raptor is going to be an incredible flighter if it works as promised.  Long range, supercruising, stealthy, LPI AESA radar, datalinked between aircraft, AIM-120 missiles -- there will be nothing in its class. Unseen, it will sweep over enemy territory and if if the enemy flies, he dies, probably never ever seeing what kills him. A Su-30 or a Rafale might not be much more effective against an F/A-22A than a Sopwith Camel.

 

Imagine its 2010 and Iran is a confirmed nuclear power, with a shiny new air force of Su-30s or Rafales or J-10s, and the United States decides to disarm Iran. Flying out of Diego Garcia, a few squadrons of F/A-22As could probably establish air supremacy over Iran so that the bombers can take out the targets.

131626[/snapback]

[EchoFiveMike]

F/A 22 should probably be the last manned close combat aircraft the US produces for US forces(as opposed to monkey models for foreign gov'ts) . Advances in UAV's are coming so rapidly now that it makes no sense to procure F-35 when it will be obsolescent for it's entire fielded lifespan.

 

As such, and since the R&D money is already spent/lost, might as well make the full buy. As much as it pains me to say, might even want to jack up the buy numbers.

 

IMO UAV's are at roughly the same tech curve as manned aircraft were in the 30's,40's and 50's. We're going to see HUGE improvements in the next decade or two and you will see that manned AC are done for anything other than moving cargo. S/F...Ken M