This is not new...the less than 200 number was discussed back in 1991 when the original number was 350...the need for the aircraft...like everything else...has always been a political issue...
Since the Iraq conflict is costing us 12 billion a month. Why dont we stand down for one month and divert the bribes and grafts money to building 12B$ worth of F22's and then we can get on with bushies follies.
This is one of the things that really gripes me. Even the Secretary of Defense cant grasp the concept that 187 is the lowest number for homeland defense in PEACETIME. He seems to ignore the fact that with what is spent in 1 year in Iraq, the US could have virtually every weapon system needed for ANY scenario in the numbers required to insure victory. One month in Iraq buys an nearly an entire Carrier battle group or 85 more F22s or 250 F/A-18s or F-15s or 7500 MBTs. The Iraq war is the most costly and most unnecessary war that has ever been waged and the really sad part is 6 billion of those monthly dollars go to Halliburton, KBR, Aegis and other contractors that are getting paid 2 and 3 times for something they overcharged for the first time anyway.
No surprise here. Since WWII where have we been engaged and attacked by an opposing Air Force? Korea was a long flight up to "Mig Alley" then there was the no engagement rule if they ducked back across the borders of China. Did the Chinese and North Korean forces launch massive air strikes against us? Our work became CAS and "selective" bomb raids. On to Vietnam. How many strategic heavy bombers made raids our assets there. Did we have any large scale air attacks on our fleet and carriers off shore, or our troops in country. How many air attacks were made on our rotary wing assets while they were formed up in flight? How effective was the NVA and VC, CAS on our forces? Again another long flight up to North Vietnam and the no chase into China and engage rule. Have we engaged in any long term air battles in Afghanistan or Iraq, Somalia, Panama or Kosovo. How often were were our no fly zone, patrol aircraft engaged in air combat? Our Air Forces and cruise missiles go in ahead of our ground forces and pound the opposing forces until their assets are attrited down to where they have limited ability to launch an effective opposing force against our ground forces. Yes we do face some opposing forces, but no where close to levels like we did in WWII. Air crew and air craft losses are not even a fraction of our WWII losses. The air force re-fueler contract going to the cheap off shore bidder. Oh yes they are doing the slip through the U.S. presence by partnering with Northrop. History lessons never learned. We are lulled into another false sense of security. We have no need for a real defense force. When our ground forces just charged almost unopposed into battle like we have done more than once now, we have become invincible. The air frames and parts for our existing A/C our military is presently using come from out side the Untied States. In the 80s we were cannibalizing and grounding good flying birds for parts, to keep other birds in our Squadron flying. I see allot more of do more with less coming for our military. While other countries build a larger stronger military. With almost all of our manufacturing moving of shore, I don't think we can just whip our manufacturing together to compete if we need it to defend ourselves.
All this really is, is money and if they could put them on the markett you can imagin how menny the Aribs and the Isrealys would buy, when it comes to the almity doller the security of our nation takes a back seat.
U.S. Air Force's announcement on Thursday said that a Missouri National Guard F-15 jet broke apart in midair on Nov. 2, 2007; the pilot evacuated the plane safely. The breakup in mid air was blamed on parts that didn't meet specifications; which raises issues ranging from national security to potential legal action and even foreign sales.
The breakup in mid air was blamed on parts that didn't meet specifications; which raises issues ranging from national security to potential legal action and even foreign sales.
Im sure that being used more than 1200 hours longer than the airframe was designed for is eventually going to cause some parts to no longer meet specifications. Its called structural fatigue and its a fact of life for aircraft. Thats like driving your car 500,000 miles and then being surprised when an axle breaks.
I wish that the F-35 would be included in every discussion of the F-22. Lockheed Martin is the principle contractor for both planes; and there is a certain amount of overlap in the capabilities and missions of the two types of aircraft.
What the Air force needs is a proper mix between the two aircraft. Or between the F-22 and a newly-built version of the F-16.
Cost-wise and Strategy-wise, bulding about 500 F-22s and 2000 new F-16s is the better option. Greater numbers of F-22s would give the U.S.Air Force more capability to overwhelm the advanced Air Forces and Air Defences of China, Russia, and (someday) India. With the threat of advanced enemy capabilities defeated by greater numbers of F22s, the F-16 airframe (a new version of which is being offered to India) would be able to continue the multiple roles of TAc Air/Ground support it has now.
But the F=16 is not built by Lockheed. And the F-35 is being promoted to NATO and Israel as the next best thing to the F-22. The Air Force has to make the F-35 the backbone of their combat fleet, if this project is to be sold to foreigners. There is more money for Lockheed if the F-35 is built and sold in the thousands than if the F-22 is built in the hundreds.
Maybe we should have bought the YF-23 instead. It was a better aircraft and would have been cheaper in the long run. A lot of the up grades done on the 22 were included into the YF-23, so they would not have to be added later. GBH
This is not new...the less than 200 number was discussed back in 1991 when the original number was 350...the need for the aircraft...like everything else...has always been a political issue...
The concept of the F22 is a war between states. It is supposed to win and maintain air supremacy, and for that the plane is the greatest machine on the planet.
But what's actually being fought now and for some time in the future is wars against terror organizations, low-tech enemies who hide in difficult terrain who have no air force to suppress.
For such an opponent you need heavy, bulky gunships which can spit lots and lots of lead and which can take some fire from infantry weapons without creating ridiculously high maintenance costs when there's a dent in the surface.
Hey...that's almost 4 per state. Are you telling me that that is not enough to defend the country? I'm also sure that the Soviets errr...Russians are not building anything new that would harm us. And I believe in the tooth fairy as well. Why not put all our collective scientific minds together and come up with one super aircraft better than any that anyone could ever dream up...build it whatever the cost...but only build ONE. That would be all we could afford. That should do the trick.
The SecDef and those who think 187 is enough, are only looking at one part of the picture. Is that a large enough force to cover the CONUS against an onslaught of Russian Bears? Probably. Is that the only or even the major threat we face in the next 20-30 years? Probably not. Since the humble beginnings of this nation, politicians have been trying to anticipate what threats we will face in the future and build forces to meet those challenges. In over 230 years they don't seem to have gotten it right yet. Fortunately we have always had the luxury of being able to hold on until America's mighty production forces came to bear and provide the war fighters with the weapons they needed. With the complexity of today's weapons systems and the loss of our industrial base, those days are gone. We will indeed go to war with the military we have and it will be up to them to be victorious with the gear we have seen fit to provide them with. If we continue to do it on the cheap the day will come when no matter how superior our personnel, they will not be able to meet the challenges our politicians thrust them into.
For those who argue we don't need the Raptor because no other aircraft in the world has the capabilities to challenge it, that is the whole idea. You always want to maintain a level of superiority over your potential adversaries that is so great that they will not even entertain the thought that it might be possible to take us on. That is the idea of deterrence, and since everyone knows we will never unleash our nuclear arsenal, we must maintain a credible conventional force to have any say in world events. Other, more knowledgeable people have already mentioned in previous threads the progress other nations are making with very capable contenders that may only be a decade or less behind in development. The other option is to do as the leftists want, and retreat to our own shores, let the Russians, Chinese and Europeans run the show because they are all so much wiser, better, less greedy and self centered then Americans.
Lets see if I understand this correct. we are told we don't need this plane ! Russia and China are building up there air force, the F-22 cost 137 million, we are spending 2 billion a week in Iraq. When we no longer have the best air force in the world because of some lakii in the DOD or political arena says we don't need them, I hope they have an agreement with Iraq to defend our skies if ever it comes to a show down with a major power. 2 billion divided by 137 million will build a lot of F-22s and keep us number one .Reason for saying this we spend 2 billion a week in Iraq and now an investigation is supposed to be done to find out what Iraq is doing with all the money they are getting from us and there oil.
if all the details have been worked out, Su30MKIs will come to alaska for red flag in August. Will the USAF allow raptors to be used so we can see if the hype is accurate?? Its about time it gets put to the test.
I agree, let it be settled which aircraft is superior, I think from what I Know I will put my money on the F-22 BUTTT this is not to say Russia is setting on it's azz,a lot of our technology has come from Russian engineers. but I think right now we have the edge , just need to keep it.we commit 5 billion to a country that Bush visited , why not commit 5 billion to our air force. We sat on our dairy airs during the 2nd WW thinking it can't happen to us, damn near got our azz in a sling for not looking ahead and seeing the trees and the forest. we better start looking at Russia and China and planning ahead.
Wat happens when the Iranians get-or get close to a bomb? They will try to mount a warhead on a missle, and this CANNOT be tolerated. A target number of 190-200 Raptors is more than enough. The 1st strike must be the most lethal, cut the deepest, and make a retaliatory strike ineffective. This is coming, unless thier young population gets rid of the mullahs and "Death to Israel" crowd. 2/3 of Iran's pop. is under 30. There may be hope, but its always prudent to be ready.
Originally posted by FlankerFlyer: if all the details have been worked out, Su30MKIs will come to alaska for red flag in August. Will the USAF allow raptors to be used so we can see if the hype is accurate?? Its about time it gets put to the test.
I think we will see that it isn't all hype....BTW - Cope Thunder is in Alaska, Red Flag at Nellis (unless they have changed since I last perticipated in both).
RHYNO506 - what do you base the "target number of 190-200...is more than enough" on?
