Another "praise the Raptor" article

[Random8145]

That's right vvv 210 of them as a matter of fact served in 1st MEF

You two are correct, I actually remember having read this some time ago; okay, lemme upgrade, then could one imagine us fighting the current wars without Abrams tanks

I mean I am guessing we could, but it's always nicer to have the much better equipment.

This discussion is almost impossible to have in an unclassified forumn, those of you stating the capabilities of this and that, dont really know the true tac air disadvantage we are at right now. We are not top dog with aircraft or missles right now, the F-22 is a needed jet, granted we dont need it now (GWOT), but I sure as hell would not want to press into Korea/China without some of them in front of me.

This is what I mean, I don't think the military can really talk publicly about what its true capabilities are right now, or what the true capabilities of the F-22 are and are not.

I had read that when the U.S. first went into Afghanistan under GWB, that the Russians (I think) said we first had to do this and that and so forth, and then we shocked them by showing off certain capabilities we had that they were unaware of.

I'd bet the F-22 can do a lot of things many don't know about, but it is classified information.

 

[Lawman]

I can, because we did.

Marine History neglects to mention the part of the Army lending a unit of Abrams tanks to spearhead the Marine Assault.

 

[picklesuit]

This discussion is almost impossible to have in an unclassified forumn, those of you stating the capabilities of this and that, dont really know the true tac air disadvantage we are at right now. We are not top dog with aircraft or missles right now, the F-22 is a needed jet, granted we dont need it now (GWOT), but I sure as hell would not want to press into Korea/China without some of them in front of me.

I think there is a misconception being perpetuated by statements like this. You infer that without the F-22 we would not be able to win a war with China/Korea...I disagree.

What you (and some others) imply by this statement is that we are equal throughout the military to China/Korea and the F-22 is all that stands between us and certain destruction because some of the jets owned by our potential enemies have superior A/A capabilities to the F-15/16 and/or F/A-18...

What you fail to consider is that we have more than just A/A assets in any given battle and the force we are able to project is a sum of the whole, not the ability of the individual asset.

We go to war with a complete combat force...the A-10 is not in there killing tanks alone, he's got the AWACS, the tanker, the armed air escort, the jammers, not to mention the Navy/Marine side of the house to back him up.

Just on the Navy side we may have the Hornets/Harriers on the pointy end...but they are there by the grace of the E-2, which is on the carrier protected by that fun little strike group and things like our subs, Tico's, AB's and OHP's; oh and the occasional P-3. It is a complete force concept that the military looks to continue with, and the F-22 does not fit into this concept.

The JSF, however, does. It will be used by all 3 major Air powers within the DOD (sorry Army!) and will be a much more logical (in my opinion) advance of the current available assets.

This is the complete force that the other militaries who oppose democracy lack. The closest thing China has to an Aircraft Carrier is a day-camp:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm

Korea is not even a blip militarily on our radar...could they fuck up SK with no advanced warning? Sure..we know it, they know it...but have not because it would be followed 10 minutes later by the wrath of our military and end their existence.

The F-22 is a cool jet, no arguments here...but it is unwieldy as far as cost, maintenance, and flexibility in mission are concerned. The DoD has realized this and it will be shuttered quickly.

War is fought by more than the cool fighter jet. It requires superiority in depth. We have that superiority. We have the best equipment, the best training, and the best funding. Throughout. We have the best Navy, the most vicious quickly deployable force in the Marines, not to mention the spec-ops and irregular warfare component of our military. The Air Force and the Army aren't exactly bad either. One jet will not change these facts.


Pickle

 

[BarrettRC8]

This discussion is almost impossible to have in an unclassified forumn, those of you stating the capabilities of this and that, dont really know the true tac air disadvantage we are at right now. We are not top dog with aircraft or missles right now, the F-22 is a needed jet, granted we dont need it now (GWOT), but I sure as hell would not want to press into Korea/China without some of them in front of me.

I wrote some papers on the Chinese threat as a grad student and although I'm certain I don't have near the knowledge some on this board possess, the Sukhoi series of fighters complete with their R-77 and R-73 are a threat I'd be legitimately concerned with if we were to be caught up in a conflict with our current 4th generation fighters.

Now that I'm done talking about something I probably don't know all that much about, I'm going to go study forms.

 

[Brett327]

I think there is a misconception being perpetuated by statements like this. You infer that without the F-22 we would not be able to win a war with China/Korea...I disagree.

What you (and some others) imply by this statement is that we are equal throughout the military to China/Korea and the F-22 is all that stands between us and certain destruction because some of the jets owned by our potential enemies have superior A/A capabilities to the F-15/16 and/or F/A-18...

What you fail to consider is that we have more than just A/A assets in any given battle and the force we are able to project is a sum of the whole, not the ability of the individual asset.

We go to war with a complete combat force...the A-10 is not in there killing tanks alone, he's got the AWACS, the tanker, the armed air escort, the jammers, not to mention the Navy/Marine side of the house to back him up.

Just on the Navy side we may have the Hornets/Harriers on the pointy end...but they are there by the grace of the E-2, which is on the carrier protected by that fun little strike group and things like our subs, Tico's, AB's and OHP's; oh and the occasional P-3. It is a complete force concept that the military looks to continue with, and the F-22 does not fit into this concept.

The JSF, however, does. It will be used by all 3 major Air powers within the DOD (sorry Army!) and will be a much more logical (in my opinion) advance of the current available assets.

This is the complete force that the other militaries who oppose democracy lack. The closest thing China has to an Aircraft Carrier is a day-camp:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm

Korea is not even a blip militarily on our radar...could they fuck up SK with no advanced warning? Sure..we know it, they know it...but have not because it would be followed 10 minutes later by the wrath of our military and end their existence.

The F-22 is a cool jet, no arguments here...but it is unwieldy as far as cost, maintenance, and flexibility in mission are concerned. The DoD has realized this and it will be shuttered quickly.

War is fought by more than the cool fighter jet. It requires superiority in depth. We have that superiority. We have the best equipment, the best training, and the best funding. Throughout. We have the best Navy, the most vicious quickly deployable force in the Marines, not to mention the spec-ops and irregular warfare component of our military. The Air Force and the Army aren't exactly bad either. One jet will not change these facts.


Pickle

I generally agree w/ your post, but you really need to read up on the current OPLANs for Korea before dismissing them like you did. Bottom line: It ain't what you think.

Brett

 

[jtmedli]

And which aircraft would that be?

The JSF. Just seems like the more "well-rounded" choice and apparently the DoD thinks so too.

 

[jazzdude]

The JSF. Just seems like the more "well-rounded" choice and apparently the DoD thinks so too.

I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 has the same issues with its skin that the F-22 has now

 

[Flash]

This is the complete force that the other militaries who oppose democracy lack. The closest thing China has to an Aircraft Carrier is a day-camp:
http://www.bobhenneman.info/china.htm

Pickle

Good words Pickle, but you are wrong about them having just a day-camp:

Here is some info and more pics of the ex-Varyag.

 

[C420sailor]

I wouldn't be surprised if the F-35 has the same issues with its skin that the F-22 has now

I wouldn't be surprised if Big Navy is already on top of this, considering that spray booths are few and far between at sea.

 

[gonad]

The same could be said of the alternative line of thought that favors UAS and wants to kill (?) the Raptor.

Very true. I'd be interested to see how many non-combat crashes the UAVs have had in recent years. Something tells me it is more than meets the eye.

 

[HackerF15E]

The F-22 is a cool jet, no arguments here...but it is unwieldy as far as cost, maintenance, and flexibility in mission are concerned. The DoD has realized this and it will be shuttered quickly

WTF? The airplane is all ready in operational service at three different bases and there are several more that are currently in transition...are you saying they're going to shut the squadrons down and fly the airplanes to the boneyard?

 

[HackerF15E]

The JSF. Just seems like the more "well-rounded" choice and apparently the DoD thinks so too.

It is also ridiculously over budget, behind schedule, and has an immense number of its own problems even accomplishing the 3,000 different missions that everyone in the DoD is expecting it to do.

Thusfar the Lightning has not been under the same type of scrutiny that the Raptor has. I think that once it starts being looked at under the same microscope as the Raptor, people will stop looking to it as some alternative Panacea.

 

[scoolbubba]

WTF? The airplane is all ready in operational service at three different bases and there are several more that are currently in transition...are you saying they're going to shut the squadrons down and fly the airplanes to the boneyard?

I think what he meant was the assembly lines will probably close, and 187 is all the AF will get. This rings more true especially consider what happened to the last AFCOS when he pushed too hard for more -22s vice what we needed right now.

 

[bert]

I think what he meant was the assembly lines will probably close, and 187 is all the AF will get. This rings more true especially consider what happened to the last AFCOS when he pushed too hard for more -22s vice what we needed right now.

He got canned because he wasn't being a team player with the civilian leadership - the fact that one of the matters at hand was F-22 requirements wasn't the point. (Whether he was unfairly punished for making a principled stand against a poor policy or if he thought he could do/say whatever he wanted because he didn't think they had the sack to boot him is another argument).

The earlier posted brief was worthless for a number of reasons beyond the fact that they ignored the -22's other capabilities, but most notably for having no mention of the O&M, personnel, facility, etc. costs of large numbers of "cheaper" fighters. Just using rough figures, as few as 3 F-16's will cost more over their life-cycle than one F-22 even before you figure in the increased attrition rate you get from a single engine jet.

 

[picklesuit]

I think what he meant was the assembly lines will probably close, and 187 is all the AF will get. This rings more true especially consider what happened to the last AFCOS when he pushed too hard for more -22s vice what we needed right now.

Thank you...pretty sad when someone else has to make me sound intelligible...