• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

F22's

Status
Not open for further replies.
GVSURob

GVSURob

Registered User
I just posted this and something screwed up so here goes again:

Does anyone know anything about the F22's and if the Navy or Marines are getting any?

Robert Mathey
Grand Rapids, MI
 
Active Air Force may not even see them. It has been mentioned, that they may go straight to a reserve or guard unit while the air force waits for the JSF. Basically the sam kind of thing that happened with the B-1B
 
Which is really a shame considering how amazing that platform is. And with the new technology being developed in Russia, it's probably rather important to have on the front lines....
 
Take a look at the threat - and the budget. A $250 million per copy fighter designed for the Cold War is the last thing we need - right along with the Crusader and the Comanche. We are out of troops. If we need anything, it's several more divisions of Army troops as well as beefing up the Corps. Even money that the F-22 is the next thing that gets cancelled - Senator McCain is already calling for that to happen.
 
46Driver said:
Take a look at the threat - and the budget. A $250 million per copy fighter designed for the Cold War is the last thing we need - right along with the Crusader and the Comanche. We are out of troops. If we need anything, it's several more divisions of Army troops as well as beefing up the Corps. Even money that the F-22 is the next thing that gets cancelled - Senator McCain is already calling for that to happen.
Click to expand...

Any chance they could divert some of those funds away from the AF 22 and give them to NAVAIR so just maybe we could get some updated equipment and more planes? I know the anwser to this is snowball's chance in you know where, but one could dream, right?
 
46Driver said:
Take a look at the threat - and the budget. A $250 million per copy fighter designed for the Cold War is the last thing we need - right along with the Crusader and the Comanche. We are out of troops. If we need anything, it's several more divisions of Army troops as well as beefing up the Corps. Even money that the F-22 is the next thing that gets cancelled - Senator McCain is already calling for that to happen.
Click to expand...


Not such a wise decision I think on congress's part. Although when does congress do wise things. But anyways. I think that a real and credible threat is that in 10 years when we get into a rumble with another communist or terrorist country (which is not unrealistic at all as I'm sure we all know) all of the F-15s and F-16s which have reached or long been extended beyond their service life are all grounded because they are falling apart and don't have a suitable replacement. So then we can't send anyone in to bomb because they'll get shot down by the top of the line SU-27s and 35s that these countries have since they bought them all from the Russians. And when you lose control of the air, you lose the war, which we all know as well. I can't see any good coming out of it at all, but that's just me; maybe the Supers and the JSF will be able to take them on, but I doubt it. The Russians are coming up with some very dangerous stuff these days. Complacency leads to the death of all great things...
 
The greatest mistake one can make is preparing for the next war by focusing on the last war. Shoo24 has some good points.

I'm disappointed the course the FA-22 has taken (the program started in the early 80's and we won't have an active squadron until next year - not to mention the blooming growth in cost). But the main difference between the F-22 and Comanche is that the F-22 has already had most of the development dollars sunk into it. Why can't the gov't ever seem to learn from its mistakes on defense procurement programs?
 
Keep in mind though the growing use of stand-off weapons. Our main use of aircraft now are to deliver ordnance rather than air to air, yes? So if we're talking about the threat of our aircraft in another country, isn't wiser to use as much stand-off weaponry as we can? Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of having the best platforms out there. I would rather have an effective weapon delivery system than having to go up against the SU's, from a policy point of view.

Another small point... if our aircraft (mid-block F-16's and 18's) are getting old and "falling apart" I couldn't imagine what Soviet-type aircraft are facing when it comes to maintainence.

Since I'm not an ACM kinda guy, I'm looking for some help with this next part. I've heard from a couple Harrier and Hornet pilots that the SU's are probably great in 1v1. When you combine all the assets though (including Hawkeyes), our aircraft are superior in the way we choose to fight. What good is making a JSF if we can't use it, right? (I'm sure someone would begin thinking A-12 at this point.) I'd love to hear input from the older guys on here.
 
The thing with the -22 is you kinda wonder exactly how many squadrons we really need. If it performs as advertised, it should be literally invincible in A2A warfare. So if it's invincible, just exactly how many of them do you need?

But I think we do need SOME of them.
The closest i've gotten to flying is a $50 buck intro flying lesson, but it seems clear to me that engaging BVR against a Mach 2+ Su-27 type w/AA-12s and the best long range fighter radar the Reds could afford in a Super going under Mach 2 sounds more like a nightmare than a wet dream to me.

Personally I'm curious how a JSF fares against a next gen threat fighter...whether it's a Su-47, MiG 1.44, or even a Rafale(hey it's the FRENCH-of course they'll sell). I mean OK it's a single engine but it IS stealth right?
 
I remember watching the Navy news a couple of months back when they retired the F-14's(i think) from Fighter Weapons School. They said that the new aggressors were going to be the F22's. I think the Navy was going to order 6 or so of them.
 
What this boils down to is how much money do you have and how can you spend it. One of the first things you take a look at is the Bartlett Model which is a circular model: Strategy > Tools > Risk > Goals > and back to Strategy. Between Strategy and Tools you have the input of Resource Constraints (basically, the size of your Defense Budget) and between Risk and Goals you have the input of the Security Environment (what is the threat?)

As for strategy, what is it going to be? Primacists (the most money - maybe 6% of today's GDP), Cooperative Security, Selective Engagement, or Isolation? Which one will the voters support and Congress fund?

It all comes down to money and how to spend it. The F-22 is a fine machine - but is it a higher priority than other items? How many air to air kills have we had in the last 10 years? the last 20 years? the last 30 years?

We studied this in the NSDM (National Security Decision Making Course) at the Naval War College. It was a course on threats, budgets, strategies, the acquisition process, etc. With the F-22, the F/A-18 E/F, the JSF, and the MV-22, - not to mention funding for Navy ships, the Air Force 767 tanker deal, the increase Army buy of H-60's, the Corps H-53 and H-1 upgrades, we are going to have a train wreck on funding. We simply can not afford everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top