About the F-22

[jareds]

The F-22 is a phenomenal plane. It has a great airfoil, great capabilities, and great speed. The problem is cost. It costs about 361 million dollars. So much so that we (America) only bought about 180. The F-35 costs about and estimated 65-120 million. I understand that the F-16s are aging and need to be replaced, but they are still capable fighters. It's my opinion a smarter option would have been instead of buying a GREAT plane, who's numbers are so few that no real effectiveness would be achieved against a country with similar planes that are more cost effective; Start a contract with another company to build more F-16s with a few more modern updates, or buy more F-35s to replace the aging planes we have today.
Perhaps my logic is faulty however, your opinion?

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

Quick correction, the F-22 costs around 150 million a plane, not 361.

 

[jareds]

"the price tag for each of the stealth fighters, designed during the Cold War for the next generation of air-to-air combat, is about $200 million." source (Democrats, Obama disagree on F-22 spending - The Boston Globe)

Hmm, still, that still sounds a bit much to me.

 

[evangilder]

Buying F-35s to replace F-16s, that is part of the plan. The F-22 is more of a replacement for the F-15, which is an air superiority fighter. The F-16 was developed as a low cost daytime fighter that evolved into a multirole combat aircraft. The F-35 will have the same mission, multirole.

The F-22 was an air superiority fighter from the design. There are a bunch of things that aircraft does that would be prohibitively expensive to put into an older airframe. Do we need it now? Maybe, maybe not. If we ratchet up for war in a big hurry, you need a system that is tested with all of the bugs worked out. In the field is the LAST place to be testing weapons systems and aircraft.

Complacency and arrogance with the status quo can lead to you getting caught with your pants down and unprepared. Look at the US the day after Pearl Harbor and you will see the cost.

 

[Messy1]

IMO the U.S.A's push since WW2 for the latest, greatest fighter is a direct result of the U.S. having to play catch up as far as aircraft design and technology goes. We were behind many of the major countries involved in WW2. We were way behind Germany and Japan. The quest for the next great dominant plane is the end result of that hard lesson that was learned, and out military never wants to find itself in that position again. Try explaining that to the politicians who want to cut military spending and funds for research projects that keep the US ans her allies ahead of the rest of the world.

 

[Lucky13]

What is better, fewer aircraft that cost more, more advanced or not as expensive but do slightly less? Look at the B-2, is that money well spent.....will the B-2 fly as long as the B-52? B-52, now....that's money well spent!

 

[Messy1]

Can't argue with you there Lucky at all on the B-52! Not sure which philosophy is better more craft, or fewer numbers of advanced craft. Guess it all depends on your perceived threat or enemy.

 

[Lucky13]

Personally, I think that it would have been easier to defend the costs etc., of these birds, if Soviet Union had still been around today....

But, that's just me....

 

[jareds]

The spirit is a bomber, one able to get in, drop the load, and get out quickly. In WWII, because we didn't have the power and precision of today, many planes were used at a time. Today we don't need that, we can level several blocks with one bomb; Or destroy cities with a nuke. Planes like this probably won't be lost often.

Fighter planes, such as F-35 F-22 F-16 ect. will lose numbers if we are faced against a country with similar resources. That much is a given. So why buy a new plane, when the airframe you have is perfectly fine? I'm not very educated on this, and I could be wrong. But couldn't we just use that money to put new technology on the F-15 (new power plant, slight adjustments ect.) and buy more F-35s?

 

[Messy1]

Personally, I think that it would have been easier to defend the costs etc., of these birds, if Soviet Union had still been around today....

But, that's just me....

Again agree 100%. For decades the Soviets military was the big threat for our countries. Now that may not be true at the current time, it's hard for some people to justify the money that goes into the F-22 because we do not have a clear defined threat from a country such as the USSR anymore. Although I feel we do need to keep an eye on China, and other parts of Asia and be prepared.

 

[Messy1]

Fighter planes, such as F-35 F-22 F-16 ect. will lose numbers if we are faced against a country with similar resources. That much is a given. So why buy a new plane, when the airframe you have is perfectly fine? I'm not very educated on this, and I could be wrong. But couldn't we just use that money to put new technology on the F-15 (new power plant, slight adjustments etc.) and buy more F-35s

I think a country has to keep upgrading it's weapons platforms weather that be planes, ships, tanks, firearms, etc. because your enemy will constantly be upgrading theirs. I do not a country has the luxury of resting on it's laurels anymore and trying to upgrade 30+ year old platforms for the most part. Sooner or later you are going to come to the limits of that airframes abilities, and if your enemy has a more advanced platform, you may be in trouble!

 

[jareds]

At this point I'm just being devils advocate, but why try looking for another less expensive plane? I believe I glimpsed something about the Euros having a few next gen fighters for less.

 

[evangilder]

Airframes only last so long, regardless of upgrades. Do you remember a few months ago there were F-15s breaking up in flight? Upgrades are great, but the F-15 and F-16 are 1970s technologies. The airframes are aging.

 

[Vassili Zaitzev]

I understand your position Jareds, but the F-15's and F-16's airframes are pushing close to 30 years. I believe it's time for an upgrade.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

At this point I'm just being devils advocate, but why try looking for another less expensive plane? I believe I glimpsed something about the Euros having a few next gen fighters for less.

30 years ago the same stuff was said about the F-15. Former Defense Secretary Melvin Laird along with the "Fighter Mafia" (John Boyd, defense analysts Tom Christie and Pierre Sprey, and test pilot Col. Everest Riccioni) came up with the argument that eventually saw the F-16 being developed. Although they were responsible for the development of an excellent combat aircraft, in essence they failed in their assessment as the F-15's record speaks for itself.

Right now there is nothing that can touch the F-22 - period. They are bought and paid for, let's just hope we have enough of them.

Sprey is still flappin his yap about the F-35 and suggested a "new" A-10 type aircraft in lieu of the F-35. Although not a bad idea he failed to realize how much it would really cost to "re-develop" such an aircraft and at this point the F-35 is still the better option.

BTW L-Mart just announced that it intends to try to lower the cost of each F-35 by 30%. LM are putting their money where their mouths are.

 

[jareds]

Out at Luke they want some F-22s and F-35s, but HOAs the cities and such are against it. They say that the planes would be too loud. Living about a mile from the base, they fly over my house some times. I've never had a problem with noise. Even when I go on base with JROTC they're not that loud. Would the F-22 add that much noise?

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Out at Luke they want some F-22s and F-35s, but HOAs the cities and such are against it. They say that the planes would be too loud. Living about a mile from the base, they fly over my house some times. I've never had a problem with noise. Even when I go on base with JROTC they're not that loud. Would the F-22 add that much noise?

That will only depend on who's hearing it!