HOW STUPID is it to even CONSIDER building the FA-22 RAPTOR?

The FA-22 RAPTOR is designed to evade state if the art detection, fly faster than any comparable platform, handle the highest level of weaponry,

There's just one problem: none of these currently exist except in our arsenal: are WE at war with OURSELVES?

Does ANYONE think wasting money on this enormously expensive and incredibly USELESS weapon is a GOOD IDEA? Nobody HERE I certainly hope.

Just because I thought it was rather witty.

can I pick "All of the Above"?

I just figured that it was by definition a dumb idea, so any choice would be correct.

You know at $37 BILLION A POP, 20 of those things would pay for single payer/universal/cover everything healthcare.

....more like $172 million or thereabouts. Not entirely sure, but I know it doesn't cost $37 billion.

http://www.landings.com/_landings/pacflyer/dec9-2002/Dn-60-F-A-22-cost-ov.html

"Congress has set a maximum expenditure of $37 billion for the program, which means the planned purchase of 339 planes may face cutbacks, maybe as few as 180."

$37 billion / 180 planes = approx. $205 million each. IF there are no further cost overruns, IF they don't decide to go all the way to 339 planes...never seen them do either before.

We still don't need the damned thing.

For one, a lot of the non-stealth F series fighters have been around forever. They'll need to be retired at some point. Part of the appeal of the FA-22 is that it can take the role of an air-to-air and an air-to-ground (this is what's being done with the FA-18 right now....making it a multi-role fighter). I guess part of the idea is is that down the road, we can have one advanced, supercruise capable aircraft instead of dealing with an assortment of F-14s, F-15s, F-16s, A-10s, all their mechanical needs and quirks, etc etc etc. It also integrates a lot of new technology, and I see no reason to quash any of that.

Nobody is building jet fighters but the Brit/French/German consortium, MIRAGE, SAAB, and a couple of planes a year from the Israelis.

Show me the enemy, then you can have the plane.

But I don't blame you for being skeptical of it...it's a program that's already overrun costs.

If I don't have floods, why should I dam the stream?

I think it's time we showed that the latest Destructo Toy had some kind of good reason to exist when we want to put it before feeding hungry people and providing healthcare to kids who only see a dentist to pull rotten teeth.

Show me a damned good reason to build it, and and you can build it. And "IT'S NEW AND IMPROVED!" does not count.

...show me I'm sick, and then I'll take better care of myself.

Like I said, I don't blame you for being skeptical about the program. But here's the rub...when there is time that something like that is needed, you're not going to just be able to turn it out on a week or two notice. You've got testing, pilot training, basing issues, service/ manufacturing contracts, avionics contracts....the list goes on.

IF Russia (or somebody else) STARTS WORKING on some new weapons platform, THEN go ahead.

To use your analogy, the current situation is like buying the cars for the subway before anyone has voted the money to dig the tunnels.

...no sense arguing further.

.

Just wanted to present a different side to the argument.

If you want to really champion one of these things, go with the JSF/XF-35. Looks like a lot better bang for the buck.

Not like we really need either one, though.

...but beyond that, I'll take a look. Thanks.

depending on how you look at it...you have no choice on the matter.
:)

.

The quote should be, If I'm sick, I'll go see a doctor.

If I need a Strike Fighter, I'll build one. We don't need one.

"If I have lung cancer, THEN I'll stop smoking...." right? :D

Logical fallacy: implies that there is an identified behavior (internal or external) that creates the need.

Building this thing is similar to the English verb tense, "Future past perfect,"

such as; "We WILL HAVE NEEDED IT if we don't build it now." which again assumes causality.

JSF was kind of a bushy tailed gadget though. And I still don't see any MIG's.

How about: "If I never start smoking, I won't have to quit."

...but that's not why the thread was started. I'll drop it though.

it was well said.

Aren't the Russians still making jets for export?

$37 billion is the cost of developing the F-22. If you were to buy 100, they would be 370 million each. Buy 200 and they'll be 185 million each. Etc... That's not ENTIRELY the case. If you only buy 100, the total coast might only be $30 billion, and of you buy 200 the total cost might be $40 billion. But the point is, you spread the development cost out if you buy more units.

Compare that with the F-15. The US has purchased for it's own use about 1,000, of which about 350 are currently still operational. At about 40 million each that's a total cost of just about $40 billion.

Doesn't that number sound kinda familiar?

:evilgrin:

And the Raptor is OLD tech. it was started in the early 80s to fight the Soviet Union.......

It like the B-2 are just big sucking sounds out of the tax payors pockets.

Hmmmmmm, I think I heard that before :evilgrin:

I remember a satirical cartoon in MAD Magazine (about 1964 or 1965) back when they were occasionally relevant. It was a lampoon of Little Orphan Annie, with "Daddy" Warbucks countering Annie's contention that "The Great Society" was a good thing with: "The only GOOD big government spending, is big government DEFENSE spending!" with Sandy "begging" for a dollar bill that the Warbucks characater is dangling.

This is NOT a new idea.

They were considered too expensive to ever be used in combat. A waste of money. The F-4 Phantoms were proven over the skies of 'Nam and were capable of carrying us into the next century. Etc...

Iraqs paltry Gulf War One air force and ground defenses would have eaten F-4's for lunch.

The Iraqi's "State of the Art" in GW1 was circa 1970's. Their air force flew to Iran, and they used largely unaimed AA to defend Bagdhad. An F-4 "Wild Weasel" could have knocked out any radar guided ordinance they fielded.

For those planes, the government had the Russians and MIG's to justify their bullshit. I don't see any justification today.

A paragraph from this site: http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/russia/airdef/mig-29.htm comparing the Mig-29 to current day US fighters such as the F-15C.

"The MiG-29 is a widely exported aircraft, flown by Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Cuba. The MiG-29 has a few advantages over its more electronically advanced American counterparts. At about 40 miles apart, the American planes have the advantage because of avionics. At 10 miles the advantage is turning to the MiG. At five miles out, because of the MiG weapons sight and better maneuverability, the advantage is to the MiG. The weapons sight is a helmet-mounted system that allows the missile to follow the line of sight of the pilot's helmet. Where the pilot looks is where it goes.

Similar Aircraft
F/A-18 Hornet
F-16 Fighting Falcon
F-15 Eagle
Su-27 Flanker"

At the start of GW1, the Iraqis had combat experience (war with Iran) and an air force of about 600 aircraft. Many of those WERE circa 1970s, such as Mig-21's. The Mig-21's wold have been (arguably) equivelent to F-4s, but the 50 Mig-29s would have been purely superior. Remember that the Wild Weasel F-4s are designed to act against ground targets in an environment where other aircraft (F-15s) have already gained air superiority. Without F-15s watching their back, the F-4s would have been slaughtered.

But in GW1 the Iraqis were faced with about 2,500 aircraft of equal or greater tech and definitely superior pilot training. It was obvious Iraq could not defend it's air space given those numbers, so it tried to preserve what aircraft it could. Of it's 50 (estimates vary) Mig-29s, 2 to 3 dozen survived GW1. Of those only 5 to 10 were thought to be still operational for GW2, due to sanctions.

From your post:

"...GW1 the Iraqis were faced with about 2,500 aircraft of equal or greater tech and definitely superior pilot training. It was obvious Iraq could not defend it's air space given those numbers, so it tried to preserve what aircraft it could. Of it's 50 (estimates vary) MIG-29s, 2 to 3 dozen survived GW1. Of those only 5 to 10 were thought to be still operational for GW2, due to sanctions."

Name ONE other country that poses even a REMOTE future threat to us who is FYING even one operational squadron of modern strike fighters. There aren't any. Even CHINA is using reworked MIG-21's which we beat the living shit out of with Phantoms.

There is no logical use for these planes. The only reason to build them at all is to have another weapon to wave a world where the advanced countries are growing past this little game. SLOWLY I'll grant you.

Time to put away our toys and grow up.

Nothing wrong with a Pacifist attitude. At my core I'm a pacifist myself. However, wrapped around my core is realism, and that causes me to recognize that we do have a strong need for defense. (As opposed to our current OFFENSE vs Iraq.)

If you can accept a need for defense, then there follows a need for at LEAST parity in weapons tech. If you don't have at least that parity, then your defense is illusion. If you don't accept a need for defense, then ANY weapon is too expensive.

The JSF is the replacement for the F-16 and meets the needs of the AF/Navy/Marines. The F-22 only is for the AF.

If you look at the cost of the two, the JSF is the over all winner.

The F-22 is old tech to fight an old enemy.

I don't even see one on the horizon. This just looks like another excuse to spend money and make rich people richer while burning a ton of fossil fuel.

I guess they have to find somewhere to burn that oil, what with fuel cells, hydrogen, air pressure all being researched for cars.

Looks to be a very capable aircraft. It's not as far along in it's development as the F-22, which means 2 things. First, it will likely be higher tech than the F-22. Second, as with all military development products of this half century, it will be subject to further cost overruns.

It does have one failing which makes me think the Navy, at least, won't wind up relying on it in it's entirety. It has a single engine. The navy prefers two engines because bailing out over water is far less survivable. Because of this I expect the Navy will hang onto it's F-14s and F-18s for quite a while until it can afford to procure it's own weapons system.

I could be wrong though. Maybe Naval doctrine has become more accepting of single engine aircraft?

Had to vote for Gomer.

F-22/XF-35 conflict between defense contractors. AGAIN. Except this time the poor dears have nobody to dogfight with.

We are SO stupid.

That would be like something out of a John Woo movie: both the good guy and the bad guy run out of ammo on their big, automatic rifles then run towards each other in slo-mo, firing from 9mms...

But really, don't aircraft just fire missiles from over the horizon to take out other fighters?

Which sort of again begs the question of why we still build them, if they stand off 100 kliks from each other and fire fancy missiles.

And the "New Enemy" ain't got no fancy missiles. Or planes. All seems rather pointless.

what I said in a duplicate thread:

The F-15 fleet the Raptor is supposed to "replace" will begin to exceed its service life in 2014, a year after the last F-22 is to be delivered. This sort of makes some sense.

Also, given the way "our" assets and technologies have a way of drifting elsewhere, I see no problem with having a capability to defend against our own toys... the Pogo Principle ("We've met th' enemy, and he's us.") Actually, it's a methodology we've been employing for years. Build a spear, build a shield at the same time.

...and I certainly recognize that describing the Raptor as a "shield" is a wholly imperfect analogy.

Would I rather spend the money on new schools? You betcha.

...but the main reason the Nutso Ultraparanoid Russians were building "Spears" is that everyone around them was doing the same thing, and they were parked on their "borders" (so to speak).

I think if we had spent the last 500 years being invaded by Vikings, Tatars, Mongols, Turks, Swedes and Germans we'd be more than a little paranoid ourselves.

Maybe somebody should set a good example and stop building spears...? It's not like the huge shitpile of weapons we have NOW that outspec everyone else's by a couple of decades are useless.

As they say, everyone has to agree to put down their guns slowly, and at the same time.

And considering this administration can't get a global consensus on relatively simple matters, it may be a while yet.

To have an Arms Race, you have to have two racers, don't you? We don't have anyone to RACE with. The Russians can't keep their own planes flying: they're selling RIDES to finance fuel and maintainance. The others who build these things aren't coming here, unless you think the FRENCH will come over with a squadron of MIRAGE's.

The world wants cable. If they don't have to make bombs, bet you they'll make satellite dishes.

On edit: first time on a title.

That was the Big air combat lesson learned at the start of the Vietnam war. US doctrine was pure radar/missiles. But missiles at the time weren't as good as expected. When the missiles failed the enemy could get close. When they got close they had a big advantage in the ensuing dogfight for which our pilots weren't trained and our planes were illequipped. The resulting US air loses forced a change of doctrine.

Bring that into today. Missiles are far, far better. The first stage of an air engagement is long distance missile combat, and it is deadly. However, it is not 100%. Some aircraft WILL survive the first stage, and if they can't dogfight they will lose. Nearly every missile equipped air combat in history has degenerated into a dogfight. The first US GW1 air to air kill was a long range missile shot. The second was also a missile shot, but it was obtained after manuvering combat (ie: a dogfight).

The surviving Iraqi air force was AWOL during GW2. But to think that means dogfights are history would be self-delusion.

Name ONE COUNTRY that is even CAPABLE at this point of designing and building a NEW top of the line strike fighter.

And the logic that we build them and SELL them so we have to defend against them makes us look like fucking idiots.

ONE COUNTRY. That is all I'm asking.

Multiple top of the line aircraft, either in development or production right now, designed to be better than our current fleet of F-15s, F-16s and F-18s.

RUSSIA: Yes, Russia can't afford to buy it's own aircraft. However, it needs money and SELLS it's aircraft whenever someone orders them. It's aircraft are capable vs our current fleet, and it DOES have active development programs: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-30.htm , http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/su-37.htm ,

EUROPEAN UNION: I can't imagine we'll fight the EU, but it's likely we may need to fight some of it's aircraft in other peoples hands: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/tornado.htm , http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/rafale.htm , and http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/eurofighter.htm .

So, there are 5 aircraft being produced and/or developed in by Russia and the EU which are at least competetive, and quite possibly superior to our currently active fleet. Within the EU, Britain, France and Germany are all capable at this point of designing, building and PURCHASING next generation strike fighters.

So, I've named at least ONE, and maybe 5, depending on how you count the nations of the EU and if you care to count Russia.

we can't stop building better aircraft simply beause none of our current enemies are up to our level yet. If you wait for them to catch you, you are a raging idiot. Air Power is what makes the US military superior. We control the skies and thus are free to do what we wish on the ground.

The EU and Russia have very good Fighters and are currently designing better ones. And they are not going to stop bulding better aircraft simply because we do, that kind of thinking is laughable at best dangerously stupid at worst.

.

you build them to fight tomorrow's enemies. Otherwise, you end up with a situation like we had at the beginning of WWII...with outdated planes flying against superior enemy aircraft.

It takes a long, LONG time to design new aircraft and get them into production. In today's world, if there's a war, you will fight with what you have, not what you could build.

Another issue is quality versus quantity. We don't want to maintain 2,000 "current" aircraft to fight 5,000 "current" enemy aircraft...when 500 "new" aircraft could do the job with fewer casualties to our side.

Take the Abrams MBT. It's much better than it's contemporaries, allowing a relatively small number of Abrams to take on a large number of (now obsolete) enemy tanks.

You also have to consider our aversion to casualties. We don't want to end up in a position where we're forced to fight a war of attrition... we want to maintain a clear superiority. To paraphrase Patton: "You don't win a war by dying for your country. You win by making some other poor bastard die for his country."

And YES, there ARE enemies on the horizon....in 20 years, it'll be the Chinese....and they ARE developing advanced aircraft, not just reworked Mig-21s.