Goodbye F-22 program. We hardly new ye.

[dtfl]

Yeah, because the Chinese F-10 slinging PL-12's is a negligible threat. Or maybe any variant of the SU-30 dragging long burn Alamo's.

True...but he has a point. The majority of the conflicts we have fought or PLANNED in the past 15 years have needed many more CAS assets than Air Superiority assets. Everyone believes their role is the most important, but CAS/SOF/Airlift have been the major players in the recent conflicts.

That being said...we NEED Air superiority.....but not at the cost of other weapons systems.

 

[DOVPILOT]

All the money saved from DoD cuts will be funnelled to all the south border hospitals to pay for free ER health care for ALL illegal aliens.....MFker's.

You can thank the Prez O'Bum and the liberal leftists

 

[pilotyip]

Being facetious

Yip, if somebody told me that quote was from you, I'd have never believed it. There's no threat...until there is. Will we be ready?

???

I was pretenting I had defected to the "Peace and Love" party that now runs our country. However all that being said the F-22 is almost too expensive to risked in a battle. Even the late Gen Robin Olds thought the F-22 would absorb too much of the USAF budget to the determent of other programs. And as told over a beer he said "25 F-5's, the cost of one F-22, would take out any F-22, or force the F-22 to not fight and give up air superiority"

 

[bagasticks]

where will this leave the light greys? are they going to put money back into them?

 

[Birdstrike]

There's still, what, 187 in the inventory when all is said and done? I think we'll still be knowing ye for quite a while.

 

[SIG600]

I was pretenting I had defected to the "Peace and Love" party that now runs our country. However all that being said the F-22 is almost too expensive to risked in a battle. Even the late Gen Robin Olds thought the F-22 would absorb too much of the USAF budget to the determent of other programs. And as told over a beer he said "25 F-5's, the cost of one F-22, would take out any F-22, or force the F-22 to not fight and give up air superiority"

Yes, but a division of Raptors will kill the entire package, before they ever get joined up.

 

[pilotyip]

Robin Old's story

Yes, but a division of Raptors will kill the entire package, before they ever get joined up.

This was Old's contention, what does each F-22 carry 4 long range air to air missles? So 16 F-22 go against 150 cheap F-5 type airplanes, after 100% kill ratio 16 x 4 = 64 there are still 86 F-5s against 16 F-22's, once close in manuvering flight 5 against 1, the one is at a great disadvantage. Mixing it up will result in the loss of F-22's even if there are successful close in. They are too expensive to loose, too hard to replace, and not a good trade against a 5M airplane. The only option availabe to save the F-22 is to avoid close in fighting with large numbers of cheap airplanes is a use of a high speed to withdraw from the battlefield thereby ceeding air superority to the other guys. He had some some valid points to think about.

 

[ackattacker]

Whenever the USA has actually won a war it was with large numbers of effective mass-produced and reliable weapon systems, a large support system, and well-trained soldiers.

Look at the example of Nazi Germany as a lesson on how not to do it. They sunk a lot of R&D into high-tech projects such as mega-tanks and jet fighters which, while they were good, sucked up a lot of resources into a small number of weapons which couldn't stop the onslaught of Shermans and P-51's. If we ever (god forbid) found ourselves in a shooting match with the Russians or the Chinese I'd rather we not be in the same position the Germans were.

 

[MarineGrunt]

Someone see's opportunity...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/23/dmitri-medvedev-barackobama

 

[pilotyip]

Exactly

Whenever the USA has actually won a war it was with large numbers of effective mass-produced and reliable weapon systems, a large support system, and well-trained soldiers.

Look at the example of Nazi Germany as a lesson on how not to do it. They sunk a lot of R&D into high-tech projects such as mega-tanks and jet fighters which, while they were good, sucked up a lot of resources into a small number of weapons which couldn't stop the onslaught of Shermans and P-51's. If we ever (god forbid) found ourselves in a shooting match with the Russians or the Chinese I'd rather we not be in the same position the Germans were.

That is the way the US elected to fight WWII. Robert Lovett, a Navy pilot, came along in Nov of 1940, and convinced the Gov’t that you will win with cheap quantity against expensive quality. This was against Hap Arnold's view, head of the Army Air Corp, of his prospective modern Air Force. It resulted in the auto companies becoming the major supplier of aircraft components in WWII. We could build airplane so fast that you never ran out of airplanes on the front lines after the fall of 1943. Fortunately this master plan was put together in the spring of 1940 18 months before Pearl Harbor. Lovett went on to become the first Secretary of the Air Force, however at that time he was called the Asst. Secretary of War for Air. Not bad a Navy pilot saving the Air Force from itself.

 

[SIG600]

This was Old's contention, what does each F-22 carry 4 long range air to air missles? So 16 F-22 go against 150 cheap F-5 type airplanes, after 100% kill ratio 16 x 4 = 64 there are still 86 F-5s against 16 F-22's, once close in manuvering flight 5 against 1, the one is at a great disadvantage. Mixing it up will result in the loss of F-22's even if there are successful close in. They are too expensive to loose, too hard to replace, and not a good trade against a 5M airplane. The only option availabe to save the F-22 is to avoid close in fighting with large numbers of cheap airplanes is a use of a high speed to withdraw from the battlefield thereby ceeding air superority to the other guys. He had some some valid points to think about.

OK, you're getting into the realm of the rediculous. You really think the USAF is going to send a division of anything against 150 of anything? You honestly think there is a country on the planet other than us maintain any C2 with a force that large? Lets suspend reality for a second and ASSUME your situation actually plays out, there isn't anything out there that will 1.) find a Raptor (and thus get to a merge, or employ bvr) 2.) be able to catch it 3.) be able to climb up and get it.

 

[SIG600]

Whenever the USA has actually won a war it was with large numbers of effective mass-produced and reliable weapon systems, a large support system, and well-trained soldiers.

Look at the example of Nazi Germany as a lesson on how not to do it. They sunk a lot of R&D into high-tech projects such as mega-tanks and jet fighters which, while they were good, sucked up a lot of resources into a small number of weapons which couldn't stop the onslaught of Shermans and P-51's. If we ever (god forbid) found ourselves in a shooting match with the Russians or the Chinese I'd rather we not be in the same position the Germans were.

Yes, but they did it during a major world war and it was too little to late. Had they had the ME-262 and all those cool toys at the beginning we would all be speaking German, and historians all agree. The point is to have the edge when the fight breaks out. Prepare for the next war, not the last one.

 

[pilotyip]

We were drinking

OK, you're getting into the realm of the rediculous. You really think the USAF is going to send a division of anything against 150 of anything? You honestly think there is a country on the planet other than us maintain any C2 with a force that large? Lets suspend reality for a second and ASSUME your situation actually plays out, there isn't anything out there that will 1.) find a Raptor (and thus get to a merge, or employ bvr) 2.) be able to catch it 3.) be able to climb up and get it.

It was four years ago and we were drinking, so I may not have the entire details straight. But his premise of it being bad idea to trade a very expensive airplane for a cheap one would still appear to be valid. Again his concern was misallocation for an overly specialized airplane at the expense of the rest of the USAF. Such as the USAF getting out of electronic warfare and turning it over to the Navy. BTW you don't think China or India is capable building lots of cheap airplanes, and developing system to find F-22's. After all they are way ahead of us in turning out brilliant engineers and mathematicians.

 

[SIG600]

I BTW you don't think China or India is capable building lots of cheap airplanes, and developing system to find F-22's. After all they are way ahead of us in turning out brilliant engineers and mathematicians.

No, but they aren't building lots of cheap small fighters, they are building LOTS of 4-4.5 generation fighters. The success of the F-10 is a prime example of this, complimented by the indigenous Flankers they are building. HENCE, the need for something like the F-22. Sure, we can build more Eagles for cheaper and match them, but when we go to war I don't want to be on even terms. I want to go to war with every technological advantage available to us, step on their throat and mow them over.

 

[pilotyip]

No, but they aren't building lots of cheap small fighters, they are building LOTS of 4-4.5 generation fighters. The success of the F-10 is a prime example of this, complimented by the indigenous Flankers they are building. HENCE, the need for something like the F-22. Sure, we can build more Eagles for cheaper and match them, but when we go to war I don't want to be on even terms. I want to go to war with every technological advantage available to us, step on their throat and mow them over.

I'm sorry you are right