First Operational F/A-22 Delivered.

[HueyPilot]

F-22

I'll agree with Jim on the F/A-22. The "A" designator only was added to justify having such an expensive aircraft, considering the USAF literally owns the air superiority arena. It's a good idea to have a few F-22s around, but there aren't any real contenders in A/S field in the near future. China is expanding it's military, but they don't have anywhere near the capability of even our F-15C force. And they won't be able to match our F-15C pilots for quite some time.

But that's not what is really chafing me about the F-22. It's the fact that the USAF sacrificed other important programs or reduced their scale to foot the bill for the F-22....the "fighter mafia" in the Pentagon proved to the rest of us what their #1 priority was...the F-22. The B-1 upgrades, -135 replacement, C-5 RERP, CV-22, C-130 AMP and even the T-6 was delayed, reduced, canceled or moved around to keep the F-22 afloat.

It was almost laughable to see the obvious irony in the thought process. They claimed we needed the F-22 right away to keep the F-15C (of which most were 5-15 years old when they started with this line of thought) from falling apart because they were so old and raggedy.

Yet they were willing to let the KC-135 fly without a replacement until the 2020s....those airframes would be 60+ years old by then. It took Boeing and the folks at the KC-135 program office to bluntly say "your KC-135s are rotting inside out" to convince the USAF brass that their priorities were wrong. And that led us down the road to lease the KC-767s. The USAF says leasing is "preferable" to buying, not because of money, but because now they realize that if they don't get the 1956-era KC-135E out of the air and the KC-767 into service by 2005-2006, they will either have to force the KC-135E into retirement without a replacement or have them literally come apart due to structural fatigue.

My take....in the mid to late 1990s, a -135 replacement should have been priority #1, NOT the F-22. Instead, the F-22 was the top priority, the JSF was #2, and the C-17 buy going from 120 to 180 was #3. The new tanker was somewhere around priority #18 or so. The F-22 is probably a great fighter. It's probably a marginal attack aircraft. And it could have waited a few more years.

 

[AlbieF15]

Without air superiority/dominance, every other airplane flying is vunerable as are ground forces both on the front and in the rear areas.

Why can C130s and tac airlifters get into and out of the theater without getting shot down by enemy fighters? Ditto for the heavy iron droppers like the B-1 and B-52. Without the ability to control the skies, every other platform, no matter how capable, is at risk.

Air to air combat is about as close to a zero sum game as possible. You either have it, or you don't. A Flanker is a flying SAM site...a jet capable of wreaking absolute havoc on strike packages or attacking friendly ground targets if left unchecked.. The SA-10/12 are terrific SAMs, similar in capability to the Patriot system, and can tremendously complicate strike forces ability to attack targets. The advantage held the last few years by the F15/F16/F18 is waning, and has largely been held due to superior training and doctrine.

My point isn't that the F-22 isn't expensive or that its the greatest fighter ever designed, etc. However, doctrine dictates for us to continue the success we've had since the Vietnam war ended, we must have the ability to control the skies. A great new tanker fleet or updated strike aircraft are in fact necessary, but if we neglect creating the fighters to protect them they will likely suffer serious losses in campaigns down the road.

 

[NookyBooky]

Priorities in the pentagon

You got to love the power of corporate lobbyists. If they can convice the pentagon to replace the F-14D with the [ahem] "Super" Hornet, then they can do anything. It's a wonder that we don't just send them to the mid-east, they would have that place looking like Switzerland (minus the cool forests, gnarly mountains, and hot chicks of course) in no time.


........But then again, wtf do I know

 

[HueyPilot]

F-22

Balance...it's all about balance. True, the F15/16/18 edge is getting duller. That's just how things go. But if we have the most effective A/S fighters out there, but our tanker fleet is falling apart, how effective will the total team be?

The fact is, since the 1950s and 1960s, they've developed dozens of new fighter designs, a handfull of bomber designs, and a half-dozen or so airlift designs. But we've relied on the -135 way too much. We bought a token number of KC-10s, but with fewer than 60 floating around, there aren't enough to carry the -135's burden.

I'm not saying the F-22 is a bad airplane, nor that there isn't a requirement for more advanced tactical fighters. But we need a balance. For the past 10 years, it's been all "F-22...F-22....C-17...F-22....F-22". Other important players in the game were neglected. Notably the tanker and bomber fleet.