Gates to Cut Several Major Weapons Programs

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by gumborue, Apr 6, 2009.

Page 1 of 4
  1. gumborue

    gumborue Throwin Ched

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2003
    Messages:
    10,839
    Likes Received:
    577
    gumborue, Apr 6, 2009
    #1
  2. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    Watch how soon Congress gets all over this. They will fight stopping the F-22 production line, make the Army keep bases they don't need, and make the Navy buy destroyers they don't want.
     
    red55, Apr 6, 2009
    #2
  3. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    While the F-22 is a true masterpiece, it is not needed in our Air Forces. It is far too expensive for its use. You can buy about 10 F-16s for the same price. It only has 1 role: air superiority. How do you beat it? You send out 10 F-16s to meet it ;)

    I'd rather them spend the money on finding ways to allow pilotless attack fighters.

    The F-22 is the Tiger Tank of the air. A marvel of engineering, but not practical when a few Shermans can kick your ass.
     
    USMTiger, Apr 6, 2009
    #3
    1 person likes this.
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    We'll have about 190 of them to deal with high-tech opponents, but we're engaged in knife fights in guerilla wars these days and the F-22 doesn't help us at all in that. We're going to buy a bunch more RPV's though . . . and the new unmanned fast fighter first flies in November.

    I can taste my mexican beer now . . .
     
    red55, Apr 6, 2009
    #4
  5. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    You should read that thread title again. :lol:

    Procurement holiday on deck. Clinton bufoonery, Obama style.

    F-22 is not threatened. Jsf (and maybe tankers) however are definitely threatened.
     
    Bandit88, Apr 6, 2009
    #5
  6. Bandit88

    Bandit88 Old Enough to Know Better

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2007
    Messages:
    6,068
    Likes Received:
    511
    Your thinking is too constrained. And those 10 disposable fighters are dead b4 they know what happened.
     
    Bandit88, Apr 6, 2009
    #6
  7. saltyone

    saltyone So Mote It Be

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    Messages:
    7,647
    Likes Received:
    483
    Very true.
     
    saltyone, Apr 7, 2009
    #7
  8. USMTiger

    USMTiger Founding Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2003
    Messages:
    1,668
    Likes Received:
    167
    Too constrained? Good one.

    The F-22 is a great fighter. But it only does air-to-air. The F15 and F16 are more versatile in that they can do both air and ground attack.

    The F-22 has a phenomenal stealth system. However, it's weapon system is not stealth. As soon as it fires a missile then everyone in the area knows where it is, and it has lost most of its advantages.

    The F-22 has an efficient, fast engine, but is no faster than the F-15 or in some respects the F-16.

    So although it is a great weapon, the F-22 doesn't have enough benefits over our existing fighters to justify the fact that it is 10x more expensive. It is the B2 bomber of the fighter jets. High-tech, high-performance, stealthy, but expensive and over-engineered for what we need it for.

    I'd rather see the money spent on retrofitting our existing flights of jets to be more stealthy, or to develop first class remote controls and eliminate the need for a human pilot. The human is the weakest part of the equation when you are talking about jet performance.

    Bandit88, if you actually have any information to support your opinion other than you just think the F-22 is a badass plane, I'd be happy to hear it. Help me unconstrain my thinking. :hihi: And I'm sorry to say that if you really think that 1 F22 could take out 10 F16's, then I want some of what you are drinking.
     
    USMTiger, Apr 7, 2009
    #8
  9. KyleK

    KyleK Who, me? Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Messages:
    9,109
    Likes Received:
    3,366
    A very good friend of mine is an instructor pilot at the base here. He told me about a test/training mission they did up in Alaska w/ the F-22's vs the F-15's, F-16's and F-18's . W/o calling him to get the exact numbers, the story was way more impressive than what Bandit relayed. Basically, all of the 15-18’s were destroyed before they knew the 22 was even in the area. The 22 did not lose its’ stealth when it fired. Additionally, its’ weapon range is farther than the lesser plane’s range/ability to detect the enemy fighter. 10:1 is conservative. Not a single F-22 was lost.

    He summed it up by saying “you can’t kill what you can’t see”.
     
    KyleK, Apr 7, 2009
    #9
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    This is all true, but there are some facts to consider.

    1. The F-15 has a kill record of 95-0 in real war fighting against all comers. We have plenty of high-end air superiority fighters with the hundreds of F-15's we have and the 190 new F-22's can deal with the Su-35, should we ever encounter it in combat. The Eagles can handle all the rest with ease.

    2. Our current enemies in our ongoing wars have no combat aticraft at all. The F-22 can't help us in these fights.

    3. At $140 million a copy, we really can't afford to risk F-22's under many common combat scenarios involving ground-pounding and other low-level missions. We are buying over 2,000 F-35's that are equally stealthy, far cheaper, and have multi-mission capability from the start--including carrier models for the Navy and vertical takeoff models for the Marines.

    I wish we could afford it all, but we can't. We'll go bankrupt like the Soviets if we even try.
     
    red55, Apr 7, 2009
    #10
Page 1 of 4

Share This Page