Forum: F-22A Raptor

You are right in saying that some of the threats (mainly the Soviet Union) don't exist anymore. But Russia is selling relatively advanced fighter aircraft to whomever will buy them. Hell, even Chavez in Venezuela has Su-27 variants, and he's right in our back yard! I'm not saying Venezuela is a threat; what I'm saying is, anybody with a buck can put up an advanced IDS with SAM's and enough good (not necessarily great) fighters to make a conflict prolonged and bloody. Nobody in their right minds would go to war with the USA and hope to come out on top. But that doesn't mean that if something happens we will just roll over them. The F-22 problem is a nice example of that: In numbers they will have an immediate effect. In low numbers however, it's going to be a challenge because commanders will have to prioritize targets. That will either prolong the conflict or make more vulnerable aircraft exposed to advanced threats - or both. Another problem is attrition. One F-16 loss is not so bad in the grand scheme of things - however one F-22 loss is very bad, because of how expensive the aircraft is and how few there are. Pilot losses are even worse, regardless of what plane they were flying. So by virtue of there being less F-22's to take out the IDS, you will expose more pilots lives.

Remember, the USA cannot predict what wars it will fight in the future. Someone may attack us and we'd have to respond. Predictions about how wars will be fought are more often wrong than they are right - a good example is the dependance on missles only by American aircrews trying to shoot down North Vietnamese MiGs at the beginning of Vietnam. Countries are keen to prepare for the worst case scenario, not the best. To think that we are on top of the world and no one will challenge us is a bit arrogant to say the least.

I'd like to see at least 250 F-22's, but I doubt it will happen.We have quite a financial crisis in our hands and I don't think it would be wise to argue for more than 250.

Fighter aircraft are not being exported to threaten nations in enough numbers to justify more fighters. Also, it takes more than a dozen or so fighters and a few late-model surface-to-air missiles to create an integrated air defense system that would pose an unusual challenge for the United States Air Force. Finally, I am not predicting what wars will happen, but rather if they happen, would they be threatening enough to justify more airplanes. The answer is no. Neither the threat inventories, or the potential threat inventories exist to justify additional procurement.

Take a look at the existing inventory of threat aircraft. Especially inventories consisting of Soviet era aircraft. Operational readiness is in the toilet. Moreover, if you take a look at production rates inside of fighter exporting countries, they aren't enough to meet current demand much less increase to levels that would mandate more F-22's.

-DA

in addition to politics and economics, there is also the reality that the threats that dictated the original estimate numbers do not exist anymore. In other words, the situation that dictated those numbers no longer exist. That means it makes sense to reevaluate the totals. All of these things play a part. Politics, economics and actual demand.

-DA

Well considering that we'll likely never have to fight a land war against Russia or China, do you think we could scale our Army down to say 5 Divisions, and get rid of the Marines altogether?

I mean what other small country could take on 5 US divisions, so we obviously don't need any more than that right?

No, but in 15 years the F-35 will be in full production and a mature platform. I can also see that the nations who make the jets we generally consider threats aren't anywhere near the kind of production capacity nor are they making the LOGISTICS moves necessary to support fighter forces of the sizes that would justify more F-22's. I see a lot of smaller nations upgrading their Soviet Era jets to post Cold War late model Flanker Variants in numbers generally below 2 dozen and the larger nations aren't in an economic position nor do they have the industrial capacity to do a Soviet style expansion. So I really don't need a crystal ball.

-DA

Air Forces don't occupy terrain, the Army and USMC do. Don't make silly comparisons if you don't understand how and with what wars are fought. Before you respond do a basic google search on locations where our Ground components and permanently fixed and the rotation cycles they have to keep and ask yourself if your question makes sense. Then take note of the two wars we are fighting now and compare the demand for ground units vs air superiority fighters.

-DA

And if you did have a crystal ball it would be telling you that the world has figured out and came to the conclusion that none of them will ever be able to take on the US alone. No nation is going to need to have 100's of planes each and the logistics you speak of because that's not how it's goin to happen. It is already happening to a small degree and that is they know the way to beat us is to spread us out to the point we are stretched to thin to be effective everywhere we are at and if we continue down this path of fewer of everything but *better* we are going to be in for a rude awakening one fine day. We are already stretched to the breaking point in the mid east and got 2 nut jobs pressing us right now because they know full well our situation. In time others just like them will follow and we are going to be in trouble.

There are dozens of nations that hate out guts and several of them are our so called *friends* now but the reality is they are one little coup away from being another Iran over night. We are laoding many of them up with our finest weapons money can buy and you watch and see DA, when we wind up fighting in a dozen different places, no matter how good the equipment we have is, we are not going to have enough of it and then they got us.

We are the ones that are going to have to worry about a logistics chain, not our enemys. They will be fighting in their back yard and we will be trying to have a supply chain of men and equipment stretched from one end of the planet to the other and all corners like a spider webb and it's not going to work out so well for us when that day comes. You told be once that one F22 was suppose to be as good as 10 F15's and maybe it is. But one thing it can't do is be in as many places at the same time as 10 F15s and once more and more of these 2 bit tin horn dictators around the world get the gonads to press the issue, we are gonna find that out the hard way.

The Soviets were in reality the one war that never was going to happen. The world is FAR more dangerous now then when the US and the Soviets were at the height of our little cold war. The US is also in more danger now then it ever was with the Soviets. They never were going to attack us, but these n ut jobs out there now will and are. Two wars and counting DA. Let these guys figure out if they can get us into another 5 or 6 and we are in serious trouble with the direction we are heading with numbers. Because people like you that claim to have moved on and no longer think like the old days with the US and the Soviets had massive forces. In your haste to change your mindsets, you actually didn't. You still are baseing what you *think* we will need based on what enemy has the potential to put together a Soviet style buildup when no one out there but you and people like you are thinking like that. Our enemys are planning on stretching us thin with small forces all over and you and your kind are watching for those who have a potential Soviet style capability as a single nation and planning our defenses based on it!!

Our enemys must be laughing daily and licking their chops just waiting for the day when they figure we are cut to the point they can come at us from a dozen directions with smaller forces and we will not have the numbers to be in all of them effectively. They know this, but military geniuses like you don't? Hmmm

Don't forget to add in an Alien invasion too!

No, but in 15 years the F-35 will be in full production and a mature platform. I can also see that the nations who make the jets we generally consider threats aren't anywhere near the kind of production capacity nor are they making the LOGISTICS moves necessary to support fighter forces of the sizes that would justify more F-22's. I see a lot of smaller nations upgrading their Soviet Era jets to post Cold War late model Flanker Variants in numbers generally below 2 dozen and the larger nations aren't in an economic position nor do they have the industrial capacity to do a Soviet style expansion. So I really don't need a crystal ball.

-DA

Air Forces don't occupy terrain, the Army and USMC do. Don't make silly comparisons if you don't understand how and with what wars are fought. Before you respond do a basic google search on locations where our Ground components and permanently fixed and the rotation cycles they have to keep and ask yourself if your question makes sense. Then take note of the two wars we are fighting now and compare the demand for ground units vs air superiority fighters.

-DA

DA are you retarded? Sorry to come after you like this but come on. Air Power has played a very important part in ALL modern wars. Whoever owns the skies can fight with impunity on the ground, because there won't be enemy air attacks. That is the whole principle of Air Superiority. Just because our enemies of the moment don't have an Air Force does not mean that our enemies of tomorrow won't either. If anyone should take a look in google about how modern wars are fought it is you. Please do yourself a favor and Google Gulf War 1 and the Six Day War.

Check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Focus

in addition to politics and economics, there is also the reality that the threats that dictated the original estimate numbers do not exist anymore. In other words, the situation that dictated those numbers no longer exist. That means it makes sense to reevaluate the totals. All of these things play a part. Politics, economics and actual demand.

-DA

No, I'm not. And from direct experience I can tell you that owning the Sky does not mean you will wipe out your enemy and it is also no guarantee of fighting with impunity except from aircraft which are not always the best way to kill the enemy. Air Power is important but it is a LUXURY and is not absolutely essential. Also, WHAT ENEMIES OF TOMORROW? NAME ONE THAT JUSTIFIES THIS? It doesn't matter, the OSD and POTUS have made it clear they don't want this plane in more numbers so that will be it most likely I'm afraid.

-DA