F-15X or F-15SE, F-35, F-22 as air fighter

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

quicksilver

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2753
  • Joined: 16 Feb 2011, 01:30

Unread post21 Jun 2019, 18:41

Well...re: that ‘lost a 30 year advantage’ idea —

The ATF selection went to Lockheed in April 1991. By my math, 2021 would be 30 years and the rest of the planet has yet to field any operational equivalents. Meanwhile, the boys in blue have pcap underway and who knows what else behind the curtain somewhere.

Lotsa arguments for/against F-22 decision that will likely go for the duration of our time on the planet. But, the decision to accept some strategic risk by cutting the buy, at least to this point, has not proven to be flawed.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1331
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post21 Jun 2019, 19:06

What single air force is going to survive for long if faced by about 150 Raptors anyway ? The point is the politics arrayed against it was strong, Obama, Gates, McCain etc and the Russian and Chinese militaries were quiet at the time, before Ukraine, before SCS island building so it was just bad timing and anyway the F-35 makes the F-22 deficient in certain areas like IR sensors which the Su-57/J-20 are not lacking. Time to let the F-22 production run story RIP and look forward to a much more modern PCA.
Offline

disconnectedradical

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2010, 00:44
  • Location: San Antonio, TX

Unread post22 Jun 2019, 07:33

When talking about making more F-22s, the point is that we should have continued producing F-22s back in 2009 when it was still in production. Obviously making more F-22s NOW is a bad idea since production line is gone and all the non-recurring cost to restart is huge and not worth it and we’re better off focusing on PCA. I admit back then I didn’t see ending F-22 production as a mistake, but now in hindsight I do, since upfront cost can be made up for by retiring F-15C early and simplifying logistics. Also, when arguing F-22 is not used in Iraq, it is replacing F-15C which isn’t used in Iraq either.

Some of the problems like F-15C life running out and needing upgrades and life extensions is result of F-22 buy cut short. Maybe even the whole F-15EX nonsense can be avoided if all 381 F-22s were made.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 19:20

disconnectedradical wrote:When talking about making more F-22s, the point is that we should have continued producing F-22s back in 2009 when it was still in production. Obviously making more F-22s NOW is a bad idea since production line is gone and all the non-recurring cost to restart is huge and not worth it and we’re better off focusing on PCA. I admit back then I didn’t see ending F-22 production as a mistake, but now in hindsight I do, since upfront cost can be made up for by retiring F-15C early and simplifying logistics. Also, when arguing F-22 is not used in Iraq, it is replacing F-15C which isn’t used in Iraq either.

Some of the problems like F-15C life running out and needing upgrades and life extensions is result of F-22 buy cut short. Maybe even the whole F-15EX nonsense can be avoided if all 381 F-22s were made.


R & D cost was already paid for. Such a waste to spend billions to develop a fighter and then truncate the program. They did the same thing to the B-2. It was incredibly stupid and irresponsible of Gates to not find money in the budget to keep production going. They kept producing C-17s with a similar fly away cost. And also allowed foreign AFs to purchase aircraft to keep the line going. You would think that a career intelligence analyst of all people would have anticipated the growing threat of China and the implications to the force structure of purchasing such a small lot of air superiority fighters.

Hopefully they have learned their lesson and will not truncate the F-35. The nation made a huge investment in the fighter. It would be a waste to not have a return in that investment.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 21:18

I respectfully disagree.

When the F-22 came around, the cold war was over. There simply where no enemies for such an aircraft.
The Ruskies stuck in all their S-27 variations, and the F-16, F-15 and F-18 where all more then capable enough to handle the Mig-29 variants.

The Chinese had other cats to take care off. First and most important to get the economy going with an increasing population. War? The Chinese where not thinking about war, not even remotely.

Stopping the F-22 got more resources into the better aircraft => the F-35.

So many years later? Where are we?

Well, the Ruskie Su failure is no where to be seen, and the Chinese are just starting, but none is close, and won't be for at least the next decade.

For the bomber squad. Hello, what or who are you gonna bomb?
To build a bomber you need targets.

And with an attack aircraft like the F-35, the bomber requirement is where exactly?

Well, you could bomb Antarctica and make the water levels go up.
Or bomb a hole in the earth, and make the water levels go down. LOL.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1115
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post25 Jun 2019, 21:24

Ach, the F-22 and B2 where cold war idea's.

The same cold war the Tornado, Rafale and Tiffy where build for.

That is also the reason why Europe is not interested any more in investing gazillion dollars in the military.

If Trump wants to police the world?
Let him buy a colt 45 himself and do the Job himself.

He can not,
he needs both hands to twitter. LOL.
There is more brain in a 5 year old.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Jun 2019, 00:25

vilters wrote:I respectfully disagree.

When the F-22 came around, the cold war was over. There simply where no enemies for such an aircraft.
The Ruskies stuck in all their S-27 variations, and the F-16, F-15 and F-18 where all more then capable enough to handle the Mig-29 variants.

The Chinese had other cats to take care off. First and most important to get the economy going with an increasing population. War? The Chinese where not thinking about war, not even remotely.

Stopping the F-22 got more resources into the better aircraft => the F-35.


By the time the F-22 first flew the Cold War was over. By the time they decided to cancel it though the world had changed drastically. PAK-FA was well under development as was the J-20 (as later events proved). Ending production of the F-22 was f--king retarded, as many higher ups in the USAF indicated at the time- and were fired for expressing their opinion.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post26 Jun 2019, 02:19

sferrin wrote:
vilters wrote:I respectfully disagree.

When the F-22 came around, the cold war was over. There simply where no enemies for such an aircraft.
The Ruskies stuck in all their S-27 variations, and the F-16, F-15 and F-18 where all more then capable enough to handle the Mig-29 variants.

The Chinese had other cats to take care off. First and most important to get the economy going with an increasing population. War? The Chinese where not thinking about war, not even remotely.

Stopping the F-22 got more resources into the better aircraft => the F-35.


By the time the F-22 first flew the Cold War was over. By the time they decided to cancel it though the world had changed drastically. PAK-FA was well under development as was the J-20 (as later events proved). Ending production of the F-22 was f--king retarded, as many higher ups in the USAF indicated at the time- and were fired for expressing their opinion.


Weak argument as the F-35 is much more versatile and cheaper to both own and operate. In addition it has "no" serious threat within the foreseeable future.

Those are easily supportable facts...
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3533
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post26 Jun 2019, 14:30

It was flat out sad to watch McCain defend the A-10, when the USAF was right there with data showing how most CAS was done by B-1B's, F-16's, Strike Eagles etc..

I'm not sure if he really believed what he was saying or his faculties were failing, but it was a pathetic moment. The poor woman trying to explain these things to him was browbeaten into submission. It probably is a good idea to have a few A-10's around for low intensity conflicts, but McCain wouldn't have even entertained that.

His hatred for the F-35 was palpable, as he was seemingly unable to discern teething problems all new weapons systems go through from what an effective warplane it has matured into. I wonder what he'd think today of what the pilots say, the 20-1 kill ratio's coming back from Red Flag, etc..
Online

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8399
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Jun 2019, 15:55

If it's a low-intensity conflict, then a "Light Attack" turboprop is just as good and a heck of a lot less expensive.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5453
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post26 Jun 2019, 18:09

Corsair1963 wrote:Weak argument as the F-35 is much more versatile and cheaper to both own and operate. In addition it has "no" serious threat within the foreseeable future.


Well that's flat out wrong. Both the J-20 and Su-57 could be threats within the foreseeable future. So could the J-31 for that matter.

Corsair1963 wrote:Those are easily supportable facts...


I don't think that means what you think it does.
"There I was. . ."
Offline

weasel1962

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1793
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2012, 02:41
  • Location: Singapore

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 01:25

SpudmanWP wrote:If it's a low-intensity conflict, then a "Light Attack" turboprop is just as good and a heck of a lot less expensive.


Helo!

Can't resist the Endgame paraphrase: I helo you 3000 (which is the number of H-60 + AH64s).
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5868
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 02:27

sferrin wrote:
Well that's flat out wrong. Both the J-20 and Su-57 could be threats within the foreseeable future. So could the J-31 for that matter.


Highly unlikely as the US has decades of experience developing and fielding both Stealth Fighters and Bombers. While, China and Russia have very little. Honestly, I've seen nothing to suggest either have closed the gap significantly enough. In order to pose a serious challenge...

I don't want to speak for the majority here. Yet, I doubt very few would disagree with that assessment. :|


I don't think that means what you think it does.


No comment....... :roll:
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 21:21

vilters wrote:Ach, the F-22 and B2 where cold war idea's.

The same cold war the Tornado, Rafale and Tiffy where build for.

That is also the reason why Europe is not interested any more in investing gazillion dollars in the military.

If Trump wants to police the world?
Let him buy a colt 45 himself and do the Job himself.

He can not,
he needs both hands to twitter. LOL.
There is more brain in a 5 year old.


Labeling a weapon system as a Cold War weapon is one of the silliest arguments. Why is the F-22 no relevant and the F-35 relevant? Just because one was designed after the Cold War was concluded? That's the type of argument that a failed CIA Soviet analyst makes.

Beyond the threat, Gates should have also understood the impact of the force structure in transforming the F-22 into a silver bullet force. As a student of history and an intelligence analyst he should have understood that nations, especially this nation, has failed to anticipate and prepare for emerging threats. The intelligence estimates might have been wrong, but Gates was uniquely positioned to do his own analysis. He didn't or he chose to ignore the emerging threat from Russia and China.
Offline

blain

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 157
  • Joined: 04 Apr 2017, 22:52

Unread post27 Jun 2019, 21:33

mixelflick wrote:It was flat out sad to watch McCain defend the A-10, when the USAF was right there with data showing how most CAS was done by B-1B's, F-16's, Strike Eagles etc..

I'm not sure if he really believed what he was saying or his faculties were failing, but it was a pathetic moment. The poor woman trying to explain these things to him was browbeaten into submission. It probably is a good idea to have a few A-10's around for low intensity conflicts, but McCain wouldn't have even entertained that.

His hatred for the F-35 was palpable, as he was seemingly unable to discern teething problems all new weapons systems go through from what an effective warplane it has matured into. I wonder what he'd think today of what the pilots say, the 20-1 kill ratio's coming back from Red Flag, etc..


McCain was erratic (as evidenced by his presidential campaign), volatile, and was unconcerned by fact, or really dumb. Taken together it made for a very bad combination.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests