Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Seeing that there was a no fly zone established. That would be the raptors reason for deployment, to patrol the no fly zone. That's what I'm trying to say. And by stole the raptors thunder meant that the eagles vipers and hornets were doing the air superiority Job just fine. Now attempting to get on topic with this comparison. If you want to compare 5th gen aircraft then use the PAK FA not the flanker. Also since I put PAK FA in a sentence let me clarify. The PAK FA is not an aircraft to be dismissed as a piece of flying trash. It's still being tested and has a lot of growth potential.

Why waste airframe hours, with a limited size fleet, against a non-peer threat?

Here's a better question. Why waste money on an aircraft that was designed to face a long gone soviet threat? Also rest assured. WWIII will not happen as I've stated before the soviet union is dead and we have a good relationship with Russia. If we do end up going to war with a country that has an air force then I'm putting my money on north Korea or Iran. And honestly I don't even see that happening. As said before the F-22 will most likely be reduced to bombing a bunch of terrorists in a cave. Which the predator,AC-130,B-52,B-1B,F-16,F-18 and F-15E do perfectly fine in. And finally 187 aircraft is more then enough.

Here's a better question. Why waste money on an aircraft that was designed to face a long gone soviet threat? Also rest assured. WWIII will not happen as I've stated before the soviet union is dead and we have a good relationship with Russia. If we do end up going to war with a country that has an air force then I'm putting my money on north Korea or Iran. And honestly I don't even see that happening. As said before the F-22 will most likely be reduced to bombing a bunch of terrorists in a cave. Which the predator,AC-130,B-52,B-1B,F-16,F-18 and F-15E do perfectly fine in. And finally 187 aircraft is more then enough.

The F-22 can barely use any air-ground ordnance, what would be the point of deploying it to Libya? It's not suitable for the mission.

That didn't stop the British deploying the Typhoon, although I imagine that was for marketing reasons rather than it being an actually useful deployment.

Here's a better question. Why waste money on an aircraft that was designed to face a long gone soviet threat? Also rest assured. WWIII will not happen as I've stated before the soviet union is dead and we have a good relationship with Russia. If we do end up going to war with a country that has an air force then I'm putting my money on north Korea or Iran. And honestly I don't even see that happening. As said before the F-22 will most likely be reduced to bombing a bunch of terrorists in a cave. Which the predator,AC-130,B-52,B-1B,F-16,F-18 and F-15E do perfectly fine in. And finally 187 aircraft is more then enough.

Those preparing to fight the last war always leave themselves unprepared for the next. All the high-speed-low-drag-COIN stuff we're working on?? How's THAT going to fare in an all-out land war with China or Iran, eh??

It's not like 'high-speed-low-drag-COIN stuff' wouldn't work in an all-out war with China or Iran actually. Once you kick in the door and take the gun away from the guy inside you pretty much have free run of the house. That is why after you successfully prosecute the SEAD mission you can reduce your workload to non-frontline aircraft. In Vietnam there was a lot of ordnance dropped by non-frontline fighters because they were in relatively low threat areas. We shouldn't get fixated on strictly using the high tech geewhiz stuff for dropping bombs.

Ah the BUFF, and aircraft that has been is flying for 60 years, production line has been closed for 45 years, and is outlasting all of it's intended replacements. They don't make em like they used to.