Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I know after this has been read I will get many negative replies and people quoting me "facts" about why the F-22 is needed but here goes. The F-22 is a brilliant piece of engineering but at an extreme cost, it is probably the best fighter in the world (again at its cost you would expect it to be), but its going far to "other the top". What is the US expecting to be going up against in the next 20 years? There is no competition out there that comes even close to the F-22, even the US current fighter is still far ahead of any of the fighters of the US's potential enemies. How can the US government justify spending this amount of money on a fighter jet? I could kill a fly with a rolled up magazine, but the US would insist on using a bazooka based on their logic for the Raptor.

Now a lot of people in here claim that the F-22 would destroy the Typhoon, I don't ever remember seeing these two aircraft pitted against each other so I don't know what this statement is based on. Yes you can look at facts all day long and say the F-22 is better, but many previous fighters have been considered far superior by people in the past who have just looked at the facts on paper, and it turns out they have under-performed. An aircraft proves itself when its in combat, and although its likely the F-22 would beat the Typhoon, I'd say it would still be close (but again I have nothing to base that on). So the F-22 and Typhoon are the two best fighters in the world, why didn't the US develop an aircraft on the same lines and budget as the typhoon, or gone ahead with the JSF program on its own? Was there an imminent threat to the US? Was Russia or China about to form a coalition to invade the US? I just think the Raptor is unnecessary. Yes its a spectacular aircraft, but not needed.

Ok now a lot of Americans will reply to this saying the Raptor is needed because as Americans they are proud of it, and will defend it because its an American Aircraft. But personally if I was a US citizen, I would be outraged on the money spent on the Raptor. The Cold War ended many years ago, its time to stop this arms race. yes you always need to develop new technologies, but keep it within reason. Just looking at the orders being slashed you can see the US government are struggling to afford this aircraft. Right America you've been told, now don't do this again or you will be in big trouble next time Laughing

F-16.net Sponsor

Last edited by shadowhawk27 on Jan 11, 2007 - 01:35 PM; edited 1 time in total

I rarely chip in on these Troll type threads, but they seem to becoming more common on this forum, much to the detriment of the other, more learned, posts.

It sounds like this guy already has made his mind up; we all know the type... So can we close this before some of the 'regulars' embark on a mission to attempt to educate him.

Remember, opinions are like ****holes, everyone has one and nobody wants to hear yours...

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 - 08:39 PM Posts: 1496

Quote:

Right America you've been told, now don't do this again or you will be in big trouble next time

Quote:

Yes you can look at facts all day long and say the F-22 is better, but many previous fighters have been considered far superior by people in the past who have just looked at the facts on paper, and it turns out they have under-performed.

Anecdotal, circular logic. Is this just a trolling attempt?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Shadowhawk is definitely right. The amount of trolling on this forum has increased significantly in the last month or two. What's up with that?

As a great American (George S. Patton) once said:

Quote:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country.

To do this, America arms it's pilots with the VERY best gear we can, not similar, not just better... THE BEST.

Sure it's expensive, but what would the alternative be? New fighter designs every 10-15 years? Wars where we lose hundreds of pilots and planes? We are in a position where our enemies are afraid to come up to meet us. That's what we want. Keep them on the ground where the mudmovers pound the crud out of them.

I am confident that LM has done a great job on the F-22 and will continue innovating with the F-35. How can I say that? Can we say F-117 and B-2?
During GW1 they thought that we would lose several F-117s but they continued to prosecute their missions in Baghdad without ever getting scratched. That was 15+ years ago. Stealth tech has progressed exponentially since then.

Sure the per unit cost is a lot but we spend less of a percent of our GDP on defense than most modern countries. There are several reasons for this:
1. We are isolated by two large oceans and do not have to fear a land based invasion.
2. Our Navy rocks and we can fight our battles elsewhere before they reach our shores.
3. We have a worldwide refueling network that allows us to strike anywhere at anytime with only a couple of hour notice.
4. JDAM and PAVEWAY (soon to be joined into one bomb) allow us to do precision strikes where one bomber can take out dozens of targets in a single strike.

We used to have to have dozens of bombers, dropping hundreds of bombs to take out just a handful of targets. For example, in the first week of Linebacker2 (Vietnam War) we used dozens of Buffs and lost 9 B-52Gs with their crews (not sure of KIA/MIA/POW/escaped ratio) to takeout a few targets.

Now compare the cost of those 9 B-52Gs, lifetime maint on the aircraft, bombload, 40+ crew, all the training for the crew, and all the support aircraft (takers and escorts and their maint, training, and crew) to ONE B-2 with a load of JDAM / SDB and two pilots. btw, the B-2 won't get shot down.

This same dynamic of cost in aircraft and personnel applies to fighters as well. The F-22 (without HOBS) has already gone 1-6 against F-15s without a scratch. Since Vietnam and the with the advent of an instantaneous news cycle, public opinion does not like to see even a single soldier lost.

We will continue to provide our pilots with the BEST, hands-down GREATEST tech money can buy and I will continue to be glad to pay for it as long as it keeps the enemy air assets in their hangers and away from our troops on the ground.

*sighs* Well I can't say I wasn't expecting this, negative replies and facts thrown at me. And yes you are right, you probably won't change my view on this. The Raptor is well over the budget the US should be spending, don't get me wrong its an awesome plane, but why was it needed? Also technology doesn't win wars on its own, Vietnam is an example of this (and now I've said that I'll get replies telling me that the US did this and that and they lost because of blah blah blah). Don't take my thread as an attack, it's not an attack on the USA its a valid question of which it would be nice for a decent reply. You don't have to agree with me but you could at least say it in a more friendly manner.

Ok you've called this a "troll thread" not sure what that is (afraid i'm rather new here) but its obviously not good. I've seen threads with press reports which have been slightly negative to the F-22, people have replied to these straight away defending the raptor and claiming the press is wrong. Now most of you have got your facts through the media, because I doubt most of you are high up in Lockheed Martin or know someone who is who is willing to telll you this stuff.

I can give you a similar example, the M1 Abrams tanks. Now they did something different with the Abrams than they usually do with other tanks, and that was put a gas turbine in it. At the time they were raving about the Abrams saying how it was the best tank in the world because of it brilliant armour (Chobham variant), exellent gun (from the Leopard 2) and most of all its speed due to the GT. Then we learn of its drawbacks, its great to have that speed but it has its price, that price is fuel. The Abrams is extremely thirsty and has a range far less than its reciprocating engine counterparts. The other problem with it was that troops could not walk behind it in urban environments because of the high temperature exhaust gases being blown out the back. I believe the US is considering going back to the reciprocating engine in their next tank because of the success of the Leopard 2 and Challenger II tanks.

Now we can see the cost is already hitting the US government on the Raptor, as the orders have been slashed greatly over the years. The Abrams is a tank that was suited more to the cold war era where it would have been fighting tanks in an equal league (if it kicked off with the USSR) with its speed giving it an advantage. But its speed is unnecessary and expensive for todays combat. Just read my thread and don't take it as an attack, I would like to hear your non-aggressive views on this.

The Raptor is more expensive than I care for, and they probably could cut the cost in some areas, but it is better to be over prepared for a threat far in the future, than unprepared for an imminent threat.

And about the Abrams, it was never designed for urban evironments, it was designed to go head to head with the Soviets in Europe, the only way one can effectively use a tank in an urban environment is by going quickly and keeping the infantry in APCs until they are needed; Not by having them walk alongside.

Quote:

I would like to hear your non-aggressive views on this.

No, you wouldn't really. You began this thread by being aggressive and lecturing us ignunt "'mercans" with your ever so much more refined European intellect about how to run our affairs. Its become desperately apparent that in cyberspace at least, you can't swing a dead cat without hitting a European who isn't willing to tell us everything we are doing wrong....about most everything.

Want a real simple answer? F-22's purpose is to kill people and break things in the most efficient and least dangerous way for its pilots. Period. I didn't say "cost-effective" way. My ignunt knuckle-dragging thinking leads me to this conclusion. We can afford it, and your country doesn't have to, but will certainly reap the benefits of it, directly and indirectly, for many years to come.

No chance we could just get a "thanks, way to go" from a brother, huh?

Just speakin' a little truth here............

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

I can give you a similar example, the M1 Abrams tanks. Now they did something different with the Abrams than they usually do with other tanks, and that was put a gas turbine in it. At the time they were raving about the Abrams saying how it was the best tank in the world because of it brilliant armour (Chobham variant), exellent gun (from the Leopard 2) and most of all its speed due to the GT. Then we learn of its drawbacks, its great to have that speed but it has its price, that price is fuel. The Abrams is extremely thirsty and has a range far less than its reciprocating engine counterparts. The other problem with it was that troops could not walk behind it in urban environments because of the high temperature exhaust gases being blown out the back. I believe the US is considering going back to the reciprocating engine in their next tank because of the success of the Leopard 2 and Challenger II tanks.

Ok, now your getting personal Wink

Let me start by saying that I was a 19k (for you civies that means that I was in the US Army and was a M1A1 crewman). While the M1 is thirsty, the cost in fuel is more than made up for in the speed that it it provides. Just look at the end-run left hook that they did in GW1 that no other MBT could have done. Added to that the new on-board generators allow for a lower fuel consumption during over-watch operations.

The M1 series of MBTs are the most battle tested and successful of modern MBTs. No other modern MBT has gone through, and succeeded in as much combat operations. It has now entered a new arena of operations that it was not designed for. That is to say MOUT combat (urban operations for you civies). To answer these needs, the Army is implementing TUSK kits that do several things, venting the exhaust upwards is one of them.

One other thing that is a benefit that is not talked about much is that the turbines are extremely quiet. It could be sitting behind a building and you could not hear it till it creeps around the corner. MBTs with turbo-diesels are VERY loud.

Let me also say that all of the Urban losses that the M1 has suffered would have happed to any MBT. They are not best suited for urban operations. Part of the TUSK kit will help with these vulnerabilities.

The M1 is another example of having the BEST, not just as good or better, but the BEST.... Regardless of the cost.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

shadowhawk27 wrote:

I rarely chip in on these Troll type threads, but they seem to becoming more coming on this forum, much to the detriment of the other, more learned, posts.

Ok you've called this a "troll thread" not sure what that is (afraid i'm rather new here) but its obviously not good.

From Wikipedia: "In Internet terminology, a troll is usually someone who enters an established community such as an online discussion forum, and posts inflammatory, rude, repetitive, offensive, off-topic or otherwise disruptive messages designed intentionally to annoy or antagonize the existing members or alter the flow of discussion, including the personal attack of calling others trolls."

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

*sighs* Well I can't say I wasn't expecting this, negative replies and facts thrown at me.

From Wikipedia: "Often, a person will post a sincere message about which he is emotionally sensitive. Skillful trolls know that an easy way to upset the person is to falsely claim that they are a "troll." In forums where most users are similar to each other, outsiders may be perceived as trolls simply because they do not fit into the social norms of that group. It can sometimes be difficult to distinguish between a user who merely has different values, views, or ideas, and a user who is intentionally trolling. This can lead to genuinely hostile behavior, including flame wars."

I believe SpeakTheTruth fits the category of posters with different values, and views, rather that of real internet trolls. If somebody genuinely thinks a poster is a troll, then it is best not to respond at all (i.e. 'do not feed the troll').

Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

True, but more tact could have been expressed in the post, for example:

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Right America you've been told, now don't do this again or you will be in big trouble next time Laughing

This is not a good way to express an idea, even if meant as a joke. Now, anyone who tries, can become a liked poster, provided they use some tact and diplomacy.

Active Member Joined: Nov 22, 2004 - 09:20 PM Posts: 134

OK, I'll bite...

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

What is the US expecting to be going up against in the next 20 years? There is no competition out there that comes even close to the F-22, even the US current fighter is still far ahead of any of the fighters of the US's potential enemies.

It's dangerous to try to predict the future, especially in taking what we have in the present for granted. Americans are proud but not nearly that arrogant. What we know right now is that the technology to build a far superior fighter exists and that we need to take advantage of this opportunity in order to ensure that an absolutely vital aspect of our military capability--control of the sky--is virtually guaranteed instead of assumed. It takes a long time to develop a modern fighter, so we can't just start designing them when we need them, we have to put them into production right now (as aging aircraft gradually need to be replaced anyway).

As for our potential enemies, imagine having to defend Taiwan from a suddenly belligerent China whose economy has just collapsed, leaving it vulnerable to a military coup, years from now. Don't believe that it couldn't possibly happen--almost anything is possible. And as for the superiority of our current equipment, there are some very capable new or highly upgraded fighters being proliferated by Russia and Europe (and the US for that matter), and if the training and doctrines of potential adversaries (some of which are more populous than the US) are also improving, then we'll eventually need superior equipment to help maintain a decisive edge.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

How can the US government justify spending this amount of money on a fighter jet? I could kill a fly with a rolled up magazine, but the US would insist on using a bazooka based on their logic for the Raptor.

The USAF regularly conducts military exercises with the air forces of other countries, and respects their capabilities enough to realize that we will soon need a fighter as capable as the F-22. It is neither wise nor becoming for a military service to view their potential enemies as mere flies to be swatted. We can bluster all we want here on this forum, but in the real world of combat, such arrogance has lead to shocking defeat more than a few times in history.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Now a lot of people in here claim that the F-22 would destroy the Typhoon, I don't ever remember seeing these two aircraft pitted against each other so I don't know what this statement is based on. Yes you can look at facts all day long and say the F-22 is better, but many previous fighters have been considered far superior by people in the past who have just looked at the facts on paper, and it turns out they have under-performed.

Thus far, the F-22 has over-performed in complex exercises against the F-15, which you've described as being far ahead of the equipment of our potential enemies (though not necessarily the Typhoon, I'm guessing). The F-22's overwhelming advantages over the F-15 would also apply to the Typhoon, so with the current lack of empirical data, there is no reason to believe that the Typhoon would fare much better. It has a smaller RCS than the F-15, but in BVR combat the F-22 will still detect, track, and bring weapons to bear on the Typhoon long before being detected itself.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

An aircraft proves itself when its in combat,

Well, it can't prove itself until it has been designed and built. If no one had any confidence to predict performance based on comprehensive tests, then no new aircraft would ever have been built!

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

and although its likely the F-22 would beat the Typhoon, I'd say it would still be close (but again I have nothing to base that on).

The USAF know what they're doing, and while no individual or organization is perfect, this time they were careful in making sure that the F-22 excels in every capability that is relevant for a fighter. This is not a case of giving up one capability for another--the F-22 is demonstrably superior in every respect within the scope of its intended role.

If you have nothing on which to base your assertion that the Typhoon would come close, then don't make the assertion. Speculation and outright guessing is alright, because we're all a bunch of fanboys (some of whom have more real credentials than others) having fun and trying to learn, but at least try to provide some reasoning. The bottom line is that the stealthy F-22 will deal with the Typhoon just like it does the F-15, and although it may have a slightly harder time of it, due to the Typhoon's reduced RCS, the end result will be the same until someone finds a way to counter the F-22 to some degree. If you believe otherwise, then tell me why.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

So the F-22 and Typhoon are the two best fighters in the world, why didn't the US develop an aircraft on the same lines and budget as the typhoon,

Such a program would have been very difficult to justify because of the limited increase in capability over what we have now. That said, the US Navy did develop the controversial F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, so that's one somewhat close example of what you're looking for, but it does not take full advantage of what our aerospace industry is able to deliver. The USAF was simply more ambitious and less willing to risk losing the one thing that they've been able to guarantee for over half of a century: control of the sky so that enemy troops are under constant bombardment instead of ours. It also keeps our industry on the forefront of technology, which happens to be a major justification for the Typhoon with regard to Europe. Why didn't they just buy air superiority fighters from us instead of spending all of that money (and it was A LOT of money) on the Typhoon? For that matter, why did France design and build the Rafale on their own?

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

or gone ahead with the JSF program on its own?

Before the US can start bombing the enemy and sending our troops in, air superiority must be established, and the USAF wanted no compromises in something this essential. The intention has always been to then apply much of the technology developed for the ATF (F-22) into the JSF (F-35), resulting in a lower cost for the JSF. Developing only the JSF would have cost nearly as much otherwise, and carried the risk of falling short of their performance goals.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Was there an imminent threat to the US? Was Russia or China about to form a coalition to invade the US?

If they did so ten years from now, for reasons that we cannot even imagine today, would the USAF be called foolish and made a laughingstock for not having adequately prepared ahead of time?

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

I just think the Raptor is unnecessary. Yes its a spectacular aircraft, but not needed.

I liked this hobby better when aviation enthusiasts could simply appreciate aircraft for their own qualities (probably just imagining such a time Wink

). The Raptor may go down as one of the most despised aircraft in history, and mostly not as a result of its qualities (which are often denied anyway). Even many of those who would otherwise support it wholeheartedly pine for the F-23 that was never built (and I'm NOT one of them). Others dream and drool day and night over ridiculous-looking "paper fighters" (designed in Photoshop) that will someday destroy the Raptor. Whatever. Rolling Eyes

For now, the Raptor is the greatest fighter in all of history, and depending on what happens in the future, may end up being the greatest manned fighter ever built. Many people (including Americans) don't like it, and frankly, it doesn't like them, either. Razz

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Ok now a lot of Americans will reply to this saying the Raptor is needed because as Americans they are proud of it, and will defend it because its an American Aircraft. But personally if I was a US citizen, I would be outraged on the money spent on the Raptor.

As a US citizen, I'm outraged by how Congress has interfered with the program, dragging it out by squeezing the funding, and spending far more money on it in the long run by continually reducing the orders, thereby making the whole process far less efficient than it should have been. That's politics for you, and basically the same thing happened to the Eurofighter program. I do not hold this against the Raptor, and would like to get a better return on our financial investment by buying more of them.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

The Cold War ended many years ago, its time to stop this arms race. yes you always need to develop new technologies, but keep it within reason. Just looking at the orders being slashed you can see the US government are struggling to afford this aircraft.

Nah, the world never changes because it is populated by Homo sapiens. The US is simply doing the same thing that many other countries are doing: developing the best weapons we can so that fighting against us would really suck. We can easily afford the Raptor, especially if it had been developed and manufactured as originally planned--forget the politics.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Right America you've been told, now don't do this again or you will be in big trouble next time Laughing

I'm not surprised that people from other countries don't want us to develop superior weapons, nor do I blame them. Smile

Everybody has a right to look after their own interests, after all.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

*sighs* Well I can't say I wasn't expecting this, negative replies and facts thrown at me. And yes you are right, you probably won't change my view on this. The Raptor is well over the budget the US should be spending, don't get me wrong its an awesome plane, but why was it needed? Also technology doesn't win wars on its own, Vietnam is an example of this (and now I've said that I'll get replies telling me that the US did this and that and they lost because of blah blah blah). Don't take my thread as an attack, it's not an attack on the USA its a valid question of which it would be nice for a decent reply. You don't have to agree with me but you could at least say it in a more friendly manner.

Ok you've called this a "troll thread" not sure what that is (afraid i'm rather new here) but its obviously not good. I've seen threads with press reports which have been slightly negative to the F-22, people have replied to these straight away defending the raptor and claiming the press is wrong. Now most of you have got your facts through the media, because I doubt most of you are high up in Lockheed Martin or know someone who is who is willing to telll you this stuff.

I can give you a similar example, the M1 Abrams tanks. Now they did something different with the Abrams than they usually do with other tanks, and that was put a gas turbine in it. At the time they were raving about the Abrams saying how it was the best tank in the world because of it brilliant armour (Chobham variant), exellent gun (from the Leopard 2) and most of all its speed due to the GT. Then we learn of its drawbacks, its great to have that speed but it has its price, that price is fuel. The Abrams is extremely thirsty and has a range far less than its reciprocating engine counterparts. The other problem with it was that troops could not walk behind it in urban environments because of the high temperature exhaust gases being blown out the back. I believe the US is considering going back to the reciprocating engine in their next tank because of the success of the Leopard 2 and Challenger II tanks.

Now we can see the cost is already hitting the US government on the Raptor, as the orders have been slashed greatly over the years. The Abrams is a tank that was suited more to the cold war era where it would have been fighting tanks in an equal league (if it kicked off with the USSR) with its speed giving it an advantage. But its speed is unnecessary and expensive for todays combat. Just read my thread and don't take it as an attack, I would like to hear your non-aggressive views on this.

Just out of curiosity--and I do not mean this to sound in any way xenophobic--but why do YOU care how the U.S. spends its money? I mean, I would understand if you were arguing that the U.S. has screwed the pooch in Iraq and made the Western world less safe (but it would be out of place on this forum), or if you were claiming that the Typhoon is a superior fighter to the Raptor or if you had an issue with Britain buying the F-22 if it were. But, why do you care? I mean, way I see it, you Brits can buy as many Eurofrauders as you like and I'm not going to argue that point. Now, we could talk about what would be best for Norway, for instance, the aforementioned relic-of-a-bygone-era aka Eurocrapper or the F-35 because there is a genuine competition pitting an American fighter against the Frankenfighter, the inevitable abominable result of a design-by-committee approach. But you're arguing that, gee, the U.S. should spend its money otherwise. Again, what dog do you have in this fight?

Simply: the F-22 today is cosing about $120 million. Compare that to the Eurofrauder. Now, take the GDP of Britain and the U.S. As a percentage of GDP, the Eurotrasher is vastly more expensive for Britain than the F-22 is for the U.S. So, what were you saying about the Raptor being so expensive?

As for the M1, last time I checked it ate the Iraqi army for lunch and spit it back out as so much scrap metal. Also, prior to GW1, the media were saying that U.S. equipment was unreliable, over-expensive and underperforming. Did the U.S. not kick sufficient a$$ to prove all the naysayers wrong? Apparently not...

I have to admit that I've always thought the Raptor was overkill however, being on this site has changed my mind (a little). My question is; when the F15 and F16 were being developed, were there discussions about whether or not such an advanced aircraft was needed?

Spiker wrote:

I have to admit that I've always thought the Raptor was overkill however, being on this site has changed my mind (a little). My question is; when the F15 and F16 were being developed, were there discussions about whether or not such an advanced aircraft was needed?

Many thought the F-16 too low end and the F-15 too high end. However, the principal justification for the F-15 had one name: Foxbat. It was perceived as the ultimate Soviet superfighter when first revealed and it scared everybody sh!tless. The F-15 was designed, at least in part, to counter its perceived capabilities. Then what's-his-face defected to Japan with a Foxbat and it turned out the fearsome Mig-25 was a POS. The F-15, then, when it came into service, was the biggest, baddest, meanest SOB in the block, and, considering the threat it was supposed to address, was indeed overkill. Then, of course, the Mig-29 and Su-27 happened...

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

What is the purpose of the F-22?