Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

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

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

I can't say its the same situation with the USAF, and trust me its not.

No, I'd rather not just "trust you". That is the apparent crux of your argument, that the F-22 is just too much overkill. Your response to the Typhoon being the same type of overkill is "trust me it's different"? No thanks. But thanks for playing!

F-16.net Sponsor

Hey guys... please try not to get personal.

We'll need an 'enter at own risk' sign at the top of this thread. Wink

Quote:

You know what, I half agree with you there. The Typhoon is also overkill but there is a slight difference. Have you seen the RAF? Its ancient. Its in desperate need of a new aircraft, thats why they need the Typhoon. Remember they didn't spend nearly as much in the Typhoon (although it is over-budget). So the RAF and many other European airforces were in need of a new aircraft. I can't say its the same situation with the USAF, and trust me its not. I've seen some of these tornado's and the RAF isn't far off just using sticky tape to keep them together. I'm not attacking the US please do not interpret it that way.

Well, why not build more Tornados, or Jaguars....or buy some MiGs?

The newest F-15s are '86 models.
Most of the F-16 fleet is '84-'90 models.

I'm not sure how to interpret "hey, you guys screwed up buying this jet" other than attacking the US.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Ok thankyou for the replies. First of all it was not an aggressive thread, it was a question that you interpreted as aggressive, the joke at the end of my first post was just to lighten the thread a bit not to be taken seriously. Now you may consider this a bias example, but the UK is really the only other nation with the US to deploy its MBT on a large scale. The Challenger II tank also performed exceptionally well in GW2, the M1 is not the best tank in the world it is 'One of the best', don't get the two mixed up. For people who replied saying that my thread is just saying "I don't like America making better planes than us", they are talking rubbish. As far as I know America is a NATO & UN member and is the UK's closest ally, so i'm happy with the US having an aircraft like that.

During a blind taste test, three out of four tank commanders preferred the M1 over the Challenger II. Didn't you get the memo? In all seriousness, the question is academic, as it is unlikely that there will ever be a tank battle between the UK and the U.S. However, as it stands right now, history says the M1 is the most successful MBT ever built. You don't like that? Argue with history me, not me. I don't currently have its email address, though, so you'll have to find it yourself.

Quote:

Ok the GW, people replied saying the M1 "kicked a$$", I would certainly expect it so seeing as what it was going against - an army with little training, no morale no air cover what so ever, equipment that wasn't even close to that of the coalition forces and an army of poor organisation. I can't say the M1 tanks as a force were really challenged to what they were designed for, same with the Challenger II. Ok off tanks now and back to planes.

Little training? What the f*ck are you talking about? How old are you? How well do you know your history? Ever heard of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war? Prior to GW1, I don't think there was a single U.S. tank commander who had previous experience fighting in a large scale, real-world tank battle. Iraqi troops, on the other hand, particularly the Republican Guard, many of them were battle-tested and battle-hardened. No morale? Trying not to get killed I find is a very efficient morale booster. No air cover? Let's talk direct tank-to-tank battles. I believe during the entire GW1, one M1 was lost to enemy action against hundreds of Iraqi tanks killed. T-72 rounds were ricocheting off the M1's armor, while there is at least one documented case of an M1 round going trough one tank to strike another directly behind. If these FACTS are not stunning justification of the M1's success, what OPINION will you now brandish as a counter argument? So now you're saying the M1s weren't challenged to what they were designed for. But that is the whole idea behind its design: PRECISELY SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE CHALLENGED!!! Exact same rule applies to the F-22. Why is that so seemingly difficult to understand?

Quote:

The Raptor costing $120 million per unit, you may want to check that one again, I belive its between $220 and $380 million now taking into account R&D. And the US can afford it? Last time I checked the US was in an astonishing amount of debt, I mean an incredible amount. As someone mentioned the Typhoon wen over-budget and its not very popular because of that in the UK either.

1. The first F-22 cost something like $60 billion. Since then, costs have been going down such that Raptors coming off the assembly line are less than $120 million apiece. It is nothing short of disingeneous to factor in the cost of R&D when you talk about how much a plane costs at the time of purchase. If you were right, then the U.S. would only be getting less than three Raptors per $1 billion spent right now. That is patently false. The figure is greater than eight per billion $. R&D has already been paid for, thus, it is utterly immaterial to factor in that cost as an argument against future purchases of the jet. Period.

2. Actually, the U.S. defficit has been cut in half. We have greater than expected tax revenues to thank for that. The U.S. defense budget, as a proportion of GNP, is at one of the lowest points in the past 100 years, far lower than it was during the Reagan years. Also as a measure of GNP, the deficit is far from a historic high. The Typhoon is unpopular in the UK, as per an article from a British newspaper I posted here, because it spent a ton of money to produce a fighter inferior to several others either operational or soon to be operational and no better in its current form than an F-16 Block 60. Ask any pilot what they would rather take into air-to-air combat right now, and the Block 60 would best the Eurofrauder hands down. It is utterly incredible that the Eurocrapper has actually lost out to the F-16 and F-15, designs that are nearly four decades old, in foreign sales competitions. You guys spent a ton of money to produce a fighter that was obsolete the moment the first copy was produced. You suggest that as a model for the U.S.? Thanks, but no thanks. Yes, we spent a ton of money too, but we actually are getting the best fighter that money can buy. And that, my friend, is inarguable.

Viper_Falcon wrote:

For the record I never once posted anything regarding Russian a/c on ARC.
As for complaining about "sukhoi fanbois" , I think they are nothing compared to the posts here which concentrate more about attacking anything Russian or European.
I did not intend to cause a flame war and I apologise if I personally attacked you.
However attacking a member and calling him a troll just because he offered some opinion and discussion about the purpose of the F22 is pretty lame.
I did not even want to mention Americans in this thread but the way some of you responded and attacked Europeans who you think are out to impede the might of the US military made me do so.

P.S - you wonder why you are being "whipped"?
Just listen to some neutral news channels outside of fox"news"

For the record, much to the annoyance of Raptor_One and undoubtedly others as well, I am one American who thinks we have majorly screwed ourselves in Iraq. The failure, however, has been political, not military. To clarify, though, I would have long ago implemented a scorched-earth policy in Iraq. McCain, I believe, would have gone that route had he been president. We have lacked the political cojones to raze entire villages to pound a primitive people into submission by using the only language they know: overwhleming agression. To pretend to speak the language of democracy to savages who have no clue what it means is on the one hand disastrously naive and on the other dangerous in the extreme. We are living the consequences of that ignorance every day. Thus, I hardly think we are being "whipped" because we are lacking in military ability. What we lack is the political will to see this fight through to its logical conclusion: undertake one last offensive that reduces much of Iraq to a smoking hole in the ground and get the hell out of that god-forsaken POS country. Sorry if that sounds like hell on earth, but goddamnit, war IS hell. Or at least should be. Unfortunately, political correctness dictates that we pretend otherwise at the expense of our own people getting needlessly killed.

(P.S. Raptor_One: I hope you do not see this as an "attack" against the current administration. It is a defense against the notion we are being "whipped" in Iraq. To the extent that this defense assails the current administration's policies, I limited myself to their military consequences. I trust that you now have a better appreciation of where I'm coming from Wink

_

And now, a few facts.

Fact: Since 1980, the kill ratio of U.S.-built fighters vs. Russian-built airframes is close to 200-to-1. This includes everything from Mig-21s and Su-17s to Mig-29s. From this fact it is not unreasonable to form an opinion very much along the lines of "Russian planes suck, American planes rule." You can provide OPINIONS and RATIONALIZATIONS as to why the outcome has been so lopsided, but you cannot argue the facts. Also, anyone who has been to an airshow recently that has featured Russian planes has every right to fear for his life. Those POSs keep crashing. Again. And again. And again...

Fact: During three wars fought by coalition forces (GW1, Bosnia/Kosovo, GW2), European-built aircraft have been very conspicuously left out of air superiority roles in the order of battle for a very good reason: they are inferior air-to-air platforms compared to American-built fighters. Notice that I wrote "European-built." I did so for a very good reason. European air forces have in fact scored a couple of air-to-air kills. Guess what the airplane was, though. F-16. Not even the Tornado ADF was trusted with that role. Nor any Mirage, for that matter. Fact is, European-built, European-flown aircraft have not had a single air-to-air kill since the Falklands. To form the opinion from these facts that European capacity to build superior air-to-air platforms is highly questionable, then, is not at all unreasonable.

Any arguments to the contrary of these facts are built on paper. Those arguments built from aluminum and titanium, among other metals, hold that air-to-air engagements have been overwhelmingly ruled by U.S.-built fighters, overwhelmingly lost by Russian-built designs, and overwhelmingly absent of European-built platforms.

Idesof my friend your post is full of incorrect facts and statements. The Iraqi army consisted of young, under-resourced and poorly trained conscript troops and that is fact. Thats is the biggest fact of the war and that is inarguable. Yes there were loyal factions of Saddams army but in general the Iraqi army was in no position at all to take on the coaltion forces. If you think morale is directly related to the will to live then you are a complete idiot. Why don't you look at history? If you look at all wars in the 20th century you'll see that troops who have low morale DO NOT have the will to fight and are highly likely to surrender or retreat. Wanting to live is part of low morale, if a troop has high morale he is more likely to 'die for his country' for instance or charge ahead if he knows the battle can be won, if he has low morale he no longer wants to fight and surrender. In the Gulf War the Iraqi army had low morale IN GENERAL - Fact. Yes the coalition forces did face Iraqi factions with high morale but in gerneral morale was LOW.

As for the MBT issue, the M1 is not the most successful tank in the world, although it is one of the most successful MBT's in the world. The Challenger II tank has enjoyed as much success as the M1, and its exellent armour was demonstrated in GW2 when one was ambushed. Do remember that the M1's armour is based on British design, and the gun is based on German design.

The Typhoon loosing out to the f-15 and F-16. I belive there was a case when 2 F-15E Strike Eagles were 'attacking' a Typhoon they were out-manoeuvred and 'shot-down' (training). Thats the only known case these aircraft have met and we have seen the results. On all simulations so far it has found the Typhoon has only been second to the Raptor. And the F-22 and Typhoon have capabillities above all current fighters. So your facts could have only been based on simulations as the Typhoon has not met (that we know of) other modern fighters and lost in a real exercise. So again your facts are inaccurate.

idesof wrote:

Viper_Falcon wrote:

For the record I never once posted anything regarding Russian a/c on ARC.
As for complaining about "sukhoi fanbois" , I think they are nothing compared to the posts here which concentrate more about attacking anything Russian or European.
I did not intend to cause a flame war and I apologise if I personally attacked you.
However attacking a member and calling him a troll just because he offered some opinion and discussion about the purpose of the F22 is pretty lame.
I did not even want to mention Americans in this thread but the way some of you responded and attacked Europeans who you think are out to impede the might of the US military made me do so.

P.S - you wonder why you are being "whipped"?
Just listen to some neutral news channels outside of fox"news"

For the record, much to the annoyance of Raptor_One and undoubtedly others as well, I am one American who thinks we have majorly screwed ourselves in Iraq. The failure, however, has been political, not military. To clarify, though, I would have long ago implemented a scorched-earth policy in Iraq. McCain, I believe, would have gone that route had he been president. We have lacked the political cojones to raze entire villages to pound a primitive people into submission by using the only language they know: overwhleming agression. To pretend to speak the language of democracy to savages who have no clue what it means is on the one hand disastrously naive and on the other dangerous in the extreme. We are living the consequences of that ignorance every day. Thus, I hardly think we are being "whipped" because we are lacking in military ability. What we lack is the political will to see this fight through to its logical conclusion: undertake one last offensive that reduces much of Iraq to a smoking hole in the ground and get the hell out of that god-forsaken POS country. Sorry if that sounds like hell on earth, but goddamnit, war IS hell. Or at least should be. Unfortunately, political correctness dictates that we pretend otherwise at the expense of our own people getting needlessly killed.

(P.S. Raptor_One: I hope you do not see this as an "attack" against the current administration. It is a defense against the notion we are being "whipped" in Iraq. To the extent that this defense assails the current administration's policies, I limited myself to their military consequences. I trust that you now have a better appreciation of where I'm coming from Wink

_

And now, a few facts.

Fact: Since 1980, the kill ratio of U.S.-built fighters vs. Russian-built airframes is close to 200-to-1. This includes everything from Mig-21s and Su-17s to Mig-29s. From this fact it is not unreasonable to form an opinion very much along the lines of "Russian planes suck, American planes rule." You can provide OPINIONS and RATIONALIZATIONS as to why the outcome has been so lopsided, but you cannot argue the facts. Also, anyone who has been to an airshow recently that has featured Russian planes has every right to fear for his life. Those POSs keep crashing. Again. And again. And again...

Fact: During three wars fought by coalition forces (GW1, Bosnia/Kosovo, GW2), European-built aircraft have been very conspicuously left out of air superiority roles in the order of battle for a very good reason: they are inferior air-to-air platforms compared to American-built fighters. Notice that I wrote "European-built." I did so for a very good reason. European air forces have in fact scored a couple of air-to-air kills. Guess what the airplane was, though. F-16. Not even the Tornado ADF was trusted with that role. Nor any Mirage, for that matter. Fact is, European-built, European-flown aircraft have not had a single air-to-air kill since the Falklands. To form the opinion from these facts that European capacity to build superior air-to-air platforms is highly questionable, then, is not at all unreasonable.

Any arguments to the contrary of these facts are built on paper. Those arguments built from aluminum and titanium, among other metals, hold that air-to-air engagements have been overwhelmingly ruled by U.S.-built fighters, overwhelmingly lost by Russian-built designs, and overwhelmingly absent of European-built platforms.

And this just shows how much or an arrogant, idiotic person this man is. Scroched earth, why did you go in there in the first place? America doesn't even know why its there now, Weapon of Mass Destruction was certainly not the case, Regime change? Far worse regimes out there than under Saddam. In fact none of this happned in Iraq under Saddam. Saddam kept his people in order by using brute force and that is what your proposing the US should do now Idesof? Why not just keep Saddam in there, he seemed to be doing a better job with fewer casualites (Btw I'm not condoning Saddam Hussain).

As for the European fighter business. I can't remember any air wars since The Falklands War that Europe (except the UK) has been majorly involved in. Only a small proportion in a coalition. Most wars the UK has followed the US ito, the US has had the majority of the force. So in the 2 GW's where there wasn't really an airforce to eliminate, the few planes that were up were likely to be shot down by American Aircraft as they had the higher proportion of fighters there. The UK was mainly tasked with bombing anyway.

Idesof you just come out with incorrect statements and I'm not going to bite the bullet with you anymore.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Idesof my friend your post is full of incorrect facts and statements. The Iraqi army consisted of young, under-resourced and poorly trained conscript troops and that is fact. Thats is the biggest fact of the war and that is inarguable. Yes there were loyal factions of Saddams army but in general the Iraqi army was in no position at all to take on the coaltion forces. If you think morale is directly related to the will to live then you are a complete idiot.

First of all, resorting to name-calling and ad hominem attacks is verboten on this board. I never personally attacked you nor came close to calling you names. That you have now resorted to such below-the-belt tactics ought to make you subject to swift removal from this board.

Secondly, forget about Iraqi conscripts and focus on the results of battles against Iraq's vaunted Republican Guard units. Same results. Any way you cut it, the Iraqis were overmatched by superior equipment and superior training. However, to underestimate their capabilities going into the first GW is to not know your history.

Despite your assertions, ask anyone who has ever been in combat: the desire not to get killed is as strong motivator as any. Did Iraqis surrender en masse? Sure they did, but not because their morale was already low going into the war. Weeks of consistent bombardment by allied air forces did that. And they only achieved that because of "overkill." God forbid. It's the same kind of attitude that would chastise Israel because it used "excessive force" in its latest conflict in Lebanon. The use of "excessive force" during a war is a contradiction in terms. Or at least should be.

Quote:

Why don't you look at history? If you look at all wars in the 20th century you'll see that troops who have low morale DO NOT have the will to fight and are highly likely to surrender or retreat. Wanting to live is part of low morale, if a troop has high morale he is more likely to 'die for his country' for instance or charge ahead if he knows the battle can be won, if he has low morale he no longer wants to fight and surrender. In the Gulf War the Iraqi army had low morale IN GENERAL - Fact. Yes the coalition forces did face Iraqi factions with high morale but in gerneral morale was LOW.

Your assessment of the role of the "dying for one's country" mentality is highly overstated. In the thick of battle, unless you are an Islamic extremist, you don't want to die for anyone's country. Most would like to live to fight another day and, even more so, live to see the day they can go back home. It's about pure survival, and ideology in the end is not as great a factor as you describe.

Quote:

As for the MBT issue, the M1 is not the most successful tank in the world, although it is one of the most successful MBT's in the world. The Challenger II tank has enjoyed as much success as the M1, and its exellent armour was demonstrated in GW2 when one was ambushed. Do remember that the M1's armour is based on British design, and the gun is based on German design.

Brits use armour, Americans use armor. Anyway, your last sentence is immaterial. What's your point? The provenance of specific items is not in question but the whole design is. Should I point out that all kills earned by Harriers during the Falklands whoop-a$$ were achieved by American missiles? To say so does in no way detract from the superior training and equipment employed by British forces.

Your other statement is also factually incorrect. Did the Challenger II earn as many kills as the M1? I'll answer my own question: no. Therefore, the M1 is empirically a more successful tank. Period.

Quote:

The Typhoon loosing out to the f-15 and F-16. I belive there was a case when 2 F-15E Strike Eagles were 'attacking' a Typhoon they were out-manoeuvred and 'shot-down' (training). Thats the only known case these aircraft have met and we have seen the results. On all simulations so far it has found the Typhoon has only been second to the Raptor. And the F-22 and Typhoon have capabillities above all current fighters. So your facts could have only been based on simulations as the Typhoon has not met (that we know of) other modern fighters and lost in a real exercise. So again your facts are inaccurate.

I wrote:

"It is utterly incredible that the Eurocrapper has actually lost out to the F-16 and F-15, designs that are nearly four decades old, in foreign sales competitions."

Explain to me now where I said that the Eurofrauder had lost out to F-16s and F-15s during an EXCERCISE. I didn't make that statement? Golly, if you actually could read... Singapore and South Korea both opted for the F-15 and the Eurocrapper lost out in a direct head-to-head SALES competition. Greece suspended its acquisition of the Eurofrauder and bought more F-16s instead. These are FACTS. Now, tell me again where my facts are inaccurate. Please.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

As for the MBT issue, the M1 is not the most successful tank in the world, although it is one of the most successful MBT's in the world.

um... ok... Could you please tell me what modern MBT has seen as much tank-on-tank combat and come away the victor? What modern MBT that has seen combat is better and why?

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

The Challenger II tank has enjoyed as much success as the M1, and its exellent armour was demonstrated in GW2 when one was ambushed.

What kind of ambush? A single engagement does not a successful tank make. How many CH2s have seen tank-on-tank combat? The USA have been in many tank engagements since GW1 and we field them in Corp level numbers.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Do remember that the M1's armour is based on British design, and the gun is based on German design.

All programs from all countries take the best tech from anywhere wherever possible. The basic theory of the armor may be British, but we designed it, built it, and fielded it in massive numbers. Using your logic, all aircraftowe their success to the Wright brothers. Ok, that was a streach, but you get what I am saying.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

And this just shows how much or an arrogant, idiotic person this man is.

Okay, you did it again. I will respectfully ask the moderators to either remove this person from this board or to censure him.

Quote:

Scroched earth, why did you go in there in the first place? America doesn't even know why its there now, Weapon of Mass Destruction was certainly not the case, Regime change? Far worse regimes out there than under Saddam. In fact none of this happned in Iraq under Saddam. Saddam kept his people in order by using brute force and that is what your proposing the US should do now Idesof? Why not just keep Saddam in there, he seemed to be doing a better job with fewer casualites (Btw I'm not condoning Saddam Hussain).

For your information, I believe the U.S. should have never gone into Iraq in the first place. Hussein could have been contained. And yes, Iraq was better off with him than without him. He was the element keeping all the warring parties from killing each other. As difficult as it is to accept that, it is a fact. Same thing happened in Serbia. The only option in Iraq now is to either get the hell out before any more U.S. troops die needlessly for the sake of a failed foreign policy experiment or to cut that country in three and live with the consequences, as was done with Serbia, to separate people who obviously have no interest in living in peace with each other.

However, now that we are in Iraq and have made a huge mess of it, the U.S. cannot afford to leave without saving face. And a huge offensive is what's called for. Same thing that happened before the U.S. got out of Vietnam. As has been pointed out before, the U.S. lost that battle but won the war. Vietnam served as a warning to other countries in the region and throughout the world to refrain from going the Communist route lest they risk virtual obliteration. And guess what? The domino did in fact stop with Vietnam. It is not appreciated the extent to which the U.S. snatched a victory from the jaws of defeat.

Quote:

As for the European fighter business. I can't remember any air wars since The Falklands War that Europe (except the UK) has been majorly involved in. Only a small proportion in a coalition. Most wars the UK has followed the US ito, the US has had the majority of the force. So in the 2 GW's where there wasn't really an airforce to eliminate, the few planes that were up were likely to be shot down by American Aircraft as they had the higher proportion of fighters there. The UK was mainly tasked with bombing anyway.

You really need to educate yourself before you can begin dispensing uninformed opinions. The Bosnia/Kosovo conflict was a true NATO operation with European participation on a par with that of the U.S. European-built aircraft were not tasked with air-to-air missions because they were judged ineffective in the role, principally because most lacked Amraam capability. They were instead relegated to mud moving across the board. This was not because they were in the minority. The Danish (were they Danish?) F-16s that got at least a couple of air-to-air kills represented a very small minority. However, they were in fact tasked with air-to-air missions because they were judged adequate for the role. The same cannot be said of any British or French aircraft, for instance, although they far outnumbered the Danish contingent.

Let me put it this way: Italy, ITALY, had to lease second-hand F-16As to defend their airspace despite having Tornado ADFs available. If that is not a damning indictment of the total inferiority of that latter aircraft I don't know what is.

Quote:

Idesof you just come out with incorrect statements and I'm not going to bite the bullet with you anymore.

When you are confronted with incontrovertible facts, you lose your sh!t and resort to insults. You have shown your true stripes, my friend. The members of this board who had you pegged as a troll from the beginning were dead-on. Shame on me for choosing to feed you.

I fear this is getting off-topic now. Ok I really cannot be bothered to quote all sections of your post and reply to them with my views. But I will say this, the M1 was likely to achieve higher kills than the Challenger II mainly because of where it was deployed and most of because there was a higher proportion of M1's to Challenger II's. Just because something scores more kills does not mean its a better piece of equipment, other factors are involved as i have described above. As for morale etc I've said my piece (dying for ones country is just an example), and this is turning into a flame war. And for the Bosnia/Kosovo war you are right, I completely forgot about that, and yes I know very little on that war so I can't comment on it.

Back to the F-22

Quote:

Your just not getting it. The ATF project (which the F-22 came from) started in 1981, 25 YEARS ago! If we waited until we needed it (as in we had an identifiable enemy threatening us) it would be TOO LATE to start the program. We need to be constantly prepared for any conflict. We also need to put up such a large deterrent that a conflict NEVER starts because an adversary realizes that they will get creamed.

Ok so the plane was designed 25 years ago, in the cold war era yes? So does that not answer the question of the purpose of the F-22. It was designed in an era where air superiority was extremely crucial. In todays combat we already have aircraft that can do the job we need them to do with absolute ease.

But yes we always need to upgrade but keep it within reason. I can give you an example, when the US and USSR were in the space race both sides had discovered a problem, pens did not work in space because of the lack of gravity. With the inability to use pens both sides had a problem because they could not carry out various tests/observations. So the US spent a lot of money researching and developing a pen that could be used in the absense of gravity and after a while came out with this pen. What did the Russians do? They just took pencils instead. How does this apply, both the specially designed pen and pencil gave the same result with no advantages over the other, but the pen cost a hell of a lot more than the pencil. Same applies with the F-22, an awesome awesome piece of engineering, but just not necessary.

Quote:

When you are confronted with incontrovertible facts, you lose your sh!t and resort to insults. You have shown your true stripes, my friend. The members of this board who had you pegged as a troll from the beginning were dead-on. Shame on me for choosing to feed you.

Ok they were not really insults, more of a description of you because of the ridiculous comment you said about the Iraqi people and a scorched earth policy. When you say something like that you may as well have left Saddam in power and perhaps the US and NATO maybe a bit more prpared for real threats to security. The Iraq war was, and this is fact, a mistake and unjustified. The only reason we should have been there is because of weapons of mass destruction. There were none therefore the campaign was unjustified. Regime change is not a reason as there are far worse regimes. The UK is just as guilty. The current situation in Iraq is far worse than it was under Saddam, and it doesn't look like its improving anytime soon.

Last edited by USMilFan on Oct 18, 2006 - 08:01 AM; edited 2 times in total

Actually, I believe SpeakTheTruth raises a question that many Americans themselves, and certainly some in the media, have raised in recent years. I believe it is a fair question that deserves a fair answer. But since I’m not a fighter-plane expert or remotely connected to the Raptor program, I’m not qualified to answer the important question SpeakTheTruth raises. I shall try, however weakly, to offer input that I’ve not seen offered elsewhere, but that may help us in the struggle to answer this question.

First, please bear in mind that the Raptor was conceived in the midst of the Cold War; naturally, cost was not the dominant issue back when the program began in 1986 that it has become in the intervening two decades. Secondly, when the Cold War ended unexpectedly around 1991 or so, two factors dramatically raised the unit cost of the plane, factors that could not have been foreseen in 1986. The first was that the number of planes needed fell dramatically. The natural consequence was that the program’s research & development costs, being fixed and sunk before production started, now had to be allocated over a much smaller number of units to be produced. The second factor was that production was delayed for perhaps as long as 15 years as the perceived need for the plane lost urgency. Such a huge delay inevitably led to much higher development and production costs than initially planned.

SpeakTheTruth’s formulation implies that the number of Raptors ordered fell dramatically because its unit cost kept rising. I believe that formulation fundamentally misstates the issue. Given the huge scale of the program’s fixed costs, it is more likely that the unit cost rose dramatically because the number of planes planned fell equally dramatically.

It is understandable that, having already spent many billions in development, the U.S. should expect some return on its investment, no matter how much the need for the plane may have receded into the future. Perhaps at some point the cost of delaying the program threatened to overtake the cost of proceeding with it.

Though poor timing of the program contributed mightily to its ballooning cost, it is possible that military planners still believe that the Raptor program remains economically justifiable to this day. It is likely that planners have calculated the cost of alternative plans and have found that the Raptor will produce significant cost savings over time. After all, a more capable plane means fewer of them are needed. And fewer planes means fewer pilots and ground crew are needed to operate and maintain the fleet. Fewer facilities will be needed. In short, the USAF’s operating costs are likely to be much lower with the Raptor in service than without it. And since these cost savings are recurrent each year over the life of the program, it is not inconceivable that the program’s cost savings will eventually justify its marginal costs of production.

SpeakTheTruth mentioned the Typhoon as an example (or perhaps as an alternative to the Raptor?) of how to conduct an aircraft program. Indeed, there may be an abundance of lessons to be learned from our European counterparts in this case. But we should keep in mind that the two planes are hardly interchangeable since they were built to prosecute two very different missions. While the Typhoon was designed to execute air superiority missions, it was also intended to prosecute ground attack missions with great efficiency. But the Raptor was designed to execute various electronic warfare missions in addition to air superiority missions. If both aircraft perform in concert as expected in future wars, each should complement the other quite effectively. If not deliberate, it is at least fortuitous that the European consortium and the U.S. decided to produce both planes concurrently.

As for the arms race, I’m sure SpeakTheTruth is aware that we Americans didn’t invent it or even want it at one time. But the U.S. has learned some very hard lessons in its dealings with the world in the last century or so. Those lessons aren’t lost on the vast majority of Americans. While I can’t speak for other Americans, I have no doubt that a large majority of Americans have realized that our only practical alternative is to put the Raptor into service as soon as possible despite its huge R & D cost. No use crying now over dollars spent long ago.

SpeakTheTruth wrote:

Quote:

When you are confronted with incontrovertible facts, you lose your sh!t and resort to insults. You have shown your true stripes, my friend. The members of this board who had you pegged as a troll from the beginning were dead-on. Shame on me for choosing to feed you.

Ok they were not really insults, more of a description of you because of the ridiculous comment you said about the Iraqi people and a scorched earth policy. When you say something like that you may as well have left Saddam in power and perhaps the US and NATO maybe a bit more prpared for real threats to security. The Iraq war was, and this is fact, a mistake and unjustified. The only reason we should have been there is because of weapons of mass destruction. There were none therefore the campaign was unjustified. Regime change is not a reason as there are far worse regimes. The UK is just as guilty. The current situation in Iraq is far worse than it was under Saddam, and it doesn't look like its improving anytime soon.

There is nothing that you write above that I disagree with. However, if the U.S. is to withdraw, it will not be able to do so without first engaging in a large offensive to settle a few scores. And, I'm sorry to say, it should do so without being so mindful of "civilian casualties." The words "civilian" and "civilization" are closely related for a reason, and whatever civilization there used to be in Iraq vanished hundreds of years ago.

USMilFan thankyou for your reply, I found that quite interesting to read. And spudman let me go a little further on the M1 tank, although this is irrelevent I'll say it anyway, the armour is in fact British, its Chobham and the Gun is a lisence built version of the Leopard II gun.

Ok back to the F-22. Right Idesof I'll clear this up between me and you, I read your first post and saw comments like "Eurocrapper" which were completely unnecessary, thats why I called you arrogant. However I've seen your later posts and have agreed with them. I think we can all agree the Typhoon and Raptor are superb aircraft, both over-budgt of course. The question was if the Raptor had a purpose, as USMilFan said it was designed in the cold war era, which ended suddenly. Had the Cold war ended 10-20 years later I think we probably wouldn't have seen the Raptor. My reasoning for why the orders were slashed is because the R&D had been done, the US government had to swallow what they had bitten off and go ahead with it otherwise it was a waste. Although in return they are getting a superb fighter - even if it won't be doing the sorties of the intensity it was conceived for.

In future it would be nice to see more programs similar to the JSF program. European and American tech and Aircraft manufacturing coming together.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

What is the purpose of the F-22?