A dozen F-22’s deployed to Middle East

I don't think God himself could prove Secretary Gates' case.

Then perhaps you don’t get it either; if Raptors are too much for Iran or some other regional dust up, then you’re saving them for what (??) China or Russia (...at exceptionally minute probabilities). Those two players were decades behind, and they still haven’t fielded anything in numbers.

In this context, there’s no such thing as overkill.

In this context, there’s no such thing as overkill.

Exactly my point. You don't want a fair fight. I'd have thought you'd have been in agreement there.

Its nothing new, I always thought and continue to think that the Raptor is overkill in sheer capabilities alone.

Congratulations. You’ve proven Secretary Gates’ case.

I still remember some of the news reports during 2009, there were 3 main reasons why the Raptor order was curtailed. According to the reports:

1. It was irrelevant for the "realities of warfare" which were now against insurgents in caves with no air force to speak of.
The Armed forces was starting to move away from "cold war mentalities" and was moving more towards a COIN (Counter Insurgency) force. (10 years later, we have a new cold war)

2. Russia and China were well behind in their 5th gen programs and 180 Raptors with support from F-35s would be capable of decimating the RuAF or PLAAF (I actually think they were correct with this assessment although it would take longer and casualties will be higher)

3. Recession. IIRC the order was cut to 187 in 2009 at the height of the Recession.

So it wasn't mainly because the F-22 was overkill, although people did take that into consideration and it was a contributing factor.

Frankly I believe Gates and the Obama Admin never wanted to cut the F-22 buy, I believe there were long, tense meetings and debates about this and they tried their best to save it if they could. But with the economy the way it was and with the foucs on Iraqistan type conflicts, something had to give.

In this context, there’s no such thing as overkill.

Exactly my point. You don't want a fair fight. I'd have thought you'd have been in agreement there.

mix and zero were arguing overkill, which would conspicuously align them with the rationale that shortened the Raptor buy — and which they vociferously decried.

Its nothing new, I always thought and continue to think that the Raptor is overkill in sheer capabilities alone.

Congratulations. You’ve proven Secretary Gates’ case.

I still remember some of the news reports during 2009, there were 3 main reasons why the Raptor order was curtailed. According to the reports:

1. It was irrelevant for the "realities of warfare" which were now against insurgents in caves with no air force to speak of.
The Armed forces was starting to move away from "cold war mentalities" and was moving more towards a COIN (Counter Insurgency) force. (10 years later, we have a new cold war)

2. Russia and China were well behind in their 5th gen programs and 180 Raptors with support from F-35s would be capable of decimating the RuAF or PLAAF (I actually think they were correct with this assessment although it would take longer and casualties will be higher)

3. Recession. IIRC the order was cut to 187 in 2009 at the height of the Recession.

So it wasn't mainly because the F-22 was overkill, although people did take that into consideration and it was a contributing factor.

Frankly I believe Gates and the Bush Admin never wanted to cut the F-22 buy, I believe there were long, tense meetings and debates about this and they tried their best to save it if they could. But with the economy the way it was and with the foucs on Iraqistan type conflicts, something had to give.

‘Overkill’ is just the shorthand for #1.

‘Overkill’ is just the shorthand for #1.

Well not necessarily Overkill, but more like the wrong aircraft for the job.
Its no secret that I like the Raptor most of all aircraft but even I think its not a very good Ground attack platform.

-Can it even hit moving ground targets?
-Can it detect and target SAM sites that are on passive mode?
I personally don't think so.

“Can it even hit moving ground targets?”

I doubt it but that’s why we have other assets there to do that kind of thing, particularly since movers are a smaller part of the target set.

“Can it detect and target SAM sites that are on passive mode?”

I don’t know. But, it can deliver pgms to coordinates provided by other assets, and can do so from sanctuary unattainable by other assets.

“Can it even hit moving ground targets?”

I doubt it but that’s why we have other assets there to do that kind of thing, particularly since movers are a smaller part of the target set.

“Can it detect and target SAM sites that are on passive mode?”

I don’t know. But, it can deliver pgms to coordinates provided by other assets, and can do so from sanctuary unattainable by other assets.

Thats also what I think.
It is the finest A-A platform ever made, but its a poor man's F-35 when it comes to A-G duties.

-Can it even hit moving ground targets?
-Can it detect and target SAM sites that are on passive mode?
I personally don't think so.

Not with the current A2G weapons, but if they integrate the GBU-53, it'd have a moving target capability.
As for detecting SAMs that aren't emitting, F-22s can use their onboard SAR/GMTI to look, as well as 3rd party targeting data. When used in conjunction with MALD/etc... to get targets to emit, they can be very effective.

“Can it even hit moving ground targets?”

I doubt it but that’s why we have other assets there to do that kind of thing, particularly since movers are a smaller part of the target set.

“Can it detect and target SAM sites that are on passive mode?”

I don’t know. But, it can deliver pgms to coordinates provided by other assets, and can do so from sanctuary unattainable by other assets.

Thats also what I think.
It is the finest A-A platform ever made, but its a poor man's F-35 when it comes to A-G duties.

It was never meant to be an F-35. Using it like one would be absurd.

The "F/A-22A" was nothing more than an attempt to increase its value proposition. I don't think it was ever intended to have world class air to ground capabilities, although on some level it could be argued it does. Not compared to the F-35, but vs. everything else (against fixed targets)?

A lot more survivable vs. other fixed wing aviation I reckon, primarily due to its speed/stealth and EW suite..

As it stands, I'd much rather have our silver bullet force focus exclusively on the air to air mission. They can be proficient in both, but there are only so many flight hours every month...

So far, it has been a sea conflict.

I don't know how good the F-22 can swim.

Air assets can be good for detection, but for actions we need ships and submarines in that area.

The Russians are probably more than happy to have Raptors flying around within sensor range. If they become a problem their air bases are not as nearly invisible as the aircraft themselves.

Iran's and N. Korea's air force isn't in question, things could be far worse. Their ICBM's threaten F-22 air bases, and I'd question the Patriot's ability to shoot down all of them.

You do realize neither of those countries have ICBMs, right?

North Korea does (Hwasong-14) but yes I mis-spoke as to Iran. It's more accurate to say they have MRBM's (Shahab-3).

That’s special — mix and zero now claiming F-22s are overkill...

Mix didn't say the Raptor alone would be overkill. Here's what I said..

It's overkill for sure with the F-22 adding to our air superiority capabilities

Meaning when you already have F-15C''s, F/A-18's, Strike Eagles and F-35's in theater (and probably F-16's too), adding the F-22 would be overkill.

Gates made the wrong decision, which has been proven time and time again. If he didn't kill the F-22, we wouldn't be talking about what to do with the elderly F-15C fleet, and USAF wanting to build F-15EX's.