Skip to comments.
The F-22 Acquisition Program: Consequences for the US Air Force's Fighter Fleet
Air and Space Power Journal ^
| Nov-Dec 2012
| Lt Col Christopher J. Niemi, USAF
Posted on 11/02/2012 9:05:23 PM PDT by hattend
This article, which examines the F-22 program from a historical perspective, seeks to answer two questions. First, given the unprecedented age of todays fighter fleet, why did the Air Force acquire just 187 F-22s? Second, how could alternative decisions during F-22 development have enabled the service to acquire larger numbers of these aircraft? In consideration of this historical analysis, the article then assesses the Air Forces current efforts to transition to a fleet comprised entirely of fifth-generation fighters.
(Excerpt) Read more at airpower.au.af.mil ...
TOPICS: History; Military/Veterans
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airforce; f22
Excellent Article
1
posted on
11/02/2012 9:05:33 PM PDT
by
hattend
To: hattend
2
posted on
11/02/2012 9:07:40 PM PDT
by
hattend
(Firearms and ammunition...the only growing industries under the Obama regime.)
To: AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; ColdOne; Convert from ECUSA; ...
3
posted on
11/02/2012 9:21:14 PM PDT
by
SunkenCiv
(https://secure.freerepublic.com/donate/)
To: hattend
4
posted on
11/02/2012 9:23:11 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(The pundits have forgotten the 2010 elections.)
To: hattend
The F-22 was designed as an air superiority fighter but there is no way it can win when it is outnumbered 10 to 1.
5
posted on
11/02/2012 9:30:56 PM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Why is the government more concerned about protecting a microbe on Mars than an unborn baby here?)
To: hattend
the number of F-22s in the world is radically increasing....
in china
you can thank 0bama... china has (see $34m Hawaii place)
6
posted on
11/02/2012 9:34:40 PM PDT
by
sten
(fighting tyranny never goes out of style)
To: Blood of Tyrants
F-22 is nice but its very expensive
we also need other planes, cheaper planes too
7
posted on
11/02/2012 9:37:19 PM PDT
by
GeronL
(http://asspos.blogspot.com)
To: hattend
An important point, of course, was to keep it out of export. Might end up having Israel getting its hands on it.
8
posted on
11/02/2012 9:39:40 PM PDT
by
Hardraade
(http://junipersec.wordpress.com (I will fear no muslim))
To: hattend
The guy is right that an all stealth fighter fleet is not practical in the short term, i.e. the next decade. But in the long run (i.e. beyond 10 years), we don't have a choice. Just as prop fighters were outclassed by jets during the Korean War, non-stealth fighters will be massacred by near-stealth or stealth fighters fielded by our adversaries. We've been lucky in not having to fight a near-peer adversary in the last 70 years. We can't count on never having to do so. Note that in Vietnam alone, we lost
over 900 fighter aircraft in combat against a major but non-peer adversary. We can't assume that all future non-peer adversaries will be as unmotivated and incompetent as the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Israelis are right - it's easy to look good when you're fighting Arabs and/or Muslims.
9
posted on
11/02/2012 10:07:47 PM PDT
by
Zhang Fei
(Let us pray that peace be now restored to the world and that God will preserve it always.)
To: Jet Jaguar
10
posted on
11/02/2012 10:28:13 PM PDT
by
Army Air Corps
(Four Fried Chickens and a Coke)
To: Army Air Corps
11
posted on
11/02/2012 10:31:08 PM PDT
by
Jet Jaguar
(The pundits have forgotten the 2010 elections.)
To: Zhang Fei
North Vietnam was hardly a non-peer environment. Instead of swarms of Migs, the North Viets most effective countermeasure was primarily the surface-to-air missile. We lost over 900 aircraft largely due to political considerations. ROE prevented us from intercepting the Russian freighters that delivered the SAMs.
12
posted on
11/03/2012 4:33:16 AM PDT
by
Jacquerie
(Exterminate rats.)
To: hattend
To: GeronL
Been saying that very same thing for years. Minor changes and additions could have been made to existing airframes to make them even more capable.
14
posted on
11/03/2012 8:59:15 AM PDT
by
Blood of Tyrants
(Why is the government more concerned about protecting a microbe on Mars than an unborn baby here?)
To: Blood of Tyrants
Having some F-22’s if we need them are nice but for normal over the sandpit-istan battles why risk something so expensive?
Having a core of advanced fighters is good but lets have a bunch of cheaper but very capable fighters around for regular missions.
15
posted on
11/03/2012 11:16:17 AM PDT
by
GeronL
(http://asspos.blogspot.com)
To: GeronL
Having a core of advanced fighters is good but lets have a bunch of cheaper but very capable fighters around for regular missions. But we do have a bunch of cheaper but very capable fighters available, and will have for the next 20+ years. We are not getting rid of all of our F-15Cs, F-15Es or F-16s, and we are upgrading many of them with AESA radars.
16
posted on
11/04/2012 6:33:05 AM PST
by
Yo-Yo
(Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson