I don't think so.
Is retaining air superiority going to be a top priority in the future with this Generation 5 fighter or just a liability in the short term getting embroiled in low-intensity guerrilla wars?
I'd settle with the first statement because a high-intensity war for control of the skies is first and foremost, because destruction of ground and naval forces can change the outcome of the battles in favor of the adversaries.
What do you think?
I think we need to keep the edge even if we aren’t using it right at this moment.
If you don’t keep air superiority then you will notice it when it’s gone.
Already debunked.
That’s not to say that the F-22 is not without its problems, but they are very much within the range of the normal with any new, state-of-the-art aircraft.
This is a hit piece on the Raptor.
ALL new aircraft go through growing pains. The data they quote for the maintenance issues go back to 2004. The first aircraft weren’t operational until December 2005.
Half the maintenance issues are related to the stealth coating problems.
Does any thinking person believe that a machine that pushes the technological edge would have fewer hours of maintenance at the start of it’s life?
Give it a year and then look at the cost curves. I’ll bet a buffalo nickle that the improvement will be substantial.
Ping.
It kind of depends on the nature of a future air war. I personally think the US would be better off with larger numbers of very capable aircraft rather than smaller numbers of the “absolutely best performance” aircraft, (irrespective of its other shortcomings with regard to maintainance etc).
Its not just a matter of quality vs quantity. Its finding the most cost-effective solutions. It seems to me that the high technology is being used as an end in itself rather than as a tool to actually make things better.
I think that in any conflict, the raptors impact will be felt in the first few hours....I see the raptor as a “door opener” in a conflict, getting in and dealing with radar, gun and missile emplacements, initial fighter engagements, etc. after the first few hours, air superiority can then be maintained with the f-35, f-16, f-18, and so on....so having to maintain the birds after the initial missions can be done safely...in it’s role as a “door opener” it is well suited....
How superior will this plane be when it is sitting in the shop? Are the missions all going to be 1.6 hours long?
From my friends, who worked F-15s and now work F-22s, they say early on, F-22 was a pain. Now, the kinks have been worked out.
The F-15, the F-22’s predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.