Posted on 01/03/2006 11:09:39 AM PST by Dundee
I don't know who he's talking to because 50 would not be good, it would be insane.
I've always wanted Australia to get 80 or 100 F-22, but of course that would be even more expensive. I say damn the expense, this is our national security we're dealing with.
Why are we building F-35's when we can just build more F-22's?
Is one for export?
Trying to mimic the F-16/F-15 mix that worked so well for the past 30+ years:
1. F-22 for total "air superiority".
2. F-35 for the multitude of tasks performed by today's "multi-role fighters." Fighter, attack, CAS (tough call).
Just like the F-15, the cost of the F-22 is too prohibitive to buy it for most uses. While a smaller number of F-22s will dominate the airspace, the F-35 will perform the grunt work.
> I've always wanted Australia to get 80 or 100 F-22, but of course that would be even more expensive. I say damn the expense, this is our national security we're dealing with.
I'd be quite pleased if New Zealand acquired 100 F-22's. Instead, the government's closing down Whenuapai AFB just down the road, probably going to turn it into cheap social housing. Just like they did Hobsonville next door. It makes my blood boil.
What price national security??? A few F-22's would give the Bad Guys pause to reflect, perhaps to reconsider...
I see. So instead of the F14-15-16-18 configurations, we will go with a F22 and F35. reading up on the F35, this plane will go to the Air Force, Navy and Marines.
Seems smart enough, parts will be cheaper.
I like your tagline.
Someone wrote it on the boards and I asked him if I could use it as my tagline.
It's a keeper.
The US Air Force wants more F-22's which is superior to the f-35.
However, the US Navy has not agreed to a "navalized" F-22, so they've got a significant gap to fill with the F-14 retirement.
There's still a lot of heated debate on this, but the F/A-18 will fill the F-14 role for the near future. Wether the F-35 is suitable as a "Fleet Defender" is still heatedly argued.
From what I see, the STOVL version (F-35B) lacks in performance and is having trouble finding buyers (Brits are balking and the USAF is pulling it's order for 300+). If they cut that version, they may lose some USMC sales but may save enough to fund the more desireable variants CTOL and CV variants.
Indeed. Thanks for the heads-up.
BTW...
A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change the subject - Churchill
New version: A fanatic is one who won't change his mind and won't change his tagline. - Churchill)
Duly noted...
F-18 E/F super hornets and JSF's is the package the navy is going for in the near future. The super hornet is a good plane much better than the regular hornet.
The F-35 is a replacement for our aging fleet of F-16s and F-18s. The F-22 is a replacement for the F-15. In other words, they are apples and oranges. The F-22s are much more advanced but are built for air superiority. The F-35 is mostly a strike fighter with decent air-to-air capabilities. It is drastically cheaper then the F-22.
The F-22 was built "in-house" and will not be available for export except to our very close allies. We probably won't sell the avionics to even our allies though.
The F-35 is a joint venture, much like the Eurofighter Typhoon, and will be shared across all of our armed services and available for export to are good friends.
Personally, I think the F-35 should be scrapped in favor of stealty and pilotless stike craft and at least several dozen F-22s.
I thought all the F-111's were scrap..........well, they were scrap to begin with, but is anybody else other than australia using these relec's?
http://www.af.mil/shared/media/photodb/photos/050512-F-2295B-280.jpg
http://www.f22-raptor.com/government/images/Congratulations.jpg
Agreed.
The common F/A-18 platforms mean higher up-times and availability with a much lower workload. Many lament the loss of the F-14 and the Phoenix, but the Phoenix was never much of a missile against anything but bombers anyway. The speed and range of the F-14 may be sorely missed, though.
Perhaps a navalized F-23 may be in the works?
The F-111 may be one of the best fighter-bombers (strike aircraft, really) of all time. They saw considerable use in the later years of Vietnam and were the choice for our strikes against Libya in the 1980s. HARDLY SCRAP, but currently dated when viewed against stealthier (but much slower) platforms.
We need to maintain our lead in air superiority. However, we aren't really being challenged in that aspect by those who oppose us.
I would think that a smaller number of superior air superiority craft can't meet the same needs as a larger number of 'workhorse' planes. We need a larger number of planes and we need to be able to station quantities around the world. I don't think we can do that at the per unit cost of the F-22.
Unmanned vehicles are definately where we are headed in the future, but versitile unmanned aircraft are a ways off yet. We cannot afford to wait until they become a reality, we need to upgrade our aircraft now to maintain our edge.
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.
