Posted on 06/11/2006 9:13:18 AM PDT by MARKUSPRIME
Stealth aircraft can be seen from space just fine.
'whom ever controls the air space will win the war'
1,000 F-22's times $200 million each = $200 billion.
To put this into perspective, the annual budget of the Air Force is a tad over $100 billion.
The F-22 is an air dominance weapon. A squadron of F-22s assures that the US would be able to dominate the skies in a confrontation with a small military power. To devote any more money to the F-22 program would either diminish our overall defense capability or put our government even deeper in debt.
You try to respond with a serious answer but leave 1/2 of the equation out??! You forget to net out 25% of the Welfare Budget.
Because of all those external stores, the Russkie's best is unlikely to as stealthy as the F-22.
Not gonna happen. The F22's radar is way superior. Nice try, though- might give an F15 a run for it's money.
For "Flight of the Valkyries" I presume? haha
Israel can play "Hava Nagila" I suppose...
New F-16s probably run around $40M. New F-15Es run around $75-80M. I believe new F-22s run around $120M, and would be cheaper if we bought them in larger numbers.
I've got mixed feelings. There is a value in numbers, and our current F-16s can be kept viable for many years at a fraction of the price of the F-22. But the F-22 is a very good airplane.
If it were me, I'd probably build more F-22s, keep the 15s/16s as long as possible, and cancel the F-35.
They wouldn't cost nearly that much if they hadn't cut the order. If you can't amortise the R&D over a large run the cost per unit goes sky high.
Let us consider an Air Force general for a large Asian power, tasked with providing air cover for an amphibious operation. I think that the presence of a handful of F-22's would loom larger in his mind than vast squadrons of F-16's.
You are pretty much onto the crux of the problem: The F-22 operating in small numbers can totally defeat a small air force of "this generation" aircraft. This is an important capability in an age where we have to be prepared to fight and defeat rogue states.
Upon achieving air dominance in a confrontation with a rogue state, the problem then becomes very different: It is ground targets and the support of ground operations. The F-16 (and its projected successor, the joint strike fighter) is better suited to these missions, because of cost. We could not support a sufficiently large air force whose main line fighter squadrons consisted of F-22s.
As to whether ANY F-22s would be useful (compared to having five times as many F-16s) in a super-power on super-power confrontation (e.g., if China decides to take Taiwan by force), I think numbers would matter, as in, would we be able to put enough air to air missiles in the sky to defeat the enemy.
Plus, it is not clear that we have the computing power to handle more than a few F-22s in the sky at any one time.
But, considering all the contingencies for which we must be prepared, a few F-22s along with a lot of much less expensive main-line fighters sounds like the way to go, which is what the Congress decided when it cut funding for the F-22 program.
The late great Col John Boyd was no leftie. He demonstrated conclusively that US fighter designs (with the notable exception of the F-86) in the 1950s and 1960s were deficient compared to most Russian designs and that F-111 (a McNamara favorite) complex and heavy airframes were a further step in the wrong direction. The F-15 and F-16 were correctives, which along with brutally realistic Red Flag combat exercises, restored US fighter dominance in the 1980s and 1990s.
The F-22 can be considered an extension of Boyd's ideas on what a fighter should be, especially when considered within the context of his famed OODA-loop. When you can get up close and personal with an enemy without him ever seeing you, you've secured a virtually unassailable advantage.
With regard to considering cost, weight, etc., in these kinds of decisions, "back in the day" of the cold war, I did wonder about the M1 tank replacing the M60, in view of how many tanks the other side could throw into the breach relatively to how many M1s we would have. Since my butt was potentially on the line in that matter, my opinion meets your "authenticity" test. But, by the time of the Persian Gulf War, when the other side wasn't going to swarm us with numbers, the M1 tank made much more sense and I was very happy that the M1 had been put into service. The same thing is true today. If we are thinking of a confrontation with a minor power, a small number of F-22s make sense, because it would dominate the sky in such a controntation.
Looking back in military history, it is just as easy to identify high-tech blunders as to identify low-tech blunders. The Japanese during WWII, for example, put too much money (and steel) into battleships, and not enough into destroyers. The M1 tank was great during the 100 hours of the Persian Gulf War and during the time of major hostilities during the Iraqi War, but we subsequently found ourselves short of armored assault vehicles.
I don't think the amount of money we spend on welfare should have anything to do with the amount of money we spend on national defense. But, as it is, we are running a pretty bad deficit (in the third year of an economic expansion), and we have flat-lined all non-entitlement / non-defense spending.
Without economy in entitlements and defense spending, we will eventually return to the high taxes and inflation that we had prior to Ronald Reagan. But, with entitlement reform and with at least the prospect of relief from the cost of the war on terror, we will continue on the path of expanding freedom and opportunity at home and abroad that we've been on for thirty-something years.
You make a good point that most people overlook. It's not just the performance of an aircraft in a one one one comparison. The key thing that has given us a military advantage is our ability to give our pilots information in the air. This ability to exercise information dominance gives our airmen the edge in a combat situation. Although the particular aerodynamics, handling, weapons, etc. are a part of the package, the F-22 will be part of an integrated system with AWACS and other systems to manage an air battle. The Air Force recognized early on that information is the key component. With all the advances in systems that support intelligence, communications, logistics, maintenance, etc., a new fighter was needed to leverage those advances in the air.
The F-22 doesn't address the main weakness, however, that is apparent in our own air defense. On 9/11 it's clear that there was nobody "minding the store." There were no operational plans that effectively generated squadrons to alert status to respond to a national emergency. Had 9/11 been the initial strike of a large-scale air attack on the homeland, we'd have been in sad shape. Air defense is more specifically one of the missions of the Army, not the Air Force. But it amazed me that our response on that date was kind of cobbled together piecemeal. It showed incredibly ineffective leadership and a lack of vision.
Some would say that the likelihood that a 9/11 scenario might occur was remote, same as a large scale air attack. However, we only had one shot to defend against it and we did relatively poorly. In such a case, we might not get a second chance. Having F-22s doesn't help much in that scenario.
Back then, most military planners thought (incorrectly) air-to-air engagements would be fought at great distances, with missiles. Even though the F-4 Phantom was designed in this standoff mold, I would classify it among the most successful aircraft designs. It was very versatile and could dogfight with enemy designed fighters once it was fitted with a cannon.
Mike, if you will examine this thread, you will see that I do not anywhere demean anybody, and - for the most part - there aren't many significant disagreements about the "facts" that are involved. Just, what should we decide given these facts. Should we, e.g., ramp up the F-22 program? As it is, my opinion has been incorporated into Congressional appropriations and into Defense planning. I don't claim that this proves that I'm right, only that, for now, this is the opinion that rules. In a democracy, such a thing can change. But, to say that, because we disagree about something, I should re-examine myself, is just silly. In a democracy, even people who agree about most things disagree about some things.
I've seen Col Boyd's story on TV. I'm confused as to how you believe my reference to the "left" was somehow linked to Boyd.
However, I was talking about the "left" in HOLLYWEIRD who made the movies. It's still their general opinion that Russia was stronger and more armed than America. I have never believed that.
And .. these movies came out in the 80's and 90's - the exact time when US fighter dominance had already returned, and our sub service is the most lethal.
To me, these movies represented an opportunity for the hollywood elites to try to imply we were too stupid to have military capabilities like the Russians and therefore, we had to steal their designs; or accept the gift of a sub because we were too stupid to make one that good ourselves.
I wasn't trying to do anything .. I just wanted to share a picture of what the Russians consider capable of taking on the Raptor.
I never implied I thought it was superior in any way.
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.