Comments on: F-22 Add Big Problem: Gates

By: Papa Ray

Papa Ray — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:59:48 +0000

I think a “better buy” for the next fifty years would be to upgrade, re-certify all of these we can get our hands on.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/driko/133775164/

They are needed right now and will be for a long time.

Talk about “getting your moneys worth”, you damn sure do with these, and the grunts love them with a passion.

Papa Ray
West Texas

By: Parsecwalker

Parsecwalker — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:17:03 +0000

It’s been argued that the F-35 Lightning II is a better buy because it’s a less expensive aircraft, but just recently in the Wall Street Journal there was an article which read how the Pentagon was awarding Lockheed Martin $3.1Billion for the purchase of 14 F-35 fighter jets and doing the math, this comes out to be over $221.4M per aircraft which means even at $200M for each F-22 Raptor is still a bargain especially when it is a superior aircraft.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 01:26:10 +0000

And if Obama keeps the line open, then he can go on TV and tell the world that he saved 100,000 jobs.

By: mm

mm — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:55:29 +0000

lets at least get the dang costs correct– the F-22 is NOT 180–220 million– its is about 140 million. R & D cost are sunk costs and have no role in future procurement decisions. The threat is clearly lower than when both planes were being developed– but we cannot totally discount a possible war. Therefore, i maintain that we should choose the intermediate risk level (240 F-22)- why ever choose the high risk level– 187? We do not need the low risk level of 380 in light of the continuing decline of the Russian armed forces. It would have the side benefit of keeping jobs, as well as potentially keep the line open for possible sales to Japan & Australia.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:48:55 +0000

The F-22 and the JSF are 2 different planes, different capabilities. Is 6 Sqdrns. enough? I don’t think so. Where did the #187 come from? We will need capable allies, so why not sell it to the Japanese? Australians? If there is a next big one, we are gonna need capable allies. Remember, the quality of the men piloting these planes is, I believe, a cut above those who do not have the flying hours in, the experience that Western pilots have. [Top Gun, Red Flag] That counts.

By: Tom

Tom — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 14:12:06 +0000

Huge mistake for Gates to remove funding from the F-22 program in order to support GE’s alternate engine program. Party politics will be the death of us. Democrats wrongly proclaim that no more wars are left to fight and the F-22 is not necessary. The USA absolutely needs at least 381 F-22s, but since Dems have the majority vote, expect 187 F-22s , continued JSF alternate engine funding, universal health care, Obama Motors, Obama Banking, Obama Investments,Obama Broadcasting Company & the Obama Times.

By: Gordon Loudon

Gordon Loudon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:03:31 +0000

DensityDuck June 18th, 2009 at 6:19 pm — the F35 does not come close to the F22 (two very different planes with different roles). The fact is the main reason why we need more F22 (and lot more F35s as well). Gates is just doing what Obama want and if he (Obama) had his way we would have no F22s and more health care for illegals

By: Everett Tsosie

Everett Tsosie — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 08:20:42 +0000

Wow… a lot to soak in… Apparently, this will go on for a while, but remember that these aircrafts are designed for specific threats and weapon replacements. F-22 is clearly a response to the SU-47 with its stunning acrobatics including flying backwards, which is possible with vector thrust. F-35 is clearly a response to the aging fleet of Harriers, F-15/16/18. F-22 is very impressive but has more limits in deployment than the F-35. Also note, only the F-35 STOVL has vertical landing, takeoff capabilities.

Overall, based upon the lessen threat of the SU-47. It is logical not to pursue F-22 for the more deploy F-35. One more thing, by choosing one and not both, this increases the likelihood of spares availability at a lower cost.

By: Lumbergh

Lumbergh — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 01:23:45 +0000

–F-22A carries twice as many air-to-air missiles as the F-35A
–F-22A tactically employs at nearly twice the altitude and at 50% greater airspeed than the F-35A, giving F-22 air-to-air missiles a 40% greater employment range
and increased lethalityand vastly Increases F-22’s air-to-ground weapons employment range
–F-22A can control more than twice the battle space of the F-35A
–F-22A in production…F-35A initial operational capability date is 2013…key in considering F-15Cs need to be replaced now
–Only the F-22 features vectored thrust, giving it twice the maneuverability of an F-35
–The F-22 can turn at twice the rate of an F-35

There have been about 30 studies looking at the needs of the AF as pertains to the 22/35 debate. And they still say we need at least 240.

If the F-35 faces a serious threat from Russian ‘double digit’ SAMS, it’s likely we’ll lose several aircraft. The F-22 is the fighter for the job.

By: Jason

Jason — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 11:11:34 +0000

Tony,

Why and the hell is everyone downing the F-35 capabilities? I don’t understand, NO fighter will be able to match it for years to come. Is it because they are F-22 fan-boys? Like I said, China and Russia won’t be able to match it, let alone the F-22.

The F-35 will begin to roll-of the production line in 2011, I just don’t see the fighter gap everyone is talking about. I’m sure we can keep the F-15/16/18/ in service for another 10 years. And who knows, they even might keep the F-22 line open past 2011.…

By: Tony Conner

Tony Conner — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:49:25 +0000

The F-22A was designed to defeat advanced Soviet Air Defenses and escort the B-2B to targets in the soviet theater of operation, this mentality has doomed both aircraft to low numbers since the fall of the Soviet Union eliminated this requirement in the context for which it was conceived. Now if we are to take out the missile systems in North Korea without using nuclear weapons, guess what, the F-22A/B-2B scenario becomes relevant agiain. The F-22A can penetrate advanced air defense systems, this is what any fighter not on a suicide mission will have to do in modern warfare. The F-35 series are stated as “not as stealthy” as the F-22A, which indicates they will be good enough to get through. The use of stealth in combat aircraft is here to stay or the country using less stealthy aircraft will have to buld large numbers ot overwelm air defense systems.
Air defense systems in Viet Nam caught the US off guard and teh losses are still legendary. The F-22A/B-2B/F-35 are required not to repeat that fiasco. Advanced air defense systems are being fielded worldwide at a much faster pace than advanced fighter aircraft. The next war itis will preveail in DC since it was the lesson learned from doing nothing prior to both WWI and WWII.

By: Juggaboom

Juggaboom — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:58:15 +0000

I will admit, I have not read every post, I stopped when I realized it was more a battle between fans of the F-22 and the F-35.. Jason referred to a wikipedia page about the F-35 and the following is a copy and paste from that page…

“The F-35 is intended to be the world’s premier strike aircraft through 2040, with close– and long-range air-to-air capability second only to that of the F-22 Raptor.[5] The F-35 is required to be four times more effective than existing fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective in air-to-ground battle combat, and three times more effective in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses — all while having better range and require less logistics support.[9]”

Needless to say, I am a fan of the F-22 Raptor.. F-35 is only second best!

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 02:35:13 +0000

Steve Graves,

1) Which is absolutely the wrong thing to do. The US clearly being prepared for “big wars” has gone an awful long way towards preventing us from having to fight one. If you fail to be prepared for a “big war” & one happens, the results WILL BE disastrous.

2) It isn’t about fighting China!

3) As with 1), the strength & technological edge of the US military has gone a long way towards preventing who knows how many wars and was the means by which ODS was such a short overwhelming victory. That edge will be lost if be continue with are (for the most part) 1980’s era military equipment (aside frm the Arleigh Burke DDGs the US military has not gotten much in the way of new equipment since the end of the cold war). The youngest F-15C was built in 1986!

It is much easier to adapt a “big war” military to fithe “small wars” than to adapt a “small wars” military to fight “big wars”.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 23:33:54 +0000

Alan, that might be the most truthful thing said on here so far.

By: Alan

Alan — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 22:17:37 +0000

Any high ticket weapons system is in for trouble as Congress has one priority.

Fund their liberal agenda and universal health care. They’ll tell you that’s not true but anyone with any knowledge of history can see hundreds if not thousands of examples over the last 40 years.

What’s going on went on during the Carter and Clinton administration and even to some extent during the Eisenhower, Johnson and G.H.W. Bush administrations. Congress is cyclical in their spending priorities according to the publics mood and what gets them re-elected.

This is no different than the article on the Osprey and numerous others you WILL see in the months and years ahead unless something happens to change the countries mood. The voters vote their pocket books unless they’re scarred and then they vote national security until it fade from their short self absorbed memories. Otherwise supporters and detractors in Congress largely fall along the lines of whose districts get the jobs and you rub my back and I’ll rub yours.

Tis the way of the world.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:27:02 +0000

Certainly. Now back to the subject — are you able to give any coherent input into this debate, or will you just continue to use your talking points about fear and sheep without showing any comprehension of the issue at hand? I’ve heard your POV dozens of times, but I suspect you are the same as every other person, and if it came down to actually discussing defense strategy, geo-politics, deterrence and how they were all intertwined, you would quickly run back under the bridge you came from.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:02:46 +0000

Dang!
There’s only what, one word over three syllables?

I know, I was really pushing the envelope there.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:31:29 +0000

Very well thought out argument Stephen. Great sentence structure, big words, almost makes you look like you have any idea what you are talking about. Fortunately, your big words and complex analogies are unable to fool the keen observer. We are able to see through the elitist BS that is you trying to show off your perceived intellectual superiority over others who are “herded by fear” by using big words and complex analogies to mask the fact that you are trolling a subject that you obviously have no grasp of, beyond liberal media talking points and buzzwords. Fortunately, even the extreme left in our government don’t share your point of view (although they certainly do share the perceived intellectual prowess!) or we most certainly would not have a defense industry.

By: Stephen

Stephen — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:08:26 +0000

Wonder no longer Alex. I’ll share w/ you, from Trollville.

While seeing the stuff that doesn’t hit the news, one learns from many points of view on any given topic.

Many views, no doubt come from informed and insightful, thinking people with a propensity to think things through while occasionally, a former D&D dungeon master pops up, looking to hold court, lamenting days long gone when a posse of believers hung on his every word, seeks a throne and bristles when his wand waving fails to capture the attention he seeks.

I imagine Alex that trolls are as easily entertained by folly as sheep are herded by fear.

By: Alex

Alex — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:28:50 +0000

Stephen, you are extremely naive. I question why you are even reading defense blogs to begin with, as you clearly seem to be nothing more than a troll. You have no idea how the ability for America to project it’s power acts as a deterrent to other nations looking to do certain things not in the best interests of the United States. Just because it doesn’t deter EVERYTHING does not mean deterrence is not an effective tool. It sounds like you have better things to do anyways, like read the 9/11-truther blogs where you look less silly and people will actually gobble up your favorite buzzwords.