F-22 Awesomeness

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted by turtlevette
What's Canada's defense budget?

I think these things are too pricy for us. How many children can 250 million feed?


I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.




It is not cheap to keep developing technology in order to maintain air superiority.

I feed my own kids, everyone should.

Low tech missle barrages would be perfect. Never will hit an F-22 .You want your enemy to use as much of its inventory fruitlessly. Remember how much iraq sent up in the air without hitting anything?
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Originally Posted by d00df00d
Originally Posted by turtlevette
I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.


What's the difference between a missile that can't lock on and twenty missiles that can't lock on?


Statistics.

Can't lock on = probability of hit equals 0

That means the probability of hitting with at least one missile is 1 - (1 - 0)^n, where n is the number of missiles.

Try running that calculation with different values for n and see what happens.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.


Care to elaborate that broad comment? The F-22 was grounded for a short time due to OBOGS issues, but that has been fixed a long time ago. As mentioned earlier, it's a relatively high maintenance aircraft, but that's what you get along with a high tech aircraft. I've been to 3 operational F-22 air bases, and they were being flown daily every time I was there.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
What's Canada's defense budget?

I think these things are too pricy for us. How many children can 250 million feed?


I'm not convinced they can't be taken out with low tech methods like a barrage of cheap missiles.


It's a big win for Lockheed Martin.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by turtlevette
The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.


Care to elaborate that broad comment? The F-22 was grounded for a short time due to OBOGS issues, but that has been fixed a long time ago. As mentioned earlier, it's a relatively high maintenance aircraft, but that's what you get along with a high tech aircraft. I've been to 3 operational F-22 air bases, and they were being flown daily every time I was there.


There has been a number of articles on it recently from various news sources. The National Interest is one but I've also seen it from fox and CNN and others. Try doing some internet searches.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by turtlevette
The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.

Care to elaborate that broad comment? The F-22 was grounded for a short time due to OBOGS issues, but that has been fixed a long time ago. As mentioned earlier, it's a relatively high maintenance aircraft, but that's what you get along with a high tech aircraft. I've been to 3 operational F-22 air bases, and they were being flown daily every time I was there.

There has been a number of articles on it recently from various news sources. The National Interest is one but I've also seen it from fox and CNN and others. Try doing some internet searches.


You made the claim, so the onus is yours to back it up.
 
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by turtlevette
The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.

Care to elaborate that broad comment? The F-22 was grounded for a short time due to OBOGS issues, but that has been fixed a long time ago. As mentioned earlier, it's a relatively high maintenance aircraft, but that's what you get along with a high tech aircraft. I've been to 3 operational F-22 air bases, and they were being flown daily every time I was there.

There has been a number of articles on it recently from various news sources. The National Interest is one but I've also seen it from fox and CNN and others. Try doing some internet searches.


You made the claim, so the onus is yours to back it up.


Nope. Do your own research. This plane is the biggest boondoggle of all time

You don't give a blank check to a defense contractor
 
There were a lot of airplanes that had a blank check. C-5, B-1, etc., but the F-22 wasn't one of them. In fact, that airplane was tested before purchase decisions more than any other aircraft in our history. The only mistake made with the purchase of that plane was when the administration cancelled further purchases. Unless you want to make the argument that it's too good, and we don't need that much capability. I can actually somewhat agree with that.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Nope. Do your own research. This plane is the biggest boondoggle of all time

You don't give a blank check to a defense contractor


You obviously know very little about the F-22 program - nor anything about how military contracts work these days and all the auditing, etc that continually goes on. The AF asks for things via requirements in a request for cost quote, and the contractor gives their best costs estimates which are typically firm fixed price contracts with a fixed profit, and any added cost due to requirement changes, etc is agreed to be paid by the AF - that's all pretty typical for quite some time. It's hardly a "bank check", and there is a lot of price negotiations involved before the AF will award the contract.

And I don't go searching for claims made by someone else when they can't provide sources of their claims when asked - so I'll just have to chalk it up to a biased viewpoint which is pretty obvious now.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Nope. Do your own research. This plane is the biggest boondoggle of all time

You don't give a blank check to a defense contractor



Pierre Sprey, is that you?
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by turtlevette
The f22 is so finicky we can't keep them in the air. Let's buy more stuff that doesn't work.

Care to elaborate that broad comment? The F-22 was grounded for a short time due to OBOGS issues, but that has been fixed a long time ago. As mentioned earlier, it's a relatively high maintenance aircraft, but that's what you get along with a high tech aircraft. I've been to 3 operational F-22 air bases, and they were being flown daily every time I was there.

There has been a number of articles on it recently from various news sources. The National Interest is one but I've also seen it from fox and CNN and others. Try doing some internet searches.


You might re-read that "National Interest" article again ... it has nothing to do with "can't keeping them in the air" from problems with the airplane. Like I said, biased viewpoint. It's about the lack of enough F-22s that makes their "availability rate" bad. Like many have said, the decision to ax the program was a huge mistake, especially when full production was underway and the amortized cost was going down.

"The small size of F-22 squadrons and wings has contributed to low aircraft availability rates," according to GAO. "Further, the Air Force practice of deploying a small portion of a squadron makes it difficult for F-22 squadrons, as currently organized, to make aircraft available for their missions at home station. The Air Force would also face difficulties generating aircraft to support DOD's concepts for using distributed operations in high threat environments with its current F-22 squadron organization."
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/b...-have-new-way-kill-f-22s-and-f-35s-30967

Here's the latest article in my news feed today. This is my theory. Exactly what I'm talking about. Build a bunch of cheap missiles or otherwise unmanned vehicles to go after the f22.

I'd rather have 10,000 cheap unmanned disposable seek and destroy widgets than these over bloated fighters.



Guys, if it wasn't clear until now that this discussion wasn't going to get anywhere, this post makes it crystal clear. I suggest we leave it here.
 
The military doesn't currently adjust their armament programs based upon articles published in TASS, a Russian state owned "news" agency. I'm pretty sure the Air Force and Congress won't adjust their programs based upon your theories and what you would rather have either, so I'm not too worried about it.

Maybe since the F-22 can't stop the Russian dream of a nuclear reactor powered Mach 7 cruise missile either it should be scrapped?

Personally, I'm not too worried about anything the Russians could actually field. I am worried that the Chinese might learn how to build jet engines after stealing the plans from the West, and might build "just good enough" airplanes and missile systems to counter our very low numbers of fighters.
 
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
The military doesn't currently adjust their armament programs based upon articles published in TASS, a Russian state owned "news" agency. I'm pretty sure the Air Force and Congress won't adjust their programs based upon your theories and what you would rather have either, so I'm not too worried about it.

Maybe since the F-22 can't stop the Russian dream of a nuclear reactor powered Mach 7 cruise missile either it should be scrapped?

Personally, I'm not too worried about anything the Russians could actually field. I am worried that the Chinese might learn how to build jet engines after stealing the plans from the West, and might build "just good enough" airplanes and missile systems to counter our very low numbers of fighters.

80/20 rule, right? They're probably not going to beat us, and they might not even be able to come close -- but they sure could get to the point where they could make us think twice.
 
Pretty much. If you look at the patronizing way the Chinese are treating the other nations in the area with their claims on the entire South China Sea, their buildup of distant reefs and subsequent militarization, and their attitude in the international arena, it mirrors the Japanese rise and attitudes in the late 1930s. Regardless of what we think, they seem to think they are headed for a military conflict, and as Pearl Harbor proved, it only really takes one to Tango.
 
Originally Posted by turtlevette
I'd rather have 10,000 cheap unmanned disposable seek and destroy widgets than these over bloated fighters.


Cheap unmanned widget versus B1-RD...
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by ZeeOSix
Originally Posted by Astro14
But our lack of recent combat BFM does not mean that it's an irrelevant capability. War of the future may not go the way we think. BFM remains an important capability. Yes, in 1959, the air to air missile eliminated the need for a gun, because there would be no more dogfighting... but real combat with a determined enemy changed our outlook.

Long range missile shots presumes that the enemy will show up on your scope at long range, or that they will show up at all (stealth changes that). The fighter pilot of the future may well find themselves in a short-range, pure maneuvering fight.

The F-35 is good at it. The F-22 is simply awesome at it.


The F-22 has a 20 mm 6-barrel rotary cannon with 480 rounds.
The F-35 has a 25 mm 4-barrel rotary cannon with 180 rounds.

These fighters still employ guns, probably for the very reasons you state ... in case they do get into a very close quarters dog fight. Then maneuverability, speed, pilot skill and a gun is all you have.


And the F-35 is supposed to replace the A-10 in CAS missions?
banana2.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Donald
  • Locked
Anyone find a F-35 fighter jet in their back yard
Replies
3
Views
460
Astro14
BlueOvalFitter
F-22 Raptor VS F-35 RAA
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
edyvw
Dude-Man
HPL ATF Green CC or Amsoil ATL?
Replies
12
Views
1K
Ray S
J
  • Locked
What happened recently between a Russian SU-35 and an American F-35?
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
Astro14
y_p_w
Lifetime air travel passes
Replies
4
Views
467
y_p_w
Back
Top