I’m not saying we shouldn’t buy the Lightning, it does have a major plus points, but in the long run, we’ll need the F22 to maintain air superiority. Listen genious, explain how underpowered has an impact on anything mentioned above in specific situational terminology. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Key word is cost. Particularly since the f35 has more power than the f16 it is replacing in the af? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It may be replacing the F35 but it is priced so MUCH more than the F16, and if you buy these things in huge quantities, the cost will escalate in exactly the same way that buying a lot of F22’s will. Point is, it is more value for money to allocate to the F22. Explain also to me how the f35 isn’t stealthy enough with specific examples. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From what I understand the underside of the plane is misshapen due to the larger weapons bays and the exhaust nozzle is also supposed to be not stealthy. Compare the F22 exhaust to the F35. We know it’s less concealed, but explain to me how it can’t acheive its mission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How do you expect this plane to enter enemy airspace and destroy things if it is relatively visible to radar? Secondly, the af is not the pentagon, it is a branch. Gates who does represent the pentagon is one of the strongest f35 advocates. He specifically recommended slashing f22 purchases earlier this year to free up budget for f35’s. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ The AF has been the strongest advocate of the F-22. What’s your point? The first f35’s going into action wil be serving the marines not the af (replacing the f18’s) and an even larger segment will then go to the navy. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For the Navy I agree it is a good option. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t buy it, I’m just saying that the F22 should be bought in larger quantities. An f35 will take any fourth gen in any dog fight, and the only nations with fifth gen are Russia and the uk. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How do you know this? How do you know the F35 will beat Flanker variants in a dogfight? Why do you even assume that dogfights will be a major part of future air combat? Russia actually does not have a 5th gen. The T-50 is in development. When you refer to “clearing enemy airspace”, the largest obstacle is always the enemy ground based air defense systems. Since the f22 can’t carry meaningful air ground cargo they’re useless in this regard. They’re payload is also so miniscule pilots would have to go out 3-4 times to achieve what a single f35 can do, that’s increasing both risks and costs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Correct, the F22 doesn’t have a lot of air to ground cargo, but that is why you need more F-22s. How do you expect the F35 to destroy defense systems if the defense systems can spot them? And simply put, a few f22’s is enough to clear airspace given the scale of air to air conflict that is forseeable. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------You do have a point here. It is some time before other countries develop rivals to the Raptor. That is why I believe in Lockheed Martin’s FB-22 variant for ground attack. The troops need fighters that can support them on the ground as well as dogfight (which the f35 does quite well). F22’s would simply be circling around uselessly looking for nonexistant air targets. We got away from cold war relic dogfighting thoroughbreds for just this reason. The mix that is being recommended is in line with the f15 to f16/18 balance already in place. Not to mention that our existing force of 200ish f22’s far outnumbers any other fifth gen dogfighting force in existence and none of them have even seen combat once. Why? Because they’re useless in real war situations that involve ground attack. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Currently yes. But when other countries start developing more advanced air defense systems, then what are we going to do?
Cost, F35 costs far less in absolute terms, period. We deal with an absolute budget, not a relative budget. Case closed. Also, you keep bringing up underpowered but still haven’t related it to operational effectiveness, might as well drop it. F35 doesn’t have weapons bays, because it was designed to be less stealthy and carry bigger payloads. Stealth isn’t everything, doubling planes in the air doubles overall risk. Plus, planes aren’t the only cost, support infrastructure and maintenance are higher for F22’s, increasing their numbers due to their limited ability to carry payload would make them even less cost effective than the F35. My point was pentagon wants F35’s, and you disagreed. You were wrong. Pentagon does want F35’s. AF only wants them because they don’t see the big picture. IE ground support. The russian and Chinese 5th gen programs are stalling out, since we have 183 F22’s that are useless in the wars we are engaged in and the future types of conflicts we will likely see ourselves in, the Pentagon understands the program should be temporarily shut down. Particularly since F35’s are relavent to our current conflicts. “How do you expect this plane to enter enemy airspace and destroy things if it is relatively visible to radar?” The same way we’ve done it in every war we’ve ever been in. Besides, what does “relatively visible to radar” mean? It’s either visible or it’s not. The F35 is stealth and will not be picked up by most radar in operation. Give me hard data to prove it won’t complete it’s mission or stop talking your useless babble. Gates and the pentagon (which leads the worlds greatest fighting force) obviously think it can achieve its mission. "I’m not saying that we shouldn’t buy it, I’m just saying that the F22 should be bought in larger quantities. " Explain to me in exact terms how 183 is not enough, again given that the pentagon clearly disagrees and no other fighting force even has half that many fifth gen. The AF argument you’re getting fooled into is made every time aircraft purchases are brought up. Each time the AF looks after it’s own interests at the expense of ground support capabilities and every time they are denied. They have yet to lose the cold war mindset, fortunately they’ve been overridden and the multirole fighters they’ve been forced to accept in larger quantities have been the heros in every conflict we’ve engaged in over the past 30 years. "Correct, the F22 doesn’t have a lot of air to ground cargo, but that is why you need more F-22s. How do you expect the F35 to destroy defense systems if the defense systems can spot them? " Prove to me that they can spot the F35 which is stealth, again, you aren’t “relatively visible” on radar. Per the specs mandated by the armed forces, the F35 passes with flying colors. Your argument is all bullcrap. Less stealthy than the F22 does not mean visible anymore than less fast than michael johnson does not make you slow. "That is why I believe in Lockheed Martin’s FB-22 variant for ground attack. " FB22 can only carry 1 type of bomb, making it less useful than a 3rd nipple. Secondly, it isn’t even available yet, pending software development. Lets talk about planes that exist. Bottom line, the airforce has a bunch of high cost, superior F15’s they rarely use that outperform the cheaper and more versatile F16 workhorses they rely on every single day of every single conflict. It’s the exact same situation. You need to remember we work on a budget. Wars are often lost economically. The German ships, uboats, tanks, machine guns and early planes were all better than the allied forces. In the end, their products were simply too costly to produce in the proper quantities. One of the many reasons they lost. Learn something from it. And you keep referring to cost, the F22 is $143MM versus the F35 which is $83MM. In addition, the F22 requires higher support costs and cannot provide the same volume of ground support or ground attack capabilities. It also cannot perform all of the same roles and requires twice as many planes to provide the same amount of ground attack firepower (due to payload and the fact that it can only carry 1 type of bomb on the FB variant). Wars are won by flexibility, not narrowly focused strategic rigidity. This is why F16/18’s have starred in all of our recent wars, not the F15. Case closed.
Why do you take arguments so personally? This discussion is getting long and OT anyways. But the point to remember is that air superiority is what makes the US military powerful and ensures that other countries think twice about war, and is of prime importance. When was the last time the US faced an enemy powerful in the air? Is that situation always going to last? Future strategic rivals are developing their own 5th generation fighters, rather than stalling anything. The T-50 flew last week. We should buy the F35 for its multirole and ground attack capabilities. (Although it’s not at an advantage in the air against other fighters). Not at the cost of the F22 though.