F-22 discussion

[Merik]

I've been reading everyone's arguments in the "Commanche Cancelled" thread and I have noticed that just about everyone in thier is against the idea of having a $8 billion aircraft defending our skies.

Why is that? The entire point of having a "stealth" fighter jet is that no one else can see it. Now, you are going to read this and reply with something like,'Well there isnt a air force large enough or dangerous enough to poise a threat to us right now or in the next 40 years.' Obviously that is total bull****. Just because someone is our ally right now doesnt mean they will be in the future.

As for the remarks about why should we have a stealth fighter, take a look at the recent thread about the Indian Air Force and US Air Force F-15s in exercise together. The Indian Air Force is supplied with Russian made Su-30 MKI, MK-1s, and Ks. All of these are dual seated versions of the Su-27 with full-multirole, long range intercepting, and limited-multirole capabilities. Hell the MKI is equipped with an all-weather, digital multi-mode, dual frequency, forward facing Phazotron N-011M radar which has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range that can track and engage 20 targets and engage the 8 most threatening simultaneously. The radar is combined with a helmet mounted sight system, which allows the pilot to turn his head in a 90º field of view, lock on to a target and launch the TVC-capable R-73RDM2 missile. Now I dont know about you but if I was an F-15 pilot up against one of those then I sure as hell dont want to be seen by a radar that acts like a god damn AWACS inside a fighter jet's nose. Thats the whole point of the F-22 system, is not to be seen by radar like that of the Sukhoi series fighter jets and not to be locked on at BVR(beyond visual range). An Su-30 can shoot down an F-15 before the Eagle drivers even get a lock on. And just to make a smaller point as well, a MiG-29 can even outperform a F-15. At 40 miles out an American fighter has the advantage because of avionic, at 10 to 5 miles out the advantage is that of the MiG's because of its helmet mounted weapons sight that follows the pilot's line of sight, and its better manuverability. The radar for the newer upgraded MiG's will be the Phazotron Zhuk, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km and the new two-seat version will have three dimensional thrust vectoring engines, much like the Sukhoi's. So that is two threats that an F-15 can and cannot counter.

Currently Russia, India, and China are the main operators of any of the Su-27 series and its derivatives and Im not sure if any other country has them too. With the aircraft being cheaper to purchase than an F-15, the worlds best air superority fighter, what would you choose if you were the leader of a country with a couple billion to spare for an air force? It doesnt matter what we face now when you talk about the F-22, its what we face in the future because the F-22 is made to fight threats of the future.

After reading the "Commanche Cancelled" posts in the topic, I realized that none of those who posted in thier are pilots. Why? Because if they were pilots then the whole argument about the F-22 would have never popped up because fighter pilots undertand the importance of not being seen by enemy radar and they will take that anyway they can get it. And if it costs as much as $8 billion dollars per aircraft then by god I want my boys up in the sky to have the best equipment possible.

I may be wrong about people posting that are not pilots, but I bet I am more than right. I dont pretend to be a fighter pilot myself, at least not yet. Im working on it though. But if you dont know the reasons why it is so important to have things that may be expensive the have then ask someone. Dont throw **** out that makes everyone turn against it because you dont know anything at all. If you do that then you may as well just shut the f*$& up because Im sick of people like you pretending to know the reasons why we do the things we do know that will profit ourselves in the future. *Sigh*, now I got that off my chest.

[shrek]

Hey,

I have actually worked on the F/A-22 Raptor project and am currently somewhat involved in that branch. The people that love to kill projects like the one I currently work on are the very same people that will be crying and screaming for some ones head when we get our ass kicked in some later conflict. No one wants to pay for our military but everyone expects it to be there when the time comes. People treat the Military like an anachronism, break glass only in case of war. Unfortunately, what you find when you break that glass is going to be total **** if you don’t keep it up and running and equipped. Recently, large groups have tried to kill the very project on which I work, they say it didn’t work, they say it will never work. We here always say the same thing, “put you child or your grandbaby in there and let the **** start flying, I bet you’ll want us there then”!
Let me know and I will help you argue this point (F/A-22) to the end!!



p.s. Where did you get the picture that posts with you name?

[martinexsquaddie]

there was an Awacs type person on the arrse notice board pointing out a load of technical stuff that basically the ex soviet kit was designed to be used en masse.
the russian gear is a bit overrated
he had experiance of serbian su's going awac hunting and getting run out of town

[Merik]

Im guessing from the number of replies that either A) No one cares or B) I was right about everything I said and no one is going to challenge me. ;)

[WARPIG]

Hate to point this out .. especially in a pro zoomie thread.. but I also work for one of those government programs. While I tend to agree that the people looking to axe programs like comanche and f22 are going to regret it... I think that the UAV programs in combination with the demand on our military budget are what are going to kill a lot of these kinds of programs. If the DOD can put money into a front end program that is equally as expensive as say the F-22 but save money by not having to train and staff pilots by replacing them with UAV and video game savants... well, the UAVs are looking like a bargain. Taking F22 technology and applying it to a UAV saves more money. Not putting a pilot in danger.. another plus. Widening the parameters and capabilities of an aircraft because the pilot tolerence is eliminated, the risk factors of losing a pilot are gone, search and rescue is not needed.... I can go on.
I personally would rather get my CAS from a person in a plane instead of a flying robot... but what do us groundpounders know?

[Flagg]

Now, you are going to read this and reply with something like,'Well there isnt a air force large enough or dangerous enough to poise a threat to us right now or in the next 40 years.' Obviously that is total bull****. Just because someone is our ally right now doesnt mean they will be in the future.

OK...what current or future fighter platform is the US Air Force currently unprepared for obliterating from the skies?

SU-27 based and Mig-29 based platforms may be quite capable in theory....but they lack severely in avionics, ergonomics, and reliability(read about Indian Air Force statistics on their success, or lack of, with maintaining the platforms...shockingly bad build quality and reliability)

Swedish Grippen? Not likely...although they are being exported....they aren't likely to be a problem as the nations procuring them are friendly...and the numbers are insignificant

Rafale? Don't think so....any export customers yet? Tough export controls to prevent sales to shady countries

Eurofighter? Don't think so....any export customers yet?

Chinese Lavi rip-off? Not likely.....not yet deployed...and likely to be less capable than our existing fleet


As for the remarks about why should we have a stealth fighter, take a look at the recent thread about the Indian Air Force and US Air Force F-15s in exercise together. The Indian Air Force is supplied with Russian made Su-30 MKI, MK-1s, and Ks. All of these are dual seated versions of the Su-27 with full-multirole, long range intercepting, and limited-multirole capabilities. Hell the MKI is equipped with an all-weather, digital multi-mode, dual frequency, forward facing Phazotron N-011M radar which has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range that can track and engage 20 targets and engage the 8 most threatening simultaneously. The radar is combined with a helmet mounted sight system, which allows the pilot to turn his head in a 90º field of view, lock on to a target and launch the TVC-capable R-73RDM2 missile. Now I dont know about you but if I was an F-15 pilot up against one of those then I sure as hell dont want to be seen by a radar that acts like a god damn AWACS inside a fighter jet's nose. Thats the whole point of the F-22 system, is not to be seen by radar like that of the Sukhoi series fighter jets and not to be locked on at BVR(beyond visual range). An Su-30 can shoot down an F-15 before the Eagle drivers even get a lock on.

Anyone can "cut and paste" from a website

Unfortunately you assume fighter combat is some sort of one-on-one engagement....you neglect to "think outside the box" and consider important technological advantages like JTIDS while an SU-30 looks like a flashlight at night trying to hunti F15s and getting jammed....the F15s radar is passive and receiving "god's view" data-link from AWACS...ba-bye Su-30


And just to make a smaller point as well, a MiG-29 can even outperform a F-15. At 40 miles out an American fighter has the advantage because of avionic, at 10 to 5 miles out the advantage is that of the MiG's because of its helmet mounted weapons sight that follows the pilot's line of sight, and its better manuverability. The radar for the newer upgraded MiG's will be the Phazotron Zhuk, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km and the new two-seat version will have three dimensional thrust vectoring engines, much like the Sukhoi's. So that is two threats that an F-15 can and cannot counter.

Cut and paste.........is it absolutely necessary to outmaneuver a MIG-29 in a knife fight when the MIG29's have already been smoked on the tarmac in an airfield denial run? Or that they got whacked at BVR with the assistance of the aforementioned AWACS datalink? Or maybe that same MIG29 is an expensive "hanger-queen" since it's too unreliable to maintain a high-ops tempo?

Or how about the fact the Mig or Sukhoi pilot gets less flight time in a year that a US pilot gets in a month.


Currently Russia, India, and China are the main operators of any of the Su-27 series and its derivatives and Im not sure if any other country has them too. With the aircraft being cheaper to purchase than an F-15, the worlds best air superority fighter, what would you choose if you were the leader of a country with a couple billion to spare for an air force?

I'd take the F15 mate.....it's not as simple an exercise as reading about unit cost in Fiscal Year 1999 on some website.....lifetime costs are a more reliable figure of true costs...the problems the US F15 fleet had with reliablity and maintainability in the 1970's pales in comparison with the issues found with MIG29 & SU27 platforms.

Buying SU27 platforms for a cheap price is great.....but the high cost of maintaining poorly built and difficult to maintain aircraft with a low availability rate suddenly makes the F15 platform seem a lot more attractive.



It doesnt matter what we face now when you talk about the F-22, its what we face in the future because the F-22 is made to fight threats of the future.

Even the US doesn't have an unlimited defense budget...it's not a bottomless barrel or a magic wand to make more defense dollars appear.....compromise is necessary.

Current manned platforms are capable of handling any likely threat faced by the US for the foreseeable future.


After reading the "Commanche Cancelled" posts in the topic, I realized that none of those who posted in thier are pilots.

I fly....and I keep up to date with military aviation........and the need for the F22 is less than the need for competitive wages, housing, benefits, and personal equipment for all of our troops. I'd rather have 1,000,000 well paid, highly trained, and motivated veteran soldiers than a bunch of high tech gear that no one knows how to maintain or utilise


Why? Because if they were pilots then the whole argument about the F-22 would have never popped up because fighter pilots undertand the importance of not being seen by enemy radar and they will take that anyway they can get it. And if it costs as much as $8 billion dollars per aircraft then by god I want my boys up in the sky to have the best equipment possible.

Of course pilots would want the F22.....cause they want to fly the F'r...I would too! That's like asking Micahel Schumacher if he wants a faster F1 Ferrari next year....of course the answer is yes


I may be wrong about people posting that are not pilots, but I bet I am more than right. I dont pretend to be a fighter pilot myself, at least not yet. Im working on it though. But if you dont know the reasons why it is so important to have things that may be expensive the have then ask someone. Dont throw **** out that makes everyone turn against it because you dont know anything at all. If you do that then you may as well just shut the f*$& up because Im sick of people like you pretending to know the reasons why we do the things we do know that will profit ourselves in the future. *Sigh*, now I got that off my chest.

A couple of things to consider.

Your post isn't likely to effect any change in people's opinions about the topic because:

1.) You're obviously emotional about the topic, therefore biased and unreliable in helping form fencesitter opinion

2.) You insult and use profanity....further damaging your argument

3.) Based on 1+2..if I was a fencesitter..I'd likely oppose your argument because you come across as a childish whinger.

[SeanAshi]

The radar for the newer upgraded MiG's will be the Phazotron Zhuk, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km
The F-14 can track up to 24 targets simultaneously with its advanced weapons control system and attack six with Phoenix AIM-54A missiles while continuing to scan the airspace. Armament also includes a mix of other air intercept missiles, rockets and bombs. We could spend all day talking and debating which one is better, but for the sake of humanity, I hope we never have to find out.

[usa320]

UAV's are good for recon and the assasination missions they are used for, but i think they will never be able to replace the combat pilot. ever.


And i hope they never do. Granted it will make pilots' safe, but it will take the human factor out of waging war, which would lead to more war for less reason.

[Merik]

Now, you are going to read this and reply with something like,'Well there isnt a air force large enough or dangerous enough to poise a threat to us right now or in the next 40 years.' Obviously that is total bull****. Just because someone is our ally right now doesnt mean they will be in the future.

OK...what current or future fighter platform is the US Air Force currently unprepared for obliterating from the skies?

SU-27 based and Mig-29 based platforms may be quite capable in theory....but they lack severely in avionics, ergonomics, and reliability(read about Indian Air Force statistics on their success, or lack of, with maintaining the platforms...shockingly bad build quality and reliability)

Swedish Grippen? Not likely...although they are being exported....they aren't likely to be a problem as the nations procuring them are friendly...and the numbers are insignificant

Rafale? Don't think so....any export customers yet? Tough export controls to prevent sales to shady countries

Eurofighter? Don't think so....any export customers yet?

Chinese Lavi rip-off? Not likely.....not yet deployed...and likely to be less capable than our existing fleet


As for the remarks about why should we have a stealth fighter, take a look at the recent thread about the Indian Air Force and US Air Force F-15s in exercise together. The Indian Air Force is supplied with Russian made Su-30 MKI, MK-1s, and Ks. All of these are dual seated versions of the Su-27 with full-multirole, long range intercepting, and limited-multirole capabilities. Hell the MKI is equipped with an all-weather, digital multi-mode, dual frequency, forward facing Phazotron N-011M radar which has a 350 km search range and a 200 km tracking range that can track and engage 20 targets and engage the 8 most threatening simultaneously. The radar is combined with a helmet mounted sight system, which allows the pilot to turn his head in a 90º field of view, lock on to a target and launch the TVC-capable R-73RDM2 missile. Now I dont know about you but if I was an F-15 pilot up against one of those then I sure as hell dont want to be seen by a radar that acts like a god damn AWACS inside a fighter jet's nose. Thats the whole point of the F-22 system, is not to be seen by radar like that of the Sukhoi series fighter jets and not to be locked on at BVR(beyond visual range). An Su-30 can shoot down an F-15 before the Eagle drivers even get a lock on.

Anyone can "cut and paste" from a website

Unfortunately you assume fighter combat is some sort of one-on-one engagement....you neglect to "think outside the box" and consider important technological advantages like JTIDS while an SU-30 looks like a flashlight at night trying to hunti F15s and getting jammed....the F15s radar is passive and receiving "god's view" data-link from AWACS...ba-bye Su-30


And just to make a smaller point as well, a MiG-29 can even outperform a F-15. At 40 miles out an American fighter has the advantage because of avionic, at 10 to 5 miles out the advantage is that of the MiG's because of its helmet mounted weapons sight that follows the pilot's line of sight, and its better manuverability. The radar for the newer upgraded MiG's will be the Phazotron Zhuk, capable of tracking ten targets to a maximum range of 245km and the new two-seat version will have three dimensional thrust vectoring engines, much like the Sukhoi's. So that is two threats that an F-15 can and cannot counter.

Cut and paste.........is it absolutely necessary to outmaneuver a MIG-29 in a knife fight when the MIG29's have already been smoked on the tarmac in an airfield denial run? Or that they got whacked at BVR with the assistance of the aforementioned AWACS datalink? Or maybe that same MIG29 is an expensive "hanger-queen" since it's too unreliable to maintain a high-ops tempo?

Or how about the fact the Mig or Sukhoi pilot gets less flight time in a year that a US pilot gets in a month.


Currently Russia, India, and China are the main operators of any of the Su-27 series and its derivatives and Im not sure if any other country has them too. With the aircraft being cheaper to purchase than an F-15, the worlds best air superority fighter, what would you choose if you were the leader of a country with a couple billion to spare for an air force?

I'd take the F15 mate.....it's not as simple an exercise as reading about unit cost in Fiscal Year 1999 on some website.....lifetime costs are a more reliable figure of true costs...the problems the US F15 fleet had with reliablity and maintainability in the 1970's pales in comparison with the issues found with MIG29 & SU27 platforms.

Buying SU27 platforms for a cheap price is great.....but the high cost of maintaining poorly built and difficult to maintain aircraft with a low availability rate suddenly makes the F15 platform seem a lot more attractive.



It doesnt matter what we face now when you talk about the F-22, its what we face in the future because the F-22 is made to fight threats of the future.

Even the US doesn't have an unlimited defense budget...it's not a bottomless barrel or a magic wand to make more defense dollars appear.....compromise is necessary.

Current manned platforms are capable of handling any likely threat faced by the US for the foreseeable future.


After reading the "Commanche Cancelled" posts in the topic, I realized that none of those who posted in thier are pilots.

I fly....and I keep up to date with military aviation........and the need for the F22 is less than the need for competitive wages, housing, benefits, and personal equipment for all of our troops. I'd rather have 1,000,000 well paid, highly trained, and motivated veteran soldiers than a bunch of high tech gear that no one knows how to maintain or utilise


Why? Because if they were pilots then the whole argument about the F-22 would have never popped up because fighter pilots undertand the importance of not being seen by enemy radar and they will take that anyway they can get it. And if it costs as much as $8 billion dollars per aircraft then by god I want my boys up in the sky to have the best equipment possible.

Of course pilots would want the F22.....cause they want to fly the F'r...I would too! That's like asking Micahel Schumacher if he wants a faster F1 Ferrari next year....of course the answer is yes


I may be wrong about people posting that are not pilots, but I bet I am more than right. I dont pretend to be a fighter pilot myself, at least not yet. Im working on it though. But if you dont know the reasons why it is so important to have things that may be expensive the have then ask someone. Dont throw **** out that makes everyone turn against it because you dont know anything at all. If you do that then you may as well just shut the f*$& up because Im sick of people like you pretending to know the reasons why we do the things we do know that will profit ourselves in the future. *Sigh*, now I got that off my chest.

A couple of things to consider.

Your post isn't likely to effect any change in people's opinions about the topic because:

1.) You're obviously emotional about the topic, therefore biased and unreliable in helping form fencesitter opinion

2.) You insult and use profanity....further damaging your argument

3.) Based on 1+2..if I was a fencesitter..I'd likely oppose your argument because you come across as a childish whinger.


1)No **** Im obviously emotional about it because it pisses me off when people think that we dont need something when in the long run we do.

2)So what if an AWACS can see a target and relay the information to a fighter on standby? If the fighter cant get a lock on while he is getting the info from the AWACS and the enemy fighter can then I would want to be in an F-22 cause the enemy cant see me. Its not like the AWACS has weapons and can shoot down the enemy plane, so what good does all that do?

3)Yeah F-15s may be better to maintain but it is more expensive to maintain an F-15 than a Sukhoi or a MiG. So if you buy any of the latter you have more expenses to use on maintaince.

4)Its not the fact that the US Air Force is preparing to counter a enemy fighter platform that already exists or one that will be built, its the fact that they are preparing to counter a nation with an air force that poises as a threat. Its not a single aircraft thats bad news bubba, its a whole bunch of them.

5)Im glad that you can read and figure out that I used profanity and I insulted people and Im glad that you can call me a childish whinger because it hurts so much.

6)Sean, trust me I know all about the F-14. Thats why I still dont understand why the Navy is replacing it.

[Fox2]

I think you may be confusing some issues, Merik.

The F-22 is definitely a good aircraft, and needs to continue development. As far as I understand that development is going well.

I agree totally that we need to prepare for the future and not sit idly by whilst everyone advances.

The issue discussed in the Comanche thread was the fact that the Comanche was really NOT needed and unnecessary. The F-22 is necessary. The Comanche really isn't due to the way an attack or reconaissance helicopter operates.

We also discussed the V-22. While we DO need something to replace the aging transport platforms, the V-22 in its current form is not it. It is unsafe and underperforming and already cost the lives of 30 people. Something needs to be developed, but the V-22 in current form needs to be cut, just like the Comanche.

Anyway, I agree about the F-22. It is needed. And that's why the project is going ahead (unlike the RAH-66).

[Flagg]

1)No **** Im obviously emotional about it because it pisses me off when people think that we dont need something when in the long run we do.

But you still haven't offered a compelling argument as to why it's needed.

What current or projected air force has the potential of offering a viable threat to the US?

Russia? Not a chance in a conventional conflict.....they haven't procured new airframes in a number of years, their pilots don't get squat for airtime, and their military aircraft industry has no money to develop new aircraft.

China? Not likely...the number of recent generation airframes they possess is quite small, their experience in operating in a high-tech, high-tempo air combat environment is non-existent. Their indigenous aircraft industry is likely to grow but they are several generations behind the US in capability.

Something you haven't acknowledged is that an operator of a SU-27type airframe you have so much fear of isn't much of a threat when the pilots fly only 10 hours a YEAR going up against US pilots averaging 15 hours a MONTH.......the scary SU-27 isn't a threat at all if the operating country doesn't let their pilots fly their birds.


2)So what if an AWACS can see a target and relay the information to a fighter on standby? If the fighter cant get a lock on while he is getting the info from the AWACS and the enemy fighter can then I would want to be in an F-22 cause the enemy cant see me. Its not like the AWACS has weapons and can shoot down the enemy plane, so what good does all that do?

??? Are you aware of JTIDS capabilities? That's the beauty of it....while the SU27 pilot is fighting in a dark room with a flashlight, the F15 driver sees the whole room without being seen cause he's routed around the Su27's detection arc...and the SU27 is dead...period


3)Yeah F-15s may be better to maintain but it is more expensive to maintain an F-15 than a Sukhoi or a MiG. So if you buy any of the latter you have more expenses to use on maintaince.

What's the point of buying a Sukhoi airframe with a total cost of ownership 2/3 that of an F15, but only a useful life 1/2 as long?


4)Its not the fact that the US Air Force is preparing to counter a enemy fighter platform that already exists or one that will be built, its the fact that they are preparing to counter a nation with an air force that poises as a threat. Its not a single aircraft thats bad news bubba, its a whole bunch of them.

What air force presents even a potential viable threat in the future? None that I can see.

"A whole bunch of aircraft" is a threat? The US still has, and will continue to have, far more modern operational combat aircraft than any other nation on earth with combat experienced, highly trained crew, and the ability to project that airpower anywhere on earth in hours.

In my opinion the F22 should be canned....too much money going towards "protecting" the combat category the US military is probably MOST dominant in....all it's doing is buying redundant capability at too high a cost......it's not the machine we should be spending so much of the defense budget on, it's the man.

Unfortunately, a lot of jobs are tied up in this program and it becomes a big political issue....rather than just a military decision.

[DE_Six]

. At 40 miles out an American fighter has the advantage because of avionic, at 10 to 5 miles out the advantage is that of the MiG's because of its helmet mounted weapons sight that follows the pilot's line of sight, and its better manuverability.

Just to adress that concern: The 3rd FW at Elmendorf has fielded the JHMCS and AIM-9X on its F-15s. The system will also be implemented on the F/A-22. So it would negate the advantage.

[cold0]

100% with Merik!!!! woot

But as Fox2 has said Comanche was really NOT needed and unnecessary and has been killed by the spiralling costs, the upgraded AH-64s (-D models), and lack of clear enemy with mass armour divisions with a sophisticated IADS.

The treat for US fighters is clear and have names: advanced version of Su-27s, "double digits" SAMs and european fighters in wrong hands could bash the F-15/F-16/F18 out the skies.

Remember that Raptor would serve in USAF for 30 years; it's only stupid think that the next war would be similar to the last ones (A'stan, Iraqi freedom).

The F/A-22 is necessary.

[Merik]

Ok ok, Im not one to keep up with the whole bad guy routine so if I offended anyone with my language or harsh insults then apologize. I didnt not intend this to be as aggresive as it is but as I read more comments from other topics and wrote more it kinda got out of hand. But I stick by my remarks because I said them.

[shrek]

Something to think about!

One of the reasons we will always develop these superior weapon system even when we know that no enemy has anything superior is because many enemies have many many planes to throw at us. Therefore, stop thinking of air superiority on a one-to-one basis and think of it on a 5 MIG's to 1 F/A-22 basis.

[HELEX]

MIG-35 is still possible, but not likely.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/i42-001.jpg

[Durandal]

Last time I checked, the F22 Program was not canceled.

So this is just all theoretical.

I will also argue that the leap in technology of the actual platform has little impact when dealing with a modern airforce with no equal. You can go an compare fighter stats and it matters little.

Why?

Last time I checked the Indians did not have spy sats. Or massive world wide communications capability. Or fantastic command and control and a solid AWACS set up. Nor do they have a fleet of Tomahawks capable subs and ships.

I mean, the list goes on and on. Success of our military in general is gained by the use of many platforms, not just one.

With that said, I do think the F-22 is a good buy. I certainly think it is money well spent and definately NOT the boondoggle that was Commanche and definately not was currently is Osprey (MONEY HOLE!)

[cold0]

The problem is that F/A-22 isn't cancelled but, in the last month, the program is became object of the new attacks by the same old enemies (POGO, ect.) that have threated the Raptor starting from the mid '90s.

Apart for the sofware problems, the F/A-22 is, pratically, in the production phase and the first examples were been delivered to USAF this year.

Killing the Raptor now is simply criminal!!

[shrek]

I work in the PATRIOT missile program and they have tried to shoot us down (no pun intended) for years. Another note: you can build the finest fighter in the world, and unless it has a radar cross section smaller than a football, PATRIOT can shoot it down!!

[HELEX]

you can build the finest fighter in the world, and unless it has a radar cross section smaller than a football, PATRIOT can shoot it down!!

At maximum range?

[Pad75]

I work in the PATRIOT missile program and they have tried to shoot us down (no pun intended) for years. Another note: you can build the finest fighter in the world, and unless it has a radar cross section smaller than a football, PATRIOT can shoot it down!!

Like a Scud? ...
:roll:

[2Sheds_Jackson]

...video game savants

rofl That's good.

[Fenna]

I work in the PATRIOT missile program and they have tried to shoot us down (no pun intended) for years. Another note: you can build the finest fighter in the world, and unless it has a radar cross section smaller than a football, PATRIOT can shoot it down!!

Like a Scud? ...
:roll:

No, more like a Tornado

[shrek]

Fenna! Yes more like a Tornado

HELIX! Ok, Ok, THAAD then!

[AFACadet]

Apart for the sofware problems, the F/A-22 is, pratically, in the production phase and the first examples were been delivered to USAF this year.

All problems with the F/A-22 have been fixed. I don't know when it all happened, but my roommate was taking with the Wing DO of Tyndall's Raptor squadron.


Now its just a problem of the actual cost of the aircraft.

[fantassin]

The good question is : against whom ?

I can't see the usefulness of the F22 in the GWAT either...

All that money would ne much better spent improving the US HUMINT sources, the Afghan army, the new Iraqi army...if half the money of the F22 was showered on the Iraqis, they'd be so busy becoming good capitalists they would not be thinking about killing GIs.

That's what France did to the independantists in New Caledonia in the 80s; after a tense period with quite a lot of blood, it was realized that spending money on the independantist was much better than spending millions on security.

Now they are drunk 50% of the time, stoned 25% and sleep the rest off;
and the island is now safe, secure and quiet.

[n.ignomo]

Moreover, let's not talking as if F22 were the last aircraft in the USAF. I mean it must be the most enhanced aircraft in the world, in 10 years it won't be andwill be shot down by an anti aircraft missile even less old than F22 is. Don't forget that missiles cost much much less, nowadays armies are constructing more and more land-air missile. Same for the tanks, you can't fight without tanks, but if you defend, missiles are the best answer (see irak, they didn't have much modern AT rockers). I have in mind the lost of a F117 during Kosovo, whereas it was THE ultimate weapon over baghdad in 91.

[Fox2]

you can't fight without tanks, but if you defend, missiles are the best answer (see irak, they didn't have much modern AT rockers).

You do realize they lost the war, don't you? ;)

[n.ignomo]

Don't worry i do! I just meant that they had no really armed army...