The F-22 Fighter Plane (Which started life as the Advanced Tactical Fighter {ATF} and later became the Air Dominance Fighter {ADF}) and the Typhoon were programs started in the early 80′s. The F-22 is intended to replace the F-15C/D While the Euro fighter plane is intended to replace a whole plethora of aircraft.
The JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) is a replacement for aircraft types such as the Harrier (VSTOL variant slated for the USMC; Britain), the F-16 (CTOL Variant for the USAF) and the F/A-18C/D (Naval Variant for the USN).
While the Jury is still out on the JSF (As far as I am concerned) I think the F-22 has turned into one of those “Projects that won’t die” like the M2/M3 Bradley. The US Government has spent so much money on it that they can’t afford to buy it.
Do we need it? That question is already moot. We are getting it whether we “need” it or not. I think, however, that the F-22 may be the last manned fighter to be deployed. The focus will, IMHO, switch to highly capable UCAVs…
From a military perspective, yes. What will stop these European countries from selling this aircraft to any country that wants it? What will stop members of the design team from selling plans to other countries? It is possible that our aircraft will infact have to fly against the euro fighter.
Keep in mind, there was a time when Iraq was our ally (of sorts). Just because someone is my ally today does not mean they will be tomorrow. If I’m putting you in a hunk of metal that for all intents and purposes is one large explosive. That you will have to fly faster than the speed of sound while being fired at…. call me crazy, but I think you would like to be sitting in the most technologically advanced thing you could get your hands on.
Being on the cutting edge of military advancement doesn’t come cheap or easy. But the most powerful country in the world is ALWAYS the country with the most powerful military. You can’t very well impose your will if you… can’t impose your will.
Our military isn’t just judged based upon its ability to fight those we will likely have to in the near future. But, everything out there. including our own weapons.
A lot of Russian/European Fighter planes are at par or has exceeded the F-15E’s capability. This puts the US at a disadvantage. Besides, F-15 will be at least 25+ years old. For a military that’s taking the fight into the OPFOR’s own backyard, the US has to dominate its battle space. And that means having an Air Superiority to operate with impunity.
Sure, it’s expensive. But whoever said that Air Superiority was cheap? If you looked back into the 70s when the F-15 was still in its R&D phases lawmakers said the same damn thing: “that plane’s too expensive!” And now, we got hundreds of them.
The F-22 may be the single biggest waste of money since the B-1. Large, heavy, bad E-M (energy-maneuverability) ratings it simple is not a good air plane. Instead of being based on the E-M theory like the F-15 and 16 were it has instead reverted back to the bigger-higher-faster doctrine. It simply puts to many gizmos into a plan that doesn’t need it. The E-M theory proved that the lighter the plane the better it will be able to maneuver, the F-22 is one of the heaviest planes designed.
It also has far surpassed its budget and its cost per plane is simply unacceptable. By the time the air force has enough money to replace its fleet with these flying boxes they will be long obsolete.
Victor Epand
http://www.articlesbase.com/technology-articles/the-f22-fighter-plane-is-needed-89199.html
#1 by Matt on May 27th, 2009
Quote
Why would the U.S. have ANY need for its new, HIGHLY advanced fighter plane, the f-22 raptor?
20+ years ago, the U.S. asked aircraft makers to produce the ultimate stealth bomber that could penetrate soviet-influenced territories. Northrop Grummon answered the call, with the B2 stealth bomber, up to that point, the most expensive aircraft in existence, at around $156 billion per plane. Yet, after all the hype surrounding the plane, it sat in the hanger, thanks to the collapse of the soviet union. It wasnt needed until nearly 8 years later, in bosnia, then again 5 years later, in iraq. The raptor's maiden flight as a prototype was back in 1990, and as a completed project, in 1997. Apparantly it also sat in the hanger for 8 years, until its introduction in 2005. So my question is: why would the U.S. suddenly put a highly advanced aircraft into use, when we can apparantly easily overthrow iraq, a poorly-stiched-quilt of a country (which we are STILL struggling to control after 4 years)? What enemy is at our doorstep? Who is the government hiding? Are we on the brink of world war?
ok, first of all, can ANY of you answer the question of when the last time a fighter plane was shot down in combat by an enemy? Youd have to think back pretty far, maybe to bosnia 10 years ago. Second of all, it costs $1.2-2.2 bil to BUILD it, not maintain it. Third of all, most fighter planes active are not scheduled to be retired for many years ahead, and when they ARE retired, theyre not fighters, theyre LIGHT BOMBERS (aka nighthawk, one of my favorites). Im not saying that the f-22 isnt a great investment, or that the U.S. should make itself vulnerable, simply that we waited all these years to suddenly activate this magnificent weapon. And fourth of all, that is a retarded statement: "peace is maintained through strength". Thats like saying "health is maintained by smoking cigarettes".
peace is maintained through strength. thank you mein fuhrer!
AHHHHHHH You all are interpreting me WRONG!!!!! Im all for having the best and baddest-ass equipment in the world!!!!! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!! No doubt about that!!!! But this plane has been around since '97!!! Why wait until 2005 to introduce it? Im comparing it to the b2 (which costs $156 bil over its expected lifetime to maintain) because the b2 was shelved until it was needed. And if the raptor took its maiden flight in '97, and introduced barely 2 years ago, its APPARENTLY needed for something!! Im not saying we sit back and wait for the world to take over us!!! That just sounds crazy!
#2 by satcomgrunt on May 27th, 2009
Quote
You never stop designing better weapons and getting them to the troops. One fact has been proven time and time again throughout history, and that is to have peace you must be ready for war. Granted the F-15 is still a great plane but the F-22 ensures we will be ready for war for several decades which as a result means American lives will be saved.
References :
#3 by jamustrip on May 27th, 2009
Quote
No, but china is rising. We will have at the very least a cold war with china within the next hundred years or so if not sooner. Funny that our biggest trading partner is the single biggest threat to this country.
Stop supporting china, stop shopping at walmart.
References :
#4 by netjr on May 27th, 2009
Quote
First; because the American aircraft currently relied upon for the nations defense were designed in the 60's (F14/16/18 group). Many of these planes are old and must be replaced so it makes sense to replace them with the latest technology.
Second; not every enemy of the United States is a third world nation with outdated supplies from Russia. Peace is maintained through strength – not old figher planes.
References :
#5 by bkc99xx on May 27th, 2009
Quote
What a great idea, next time why don't we wait until other countries are already ahead of us in technology, and then when they attack us, we can call a quick time-out and spend a few years playing catch-up. Surely they will patiently wait while we do this. We all know that all other countries in the world are fair and reasonable.
References :
#6 by bravozulu on May 27th, 2009
Quote
It is better to use the investment and ensure that we will have the best fighter in the world for the foreseeable future. Becoming weak invites attack and encourages rivals to build up forces to intimidate and expand their influence. By your logic we wouldn't have had the B-2 that were used so efficiently recently.
By the way they don't cost 156 billion per plane.
"The B-2 is one of the most expensive planes ever built: estimates for the costs per plane range from 1.157 billion[2] to 2.2 billion US dollars"
References :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
#7 by oscarsix5 on May 27th, 2009
Quote
Ever hear of the SU29 and the MiG32? Care to have USAF pilots shot by third world pilots flying first line fighters? We control the skies because our military aviation assets fly the best aircraft there is, bar none!
References :
#8 by W W D on May 27th, 2009
Quote
I suppose the answer is that it takes so long to develop modern weapons that you have to develop and build them because the threats for which they may be needed are beyond the horizon. Why these things get priority in budgeting, I can't say. The Air Farce has always overemphasized fighters and strategic bombers to the detriment of transport and close air support. It's natural, since their leadership are exclusively fighter and strategic bomber drivers. They'll of course argue that the emphasis is for pilot survivability. I'm thinking transport and tactical bombing might be better served by reverting to an Army Air Corps as pre-1947, and the budget arguments would at least be more balanced to requirements.
References :
#9 by AlaskaMusher on May 27th, 2009
Quote
Well first, Einstein, the B-2 cost right around $2.2billion a copy and had a life expectancy cost of about $2.1billion, for a total cost per of $4.3billion. Very costly but not $156billion each.
Secondly, you need to run for king of the country since you obviously can see into the future and determine who will threaten the country for the next 50 years. Wow, you are smart!
North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, are you sure we won't be challenged by them? Do you know for sure what equipment they have? Our relations with Russia aren't exactly friendly.
I'm no hawk and I certainly am not a Bush supporter. But the vast majority of our defense equipment is there for the "what if" scenario. Look how poorly prepared for fighting in Afghanistan we were.
Get your facts straight and open your eyes.
References :
#10 by ctoh69 on May 27th, 2009
Quote
The main idea, as evinced by the Cold War with Russia, wasn't so much the fact that these fighters, weapons of mass destruction, etc were going to actually be used, but the fact that the country has these things that COULD be used, if they were threatened by other nasty people. It's the perception of strength, not strength itself, that maintains peace. Nobody brings a knife to a gunfight.
So the reason would be: don't mess with me, because I can cause you some grievious hurt if you do.
Why wait so long to introduce these planes after their maiden flights? There are a lot of reasons, but I think it's because maiden flights are little more than glorified test flights.
After that, so each plane has to go thru combat situations testings (of avionics, targetting, stealth, etc) and the engineers tweak the planes accordingly. Once the aircraft is deemed combat worthy, then they are "commissioned" or formally introduced into service. Testing takes time, and in this case, compounded with curtailing costs, debates about the reliability, etc… it took almost eight ears before the F-22 was commissioned.
So it's not, "oh, there's something wrong so we need to use this aircraft."
Prevention is better than cure.
Or I might be wrong.
References :
Wikipedia
#11 by maahes007 on May 27th, 2009
Quote
It's like insurance, you hope you don't need to use it but, when that day comes you're sure glad you have it available. Peace through strength and deadly return of fire.
References :