[Broadsword2004]

Okay, first off, I am new here, am 20 yrs old, and I am not in the military, just so everyone knows. Anyhow, I was reading about how many people don't think we need the F-22 Raptor. However, from what I have read and understand, I think we will need it. Here are my reasons, but I am wondering what all of your opinions are on this subject as well. And feel free to shoot me down if any of my reasons are dead wrong for whatever reason.

One thing that gets me that I am curious to know people's opinions about is the view that the F-22 is not AS needed for smaller areas like Iraq and so forth; how do we know in like 7 years what will be out there?? The F-22 is not designed just for aircraft to aircraft battles, it is designed to infiltrate networks of missiles and anti-aircraft electronics, AND other aircraft. In another 7 years, the F-15 may be totally incapable of this. And lots of these "backyard conflict" countries (I believe) are gaining the sophisticated missiles and radar, from the main countries producing them. The F-22 is for countering future threats, to ensure total air superiority. The French Rafale, the Eurofighter, and the Su-23 (or is it Su-27....I forget what number but the Su something lol) all outperform the F-15. What I mean is, in 1988, no one would have guessed that within 4 years the Soviet Union would have collapsed and we'd be through a "war" with Iraq; in 1999, no one would have guessed that in about 2 years the U.S. economy would be in total turmoil and all these new threats appearing; my point is, we don't know what kind of threats and conflicts may pop up, especially within 7 years, and we sure as hell don't want to fight any conflict without total air superiority. Air dominance isn't a luxury, it's a necessity; even in the Gulf War, one of the first things done was to destroy the Iraqi air force. Chinese and Russians have the Su-37 as well, which is a very sophisticated plane.

People keep saying, why do we need the F-22, America won't fight conflicts or wars needing such sophisticated technology in the near future----HOW ON EARTH CAN ANYONE KNOW THAT FOR SURE!?! People would crap themselves if in 7 years or so it came on the news that some fleet of F-15s engaged a fleet of Russian planes and got thrashed. Also, like I said, a lot of 3rd world countries are purchasing very advanced anti-aircraft military electronics these days; The F-22 I would think is crucial to the U.S.'s air superiority in the near future, especially with America playing such a large role in international affairs now. Some people say the Russian Su-27 (or Su-23, I again forget) are superior to the F-15, but the Russian and Chinese fleets are much smaller. But in 15 years, they could be much larger. The F-22 I would not think is based solely on some left-over Cold War mentality that we needed the baddest and most sophisticated plane for a potential war with the Soviets; I'd think it's based on the view that there are future threats that we need that technology for as well. You can't keep your military prepped to fight conflicts, with conflict-level technology. You keep the military ready for full-on war, and then a conflict is easy. You keep it ready for a conflict, the conflict is hard---look at Iraq right now. It should be a joke, but instead we're having trouble as it is keeping enough soldiers in there, and that's while using the National Guard and Reserves.

You know, I mean, I don't like to sound all like some obsessed, America will fall if we don't keep military superiority-type, but I mean, air superiority is something we need if we expect to keep military superiority in the future. Look at China, they are modernizing their forces, in 30 years, they will be a legitimate military force. I would not want them to start some conflict, only to send in F-15s or something and get all those shot down by the Chinese Su-planes, of which they may have a lot more of in 30 years (maybe this can't happen, but I have no knowledge on that so I consider it as a possibility). But air dominance is key to power. You cannot do anything without it. And at the current moment, the F-15 is becoming obsolete. It is equal pretty much with rival aircraft and outperformed by some of them even these days, which is okay because we don't fight those countries and those countries don't have an air fleet the size of the U.S.'s; but the F-22 is for conflicts that might occur in the future, not at the current moment necessarily, because America has no idea what kind of stuff it will have to get involved in.

Suppose in 30 years China says, "Hey, we want some of that oil in the Middle East" and by then they have a legit mobile military and their Sukhoi planes. I would not want to try flying any F-15s against those. Not that in 30 years we would be using F-15s, but if we kill the F-22, we can't really create a fighter to replace it that's cheaper, but with the same capabilities, within 30 years. Maybe we would use the JSF, but the JSF and the F-22 are meant to work together, not one be a cheaper alternative to the other. They are different. Also, and this is a bit off-topic maybe, but like whoever controls the oil controls the world, and I would definitely believe that the U.S. is in the Middle EAst over oil reasons. Who says in 30 or even 15 or 20 years China or might not make a go at like that oil. To stop them would require air superiority on our part. I know that is off-limb, but you never know. I mean, oil is power. In 1900, no one guessed in 20 years the world would be at war. During the first World War, the U.S. government claimed we didn't need to build any automatic hand-held rifles, because they wouldn't be needed supposedly. We wouldn't have had them except for General Thompson, who worked and researched and created the infamous Thompson submachine gun, or Tommy gun. In the Korean War, if we were fighting with 30 year-old aircraft, we'd have been fighting Russian jets with bi-planes!! In 2005 the F-15 will be approx. 30 years of age.

I constantly don't get it when people say, "Do we really need the F-22 to fight (stuff) like Iraq and in the Middle East and so forth..." the F-22 is to make sure that no future threats can harm the U.S. Like this one military guy said, in a conflict, we'd have to move our forces over to that area, meaning we'd have to have total air superiority especially since hostile air forces might be nearby, and chances are we would be outnumbered by them. In another 10 years, such an event could be disastrous with trying to use F-15s to secure the airspace, against highly advanced air-defense systems that could shoot down the F-15 or pose a serious threat to it, as well as superior enemy aircraft. Like I said, a conflict is only easy if you have total dominance, not equal technology. Americans somehow blindly believe that we are the supreme military power and will easily stay that way. That is ridiculous (the view that we will magically stay that way). The reality, I would think, is that we must keep our forces, especially our aircraft, up to date and superior to everyone elses, to ensure America's place as the dominant super-power in the next century.

That is just me on my soapbox about the F-22, I'm sure there are some other things I meant to write, but forgot. Anyhow, I am interested in reading other people's opinions on this subject.

[Boondock Saint]

Welcome to the forum.

Mr. Bill will be here shortly to tell you how wrong you really are

Anyway, here are my own personal views on the F-22.

It IS necessary to research and develop the F-22/35.

Why? Because it is simply a step to the next step, if you follow ... I do not think we need to replace every F-16, 18, 15 with an F-22/35. And I don't think that was ever the intention. Surely we should have a wing or so with these F-22's so that we can have pilots test them and test the technology and if an opportunity presents itself test it out in live combat (doubtful).

The inevitable step is unmanned aircraft which will do all the bombing and fighting for us (and eventually take over and kick us all ala terminator) ...

But like several of us have said before you have to reach the end point by taking many steps ... Rome wasnt built in a day.

[MB.]

Oh, missed this one.

Well, Broadsword, your argument in favor of the 22 seems to be mainly political in nature, not actaully relevent to the concerns of the military. So, what major points have you made... the way I'm reading you is soemthing like this: We need the 22/35 because in the event (however unlikely) of armed conflict with the Russians/Europeans/Chinese, some years down the road, the current US military will be obsolete, and incapable of facing an opoenent which has spent that time modernising their armies. Now, I'm not actaully inclined to disagree with you here- and don't get me wrong, I hate the F-22/35, but for differnent reasons then those you've expressed. For example, I wouldn't say that we should simply forget future concerns and sit on our (I'm an American, living in Canada, but an American nonetheless) current military equipment- and then expect to fight a war 30 years from now. No, rather I'd argue that the F-22/35 is the wrong weapon for those future wars, and is thus both a) a hinderance to true future programs and b) a waste of resources- which, as the program has cost far far too much money already, it can, like the Offspray, only get worse. In terms of technical details- you haven't really mentioned anything, so I'll pose a question: What staggering advantages does the F-22 bring as a 'future fighter' that cannot be outweighed by its limited numbers, high cost, and pour deplyoment capabilites (ie, not capable of Carrier Operations)?

[Boondock Saint]

Basically the F-22 is an air superiority fighter, to protect a specific area. Like Japan or a city like Washington.

Now Bill, the 35 was being built I thought specifically for carrier operations no? I recall reading that the US was aiding Japan in their two new carriers and the planned aircraft for them was the 35 ...

[MB.]

Yes, there is a Naval version of the F-35, but, as I see it, you're talking about a plane not much more advanced then those already serving- aside from its VTOL capabilities (near useless in actaul combat), what advantage does the F-35 carry that justifies its use over the already serving F-14s and Super Hornets? Avaionics are improved, yes, but other then that, there aren't any serious advantages that the F-35 carries. Though, I suppose I have less opposition to the deveopment of F-35s then I do to F-22s, I'd still put them in the same bag. As for the F-22, if its an air superiority fighter, then why is it incapable of carrying Pheonix missiles? Infact, its payload is limited to six 120cs and a pair of sidewinders (though I for one see the pheonix as a terribly overrated weapon, near useless in actaul combat due to the extreme range and high cost). Infact, the F-22 is being classified as a Strike Fighter (again, seeing it as a replacement for the F-15). Thus, the US will still be relieing on the outdated F-14s for Air Superioty. Seems like yet another wonderfully backwards move on the part of the US Military....

[Boondock Saint]

Infact, the F-22 is being classified as a Strike Fighter

I thought the F-22 itself was no longer in production and the F-35 was being developed and labeled a 'strike-fighter' which is of course what the F/A-18 is. I have heard Hornet pilots really talk poorly on the F/A-18's air to air capability ... so one wonders why the hell it was ever built.

IMO the F-16 is the best airplane the US has. Cheap, fast, extremely flexible, one pilot.

Of course I dont believe the F-15 is obsolete by any standard. The F-14 needs to be replaced by a much much more capable air to air fighter imo though in truth none of the US fighters have really been tested in modern air to air warefare ... unless of course Top Gun is proof enough

The VTOL ability of the 35 means super carriers arent needed, small Marine landing ships can carry a good number of them ... that is logistically important imo Bill ...

Perhaps in a dog fight the VTOL ability isnt the most important thing but still ... its very useful ... otherwise the Harrier wouldnt still be around.

[MB.]

The F/A-18 was built to provide for advanced carrier based SEAD missions- essentialy, an anti-SAM role. The 22 would fit in somewhere between the two- having a smaller payload then the F/A-18 for AG operations, and a smaller payload for AA missions. Which, yet again begs the question of its use. Though its steath capability does mean the F-22 would be capable of strike missions- in much the same vein as the F117- it seems to be 'general purpose' fighter, rather then a specific plane, which would account for its high cost and limited use. I predict that in the field, 22s will find themselves involved in simple strike missions, much as the Nighthawks are employed now.
I agree- operating off of light carriers makes far more sense then operating off of Super Carriers- and, yes, the 35 is being developed for all three roles (a Naval varient, Marine varient, and Airforce varient). But again, as a replacement for the F-16, what does the 35 offer of significance (unless the entire purpose of introducing the 35 is actaully just to give the Navy and Marines a carrier based F-16...)?

[Boondock Saint]

Well the 16's of course don't take off from carriers, at least last I heard. If the whole point of the 35 is to give the Marines a version of the 16 then its a waste ... I would say the 35 is really a replacement for the Harrier if anything else ...

The multi-role status of it means the Marines only need one plane type on their ship which makes things easier ... so the Marine ship can defend itself, attack land and sea targets and support ground troops all on its own with only one type of fighter on board ...

If its worth the cost or not I dont know ...

[Broadsword2004]

Hey well you guys seem a lot more knowleagable on military technology then me but the kind of stuff I have read the F-22 does that makes it superior is it can pretty much out-maneuver any other plane out there, except for one other I forget what it's called, plus it can fly its whole mission at supercruise (not that that is anything new, but on American fighter planes it is), it has thrust-vectoring, it is a stealth fighter plane which is a feature needed if a fighter planes for future conflicts are going to be expected to be able to fly through hostile areas of enemy anti-aircraft electronics, its own electronics are far more advanced than pretty much any other plane's right now; as for its cost, I have read that that is a highly debated issue; some say it would cost no more than it originally did to put F-15's into the air, others say it will cost a lot more. I honestly don't know on that one. As for its numbers, the original intent was to have like 600 some F-22s (700 some originally) and that would make it a true air superiority plane. The thing is, as I see it, no one knows the future, and both large countries and small countries in which the U.S. may have conflicts in, all are getting or developing sophisticated anti-aircraft electroncis systems for which the F-15 and F-16 wil lbecome too obsolete to handle. Having plenty of numbers of the F-22 would solve this problem. As for the missiles problem, I believe that the F-22 can carry missiles mounted externally as well (though that would detract from its stealth capability). My main point though is that in order to fight and handle conflicts the U.S. involves itself in in the coming years and if some conflict arises with China or Russia ever, we want to have a first-rate Air Force. In 20 years, if Russia or China have a large fleet of Su-planes, a large fleet of F-15s and F-16s won't hold up against that. The Su-planes are in general far superior, so for those reasons we should utilize the F-22 I think.

[Broadsword2004]

Also, I thought that the F-22 was capable for carrier operations; that the Navy didn't think it was able for that at first but then they found that it can be fitted for carriers as well. I might be wrong though.

[MB.]

I don't believe there is a carrier version of the F22.

I fond an interesting qute in regards to the 380 F-22s being built, which I think sums up my opposition to the program:

"It would have been ludicrous in 1945 to argue that the P-51 was the only fighter the U. S. would need for the next 25 years, but in 1945 few people could imagine just how far the science of flight would progress, or the impact of the switch from props to jets. Yet the aircraft designer of today is being asked to make a similar leap."

... a leap which cannot possibily be made. The F-22 will be out of date by the time it enters active service (2005-2008).

[Broadsword2004]

Just wondering, but how could the F-22 be out of date by the time it enters service??? There isn't another fighter as advanced as it, and anything more advanced will take many years before it is made airborne. Fighter planes are like videogames I think; they take so long to make that by the time they're made, new theories and models exist that are improvements, but those models must be first made and then tested.

Also, I do not think there is a newer type of engine that we could convert to. The jet engine has been around since the 20's, just they didn't start using it until the late 50's and up. But for current jets, there isn't another engine in existense that could be used, and if one is created, they would probably be able to fit it into the F-22 and other aircraft, OR, it would need a totally new aircraft design, which means the new aircraft would first have to be designed and built.

As for the F-22 being the wrong direction, I doubt that, it is a very sophisticated plane. We can't utilize stuff like drones right now because there are too many flaws in those; serious research is still needed.

[MB.]

The quote is meant to demonstrate the absurdity of planning on having the F-22 opperate for the next 40 years.

It'll be out of date by the time of it's introduction in 2008 by the introduction of the Peagasus Drone (which, I might add, sucsessfuly destroyed a target a few weeks back in a training operation).

And, finnaly, it's the wrong direction becuase it detracts much needed funding from the United States drone program.

[Broadsword2004]

Funcing for drones will not go up untilo they have proven themselves to be much better than human pilots. There could be other unknown and unforeseen factors that would mke drones not as effective as human-piloted aircraft; no technology just "replaces" a current technology until it has been proven battle-worthy. The United States leads the drone development. If the military saw the extreme need for drones in the future, they would utilize them.

The F-22 I do not think is supposed to be the dominant aircraft for 40 years. Of course that is too long. Look at where 1940's era planes were from 1900 (if there were any in 1900). And then 1980's era planes from 1940. What source did you get that says they plan to use the F-22 for the next 40 years. That would be ludicrous I think on the part of the U.S. military. As for drones, drone research might cost way more than the F-22 research. First off, you want the drones to be cheap. Developing pilot-less aircraft that can fly in "swarms" is very difficult because of the communications factor, which is very complicated; you say the F-22 will be out of date?? You think a fleet of drones that requires lots and lots of research, that if such a project is found by the U.S., that those drones won't be rather outdated by communications-jamming technology and so forth, which I'm sure is constantly being developed.

Also, swarms of drones are only good if the drones are cheap to construct and build; not if they're valuable. A swarm is good so you can swarm so if some get shot down there's plenty left. I doubt the first drones will have that kind of cheapness.

But you act like just because a drone rototype has "successfully destroyed a target" that that means anything. Like I said, drones could have many many unforseen disadvantages to piloted aircraft. I seriously doubt that the F-22 is for the next 40 years, if so, Congress needs a kick in the butt. By the time it's time to replace the F-22, drone technologywill be further developed along, by the U.S. I might add, and if it is seen that yes, drone technology is sufficiently better then piloted aircraft, they'll be put into use I'm sure. But until then, no they will not.

You do not remove the system that works for a system that you're unsure of. You check all the variables and use the unsure system in conjunction with your current system, and then if it is found that the newer unsure system works very good and is superior, you then move to that.

It's like someone else on here said about battletanks, you keep reading about these new programs intended to replace the modern MBT, because supposedly since "old-style" warfare has stopped, the MBT isn't needed; yet, the MBT continues to prove crucial to the U.S.'s power in Iraq right now; the MBT will never be replaced unless it is seen that it is no longer needed literally, and that the newer, lighter tanks, are an improvement.

To cut funding for the F-22 to work on drones would be a huge mistake, because not only does drone technology have a long way to go before we could build cheap, reliable drones, that we can communicate well with without fearing of the enemy jamming the communications or whatever, but also, it would mean we would have to use the F-15 as a principle fighter into the 21st century against far superior aircraft, meanwhile staking all our $$$ on some theory that the drones being developed would give us some superior advantage. That will never happen until droens are time-tested. No military weapon does. The tank proved itself. The carrier ship proved itself as a replacement for the traditional battleship. Even the gun, when it first came out, took time to prove itself. When cannons first were introduced into batle, they were more or less considered a joke. Over time, as they were developed to be more powerful, reliable, and accurate, their superiority showed. Same way in which having a bunch of archers just stand and lay fire on a charging cavalry---that faced out the traditional cavalry charge in favor of more modern weaponry. Even guns; at the start, they were bad weapons to use unless you were at a distance; a good skilled archer was far better. Over time, as training on how to use guns and where to use them (or the muskets anyhow) and the guns themselves improved, they faced out the old weapons.

Even the hand-held automatic rifles and machine guns had to prove themselves; even the jet engine had to prove itself over the propeller engine. Originally, I believe, Germany had designed rocket-powered fighter planes during World War 2, as these were far faster than propeller planes. Rocket planes never made it because they were too fast for the pilot to control and they also ran out of fuel too easily. So the jet was used instead.

The F-22 I think should be built and should serve for around 25 years at most, upon which a newer plane will replace it or drones if they prove reliable. But we should nto get rid of the F-22 jsut to develop drones. Droens could prove in the long run to be like the Commanche helicopter; to expensive and useless. A new, unforseen weapon could be created that could destroy drones with ease for all we know. Drone technology will only be given full full funding when it proves itself.