Roffel, I believe you are making an error when you dictate a defense budget based upon current requirements only. You must consider current and future requirements both. The pipeline for a new, complex weapon like a fighter or bomber is now measured in decades... if these weapons are not procured, a conflict 10, 20 years from now could see us fighting a technologically advanced enemy with equipment designed for counter-insurgency.
When you say F-15's and F-16's are overly expensive, it makes no sense. We already paid for them, thus we use them. We have ordnance designed for them, pilots trained and ready. Your suggestions are actually more costly (and less effective) than using what we already have. Look at the production lines. No more F-15C's are being made for the USAF. The F-16 line is now primarily export. Current budgeting is for the F-22 and F-35.
I don't think the F-15's were overly expensive when they swept the skies clean over Iraq without a single air to air loss. Those same F-15's and experienced crews are being slaughtered by F-22's in training; absolutely butchered. Not buying the F-22 makes little sense to me, given its capabilities.
... which is why there's UAVs.
So you'll wait for WW3 to happen before you design an aircraft that fight in it?
No, I think what you'll do is do a 180 and blame your govt. for not spending enough to counter such a potential threat.
Originally Posted by roffelskates
F-22s in Spending Bill May Spur White House Veto - Defense News
Looks like Pentagon is more interested in UAV, then F-22. I wonder why...F-22s in Spending Bill May Spur White House Veto
By william matthews
Published: 24 Jun 2009 16:42
The White House is threatening to veto the 2010 defense authorization bill if Congress includes money for more F-22 stealth fighters.
The threat, which came Wednesday in a three-page reaction to the House Armed Services Committee's version of the bill, was expected, and had already been discounted by some lawmakers.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said June 18 that a presidential veto of the $680 billion spending bill is virtually out of the question.
"Does anybody seriously believe, given that we have troops in the field in two wars and the possibility of other deployments that may come up, that people in this country would put up with a veto?" Abercrombie asked. Besides, "it would be overridden in a nanosecond," he said.
But the threat is there, nonetheless.
"The administration strongly objects to the provisions in the bill authorizing $369 million in advanced procurement funds for F-22s in fiscal year 2011," a Statement of Administration Policy says.
The 187 F-22s now in service or under construction are "sufficient to meet operational requirements," the document says. "If the final bill presented to the president contains this provision, the president's senior advisers would recommend a veto."
The Obama administration is also unhappy about the House committee's decision to add $603 million to continue developing an alternative engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
The engine dispute is an ongoing spat between the Pentagon and Congress. Presidential administrations have for several years tried to kill the alternative engine, contending that it is unnecessary, and each year Congress adds money to the budget to keep the program going.
Lawmakers say a second engine is needed in case the original develops a flaw. Eventually, about 90 percent of the U.S. military's fighters will run on the JSF engine, and "we cannot afford to have an engine glitch that grounds 90 percent of our fleet," the Armed Services Committee said in a report on the authorization bill.
The veto threat over the second engine was less direct. It warns of a veto if "the final bill presented to the president would seriously disrupt the F-35 program."
The administration also objects to a requirement in the bill that the Air Force must maintain 316 large airlifters. Lawmakers set the number so they could buy more C-17s despite Air Force claims that they are not needed.
And the administration wants restrictions removed from the authorization bill that block the Air Force from retiring some of its C-5 cargo planes and other aircraft.
The decision to cut $163 million - a 50 percent reduction - from the Extended Range Multi-Purpose Unmanned Aerial Vehicle program drew a White House rebuke. The surveillance UAVs are needed for force protection in current operations, the White House said.
The full House was expected to begin debating the authorization act as early as Wednesday.
The faith of this bird is sealed as far as I can see.
When I grow up I want to be Ed Harris
$600bn!
You are really not serious. The US is by no means doing what you are advocating and certainly does not have a navy F-22 and F-4s.
What makes you think that the military budget goes towards F-15s and F-16s only?
Like I said, porklus. Kill it. Fanboy ego's should be kept in ones pants. Use the money to maintain the fleet & learn from it. Use whats learned from it to develop the next generation.
There's simply too much tech in the F-22 that was built around aircombat concepts of the 80's. As a consequence, it's size, it's support systems, it's engines, construction, software modules & materials & maintenance reflect that. You can only field a limited number or them at a disproportionate price, to prepare for a war of incredible scale that might/might not take decades to happen and even if it did happen tommorrow, would still have overwhelming air superiority, and still be able to deploy said force to highest threat area.
It's like building 20 Iowa battelships in 1920 for a war in 1941. Ban anyone on that panel from voting that has a conflict on interest. End the porkulus. End the F-22, and develop a successor that isn't so hideously expensive. Let the people who have access to all the likely intel in the world make the decisions, and stop buying your 18 year old son a ferrari because your 22 year old son has one. Put it in a trust fund because he isn't going to get much for owning one anyway.
Sooner it dies the better for everyone, especially people fighting and dying on the ground.
I think the F-22 will find its main role in SEAD, command and control and its denial and air dominance missions.
Increasingly complex SAM systems are increasingly for sale from an increasing number of countries. Couple them with passive detection systems like the Kolchuga and traditional SEAD assets are facing a bigger threat than ever and if they fail the whole strike fails. The F-35 is not upto the job, to carry a worthwhile payload it sacrifices stealth. legacy planes like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are at even more of a disadvantage. Sure you can still swamp defenses with cruise missiles, but they can only hit what the USAF is aware of. A pack of F-22 flying high and listening in can swoop down on things that pop-up after the ACM attack to make sure the strike package of legacy assets can get in, and more F-22's can make sure enemy air forces can't keep them from getting back out.
S-300, HQ-12, S-400, Patriot, Arrow, Prithvi, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3 other Aegis analogs etc. Some even most might not be in the hands of anyone we would be facing, but some are and at some point some others might be. If the US has to go into jihadistan it can do it 2 ways- pay in blood, or pay in treasure. The F-22 is an investment of treasure so we don't have to pay in blood.
Besides the air defenses there are hostile fighters. Increasingly the USAF 4 and 4.5 generation planes are beign matched and in some cases out gunned by an ever wider spectrum of 4.5+ aircraft with highly capable missile systems and avionics. SU-30MKK, EF-Typhoon, F-16 Block 50+ and other highly capable high performance platforms are doing brisk sales world wide.
The one advantage the USAF has vs most foes is AWAC, but that advantage is slipping as the E-3's age and more advanced versions enter service in other countries combined with more and better long range hi-val killing AAM's. The F-22 can kill enemy awacs deep behind enemy lines and supplement our own. with its own radar that is virtually undetectable.
The F-22 is most definitely not porkulus but a sound investment in Americas security.
Sorry Z, we are going to collide here....
The F-22 will find it's role for the obvious one for which is was created. It will have this role, whilst the rest of the USAF & USN partakes in that role.
Why will they fail? Because they are not 'stealthy'? Yes manpads are a threat, yes passive defence systems are a threat... but somewhere in all this is lost that there are countermeasures like EOTS.Increasingly complex SAM systems are increasingly for sale from an increasing number of countries. Couple them with passive detection systems like the Kolchuga and traditional SEAD assets are facing a bigger threat than ever and if they fail the whole strike fails.
That is simply not true. The USN was using the Crusader to strafe ground targets and arming them with zuni's, and everyone knows their primary armament. Moreover your making a statement that is an unknown. The F-35 isn't in service yet, it's performance characteristics are not disclosed, the statement does not take into account any technological advances like SDB's, or passive counter missile targetting systems, let alone traditional ones, or capabilities that exist on other planes, i.e EA-18G. I personally find it incredible that all the partner nations on the f-35 program, are presumed to not have this concearn at all in their DACT, which is incredible given that the UK in particular is building two massive ships on the sole basis of being able to carry foward offensive force.The F-35 is not upto the job, to carry a worthwhile payload it sacrifices stealth.
The F-15 & the F-16 are being replaced by the F-35. The F/A-18 E/F/G are NOT legacy planes. Their capability far exceeds that of their predecessors. The USN intends to continue using the Hornet for a very long time yet in CAP & CAS, and a lot of this is made possible by using AESA Radar & jamming. This takes place in a complex environment where parameters arn't as simple as whether your radar, or sensor can aquire & kill a target that it can spot in theory.legacy planes like the F-15, F-16 and F-18 are at even more of a disadvantage.
Because F-35's couldn't because they can't carry a big enough war load right? Because you've got 1 million Tonnes of Steel floating about in the worlds ocean that is completely unable to counter this threat right? There are a lot more things out there than F-22's listening, with a lot more capable equipment, and the f-35 will be integrated into it.Sure you can still swamp defenses with cruise missiles, but they can only hit what the USAF is aware of. A pack of F-22 flying high and listening in can swoop down on things that pop-up after the ACM attack to make sure the strike package of legacy assets can get in, and more F-22's can make sure enemy air forces can't keep them from getting back out.
No, The F-22 is a mission specific system. Designed with a mission in mind, and a whole hoast of support systems that are rapidly becomming obsolete compared to the tech available from the industries that built it, as one can expect from a system designed in the early 90's. It'll wax anything sure. But capabilities have advanced where it hasn't. Your investing in a platform so you can say you can wax any fighter anywhere. the same arguments and sophistican you say you are facing are increasingly being deployed to mobile units. Which, nobody has anyway of knowing where they are deployed or not. You won't be using F-22's for that mission.S-300, HQ-12, S-400, Patriot, Arrow, Prithvi, THAAD, SM-2, SM-3 other Aegis analogs etc. Some even most might not be in the hands of anyone we would be facing, but some are and at some point some others might be. If the US has to go into jihadistan it can do it 2 ways- pay in blood, or pay in treasure. The F-22 is an investment of treasure so we don't have to pay in blood.
And the F-35 will probably wax the lot of them. Oh thats right, it won't, because it's not as stealthy as the f-22, nor can carry as great a warload! Of course, the USN does not have just as capable sustems and avionics, or weapons, and of course NIA's don't actually examine the deployed potential of those systems, because, naturally thats their job. No, this board is able to make more informed paper decisions, than these people!Besides the air defenses there are hostile fighters. Increasingly the USAF 4 and 4.5 generation planes are beign matched and in some cases out gunned by an ever wider spectrum of 4.5+ aircraft with highly capable missile systems and avionics.
I could get brisk orders for a total of 100 aircraft with any one nation getting a maximum of 40, and that could still be considered a very real threat.... Again, of course, the USAF/USN is completely behind the 8 ball and under perilous threat. The USN is particularly useless because it doesn't have the F-22 right?SU-30MKK, EF-Typhoon, F-16 Block 50+ and other highly capable high performance platforms are doing brisk sales world wide.
The only thing gettring old on the E-3 is the airframe & engines.The one advantage the USAF has vs most foes is AWAC, but that advantage is slipping as the E-3's age and more advanced versions enter service in other countries combined with more and better long range hi-val killing AAM's.
Awacs are high value targets. You won't be using F-22's to get them. You will be using B-2's, tomahawks & SF teams. Invariably they are like the Tirpitz, too busy hiding it to be of real threat. At any stage, you have enough f-22's to get a few AWAC's anyway...The F-22 can kill enemy awacs deep behind enemy lines and supplement our own. with its own radar that is virtually undetectable.
The continued production of the F-22 is fundamental porkulus. It does nothing to save lives in the existing day to day operations of the USAF, and, should that change, you have more than the combat fleet of most countries airforces to take care of that threat. Moreover, it has existing maintenance headaches and structural integrity issues beggining to rear their heads that are expensive to rectify given the contruction methods used. They are a pain to network into existing broad spectrum networks, and they suck up extra money. The house panel is influenced by represented districs, as much as it is a very expensive form for social welfare, when funding priorities should be going to troops on the ground and USN generational change.The F-22 is most definitely not porkulus but a sound investment in Americas security.
The F-22 is the most expensive combat fighter in existence, propogated only by those that wish to have so many of them in basic theory that they can completely wipe the floor of the whole world combined, aided by those who act only for the social welfare of their constituents. It revolves around 3 fallacies. 1) The F-22 has no achilles heel, 2 F-35, can't hold a candle to it, and 3) Ignorance of other systems in development, developed, or in use. Frankly it's wrong.
Not one F-117 was lost during the Gulf War = fan bois for ultimate stealth.
Not one Fighter was lost in the Gulf War, when EF-111 Ravens were part of the strike package. = oh systems have advanced since then to counter jamming.... hardly.
We didn't lose a fighter? One of those faces beaten to a pulp on Iraqi TV, when his F-16 went down, was a friend of mine. If you refer to A2A, you are closer, but there is evidence a MiG-25 downed a Navy fighter.Not one Fighter was lost in the Gulf War, when EF-111 Ravens were part of the strike package. = oh systems have advanced since then to counter jamming.... hardly.
Jamming alone helps but is not foolproof, nor does it put weapons on the enemy to bring him down.
And should the time come that the F-22 WILL be needed, you'll be shouting 'Why didn't we build more F-22s! Stupid gubmint!'
And yet they'd not have been a huge issue if more aircraft could be produced. These problems - specifically the structural ones, shorten the aircraft's lifespan rather than turning into a worse performer. Unfortuantely, if you CUT the number of aircraft, you need to extend the lifespan of the existing ones which isn't really possible.It does nothing to save lives in the existing day to day operations of the USAF, and, should that change, you have more than the combat fleet of most countries airforces to take care of that threat. Moreover, it has existing maintenance headaches and structural integrity issues beggining to rear their heads that are expensive to rectify given the contruction methods used.
Anything new is 'a pain' when backward compatibility is not considered. This is one of the prices you must pay for performance, period. What, did you think a different, cheaper fighter would perform as well? No, it would not - unless it used all that F-22 and F-35 technology and at this point, why not just tack the R&D projects onto it and we'll see how much it ends up costing?They are a pain to network into existing broad spectrum networks, and they suck up extra money. The house panel is influenced by represented districs, as much as it is a very expensive form for social welfare, when funding priorities should be going to troops on the ground and USN generational change.
1) Everyone knows it does.The F-22 is the most expensive combat fighter in existence, propogated only by those that wish to have so many of them in basic theory that they can completely wipe the floor of the whole world combined, aided by those who act only for the social welfare of their constituents. It revolves around 3 fallacies. 1) The F-22 has no achilles heel, 2 F-35, can't hold a candle to it, and 3) Ignorance of other systems in development, developed, or in use. Frankly it's wrong.
2) The F-35 can't hold a candle to the F-22 in Air Dominance. If you think it CAN, that's a fallacy on your part.
3) Such as what? What other fighter out there do you have that can say 'I can go in without the stand off jammer, I can do some of his work for you, I can go i without the SEAD package and do a little bit of his work for you, and heaven forbid an enemy aircraft will take off to come meet you, he'll be down without ever knowing what hit him'. Go ahead. Tell us. :D
Frankly you're wrong - you think that anything less than complete domination is acceptable. It isn't - unless you want to start putting a price on lives for no other reason than to shout 'porkulus! porkulus!'
While performance in the Gulf War was better than expected by the USAF itself, at least AFAIK, they were also facing old, known threat systems that are reasonably easy to deal with - simply because you know exactly how to jam them, you know exactly how to avoid them, and so on and so forth.Not one F-117 was lost during the Gulf War = fan bois for ultimate stealth.
Not one Fighter was lost in the Gulf War, when EF-111 Ravens were part of the strike package. = oh systems have advanced since then to counter jamming.... hardly.
Guess which threats the F-22 was built to counter ... yeah - not the SA-3's, not the SA-2's, not the SA-6's ... rather the S-300, 400 and 500's and whatever comes after them.
Threats that are potentially quite unknown like new generations of flanker, and PAK-FA's and who-knows-what-else.
What's your tiny fleet of F-22's going to do then? Attrition will be high, and that is why again, your 'porkulus'="it's ok for more servicemen to die 'cause I think that plane ain't needed for bombing caves", if a threat worthy of the F-22 ever enters the game.
It's that 'if' the F-22 was built for, just like the F-15 was built for an 'if' - and it, and the F-14 were darned expensive and 'unneeded' in their time, too. After all, if the Russians started anything you could just nuke'em, no?
I misread your statement. "No fighter was list when EF-111 were part of the package." I have no idea if it's true, but even if it is, it is a logical fallacy to assume that because no fighters were lost on that particular mission, it was because of the EF-111. So few fighters were lost, there's little in the way of a pattern that can be discerned.
How long has it been since U.S. ground personnel have come under attack from enemy aircraft? Korea? I don't recall any episodes in Vietnam. If that day comes, I suspect heads will roll in the command structure, and the righteous indignation will be heard circling the globe, because all we have are legacy fighters and too many UAVs. It is taken for granted that the U.S. will always have air supremacy, and our troops will operate free from air attack. Nothing could be more shortsighted than to assume it will remain that way indefinitely.
To say the F-22 is somehow "antiquated" flies in the face of reality. On the contrary, it is the most technologically capable A2A fighter in the air to day, and like the F-15C, will continue to carry that mantle a long time due to upgrades of both hardware and software. Much of the true capabilities of the F-22 remain classified. No one outside that community, with the exception of some commanders, knows what the jet is really capable of. Despite that, what we see today, the unclassified side, is still eye-watering.
Well that time hasn't come, and according to Sec Def Gates it won't be for some considerable time yet. It's a hollow argument.
It was always going to be a huge issue with forever extending the production life of a specialised platform. Extending the production run doesn't actually change inherent structural problems, until they are revised. If you are pumping them out on a war footing, and you had 400+ raptors in service now, it would be an extra-ordinary waste of money.And yet they'd not have been a huge issue if more aircraft could be produced. These problems - specifically the structural ones, shorten the aircraft's lifespan rather than turning into a worse performer. Unfortuantely, if you CUT the number of aircraft, you need to extend the lifespan of the existing ones which isn't really possible.
No, its the pain you must bear with a specialised platform, which only you operate, in small numbers. It's not that anything of the F-22 is 'backward' it was developed at the cusp of a tech revolution, things have changed markedly from then.Anything new is 'a pain' when backward compatibility is not considered. This is one of the prices you must pay for performance, period.
I can't see your point. At least I can only guess that your aiming at "Since the F-35 is cheaper than the F-22 it is worse" It's pie in the sky. You can't say that until red flag comes along, and my money will be on tthe F-35 getting a better sortie rate, at a better strike rate, at equal survivability with less cost.What, did you think a different, cheaper fighter would perform as well? No, it would not - unless it used all that F-22 and F-35 technology and at this point, why not just tack the R&D projects onto it and we'll see how much it ends up costing?
Knows it does?1) Everyone knows it does.
It's patently false to suggest that something that has not been in competition format with an adversary can't hold a candle to it. It's insulting to think you'd be calling it a fallacy without any empiracle proof whatsoever. We know it's likely to. It was designed without substitute. Which is it's problem. Now, given that lockheed Martin and Bae Systems are the worlds formost combat tech specialists, one of whoom developed the F-22 that they wouldn't have a friggin clue about what wins fights!2) The F-35 can't hold a candle to the F-22 in Air Dominance. If you think it CAN, that's a fallacy on your part.
Here's one, B-2 Spirit3) Such as what? What other fighter out there do you have that can say 'I can go in without the stand off jammer, I can do some of his work for you, I can go i without the SEAD package and do a little bit of his work for you, and heaven forbid an enemy aircraft will take off to come meet you, he'll be down without ever knowing what hit him'. Go ahead. Tell us. :D
Here's Another. Any western Fighter Equiped with passive locking device & guidance systems.
Here's another: Loitering munitions with laser designating.
Insert other systems capable of track-whilst-scan, and auto homing devices.
BS, SecDef Gates thinks your wrong, and so does the Secretary of the Navy.Frankly you're wrong
Quite clearly you think that anything other than the F-22 won't be able to completely dominate. *sigh*- you think that anything less than complete domination is acceptable.
The F-22 is fundamental porkulus, I'd swear you worked for the F-22 Production line. All this chest beating and no cold hard facts...It isn't - unless you want to start putting a price on lives for no other reason than to shout 'porkulus! porkulus!'
Which is why the U.S military has constant R&D developments, that your arguing should be cut, to fund a weapon system to dominate Soviet Russia. We're bordering on 20 years now of the Raptor. Time to focus on the next development. Whilst we still have money, and before people that have no idea on how to appropriate defence money attempt to interfere with pentagon planning yet again for their welfare programs.While performance in the Gulf War was better than expected by the USAF itself, at least AFAIK, they were also facing old, known threat systems that are reasonably easy to deal with - simply because you know exactly how to jam them, you know exactly how to avoid them, and so on and so forth.
Because quite naturally the F-35 isn't able to counter these threats, nor the billions of dollars the pentagon gives in development contracts to companies like Raytheon to mitigate these risks, or supplemental developments other than combat aircraft.Guess which threats the F-22 was built to counter ... yeah - not the SA-3's, not the SA-2's, not the SA-6's ... rather the S-300, 400 and 500's and whatever comes after them.
Write me a novel, it sound thrilling.Threats that are potentially quite unknown like new generations of flanker, and PAK-FA's and who-knows-what-else.
Ever heard of the term 'plenty of ways to skin a cat'?What's your tiny fleet of F-22's going to do then? Attrition will be high, and that is why again, your 'porkulus'="it's ok for more servicemen to die 'cause I think that plane ain't needed for bombing caves", if a threat worthy of the F-22 ever enters the game.
[/Quote]
It's that 'if' the F-22 was built for, just like the F-15 was built for an 'if' - and it, and the F-14 were darned expensive and 'unneeded' in their time, too. After all, if the Russians started anything you could just nuke'em, no?[/QUOTE]
Actually both were quite needed in their time, with the writing on the wall, with reasons that were perhaps pushed most of all by the USAF/SAC.
You'd have to nuke russia before 1950 though.
Ask him whether his package was directly escorted by a Raven. If it was, my apologies, my history of 1st Gulf war states the use of Ravens, directly meant that no fighters were lost that it was escorting. The converse side of it was the amount of aircraft the british lost in proportion to their numbers, with advanced systems in their own right, without like support.
No problem. Im not Anti -F-22 either. My source asserts it. Im not particularly sure whther sources are altogether credible in certain circumstances. But their credentials are a lot better than mine.
It is not right to assume that anthing that is not the F-22 is a legacy fighter. I can't comment about UAV's - other than i know there are bandwidth problems. Conversely that is not a pro-F-22 Argument.How long has it been since U.S. ground personnel have come under attack from enemy aircraft? Korea? I don't recall any episodes in Vietnam. If that day comes, I suspect heads will roll in the command structure, and the righteous indignation will be heard circling the globe, because all we have are legacy fighters and too many UAVs.
As long as the U.S has 10+ Carriers, you can put more aircraft on any one spot on the globe, quicker than anyone could dream of. You don't want to mess with the U.S full stop. You can put upwards of 3000+ combat aircraft in theatre if there was the runway space available, not only that, they will be considerably up to date with some of the very best that technology can offer. Over and above that, you will have more or less assured sortie rate that will mean your air armada is, unless the Soviets, or Chhinese suddenly jump 20 years in R&D, mean your effective airpower is double that of on paper.It is taken for granted that the U.S. will always have air supremacy, and our troops will operate free from air attack. Nothing could be more shortsighted than to assume it will remain that way indefinitely.
you were getting older the Day you were born.To say the F-22 is somehow "antiquated" flies in the face of reality.
Which is getting older, and tech has advanced. Your hardwear and software upgrades will also have to be unique to the F-22. Hardwear that is born into the F-35 will cost hundreds of millions to get into the f-22. Thats reality.On the contrary, it is the most technologically capable A2A fighter in the air to day, and like the F-15C, will continue to carry that mantle a long time due to upgrades of both hardware and software.
Yet somehow, every one from the F-22 Camp believes the F-35 is inferior, unable to dominate it's adversary. Despite it being likewise classified, and despite it having the huge resources of the westsd R&D infrastruture and development lines, now, and for quite some while, into the future.Much of the true capabilities of the F-22 remain classified. No one outside that community, with the exception of some commanders, knows what the jet is really capable of.
It was designed to be eye-watering. Take the tech. Learn from it, apply it into a future platform. Want to fly around in F-22's for the next 40 years, be prepared to pay the costs of stagnation.Despite that, what we see today, the unclassified side, is still eye-watering.
Last edited by Chunder; 03 Jul 09, at 12:11.
There is a reason the specialized (dedicated A2A, A2G) aircraft in our inventory - the F-15 and the A-10 - have done excellent work, arguably better than the multi-role fighters such as the F-16 and the F/A-18. It is the lack of compromises in their airframe and system that allows them to excel at what they do. The A-10 is much loved by troops in contact for its excellent CAS, and the F-15 still has never been defeated in its long history.
In 1991, the F-16 community in GW1 was livid that they were given no dedicated air to air missions. They certainly could defend themselves, and their may have been instances where they "swung" after dropping their bombs, but the CAPS and SWEEPS were given to the F-15, partially for reasons that cannot be publicly discussed.
Along those lines, the F-35 cannot hold a candle to the F-22 in an air to air role. Do you really think we on WAB know all there is about the Raptor? Its capabilities? I have been out of the game for many years, but my wife was one of the managers of the F-22 program in her time at Lockheed, and had clearances I could only dream about. She came home one day grinning like the Cheshire Cat, (she had been fully briefed), and all she would do is laugh, and said (knowing my own background) "Your head would explode if you knew what this thing can do. Unbelievable." She was also intimately familiar with the F-35. There is a reason the F-35 is cheaper, and it has only partially to do with economies of scale. Technology was NOT fully shared due to expense, unit cost, and international sales issues.
Before you unleash "porkulus" and "fanboy", my wife no longer works for Lockheed. We do not profit from the F-22 beyond its ability to guard the nation we love.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: