Thread: Best Fighter

Well..since there are obviously a number of F-22 fans here, I run the risk of being strung up, or staked out on an anthill...but I'm going to make a prediction.
Within the next 5 years, the F/A 22 will be considered one of the major blunders of military aviation history. There, I said it. Sorry guys. I hope I'm wrong.
But...here's why.
First, a little justification. I spent about eight years of my life as a member in good standing of the tactical fighter community. (USAF) I was also lucky enough to be born into a military aviation family, my father flew in WWII (air corps), Korea, and VN..one brother flew A6's with the Navy, and another F4's with the air force. My father flew with Gen (ret) (then Captain, I believe)Charles E Yeager out of Muroc, and I spent many happy hours tallking with him about aircraft and tactics as a youth- and, while I was flying on the aerobatic circuit, I met and befriended (or maybe it was the other way around) Bob Hoover.
I'm a commercial pilot these days, and I've never been within 10 miles of an F/A 22 to my knowledge, but I have learned a few things over the years- and both Hoover and Yeager (and presumably my father, although he passed away in 1987) agree with, and in fact convinced me of, this concept.
Aerial warfare depends much more on the pilot than the aircraft- Yeager proved this numerous times, to the surprise of many cocky fighter jocks. History has proven that the more complex a system is, the more failures occur. The F-16, for instance, is a fine aircraft- but look into the problems the design has been plagued with over the years, and you'll be shocked...and compared to the F/A 22, the F-16 is a Playstation.
Yeager loved the F-5, and when the F-20 was introduced, he flat fell in love with it- it is, in many ways, a beefed up F5. It's fast, manueverable, and simple. It has fairly rudimentary onboard computers, requires minimal ground support, and the pilot workload is remarkably low.
The F22, on the other hand, is extremely complex. Pilot workload is somewhat alleviated by computer assistance, but his brain is suffering from sensory overload almost from engine start...the plane imparts a serious amount of data to the driver.
Computers are computers- the military doesn't have some wonderful OS that never crashes, nor does it have titanium motherboards- think about how often your PC has a glitch...military computers aren't immune, by any means. Now figure, those components are supplied, not by the most competent manufacturer, but by the LOW BIDDER. Honest, they are. Seriously. Often it doesn't even make THAT much sense, but rather is politically motivated.
An old girlfriend's father was a big wheel with General Dynamics- he was a major player in defense building and contracting of aircraft, like the F-16 and A-10. The man was a complete friggin' idiot, I mean he was a moron...I'm amazed that they allowed him to breed. This is, often, the sort of person building, maintaining, even designing, our front-line military hardware. Shoot, one of my brothers is a VP with Northrop-Grumman, and HE'S an idiot.
So while the F/A 22 is an awesome design, a true exponential advancement in aerodynamics, weapon systems, you name it...it has two problems. One, it's too complex for combat conditions...and Two, it will suffer from low-bid maintanence, assembly, and production.
And third, while this is a purely personal opinion and preference...I don't like multi-role aircraft. Air to air and air to mud are two entirely different missions, with entirely different requirements. Designing an aircraft to perform both missions is rife with compromise. Since aircraft, particularly military aircraft, are compromise personified anyway...I think this is a bad thing. It's not all the aircraft, either- though many compromises occur in the design of a multi-role aerial weapons platform, the biggest problem in this regard is the pilot. Learning to fly aerial combat is hard- learning to fly air to ground is hard. Each deserves a dedicated aircraft, and a dedicated pilot. Pilots of multi role aircraft rarely get enough practice in both- they either fly primarily one, or the other...and whichever they get the least of..that's where they auger in one day.
In military aviation, we have something called DAC- dissimilar aerial combat. That's where you practice fighting an aircraft other than the type you fly. (much of the practice is done within a squadron or against other similar squadrons- thus F16 pilots often "fight" other F-16's) Many pilots have been amazed and dismayed when they've been "shot down" in their top o' the line frontline fighter by an obsolete design flown by a top o' the line pilot.
As I said, I hope I'm mistaken. I think the Raptor is an amazing piece of machinery. The average civilian may never even know if the plane is a failure- the military doesn't like to broadcast it's goofs. Yet planes like the Osprey, the B2, the B1, even the early F111 and F16, have proven my point for me. If they don't drop the program, they will eventually get most of the bugs worked out, true- but how many good pilots will buy farms they didn't want before they do?
Personally, I'd like to see tactical aircraft- particularly interceptors- get simpler. Advanced weapons systems have made dogfighting almost obsolete- most shots now are taken BVR anyway. (Beyond Visual Range) These weapons systems are exotic enough- the planes should be single role and as simple as possible. The only reason we have multi role aircraft anyway is to save money- nobody thinks they're better, they just keep the government from having to purchase more aircraft...and in the Navy's case, it makes carrier aircraft more versatile, important when you have limited deck space.
By the way, many of you seem to like the MiG and Sukhoi designs- fine aircraft. Yet by our standards, their computer systems are archaic, and their FCS (flight control systems) rudimentary. Similar, in fact, to the F-20.

Ok boys, let me have it...just wanted to say my piece.

For the record, although I've never flown one, I'll go with the F-20 as the finest fighter...even though very few were produced, and the government wouldn't allow export. Yeager is kind of an ass, but he knows airplanes.

Thanks for listenin'!