Production to be stopped on F-22 Raptors.

[Mad Mike]

Oh, and the F-35 is superior in that it:

Costs less - True, but you get what you pay for

Has a much better/more advanced sensor system - Slightly more advanced and the Raptor is easily upgradable to match

Is smaller - which means nothing unless you are on a carrier

Has VSTOL capability - some varients, at a cost of performance

Is designed as an attack fighter - THe F22 is designed as an air superiority fighter and an attack fighter

The F22 is superior in that it:

Is MUCH faster. It can "supercruise". THat is to say it can fly above Mach 1 without afterburners which use a tone of fuel. SPEED IS LIFE.

Has much greater range even at higher speeds.

Higher max altitude

Also has an advanced weapons system but with a larger weapons payload.

Was designed as an air superiority fighter (which the F35 was not) AND have ground attack capability.

The 35 was designed from the beginning as a compromise. The F22 wasn't. It is simply the far superior fighter in the air dominance roll.

[ZoEd]

Heard this argument more times than I can count. It's not true, and it's never been true. If we closed most of our bases in Europe, our aircraft could still fly all of the missions they currently do.

So explain to me how an A10, F16 or any other airframe is going to get into the fight in 12 hours flying from the US. Our jets had to refuel flying from Vegas to anchorage so how are they going to get to the middle east? I know this is extreme we're not going to typically ask a fighter to join the fight on a moments notice but these European bases do have OPLAN's for such an event. It's not just about fighting a war either, it's about readiness. These bases are always ready for any kind of threat. Say a 911 type event was in progress in Germany, guarantee you our jets are scrambled to respond to the threat.

European bases have been scaled back drastically over the last 20 years. When I first arrived there almost 20 years ago the Vogelweh military community was called Little America because it had the highest population of Americans outside the US. That area has been more than cut in half.

In 1990 there was.

Hahn

Zweibrucken

Spangdhalem

Ramstein

Sembach

Frankfurt

And a butt load of missle sites around the country. I'm actually probably forgetting some. Now all that remains is Spangdhalem and Ramstein. We have no AF bases left in spain and we only have one left in Italy where there used to be two.The Civil Engineer unit I was assigned to maintained all off base infastructure around the area and was it's own Squadron with almost 500 CE members. We maintained more real property than any CE unit in the AF. Now it's part of the CE squadron that's assigned to Ramstein and has less than 200people due to the fact we don't maintain the same amount of infrastructure we used to. Don't spout stuff if you don't know the truth about it.

Forces Permanently Stationed Abroad

Just over 200,000 U.S. troops, mainly stationed in South Korea, Germany and Japan, are currently deployed abroad. This is actually a reduction of almost 50-percent since the Cold War era, when U.S. troop levels reached the 450,000 mark. U.S. forces stationed abroad are intended to prevent and put down any acts of aggression, or violations of human rights, and to maintain visibility as a stabilizing presence in the region.

The Army has drastically reduced their footprint as well over the years, probably even moreso than the AF. So, for you to say we're spending too much in Europe is rediculus to say the least. Obviously you don't know as much as you think you do.

[Midnight Judges]

Government contracts go to the lowest bidder. Even in the military.

That is a very common misconception. The vast majority of Government contracts are determined by what's called a "best value" evaluation. That allows for the FEDs to evaluate not just on dollars, but also on technical proposals, past performance, management plans, subcontract management plans, etc. In fact even using the term" bid" is not technically correct unless we are talking about a sealed bid procurement-which is rarely used anymore.

And even if someone does have the best product and the lowest price, they still have to demonstrate cost realism. They can't just low ball to get their foot in the door.

My point is, contracts do not always go to the lowest bidder. There can be many factors other than cost/price that are evaluated.

[Madison Redskin]

The Army has drastically reduced their footprint as well over the years, probably even moreso than the AF. So, for you to say we're spending too much in Europe is rediculus to say the least. Obviously you don't know as much as you think you do.

First, let me say I appreciate and thank you for your service. However, I agree with Hubbs that we are spending far too much money on overseas bases, even if our expenditures have been cut dramatically since the Cold War ended.

[GibbsFactor]

I love the people in here claiming that because the Raptor is the best it must be kept in the skies. And people wonder why we are in a downturn.

Don't we already have over 100 of these things?

Isn't the F35 the best sans Raptor?

What part of overkill don't they understand? It can do more then the human body can take. It isn't efficient and we can't afford it. Stop being "special", it's scary.

[boofMcboof]

Quick question, how hard or costly would it be to restart F-22 production?

[Tut77]

Apparently, the F-22 fleet suffers from severe maintenance problems, which are affecting its mission readiness capability, and it is not living up to its promise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

From the article:

"'It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure' that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record."

"One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant to replace an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of Los Angeles on March 25, during his review of the program. The Air Force has declined to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report completed the following month states that the plane flew into the ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its contents. The Lockheed test pilot died."

[Hubbs]

So explain to me how an A10, F16 or any other airframe is going to get into the fight in 12 hours flying from the US. Our jets had to refuel flying from Vegas to anchorage so how are they going to get to the middle east? I know this is extreme we're not going to typically ask a fighter to join the fight on a moments notice but these European bases do have OPLAN's for such an event. It's not just about fighting a war either, it's about readiness. These bases are always ready for any kind of threat. Say a 911 type event was in progress in Germany, guarantee you our jets are scrambled to respond to the threat.

First, like I've already said, there's no real need to have an air wing within 12 hours of anywhere. Look at the first Gulf War - we built up a force overseas when it was necessary. Just like Vietnam. Just like Korea. Just like WWII. Being able to get an A-10 anywhere in the world within 12 hours is frivolous as hell.

Second, if Germany was going through a 9/11 attack, explain to me why German fighters couldn't handle whatever fighter capacity was necessary. It's not like such an event requires hundreds of aircraft; it really doesn't require any, because all of our allies have nationwide anti-air defense systems, and shooting down a jumbo jet with one of those takes all the skill of hitting a watermelon with a baseball bat. The Germans have an air force. They'll be fine.

Don't spout stuff if you don't know the truth about it.

When did I do that?

The Army has drastically reduced their footprint as well over the years, probably even moreso than the AF. So, for you to say we're spending too much in Europe is rediculus to say the least. Obviously you don't know as much as you think you do.

The fact that we've reduced our presence doesn't automatically equal a proper amount of presence. Or, to put it another way, if you have a 104-degree fever, the fact that it falls to 102 doesn't mean that you don't still have a fever.

[DCSaints_fan]

From the sound of it, the F-22 reminds me of those WWII German "superweapons" like the Tiger and ME262 that weren't really all that useful due to maintenance, expense, etc.

[Mad Mike]

First, like I've already said, there's no real need to have an air wing within 12 hours of anywhere. Look at the first Gulf War - we built up a force overseas when it was necessary. Just like Vietnam. Just like Korea. Just like WWII. Being able to get an A-10 anywhere in the world within 12 hours is frivolous as hell.

Unless you actually need to have that firepower on target within 12 hours. Then you are screwed because you didn't have the foresight or understanding of Sun Tsu when he said that in war, you don't plan for what you think will happen, You plan for the worst possible thing that CAN happen.

You don't think we need forward bases? What happens when you need to re-arm, refuel and repair? When do your pilots rest in between flying back and forth across the ocean?

The military doctrines used by the United States are not casual ideas put into action. They are the result of countless studies and wargames and the product of some sharp minds who have spent a good chunk of their lives studying warfare and doing their best to defend the country.

A recent military study just concluded that our biggest weakness in air superiority may be our in-flight refueling tankers. In wargames they become big giant, non-stealth, slow moving targets that when destroyed. can cripple our capabilities. THAT is what you would have us rely on.

[JMS]

???

We've already built 141 of them, they are surely going to be used. This is old news, they aren't retiring them, they just are stopping orders for them, there were supposed to be like 187 built but they stopped.

Nope they are retiring them. Because although they represent bleeding edge of technology and the highest pinnical of ariel combat engineering to date....

They also require sixty hours of maintanance for every hour of flying time... Cost $60,000 per flight hour, and disolve in the rain.

[JMS]

Nobody is talking about tossing the raptor aside. And the OP heard wrong. They are not being retired. They just aren't going to order the full 381. We're going to "only" have 187.

Actually I think they are going to retire them. One airfoce general I heard discussing it calls the F-22 program so expensive it's akin to unilateral disarmament to keep them flying.

That and they disolve in the rain.

If I'm China I don't even try to match the US in air superiority. I just build ground based missile systems at a fraction of the price. You send in your carrier, I put it into the bottom of the ocean for 1/1000th of what you paid to build it. You send in a $353 million F-22, I shoot it down with ground to air, again, at a fraction of the price.

Moronic is thinking China is going to engage us in dogfights top gun style. They're not stupid.

I agree, China is flying mostly cica 1970's technology. they're still no match for us. Russia is giving China their best fighters now, and Russia has a larger incentive to hold China back than we do.

[SkinInsite]

But how will we fight against the commie's stealth fighter!!!

[JMS]

But how will we fight against the commie's stealth fighter!!!

Here is what we do. We send Clint Eastwood in to steal one for us. He should fly towards Europe to throw off the Russians... Then dip under their radar and head north over the ice cap. We can refuel him with a sub pretending to be taking weather samplings.

Seriously, to date I'm not sure the commies have a first generation Stealth airplane, much less a fifth generation one. The Russians greatest leap forward in aerospace technology came when they purchased some F-14's from the Iranians back in the early 1980's. They've got some really smart guys with airframes and engines; but that's sooooo early 70's thinking. The important things today in fighter technology is the composite skins, electronics, and radar packages. The Russians budgets for producing these technologies is like 1/100th that of ours. They haven't sereously threatenned our premier fighters technology wise since the mid 1970's and even then that was mostly in our minds. When one of their pilots flew one of their migs to Japan and we got a look at it, it wasn't a very good plane. As I remember it had a stick of dynomite in it for self destruction, and it was made out of steal.

We can only hope Russia develops a plane like the F-22. They'll have to canabalize their entire airforce funds to keep the thing flying a few hours a month.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/president-obama-joins-with-mccain-to-eliminate-raptor-fighter-jets.html

President Obama Joins With McCain to Eliminate Raptor Fighter Jets

[Hubbs]

Unless you actually need to have that firepower on target within 12 hours. Then you are screwed because you didn't have the foresight or understanding of Sun Tsu when he said that in war, you don't plan for what you think will happen, You plan for the worst possible thing that CAN happen.

You don't think we need forward bases? What happens when you need to re-arm, refuel and repair? When do your pilots rest in between flying back and forth across the ocean?

The military doctrines used by the United States are not casual ideas put into action. They are the result of countless studies and wargames and the product of some sharp minds who have spent a good chunk of their lives studying warfare and doing their best to defend the country.

A recent military study just concluded that our biggest weakness in air superiority may be our in-flight refueling tankers. In wargames they become big giant, non-stealth, slow moving targets that when destroyed. can cripple our capabilities. THAT is what you would have us rely on.

What part of "whenever we actually need to fight a war, we don't need to fight it in 12 hours" are you willfully ignoring?

Go ahead, name me a war in which we didn't have time to build up our forces. Even our entry into WWII didn't require the successful completion of such ridiculous scenarios, and that was a damn sneak attack. (Sort of. I'd say that enough evidence is out there to believe that FDR knew it was coming.)

[Slateman]

Unless you actually need to have that firepower on target within 12 hours. Then you are screwed because you didn't have the foresight or understanding of Sun Tsu when he said that in war, you don't plan for what you think will happen, You plan for the worst possible thing that CAN happen.

You don't think we need forward bases? What happens when you need to re-arm, refuel and repair? When do your pilots rest in between flying back and forth across the ocean?

The military doctrines used by the United States are not casual ideas put into action. They are the result of countless studies and wargames and the product of some sharp minds who have spent a good chunk of their lives studying warfare and doing their best to defend the country.

A recent military study just concluded that our biggest weakness in air superiority may be our in-flight refueling tankers. In wargames they become big giant, non-stealth, slow moving targets that when destroyed. can cripple our capabilities. THAT is what you would have us rely on.

Thats why we have cruise missles, B-2 Bombers, and aircraft carriers

[ZoEd]

Nope they are retiring them. Because although they represent bleeding edge of technology and the highest pinnical of ariel combat engineering to date....

They also require sixty hours of maintanance for every hour of flying time... Cost $60,000 per flight hour, and disolve in the rain.

I know it seems like I always pick at you but JMS, as usual, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

The F-22 is not being retired and won't be, it is our air superiority fighter. Although production has been curtailed the fighter is going nowhere in the near future.

As for your 60 hours of maint. time, where did you pull this number from? Maybe when the plane first started flying there were obstacles but I can assure you there isn't 60 hours of maint for every hour of flying. During my three week stay in AK last month the 6 F22's were doing two turns a day averaging two + hours of flying. This is after flying from NV to AK. If your numbers are correct one aircraft would have to remain in maint for 3240 hours after completing the exercise. Seriously dude? Where are you gettin your numbers.

Depending on the maint being performed there are some repairs that are labor intensive but nowhere near what you're claiming. The reason for this is to restore the paint which enables the stealthiness. Other than that the plane breaks down a hell of a lot less than the F16's and F15's we have.

Then again, what do I know? I mean, the guys who maintain them are in my unit and work on them everyday.

[Sticksboi05]

There's also the fact that the F22 can do more then the pilot. It's the greatest "modern" plane that can ever be created due to the stresses it can put on the pilot. Why make a plane that can do more then will ever be used?

Until we create that inertia canceler, the F22 is a bit of overkill.

You can't kill inertia, it's a tendency not a force.

[Sticksboi05]

Nope they are retiring them. Because although they represent bleeding edge of technology and the highest pinnical of ariel combat engineering to date....

They also require sixty hours of maintanance for every hour of flying time... Cost $60,000 per flight hour, and disolve in the rain.

They most certainly aren't. First off, the PROPOSED end of PRODUCTION of the F-22 just proposed this April hasn't been approved yet...

Gen. John D.W. Corley stated in a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss that, "To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy,"

USAF Secretary Donley - "The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on."

They aren't being retired, that is nuts, they just are thinking of ending production. And the latest flight tests show the RAM (radar absorbent material) isn't prone to coming off in rain like earlier planes.

[Sticksboi05]

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

Government contracts go to the lowest bidder. Even in the military.

Oh, and the F-35 is superior in that it:

Costs less

Has a much better/more advanced sensor system

Is smaller

Has VSTOL capability

Is designed as an attack fighter

Cost- very true

Sensors - the upgrades to the original AN/APG-77 radar on the F-22 will put it very very close to the capabilities of the AN/APG-81 used in the F-35.

VSTOL - very true

Attack fighter - not an advantage, just what its purpose is, the F 35 is the replacement for the multipurpose aircraft like the F 16 and F18 Hornet whereas the F-22 is our air superiority replacement for the F 15 Eagle and will complement the F 15 Strike Eagle. But the F22 can still be used for ground strikes.

[Slateman]

Cost- very true

Sensors - the upgrades to the original AN/APG-77 radar on the F-22 will put it very very close to the capabilities of the AN/APG-81 used in the F-35.

VSTOL - very true

Attack fighter - not an advantage, just what its purpose is, the F 35 is the replacement for the multipurpose aircraft like the F 16 and F18 Hornet whereas the F-22 is our air superiority replacement for the F 15 Eagle and will complement the F 15 Strike Eagle. But the F22 can still be used for ground strikes.

Actually, it can only be used for ground strikes. Its absolutely useless for CAS. The Air Force, or so I've been briefed, will not allow them to be used in that role. I'd rather have an A-10 or F-15E. Over twice the payload.

And the radar wasn't all I was speaking of. The 35 has a suite of sensors all along its air frame, much in the way that a submarine has a towed array sonar. Its capable of intercepting and relaying electronic signals (including cell phones and radios). It can relay satilite communications, thus supporting Special Operations while still maintaining covertness.

All in all, the F-35 is superior. In fact, its only inferrior in one category: Air Superiority. But we haven't gotten in to a real air battle since the Vietnam War . . .

Money is tight for the US right now. Sacrifices must be made. We are still years ahead of any competition we might have in the near future. We need to concentrate on other technologies (like getting me lighter body armor!!!)

[Sticksboi05]

Actually, it can only be used for ground strikes. Its absolutely useless for CAS. The Air Force, or so I've been briefed, will not allow them to be used in that role. I'd rather have an A-10 or F-15E. Over twice the payload.

And the radar wasn't all I was speaking of. The 35 has a suite of sensors all along its air frame, much in the way that a submarine has a towed array sonar. Its capable of intercepting and relaying electronic signals (including cell phones and radios). It can relay satilite communications, thus supporting Special Operations while still maintaining covertness.

All in all, the F-35 is superior. In fact, its only inferrior in one category: Air Superiority. But we haven't gotten in to a real air battle since the Vietnam War . . .

Money is tight for the US right now. Sacrifices must be made. We are still years ahead of any competition we might have in the near future. We need to concentrate on other technologies (like getting me lighter body armor!!!)

What won't be used for superiority? The F22? That's its main purpose thanks to its maneuverability.

The F22 does also with the AN/ALR-94 warning receiver and it can also scan for digital signals in the area.

[ZoEd]

As for the exercise, our agressors are F15 and they were flying 2, sometimes 3 to 1 against our F22's and were getting smoked. I can't begin to tell you just how superior the F22 is.

As for the F15's, these birds are getting old. They're in serious need of an upgrade.

[Tut77]

As for your 60 hours of maint. time, where did you pull this number from? Maybe when the plane first started flying there were obstacles but I can assure you there isn't 60 hours of maint for every hour of flying.

Check out the article. And I'm pretty sure they mean man-hours of maintenance, not straight hours.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...070903020.html

[Tut77]

What won't be used for superiority? The F22? That's its main purpose thanks to its maneuverability.

He said the F-22 won't be used for CAS (close air support) and that the only area where the F-35 is inferior to the F-22 is in the air superiority role. And there is support for the idea that F-22s wont be used for CAS. Historically, the AF has a distaste for the CAS mission (motto of the F-15 during development was "not a pound for air to ground"). But because they're facing having the F-22 program cut, the AF is trying to justify its continuation by showing it has an air to ground capability. Unfortunately, it seems to have problems flying at low altitude with weapons bay doors open--i.e., what it would be doing in a CAS mission. And stealth doesn't work for low altitude CAS either--the enemy can just see you.