Production to be stopped on F-22 Raptors.

[Tut77]

The F-35 is also supposed to be more stealthy than the F-22.

The F-14 was the navy's primary air superiority aircraft from 1970's up to the 21st century... ( retired 2006)... But the F-14 was also a bomber designed to take the place of the F-111's Reagan used against Libyia.

Both of these points are incorrect.

"According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect. According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm

The F-14 was also not designed to take the place of the F-111. It was designed to replace the F-4 in the fleet air defense role. It's relationship to the F-111 is to the F-111B, which was a proposed version intended to serve with both the Navy as a fighter-interceptor (the F-111A entered AF service as a deep strike plane). The DoD tried to force the Navy to take the F-111B (to save on development/ production costs since the AF was already using the F-111A). The F-111B, however, was unwanted by the Navy---too heavy and ungainly for the fighter role, and the F-14 design was allowed to proceed. The F-14s bomb carrying abilities were never tested or developed by the Navy until it was almost time for retirement, though there are photos showing early prototypes carrying dummy bombs.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm

[twa]

If you want to delve into a fascinating book on the present and future of warfare weaponry I'd recommend "Wired For War." It basically details where the United States is at regards this industry and where we're headed. Unmanned flight (drones) is already upon us. It's an incredibly rich book. Kind of bent my mind actually.

http://www.amazon.com/Wired-War-Robotics-Revolution-Conflict/dp/1594201986/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1247721604&sr=1-1

Yep,it's here and a mad rush to put it in play

http://www.popsci.com/drones

Point. Click. Kill: Inside The Air Force's Frantic Unmanned Reinvention

Feature

The age of remote-control warfare isn't coming--it's here, and not even the Air Force, which made it happen, is entirely prepared. Here, a firsthand look at the struggle to train thousands of drone pilots virtually overnight

[Thiebear]

See signature.. There was no cost savings effort here...

[JMS]

Both of these points are incorrect.

"According to November 2005 reports, the US Air Force states that the F-22 has the lowest RCS of any manned aircraft in the USAF inventory, with a frontal RCS of 0.0001~0.0002 m2, marble sized in frontal aspect.

The F-35 is not currently in the US Air Force Inventory. The F-35 is also a significantly smaller airplane. On the negative side the F-35 is slower, less manuverable, carrys less ordinance and has a more limited range; but according to Sec Defense William Gates the F-35 is more stealthy. Ah I see you state as much bellow, you just also state from other angles the F-22 is equally or more stealthy.

According to these reports, the F-35 is said to have an RCS equal to a metal golf ball, about 0.0015m2, which is about 5 to 10 times greater than the minimal frontal RCS of F/A-22. The F-35 has a lower RCS than the F-117 and is comparable to the B-2, which was half that of the older F-117. Other reports claim that the F-35 is said to have an smaller RCS headon than the F-22, but from all other angles the F-35 RCS is greater. By comparison, the RCS of the Mig-29 is about 5m2."

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-design.htm

I also think you left off the fact that the F-22 is capable to carring extra ordinance and fuel on four external pilons which compromises it's stealthy characteristics..... So if not configured in it's air superiority mode, with external ordanance from any angle it's less stealthy.

The F-14 was also not designed to take the place of the F-111. It was designed to replace the F-4 in the fleet air defense role. It's relationship to the F-111 is to the F-111B, which was a proposed version intended to serve with both the Navy as a fighter-interceptor (the F-111A entered AF service as a deep strike plane). The DoD tried to force the Navy to take the F-111B (to save on development/ production costs since the AF was already using the F-111A). The F-111B, however, was unwanted by the Navy---too heavy and ungainly for the fighter role, and the F-14 design was allowed to proceed. The F-14s bomb carrying abilities were never tested or developed by the Navy until it was almost time for retirement, though there are photos showing early prototypes carrying dummy bombs.

http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-history-f14a.htm

? so your objection to my statement was Rather than saying F-111 I should have said F-111B?

The F-14 was designed after the F-111B was rejected by the navy.

The F-14 was developed after the collapse of the F-111B project, and was the first of the American teen-series fighters which were designed incorporating the experience of air combat against MiGs during the Vietnam War.....

The F-14 Tomcat program was initiated when it became obvious that the weight and maneuverability issues plaguing the U.S. Navy variant of the Tactical Fighter Experimental (TFX) (F-111B) would not be resolved to the Navy's satisfaction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-14_Tomcat

The F-4 was the navy's primary air superiority weapon, and the F-14 did replace it... So I'm not arguing that. But the Navy tried to replace the F-4 with a configuration of the F-111, the F-111B. And the F-14 came into existance when that effort failed. So it did replace the F-111(.

[JMS]

See signature.. There was no cost savings effort here...

The F-22 costs $137.5 million per copy. Then an additional 70k per flight hour and is part of a $515 Billion dollar defense budget which was not cut but grew in 2009, 6% over 2008.

[JMS]

I had to read this post three teams before I honestly believed it wasn't some sort of incredible sarcasm that I just wasn't picking up on.

Seeing as factually refuting the above paragraphs would amount to simply posting a history of the Gulf Wars and an explanation of airspeed to refueling time as it applies to the Balkans and the Western Hemisphere, I'm just gonna go ahead and assume that anyone who believes what you wrote is too far gone to convince otherwise.

I would appreciate your specific thoughts were you disagreed with me, rather than being so arbitrary in your comments that no further discussion on your topic was possible...

Fact is the days of wars of attrition with major weapon systems combating major weapon systems are over, and have been for decades. Todays weapon systems are so powerful, precise and expensive that it's not possible for wars of attrition lasting years like in WWI, WWII, Korea or Vietnam...

If your point is we did Attrite the Iraqi's in our two gulf wars, I would say yes you are right; but the facts are the struggle for air superiority ended in hours or minutes of it's beginning. We dominated the air almost immediately in both occasions and even used a sixty year old B-52 bombing platform in the bombing campainge.

Just like the conventional ground war ended a few days after it began. In WWI on the western front stalemate lasted for 4 years, in Iraq we punched through their WWI style trenches in the first 15 minutes of the ground campagne and really never looked back.

Back in WWII we would send 100 B-29's to bomb a single factory, and the next day we would send them a second time if they handn't accomplished their mission. The raid would take out square miles of area. Today we send a single F-15 with smart weapons and he drops a bomb through a perscribed window and take out the building. Then back at base we review the vidio of the raid recorded by that same F-15 and determine how sucessful the raid was.

Back in the day when the Marymack and Monitor fought (BATTLE OF HAMPTON ROADS) The battle lasted two days and ended in a stalemate; Today ships can be destroyed by cruse or Harpon missles from 100s of miles away.

We just don't fight wars of attrition like we used too, where we go strength on strength for years pounding away at each other.

[Thiebear]

cept Afghanistan.

[JMS]

cept Afghanistan.

Nope, Afghanistan isn't an exception. Afghanistan has no significant tactical or strategic weapons systems beyond AK47s and maybe the occasional piece of artillary.

Afghanistan is asymetrical warfare just like the several years of Iraq war have been.

That's an argument against spending money on very very expensive weapon systems, not one in favor of it.

Again in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam we faced enemy fighter planes and enemy weapon systems, force on force for years on end. Those days are gone.

The argument which favors the F-22 is the same agument which has condemned it. That planning for yesterday's war historically always eventually leads to mistakes. Just because we haven't faced a serious air superiority challenge since the early 1970's, doesn't mean we never will. Just because we can count on our second best (F-35) being better than the worlds best planes, doesn't mean we always will. The reason we have a military is to protect us, not to protect us if all things go as planned. Given this argument however isn't persuasive. None of the Soviets, Iranian, or Indian fighters under development today is a serous threat to our existing air superiority much less the F-35. Sure they are manuverable and can turn and do acrobats as we blow them away from 50 miles out, but they aren't making F-15 pilots swet, much less F-25 pilots. By the time folks who could potentially threaten us develop something that has that potential, we will be on to unmanned drones. The F-22 is still unnecessary and too expensive to be a short gap solution to the problem wiht will eventually be solved by drones.