Less F-22's, a good thing...
04-22-2009, 09:45 PM
#1
Less F-22's, a good thing... So the Air Force announced even less F-22's to be made. Personally I think this is a good thing. Before I get verbally beaten senseless, allow me to express why:
Ideally I would like to see a strong replacement of 1:1 between F-15's and the F-22's. The F-22 is without a doubt the baddest thing to take the skies. It's intimidation factor alone would undoubtingly make any formidable enemy think twice about entering an air war with one on the opposing side.
However, we live in harsh times. It's not as simple as "the F-22 is the best fighter created, lets build a thousand of them". We have other very big issues right now in the Air Force (and other areas as well). #1, the aging tanker fleet. The KC-135's were designed in the late 40's, built in the 50's and 60's, and they are the sheer backbone of keeping our Air Force flying more than local sorties (not to mention the long loiter times in combat). And yet there still has been no formal replacement decided on yet, so they go on flying. With them the Air Force spends multi-millions just keeping them maintained with all the stress cracks found, along with fuel leaks and other very expensive maintenance items. This is just one of numerous large budget things in dier immediate need of replacement.
Not only that, but in todays world with the current threats, there is no strong need for that kind of fighter. It was designed to penetrate undetected into Russian air space as a fighter. Honestly I think our biggest threats right now are China, Iran, and possibly North Korea, none of whom we necissarily need the F-22 for. Any of our current fighters excluding the F-22 would be leaps and bounds better than most of the opposing forces.
I think the F-22's are important. But not as important as many other things, and personally I am glad they have been cut for the moment. It's easy to bash the decision to cut an awesome plane. However knowing there are more important things that need attention right now, I am personally happy with the decision to shrink the F-22 program.
Just my .02 cents on the matter.
Ideally I would like to see a strong replacement of 1:1 between F-15's and the F-22's. The F-22 is without a doubt the baddest thing to take the skies. It's intimidation factor alone would undoubtingly make any formidable enemy think twice about entering an air war with one on the opposing side.
However, we live in harsh times. It's not as simple as "the F-22 is the best fighter created, lets build a thousand of them". We have other very big issues right now in the Air Force (and other areas as well). #1, the aging tanker fleet. The KC-135's were designed in the late 40's, built in the 50's and 60's, and they are the sheer backbone of keeping our Air Force flying more than local sorties (not to mention the long loiter times in combat). And yet there still has been no formal replacement decided on yet, so they go on flying. With them the Air Force spends multi-millions just keeping them maintained with all the stress cracks found, along with fuel leaks and other very expensive maintenance items. This is just one of numerous large budget things in dier immediate need of replacement.
Not only that, but in todays world with the current threats, there is no strong need for that kind of fighter. It was designed to penetrate undetected into Russian air space as a fighter. Honestly I think our biggest threats right now are China, Iran, and possibly North Korea, none of whom we necissarily need the F-22 for. Any of our current fighters excluding the F-22 would be leaps and bounds better than most of the opposing forces.
I think the F-22's are important. But not as important as many other things, and personally I am glad they have been cut for the moment. It's easy to bash the decision to cut an awesome plane. However knowing there are more important things that need attention right now, I am personally happy with the decision to shrink the F-22 program.
Just my .02 cents on the matter.
Last edited by CALL911; 04-22-2009 at 09:51 PM.
04-23-2009, 10:12 AM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Fort Lewis, WA.
Posts: 538
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This kind of reminds me why the Army ended up scrapping the Comanche project and just continue with the Apache. No real need for a stealth helicopter when the Apache gets it done-even more so with the D Model Longbow.
04-23-2009, 10:29 AM
#6
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ben,
I strongly disagree with you on this. Sure the F-22A isn't very useful in today's COIN type fight, but the F-22 is going to be around for 50+ years.
In a world where it takes well over 20 years (planning for the Raptor started in the 80s) to design, build, test, certify, and then operate a new airframe can we really be safe with 183?
First lets dive into why the Air Force is really pushing for 381:
Is asking for 1 operation squadron per AEF really that much to ask for? Guess so.
Also, you mention Iran, China, and N Korea. Ironic, these three countries have some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Not SA-2's that even a B-52 can out maneuver, but SA-20's+. SAM networks that now, only the B-2 can penetrate. I think keeping the F-22 for interdiction missions behind enemy lines would be a good thing.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
I strongly disagree with you on this. Sure the F-22A isn't very useful in today's COIN type fight, but the F-22 is going to be around for 50+ years.
In a world where it takes well over 20 years (planning for the Raptor started in the 80s) to design, build, test, certify, and then operate a new airframe can we really be safe with 183?
First lets dive into why the Air Force is really pushing for 381:
"Where does the figure 381 come from? Is it justifiable?
The Air Force has determined that each AEF requires at least one F-22 squadron for air superiority, interdiction in high threat areas, and so forth.
The standard squadron contains 24 combat-coded fighters. The F-22’s Operational Requirements Document validated that metric. The ORD was signed by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Do the math: 10 squadrons times 24 aircraft equals 240 fighters."
The Air Force has analytic formulas for determining the answer. Here they are:
•For training, 25 percent of the combat-coded force, or 60 more fighters.
•For test purposes, five percent of the total of combat-coded and training aircraft, or 15 more fighters.
•For backup inventory, 10 percent of the combat-coded, training, and test aircraft, or 32 more fighters.
•For attrition reserve, 10 percent of everything above, or 34 more fighters.
Those four categories, taken together, generate an additional requirement for 141 F-22s. Add up those fighters and the combat-coded ones and you come to—voila—381 fighters."
The Air Force has determined that each AEF requires at least one F-22 squadron for air superiority, interdiction in high threat areas, and so forth.
The standard squadron contains 24 combat-coded fighters. The F-22’s Operational Requirements Document validated that metric. The ORD was signed by the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Do the math: 10 squadrons times 24 aircraft equals 240 fighters."
The Air Force has analytic formulas for determining the answer. Here they are:
•For training, 25 percent of the combat-coded force, or 60 more fighters.
•For test purposes, five percent of the total of combat-coded and training aircraft, or 15 more fighters.
•For backup inventory, 10 percent of the combat-coded, training, and test aircraft, or 32 more fighters.
•For attrition reserve, 10 percent of everything above, or 34 more fighters.
Those four categories, taken together, generate an additional requirement for 141 F-22s. Add up those fighters and the combat-coded ones and you come to—voila—381 fighters."
Also, you mention Iran, China, and N Korea. Ironic, these three countries have some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Not SA-2's that even a B-52 can out maneuver, but SA-20's+. SAM networks that now, only the B-2 can penetrate. I think keeping the F-22 for interdiction missions behind enemy lines would be a good thing.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
Trending Topics
04-23-2009, 01:18 PM
#8
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, UCAV/UAV's are dependent on our space assets. China and Russia can both easily deny us those satellites. So what happens when they just shoot down our defenseless satellites rendering our offensive counter air useless?
I respect UCAV/UAV's immensely, and they are a phenomenal asset for a COIN type war...but we can't afford to the gamble the farm on the next 50 years worth of wars being COIN only.
04-23-2009, 03:29 PM
#9
Neil,
Its not that I don't agree with you that the F-22 is important, or that we do need it. I just disagree with your thinking that with the current budget, and world threats we have currently, that we should build more F-22's right now.
To say they are not important is not true. But what good is the F-22 going to do for us currently in OEF (or OIF for that matter)? What good is a fleet of F-22's going to do for us if we don't have the tankers to support any aircraft in the near future? What good is F-22's going to do for us if by purchasing more of them we had to cut our personnell down to a point that we can't adequatly fight any of those possible threats because of lack of support personnel?
The answer is, it won't help us, but it may indeed hurt us. And that is my whole point.
I once heard a saying; "Every F-22 that rolls off the assembly line, somewhere Osama Bin Laden praises Allah".
Its not that I don't agree with you that the F-22 is important, or that we do need it. I just disagree with your thinking that with the current budget, and world threats we have currently, that we should build more F-22's right now.
To say they are not important is not true. But what good is the F-22 going to do for us currently in OEF (or OIF for that matter)? What good is a fleet of F-22's going to do for us if we don't have the tankers to support any aircraft in the near future? What good is F-22's going to do for us if by purchasing more of them we had to cut our personnell down to a point that we can't adequatly fight any of those possible threats because of lack of support personnel?
The answer is, it won't help us, but it may indeed hurt us. And that is my whole point.
I once heard a saying; "Every F-22 that rolls off the assembly line, somewhere Osama Bin Laden praises Allah".
Ben,
I strongly disagree with you on this. Sure the F-22A isn't very useful in today's COIN type fight, but the F-22 is going to be around for 50+ years.
In a world where it takes well over 20 years (planning for the Raptor started in the 80s) to design, build, test, certify, and then operate a new airframe can we really be safe with 183?
First lets dive into why the Air Force is really pushing for 381:
Is asking for 1 operation squadron per AEF really that much to ask for? Guess so.
Also, you mention Iran, China, and N Korea. Ironic, these three countries have some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Not SA-2's that even a B-52 can out maneuver, but SA-20's+. SAM networks that now, only the B-2 can penetrate. I think keeping the F-22 for interdiction missions behind enemy lines would be a good thing.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
I strongly disagree with you on this. Sure the F-22A isn't very useful in today's COIN type fight, but the F-22 is going to be around for 50+ years.
In a world where it takes well over 20 years (planning for the Raptor started in the 80s) to design, build, test, certify, and then operate a new airframe can we really be safe with 183?
First lets dive into why the Air Force is really pushing for 381:
Is asking for 1 operation squadron per AEF really that much to ask for? Guess so.
Also, you mention Iran, China, and N Korea. Ironic, these three countries have some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Not SA-2's that even a B-52 can out maneuver, but SA-20's+. SAM networks that now, only the B-2 can penetrate. I think keeping the F-22 for interdiction missions behind enemy lines would be a good thing.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
04-23-2009, 03:38 PM
#11
The 122nd fighter wing that I almost belonged to will soon get rid of their F-16's also. However they are swapping them for A-10's. The AF currently has about 400 UAV pilots. In 3 years they will have 1200 UAV pilots. UAV's are the future, but it will be a very long time before they phase out all manned fighters. I doubt if I live to see UAV's flying everything.
04-23-2009, 04:26 PM
#12
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt UAV's will ever replace manned aircraft. As I stated above, a UAV has severe implications. Look at how many we have lost. Every time a UAV goes stupid because of weather, solar patterns, etc... Did you know we can't use UAV's at certain times due to solar activity? We actually have to shut down all of our satellites in orbit or they will fry... Kinda hard to run a war/operate a UAV when a critical component is missing.
Yes UAV's are great COIN aircraft. And maybe one day they will be more than that, but I can never see them replacing manned aircraft. Until we create an artificial intelligence that will allow a UAV flexibility in operating without a data link connected to a computer operated by a human, there will be severe limitations to their capabilities.
As for the budget, it is a critical point in the infastructure in most of our military. All the Cold War era weapons are coming due. I agree, we need a replacement KC-X, we need a replacement CSAR-X, and we need the 2019 Bomber, as well as an adaquate number of F-22s. NEED - not want.
Yes UAV's are great COIN aircraft. And maybe one day they will be more than that, but I can never see them replacing manned aircraft. Until we create an artificial intelligence that will allow a UAV flexibility in operating without a data link connected to a computer operated by a human, there will be severe limitations to their capabilities.
As for the budget, it is a critical point in the infastructure in most of our military. All the Cold War era weapons are coming due. I agree, we need a replacement KC-X, we need a replacement CSAR-X, and we need the 2019 Bomber, as well as an adaquate number of F-22s. NEED - not want.
04-23-2009, 07:25 PM
#13
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home: Flint, MI Stationed: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, you mention Iran, China, and N Korea. Ironic, these three countries have some of the most advanced SAM systems in the world. Not SA-2's that even a B-52 can out maneuver, but SA-20's+. SAM networks that now, only the B-2 can penetrate. I think keeping the F-22 for interdiction missions behind enemy lines would be a good thing.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
Here is a good article written by a former USAF F-15C driver with three kills (sure doesn't sound like much but its he is the highest scoring pilot lately):
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
The article mentions how the latest batch of Russian export fighters, mainly the Sukhoi's, far outclass the legacy USAF fighters and even the Navy's F/A-18E/F/G Super Hornets.
And it is important to realize, the F-35 isn't a substaute for the F-22. Not even close. The F-35 isn't an air superiority fighter and was never designed to be one.
x2 Not really happy with the way Mr. gates has been running things in regards to funding the F-22, the missile defense shield and so on.. China is building the F**k out of their military. I'm a firm believer that we need more F-22's to make sure we have air superiority well into the 21st century.
04-23-2009, 09:47 PM
#14
Again, I agree we need more F-22's also. But just not right now as there are other more important things we need first.
You bring up a great point though. I strongly believe a major war will (as bad as this sounds) do 2 good things for us. #1, it would drastically increase the DOD and Air Force budget, allowing for all the "NEED" items previously discussed. Look at what the Cold War brought us, pretty much the majority of our current fleet. The 2nd thing it would do is get us out of our recession. It definatly happened that way during WWII. Assuming no nukes were used, I believe war would do just that.
I also believe that if there were one country we would have the biggest problem going to war against (as in the strongest), it would be China. There are plenty of reasons this is a possible threat. The Chinese have been spying on us heavily for the last decade (we have caught them numerous times). They also as mentioned before have been building their military at an exponential rate. The only thing that keeps this somewhat distant is the sheer volume of buisness the US has with China. Both countries profit highly from the other.
If we ever would get into it with them, it would definatly be ugly. I am positive the US has them beat in technology, but their sheer numbers are stagering. We would have to shoot down a rediculous amount of fighters to win an air war. The US air kill ratio would have to be like 400:1 for us to gain air superiority and still have a formidable force left to defend other operations.
You bring up a great point though. I strongly believe a major war will (as bad as this sounds) do 2 good things for us. #1, it would drastically increase the DOD and Air Force budget, allowing for all the "NEED" items previously discussed. Look at what the Cold War brought us, pretty much the majority of our current fleet. The 2nd thing it would do is get us out of our recession. It definatly happened that way during WWII. Assuming no nukes were used, I believe war would do just that.
I also believe that if there were one country we would have the biggest problem going to war against (as in the strongest), it would be China. There are plenty of reasons this is a possible threat. The Chinese have been spying on us heavily for the last decade (we have caught them numerous times). They also as mentioned before have been building their military at an exponential rate. The only thing that keeps this somewhat distant is the sheer volume of buisness the US has with China. Both countries profit highly from the other.
If we ever would get into it with them, it would definatly be ugly. I am positive the US has them beat in technology, but their sheer numbers are stagering. We would have to shoot down a rediculous amount of fighters to win an air war. The US air kill ratio would have to be like 400:1 for us to gain air superiority and still have a formidable force left to defend other operations.
x2 Not really happy with the way Mr. gates has been running things in regards to funding the F-22, the missile defense shield and so on.. China is building the F**k out of their military. I'm a firm believer that we need more F-22's to make sure we have air superiority well into the 21st century.
04-23-2009, 10:05 PM
#15
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also believe that if there were one country we would have the biggest problem going to war against (as in the strongest), it would be China. There are plenty of reasons this is a possible threat. The Chinese have been spying on us heavily for the last decade (we have caught them numerous times). They also as mentioned before have been building their military at an exponential rate. The only thing that keeps this somewhat distant is the sheer volume of buisness the US has with China. Both countries profit highly from the other.
If we ever would get into it with them, it would definatly be ugly. I am positive the US has them beat in technology, but their sheer numbers are stagering. We would have to shoot down a rediculous amount of fighters to win an air war. The US air kill ratio would have to be like 400:1 for us to gain air superiority and still have a formidable force left to defend other operations.
If we ever would get into it with them, it would definatly be ugly. I am positive the US has them beat in technology, but their sheer numbers are stagering. We would have to shoot down a rediculous amount of fighters to win an air war. The US air kill ratio would have to be like 400:1 for us to gain air superiority and still have a formidable force left to defend other operations.
We still have them decently outclassed but the F-22's we have in Japan would have their hands FULL. I also don't know if China has much of airborne refueling capability or if their fighters are just local. If they do have A2A refueling then perhaps they would try taking out our air fields in Guam, Korea, and Japan. I don't even think the Army has any patriot battery's in Guam. I am sure Korea has all their air fields heavily defended for a possible N. Korea attack, but I think Japan and Guam would be in for a world of hurt.
04-23-2009, 11:36 PM
#16
It would be messy. They don't need good planes so much as they just have us beat in sheer numbers. They would literally launch 10 jets for every 1 of ours. Not sure how we would fight it (even if I did I couldn't openly state it here as it would be classified). But it would be very very ugly...
Back on board the F-22 rant though, I agree that it would be a problem stopping the program being very difficult to start it back up, but we just can't afford to neglect our bigger needs right now for the budget all for the reward of having an uber-superior Air Force, instead of just a superior Air Force. We need them, but not at what ultimatly it would cost the Air Force (less to almost no war fighting capability in numerous other categories).
Back on board the F-22 rant though, I agree that it would be a problem stopping the program being very difficult to start it back up, but we just can't afford to neglect our bigger needs right now for the budget all for the reward of having an uber-superior Air Force, instead of just a superior Air Force. We need them, but not at what ultimatly it would cost the Air Force (less to almost no war fighting capability in numerous other categories).
04-24-2009, 12:05 AM
#17
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Home: Flint, MI Stationed: Charleston, SC
Posts: 1,248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Osan AB would be destroyed in the first two minutes of a war between the North and South. They have thousands of artillery peices aimed at the base. Its basically a speed bump for Kunsan, Anderson and Japan to react. I will admit I've never been there but I know many many people that have and thats one of the first things you when you process the base.
Secondly I think it would be too costly to start the F-22 program once stopped as already stated. 187 planes? Really?
Going cheap and cutting back on defense is idiotic in my mind especially during a time of war. Obabma is going to let his guard down and then we'll have another Sept 11th. China.. Russia.. N. Korea.. Venzuala.. Syria.. Iran.. come to mind as threats/potential threats. I guess if Obama keeps shaking hands with everyone we won't have anything to worry about right?
China just busted into the Pentagons computers 2 days ago and hacked into the F-35 program by the way, didn't know if you guys follow current events like I do...
I'm also tired of hearing about China building super carrier ship killing missiles and what have you. They are also about to commission their first Aircraft carrier...why would such a peacful nation like China need one of those??? :::sarcasim:::
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517631,00.html
Secondly I think it would be too costly to start the F-22 program once stopped as already stated. 187 planes? Really?
Going cheap and cutting back on defense is idiotic in my mind especially during a time of war. Obabma is going to let his guard down and then we'll have another Sept 11th. China.. Russia.. N. Korea.. Venzuala.. Syria.. Iran.. come to mind as threats/potential threats. I guess if Obama keeps shaking hands with everyone we won't have anything to worry about right?China just busted into the Pentagons computers 2 days ago and hacked into the F-35 program by the way, didn't know if you guys follow current events like I do...
I'm also tired of hearing about China building super carrier ship killing missiles and what have you. They are also about to commission their first Aircraft carrier...why would such a peacful nation like China need one of those??? :::sarcasim:::
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517631,00.html
Last edited by Pipelayaz; 04-24-2009 at 12:11 AM.
04-24-2009, 07:22 AM
#18
Like I said before China is a possible threat. Don't have the reference on me, but once I found a site that literally had pages and pages long of info all supporting China's buildup and reasons it might be building up their military for a hit on the US... Scary stuff...
04-24-2009, 08:24 AM
#19
NKAWTG...N
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 4,760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be messy. They don't need good planes so much as they just have us beat in sheer numbers. They would literally launch 10 jets for every 1 of ours. Not sure how we would fight it (even if I did I couldn't openly state it here as it would be classified). But it would be very very ugly...
Originally Posted by CALL911
Back on board the F-22 rant though, I agree that it would be a problem stopping the program being very difficult to start it back up, but we just can't afford to neglect our bigger needs right now for the budget all for the reward of having an uber-superior Air Force, instead of just a superior Air Force. We need them, but not at what ultimatly it would cost the Air Force (less to almost no war fighting capability in numerous other categories).
And the CSAR-X? I want to punch every person in the face that says CSAR is useless asset.
04-24-2009, 01:29 PM
#20
You make a valid argument my friend. Just because they are saying no to more 22's does not translate into a big "Yes" to all the other needed areas, however it is at least a step in the right direction.
Trust me, I want nothing more than to see our military grow and flourish, both in technology and new aircraft production. Our jets are getting very old. Some of them like the tanker are in critical need of being replaced. While at OTS my final briefing was on the aging tanker fleet. Did you know that the money invested in maintenance alone for the KC-135's per year is actually more than it would be to build the new tanker after its fuel economy and not having the catastrophic costs to keep up as aircraft that were built in the 50's?
We need F-22's. But if things progress how they should, and congress gets their priorities correct by taking the multi millions it takes to keep the F-22 program alive, and uses it to fix some of our other bigger issues such as support personell, replacing much older aircraft ect., then we would be in a much more stronger position to fight China or anyone else who wants a piece of the US military.
I guess it comes down to a matter of priority opinion. I just don't see how spending that much on the 22 is worth it when we have so many other big budget items that need more immidiate attention right now. Don't get me started on how much I think the Air Force has wasted recently with the over abundance of C-17's we have.
Trust me, I want nothing more than to see our military grow and flourish, both in technology and new aircraft production. Our jets are getting very old. Some of them like the tanker are in critical need of being replaced. While at OTS my final briefing was on the aging tanker fleet. Did you know that the money invested in maintenance alone for the KC-135's per year is actually more than it would be to build the new tanker after its fuel economy and not having the catastrophic costs to keep up as aircraft that were built in the 50's?
We need F-22's. But if things progress how they should, and congress gets their priorities correct by taking the multi millions it takes to keep the F-22 program alive, and uses it to fix some of our other bigger issues such as support personell, replacing much older aircraft ect., then we would be in a much more stronger position to fight China or anyone else who wants a piece of the US military.
I guess it comes down to a matter of priority opinion. I just don't see how spending that much on the 22 is worth it when we have so many other big budget items that need more immidiate attention right now. Don't get me started on how much I think the Air Force has wasted recently with the over abundance of C-17's we have.