Cutting the F-22 from the US budget

[Darth_Yuthura]

Alright everyone knows about the F-22. The question here is about whether or not you think it should have been cut from the budget. The argument in favor of this fighter with a $250 million price tag is that it assembled all over the US and that jobs, which are in short supply, will be lost with the cancelation of this fighter.

 

What do you think? This is not meant as a serious topic, so it is not for Kavar's.

 

I think that the F-22, while a very fine fighter, just doesn't have a purpose in the military that has to be handled ONLY by a supersonic stealth fighter. The F-22 is the best fighter in the world and yet it has not yet been used in warfare yet! There is no point in buying an enormously expensive fighter if you're not going to use it.

[mur'phon]

Agreed, and even if it is used (like in an extremely unlikely war with China), it would have a hard time paying for itself.

[True_Avery]

The F-22 is shelved just like most aircraft and military experiments. The last aircraft we mass produced were a few of the lower F series, like the 15, and those ended up getting sold to other countries.

 

F-22, like the Chemical Laser, and other military gadgets are expensive pieces of machinery that, at this moment, do not have what the miliary calls "a bang for their buck". Sure the F-22 is the current angel of the sky, but we've been using the poor thing on bombing runs as an actual dogfight between the US and another country's craft has not occurred in almost 20 years. You can check me on that, but my point is that, at the moment, our cheaper, older craft are better for the job than what we have now.

 

Soon we'll be seeing the next F series, it will be shelved, and so on and so forth until a war comes along when we can mass produce them and actually fight an airforce that can put up a fight.

[mur'phon]

So, excluding close allies that'd have to be a war with China (no, I do not count Russia as long as the army and airforce fight each other as much as the enemy:D)

[Darth_Yuthura]

Agreed' date=' and even if it is used (like in an extremely unlikely war with China), it would have a hard time paying for itself.[/quote']

 

Anything you throw into a war never pays for itself. The matter is what you invest costing the state the lowest price possible to yield the most benefits possible. When you also spend tens of thousands of dollars for the aircraft after each mission to recoat the stealth surfaces, that likely will reduce the plane's lifespan. The F-117 was introduced in the late 1980's and has recently been decommissioned. For a more modern fighter, it has served a very short service life.

[Totenkopf]

The biggest achilles heal of the F22, besides sticker shock, is that the cost of countermeasures will probably be infinitely cheaper. I've seen price tags range anywhere from $150-300 million+/plane depending upon how many models were built to help defray R&D costs. State-of-the-art and beyond, but perhaps a white elephant if most future wars for US prove to be asymetrical. Given that the pilot is actually now proving to be the limiting factor in air combat, the F22 will prove to be a worthy link in the R&D chain to the next milestone......a remote control or AI weapons platform.

[JediAthos]

The F-22 is shelved just like most aircraft and military experiments. The last aircraft we mass produced were a few of the lower F series, like the 15, and those ended up getting sold to other countries.

 

F-22, like the Chemical Laser, and other military gadgets are expensive pieces of machinery that, at this moment, do not have what the miliary calls "a bang for their buck". Sure the F-22 is the current angel of the sky, but we've been using the poor thing on bombing runs as an actual dogfight between the US and another country's craft has not occurred in almost 20 years. You can check me on that, but my point is that, at the moment, our cheaper, older craft are better for the job than what we have now.

 

Soon we'll be seeing the next F series, it will be shelved, and so on and so forth until a war comes along when we can mass produce them and actually fight an airforce that can put up a fight.

 

The F-35 and its variants are already on their way to being the next generation multi-role aircraft. Until they are out of testing and ready to fight the current generation of fighters in the United States inventory is more than capable of taking on any of the aircraft in that exist in the world today.

[Darth_Yuthura]

That may lead to another question about the F-35... is it needed any more than the F-22? Although it has proven to cost much less than its air-superiority counterpart, there doesn't seem to be any need for generation five fighters when our generation four aircraft are more than capable against any other in the world.

 

Actually, I would support the F-35 in limited numbers, but I would discontinue production of the carrier version. That one is the most expensive and doesn't even have VSTOL capability. For its tactical systems, F-35 is just as invaluable as the F-22; which is why it should be provided in greater numbers, but only to the extent that it is needed. F-35 is still very expensive compared to older fighters. The base cost is over $50 million. The VSTOL version is much higher.

[El Sitherino]

I'd rather the military budget go to armoring the people so bullets are less likely to penetrate their lungs.

 

And maybe equipment for detecting movement inside a cave so grunts are less likely to be surprise attacked by camelbound RPG-men.

[JediAthos]

That may lead to another question about the F-35... is it needed any more than the F-22? Although it has proven to cost much less than its air-superiority counterpart, there doesn't seem to be any need for generation five fighters when our generation four aircraft are more than capable against any other in the world.

 

Actually, I would support the F-35 in limited numbers, but I would discontinue production of the carrier version. That one is the most expensive and doesn't even have VSTOL capability. For its tactical systems, F-35 is just as invaluable as the F-22; which is why it should be provided in greater numbers, but only to the extent that it is needed. F-35 is still very expensive compared to older fighters. The base cost is over $50 million. The VSTOL version is much higher.

 

Well...even though the F-18 is still capable in its current version the Navy will eventually need a replacement for it, and the carrier based version is obviously intended as such. I know that the F-35 is still in testing and so I'm not sure when the Navy intends to begin its migration, but the F-18 worked side by side with the F-14 for years before becoming the sole strike/fighter aircraft for the Navy.

 

As far as the VSTOL version: I would like to see it continue in development if, for no other reason than to replace the god awful AV-8B Harriers that the Navy currently employs in its amphibious fleet.

[Mav]

I'd rather the military budget go to armoring the people so bullets are less likely to penetrate their lungs.

 

And maybe equipment for detecting movement inside a cave so grunts are less likely to be surprise attacked by camelbound RPG-men.

OMG Sithy...

 

OT: I want to fly it, but being a pilot I am biased.

[Darth Avlectus]

I am for improving Un-manned equipment. Should be that way, anyways. Call it Tesla-esque idealism, since he basically first conceived upon the idea for our military. (Man do I love bringing him up.) More machines and less people in the line of fire. I would say funding this is a milestone and an important step to that end. Robotics and remote controlled vehicles for military usage first to be in the line of fire. Law enforcement already does it, why not the military? I've had it in my head, though, that maybe on smaller scale implementation of this could be also advantageous.

 

I guess, though, if we could not afford it considering our current economic climate, then I'd prefer equipment upgrades and armor on vehicles, as opposed to our boys and girls in uniform digging out junk that is already discarded/broken, trying to fix it and hoping that will hold up and make a difference. They should at least get armor and better equipment to do their jobs with.

 

Have some friends in the service right now. Even a few who are lost to us, god bless their souls. --And I'm certainly not saving face for those politicians or in media who speak ill of our troops.

[Astrotoy7]

Who needs F-22 when you can have F1 -F12

 

 

I've got a great spending idea for the world's most loudest military, make sure those in charge of captured troops know Protocol I of the Geneva Convention.. Wont blow the budget either

 

@Sithy Never make an I quit thread unless you mean it. Also, welcome back mang

 

mtfbwya

[Darth_Yuthura]

Well...even though the F-18 is still capable in its current version the Navy will eventually need a replacement for it, and the carrier based version is obviously intended as such.

 

It would make more sense to adopt the VSTOL variant of the F-35 than to build one that is less capable and more expensive just so it can make a carrier landing. If the F-35B can do that anyway, then might as well save two million dollars, add a lift fan, and you've got a more versatile fighter than what you would have had before.

 

The Air Force version is the cheapest, which explains why it doesn't have VSTOL, but the carrier version being the most expensive of the three should be scrubbed as a bad investment. The F-22 is like the Air Force version of the F-35 and it can't be modified for much beyond the air-superiority role, so that is a good reason to scrub that program as well.

[Q]

I'd be willing to bet that the V/STOL version will not be nearly as capable payload- and range-wise as the carrier version.

 

I'm actually in favor of the F-22's cancellation. The design's gestation has already taken over 20 years, which is ridiculous and hardly represents the state of the art that the Air Force has always tried to represent it as.

 

The F-35 should be able to fit the bill if prices could be kept under control by it's adoption by all three services. As such it could come to represent the late Robert MacNamara's dream come true. The F-111 was his attempt to build such an aircraft and save money through commonality, but the technology just wasn't available at the time to be able to pull it off. Maybe now it is.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I'd be willing to bet that the V/STOL version will not be nearly as capable payload- and range-wise as the carrier version.

 

The aircraft that would achieve the best performance is the Air Force variant. The Marine variant pays a penalty in dead weight from the lift fan, but so does the carrier version in the construction of its superstructure. If the carrier version is going to suffer a loss in performance, the Navy might as well equip its version with a lift fan as well.

 

That's another primary feature that the F-22 has not been able to accomplish, but the F-35 has.

[JediAthos]

The aircraft that would achieve the best performance is the Air Force variant. The Marine variant pays a penalty in dead weight from the lift fan, but so does the carrier version in the construction of its superstructure. If the carrier version is going to suffer a loss in performance, the Navy might as well equip its version with a lift fan as well.

 

That's another primary feature that the F-22 has not been able to accomplish, but the F-35 has.

 

I see your point, DY, and it is valid, but at the same time like EvilQ said...unless the VSTOL variant could achieve the mission range, and payload requirements that the Navy requires for its missions it wouldn't be effective as a carrier based strike fighter. I'm guessing, just guessing mind you, that it probably can't otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to develop and test the carrier base F-35 variant.

 

I don't think the F-22 was ever intended for naval use, while the F-35 would be the successor to the current generation of F-18 aircraft.

[Prime]

@Sithy Never make an I quit thread unless you mean it. Also, welcome back mang

I nearly fell out of my chair. Welcome back indeed!

[Darth_Yuthura]

I see your point, DY, and it is valid, but at the same time like EvilQ said...unless the VSTOL variant could achieve the mission range, and payload requirements that the Navy requires for its missions it wouldn't be effective as a carrier based strike fighter. I'm guessing, just guessing mind you, that it probably can't otherwise it wouldn't make much sense to develop and test the carrier base F-35 variant.

 

That would be accurate. The carrier variant does carry additional fuel both in the extended wings and in the space where the lift fan in the B model would occupy. To overcome this issue, I believe they have designed drop tanks that extend the range, but allow the plane to retain its stealth characteristics. I haven't verified this, though.

 

I also thought that the F-22 was supposed to have a carrier variant, but it might make sense that it never came into production. The F-15 was supposed to have a Naval variant as well, but that the weight penalties on the prototype(s) made it too impractical. That's why they adopted the F-14 instead solely for the Navy and didn't acquire any for the Air Force; it was their air superiority fighter.

 

PS: Is there something about this El Sitherino that I'm unaware of? I can guess, but I haven't seen him on this site before... at least not that I can remember. If not, then it's great to see you.

[swphreak]

I think we'd be fine with not producing anymore F-22s. Keep the ones we have, but don't buy anymore. Take the money that would've gone to the Raptors and buy more F-35s.

[Darth_Yuthura]

I think we'd be fine with not producing anymore F-22s. Keep the ones we have, but don't buy anymore. Take the money that would've gone to the Raptors and buy more F-35s.

 

That's all good and true, but one of the critical issues in regards to the F-117 that lead to its cancellation was its upkeep. Each time that it went on a mission meant having to go over to check and resurface its RAM (radar absorbent material) surface. The estimated cost of the F-22 for maintenance on the ground from one report was $45,000 per hour of flying time. And that lead to a question of the reliability of its RAM surface not being able to last a full mission.

 

The issue may not be buying more at this point, but we may have to consider decommissioning what already are in service. That may sound terrible to have wasted so much funding from taxpayers, but even more could be if we don't drop a program that's costing so much to maintain.

[mimartin]

@Sithy[/b] Never make an I quit thread unless you mean it. Also, welcome back mang

Nay, Sithy is beyond such asinine concepts placed on us mere mortals.

 

Glad to see you drop by El Sitherino, you were missed and the place is not the same without you. Hope you stick around.

 

As to the topic, I actually agree with El Sitherino.

[Darth_Yuthura]

As to the topic, I actually agree with El Sitherino.

 

Totally. That means top of the line Dragon Skin! Take the same amount of capital you'd spend on just one of those massively expensive fighters and invest it into improving the body armour's heat resistance and you might actually save some lives for a change.

 

But people still have their eyes on those multi-billion dollar programs for one or two superweapons nowadays.

[mimartin]

Totally. That means top of the line Dragon Skin!

Not in my opinion. I don't care what armor they use as long as it works in the field, protects the soldiers and will be worn by the soldiers. The best armor is the world is useless if it is so hot, uncomfortable or heavy that the soldiers will not wear it. So no, I don’t mean Dragon Skin, I mean any armor that meets the military’s standard and more important to me the soldiers’ standard. If it is Dragon Skin, then that is fine with me, but if it is something else that is fine with me too.

[Caius Fett]

Going back to the OP I think that we won't see the F22 going away anytime soon due to the fact that there are so many diferent states an localaties that would be affected by the discontinuation of this fighter. I seem to recall The Air Force not putting the F22 in its budget this year but congress added 12 F22's when the budget went for review. Politics plain and simple is the reason we wont see the F22 go away anytime soon.

 

And as an FYI I'm in the Air Force and stationed at a base where the F22 is, and I have had a chance to talk with Pilots of the F22 and they unanimously love the plane. In fact in force on force manuvers VS F-16's and F-15's they are undefeated.

 

I think the plane is hideously expensive and we should have them more as a deterent than as a replacement for the current gen fighters.

That being said however; there is a saying from a verry famous president that goes "walk softly and carry a big stick" & I'm a big proponnent of that.