Pentagon tests: F-22 has maintenance shortcomings
- Thread starter msbae
- Start date
Well, as long as those 187 planes get the job done in the future war with China that's coming in 20 years...
By the time the world changes enough that we have to go to war with China, the F-22 will be obsolete.
Of course, with a population of nearly 2 billion, the Raptor will probably go out like the german King Tiger: over powered and over-engineered superweapon taken out by superior numbers.
Of course, with a population of nearly 2 billion, the Raptor will probably go out like the german King Tiger: over powered and over-engineered superweapon taken out by superior numbers.
I really don't understand this fixation with A-1 Skyraiders..
A-1 Skyraiders suffer from the same problem that the A-10 has..it's no longer in production and the production jigs are long gone and the company that made them no longer exists..reverse engineering is not cost effective, re-engining is no longer possible as there are only a few Skyraiders left and the only flyable examples are in private hands..
http://www.aero-web.org/locator/manufact/douglas/a-1.htm
and the USAF can no longer afford a single use aircraft.. now unmanned drones are doing some of the jobs that the A-1 did...and the A-10 is a worthy descendant is going to be used for a long time..esp. to support special ops troops in areas in which we have total air supremacy..but the MULTIROLE F-35 will be the aircraft of the future for the USAF..and it will be able to handle Russian/Chinese built aircraft for sometime to come..
It's prudent to plan and equip for the worst possible engagement..any one who makes the assumption that wars of the future will be just like the last war needs to see how the Maginot Line faired during WW2...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maginot_Line
Basically, I'm thinking any inexpensive prop-driven aircraft that can mount a set of .50 caliber machineguns and some small guided missiles. Or basically, something that can do the job of a Huey Cobra, but move a bit faster and have a longer flight range. Not that the Cobras themselves wouldn't also be apt for the job...
And doing them exceptionally poorly at that. I'm just thinking that IF the use of a manned aircraft is even necessary in what is essentially a global drive-by shooting campaign, the idea platform is something cheap and unsophisticated that has high marks in very gross performance ratings like flight range and stability.
Sure is... ONCE YOU KNOW WHAT THAT ENGAGEMENT IS. It is, on the other hand, profoundly silly to develop billion-dollar weapon systems for wars that might happen. You identify your enemy, you figure out how he fights and what he has, and THEN you design a weapon system to make your tactics more effective. The F-22 was designed to take on the Soviet Union, and--strangely enough--so was the F-35.
Great Example! The Maginot line failed because the Germans carefully studied French tactics and weapons and then meticulously developed a battle strategy custom made to defeat it. They were able to do this because the French assumptions about their national defense were based on the lessons learned from WWI, with no consideration that both the weapons and tactics had changed and the next war would probably look nothing like WWI. The same thing happened to the Americans at Pearl Harbor, and we were able to achieve victory in the end only by putting those assumptions to bed and very quickly retooling and developing totally new weapon systems capable of taking on the Japanese.
Same difference here. Lockheed has sold the U.S. Air Force a weapon designed for the Cold War. If--God forbid--we ever end up in a war with China, they'll have had upwards of three decades to analyze every facet of our weapons systems and figure out tactics specifically designed to neutralize them. Arguably they've already done this with the U.S. Navy, developing a line of extremely stealthy submarines with an alarming knack for closing in on carrier groups undetected. It's a safe bet they have/soon will develop an air defense technique that would render the F-22 effectively useless; when that happens, it becomes necessary to develop NEW weapons and tactics, just as the U.S. Navy had to do after December 7.
Well, we were involved in an air war in Europe as recently as the late 90s, there has been rising anti-American sentiment in Latin America and East Asia is probably the most important region of all, as we see a growing and advancing China putting alot of effort into sophisticated weapons technology. If we don't push forward and constantly advance, they certainly will and they will over take us militarily. As I mentioned in other threads, a military is always a good bargaining tool to have, even if you don't use it.
^^^Read my mind. Also, it's worth noting that war can break out anywhere at anytime. I'm surprised we still haven't fought any wars on the African continent yet. We've bombed the shit out of just about everywhere else. (No, rattling Libya's cage in 1986 doesn't count. That was just Reagan showing Gaddafi who was Butch and who was Bitch.)
That, and Adolf probably knew more about Military history than the French leadership. The Maginot Line was France's version of the Great Wall of China. When it came time for the Wehrmacht to invade France, they did the same thing the Mongols did when invading China. They just went around the fixed fortifications. That's why General Patton called them 'monuments to the stupidity of Man' or something to that effect.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-48_Enforcer
Sorry, that ship has sailed..
I was in the USAF when that aircraft was evaluated, it didn't meet USAF operational requirements..frankly the A-10A (which the USAF already had in large numbers) beat the pants off of it...
Brazil has one.. and it has found favor in light counter insurgency operations..but not in heavy combat operations..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano
That's my point. There are no current or potential/future hotspots where the F-22 would be even slightly useful. Even the "air war" in the 90s was a bombing campaign with no air-to-air combat involved.
Give it time, Alpha. Give it time.
Time my ass. I don't care how long you wait around, the Soviet Union is NOT going to time-travel en masse to the 21st century with a fleet of Su-37s, and the next runner ups lack the motive, the means and the will to launch that kind of war.
Unequivocally: the only way the F-22 is ever going to see combat against anything RESEMBLING a modern air force is if the U.S. declares war on Israel. Even China is a non-starter, since--lacking aircraft carriers or any serious long range expeditionary capabilities--the only way we will ever get into a major war is if WE invade THEM.
Unequivocally: the only way the F-22 is ever going to see combat against anything RESEMBLING a modern air force is if the U.S. declares war on Israel. Even China is a non-starter, since--lacking aircraft carriers or any serious long range expeditionary capabilities--the only way we will ever get into a major war is if WE invade THEM.
And all this really assumes the F-22 is as effective as frequently advertised. From the very same article in the OP:
All of this spells "clusterfuck" to me. It's an overhyped superweapon, what Gates accurately described as a "silver-bullet niche weapon", and--as it turns out--not even a particularly well designed one.
All of this spells "clusterfuck" to me. It's an overhyped superweapon, what Gates accurately described as a "silver-bullet niche weapon", and--as it turns out--not even a particularly well designed one.
Oh now that would be funny. A war where the entire combined force of the military arsenal is US-made.
And probably US-trained.
somebody in the airforce should be shot for the above. It's Boeing's cluster fuck (whether it came from their supplie or not) they should bear the cost of the maintaence - anyone else would of had the responsiblity to fix the mess themselves.
The Bosnian War was the latest true Air to Air war..the Iraqi Air Force stayed on the ground during the last Iraq invasion.
http://www.iamfritz.com/Fritzfx/miltales.html
Please note these engagements had the Serbs using their most advanced fighter aircraft purchased from Russia..And this WILL happen again..we won't be spending forever just screwing around with Afghanistan..
I agree we need F-35s much more than we need F-22s..(Frankly I was pulling for the YF-23 as it was faster and had greater weapons carrying capacity and was stealthier and CHEAPER built by a company that has consistantly delivered on time and under budget) but again, the jigs are not being destroyed, so if China gets frisky or Russia sells an expansionist Iran Su-35s and we need to build up a force of F-22s, we can build them rather quickly.
An upgraded F-35 variant (with upgraded engines, thrust vectoring and better radar and missile capacity optimised for the air to air role ) could fill that gap..
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F35-030509.xml
Increased funding (as directed by the Administration) put into F-35 testing will eliminate the delay as the delay is more to lack of funds for testing than actual program delays..
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003175295&cpage=1
And the F-22s successor is probably already on the CAD computers..
http://idrw.org/?p=230
it may actually be cheaper than the flyaway cost of the F-22..
And the U.S. was able to dominate them, decisively, with conventional F-15s and F-16s. Mainly this is because the Serbian aircraft either didn't engage aggressively (fired off a few missiles and then ran for it) or were destroyed on the ground (bombed from the air by cruise missiles and strike fighters). Since it has always been the case that any fighter plane is only as good as its pilot, I'd put my money on a U.S. pilot in an F-16 over a Serbian pilot in an Su-37 any day of the week.
We don't even need the F-35... actually we don't need a stealth fighter at all, let alone an supertech plane like the F-35 is turning out to be (it has most of the same problems as the F-22, only it's designed to do a lot less so it's less of an issue).
Or we can simply build more F-15s and 16s, which would be perfectly adequate for the task at hand. If you somehow think the F-15 isn't up to the task (though I gaurantee you it is) an upgrade to the Eagle could be accomplished fairly cheaply, adding some canard surfaces and vectored exhausts.
The F-22 doesn't need a successor. It needs a REPLACEMENT.
However, the F-15 will never be stealthy. That's a problem that just can't be fixed with a few refits.