$140,000,000 goes up in smoke in Californian desert
- Thread starter Deimos Anomaly
- Start date
TheWifeOfBrian
Lieutenant Commander
Well after wasting that much money they're gonna kill him anyway regardless. 
Seriously I hope the pilot ejected.
Seriously I hope the pilot ejected.
140 million for the F-22 is an exaggeration.
It is only that much if you amortize the R & D over the relatively few aircraft projected to be purchased.
Like when they like to talk about B-2 bombers costing 2.2 billion each.
When in reality, B-2 bombers cost around 600 million to build.
It is only that much if you amortize the R & D over the relatively few aircraft projected to be purchased.
Like when they like to talk about B-2 bombers costing 2.2 billion each.
When in reality, B-2 bombers cost around 600 million to build.
It was probably a nav-computer failure. Wouldn't be the first time and would only go to further prove my theory that the F-22 is one of the biggest wastes of money and all-around mistakes in the history of military weaponry.
What would you suggest the U.S. count on air superiority with?
35 year old F-15s and/or 30 year old F-16s?
All U.S. military plans operate under the assumption that the U.S. has total air superiority.
Well for starters, the YF-23 is a much better airplane. (That probably would have cost less.) So what if it looks weird?
But there were so many other options. The U.S. could have bought into the Typhoon, for instance. There was the F-20 that was never given its fair shot. (Despite its problems with its computers, it show lots of promise as an interceptor.)
There was the STF-15/MTD [STOL Fighter] that was used to test a lot of the technologies used in the F-22 (And they worked better.)
Some had suggested modifying the F-18 Growler (Scheduled to go into service later this year.) for Air force use. The Growler is a Jammer variant of the Super Hornet, but all of the avionics have been updated and are brand new. It would simply be a matter of removing the superfluous electronics and installing more advances weapons systems.
The problem is, the suits were hell-bent on making a stealth fighter. However, stealth isn't nearly as practice as some "experts" make it out to sound. Plus, with rapid advancements in low-frequency radar and sonar, it won't be long before it starts to become obsolete.
The fact of the matter is, the days of a true air-superiority-fighter are all but over. And while I know they said the same thing before Vietnam, computers really changed things. It's the era of Attackers and High-Speed Interceptors--neither of which the F-22 does very well. Give a decent pilot a MiG-31 with low frequency raider, and a good navigator and he'll serve that F-22 up on a silver platter. Never mind one flying one of the new Sukhois.
It was a project fronted by jingoism and lobbyists all at the taxpayers' expense.
But there were so many other options. The U.S. could have bought into the Typhoon, for instance. There was the F-20 that was never given its fair shot. (Despite its problems with its computers, it show lots of promise as an interceptor.)
There was the STF-15/MTD [STOL Fighter] that was used to test a lot of the technologies used in the F-22 (And they worked better.)
Some had suggested modifying the F-18 Growler (Scheduled to go into service later this year.) for Air force use. The Growler is a Jammer variant of the Super Hornet, but all of the avionics have been updated and are brand new. It would simply be a matter of removing the superfluous electronics and installing more advances weapons systems.
The problem is, the suits were hell-bent on making a stealth fighter. However, stealth isn't nearly as practice as some "experts" make it out to sound. Plus, with rapid advancements in low-frequency radar and sonar, it won't be long before it starts to become obsolete.
The fact of the matter is, the days of a true air-superiority-fighter are all but over. And while I know they said the same thing before Vietnam, computers really changed things. It's the era of Attackers and High-Speed Interceptors--neither of which the F-22 does very well. Give a decent pilot a MiG-31 with low frequency raider, and a good navigator and he'll serve that F-22 up on a silver platter. Never mind one flying one of the new Sukhois.
It was a project fronted by jingoism and lobbyists all at the taxpayers' expense.
Sounds like the F-22 is a bit of a turkey then - maybe that's why the U.S won't export them - don't want people to know really how bad they are.
Australia is getting for the F-35 Joint Strike Turkeys though with the delays there it's bought some F-18 Super hornets. The JSF was supposed to replace the existing F/A-18's and the F-111s which will be grounded permenantly in the next few years (they've been keep flying with parts and airframes purchased from the U.S after it phased them).
The defence minister did raise with the U.S SecDef under Bush about getting Raptors but the export restriction stayed.
We could of looked to the Typhoon but the last government was too close to the Bush Administration to see objectively.
Hell if a if a western country licenced some of the new Mig and Sukhoi designs air warfare would get very interesting - Russians have always had some damn good designers and airframes.
Australia is getting for the F-35 Joint Strike Turkeys though with the delays there it's bought some F-18 Super hornets. The JSF was supposed to replace the existing F/A-18's and the F-111s which will be grounded permenantly in the next few years (they've been keep flying with parts and airframes purchased from the U.S after it phased them).
The defence minister did raise with the U.S SecDef under Bush about getting Raptors but the export restriction stayed.
We could of looked to the Typhoon but the last government was too close to the Bush Administration to see objectively.
Hell if a if a western country licenced some of the new Mig and Sukhoi designs air warfare would get very interesting - Russians have always had some damn good designers and airframes.
Well that blows. RIP to the poor guy. I have a lot of friends who are pilots (albeit not fighter pilots) and that's like the nightmare scenario.
Condolences to his family.
I was hoping he got out. My condolences to his family and friends.
My condolences to his family and friends.The F-20 was no real improvement over the F-16 except for being cheaper.
The modified F-15s can supermanuever, but they are huge radar targets.
The only actual plane that was probably superior to the F-22 Raptor was the F-23 Black Widow. It was faster and stealthier.
But the Air Force reportedly did not like the lay out of its weapons bays which meant that if one weapon jammed on its launcher it would block all the other weapons in the bay from being dropped.
And given that no U.S. plane has been lost in air to air combat since Vietnam and no U.S. soldier on the ground has been killed by enemy aircraft since the Korean War, I wouldn't claim that air superiority was dead yet.
And by the way, the MIG-31 is simply a modified MIG-25. Upgrade of a 45 year old design.
No way it would do jack against an F-22.
Thanks to the success of unmanned drones in the Iraq war, I think the days of the fighter pilot are numbered. It costs, what -- under $100,000 for a drone that any kid over the age of 14 who plays first-person shooter games, can master. The pilot of the drone can be all the way around the world in safety while flying a mission. If the drone is destroyed, the economic loss is minimal compared to a multi-million dollar fighter. Add the cost if the pilot dies.
I don't think the days of the fighter pilot are over. But what I do see is scaling back and reorganization of organic military assets (as a former coworker who was a ex-marine DI called them) in terms of the airforce. Drones are all well and good, but nothing beats a good ole mark-1 eyeball on the scene and in the fray.
Plecostomus
Commodore
The British declared the day of the pilot over many decades ago. As SeerSBG says sometimes you need someone on the spot to make a judgment call. The pile of organic sludge called the Human Mind can make some amazing leaps of logic that a computer can't.
Even the days of the aircraft carrier are numbered. There was a time when no one thought battleships would be rendered obsolete, and here they've been "outgunned" by smaller vessels such as guided missile cruisers and destroyers. I'm not saying it's happening tomorrow, but for the cost of a fighter and training a pilot a plethora of drones and other hardware can be built. It's all evolving.
^^Not to mention humans don't have to worry about a com-sat going down at a bad time. Human pilots may be fallible, but they can work around and develop new solutions when they're cut off from their command structure or even ignore commands when need; such as in case when they are clearly mistakes or based on faulty information.
I don't think so. I'll agree that the day of the supper-carrier might be numbered-- three or four decades, at least. But carriers are to valuable in terms of force-projection and mobile command centers (for want of a term) to simply throw the baby out with the bath water.
I don't think so. I'll agree that the day of the supper-carrier might be numbered-- three or four decades, at least. But carriers are to valuable in terms of force-projection and mobile command centers (for want of a term) to simply throw the baby out with the bath water.
Similar threads
