"Of course, the $411 million Raptor doesn’t fight any wars. America’s premiere aerial attack plane was kept out of conflicts from Iraq to Afghanistan to Libya. And that was back when it was deemed airworthy."
It is getting pretty close to yellow journalism.
The F-22 has problems. More so, those problems point directly at USAF leadership and less so with the design of the aircraft. The F-22 is the only machine that we have to maintain regional air domination...in areas where short-ranged fighter aircraft can be used for such work. Unlike the F-35 which won't be useful for any kind of war we engage in--certainly not given the money it will consume.
The fact that the F-22 hasn't been in Libya is more a sign of poor strategic leadership. Just like the poor strategic leadership that put us in Libya in the first place.
As for the original Operation: USELESS DIRT duo; we haven't used nuclear ballistic missiles either. I guess we should get rid of those.
.
7 comments:
The F-22 requires a large support establishment to employ it in effective numbers. It is not an expeditionary aircraft.
Interesting theory, as there has already been one ME deployment that went well (non-war) and another deployment elsewhere that had high sustained MC rates.
If there is something wrong with the F-22, fly it, find it and fix it. If there is nothing wrong with the F-22, just fly it. There is something funny going on here. When things don't make sense, look for the sinister.
Operating costs of F-16 and F-18 are well known and Super Hornet apparently requires more sophisticated infrastructure than either.
Support requirements and operating costs seem to soar exponentially for stealth/VLO things, getting to the situation wherein few nations can afford to acquire and operate such sophisticated gear.
With world economic stagnation for a decade or more clearly imminent, nations will have to become much more cost conscious regarding defence acquisitions and operating costs. My guess is both the F-22 and F-35 might never be operated by other than the US.
Military involvement in reasonably permissive air environments is more likely than high end conflicts, so enhancement of proven platforms like the F-16 will foresseably be marketable into the foreseeable future. Most of the R&D for optimisation of the F-16 (like the F-16XL) has already been accomplished and it might be what keeps LM ticking over if the F-35 program founders.
I predict the F-35 will be a success and her haters will have eggs on their faces while F-22 will go down history as a turkey.
An empire 'on it's last feet' produced the trailblazing Messerschmitt 262. The best fighter of its time. An empire 'on it's last feet' produced the trailblazing F-22A Raptor. The first suffered from a lack of gas. The second suffers from a lack of loot & leadership.
Both suffer from fielding in too small numbers. The F-35 Thud II is not a trailblazer, no need to be.
After 2020 -2025, it will be a good fighter-bomber. But it comes too late with an unaffordable price.
The small Raptor force needs help from a light weight, multi-role, carrier capable, STOL, highly agile, long range, cheap fighter. Designer: keep it simple stupid!
I have been a strong supporter of the F-22, but the F-22 and F-35 are handicapped by their short range and short weapon bays which cannot hold very long range AAMs. The Pak T-50 and J-20 are leading the way as their weapon bays can hold larger very long range AAMs which will render the f-22 and F-35ineffective. A much larger longer range interceptor is needed which may be could be built off the shelf by designing a much larger supersonic version of the X-47 with 2 F136 engines and an internal payload of 12000 lbs accomodating extended range JDRAMs. It would have advanced AESA and IRST features and actually no cannon. it could be built off the shelf as materials and subsystems would reflect what is already available. The extended range JDRAM still would have to be developped of course too.
Post a Comment