# Save the F22 Raptor fighter plane



## Munin

*"* *Aerial Combat*
*The Air Force tries to save a fighter plane that's never seen battle.*






In the next few weeks, on into the spring and beyond, the U.S. Air Force is likely to wage one of the most ferocious battles it has seen in decades, a fight that many of its generals regard as a life-or-death struggle&#8212;a war to save the F-22 Raptor fighter plane.


The skirmishes began a little more than a year ago, when Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that he was halting the plane's production. The nation had already bought 187 of them, at a total cost of $65 billion (nearly $350 million apiece), and that was more than enough.

Exhibit A was the plane's own combat record&#8212;or, rather, its lack of one. Not a single Air Force commander has sent a single F-22 into harm's way in any of the wars the United States has fought these past few years. Designed during the Cold War for air-to-air combat against the Soviet air force over the battlefield of Europe, the plane seems ill-suited&#8212;either overdesigned or simply useless&#8212;for any wars we're likely to fight in the coming decade or so.
But the Air Force brass is dominated by fighter pilots who still see air-to-air combat as the service's main mission; they took Gates' declaration as fighting words, and they fought back. They wanted 381 F-22s, and a couple of high-ranking officers told industry journals that they would continue to demand 381. The secretary's decision, they said, was "wrong."


Gen. Norton Schwartz, recently named the Air Force chief of staff, has reportedly scaled back the request, saying he would settle for an additional 60 planes&#8212;bringing the total to 247&#8212;to be purchased over the next three years. Schwartz may be sincere; he is the first chief in the Air Force's 62-year history who has never been a fighter pilot. Since the plane has long been produced at a rate of 20 per year, however, many skeptics&#8212;and several Air Force officers&#8212;see the chief's offer not as a compromise but as a foot in the door.

Meanwhile, Lockheed Martin, the plane's main contractor, has threatened to start shutting down production&#8212;and laying off workers&#8212;on March 1 unless the Obama administration commits to buying more planes. (One senior Pentagon official says this deadline is a bluff. In any case, though President Obama will issue the fiscal year 2010 budget on Feb. 26, the document will state only the "top-line" numbers for each department; the details&#8212;not just for the F-22, but for all programs, defense and otherwise&#8212;won't be released, or in many cases decided, until April.)

The economic argument stands as the F-22's last best hope. When the plane went into development in the 1980s, the Air Force was careful to spread around the contracts and subcontracts to as many congressional districts, to build as much political support for the plane, as possible. As a result, 1,150 firms in 46 states are involved in building or maintaining the F-22.


This has been a time-honored practice in big-ticket weapons procurement as far back as the late 1950s, when the Army's Nike-Zeus missile-defense system came under attack&#8212;from Congress, White House scientists, and senior officials in the Pentagon&#8212;and the Army fought back by spreading out the program's subcontracts to 37 states. (When John Kennedy was elected president, his defense secretary, Robert McNamara, killed the program anyway&#8212;at least for a while.)


"Saving jobs" has long been the most effective&#8212;often it's the only honest&#8212;argument for keeping a weapons program alive. Given the massive federal spending in President Obama's economic stimulus package, it might work for the F-22 in Congress, if not in the executive branch.
But the president has urged the nation's mayors and governors not to waste the bag of money that they'll soon be handed, and Congress should heed the same message.


For strictly on the merits, there is only a raggedy case to keep buying more F-22s.


The F-22 was developed in the 1980s as one of several aircraft&#8212;the B-2 bomber and F-117 attack plane were others&#8212;to incorporate "stealth" technology: flat, rounded surfaces and special materials that together made the plane all but invisible to radar.

The F-117 saw action in the 1991 Gulf War and in Bosnia, but its stealthiness played only a limited, if important, role. On the first night of the Gulf War, two F-117s flew into Iraq undetected and destroyed key air-defense radar sites, allowing dozens of other allied planes to follow their flight paths with little danger. In Bosnia, Serbian air-defense crews shot down one F-117. (The plane was flying in daylight, when it could be spotted by the human eye.) *"* The Air Force tries to save a fighter plane that's never seen combat. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

This is probably one of the best fighter planes of the US air force.


----------



## Andrew2382

The most advanced fighter in the world bar none---funding should no tgo away...not with a russia who is trying to rebuild and china...As well as India who is trying to dominate the skies.

To have complete air dominance we always have to be 2 generations above the next, which is what the F-22 is


----------



## Andrew2382

http://www.f-16.net/news_article1916.html

In recent exercises over Alaska, the F-22 has been put to the test. The results have been staggering. F-22s notched an impressive 108 to 0 "kill ratio" - often when outnumbered by as much as 8 to 1 by simulated Su-27/30 aircraft. 

In a very real sense, this is a preview of what is to come for forces facing the F-22. The F-15 and F-18 scored a 2:1 kill ratio against the simulated Flankers. This is not the only time that F-22s have shown their capabilities. Eight F-22s faced off against 33 F-15Cs earlier this year, and "shot down" all of the F-15Cs with no loss to itself. 

Why does the F-22 dominate? The answer lies in the two biggest rules of air combat. The first rule is, "Speed is life." The F-22 has speed &#8211; reaching nearly 2,600 kilometers per hour, and having the ability go faster (up to 1,830 kilometers per hour) than the speed of sound without using its afterburners. It is faster than a Eurofighter, Flanker, or Rafale. It can catch its target, or get out of a situation, should that rare occasion arise. 

The second rule is, "Lose the sight, lose the fight." The F-22 is very capable of making an opponent "lose sight" of it &#8211; often through its stealth features that cause enemy radars to perform poorly when looking for an F-22. This means the F-22 will "see" its opponent far sooner than it will be seen itself. In aerial combat, 80 percent of those planes killed in air-to-air combat never knew the opponent that killed them was there. 

In a very real sense, the F-22 is the superfighter of the 21st Century. The F-22 is emerging as a long-range fighter (with a range of over 3200 kilometers), capable of fighting when outnumbered 4 to 1 (or more), and it also has significant edges in the areas of speed and stealth. The F-22 is proving to be a very reliable plane (with less than 7 percent of sorties being aborted). Some problems have emerged as the F-22 joins the operational force, most notably with a titanium boom on the first 80 planes, but these problems are being fixed. The F-22's high speed and performance also gives weapons like the AMRAAM and JDAM much more range than from the F-15E or F-16. 

The F-22's biggest weakness seems to be its price tag ($361 million per plane*). But it is quickly proving it is capable of clearing the skies against as many as eight opponents per F-22. When you consider that the Eurofighter costs $58 million per plane, and the Rafale pushes $66 million, while the F-35C pushes $61 million, the F-22 isn't that bad, particularly when two F-22s at $274 million** can easily wipe out eight Eurofighters at $464 million. 

While the U.S. Air Force may be engaging in some puffery when it comes to describing the F-22, the track record of new American combat aircraft over the last few decades, indicates that the F-22 is, indeed, an impressive combat aircraft. But, as with any warplane, it won't be until the aircraft actually experiences combat, that it's reputation can be established as more than just potential. &#8211; Harold C. Hutchiso


----------



## Munin

I think the number of F22 planes is not the most important issue, the most important thing is that it keeps existing and keeps being produced (and still being active for combat operations). The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale, if you have a fighter plane that is nearly invisible then your enemy will thinks twice before sending any fighter in the air. It may even lead to the decision to keep the whole air force of an enemy grounded just because of the existence of this 1 superfighter. War is all about psychology, if you can use that in your advantage then that is a major advantage that  can even decide the whole war. Every weapon you can put up is one that your enemy will have counter, the better weapons you can put up the more lives you will save.

Also it would be idiotic to just throw away all the research $ put into develop this plane.

If there is one thing we have learned from WWII and other big wars, then it is that the air superiority has played an essential psychological and military role in those wars.


----------



## Xenophon

The F-15 was designed during the Vietnam war.

Saying the Raptor was designed 'during the cold war' is a stupid comment.

Modern combat aircraft typically have 10 years or more lead time in design.

Our F-15s are litterally falling to pieces, they must be replaced.


----------



## DiveCon

just wait till they can develope a ground attack variation
then they will change their minds, just like they did for the F-15E


----------



## Munin

DiveCon said:


> just wait till they can develope a ground attack variation
> then they will change their minds, just like they did for the F-15E








Isn't the F35 the new F16?  ( the ground attack variation of the F15 )

Just like the F22 is the new F15?


----------



## DiveCon

Munin said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> just wait till they can develope a ground attack variation
> then they will change their minds, just like they did for the F-15E
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't the F35 the new F16? ( the ground attack variation of the F15 )
> 
> Just like the F22 is the new F15?
Click to expand...

yes, the F22 is supposed to replace the F15
and the F35 is supposed to replace the F16, F18, A10, AV8B(USMC Harrier)

but i think they made too many compromises on the F35 so it wont be the best in ANY of the roles its slated to fill


----------



## Article 15

I found how many are assigned and operational so far:



> The F-22 Raptor is built by Lockheed Martin teamed with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney. Parts and subsystems are provided by approximately 1,000 suppliers in 44 U.S. states. Lockheed Martin has delivered 127 Raptors to the U.S. Air Force.



Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Reaches Milestone In Maturity | Lockheed Martin


----------



## Article 15

At this point they should keep going.

Continue production!


----------



## Terry

The F22 Raptor is by far the best jet I have seen!  They are awesome to watch, and I wouldn't want to be the sucker on this jets sites


----------



## Munin

What I wonder is wether Lockheed Martin is asking too much money for their products and ripping off tax-payers by doing so. 

This is not the only expensive product of that company, take the new "marine one" choppers for example: McCain questions Obama about helicopter at summit


----------



## sealybobo

Kill this project.  They didn't use these planes in Iraq or Afgan.  Obsolete!  And how many of these planes do we have already?  

Sorry that the people who work for these companies will have to find new jobs, but their salaries were being paid for with tax payer dollars.  That means, don't expect us to continue making planes just to save your jobs.

Go out and find a new job.  Or maybe go back to school and retrain yourself.  It's all about choices.  These people just made bad choices in life.  

And anyone can make it in America if they work hard and try.  So we shouldn't even blink an eye abotu these people losing their jobs.


----------



## Andrew2382

lol, you really are justa  piece of dog shit sealy....

You have India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI which is already on par with the F-16 and F/18 we have today.

And the Russians have already created the Su-47 which exceeds both planes in agility and speed.

What keeps this country the most dominant military force int he world is our air superiorty and you want to take that away by getting rid of the most advanced fighter in the world.

You are a real cocksucker sealy....you obviosuly hate our military and don't want to give them the best equipment available.

The reason they don't use these planes in Iraq and Afghan is because we already control the air up there and there is no need....these are air to air combat planes....their design is to blow up the enemy jets from 100 miles away b4 they are even seen.

But you wouldn't know that you partisan **** rag


----------



## sealybobo

Andrew2382 said:


> lol, you really are justa  piece of dog shit sealy....
> 
> You have India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI which is already on par with the F-16 and F/18 we have today.
> 
> And the Russians have already created the Su-47 which exceeds both planes in agility and speed.
> 
> What keeps this country the most dominant military force int he world is our air superiorty and you want to take that away by getting rid of the most advanced fighter in the world.
> 
> You are a real cocksucker sealy....you obviosuly hate our military and don't want to give them the best equipment available.
> 
> The reason they don't use these planes in Iraq and Afghan is because we already control the air up there and there is no need....these are air to air combat planes....their design is to blow up the enemy jets from 100 miles away b4 they are even seen.
> 
> But you wouldn't know that you partisan **** rag



The fact is, we don't need to be pumping these off the assembly line when they aren't being used.  

How many do we already have built?  How many more do we need?  

How about we scrap the program, keep all the existing F22's in great condition should we ever need them, and invest in the next fighter plane?  One that will kick the F22's ass.

I'm all for having the best technology.  This just sounds like a waste.  And because it is a waste, now they are crying about jobs.  

Sorry, if the "free market" can't keep em in business, then let them die.  LOL.  

PS.  Or, we could raise your taxes to pay for F22's.  Are you willing to pay for them?  Because so far, you haven't been willing to pay for a god damn thing.  In fact, you are asking for tax breaks.  

(I'm assuming you are a republican)


----------



## Andrew2382

sealybobo said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you really are justa  piece of dog shit sealy....
> 
> You have India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI which is already on par with the F-16 and F/18 we have today.
> 
> And the Russians have already created the Su-47 which exceeds both planes in agility and speed.
> 
> What keeps this country the most dominant military force int he world is our air superiorty and you want to take that away by getting rid of the most advanced fighter in the world.
> 
> You are a real cocksucker sealy....you obviosuly hate our military and don't want to give them the best equipment available.
> 
> The reason they don't use these planes in Iraq and Afghan is because we already control the air up there and there is no need....these are air to air combat planes....their design is to blow up the enemy jets from 100 miles away b4 they are even seen.
> 
> But you wouldn't know that you partisan **** rag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, we don't need to be pumping these off the assembly line when they aren't being used.
> 
> How many do we already have built?  How many more do we need?
> 
> How about we scrap the program, keep all the existing F22's in great condition should we ever need them, and invest in the next fighter plane?  One that will kick the F22's ass.
> 
> I'm all for having the best technology.  This just sounds like a waste.  And because it is a waste, now they are crying about jobs.
> 
> Sorry, if the "free market" can't keep em in business, then let them die.  LOL.
> 
> PS.  Or, we could raise your taxes to pay for F22's.  Are you willing to pay for them?  Because so far, you haven't been willing to pay for a god damn thing.  In fact, you are asking for tax breaks.
> 
> (I'm assuming you are a republican)
Click to expand...


This is how fuckign stupid you are...you obviously know nothing about these jets and what competition is out there.

We have approximately 130 F-22's...hardly a number that the US airforce is comfortable with...their inital order was around 800 of them, they have now cut back to about 500.

India's SU-30 and Russian Su-47 will exceed the F-15 and F-18 as superior jets since they both have thrust vectoring and great agility and speed....the only plane that would be its equal or slightly higher is the F-35 lightning.  However that is a muti nation jet unlike the F-22 which as of now is strictly going to the United States.

However as expensive as this jet is you don't realize the USA is thinking about selling it to other countries with a hefty price tag...ie- Japan wants it, Australia, England, and obviously Israel.

The reason you pump these off the assembly line is so that you don't have to use them...its the threat that keeps the enemy at bay as well as the firepower laid against them.  Would you attack someone with a slingshot knowing they had a machine gun on them?

They probably already are investing in the next generation fighter...however we will never know about it until they release it in 10-15 years...remember the F-22 concept was brought up in the 80's.

But then again, it seems you hate our military...air force in general and don't want to give them every edge if a battle broke out.


----------



## DiveCon

sealybobo said:


> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you really are justa  piece of dog shit sealy....
> 
> You have India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI which is already on par with the F-16 and F/18 we have today.
> 
> And the Russians have already created the Su-47 which exceeds both planes in agility and speed.
> 
> What keeps this country the most dominant military force int he world is our air superiorty and you want to take that away by getting rid of the most advanced fighter in the world.
> 
> You are a real cocksucker sealy....you obviosuly hate our military and don't want to give them the best equipment available.
> 
> The reason they don't use these planes in Iraq and Afghan is because we already control the air up there and there is no need....these are air to air combat planes....their design is to blow up the enemy jets from 100 miles away b4 they are even seen.
> 
> But you wouldn't know that you partisan **** rag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, we don't need to be pumping these off the assembly line when they aren't being used.
> 
> How many do we already have built?  How many more do we need?
> 
> How about we scrap the program, keep all the existing F22's in great condition should we ever need them, and invest in the next fighter plane?  One that will kick the F22's ass.
> 
> I'm all for having the best technology.  This just sounds like a waste.  And because it is a waste, now they are crying about jobs.
> 
> Sorry, if the "free market" can't keep em in business, then let them die.  LOL.
> 
> PS.  Or, we could raise your taxes to pay for F22's.  Are you willing to pay for them?  Because so far, you haven't been willing to pay for a god damn thing.  In fact, you are asking for tax breaks.
> 
> (I'm assuming you are a republican)
Click to expand...

you are a fucking moron


----------



## DiveCon

Andrew2382 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Andrew2382 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol, you really are justa piece of dog shit sealy....
> 
> You have India's Sukhoi Su-30 MKI which is already on par with the F-16 and F/18 we have today.
> 
> And the Russians have already created the Su-47 which exceeds both planes in agility and speed.
> 
> What keeps this country the most dominant military force int he world is our air superiorty and you want to take that away by getting rid of the most advanced fighter in the world.
> 
> You are a real cocksucker sealy....you obviosuly hate our military and don't want to give them the best equipment available.
> 
> The reason they don't use these planes in Iraq and Afghan is because we already control the air up there and there is no need....these are air to air combat planes....their design is to blow up the enemy jets from 100 miles away b4 they are even seen.
> 
> But you wouldn't know that you partisan **** rag
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, we don't need to be pumping these off the assembly line when they aren't being used.
> 
> How many do we already have built? How many more do we need?
> 
> How about we scrap the program, keep all the existing F22's in great condition should we ever need them, and invest in the next fighter plane? One that will kick the F22's ass.
> 
> I'm all for having the best technology. This just sounds like a waste. And because it is a waste, now they are crying about jobs.
> 
> Sorry, if the "free market" can't keep em in business, then let them die. LOL.
> 
> PS. Or, we could raise your taxes to pay for F22's. Are you willing to pay for them? Because so far, you haven't been willing to pay for a god damn thing. In fact, you are asking for tax breaks.
> 
> (I'm assuming you are a republican)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is how fuckign stupid you are...you obviously know nothing about these jets and what competition is out there.
> 
> We have approximately 130 F-22's...hardly a number that the US airforce is comfortable with...their inital order was around 800 of them, they have now cut back to about 500.
> 
> India's SU-30 and Russian Su-47 will exceed the F-15 and F-18 as superior jets since they both have thrust vectoring and great agility and speed....the only plane that would be its equal or slightly higher is the F-35 lightning. However that is a muti nation jet unlike the F-22 which as of now is strictly going to the United States.
> 
> However as expensive as this jet is you don't realize the USA is thinking about selling it to other countries with a hefty price tag...ie- Japan wants it, Australia, England, and obviously Israel.
> 
> The reason you pump these off the assembly line is so that you don't have to use them...its the threat that keeps the enemy at bay as well as the firepower laid against them. Would you attack someone with a slingshot knowing they had a machine gun on them?
> 
> They probably already are investing in the next generation fighter...however we will never know about it until they release it in 10-15 years...remember the F-22 concept was brought up in the 80's.
> 
> But then again, it seems you hate our military...air force in general and don't want to give them every edge if a battle broke out.
Click to expand...

bobo failed your idiot test a long time ago
LOL


----------



## Munin

I think this video explains why the F-15 needs to be replaced by a F-22:

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ZmnVqkKapI&feature=related[/ame]

Against more advanced fighters the F-15 will have a lot more difficulties and consequently more US casualties, I m not even sure if the F-15 has the upper hand against a the most advanced Sukhoi or MIG aircraft.


----------



## Terry

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jj7pd6kzd7Q]YouTube - 2006 AirPower Over Hampton Roads - F-22 Raptor - Friday[/ame]

What do you think was flying over the capital for OBAMA's swearing in, lefty moron!


----------



## Epsilon Delta

Ugh, $350 million on a fucking war plane. What a waste of money.


----------



## Cafi_007

I agree Sealy, always be ahead and invent with more advance planes...Russia already has T50 to compete with our F22.


----------



## Gadawg73

Facts ignored:
1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
4. 350 million a plane
5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.


----------



## DiveCon

Gadawg73 said:


> Facts ignored:
> 1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
> 2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
> 3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
> 4. 350 million a plane
> 5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
> 6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.


you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
that was a huge mistake


----------



## ekrem

Allthough not in serial production, it is anticipated to be produced by 2013.
It is the Russian equivalent to F-22

Sukhoi PAK FA - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## woodjack

Interesting enough the USAF is already talking about retiring the F-22 in 2025.  and they have yet to even finish making all of em yet.

Plan lays out aircraft acquisition through 2040 - Air Force News, news from Iraq - Air Force Times


----------



## JScott

There isnt a reason why production couldnt be scaled back, at least for now.

I agree we need to keep our defenses up but the cost is way too high for those planes.


----------



## Gadawg73

DiveCon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts ignored:
> 1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
> 2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
> 3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
> 4. 350 million a plane
> 5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
> 6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.
> 
> 
> 
> you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
> the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
> hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
> but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
> that was a huge mistake
Click to expand...


I stated the facts, that they are more versatile. 
Do you know what versatile means?
Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.


----------



## DiveCon

Gadawg73 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facts ignored:
> 1. The F-35 is by far a more versatile aircraft at a fraction of the cost.
> 2. US Dept of Defense ordered a stop to the production, not politicians.
> 3. Federal law bans exports to allies raising the cost per plane dramatically
> 4. 350 million a plane
> 5. Great plane but the 9 allied nations combined with the F-35 provide the same capabilities in this era for a fraction of the cost.
> 6. Raptor planes are sufficient for today's threat and a land based Chinese threat do not fit into their capabilities. F-35 do.
> 
> 
> 
> you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
> the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
> hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
> but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
> that was a huge mistake
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
> Do you know what versatile means?
> Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
> Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
> In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
> Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
> Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.
Click to expand...

please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them


----------



## Samson

Article 15 said:


> I found how many are assigned and operational so far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The F-22 Raptor is built by Lockheed Martin teamed with Boeing and Pratt & Whitney. Parts and subsystems are provided by approximately 1,000 suppliers in 44 U.S. states. Lockheed Martin has delivered 127 Raptors to the U.S. Air Force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor Reaches Milestone In Maturity | Lockheed Martin
Click to expand...


Sounds like another government employment program.

Yeah, we need another fucking fighter design: roads, and infrastructure be damned.

BTW after we spend a couple of 100 Billion on this program, will drones be ready to replace them?

NAHHHHHHH......of COURSE NOT!! LMAO.


----------



## Gadawg73

DiveCon said:


> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> you are either totally ignorant of the facts, or you are lying
> the F-35 is not any where near capable of doing the job of the F-22
> hell, its not even as good at the roles it was designed for as some of the aircraft it is replacing
> but they wanted one airframe to cover many missions
> that was a huge mistake
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
> Do you know what versatile means?
> Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
> Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
> In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
> Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
> Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
> the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
> the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them
Click to expand...


And what role is that in the war on terror?
A versatile F-35 is the best bang for the buck.
You are the one claiming I was ignorant and lying.


----------



## DiveCon

Gadawg73 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gadawg73 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stated the facts, that they are more versatile.
> Do you know what versatile means?
> Capability has nothing whatsoever to do with versatility. We used A-10s in the Iraq war which were refitted. They are early 1970s aircraft with superior maneuverability at low speeds which make them MORE VERSATILE. The large high aspect of ratio allows for short takeoffs and landings and they can loiter for long periods of times.
> Can the F-22 do that Einstein?
> In today's world the F-22 is an over priced and has too many shortcomings. It needs maintenance every 1.7 hours flown. They cost 350 million apiece and are 30 year old design. The plane costs 50K per hour just to fly. At present this fighter does not make precision bombing. So how can you claim it is versatile?
> Best fighter in the world but at approaching 400 million a plane we can not afford it. Present day threats of terrorism do not warrant this plane.
> Gates has it right, the Pentagon knows it and Bush knew it.
> 
> 
> 
> please show me where i said ANYTHING you are claiming i said
> the F-22 has a role, it is the BEST airframe for the role it has
> the F-35 has multiple roles, and it is not the best for ANY of them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what role is that in the war on terror?
> A versatile F-35 is the best bang for the buck.
> You are the one claiming I was ignorant and lying.
Click to expand...

so, you are another one that thinks inside the small box of only the enemy we see now

ok,


----------



## PatekPhilippe

Funny...it now seems that the F-35 will be more expensive to operate than the now retired F-14.  Funny how all that info comes out after dipshit cancelled the F-22 program.


----------



## onecut39

Munin said:


> Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.


----------



## Munin

onecut39 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.
Click to expand...


True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.


Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.


----------



## onecut39

Munin said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.
> 
> 
> Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.
Click to expand...


As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional"  war in the future?  If so, with whom?


----------



## Samson

Munin said:


> The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.



What "conventional enemies?"


----------



## Munin

onecut39 said:


> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.
> 
> 
> Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional"  war in the future?  If so, with whom?
Click to expand...


Yes conventional warfare is still possible, the biggest threat to US security at this moment is China. Ironically it is us that are funding their military indirectly, the reason for the war would be economical and political (ideology clash). Americans have fought the Chinese communists for more than decades (Vietnam + Korea wars) and the US is still indirectly at war with them: North (allied with China) vs South Korea (US ally). The war between the 2 Koreas is technically still going on.

Other than that there is the Taiwan Issue, which is a bit humiliating for the Chinese who consider themselves a superpower now (although they won't say it out loadly) but couldn't even finish the war they started when the communists started to take over the whole of China by force (a coup: communist revolution of China). Tawain is the only thing that is left of the original non-communist China, that is why the Chinese are so eager to get it back just like they took that other Chinese land back (Hongkong). I can also imagine that the Chinese communist dictatorial party can't stand an "democratic" country so close to their own proving by its very existence (the people of Taiwan are Chinese) that democracy is actually possible for the Chinese people in China as well.

China is expanding its sphere of influence into Africa (which provides the US with many extremely valuable recourses: some of which are very rare) and even  america's own backyard: South America.

China is also gradually getting its hands on more technology (they are already advancing further into space, getting more advanced submarines, ...). China will probably translate its economic power into real power (militarely and political) in a matter of decades, compare it with the US at the time it only was an economic powerhouse and when WWII begun it evolved into the biggest superpower in history. I have a bit of a déja vu here look at when the British empire was the biggest superpower in the world and then was left behind by the United States of America because of the massive American economical growth. The US pushed the Brits then further into submission by using their debts (WWII debts) against them to take away their colonies from them. You better pray that there does not come a time that China is in a good position to abuse US debt to its advantage (Like the US did with the Brittish Empire)

There is already an espionage war going on that could be compared with the one during the cold war, Chinese spies are stealing American technology, military information, ... (the pentagon, the white house has been hacked by chinese hackers/spies).


Also the economic war has been raging for a long time now, the chinese government has been manipulating its currency for more than decades to get an unfair advantage over the US economy. This creates a massive trade deficit (much much more Chinese import than export to China) for the US economy, the Chinese economy is effectively draining the US economy.




Why conventional warfare will still be possible? Because nations with nuclear weapons are very restrained in using nuclear weapons against other superpowers that own them. They will probably only use them only as a last resort (if they feel threatend by a total destruction and are pushed into a corner by conventional warfare), as a result they will probably wage their wars more indirectly: for example by doing it through other countries (revival of the North- and South Korean war supported with both American and Chinese troops, funding, ...). An also bad side effect would be that there would be no unconditional surrender possible of either party as the war would probably be diplomatically ended before that (to avoid complete mutual destruction by nuclear weapons).

Another case in point: Russia attacks Georgia, Georgia is a befriended nation of the USA (Georgia had even send troops to Iraq to support the US). Russians even provoced the US by stealing advanced American weapons from Georgian weapon depots, Americans provoced the Russians by having US troops support the Georgians. Nato provoced the Russians by sending a Nato fleet to Georgia (Russian vessels were very close to them). No nuclear war, no real war between Russia and the US happened because both nations were to restrained in attacking each other. I imagine the same thing happening with a conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, a bit like a bluf-war: compare it with 2 cars driving right at each other to destroy each other and 1 car will drive himself in the ditch of fear for hitting it.  This is what happened with the Soviet Union during the nuclear standoff, it drove itself into a ditch (collapse of the Soviet Union).


----------



## onecut39

Munin said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.
> 
> 
> Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As long as we have an arsenal of nuclear weapons, do you really see another "conventional"  war in the future?  If so, with whom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes conventional warfare is still possible, the biggest threat to US security at this moment is China. Ironically it is us that are funding their military indirectly, the reason for the war would be economical and political (ideology clash). Americans have fought the Chinese communists for more than decades (Vietnam + Korea wars) and the US is still indirectly at war with them: North (allied with China) vs South Korea (US ally). The war between the 2 Koreas is technically still going on.
> 
> Other than that there is the Taiwan Issue, which is a bit humiliating for the Chinese who consider themselves a superpower now (although they won't say it out loadly) but couldn't even finish the war they started when the communists started to take over the whole of China by force (a coup: communist revolution of China). Tawain is the only thing that is left of the original non-communist China, that is why the Chinese are so eager to get it back just like they took that other Chinese land back (Hongkong). I can also imagine that the Chinese communist dictatorial party can't stand an "democratic" country so close to their own proving by its very existence (the people of Taiwan are Chinese) that democracy is actually possible for the Chinese people in China as well.
> 
> China is expanding its sphere of influence into Africa (which provides the US with many extremely valuable recourses: some of which are very rare) and even  america's own backyard: South America.
> 
> China is also gradually getting its hands on more technology (they are already advancing further into space, getting more advanced submarines, ...). China will probably translate its economic power into real power (militarely and political) in a matter of decades, compare it with the US at the time it only was an economic powerhouse and when WWII begun it evolved into the biggest superpower in history. I have a bit of a déja vu here, when the British empire was the biggest superpower in the world and was left behind by the United States of America because of the massive American economical growth. The US pusshed the Brits then further into submission by using their debts (WWII debts) against them to take away their colonies from them. You better pray that there does not come a time that China is in a good position to abuse US debt to its advantage (Like the US did with the Brittish Empire)
> 
> There is already an espionage war going on that could be compared with the one during the cold war, Chinese spies are stealing American technology, military information, ... (the pentagon, the white house has been hacked by chinese hackers/spies).
> 
> 
> Also the economic war has been raging for a long time now, the chinese government has been manipulating its currency for more than decades to get an unfair advantage over the US economy. This creates a massive trade deficit (much much more Chinese import than export to China) for the US economy, the Chinese economy is effectively draining the US economy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why conventional warfare will still be possible? Because nations with nuclear weapons are very restrained in using nuclear weapons against other superpowers that own them. They will probably only use them only as a last resort (if they feel threatend by a total destruction and are pushed into a corner by conventional warfare), as a result they will probably wage their wars more indirectly: for example by doing it through other countries (revival of the North- and South Korean war supported with both American and Chinese troops, funding, ...). An also bad side effect would be that there would be no unconditional surrender possible of either party as the war would probably be diplomatically ended before that (to avoid complete mutual destruction by nuclear weapons).
> 
> Another case in point: Russia attacks Georgia, Georgia is a befriended nation of the USA (Georgia had even send troops to Iraq to support the US). Russians even provoced the US by stealing advanced American weapons from Georgian weapon depots, Americans provoced the Russians by having US troops support the Georgians. Nato provoced the Russians by sending a Nato fleet to Georgia (Russian vessels were very close to them). No nuclear war, no real war between Russia and the US happened because both nations were to restrained in attacking each other. I imagine the same thing happening with a conventional war between 2 nuclear powers, a bit like a bluf-war: compare it with 2 cars driving right at each other to destroy each other and 1 car will drive himself in the ditch of fear for hitting it.  This is what happened with the Soviet Union during the nuclear standoff, it drove itself into a ditch (collapse of the Soviet Union).
Click to expand...


Forgive me but I think manned fighter planes are things of the past.  Right now the most limiting thing on a fighter aircraft is the pilot.  He simply cannot bear the stresses imposed by the kind of performance that the modern craft can put upon him.  (at least not in a conscious state.

Couple that with the cost and the only thing keeping pilots in the cockpit is nostalgia.

As for conventional war?  No way.  Someday we may even learn that surrogate wars are stupid.

Drones.  There is the wave of the future.


----------



## Intense

Overview F-22
The F-22 program is developing the next-generation air superiority fighter for the Air Force to counter emerging worldwide threats. It is designed to penetrate enemy airspace and achieve a first-look, first-kill capability against multiple targets. The F-22 is characterized by a low-observable, highly maneuverable airframe; advanced integrated avionics; and aerodynamic performance allowing supersonic cruise without afterburner.

Stealth: Greatly increases survivability and lethality by denying the enemy critical information required to successfully attack the F-22

Integrated Avionics: Allows F-22 pilots unprecedented awareness of enemy forces through the fusion of on- and off-board information

Supercruise: Enhances weapons effectiveness; allows rapid transit through the battlespace; reduces the enemy&#8217;s time to counter attack

The F-22's engine is expected to be the first to provide the ability to fly faster than the speed of sound for an extended period of time without the high fuel consumption characteristic of aircraft that use afterburners to achieve supersonic speeds. It is expected to provide high performance and high fuel efficiency at slower speeds as well.

For its primary air-to-air role, the F-22 will carry six AIM-120C and two AIM-9 missiles. For its air-to-ground role, the F-22 can internally carry two 1,000 pound-class Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAM), two AIM-120C, and two AIM-9 missiles. With the Global Positioning System-guided JDAM, the F-22 will have an adverse weather capability to supplement the F-117 (and later the Joint Strike Fighter) for air-to-ground missions after achieving air dominance.

The F-22's combat configuration is "clean", that is, with all armament carried internally and with no external stores. This is an important factor in the F-22's stealth characteristics, and it improves the fighter's aerodynamics by dramatically reducing drag, which, in turn, improves the F-22's range. The F-22 has four under wing hardpoints, each capable of carrying 5,000 pounds. A single pylon design, which features forward and aft sway braces, an aft pivot, electrical connections, and fuel and air connections, is used. Either a 600-gallon fuel tank or two LAU-128/A missile launchers can be attached to the bottom of the pylon, depending on the mission. There are two basic external configurations for the F-22:

&#8226; Four 600 gallon fuel tanks, no external weapons: This configuration is used when the aircraft is being ferried and extra range is needed. A BRU-47/A rack is used on each pylon to hold the external tanks.
&#8226;Two 600 gallon fuel tanks, four missiles: This configuration is used after air dominance in a battle area has been secured, and extra loiter time and firepower is required for Combat Air Patrol (CAP). The external fuel tanks, held by a BRU-47/A rack are carried on the inboard stations, while a pylon fitted with two LAU-128/A rail launchers is fitted to each of the outboard stations.
An all-missile external loadout (two missiles on each of the stations) is possible and would not be difficult technically to integrate, but the Air Force has not stated a requirement for this configuration. Prior to its selection as winner of what was then known as the Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) competition, the F-22 team conducted a 54-month demonstration/ validation (dem/val) program. The effort involved the design, construction and flight testing of two YF-22 prototype aircraft. Two prototype engines, the Pratt & Whitney YF119 and General Electric YF120, also were developed and tested during the program. The dem/val program was completed in December 1990. Much of that work was performed at Boeing in Seattle, Lockheed (now known as Lockheed Martin) facilities in Burbank, Calif., and at General Dynamics' Fort Worth, Texas, facilities (now known as Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems). The prototypes were assembled in Lockheed's Palmdale, Calif., facility and made their maiden flight from there. Since that time Lockheed's program management and aircraft assembly operations have moved to Marietta, Ga., for the EMD and production phases.

The F-22 passed milestone II in 1991. At that time, the Air Force planned to acquire 648 F-22 operational aircraft at a cost of $86.6 billion. After the Bottom Up Review, completed by DOD in September 1993, the planned quantity of F-22s was reduced to 442 at an estimated cost of $71.6 billion.

A $9.55 billion contract for Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) of the F-22 was awarded to the industry team of Boeing and Lockheed Martin in August 1991. Contract changes since then have elevated the contract value to approximately $11 billion. Under terms of the contract, the F-22 team will complete the design of the aircraft, produce production tooling for the program, and build and test nine flightworthy and two ground-test aircraft.

A Joint Estimate Team was chartered in June 1996 to review the F-22 program cost and schedule. JET concluded that the F-22 engineering and manufacturing development program would require additional time and funding to reduce risk before the F-22 enters production. JET estimated that the development cost would increase by about $1.45 billion. Also, JET concluded that F-22 production cost could grow by about $13 billion (from $48 billion to $61 billion) unless offset by various cost avoidance actions. As a result of the JET review the program was restructured, requiring an additional $2.2 billion be added to the EMD budget and 12 months be added to the schedule to ensure the achievement of a producible, affordable design prior to entering production. The program restructure allowed sourcing within F-22 program funds by deleting the three pre-production aircraft and slowing the production ramp. Potential for cost growth in production was contained within current budget estimate through cost reduction initiatives formalized in a government/industry memorandum of agreement. The Defense Acquisition Board principals reviewed the restructured program strategy and on February 11, 1997 the Defense Acquisition Executive issued an Acquisition Defense Memorandum approving the strategy.

The Quadrennial Defense Review Reportwhich was released in mid-May 1997, reduced the F-22 overall production quantity from 438 to 339, slowed the Low Rate Initial Production ramp from 70 to 58, and reduced the maximum production rate from 48 to 36 aircraft per year.

The F-22 EMD program marked a successful first flight on September 7, 1997. The flight test program, which has already begun in Marietta, Georgia, will continue at Edwards AFB, California through the year 2001. Low rate production is scheduled to begin in FY99. The aircraft production rate will gradually increase to 36 aircraft per year in FY 2004, and will continue that rate until all 339 aircraft have been built (projected to be complete in 2013). Initial Operational Capability of one operational squadron is slated for December 2005.
The F-15 fleet is experiencing problems with avionics parts obsolescence, and the average age of the fleet will be more than 30 years when the last F-22 is delivered in 2013. But the current inventory of F-15s can be economically maintained in a structurally sound condition until 2015 or later. None of the 918 F-15s that were in the inventory in July 1992 will begin to exceed their expected economic service lives until 2014. 



Federation of American Scientists :: F-22 Raptor


----------



## Intense

Overview  F-35
F-35 Variants: US Air Force 
F-35 Variants: US Navy 
F-35 Variants: US Marine Corps 
Images 
Specifications

Sources and Resources



 The F-35 is the result of the Defense Department's Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program, which sought to build a multirole fighter optimized for the air-to-ground role with secondary air-to-air capability. The JSF requirement was to meet the needs of the Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps and allies, with improved survivability, precision engagement capability, and reduced life cycle costs. By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.

The Lockheed Martin X-35 was chosen over the competing Boeing X-32 primarily because of Lockheed&#8217;s lift-fan STOVL design, which proved superior to the Boeing vectored-thrust approach. The lift fan, which is powered by the aircraft engine via a clutched driveshaft, was technically challenging but DoD concluded that Lockheed has the technology in hand. The lift fan has significant excess power which could be critical given the weight gain that all fighter aircraft experience.

Lockheed Martin developed four versions of the Joint Strike Fighter to fulfill the needs of the Navy, Marine Corps, Army, Air Force and the United Kingdom Royal Air Force and Navy. All versions have the same fuselage and internal weapons bay, common outer mold lines with similar structural geometries, identical wing sweeps, and comparable tail shapes. The weapons are stored in two parallel bays located aft of the main landing gear. The canopy, radar, ejection system, subsystems, and avionics are all common among all different version as is the core engine which is based on the F119 by Pratt & Whitney.

Additional systems on the F-35 include: 
1.Northrup Grumman advanced electronically scanned array (AESA) multi-function radar
2.Snader/Litton Amecon electronic countermeasures equipment
3.Lockheed Martin electro-optical targeting system
4.Northrup Grumman distributed aperture infrared sensor (DAIRS) thermal imaging system
5.Vision Systems International advanced helmet-mounted display
F-35 Variants
US Air Force  Return to Top

The Air Force expects that to purchase 1763 F-35s to complement the F-22 Raptor and replace the F-16 as an air-toground strike aircraft. The Air Force variant includes an internal gun, infrared sensors, and laser designator. This is the technologically simplest version of the JSF, in that it does not require hover or aircraft carrier capability. Therefore it does not require the vertical thrust or the handling qualities for catapult launches, augmented control authority at landing approach speeds and strengthened structure to handle arrested landings. At the same time, the Air Force F-35 will have to improve upon the high standards created by the F-16. Since replacement of the F-16 by the F-35 will entail a significant payload reduction, the F-35 faces a very demanding one shot one kill requirement. 
US Navy Return to Top
The requirement for carrier operations creates the largest differences between the Air Force and Navy version. The naval version has larger wing and tail control surfaces to enable low-speed approaches to aircraft carriers. Leadingedge flaps and foldable wing tip sections account for this increased wing area. The larger wing area also provides the Navy version with an increased payload capability. To support the stresses of carrier landings and catapult launches, the internal structure of this version is strengthened. In addition, the landing gear has longer stroke and higher load capacity, and of course an arresting hook is added. Compared to the F-18C, the F-35 has twice the range on internal fuel.. The design is also optimized for survivability, which is a key Navy requirement. Like the USAF version, the Navy version will incorporate an internal gun and sensors. This new fighter will be used by the Navy as a first-day-of-war attack fighter in conjunction with the F/A-18 Hornet. The Navy plans to purchase 480 JSF.

US Marine Corps  Return to Top
The distinguishing feature of the USMC version of the JSF is its short takeoff/vertical landing capability (STOVL). There will not be an internally mounted machine gun, but an external gun can be fitted. This version requires controllability on all axes while hovering. Another critical design feature is its impact on the ground surface beneath it during hover. The USMC expects their version of the JSF will replace the F/A-18 Hornet and the AV-8 Harrier. The Marine Corps expects to purchase 480 STOVL versions of the F-35.

United Kingdom Royal Navy and Air Force  Return to Top
This version will be very similar to the one procured by the United States Marine Corps

Federation of American Scientists :: F-35/Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)


----------



## Munin

onecut39 said:


> Forgive me but I think manned fighter planes are things of the past.  Right now the most limiting thing on a fighter aircraft is the pilot.  He simply cannot bear the stresses imposed by the kind of performance that the modern craft can put upon him.  (at least not in a conscious state.
> 
> Couple that with the cost and the only thing keeping pilots in the cockpit is nostalgia.
> 
> As for conventional war?  No way.  Someday we may even learn that surrogate wars are stupid.
> 
> Drones.  There is the wave of the future.



Yes I m also on your side on that, but are there already drones that can take on fighter planes? Is there a drone plane that has the same capabilities as an F22 fighter plane?

To me it seems that drones are still in an experimental fase when it comes to the more complicated air to air combat. The other problem with a drone is the guidance system: it could be possible for an enemy to even take over the drone aircraft by developping their own guidance systems or just let it crash by interfering with the communication signal that connects the drone and the controll center. (a problem we don't have with the taliban cavemen)

A man-controlled aircraft will not that easely betray its own side, because it is the pilot that controlls the computers directly. When a computer is flying it then the aircraft is just a remote controlled machine that becomes vulnerable to outside "signal manipulation".

But the other side is true also: the only thing that holds back the capabilities of an aircraft now is the human that flies it (because it can only fly as fast as the human body can handle: G-forces, ... ).


----------



## onecut39

Munin said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Forgive me but I think manned fighter planes are things of the past.  Right now the most limiting thing on a fighter aircraft is the pilot.  He simply cannot bear the stresses imposed by the kind of performance that the modern craft can put upon him.  (at least not in a conscious state.
> 
> Couple that with the cost and the only thing keeping pilots in the cockpit is nostalgia.
> 
> As for conventional war?  No way.  Someday we may even learn that surrogate wars are stupid.
> 
> Drones.  There is the wave of the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I m also on your side on that, but are there already drones that can take on fighter planes? Is there a drone plane that has the same capabilities as an F22 fighter plane?
> 
> To me it seems that drones are still in an experimental fase when it comes to the more complicated air to air combat. The other problem with a drone is the guidance system: it could be possible for an enemy to even take over the drone aircraft by developping their own guidance systems or just let it crash by interfering with the communication signal that connects the drone and the controll center. (a problem we don't have with the taliban cavemen)
> 
> A man-controlled aircraft will not that easely betray its own side, because it is the pilot that controlls the computers directly. When a computer is flying it then the aircraft is just a remote controlled machine that becomes vulnerable to outside "signal manipulation".
> 
> But the other side is true also: the only thing that holds back the capabilities of an aircraft now is the human that flies it (because it can only fly as fast as the human body can handle: G-forces, ... ).
Click to expand...


Computers do a good bit of the flying and weapons control on all modern aircraft.  They are no less vulnerable than guidance systems for a drone.  Violate them and the aircraft loses much of its superiority.

There was a recent article in Popular Science on the subject of drones.  They listed at least one prototype that was supersonic or very close.  (635 MPH)  

I would rather put the money into drones.  (does UAV sound better?)  The F 22 is horrendously expensive and requires horrendously expensive pilots.


----------



## Intense

Non-Nuclear EMP: Automating the Military May Prove a Real Threat
by Major Scott W. Merkle
How is this for a grand scenario?...One that would make an airborne assault with combat equipment, followed by a twenty-five-mile forced march sound enticing. You are the operations officer (S3) of your battalion and tomorrow you are to present your one-hundred-plus slide quarterly training brief (QTB) presentation, but for some unknown reason, all of the automation equipment on post is down. You hurry home to print it on your own PC, but your system is also down (and you just spent the whole weekend with that new income tax software working on your return). 
You wonder...How could such a catastrophe occur? What could cause this to happen? Then you remember the movie that you saw this past weekend. About ruthless forces threatening to use a weapon capable of destroying the computer chips and memories upon which our lives depend. But one man stood in their way: "Bond... James Bond!" 
Hollywood shenanigans? Implausible? Science fiction? The answers are yes, no, and maybe. The 007 saga "Goldeneye" is about attempts to prevent the neophyte, but dangerous, Russian Mafia from using an orbiting space weapon (called Goldeneye), which can blast uncooperative nations with pulses of energy, harmless to people but devastating to electronic devices and their components. Airplanes would fall from the skies, nuclear-power plants would race out of control, financial records would be erased, and your one-hundred-plus QTB slide presentation would be lost. 
Could this actually happen? The fact is, that today, there is technology available that could do just that. Fortunately, international treaties governing the use of outer space and the availability of the simpler, non-nuclear-pulse weapons make the specifics from the "Goldeneye" scenario improbable. Then again, the military has earned a reputation for falsely labeling as fiction advanced weapons and units already within its arsenals; remember the Pentagon's embarrassment when surprisingly accurate models of its supposedly super-secret stealth-fighter aircraft began appearing at your local toy store? 
Real EMP Weapons
In reality, the existence of Goldeneye-like pulse weapons first became a fact in the early 1960s. While testing hydrogen bombs in outer space, hundreds of miles above the planet, American and Soviet scientists discovered that each atomic blast created a pulse of electromagnetic energy similar to conventional radio-made microwaves, but with energy so great that they erased magnetic memories and melted the microscopic junctions in transistors on the Earth below. These were veritable tidal waves of energy, sufficient to cripple sensitive microelectronics but too weak to be seen, heard, or felt by human beings.1 During one U.S. test, in July 1962, a hydrogen bomb was detonated approximately 650 miles in space, roughly where today's space shuttles orbit. Simultaneously, 2100 miles to the northeast, street lights went dark and burglar alarms began ringing on the Hawaiian islands. The reason was an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) produced by the blast.2 
Due to this reaction, in 1963 the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty to counter the considerable threat posed by EMPs. Since then, that threat has grown at a fantastic rate, fueled by the rapid progress made in compacting ever more EMP-sensitive transistors onto the computer chips upon which modern electronics rely.3 Can you imagine your neighbor being able to go down to the local radio parts store, buy a hand-held EMP weapon, and use it to wipe out your household electronics? All because he is angry at you. 
According to a declassified U.S. military report, the explosion of a bomb about one megaton in size (the exact size remains classified) eight hundred miles over Omaha, Nebraska, would shower the continental United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico with an EMP capable of disabling virtually every computerized circuit in its path. Edward Teller, the father of the hydrogen bomb, succinctly described the damaging consequences of such an EMP attack in 1982, when he wrote in an obscure engineering journal
Today there is almost universal dependence on electronic computers. They are used by first-graders as well as research engineers. Industry, communications, financial records, are all at stake here. In the event of heavy EMP radiation, I suspect it would be easier to enumerate the apparatus that would continue to function than the apparatus that would stop.4

Are you now beginning to reconsider that purchase of the latest superhot mini-tower PC? Relax. It is unlikely that a nuclear blast will occur in space any time soon. The Outer-Space Treaty of 1967, since ratified by the members of the United Nations, explicitly states that treaty partners not place any objects carrying nuclear weapons in Earth's orbit great idea, in principle. The trouble is, the treaty does not oblige any nation to allow others to inspect the cargo they send into space.5 So, if Iraq obtained nuclear weapons and was capable of launching them into a space orbit around the Earth for detonation over the United States (in revenge of Operation DESERT STORM), you could kiss your fancy E-mail system goodbye. 
The Non-Nuclear EMP Threat
So, to this extent, the plot of "Goldeneye" is plausible. Any of several nations with nuclear weapons and the capacity to launch them into space including the United States, Russia, China, and even Israel could conceivably pulse us back to, shall we say, a simpler time when operations orders were done orally with a sandtable, instead of with the high-speed graphics and charts that turn into an encyclopedia that few people care to read. Even more unsettling, however, is the fact that the U.S. Defense Technology Plan confirms that development of advanced EMP weapons continues to this day, and not just by the Americans. According to a report drafted by conservative members of the French National Assembly in 1992, EMP weapons testing was a recommended goal during France's 1995 underground nuclear tests.6 
Some really scary parts of the EMP story did not make it into James Bond's latest adventure. Weapons designers specializing in high-energy physics can now create electromagnetic pulses without going into outer space. One approach involves harnessing the force of a conventional explosion. Others are simply just modifications of radar, which bounces pulses of energy off aircraft in flight, vehicles on the ground, and other objects.7 Crank up the power and you have an EMP weapon, ready to point at the computers of your favorite enemy. 
This knowledge has set off a new arms race. Whether fitted into cruise missiles or parked at the side of the road in a van, non-nuclear EMP weapons have the potential to devastate the electronic systems of areas as large as a city or as small as a selected building, all without being seen, heard, or felt by a single soul.8 It is a dream come true for any and all terrorists, to include Saddam Hussein himself! 
Sound far-fetched? It did not in 1993 to the owners of automobiles parked about 300 meters from a U.S. Defense Contractor's EMP generator test site at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida. Their alternators and electronic engine controls were accidentally fried by a pulse during classified field trials.9 
Specific Threatto the Military
So what is the non-nuclear EMP threat to our military today? It is, put simply, that while we are quite enamored of our technological progress, we would do well to ensure that basic infantry skills, those things that have enabled America to have the greatest army in the world, are not forgotten. It can be readily observed that the United States is devoting a significant amount of time, energy, and hard working tax-payer dollars to "push the technology envelope" to prepare for the Force XXI battlefield. 
The Army will equip tomorrow's infantry soldier with a totally integrated fighting system that takes full advantage of technological advances. Their fighting load modules include vests with removable ammunition pouches enabling them to carry the soldier radio, battlefield computer, global positioning system (GPS), and required antennas. One burst of EMP will render this equipment inoperable, rendering the 21st century land warrior ineffective on the Force XXI battlespace. He will still be able to fight, but without his wondrous gadgets and gizmos. 
Conclusion
Therefore, it seems to me that while developing and implementing technologies and strategies for the Force XXI battlespace, we also need to emphasize force modernization in developing technologies and strategies to counter the EMP threat. It is even more important that our junior leaders and soldiers become and remain exceptionally proficient in basic skills of land navigation, small unit tactics, and sandtable operations and operations orders. I would not discard that Ranger handbook just yet. At the battalion level, I recommend that the battalion intelligence officer keep those grease pencils, templates, and manual weather forecasting equipment handy because the Joint Surveillance and Target Attack Radar System, All-Source Analysis System, and most other "high tech" intelligence connectivity systems will not be working. 
In sum, while I advocate taking full advantage of any and all technologies that will enhance our ability to fight and win America's battles, we must not lose sight of one essential fact. Gadgets and gizmos do not take and hold terrain, nor do they fight and win on the battlefield well-trained soldiers do! Non-nuclear EMP has the potential to reduce the battlefield equation to very simple terms. I submit that in this scenario, "back to basics" becomes more than a simple clich&#8218;. Stripped of the technology, the soldier who is well versed in basic soldiering skills will be victorious. 
One thing is certain: in case of an EMP attack, don't bother calling James Bond. Your telephone won't be working.

Non-Nuclear EMP: Automating the Military May Prove a Real Threat


----------



## Munin

onecut39 said:


> Computers do a good bit of the flying and weapons control on all modern aircraft.  They are no less vulnerable than guidance systems for a drone.  Violate them and the aircraft loses much of its superiority.



I know that these days the computer does practically all the flying, but because it is operated by a man in the plane itself it does not need the outside connection with the ground. It can fly independantly without interferance from the outside, the only way the plane would betray its owner is if the pilot betrays his country. 

The risk I see when you get the man out of the plane is that the computer flies the plane and the plane can become vulnerable to outside manipulation as the plane has just become a flying computer. And don't computers get hacked? Are computers on their own not vulnerable?

Compare the pilot + computer with a LAN network that is not connected to the outside world and the drone as a computer that is connected to the internet and controlled from a distance: as every outsider can manipulate the signal if he can get his "controll-device" in range (that wouldn't be to difficult if you re the enemy, the plane would probably come near you anyway).


----------



## Gadawg73

Munin said:


> onecut39 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Munin said:
> 
> 
> 
> The psychologic effects of super-weapons are devastating for enemy morale
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right, look how they have demoralized the enemy in Iraq and Afganistan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, but Iraqi insurgants don't have fighter planes. An F22 is not made for that job, I m not even sure the US military was made for the job (fighting insurgants). Most of the US military is made for conventional wars, not for this kind of warfare.
> 
> 
> Other "super weapons" have been developed to deal with this kind of "new" enemy: the drones. The taliban fear them as they know they can be hit at any time by them. The problem is that these drones are much less usefull against conventional enemies because they need air escorts to defend them against air attacks, a role that would fit the F22.
Click to expand...


So we spend 400 million PER FRIGGIN PLANE that costs 50K an hour to fly and thousands more to maintain to defend a drone?
And you question why Gates, many in the Pentago and others want to scrap it.


----------



## Gadawg73

Bottom line:
NO question the F-22 is the best fighter in the world. When you can shoot down the bad guy BEFORE he even knows you are in the neighborhood that is the advantage.
But, 400 million for a fighter that does not even meet an 8000 hour life span.


----------



## Tom Clancy

The Raptor is one hell of a Jet.. I fell in love with it when I saw them on those Air Force Commercials..

But nothing surpasses my love for the AH-64, but that's an Attack Helicopter, so can't really compare.


----------



## ScottBernard

The F-22 is an "air superiority fighter". That means it can whip anything else that it comes up against that flies. That is its role.
I think the Pentagon kind of blew it on this one. Spend the money for top-of-the-line fighters and "bargain" shop for multi-role and attack aircraft. We are already moving towards unmanned attack aircraft anyway. Who cares if they get shot down. There is no flesh and blood pilot to worry about and they can be replaced relatively quickly. 
Kill the B-1 bomber, that Reagan era turkey has been obsolete for at least 15 years. We have cruise missiles that can do the job. 
And who in their right mind approved the B-2 bomber? At 2 billion dollars a piece? 
Spend the money on stuff that troops actually need, like new AC-130 gunships, airborne surveillance and countermeasures. 
Drives me crazy how the Pentagon spends tax money sometimes.


----------

