Gates to Cut Several Major Weapons Programs

Except for the fact that he's wrong. :lol:

The irony of this discussion is that I'm not a huge fan of the F-22. But you folks are coming at this the wrong way if you're questioning that platforms capability, agility, adaptability, etc. That airplane is borderline revolutionary in terms of what combat aircraft do (not just air-air). And I am not free with the word revolutionary in these terms.

Also - if you're focusing on Afghanistan and Iraq only, you're fighting yesterday's fight. The F-22 won the flyoff against the F-23 around the time of Operation DESERT STORM (1991 or so). Some of the folks on this board were still in diapers. Yet the jet just achieved full operational capability a couple of years ago.

Money spent today (RIGHT NOW) on procurement impacts 2015. Money spent in the next five to ten years impacts 2020-2025 and beyond.

I wonder who we'll be focusing on then? Who will be competing with the US for resources and influence? Any guesses?

Standby for Congress to show their azzes BIG TIME on this fight.

 

In what way am I wrong? Please clarify?

I haven't seen one person here yet question the platforms capabilities. It is a truly awesome piece of engineering. My assertion is that the performance is not worth the massive price tag, when you have existing fighters that can get the job done just as effectively.

 

i couldnt agree less. most superpowers crashed because of overspending on military.

then you dont agree. no need to sugarcoat it, SF can handle it.

 

At least we havent reached this point yet.

 

Ludicrous. You don't know what you're talking about. The capabilities aren't even on the same planet. And potential adversaries are advancing as well. If we followed your thinking, we'd be fighting blind with a knife in a laser fight.

You're wrong because you're making assertions that are based soley on your opinion and have no basis in fact. You have a right to your opinion. You asked why I think you're wrong. There it is. You don't know what you're talking about if you think an F-15 or an F-16 can get the job done in 2015 as effectively as an F-22.

 

No arguments. Personally, I'd like to see another 100 F-22s. The F-35 program could see big time delays ($$$) because of politics. But the biggest concern is the tanker deal. That fiasco is already a decade overdue. We (the nation's defense) can't afford any more delays there.

Can we make due in the present with what we have? Definitely - for a bit. But the question before the committee is not about today. It's about 2015 and beyond.

 

The F-22 isn't meant to replace either. That's what the cheaper JSF is going to do.

If others do know it's in the area, I fail to see how it looks most of it's advantages. It has a better climb rate, can travel at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburner (less fuel), can perform quicker J-turns better than any other fighter out there, maintain an AOA of over 60 degrees ( which is just sick) while still being able to roll, etc. In short, the fact that it has stealth technology just makes it simply unfair to anyone else. As of this time, no one even has an aircraft in the works that even compares.

This is tough to prove since the F-22's top speed is classified, but I do have a buddy that worked at Nellis and he smiles whenever this argument is attempted. I have a good idea what that smile means.

Of course. Which is why we don't need a lot of them. 187 is just fine for our needs. It will be enough to keep the Chinese fighterpilots in their place for a couple decades.

I'd like to see the cost brought down some, but that's not going to happen unless we export the aircraft. Also, removing the human-element from a fighter aircraft is possibly thae most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. You're simply asking for trouble.