Does The AIR FORCE Need The F-22?
i have heard some say '' the raptor has no enemies '' well, is that why weapons are built? i thought they were built to give a nation the biggest advantage over its enemy, the raptor does that far more than the F-35, i think the F-22 is getting a raw deal, this is the greatest fighter jet ever built, no nation can match it, cost or not, how can you put a price on air dominance?
- Anonymous1 decade agoFavorite Answer
view of an englishman here (so my taxes aren't paying it but the F-22 program helps keep me in a job) where there is a similar debate about our own Eurofighter procurement...
it depends what the USAF feel like they need in the future, and what type of future conflict they will be engaged in...
The F-22 (in the same way our own Eurofighter Typhoon) was brought about in the Cold War era when the enemy, and the battlefield, was clear for all to see... It was easy, NATO vs Warsaw Pact over Europe in a massive conflict against an (arguably) equal enemy...
The USAF essentially was tasked with the 1st wave deep strike into the Soviet Union (hence the long range, supercruise and stealthy features essential to ensure the bomber get to their targets an a massive 6-day war preemptive strike in the East) whereas the European allies were tasked with stopping the steamroller after the initial hours of the conflict (hence the maneuverability and short range/STOL of the Eurofighter and comparative lack of stealth features, they were expected to fight in the AWACS environment where as has been proved time and time again that fights often turn into WVR engagements, radar is like switching on a torch in the dark, u need it to see me but i can then see you... essentially there would have been dogfights and the EFs dogfighting capabilities would have been needed)...
at the moment and for the foreseeable future both of out countries are dogged in the War on Terror, where ground attack/CAS is the order of the day... a role the F-35 performs much more cost effectively than the F-22... Its the choice of having 2 F-35s or 1 F-22? And as much as China/Russia and the West may sabre rattle in the future this war will never turn hot, both sides rely on each other far far too much... The Cold War of today is far different to that of the 20th Century...
fact is that the USAF probably has the correct balance. u do not need any more F-22s... The F-22 is there for the top 5% of missions shall we say where there is a considerably danger of detection and ambush of "lesser" aircraft that will be used in the same way that the F-117 and B2 were used to complement the F-teen series and the more conventional heavy bombers. The F-35 is a more than capable aircraft well equipped to defeat all but the best that other nations can throw at them, especially with the foreseeable western dominance from a training, logistics and AWACS pov...
sorry for the long answer but it is a complex question...
- 1 decade ago
Do the USAF need the F-22? That's not really a yes or no question. The primary purpose of the F-22 is to replace the F-15, an aircraft that has never, in the service of any country using it, lost an air-to-air engagement. From that perspective, it's a tough sell. On the other hand, the F-15 fleet is aging rapidly and nearly all of the F-15A/B models and a good number of the F-15C/D models are very nearly at the end of the life of their airframes. Retooling assembly lines to build new, modernized F-15s would not be cheap, either.
All that being said, in all the post-1991 deployments of the US military (and possibly even in the First Gulf War), the F-15 has been all but irrelevant. Other coalition fighter aircraft have proved more than capable of handling threats that have arisen. The only area in which the F-22 is really relevant is in a large-scale shooting war with a technologically able opponent, with China being the most credible nation meeting that criteria and being a potential military adversary to the US. How much money does that scenario warrant in the development and production of a new air-superiority fighter? At almost $200M per aircraft, that's a lot of body armor for soldiers and marines on the ground.
- ArchangelLv 71 decade ago
Let's see...we were supposed to have 100 B-2 bombers. How many got built? 21..and since the crash in Guam, we now have 20. Because we built fewer, did it weaken us in any way? No. it allowed us to pay for other things that the military needed, such as the development of the drones that everyone seems to rave about. It also allowed us to pay for other needed systems and programs.
All that being said, we currently have 186 (one crashed at Edwards this year) F-22 or about 8 suadrons worth and that was the end of the first run. There have already been complaints by the GAO on the cost of maintenance and vulnerability to weather systems. The F-22 may well end up being the most expensive weapons system that we've never used. How much dog fighting has been done in the past 10 years? True it is air superiority, but where? What conflict? Even in future conflicts, the advancement of missile systems and drones will make this type of warfare pretty obsolete. Wars will be fought on the ground with air support and SAMs for protection from air threats (which drones can avoid).
So what can be paid for by not continuing production? How about some new tanker aircraft. The F-22, 35, 15, and 16 are all pretty useless without tanker support and we still haven't decide who is going to build them while our current fleet is about to fall out of the sky. Most if not all KC-135E tankers have been grounded because they are just unsafe to fly. Basically, no tankers, no air force...period. So just maybe, we can pay for some tankers if we stop building something of limited use.
- Anonymous5 years ago
The Answer is no. I live in Las Vegas half way up Sunrise Mountain which overlooks the entire Vegas valley, I can see Nellis Air base 5 miles to my north. I have seen a few f 22s there but not with the T-Birds Everytime the f-22 took off it was tailed by 2 f-16s, they fly off to the north which is where area 51 is and you can't see them until they come back, I would assume that they were testing the plane, this was 3 years ago and I don't see them anymore...
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- NaughtumsLv 71 decade ago
It would be more correct to state that the F-22 was built to a requirement that no longer exists. If you are to ask "what does this aircraft bring to the table in the wars we are currently fighting?" the answer is, "not much." Which isn't to say the aircraft won't find a use somewhere someday, but the 187 that have/will be built should be sufficient for that. We certainly do not need anything like the 800 or so that were originally planned, or even the 300 that were still contemplated a decade ago.
- RufusLv 71 decade ago
The Secretary of Defense would like to have the money to spend in other areas which are more pressing.
The Air Force has already agreed it would rather have the F-35.
- 1 decade ago
I'm still a little confused on this whole thing. To my knowledge they are just stopping the funding of the F-22's. So we still have some, i don't think they are just going to dissapear. But then agian I'm not sure. We still have air dominance. I just think the USAF is putting their money towards other luxaries.
- 1 decade ago
No air force in the world could fight our old F-15's and win
so don't worry about it
the F-22's we do have will be more than enough.
don't talk like we don't already have "air dominance"
we do - in spades
most countries could Not even fight against our old F-4's
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Apparently the Air Force thinks so.
Now the F-35 will be the greatest fighter ever b uilt.
- JayLv 61 decade ago
the F-22 was first comissioned more than 25 years ago to go against the Soviet Migs. It is Billions of dollars over-budget (which all went to Republican donors)
Now, there is nothing to use them against. The drones are working much better and are much cheaper.