Can anyone give me a rational argument against the F/A-22?

AndrewR

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
11,157
0
0
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Reasons 1 through 9) $500B annual budget deficit
10) Who are we going to fight for air superiority . . . North Korea?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
I think we should scrap the JSF, not the F-22.
The arguement against F-22 would be that we haven't faced any serious air-air combat in a long time, and F-15 combined with our tactics is more than enough. But given age of F-15, I think we should build a new air superiority fighter. But given that F-18 is a relatively modern aircraft, I really fail to see the need for JSF.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
The only rational argument is that we dont need it. But at the same time, I would rather be ahead in RnD and not behind.
 

CADsortaGUY

Lifer
Oct 19, 2001
25,162
1
76
www.ShawCAD.com
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Reasons 1 through 9) $500B annual budget deficit
10) Who are we going to fight for air superiority . . . North Korea?
Reason 1-9 aren't good enough to use against UHC? or perscription drugs? Hmmm.

Sorry for the OT post -AndrewR - I have nothing to add to the fighter debate.

<- doesn't know enough about the JSF or the F-22 to make an informed decision or comment.

CkG
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
The FA-22 is a fine aircraft, but it's not any more exempt from having to justify its price than any other inventory item in the U.S. military arsenal. If anything, IMHO there would be at this point in time far more utility in devoting limited procurement and R&D monies into improvements in the weapons for the basic ground combat arms soldier, which are basically using the same weapons that they did during WW2. Our navy and air force units hopelessly outmatch any current opponents, and any in the forseeable future, our infantry and other units are not nearly so lethal in comparison (without their associated air and other support units).

Just as one U.S. Navy carrier group can take on and defeat the entire navy of another nation, so should one of our infantry units, with its own organic weapons, be able to take on and defeat handily a far (numerically) superior force. The best new weapons system the U.S. military could develop right now would be something like a man portable individual and crew served railguns. Just think, if we had the same superiority in ground units that we did air units, we would need only a small fraction of the force that we are currently maintaining in Iraq.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think we should scrap the JSF, not the F-22.
The arguement against F-22 would be that we haven't faced any serious air-air combat in a long time, and F-15 combined with our tactics is more than enough. But given age of F-15, I think we should build a new air superiority fighter. But given that F-18 is a relatively modern aircraft, I really fail to see the need for JSF.
JSF is going to be a single airframe across the military. That is reason enough to continue with JSF.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
The problem is our air force has too many air frames. IF we reduced down to jsf and f-22 that would be a huge improvement.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
The problem is our air force has too many air frames. IF we reduced down to jsf and f-22 that would be a huge improvement.
Yes, but that would make Lockheed Martin a monopoly supplier of fighters for US military, and at the end hurt the consumer.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
The problem is our air force has too many air frames. IF we reduced down to jsf and f-22 that would be a huge improvement.
Yes, but that would make Lockheed Martin a monopoly supplier of fighters for US military, and at the end hurt the consumer.
I dont think it would as once they are built, the goverment could mandate parts be built by anyone i assume. There would be great saving from only have to support 2 airframes.

Andrew,

HOw many airframes does the military support now that is are the jsf/f22 class?
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
That is a draw back of a single airframe. However training and parts for 10 different airframes is not a good solution either.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,530
7,626
136
My people with the JSF, besides its huge price tag, is that we are going to have a plane that is good at everything but not great at anything. In the F-22/JSF class there aren't really many planes anyways, youhave the F-15, F-16, A-10, maybe the F-4 and one or two others I am forgetting because I am tired at the moment. I also really don't see the Air Force getting rid of all of those planes either, I mean how long the F-4 has been around, or how the A-10 stayed around after the F-16 was supposed to take over for it. In the end we are going to end up with two more overpriced airplanes that we really don't need. Also, we tried the JSF idea with the F-4 which was a damn good airplane but we soon learned that one plane just can not do everything, same reason the Space Shuttle is so expensive to use because we tried to make it do everything.

As far as the RnD goes, do it, make some prototypes and keep the data around and keep building on it, then when we really do need some new airframes they will blow everything out of the water including the F-22 and JSF.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
It isn't economical. It was under the original purchase structure, but we are purchasing too few units (around 330) now to ensure cost effectiveness and availability of spares in the future at a reasonable price. Current estimates per unit run at around $180 million dollars a copy. That is ridiculous. Why should we purchase a boutique aircraft at incredible prices when we could be pruchasing the newest block F-16s and F-15s for far lower unit costs.

Meanwhile FA-18E/F will continue to be produced and the JSF program is coming along nicely and that will have a much more economical unit cost, far higher production numbers, and foriegn sales unlike the F-22.



 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
They want to replace the a-10 with the jsf. I dont see that happening as the a-10 will carry alot more ordinance, has a much longer loiter time and that nice titanium bathtub.
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
That is a draw back of a single airframe. However training and parts for 10 different airframes is not a good solution either.
The Marine STOVL JSF is going to be a very different animal from the non-STOVL airforce one, so I don't see where the savings will come from over having them as two entirely separate planes. After B2B, I find government claims of saving money on these projects very suspect.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
It isn't economical. It was under the original purchase structure, but we are purchasing too few units (around 330) now to ensure cost effectiveness and availability of spares in the future at a reasonable price. Current estimates per unit run at around $180 million dollars a copy. That is ridiculous. Why should we purchase a boutique aircraft at incredible prices when we could be pruchasing the newest block F-16s and F-15s for far lower unit costs.

Meanwhile FA-18E/F will continue to be produced and the JSF program is coming along nicely and that will have a much more economical unit cost, far higher production numbers, and foriegn sales unlike the F-22.
They plan to use them for different roles. But I do agree with your points, quantity has its own quality.
 

Zorba

Lifer
Oct 22, 1999
12,530
7,626
136
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
I think that a better question than the one about the F-22 is "can anyone give me a rational argument against the A-10? Besides that it is slow, cheap and ugly and kicks serious ass."
 

SuperTool

Lifer
Jan 25, 2000
14,000
2
0
What if we have problems with JSF like we are having with the Osprey? It could be a fiasco. There are no alternatives in development, Boeing is effectively out of the fighter business, and we could be stuck in a vulnerable position with aging aircraft waiting for kinks to be worked out in JSF. As of now, JSF is mediocre in everything, but not particularly good at anything. Again, it's a risky proposition, and I don't think the reward justifies the risk.
 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
That is a draw back of a single airframe. However training and parts for 10 different airframes is not a good solution either.
The Marine STOVL JSF is going to be a very different animal from the non-STOVL airforce one, so I don't see where the savings will come from over having them as two entirely separate planes. After B2B, I find government claims of saving money on these projects very suspect.
The carrier version, stovl and normal version are supposed have over 80% common parts and training.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
I think that a better question than the one about the F-22 is "can anyone give me a rational argument against the A-10? Besides that it is slow, cheap and ugly and kicks serious ass."
I was contracted out to an AFRC A-10 squadron for a year doing development work. It is a damn fine aircraft and the squadron had fewer maintenance issues with the A-10 than thier previous F-16's mostly due to the lack of composite structures and simpler avionics packages. It is a tough, effective aircraft but it needs some serious upgrades and the current plan sees them operating for another 15-20 years at least. It is also as designed a VFR day fighter that doesn't fit all that well in some respects with the new US 24 hour operations culture.

1. Airframe hours are exceeding the designed 4,000 hours with some of the aircraft at my squadron exceeding 8,000. We were constantly finding structural issues every phase we did on them and the depot was finding even more. The HOG-UP program will be replacing wings and other structural components to address this.

2. They are going to need new engines

3. Avionics are dated. They only recently obtained GPS, and that is an add on, not integrated system. Data link is similarly ad-hoc. Not very NVG friendly.

5. Crude self protection equipment, manually operated flares and chaff systems etc.


 

charrison

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
17,033
1
81
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What if we have problems with JSF like we are having with the Osprey? It could be a fiasco. There are no alternatives in development, Boeing is effectively out of the fighter business, and we could be stuck in a vulnerable position with aging aircraft waiting for kinks to be worked out in JSF. As of now, JSF is mediocre in everything, but not particularly good at anything. Again, it's a risky proposition, and I don't think the reward justifies the risk.
I would not say boing is out of the fighter business. They still have some nice contract dealing UCAV. They will also be a large subcontractor to lockheed. They are not out of the loop.

And it appears the v-22 osprey is going well at this point.
 

Brie

Member
May 27, 2003
137
0
0
Originally posted by: charrison

The carrier version, stovl and normal version are supposed have over 80% common parts and training.

But this wasnt the original intention which was to have the exact same plane. Then have a special one for stovl...then one for carriers. ... I agree with SuperTool that it is mediocre in most areas since it was designed to meet the minimum requirements for all branches. If we wanted to save money we should reorganize the way we handle parts (really bad imo) not reorganize our airplanes. Also for me JSF will be invalid when any of the branches wants a new plane like the F-22. Why waste the time and money if we are going to diverge again in a few years.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY