actually, Israel has the strongest Air Force... (which is what we're talking about here, not overall military)

I think its funny how every day I'm on this site I hear some leftie complaining about Fox News... I'm sorry you are butt hurt that not everyone worships Obama and reads the Communist Manifesto to their kids at night, some prefer the Bible...

 

This is all about a shift it the paradigm of warfare and how it is fought. Times are changing, and the enemy of today is no longer a conventional fighting force that is looking to meet us in terms of technology and high-tech weaponry. In both wars of today the US already has air superiority, naval superiority, and ground armor superiority.

An F22 Raptor, while being an incredible piece of technology and without a doubt a major improvement in United States air dominance, is essentially "overkill." We already have air superiority. Are the F16s and F18s aging? Yes. Yet in their current, and likely updated (if the F22 project were to be scaled back), forms they provide dominance over the skies. Include the continuation of the F35 JSF and one shouldn't be too concerned with the US's control of this area. Certainly others (ie China) are attempting to reach our current level, but again they are attempting and are not there yet nor are they soon to be.

Spending so much money on this project is inefficient and ineffective. The major threats to national security at this time are forces like Al Queda, and I'm sorry but as cool and as futuristic as something like the F22 is it isn't as effective in this kind of warfare as weaponry and technology designed for unconventional warfare. Terrorists and insurgents don't fly fighter jets that could potentially shoot down F16s and F18s, thus there isn't a need for the F22s.

Some of you may bemoan the "liberalization" of the military, the weakening of America, so on and so forth. Luckily for you, the DOD is still all about protecting America and defending freedom. You should understand that the Pentagon is simply transforming the military to be better suited for the enemies of the 21st century. That means less high-tech, therefore less F22s.

 

The F35 is not "better" than the F22 by any stretch of the imagination and the F22 is in no way "outdated."

 

Updating our current airframes if just polishing a turd. The airframes themselves are too old and too stressed. Some that are being flow are already hampered by this, pilots given orders not to preform high-g turns etc. Putting a new electronics package, radar, weapons system won't fix that, a new airplane will. Now if your going to spend the cash, are you going to spend it on an airframe thought up in the 70's or one in the late 80's early 90's. War isn't about being far, the US should have the biggest advantage we can get every single day. This will mean less of our guys dead, which this country has already shown it doesn't have the stomach for.

Not to mention you guys are thinking strictly of air to air with the 22. What happens when you throw some JDAMs in her? She would be rather nice in A-stan. Not to mention the comms package she carries and how it would makes the life of boots on the ground that much easier. With the 22 you are buying a ton more than what a 18 or a 15 or a 16 can do.

 

[QUOTE=HowardZinn,Apr 6 2009, 06:34 PM] The threats to the US at the moment aren't countries like north korea so much (simply put their country would be utterly destroyed if they attacked the US).
The real treat is some pissed off middle eastern person who lost his family to an American bomb in Iraq (one of the 100k civilians who have died as a result of the war) and joined Al Qaeda.

 

Actually all three of those aircraft have more air-to-ground capability than the F-22. It only can carry 2 Mk-83's, which are 1000 pounders. Even the F-16 can carry two 2000 lb Mk 84's or BLU-109 penetrators. There is no 1000 pound penetrator warhead, so the F-22 is out when going after bunkers. I can't speak about the comms package on the Raptor, but when it comes to putting steel on ground-pounding bad guys, it does not have the capabilities of previous gen aircraft.

However, the thing that gives me pause is that it takes forever to get a new plane in service. Like a decade at least. By the time you need a new capability, you're already screwed.

 

exactly what the hell was that guy talking about. The f-16, f-18 and f-15e currently have WAY MORE air-ground capability than the f22. The f-22 was designed to combat future versions of the sukhoi-37 and 47 and the Mig-29 replacements. Unfortunately its internal weapons bay cannot accommodate the current crop of air-ground weaponry that standard fighters can. The JSF will be a different story. But as far as ground pounding the f-22 can kick the bucket.

 

If the military got everything they asked for we wouldn't have a cent to spend elsewhere.

 

Well, sure, but you could say the same about the social welfare spenders.

The other point left out about whether the f22 is a ground pounder or not, it helps to have air superiority or air supremacy before you let the gound pounders lumber about at will. Thats the purpose of the F22.

They are expensive, but if they really do what is claimed of them, I am okay with buying more than a few. Just let people with more knowledge than me decide how many we really need.

 

I was talking as someone who needs bombs on target before I get smoked. I don't give a shit if a 16 can carry more bombs, how long will he be overhead? How fast can he get to me? Finally how well can he help talk to everyone else so we can all work to the same sheet of music. Then again according to all the sunday morning quarterbacks I don't know shit.