Boo-urns! U.S. Senate Votes to End Production of F-22 Fighter

[WillDAQ]

Haha, apparently, it seems there's been 141 built. Where buddy got the 46 others is a mystery.

The final total is 187, even if that many haven't been built yet.

 

[Aston Martin]

"I was saying boo-urns."

 

[Spectre]

And remember, while the Raptor is stealthy in terms of BVR air to air, some douche with a stinger can always pop up at the wrong time and take potshots. At close range with the F22 pointed away I don't see the advantage over a modern F16.

Actually, no. One of the features of the supercruise engines and the baffles fitted to the F-22 is that the rear IR signature of the plane is smaller than the front IR signature of the F-16.

In tests, from any significant distance, the Stinger can't even see the F-22's exhaust, let alone lock it up. Big improvement over even a "Black Hole" equipped F-16. Likewise, tests against friendly MiG-29s have shown that the look-down-shoot-down passive IR system in the MiG-29 can't see the damn thing either.

And if your missiles can't see it, they can't shoot it.

Edit: To the cowardly asshole who anonymously negrepped me with "You have other things to worry about than a non-existent threat." - I'm worried about THE DAMNED F-15s BREAKING APART IN FLIGHT!!!!! The F-22 is a worthy replacement, the F-35 can't take over the F-15's role at all. Single engine strike fighters used for long range CAS (F-15E mission) are a stupid idea, and the F-35 doesn't begin to have the range or speed to take over the F-15C mission.

 

[Strelok16]

poo on that

someday, China is gonna have a bunch of carriers that are clones of ours, and then were gonna have nothing to do but sit there on our hands and think wtf do we do about that if this trend of de-funding the military continues

if I was president I'd kick congress in the ass to buld 1,000 F-22's, then develop a naval version and build 1,200 of those for the Navy and Marines

and bring back the Commanche while theyre at it, im still depressed over that

the F-35 is great and all, and we need those as well, but it just has different capabilities. and the F-15 is from the 70's, it shouldnt even be a question whether or not they need replacing

 

[Spectre]

It would be one thing if they were defunding the F-22 and going to unmanned aerial combat vehicles (I'd rather have bots get blown up than men)... but they're defunding the F-22 in favor of basically nothing. Well, in favor of more money to ACORN and "global warming research" and "save the harvest mouse" and.....

 

[shad_68]

While they're ending production of the F-22, they're also ramping up production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:

And that is awesome, because the F-35 has freakin' VTOL. And VTOL pwns.

While that is true, there is one critical fact to consider in this debate:
Unlike the F22, the F35 is quite fugly.

 

[nate_bartlet]

i know this is slighty off topic but the F22, isn't that the fighter that Starscream transforms into in the Transformers movies? It's just one of those little things that been bugging me since i started reading this thread.

 

[nsx_23]

While that is true, there is one critical fact to consider in this debate:
Unlike the F22, the F35 is quite fugly.

Sukhois aren't beauty queens, but that doesn't stop them from being freakin good fighter jets.

 

[WillDAQ]

someday, China is gonna have a bunch of carriers that are clones of ours, and then were gonna have nothing to do but sit there on our hands and think wtf do we do about that if this trend of de-funding the military continues

You're joking right? The idea that China could just whip up some carriers comparable to western technology is laughable. At the very best they might be able to clone something old and Russian. China has men, AK47s and old Russian stuff they've fiddled with. Not to mention that China's economy is so dependent on relations with the West that any military armament programs would risk eliminating their main source of revenue.

if I was president I'd kick congress in the ass to buld 1,000 F-22's, then develop a naval version and build 1,200 of those for the Navy and Marines

What the fuck are you going to do with 2200 super fighters? Other than bankrupt the military... Just because something is cool doesn't mean you actually need that many of them. It's the same case as the SR-71, a spectacular aircraft who's capability could be sufficiently maintained using other more affordable technologies.

and bring back the Commanche while theyre at it, im still depressed over that

The Commanche was a classic example of procurement gone wild. What they needed were cheap reliable forward scout helicopters.. What they build was a billion dollar flying doom fortress. As a flying doom fortress is exactly as likely to be shot down by a guy with an RPG as a cheap scout copter, the Commanche was too valuable to actually use in the role it was designed for!

the F-15 is from the 70's, it shouldnt even be a question whether or not they need replacing

The B52 is from the 50s and forecast to continue until 2040. If something works (and crucially can be maintained) then why replace it.

 

[Strelok16]

You're joking right? The idea that China could just whip up some carriers comparable to western technology is laughable. At the very best they might be able to clone something old and Russian. China has men, AK47s and old Russian stuff they've fiddled with. Not to mention that China's economy is so dependent on relations with the West that any military armament programs would risk eliminating their main source of revenue.

China is known to be actively persuing carrier development, as well as spying on western powers to try and aquire as much of our technology as they can. even though they still probably couldnt build carriers with the same level of technology as ours, they wouldnt need to for them to still be a threat. and I wouldnt count on China's economic ties being the basis for maintaining peaceful relations between them and the west forever. with new economies emerging all over the world, some not so friendly with the west, that could change.

What the fuck are you going to do with 2200 super fighters? Other than bankrupt the military... Just because something is cool doesn't mean you actually need that many of them. It's the same case as the SR-71, a spectacular aircraft who's capability could be sufficiently maintained using other more affordable technologies.

it wouldnt bankrupt the military if so much money wasnt being spent elsewhere. and using the SR-71 as an example, it does actually have capabilities that nothing else does. even with satellites, spy planes still have their place, as they are completely unpredictable, unlike satellites. and an SR-71 is a lot harder to shoot down, than say, a U-2. Right now we have a bunch of F-18's, F-16's and F-15's that arent getting any newer, and will all eventually need replacing.

The Commanche was a classic example of procurement gone wild. What they needed were cheap reliable forward scout helicopters.. What they build was a billion dollar flying doom fortress. As a flying doom fortress is exactly as likely to be shot down by a guy with an RPG as a cheap scout copter, the Commanche was too valuable to actually use in the role it was designed for!

again, the Commanche had its place. if used properly, it wasnt likely to be shot down by a guy with an RPG

The B52 is from the 50s and forecast to continue until 2040. If something works (and crucially can be maintained) then why replace it.

the B-52 is indeed a good example of something still working and not needing replacement. but being a strategic bomber, it is used a lot differently than a fighter and its airframe doesnt need to withstand the same manuvering and resulting G-forces that F-15 airframes do. As Spectre pointed out, F-15's are literally falling apart, and as they get older and older, they get more and more expensive to maintain, to the point where it no longer makes sense to do so when you can replace them with brand new aircraft at comparable cost.

 

[WillDAQ]

I wouldnt count on China's economic ties being the basis for maintaining peaceful relations between them and the west forever

I wouldn't either, but don't expect any movement in the next decade.

it wouldnt bankrupt the military if so much money wasnt being spent elsewhere.

So you're planning cuts elsewhere to fund the F22 addiction? What's on the chopping board.. warships? airlift capacity? uniforms? The US military aren't the most efficient spenders of cash but they don't have spare money just wafting around waiting to be spent. The question is as much "what could we cut to pay for F22s" as it is actually buying more F22s.

and using the SR-71 as an example, it does actually have capabilities that nothing else does. even with satellites, spy planes still have their place, as they are completely unpredictable, unlike satellites. and an SR-71 is a lot harder to shoot down, than say, a U-2.

Well now we're into the world of trade offs. Yes, the SR-71 had unique capabilities, but they weren't deemed to be worth the mountain of cash it took to maintain them. However, what mission do you envision today where the SR-71s capabilities mean that it is the only system that could do the job? No armed service can afford to buy every toy for every occasion.

Right now we have a bunch of F-18's, F-16's and F-15's that arent getting any newer, and will all eventually need replacing.

Yes they need replacing, but by F35s rather than F22s. There's already serious strain on the cost analysis behind the F35 as the offtake numbers around the world have dwindled. The US needs to buy as many of them as possible to make the numbers balance.

again, the Commanche had its place. if used properly, it wasnt likely to be shot down by a guy with an RPG

Back to trade offs. So it can't be used in Iraq, Afghanistan or any other "asymmetric" warfare due to aforementioned RPGs. For more conventional warfare the Apache is sufficient for the job.. so why spend billions on toys?

It's a concept known in the industry as "gold plating", when the military ask for what they think they want rather than what they need. It arrives late, expensive and useless.

the B-52 is indeed a good example of something still working and not needing replacement. but being a strategic bomber, it is used a lot differently than a fighter and its airframe doesnt need to withstand the same manuvering and resulting G-forces that F-15 airframes do. As Spectre pointed out, F-15's are literally falling apart, and as they get older and older, they get more and more expensive to maintain, to the point where it no longer makes sense to do so when you can replace them with brand new aircraft at comparable cost.

True, but my point is merely that the age of a system is not directly related to how soon it needs replacement.

 

[Donington]

someday, China is gonna have a bunch of carriers that are clones of ours

They might look the same, but don't worry all you have to do is ram them and the'll crumple up like paper.

 

[h-p]

I don't think US needs the F-22 when UAV-fighters are just around the corner.

 

[shad_68]

Sukhois aren't beauty queens

You might want to check your facts on that one, becaus Sukhois look just friggin' badass.

 

[Spectre]

I don't think US needs the F-22 when UAV-fighters are just around the corner.

You mean the UAVs that we just defunded?

Also, for those saying "we have no money" - well, we did before Obama dumped $787 BILLION dollars on a useless stimulus plan that did nothing and $4.7 TRILLION on bailing out his Wall Street buddies.

 

[eltoro507]

You mean the UAVs that we just defunded?

Also, for those saying "we have no money" - well, we did before Obama dumped $787 BILLION dollars on a useless stimulus plan that did nothing and $4.7 TRILLION on bailing out his Wall Street buddies.

Maybe you could ask the french for some dassault rafales :lol:

 

[SpitfireMK461]

I think it is worth mentioning that it was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who, back in April, announced that the F-22 was going to be cut short while the F-35 program would be added to.

It's unfortunate that the F-22 is already being cut, but the U.S. in no way needs large numbers of pure air superiority fighters anytime in the forseeable future. The planes we have now, with F-35s coming in to replace aircraft reaching the end of their lives, can fill the roles needed no sweat. As long as the ability to restart production is kept, this is nothing to be upset over.

To comment on the F-35's capabilities, from GlobalSecurity.org

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will be:
Four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air engagements
Eight times more effective than legacy fighters in prosecuting missions against fixed and mobile targets
Three times more effective than legacy fighters in non-traditional Intelligence Surveillance Reconnaissance (ISR) and Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses and Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses (SEAD/DEAD) missions
About the same in procurement cost as legacy fighters, but requires significantly less tanker/transport and less infrastructure with a smaller basing footprint

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm

And also

U.S. Air Force analyses show the Lockheed Martin [NYSE: LMT] F-35 Lightning II is at least 400 percent more effective in air-to-air combat capability than the best fighters currently available in the international market.

The Air Force's standard air-to-air engagement analysis model, also used by allied air forces to assess air-combat performance, pitted the 5th generation F-35 against all advanced 4th generation fighters in a variety of simulated scenarios. The results were clear: the F-35 outperformed the most highly evolved fighters in aerial combat by significant margins.

"In all F-35 Program Office and U.S. Air Force air-to-air combat effectiveness analysis to date, the F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois," said Maj. Gen. Charles R. Davis, F-35 program executive officer.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/news/press_releases/2008/0919ae_f-35settingrecordstraight.html

 

[Ramseus]

I think we're all missing the real issue here. Lightning isn't a fierce jet fighter name. Raptor, Fighting Falcon, Phantom. These names scare you. Lightning, pfft, it's loud and flashy but you're safe as long as you remain low in an area with shrubs and small trees. There's no escaping a raptor. Come on!

 

[klankymen]

And that is awesome, because the F-35 has freakin' VTOL. And VTOL pwns.

http://img23.imageshack.**/img23/4674/motivatorb48c623861ff13.jpg

I just had to make this

 

[Labcoatguy]

I think we're all missing the real issue here. Lightning isn't a fierce jet fighter name. Raptor, Fighting Falcon, Phantom. These names scare you. Lightning, pfft, it's loud and flashy but you're safe as long as you remain low in an area with shrubs and small trees. There's no escaping a raptor. Come on!

Lightning disagrees.