The urge for more F-22s is because the F-15s are past there retirement date and there has been 5 crashes already from the old age from 2007 and 2008. The F-15s wont be be able to last past 2010 and even the F-15E the newest version I don't see lasting past 2018 even though the USAF said it will last until 2035.
Having been part of this forum for some time you should be aware that the F-18E, f and G are currently in production. These are progressively replacing existing 'classic' Hornet and F-14s in service although have not repalced all. I suspect when the F-35C reaches operational capability we will see the final phase out of the F-18A to D as it comes into service but the USN experts are the ones that can confirm.
I see. I thoughted there were more "lifetime" left in the airframes at the F-15´s. I think US will sell F-22 to japan - sooner or later. Israel...i wonder if they afford it. Australia seems to be interested to.
They've both requested it and have both been denied the F-22. Need is subjective and is based on the presumption that current and future "threat" fighters are superior to other non-F22 aircraft and that in any case individual fighter aircraft NEED to be demonstrably "superior"...
They need the F-22 and F-35 because the legacy fighters like the F-15 and F-16 are braking apart in mid air from old age and there are new Russian and Chinese fighters and SAMs that can destroy a F-15 and F-16. There is no point buying more F-15s and F-16s ether, the U.S. needs to move on with technology and stand down the legacy fighters and actually go ahead and replace them with the F-22 and F-35, and as I said already because of more capable threats the the USAF now faces.
One of the biggest reasons is the S-400 system.
...none of which were in service or even on the drawing board when the F-22 (ATF) and F-35 (JAST/JSF) programs were envisaged in the early 1980s and early 1990s respectively.
So, really, the US wasn't expecting the Soviet Union to develop 5th generation fighters?...none of which were in service or even on the drawing board when the F-22 (ATF) and F-35 (JAST/JSF) programs were envisaged in the early 1980s and early 1990s respectively.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Not even on the drawing board, huh?...none of which were in service or even on the drawing board when the F-22 (ATF) and F-35 (JAST/JSF) programs were envisaged in the early 1980s and early 1990s respectively.
Expectation is also measured against evidence of capability.
its an outcome issue. see above
and they have both been discused at length in here. both were orphan CTD's and are stillborn platforms. Even Sukhois chief test pilot acknowledged that the S-47 was inferior to the Su-30 across a number of parameters.
Whats the role of the F-22? Since 1991 whats the principle feature of battlespace denial at the opening hours?Didn't Russia test the first S-400 system in 1999? If so wouldn't it be reasonable to say that S-400 was probably being developed since the early 90's if not earlier?
What I'm saying is the F-22 and the F-35 were developed out need.
as are all tier 1 assets
yes I do. I believe that you're making an incorrect leap of analysis of looking at the T1 combat aircraft as the event changers (ie Z+1 to Z+24)in dealing with GBAD. Modern combat is not looking at a jet based equiv of a typhoon/tempest to go in and kill the GBAD.
The F-22 was delayed in development due to the collapse of the soviets in 1989. If the soviets had not collapsed the baseline aircraft would have appeared much much sooner and with a different iterative capability. Its source of origin is cold war - its actual development is not.
There's not enough info to make any qualitative opinion. Quite frankly over the last few years we see more announcements about the PAK-FA than we see election promises in Aust, the UK and USA combined.
The USAF/USN requires a new fighter aircraft to replace the F-15A/B/C/D model fighter and a new multi-role fighter to replace the F-16/F/A-18.