What should the USAF buy?

[F-15 Eagle]

As of now the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has given the USAF enough money to keep the F-22 line going until the next president takes office allowing him/her to make the final decision on the future of the F-22 line.

On one side they say the F-22 is needed to replace the aging F-15 fleet and to deal with emerging threats. On the other side they say the F-35 which is cheaper and can be built in larger numbers can provide sufficient air superiority capability to replace the F-15s.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I say for now, the current planned numbers of both platforms are sufficient. Any additional funds should be directed elsewhere IMHO. Areas where the USAF are definitely not deficient is in the air superiority and tactical strike roles.


-DA

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I say for now, the current planned numbers of both platforms are sufficient. Any additional funds should be directed elsewhere IMHO. Areas where the USAF are definitely not deficient is in the air superiority and tactical strike roles.


-DA

So 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s sounds good? I still don't have an opinion. I know the F-35 will be really good but the F-22 is in production so i don't know what to vote for. 381 F-22s sounds really good but it could cut into the F-35 and thats what I'm worried about.

 

[Sea Toby]

I would rather have an Air Force of less than 200 Raptors and over 1700 Lightnings than 400 Raptors and 900 Lightnings, figuring the Raptor costs twice as much as a Lightning. Simply put, in my opinion, the Raptor isn't twice as better than a Lightning in the air to air role, and no where as good in the air to ground role.

As long as the GAO continues to support the Lightning program, and not the Raptor program, I shall insist on Lightnings. In other words I would rather have an Air Force of less tha 1900 fighters than 1300 fighters. We get much more bang for the buck with the Lightnings, plus 600 more fighters.

Notice the Pentagon and the present administration agrees with my opinion. Also notice that the secretary of the Air Force and its commanding general have been fired recently for disagreeing with the Pentagon and this administration.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

I would rather have an Air Force of less than 200 Raptors and over 1700 Lightnings than 400 Raptors and 900 Lightnings, figuring the Raptor costs twice as much as a Lightning. Simply put, in my opinion, the Raptor isn't twice as better than a Lightning in the air to air role, and no where as good in the air to ground role.

As long as the GAO continues to support the Lightning program, and not the Raptor program, I shall insist on Lightnings. In other words I would rather have an Air Force of less tha 1900 fighters than 1300 fighters. We get much more bang for the buck with the Lightnings, plus 600 more fighters.

Notice the Pentagon and the present administration agrees with my opinion. Also notice that the secretary of the Air Force and its commanding general have been fired recently for disagreeing with the Pentagon and this administration.

You make a very good point. More bang for you buck is true all right especially when there are 1763 F-35s with 14 AAMs each. Now thats unrealistic by sending all the F-35s and load them up with a full load but it does show how you do get more bang for your buck. I do think they should buy some brand new F-15s and F-16s as a stop-gap replacement between the retirement of current fighters and the new F-35 so that way there is no capability gap.

Also the Air force firings was mainly because of the B-52 that flew 6 nukes across the U.S. Thats the main reason why they were fired.

 

[cobzz]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both.

Thats what I would go for but the problem there is not enough funding to go around when the U.S. is fighting 2 wars at once, it really strains the defense budget. If it were peace time then maybe but thats not the case. So now 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is still better than 381 F-22s and only 900 F-35s. I think the F-35 might be better than the F-22 in ATA someday.

 

[Sea Toby]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both.

The budget is tight, especially during the last year when fuel operational costs have doubled, and may double again. I guess we could fund 200 more Raptors out of your income, but I doubt whether you have enough funds in the bank to cover one Raptor. But I suspect Bill Gates could.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The budget is tight, especially during the last year when fuel operational costs have doubled, and may double again. I guess we could fund 200 more Raptors out of your income, but I doubt whether you have enough funds in the bank to cover one Raptor. But I suspect Bill Gates could.

The procurement cost aren't really the issue. Its the operations and support cost through the life of the program. An emphasis of the F-22 and manned fighters in general could put the airforce behind in other critical areas that are proving to be more neglected than manned fighters. People are generally aware that competing with the USAF in traditional symmetric air battles is the path to failure. Thats why they are directing their resources into WMDs and ant-access strategies that prevent the USAF from bringing to bear its fighters and then trying to operate inside the USAF decision cycle. In other words, the USAF becomes aware of a threat, is not deployed or cannot deploy in time with forces necessary to stop it so the target escapes.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Thats what I would go for but the problem there is not enough funding to go around when the U.S. is fighting 2 wars at once, it really strains the defense budget. If it were peace time then maybe but thats not the case. So now 183 F-22s and 1763 F-35s is still better than 381 F-22s and only 900 F-35s. I think the F-35 might be better than the F-22 in ATA someday.

F-35 better at ATA? Perhaps if you mean the principle of mass. ie the fighter you have is better than the one you don't. But I doubt in terms of capabilities. The F-22 is too fast, flies too high, can see much further and is said to be harder to detect.

-DA

 

[F-15 Eagle]

F-35 better at ATA? Perhaps if you mean the principle of mass. ie the fighter you have is better than the one you don't. But I doubt in terms of capabilities. The F-22 is too fast, flies too high, can see much further and is said to be harder to detect.

-DA

Right now the F-35 is already the second best fighter out there and only the F-22 is better. BUT 10 years from now the F-35 could get some major upgrades and it could be better than the F-22. Just like todays F-16 is better than the first F-16 20 years ago. Also the top speed of the F-35 and F-22 is not that much different and they both can fly at 50,000ft or more and they both have stealth.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Right now the F-35 is already the second best fighter out there and only the F-22 is better. BUT 10 years from now the F-35 could get some major upgrades and it could be better than the F-22. Just like todays F-16 is better than the first F-16 20 years ago. Also the top speed of the F-35 and F-22 is not that much different and they both can fly at 50,000ft or more and they both have stealth.

You don't know the top speeds of either fighter to say that and top speed is not what I'm referring to. The F-22 is the USAF answer to the ATA role and its development path and emphasis will focus on that. The F-35 is optimized for the strike fighter role and will emphasize that. The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view. The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements. That doesn't mean the F-35 will be a bad ATA fighter, in fact it will probably be 2nd only to the F-22 and nations are buying it for that purpose. But F-22 it is not.


-DA

 

[Tasman]

381 F-22s AND 1763 F-35s. It's stupid cutting orders to get something else, when the USAF is saying they need both.

Good in theory but it ignores the reality of the present budget problems. Leaving it to politicians to make these decisions seems fraught with peril. I would like to see congress allocate the money and then let the air force decide about how much to allocate to each of the two types.

For selfish reasons (as a foreigner) I would like to see as much money as possible go into the F-35 but that's only because it would keep down the cost of my own country's Lightnings. If I was an American, however, I would be keen to see as many F-22s as possible squeezed into the budget, whilst maintaining the total number of fighters necessary for America to meet its commitments.

Getting the balance right is essential. The air force knows how many fighters it needs overall and too much spent on the F-22 will mean a shortage of numbers. Perhaps F-15 Eagle's suggestion of more new F-15s or F-16s as a stop gap to keep up the numbers is worth considering.

Tas

 

[DarthAmerica]

Getting the balance right is essential. The air force knows how many fighters it needs overall and too much spent on the F-22 will mean a shortage of numbers. Perhaps F-15 Eagle's suggestion of more new F-15s or F-16s as a stop gap to keep up the numbers is worth considering.

Tas

Recent events globally suggest the USAF does not know how many fighters it needs. There is a disconnect between what the USAF thinks it's mission is and what it's civilian leaders think. Ultimately the USAF is subordinate to civilians who decide policy. There are many who would tell you the prior USAF leadership was too focused on F-22s when Cyberforces, Spaceforces, Strategic Forces, ISR assets and Logistics forces were being neglected.

Also, look at the wars that the USAF has been fighting in over the last decade. Trends have moved away from nation vs nation conventional combat. Now I fully acknowledge that there are differences in the immediate outcomes of consequences between war with terrorist or insurgents vs a war with a nation state and we cannot ignore nations who would threaten our interest. But the forces the USAF has and will receive are more prepared to deal with those kinds of threats should they manifest themselves. It isn't prepared to deal with the less predictable unconventional threats however.


-DA

 

[F-15 Eagle]

You don't know the top speeds of either fighter to say that and top speed is not what I'm referring to. The F-22 is the USAF answer to the ATA role and its development path and emphasis will focus on that. The F-35 is optimized for the strike fighter role and will emphasize that. The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view. The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements. That doesn't mean the F-35 will be a bad ATA fighter, in fact it will probably be 2nd only to the F-22 and nations are buying it for that purpose. But F-22 it is not.


-DA

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Recent events globally suggest the USAF does not know how many fighters it needs. There is a disconnect between what the USAF thinks it's mission is and what it's civilian leaders think. Ultimately the USAF is subordinate to civilians who decide policy. There are many who would tell you the prior USAF leadership was too focused on F-22s when Cyberforces, Spaceforces, Strategic Forces, ISR assets and Logistics forces were being neglected.

Also, look at the wars that the USAF has been fighting in over the last decade. Trends have moved away from nation vs nation conventional combat. Now I fully acknowledge that there are differences in the immediate outcomes of consequences between war with terrorist or insurgents vs a war with a nation state and we cannot ignore nations who would threaten our interest. But the forces the USAF has and will receive are more prepared to deal with those kinds of threats should they manifest themselves. It isn't prepared to deal with the less predictable unconventional threats however.


-DA

The USAF will always still need to maintain a strong and powerful fleet of high-tech fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 because there are still threats from Russia and China as well as smaller nation states that are getting more deadly fighters and SAM weapon systems. Remember its the current administration that said this and they will continue the support the F-35 as the GAO and Congress do. The current fleet of UAVs will never replace fighters and they still call in F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s and F-18s as well as heavy B-52H and B-1B bombers for air strikes everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as AC-130 gunships.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

Combat radius isn't half of R_Max...lol. What will the F-35 do it it has to maneuver or use the after burner? Your numbers are wrong, your analysis is wrong. Judging by this you don't seem to understand the PHYSICal differences engineered into the F-22 that make it completely unique. Take my word for it. The F-22 is built the way it is for a reason. As good as the F-35 is it will not be a better air to air platform than an F-22 nor is it intended to be.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

The USAF will always still need to maintain a strong and powerful fleet of high-tech fighters such as the F-22 and F-35 because there are still threats from Russia and China as well as smaller nation states that are getting more deadly fighters and SAM weapon systems. Remember its the current administration that said this and they will continue the support the F-35 as the GAO and Congress do. The current fleet of UAVs will never replace fighters and they still call in F-15Es, A-10s, F-16s and F-18s as well as heavy B-52H and B-1B bombers for air strikes everyday in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as AC-130 gunships.

Where have I said UAVs will replace fighters? Please don't put words in my mouth. UAVs have completely different roles(for now) and characteristics. A fighter can't loiter for a day at a time collecting SAR images or hunting TELs. A UAV does not have the cognitive reasoning capability of a manned fighter. They do different things. The key is deciding which thing is more in demand.

Im not going to get into the irrelevancies of which platform this or that nation flies. No nation or likely combination of nations flies an airforce capable of defeating the USAF at the systems level if the USAF is led properly. There are nations that can circumvent that system regardless of what fighter is on the ramp by avoiding direct confrontations and striking at weak points in the system. There is more to war than air superiority and strike sorties.

In the near future, some of these wars could be fought and over with in the time it takes for an F-22/35 to taxi, takeoff and refuel even if they are in theater. Trust me that this is a serious concern. You may become aware of it sooner than you think if the right decisions aren't made.


-DA

 

[Sea Toby]

The top speed of the F-35 is Mach 1.8=1200mph which is only 120 mph short of Mach 2. The top speed of the F-22 is Mach 2 which is 1320 mph. On internal fuel the F-35s top range is 1200nmi giving it a combat radius of +600nmi. Don't know what the range is for the F-22, but I know the F-35 has more internal fuel than the F-15.

Also the F-35 will focus just as much on air superiority missions as it does of strike missions. Why else would they give it the capability to carry 14 AAMs on the F-35 and why else would they not fund more than 183 F-22s to keep the F-35 going? Why would they make 2 of the F-35s 6 core missions air superiority missions if it is mainly a strike aircraft? And why else would the Pentagon have the F-35 replace the F-15s and not the F-22. The F-35 will be a multi-role fighter meaning it does both air superiority and ground attack missions. Thats why its called MULTI-ROLE it does both and does not focus mainly on just one mission.

I don't think the USAF or Lockheed have pushed the petal to the metal yet as far as top speed is concerned for the production model F-35s. These are the minimum top numbers required of the F-35, we will probably never know what the real top speed is. For example, the US navy says its Nimitz class aircraft carriers have a top speed of 30+ knots. I have heard from sailors the ship can go over 34 knots, and they aren't sure whether the Captain asked for flank speed. Don't treat these numbers as real fact.

 

[irtusk]

The F-22 will fly faster and higher longer than the F-35 will and benefit from a kinematic point of view.

the F-22 will fly faster and higher, but it won't fly longer

the F-35A has a longer range than the F-22

The F-22 also has a lower signature by at least an order of magnitude as well according to USAF statements.

don't believe that's true