« More Fuel for the F-22 | Main | Stryker: Hype Versus Reality »

Apr 27, 2005



I'm afraid I disagree. The F15 has been the mainstay air to air superiority fighter for many years, and has never been bested.
However, most of their air frames are over 20 years old, and as the mainenance cost rise, and the likelyhood of fatal accidents rise, the air force have to put a replacement in place.

Now does it make sense to develop an extrememely costly platform when the F15 met the nations needs?

Yes. This asset gives the US armed forces garenteed air superiority from hour one on day one of any future comflict, and further underlines the futility of enganging in a (massively expensive) comflict with US forces.

The hard worth of any deterent has to be questioned however. But as the air force HAD to spend many billions replacing their 20 year old airframes, they have managed to ensure total air superiority with basicly zero American casulties in any comflict for the next 30 years. This is worth the money of development.

That said however, the numbers of aircraft they are asking for are quite rediculous. This platform is so far in advance of any rival, and the pilots so skilled, that it is a farce to pretend that so many hundreds of airframes will be required.
The air superiority mission will be rarely required, and easily delivered with just a few hundred F22's. There is very little requirement to use F22's for air to ground missions, as there are many more capable and cost effective means of delivery.
Given the quality of the developed platform I can't fault the Air Force for wanting lots of them, but they must be rained in or massive funds will be wasted.

Franco Lolan

Stating that one does not need an air dominance fighter jsut because US conflicts in the last two decades have not necessitated one is extremely foolish and irresonsible.


You don't have to hate defense contractors, hourly wage earners, America, or the military to arrive at the conclusion that the F-22 is an absolute waste. The message of recent operational experience is clear: the Air Force's strike capabilities are far more vital to national security than its air superiority assets. For that reason alone, it makes sense to increase the F-35 buy at the expense of the F-22, as the former can carry a far larger strike payload. Not to mention, the F-35 will still blow anything else out of the sky in a dogfight.


Do you idiot’s believe that the F-22 will and does cost $345 million per copy? If all the aircraft that is in service today had even a small part of their development cost add to them the also would rank up there with the F-22 and F-35. Have you looked into the maintenance cost of some of the aircraft in service today? Thing can only last so long in the kind environment they fly in. I personally think the F-22 has been dragged out for too long as it is. YES! I do work in the defense industry. I’m hourly and have a family to support just like a lot of others working in these EVIL defence contractors. But I guess you don’t give a Sh— about us. If you could only bring down one of these EVIL contractors it would be a colorful feather in your hat.

Henry Cobb

F/A-22s can engage over the Taiwan Strait from a base in Okinawa.

And they can get there a lot faster than a carrier group can travel there from Virginia or California.


The comments to this entry are closed.