The 22 is all that and a bag of chips, no doubt. The aircraft is reported to have some issues with range and its low observable, not stealth characteristics are gone when you have to hang bombs or missiles on the wings or under the belly depending if you want that slot for a drop tank.
The way its going to work is that if "We are able to orchestrate an invasion on Them, then the F-22’s will be the second wave in to the combat area , cruise missiles will lead the way in , hopefully catching the other airforce on the ground. Who ever does get up will face death at the hands of the F-22’s , who will then fall back to being top cover.
After that , the F-15/16/18/35’s will take over and gradually wear down the enemies defenses, the way we seen happen in 91 with Desert Storm.
Our opponent , who shall remain vague , may have other ideas , as thats why they are called the enemy. Then as it may happen, those very same crown jewels may be caught on the ground by ground assault or possibly cruise missiles or what ever way you want to game it, and we are back to using those very same 30 or 40 year old airframes, as the remaining F-22’s may be husbanded back in the states.
So to repeat , there is not enough of them to go around.
At some point your going to have to freeze the design cycle of what you build, it will be the same for the other side as well. That bang for buck , you are only going to see incremental increases in performance , fuel econony v speed, et al.
So , this question really is not so much about the F-22, its built and flying , but how we design the follow on aircraft that will be coming after the 22, we either go for a large purchase and bring the price down, while accepting that it will be a long time after before another plane comes on stream, or we buy just a handful and pay almost a small countrys GDP for each.
Which leads to the other side of the debate. The situation w.r.t. anti-aircraft fire.
We grown accustomed to fighting out of date soviet era air defences. Even if our vague nameless enemy is not able to get close to us in terms of aircraft technology, that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t be shoot down our latest planes. You don’t need technological “symmetry” to shoot down alot of planes, whatever the merits of stealth technology (and the lessons of history show its not possible “soften up” a prior to sending in your manned craft).
After a few downed f22s the advantages of cheaper, unmanned craft might become evident.
Yeah, except that unless some serious radar targeting or SAM technological improvements come along to combat our stealthy aircraft, they really won’t shoot down enough to matter. The F-117 Stealth Fighter was shot down once in it’s history.
Which represent 1.5% casualty rate (i.e. 1 out of 64 Stealth fighters that have ever flown have been shot down), against obsolete soviet era AA technology.
Just assuming that “stealthy” technology will render our planes invulnerable to AA for the foreseeable future (just because the current crop of enemies are using technology that was developed in the 1960s) is a bit of a leap of faith IMO. The SAMthat shot down that F117 in Serbia was developed in 1963!
It was also modified to use longer wavelengths than it usually used, and since apparently the F-117’s that had run sorties through that area of Serbia earlier were the same routes used by the one that was shot down, they were able to move their SAM’s and spotters into that area to be more effective.
Still, it’s one instance in many years of service in several theaters of operation, with thousands and thousands of sorties flown. I like those odds.
It seems like the USAF screwed the pooch on that one by being too predictable.
If that was do-able by a AA commander in a sanction-hit (and civil war ravaged) former Eastern Bloc republic, what do you think a whole of team western (or comparably) trained weapons scientists with the resources of an emerging super power will be able to come up with ?
The lesson of that incident is you don’t need to match the US defence budget dollar-for-dollar (or even come close) to be able to shoot down US aircraft. And you don’t need to get every plane every time, as you point out they are flying sortie after sortie and they only need to get lucky a handful of times and the whole F22 project looks like a very expensive failure.
As long as you are ready to take massive losses in exchange for a few high priced air craft you are correct. Sort of like the Chinese in Korea…if you are willing to stage human wave attacks and have thousands of your troops killed to take out one American infantryman, well, in the end you are going to kill that bastard off. And perhaps you’ll have enough folks left to bury your dead.
You guys realize that our pilots train against our own defense technology, right? We know that we’ll take some losses…but there really are no air defenses in the world (including our own) that would be proof against an attack by a modern air force who wanted to press through an attack. The problem with air defenses is that they are vulnerable to attack, especially of their C&C. Even if we are talking about a highly mobile defense system (and most are going to be fixed).
This is true, but modern weapons have become so complex that we don’t have the option of springing up an army from the ground at moment’s notice. A system as complex as a modern fighter will take over a decade to come into operational service. In this case, we do need to have stuff in the pipeline to have it ready in 15 years.
That I’m not sure of. We may have given some of our more trusted partners the ability to produce their own replacement parts, or the more technologically savvy or richer ones might be able to make their own anyway.
Every major conflict since the invention of the airplane has seen them used in large numbers. Strictly for counterinsurgency, it’s true that we could get by with older planes just fine. But you’re essentially saying the US military will never again face any operation other than a counterinsurgency. Not only is that a very narrow prediction of the future - but if we begin to allow our weapon technology to stagnate, it becomes more likely that to be untrue as other powers will feel more confident to challenge us militarily.
Yeah, weapon systems of this type are very slow to come down the pipeline - which is why you can’t realistically wait for a threat to emerge to develop weapons for it.
The F-16 is an extraordinarily cheap design, that’s true. I’m not sure what they’d cost in FY2009 dollars - more than 20m but way less than 85.
But no, I doubt they can get the price down any more than they have already. They’re not adding a $2 million stereo and spinning rims to drive up the price - it has greater capabilities than the F16 and that adds cost. Stealth features are expensive in design time, specialized tools, and materials. The engines on the F-22 are far more capable and powerful. The avionics are more advanced, etc.
But you can’t set your expectations on an extraordinarily cheap project - for example the Eurofighter Typhoon costs around $60m (wikipedia says 70m GBP, but I’m not sure where it’s getting that). The French Rafael unit cost is in the $80-90 million range. The F-22 is significantly more capable than either aircraft. It’s price tag is actually a pretty good value.
There’s another issue to cost - non-stealthy aircraft over hostile airspace require a support force of electronic warfare craft, suppression of air defense aircraft, etc. I’m trying to find an image I saw a while ago that compared a B-52 strike package which usually had dozens of support aircraft to a B-2 strike package that had just the B-2 and tanker jets, but I can’t find it. Anyway, the stealthy approach is cheaper and less risky to other aircraft, so the actual operating costs can be lower.
No, but the capabilities would be far less. As I said before, against top of the line fighters, the F-22 isn’t just a marginal upgrade - it actually fares around 30x better.
Fighter and fighter/bomber aircraft have been among the most used weapon systems in warfare since they were created. There are dozens of other things I’d consider phasing out before them.
The sunken costs are gone, the machine tools are available, and it’s not significantly more expensive than other modern western designs even though it’s far more capable. It also seems unlikely that the US military will never again face a technologically advanced adversary. This seems like an easy case to me.
This is a ridiculous way to look at it. Even if casualty rate over the entire lifetime of the system was valid, 1.5% is still extraordinarily low. But what’s the rate of loss of aircraft per sortie? That’s the most relevant statistic.
So in the event of jamming, let the UAV continue the attack on its own? That’s gonna be a shitstorm the first time it screws something up. And you need very advanced software to be confident in it.
Umm no, that’s the opposite of how failsafe works. If you get jammed you don’t attack with the idea that enough of the strike force will get through unjammed that a few jammed planes won’t make a difference.
In terms of nuclear attack failsafe was designed using a system where they would use commercial radio towers as a communications platform using packet switching to send the information along the route with the bombers. The idea was that if we sent bombers to nuke the Soviet Union that we wouldn’t want false positives or false negatives getting in the way. So in the event of communications failure the bomber pilot was to turn around, but there would be enough bombers in the air that the failure of a few bombers to receive the authorization order would not impede a nuclear strike if the go ahead was given.
So as it applies to UAVs the only way it could really be a problem is if the jamming were 100% successful on all of the vehicles.
Yes, that is obviously true. What do you think about designing the F-23 then, the F-24 or the F-25? Do you see several more generations of fighter jets before the fighter becomes anachronistic? Do you think that will even occur within the next century?
I really don’t see us going to war with Europe or Japan any time soon. It seems almost inconceivable, but I guess it COULD happen.
Well, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have fighters at all, I was just wondering about running on the Red Queen’s treadmill trying to keep up with the evolution of the fighter. At what point does the performance of the fighter outstrip the ability of the pilot to handle it? At what point does maneuverability and speed become irrelevant next to the maneuverability and speed of missiles?
True
Right
Sure, I understand that there is a logical justification for everything that went into it.
How much will it cost to simply build the plane if we eliminate the cost of the development?
That’s a very good point that I hadn’t ever thought of before.
Alright, well you guys have definitely educated me on the F-22, I won’t be so quick to dismiss it in the future.
Like?
Yea, but what about the development of the next one?
I’m not talking about massive losses, but if four $ 15m drones can take out one 80m fighter jet, then who is winning that war is clear, especially when you think of all the work that goes into training a pilot.
Well something I am thinking of is like say a flying SAM. What if when under attack we launched like 300 flying SAMs?
Woops, yeah. I was just reading the other day about suspected faildeadly Soviet nuclear systems where launches were ordered in the absense of command and got it mixed up.
There will always be a need for a vehicle aimed at establishing air supremacy or that has that as one of its roles. It’s not clear how the nature of that weapon system will change. Unmanned combat vehicles aren’t a complete slam dunk - they’re susceptible to jamming, inadequate software, and even lag - given that the signal to control them bounces off some satellites before it gets to its destination both ways there’s actually a significant lag time in control responses. For a UAV that’s slowly circling a battlefield - no big deal. For a fighter plane where rapid reaction time is critical, it could be significant.
I think the F-22 could probably last into the 2030s in its role.
It’s unlikely, but the world can change fast. The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn’t really expected by anyone even 2 or 3 years before it. I don’t know what our relationship is with other states that use F-15s like Saudi Arabia and where they get their parts.
That only factors in the countries that use our equipment - there’s very capable east bloc hardware out there (again with the Su-27 and Su-33 being most notable, but even the mig-29 (especially the upgraded models) can be deadly. And European countries could export their fighters - the Typhoon, Grippen, and Rafael are all newer than the F15/F16 generation. Sukhoi is flying a prototype 5th generation fighter later this year.
The main focus in modern fighters is more on avionics, radar systems, and stealth capabilities rather than extreme manueverability. Although with the development of thrust vectoring systems that has increased too. I think you’re placing too much emphasis on the capability of pulling high-g manuevers, which stacks the comparison in favor of future UAVs.
The 85 million figure you quoted refers to the marginal (unit) cost, rather than the cost of the program divided by each fighter.
We used to have the F-117 to run short ranged light bombing missions in areas where the enemy has some air defense, but it was retired. Now we’ve only got the B-2, of which there are only 20 and they typically have extremely long flight times from faraway bases. The F-22 (and to a lesser degree JSF) could replace it in that role.
And it won’t be as easy to destroy an air defense network as it was in Iraq in 1991. They essentially used their whole network at once, lighting up all their radars and exposing them to us, and we destroyed them. More likely air defense against the US will be more of a guerrila style - mobile anti-aircraft systems, only some of them will be activated some of the time. The Serbians did this in 99 and our air war was much more restricted - we didn’t have an opening campaign to destroy their air defenses and then had free reign - we were under threat of anti-air weaponry the entire time. Using F-15/F-16s for light bombing in this scenario is dangerous and requires huge strike packages.
Well, part of this ties into my generally non-interventionist foreign policy political stance. In the context of defending the US, fighter jets are among the most important pieces, whereas a very capable tank or cruise missile system not so much. But even ignoring that, fighter/bombers have been heavily involved in pretty much all our military campaigns since WW2 - we’ve had some air-only campaigns that didn’t need tanks or artillery, but a capable fighter/bomber has always been a critical piece of any of our military operations.
Too early to say. Maybe the next gen will be a UAV, but I’d imagine we’re at least a decade off from that. F-22s are ready to go now.
Interesting. One thing I’d like to point out though. Saudi Arabia can’t even maintain it’s own Domestic infrastructure. I don’t see a lot of threat of them going rogue and having much capability of maintaining their military for very long in that event.
What’s so crazy about that, other than the USA will continue to provide parts and support for the F-16, while we maintain a ban on exporting the superior technology of the F-22? AS much as I hate it, Saudi Arabia is on the list of countries we sell weapons to and will try to protect.
Another F-22 costs about $140 million. However, we’re also building the F-35, which is due to enter service in just a couple years. The F-35 will be far more stealthy than an F-16, but less so than an F-22. We’re going to build perhaps 2,500 of them over the next 30 years, and its service will continue to 2040 or so, maybe 2050. It is safe to assume that the F-22 would be in service almost that long, the difference being that we’re basically not going to buy very many more F-22s (like, single digits).
The cost of each F-35, once they are being built in sufficient quantities, will be about $85 million each. A Block 52 F-16, the fanciest US version, would run somewhere around $25 or $30 million each.
And re: four $15 million drones taking out an F-22, that’s just nonsense. With the F-22 racking up a 30:1 kill ratio on fourth generation fighters, and UAV technology not being anywhere near a fourth generation fighter for a long, long time, it’s not hard to figure out that one would have to commit to putting many dozens of UAVs against a single F-22. It’s much like saying that four Panzer tanks could take on an M-1.
Seriously, the issue is that very, very few fourth generation fighters could even see an F-22 before they get killed. If this is to be believed, at the first Red Flag exercise involving F-22s, the kill ratio against F-15s and F-16s was 244 to 2.
So, if the US Air Force flies 650 or so F-15s (which are generally more deadly than an F-16), is it outrageous to have 190 F-22s to essentially replace them? I think that’s a pretty good deal. Now, if there were a realistic possibility of us buying 400 or more F-22s, then whether we need so many of such a deadly, expensive plane would be very apt. But I would be shocked if we ended up with more than 200 F-22s.
The point of context that you are replying to was in the event that we ever were confronted with having to fight our allies. I said I didn’t think it likely we’d have to fight Europe or Japan, SenorBeef countered with Saudi Arabia, to which I responded regarding Saudi Arabia’s ineptitude at maintaining even basic equipment such as traffic lights without foreign labor, as such I doubt that they would be able to manage their fleet of fighter jets without foreign parts and service contracts.