|
Edited on Thu Mar-19-09 01:46 AM by happyslug
Yes, the F-22 is a very good plane, but it may be the wrong plane designed to fight the wrong war. What is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is the face of combat in the 21st century, and the A-10 is a bigger factor then even the F-15. The F-22 is like designing the best sports-car even made, and then sending it through the swamps (Or the reverse, designing the best Amphibious vehicle ever built and entering it into the Indy 500). It is the wrong plane for the wars we will be facing during its expected life-time of the next 20 years.
AS to the F-22, who are we going to use it against where its supercity over the F-15 would be decisive? And the answer is no where. War with China is at least 10 years away (China has no present ability to defeat our Carrier Force, we have no ability to MAINTAIN a ground force in China, in affect stalemate). Russia is even worse (Why else do you think we embraced A-bombs during the Cold War, it was the only weapon we had that could destroy the Soviet Union, conquest of the Soviet Union was and the Conquest of Russia is today, beyond our capability). Air Superiority without near by air bases making control of Russia hard, if not impossible. Once those two countries are out of the way as possible enemies, then who will we face that we need the F-22 to defeat them? Iran, forget it, out F-15s will clean the sky of most opposition within days. Losses would be the same if we fly F-22s or F-18s. No advantages to the US to upgrade to the F-22s in any war with Iran or any other country who is NOT Russia, China, Japan or a member of NATO.
As to 20 years down the pike, the F-22s will probably be obsolete by then. Even today, the ability to hit a target is getting harder and harder in areas where they is effective anti aircraft defense (and in areas where no such defenses exist, the f-16 is good enough let alone the F-15). As time goes on such air defenses will improve. To defeat these efforts, longer range missiles are becoming the weapons of choice, pretty soon these missiles will out-range the planes carrying them and with that what is being done by manned fighters today will be done by unmanned Jets in the Future. Unmanned Jets have several advantages over manned fighters, first they can maneuver more then a manned fighter, you do NOT have to restrict Maneuver so that the G-forces causes a black out of the non-existent pilot. You do NOT have to carry fuel to get to the target and back, all you need to carry is fuel one way. You do NOT need protection for the pilot not on the unmanned jet, nor the oxygen and other life support systems for that pilot NOT on the unmanned Jets. These unmanned fighters, being smaller can be made cheaper then the F-22 but do about the same level of mission (in 20 or so years not right now, but we are getting close).
Now we are NOT to that level right now, but it looks more and more likely we will be sooner then most people think. If WWII had occurred in the mid 1930s instead of the 1940s, the Battleship would still have been the queen of the Fleet, do to the fact on how small and slow the biplanes of the time period were. Even during WWII, planes could NOT operate from carriers at night (I.e. they could take off pre-dawn, but without modern electronic NOT operable at night). Till the late 1950s the Battleships would have still be needed for such night time operations but by the late 1950s improved radar and electronics had permitted even night time operations so battleships were only kept after 1960s as shore bombardment vessels (What the Battleships did doing Vietnam) or as missile launchers (What the Iowa class battleships were re-built as under Reagan).
Thus from 1935 to 1960, just 25 years, Battleships went from the Queen of the Fleet to obsolete weapons. I foresee the same for the F-22, within 20 years becoming obsolete do to an inability to penetrate hostile air space do to the improvements in Anti-Aircraft defenses to a degree that they become useless and unlike the Battleship, whose armor protection and huge engines permitted them to be used as something they were NOT designed to do, I can NOT see the F-22s being redesigned as an Attack plane like the A-10. The Bombs it would need to carry would defeat the Stealth characteristics of the F-22, the engines will NOT provided it more power to carry more bombs, they will be functionally obsolete without any ability to be re-built into something that could be used.
I am sorry, the F-22 is superior to the F-15s, but by the time that Superiority is needed (i.e. in any future conflict with Russia, China, Japan or out NATO Allies) neither plane will have any useful military life in them. Right now, against who we may fight in the next 5-10 years, the F-15 is good enough and a better deal for the price given the above. We have to spend money to fight the wars we will fight, mostly inside urban ares as in Iraq, or in Rural Areas as in Afghanistan where the advantages of the F-22 over the F-15 does NOT compensate for its increase costs. We can NOT afford to waste money on a plane that provides us NO improvement in our fighting ability against our most likely enemies and in the areas where we will be fighting. Iran and Afghanistan will become the norm in future conflicts, full scale maneuver warfare, as planed for decades in Europe during the Cold war, will NOT occur in the next 20 years, why pay an expensive weapon for a war that will never occur? That is my chief objection to the F-22s, it is to expensive a weapon to buy just because someone wants it. The need for it has to be clear and at present that is NOT the case.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
