Stefan Viljoen schrieb:

> Isn't this the way it is going? According to what I read on strategypage.com
> recently, F-16s, F-15s and F-18 are wearing out and are not being replaced.
> Additionally, much funding is being "saved" by decommissioning many
> (hundreds, apparently) of these aircraft early as well, in order to spend
> money maintaining the F-22 and F-35?

I'd guess that the number of F-35 to be bought will /not/ be as low as 
for the F-22. And it will not be anywhere as expensive.

>> (A) Besides being able to carry BVR AIM-120 AMRAAMs, the F-22 is
>> designed to bear much cheaper AIM-9 Sidewinders into battle.
> 
> Of which there'll be how many? As far as I know the AIM-9X is not in
> production anymore, and funding is being cut for buying it - again to be
> able to afford "enough" AIM-120's and to feed the budgetary monster that
> the F-22 has become.

Let's see... Wikipedia speaks of some 3.000 or 3.600 AIM-9X already in 
the arsenals (figures vary between language versions of the article), 
and some total of >10k to be purchased in total by American armed forces.

However, the F-22 currently doesn't even support the AIM-9X yet, and 
instead is supposed to use the AIM-9M, which I guess is available in 
stock at even larger numbers already. Not to speak of the other members 
of the AIM-9 family, which I'd suppose the F-22 could fire as well if 
needs be.

> That's damn impressive! No, I didn't know that. That could come in very
> useful in a low and slow situation. Though I wonder what the price is in
> fuel consumption? High-alpha maneuvers like that probably need a lot of
> thrust to be applied to keep from stalling?

Probably so, yes. But when was the last time the U.S. of A. bothered 
about fuel consumption in their armed forces?

> True, but that is a mark against the F-22 in my book. I was thinking when I
> said that of the situation where US ground forces are under attack from the
> air, and need to be protected against MiG strikes. So, the USAF sends the
> F-22. It -has- to go low and slow to get at the MiGs, assuming it is out of
> missiles. Sure, it can outclimb and outrun the MIGs, but it has no choice
> now - it has to tangle with them on their terms, low and slow, to protect
> US ground forces. Wouldn't that obviate its enormous speed and rate of
> climb? (Though the slow maneuver you pointed me to above would obviously
> help I readily agree.)
> 
> Also, that is if they have decommissioned all those F-16s and F-15s by that
> time, of course - which seems to be the way they are going.

... and purchase F-35 instead, which by the way seems to be a totally 
different beast, and shouldn't be mistaken for a smaller copy of the 
F-22 concept.

The F-22 is designed mainly as an air superiority fighter, the concept 
being to suppress any enemy air activity way before they can be a PITA 
to ground forces. Recent conflicts have shown that the US will not even 
think about sending in troops before this air superiority has in fact 
been achieved.

Also, a MiG may be an adversary to reckon with in a dogfight (I have no 
idea whether that is anywhere close to true), but with F-22s out of 
reach of their guns but close enough to make a run any moment, a MiG 
pilot probably couldn't really afford to attack grund targets. I guess 
he'd be eating 20mm Vulcan rounds any moment.


Plus, it's also a question of what you consider the primary threat: The 
world hasn't seen any all-out war between superpowers for >60 years, and 
with the presence of nuclear weapons such a war would be unthinkable 
anyway. Local conflicts have been commonplace however, and the USA seem 
to have made it a habit of entering such conflicts every 10 years or so 
ever since WW2. For such scenarios, the AA arsenals should be more than 
sufficient, and it may also be more efficient to have a small fleet of 
highly superior aircraft with a survivability of virtually 100% per 
mission, rather than a large fleet of lower-class planes with a 
survivability of only 90%. Not only for the sake of material costs, but 
even more so for the sake of morale at home.

Post a reply to this message