Originally posted by ZindoDoone
We made the very large mistake of believing an airwar would only be fought with missiles and no human dogfighting. It ain't so.

That is my point!


The USAF don't want to make exactly the same mistake with the F-22 as they made with the AIM-7 in Vietnam.



I accept your point on UCAVs - they aren't there yet, and probably won't be for 20 years... but that was a worst case scenario (more to illustrate the potential demise of the manned ~10g limited fighter).

We spent a ton of money on the F-15 to ensure it would handle anything that could come against it for many years to come.

Forgive me if I mis-speak, but I think that not one F-15 has been lost in air to air combat to date.

I do recall the Israelis sending a few against Syrian MiG's, and the Eagles smoked multiple MiG's.

The reason you spend lots of money on these advanced systems is that POTENTIAL enemies - the biggest current threat being China - will not be so tempted to press a bad issue.

For the grunts on the ground, and gentlemen, that's what makes things happen - air superiority is absolutely necessary.

One enemy aircraft unchallenged can kill scores of Americans on the ground and flash millions of dollars of badly needed ground ordinance and systems.

So if it's your father, son, nephew, daughter, niece, cousin, or neighbor on the ground, relying on good air cover, don't you want them to at least not be threatened because we didn't have enough aircraft to ensure clear skies?

True we can't have it all, at once.

But a good synergistic blend mandates first and foremost - air superiority.

Without it, everyone and everything is at risk every moment.

Hell, I'd also like to see either more A-10's or a new A-10 replacement. Every single time they start to eliminate the A-10's, an event proves that nothing can deliver on time and on target like an A-10. Grunts love, and I mean LOVE the A-10.

Air superiority.

Necessary. Mandatory. Required.

It saves American lives.

Coming from a simple mid-atlantic'er.

Surely the best way to keep the F-22 alive and in production would be to offer it, or more likely a downgraded version, up for sale. I know that it is barred from sale by congress, but when was this last challenged.

I daresay that there are a few close US allies in proximity to N.Korea and Iran which would like the opportunity to fight these grave threats to democracy with the sharpest blade around.

I reckon that if you unloaded some of the already produced F-22s you could even develop an advanced version or else use it for the basis for the 2014/2018 bomber.

Jensy

Apparently funding the Alternative engine for the F-35 will trigger a vetos as well.

But, Im betting that the congress might be able to override the veto given the large amount of pork in the defence budget.

Just found out...

The F-22 requires 18.1 maintainence hours per flight hour. The RAAF F-111 fleet requires 180 hours of maintainence per flight hour.

And people thought the F-22 was bad?

[edit on 9/8/2009 by C0bzz]