I am aware of the politics involved, and I agree with you on just about everything. I agree they are intended for very different roles. I also am not sure how "upgradeable" the F22 or F35 will be. Upgrading aircraft which have almost completely composite structures will be extremely difficult and costly unless it has been designed to deal with this. Both of these planes will only be good for 20-30 years from production. Composites don't last the same way that metal does.
The reason I am critical of the F22 has a great deal to do with the fact that most of the propaganda that is being turned out on its behalf is focusing almost completely on its ability to fire lots and lots of missiles on multiple targets. If that is all they want out of the thing they really didn't build what they should have. If that was what they wanted they should have focused completely on stealth, speed and payload. Maybe they should have cut the pilot out of it. If a dogfighter is what they want, I just don't know if they built the right plane. A dogfighter has to be durable, or it must be built in numbers. Yes, it is more than capable of defeating a flight larger than itself only utilizing guns, but if it does take any damage it will be extremely difficult to repair. A composite structure is extremely brittle, I worry about just how little is needed to damage it.
What I really want to know, is what is the role of the F22 going to be in reality.
Adam L
[Note: I have been a big supporter of the F22 in and of itself, I am just critical of how it fits into the bigger scheme of things. I am also very critical of the F35, but that's a whole other post. LOL!]
Bookmarks