Quote Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
I have to say, I see the F-22 as an article of faith for the USAF. "Good Fighter = must be good."

I am fascinated by air power theory, but the lack of any real theory kinda prevents me taking it seriously. F-22 is a very good example.
  • Stealth Aircraft, with a radar!!! yeah. I know you can turn it off and be "networked," -see next point
  • Currently available networked electro-optic air defence and passive radar, may make "stealth" greatly less effective.
  • Very manoeuvrable, but cannot out manoeuvre many in service missiles, without injuring the pilot.
  • 80% of the cost only got a 20% improvement. There is no evidence that it justifies it's return on investment.
  • It also rests on the case that air power capability is absolutely related to aircraft performance, - which history shows not to be true.


Now, if someone tells me that there are sound political and industrial arguments for building F-22, then OK, but the operational arguments are pretty weak. Historically, the majority of the evidence shows that Pilots and Air Forces are the least qualified to choose their aircraft. Everyone wants a Ferrari, when what is needed is a pick-up or a Volvo Estate.
Sir-

Anytime I post here about the F-22 I know what is going to happen, and probably I am not convincing anyone.

Have to respectfully disagree, though - since the facts on the F-22 have been muddled lately due to a lot of yellow journalism.

Why do you say there is "a lack of any real theory" - what do you mean by that?

While I can't go into specifics, your first 3 points on F-22 performance do not reflect the actual capabilities. One of the big arguements for the F-22 over the F-35 is it actual can defeat most enemy missiles due to being faster.

What is your justification for 80% and 20%? A brand new F-15C (IE buying a new airframe with the same avionics) would cost $90-100 million.... (singapore payed $1B for 12 F-15SG) an F-22 costs about $140 million... about 40% more, not 80%. Generally the F-22 can handle about 2x as many adversaries as an F-15C... 100% improvement. Pretty good investment if you ask me. OBTW we cannot continue to upgrade F-15Cs and F-16s... the airframes are literally falling apart- and not just the Eagle that broke in half.

Finally, on your last point, why does the F-22 case rest on this? The case for the F-22 is one of A. Economics- see my point above and B. capabilities, which is what you are arguing.

I would say that Desert Storm and OAF pretty convincingly argue that superior aircraft make a difference. While training is important, like I said before no amount of training can overcome physics. And no amount of training can overcome your airplane falling apart.

Is anyone asking the Army to go up outnumbered against T-90s in rusted out M-60A3s? Because that is what you are proposing...

V/R,

Cliff