It's B-70 time all over again....

[Beowulf]

A. We don't even remotely NEED them.

F-15s are no longer superior to Russian fighters. F-22s demonstratively are. Any likely opponent will most likely be flying Russian fighters. Therefore, we need them. QED

B. They cost several orders of magnitude more than the closest comparable foreign fighter which means that if someone can monetarily afford to go to actual war with the US, they can probably afford to outnumber 380 Raptors in an absurd fashion.

A Su-30 doesn't cost $1.4 mil or even $14 mil, as your order of magnitude claim would suggest. It cost India about $1.5 billion for 40 in 1996.

C. Harriers are ancient and really kind of need a replacement.

Harriers are not in service in the United States Air Force, and the F-35B buy will not be affected by an increase in F-22s.

and...

D. The chances of us actually needing massively superior to everything air superiority fighter anytime soon are astronomically low, possibly even over the next 30 years baring someone discovering a way to make aerospace fighters or a freakishly powerful nation ala Ace Combat appears out of literally nowhere.

It's better to have the capability, and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

This is all just the AF acting like a spoiled kid whose parents just told them they can't have a toy.

You obviously have no clue, ignoramus.

[Commander 598]

F-15s are no longer superior to Russian fighters. F-22s demonstratively are. Any likely opponent will most likely be flying Russian fighters. Therefore, we need them. QED

Where did I say anything about F15s?

In any case we don't [desperately] NEED it because the actual chances of fighting a foe with something other than VERY obsolete hardware are very close to nill, unless Putin goes completely batshit insane and hurls every functional vehicle in the Former Red Army at North America, and we'd still win short of a nuclear strike. What we do need is more ground attack because for the forseeable future, we're just gonna be chucking bombs onto tents and into caves that may or may not be inhabited at the time of destruction and more T72s with autoloaders that may or may not even function than we can shake a stick at.

A Su-30 doesn't cost $1.4 mil or even $14 mil, as your order of magnitude claim would suggest. It cost India about $1.5 billion for 40 in 1996.

That would come to $37,500,000 per unit compared to $140,000,000 for the F22 with a difference of $102,500,000. I think the price difference being over $100m qualifies for the phrase unless you just like being a pedantic literalist.

For the record, this means that you could buy 3 whole SU-30s and most of a forth one for every F22, and that's going to quite possibly be the most expensive explosion to date, not counting the space shuttles, when it's "stealth" ability gets nulled by the Russians. (In Federal Russia, FSB stealths you!)

Of course, I JUST saw a post that said F15s cost $100m so I'm not going to be THAT critical of the price tag anymore...but it's still too expensive to justify buying them for the world war that the current and near future Earth is incapable of supporting.

[Medic]

and...

D. The chances of us actually needing massively superior to everything air superiority fighter anytime soon are astronomically low, possibly even over the next 30 years baring someone discovering a way to make aerospace fighters or a freakishly powerful nation ala Ace Combat appears out of literally nowhere.

It's better to have the capability, and not need it, than to need it and not have it.

You needn't even adopt this line of reasoning, the F-22 is USAF's (and by extension, the world's) best penetration aircraft. Yes, penetrating SAM-laden Soviet airspace while stealthily supercruising were Cold War requirements, but they also mean that the F-22 is peerless in operating in any environment where SAM's are likely to be a threat -- something FAR MORE LIKELY than swarms of Su-30's, I grant you.

The F-117 in 1991 was essentially a night-only, subsonic, stealthy strike fighter with a marginal payload and yet it was a critical "kick down the door" asset in the Gulf War. The F-35 for most of a typical mission won't fly any higher or faster and is not likely a terribly great deal stealthier and won't carry a significantly higher bombload either. It can dash at supersonic speeds and fight back, both improvements over the F-117 but it's 2008 NOW and threats won't stop evolving.

The F-22 on the other hand will operate above mach and 40,000 feet for a great deal of a mission, retains a high degree of stealth and poses problems above and beyond what the F-35 can bring to the table for any air defense and not just the fighters, but the entire system, radar's, missiles and sheer reaction time. The F-22 will also enjoy a marginal, inexpensive stand-off capability since it's been certified lobbing JDAM's at altitude and speed.

Your one-trick pony F-22 is a myth since spiral development has all sorts of neat things in mind for it above and beyond "certified to use AMRAAM's and JDAM's."

* The Block 10 Initial Operational Capability configuration, to be fielded this year, will be multirole, with the option of four AMRAAMs being replaced by GBU-32 JDAMs. This provides an analogous deep-strike capability to the F-117A, but is more survivable.
* The Block 20 configuration is the baseline for the Global Strike Task Force (GSTF) fleet, and will include JSF common radar modules, a dedicated high-speed radar processor, and COTS technology CIP processors. The GBU-39/40 Small Diameter Bomb is introduced in the Block 20 aircraft by 2007, together with high resolution SAR radar modes, improved radar ECCM, two way voice and data MIDS/Link-16 capability, improved crew station software, and improved electronic countermeasures.
* The Block 30 configuration, planned for 2008-2011, extends the growth seen in the Block 20. Side-looking radar arrays provide a significant ISR capability in the aircraft along with enhancements to provide full Wild Weasel air defence suppression and time-critical target engagement capabilities. A Satcom terminal will provide continuous network connectivity during deep-strike profiles.
* The post-2011 Block 40 aircraft is intended to be the definitive Global Strike configuration, with incremental enhancements to Block 30 additions providing full sensor networking, range enhancements, integrated ISR capabilities, and a Helmet Mounted Display similar to the JSF.
* Longer term planning for a Block 50 envisages an Electronic Attack variant, replacing the lost EF-111A Raven. A stealthy stores pod for JDAM and SDB is under development to enable carriage on external pylons. As a strike aircraft the F/A-22A will have similar internal payloads to the JSF, but will be vastly more survivable due to better stealth.

-- and supercruise.

Among other neat little tidbits you'll read about it here and there are how it can be a sort of "mini-AWACS" for less-capable (non-stealthy) allied aircraft, thanks to that "gold-plated junk" of a radar.

[Napoleon the Clown]

In any case we don't [desperately] NEED it ...

And the average person doesn't "desperately NEED" any sort of self defense training. Or decent health insurance. Or the knowledge of how to save themselves if they lose control of their car at speed. But does that mean they shouldn't bother? Would you prefer to be safe and spend a bit of extra money or would you rather save the money and risk getting yourself fucked over?


Discounting factors such as maintenance, accidents, and even actual loses in combat (possible regardless of how insanely dominant an aircraft is), the 183 figure would be fine. But this is reality, where the unforeseen happens on a regular basis and things rarely go as planned. Having spares is wise planning.

[Hawkwings]

What we do need is more ground attack because for the forseeable future,

With the US's doctrine of complete superiority in the air, don't you see something wrong with this statement? Can we predict what sort of threats are going to come in about 30 years? It's not inconceivable that if there's a major war with air battles, the US air superiority fighter is going to have to fight large swarms of aircraft slightly less modern than it is. As far as I know, there's no other plane in the US arsenal than can do so.

[Kane Starkiller]

Link

F-15 pilots rescued off Florida

Two US fighter pilots have been rescued after their jets went missing over the Gulf of Mexico, the Air Force says.

Air Force spokeswoman Shirley Pigott said the pilots were rescued after their F-15C Eagles disappeared on a training mission.

The disappearance had triggered a search involving Coast Guard personnel, helicopters, planes and boats.

The Air Force has not yet determined if the planes collided or otherwise malfunctioned. The weather was clear.

The US temporarily grounded F-15C jets after one failed in November last year during a training flight in Missouri.

Most were back in service by January, but others have been grounded indefinitely after defects were found.

They are falling apart at the seams. Better ramp up those F-22 orders guys.

[Vympel]

That was probably a collision, and it's how I saw it reported elsewhere. It's exceedingly unlikely that both F-15s suffered catastrophic structural failure at the same time.

[Ma Deuce]

For the record, this means that you could buy 3 whole SU-30s and most of a forth one for every F22, and that's going to quite possibly be the most expensive explosion to date, not counting the space shuttles, when it's "stealth" ability gets nulled by the Russians. (In Federal Russia, FSB stealths you!)

Dude, this isn't a movie. There isn't some magic bullet that will suddenly nullify the F-22's stealth advantage if the Russians manage to obtain a complete technical readout. The F-22 will only lose it's supremacy as others begin to develop their own stealthly fighters (look up the Russian PAK-FA, one future aircraft that could potentially be a credible rival to the F-22) in the years to come, along with better sensors.

In the meantime, that one F-22 will almost certainly be able to defeat those four Su-30s all by itself, so for that kind of capability, not to mention the other things it can do (such as replacing the F-117 as a deep-strike aircraft) I'd say it's cost is a pretty good bargain.

Lastly, I should mention that it's difficult to compare unit costs from different nations with vastly different exchange rates. The near-worthlessness of the ruble would definitely make Russian weapons less expensive for export customers. Another example is that the US dollar's recent decline against the Euro now means that the Eurofighter's fly-away cost in dollars is now very close to that of the F-22 ($120 million vs $133 million).

[FSTargetDrone]

F-15 pilots rescued off Florida

Two US fighter pilots have been rescued after their jets went missing over the Gulf of Mexico, the Air Force says.

One of the pilots died afterwards:

2 F-15 Jets Crash; 1 Pilot Dies

Thursday, February 21, 2008; Page A03

Two F-15C fighter jets went down over the Gulf of Mexico near the Florida Panhandle yesterday afternoon, just days after the Air Force cleared the fleet to fly amid concerns about the structural integrity of the aging airplanes.

Air Force officials said last night that it was too early to speculate about the cause of the crashes. They could not say whether the jets collided or whether they went down separately. Coast Guard crews rescued the pilots, who ejected. One pilot subsequently died. The other is expected to survive.

[Ritterin Sophia]

look up the Russian PAK-FA, one future aircraft that could potentially be a credible rival to the F-22

Last I checked PAK FA was a multirole and the F-22A an air-superiority fighter, unless the PAK FA is built with some new wonder innovation, I have a feeling the F-22A is going to be a better air-superiority fighter than a jack of all trades.