via the Orlando Sentinel...read the whole thing...but a couple of tidbits...
Although the F-35 has had its share of problems, nothing compares with the woes of the F-22, which have made it the poster child for defense critics. And yet the U.S. is still pouring hundreds of millions of dollars into it.and this...
It is not clear exactly how much the latest contract is worth. There was confusion when the military announced that the deal was a "potential $7.4 billion indefinite-delivery/indefinite quantity contract." That turned out to be incorrect; instead, the Air Force deal had actually boosted the potential value of an existing program to $7.4 billion, according to Reuters news service.and finally this...
A DoD spokewoman told Reuters that the latest deal "cleared the way for funding of further upgrades in 2012, the last year of the program." She did not, however, disclose the value of the latest deal.
In some ways, the upgrade work on the F-22 could be seen as a sort of "bailout" of the problem-plagued fighter jet. Since the first Raptor was fielded in 2005, technical problems have prevented a single jet from taking part in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or in any other conflict.The F-22 program confounds.
Among the malfunctions: oxygen problems in the cockpit that caused pilots to lose consciousness, and navigation problems that led to an embarrassing return to base over the Pacific Ocean in 2007 for a dozen jets on a flight to Japan.
For defense proponents, it is an uncomfortable irony that the most-expensive, most-capable jet in the U.S. arsenal has never fired a shot.
Its supporters are vociferous. It is (they claim) capable of shooting down anything short of a Death Star, yet its looking more and more like a hangar queen and its upgrade path seems to indicate that its not as technologically advanced as some 4th gen fighters.
Upgrades are flowing from the F-35 to the F-22 and not the other way around. Perhaps the real canary in the USAF's coal mine is the F-22 and its actual utility against a 1st tier opponent.
Part of the problem is that the USAF primarily has operated in an air-to-ground environment since the F-22 was introduced, a role which the F-22 is ill suited for and hence it has had no chance to shine operationally yet.
ReplyDeletethat would make sense if the USAF didn't claim that the F-22 is a multi-role fighter.
ReplyDeletesupposedly it can carry SDB's internally and even if it can't surely it could do so externally. additionally, the Libyan conflict should have been its coming out party but it was on the sidelines again.
USAF claims aside though, i kinda agree. the F-22 is clearly an air superiority fighter...but its an age of multi-role fighters.
i can see the F-22 being relegated to the boneyards sooner rather than later.
And not only can the F-22 shoot down anything short of the Death Star, they can do so with the AMRAAM missile...
ReplyDeleteThe same AMRAAM missile that is so inadequate in the hands of the Super Hornet and JSF.
Or so we're told so often...
Sounds like a typical know-nothing journalist. Anybody who thinks the F-22s airframe hours should be squandered over Libya or Afghanistan needs their heads examined.
ReplyDeleteAnd the F-22 going to the boneyard? Wishful thinking.
Although I am a proponent of the need for the F-22 for future engagements the Air Force is likely to see - let's not be short-sighted folks - I agree it has its problems. The M-1 Abrahms is analogous to the situation of the F-22. It was deemed too costly to build, field and maintain; out of its element and could be easily swarmed by T-72s and T-80s that it would likely see in European or Far East theaters of action. Are (were) they costly? Yes. Are they the best MBT in the battlefield today AND battle-tested? Yes. As is typical in Democrat admiinistrations, its budget was slashed and then reinstated when a Republican administration took power.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, what action since 2005 has warranted the deployment of F-22s? None. Since the production run of F-22 has been severely cut, it's easy to understand why the USAF doesn't wish to endanger their sacred cows for missions easily handled by fourth-gen aircraft.
sferrin, using the F-22 in the opening stages of the Libyan conflict wouldn't have squandered airframe life anymore than burning holes in the sky on deployments to Guam do.
ReplyDeleteyou're being stubborn and you're twisting the conversation. the airplane wasn't deployed because it was broken. that's the cold hard truth.
get over it.
How many air-to-air kills were there in the Libyan conflict? That's right- none. So what exactly would be the point of having the F-22 there? And when I was speaking of "know-nothing" journalists I was referring to the author of the article just FYI.
ReplyDeleteAs for the F-22 being "broken", Libya kicked off in February while the F-22 wasn't grounded until May. That's three months they could have used the F-22 in Libya if there had been a need. Which there wasn't.
ReplyDeletePoint is the air force champion the F-22 as being a multi-role fighter.
ReplyDeleteWhat better place to get your first combat hours than Libya, its like Texas University playing a small college, you get to know your base is solid and build from that point.
Also it wouldn't just be sitting around leaking hydro like a AAV it would be doing something! Always better than nothing
i absolutely agree and i dont even know why the US would ever consider buying just an air-superiority fighter, we have alot of other anti-aircraft abilities along with air craft so we need aircraft that are the multirole, look at the P51 in WWII, it was a great air dominance fighter and protected the bombers to Germany and back, yet was also great at strafing runs and hitting tank columns.
ReplyDelete