Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire US Air Force, are we reaching too far?

US Air Force, are we reaching too far?

After reading this article: http://www.businessinsider.com/sandra-i-erwin-air-force-finding-budget-for-these-aircraft-2014-11
Got me thinking, are we stretching beyond what our economy is capable of supporting?

Just one F-22 cost as much as 14 F-16�s, and I don�t know that ANYONE would call the F-16 a second rate fighter. It MIGHT be second rate next to a Russian stealth fighter (SU-PAK) if the stealth abilities of the Russian aircraft turn out to be good, but those are still in the prototype stages, they�re not even deployed. We have a massive edge in aircraft technology and even numbers if we�re talking true 4th generation aircraft.

I truly believe we need stealth aircraft, but do we need aircraft with this much of a technological edge, at the cost that we�re paying per aircraft?

The F-35 is not quite half the price of the F-22, which is still over 4x as expensive as the most costly 4th generation fighter, the F-15 Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle would just punish the SU-27 in an air superiority role, and then turn around and drop bombs on ground targets afterwards.

Our fighters cost 4 � 8 times what the last generation fighters cost, yet we�re expected to deploy them in roughly the same numbers as the previous generation fighters. This in a severely beat up economy and at a time when our foreign entanglements are shrinking. I just don�t see how this is doable. At the prices we�re paying for these fighters, we�ll have to get 100 years of service out of these airframes for the investment to make sense.

As for China, the US Navy could strip China of all aircraft by itself. Or at least deny them the ability to leave their SAM protection.

I love the technological edge, but do we need THIS much of a technological edge at this point in time?

The last time we had a second rate air force was the late 30's-early 40's. Was it not for code breaking, the Pacific war might have been a lot longer.

That's what I've been trying to tell you ad-infinitum. While we need to keep the technological edge on R&D, tactically and strategically, we're better off building 2000 F-16s v 100 22s/

Me personally, I would rather see the money spent on F-22's than on social programs.

Yeah, but we both know that will never happen. The DOD budget is what it is.

F-16's will wear out at some point, but we can always build more.

What I'm wondering is if we can build a fighter a bit like the mindset with the French Rafael. Basically a good, solid 4th gerneration fighter with some stealth technology that makes it harder for missiles to lock on or to be located in the first place, and a reduced IR signature. Something we could keep down in the $60-80 million range.

GG, we are no longer building F-22's. The production line's already closed down. We have enough to ensure Day One air superiority over any opponent for the next 20-30 years. On day 2, we can bring in the Bomb Trucks, i.e. the F-35's and F-16's etc.

our economy can support damn near anything the Military wants or needs. What we CANNOT support, is the welfare state, and the influx of a third of the mexican population.

I think that if the USMC requirement for VSTOL had been left out we could have had something close to that price and capability in the F-35. I think that it would have been cheaper to retro fit our amphibious assault ships with angled flight decks and catapults so they could use the naval version of the F-35, and scrap the requirement for the VSTOL version. Let the Marines fly the F-35C.

Other countries decided that stealth was something that was too easily defeated to justify spending the stupid sums of money it required and the developmental headaches it brought. We bet the farm and we are down to our last hand having already lost the cows and all the equipment.

With more than a decade of war, our 4th generation stuff is ready to start falling out of the sky and we have no replacements. It is crazy because there are only two or three potential adversaries out there right now in the whole world who couldn't defeated with Vietnam era equipment.

We've worn out our high dollar aircraft using them to do jobs that literally any fighter bomber made since 1960 could have done nearly as well. And of course, our brilliant solution is to build even higher dollar and more technically complex aircraft to do the same jobs.

Once you're the toughest guy on the block, you can never turn your back or let your guard down, because everyone else on the block is ready to take you down. There's no standing still. Stay ahead or get trampled by the herd.

KC

The F-22 isn't, or wasn't, terribly expensive to build by aerospace standards. The staggering unit cost reflects the 30 odd billion dollars that they spent on development amortized over a drastically reduced production run that couldn't realize economy of scale at 2 copies a month.

Build 150 copies a year like the F-16 and they'd be exactly that $60-80 million a pop.

I think you�re right. If the cost of the VSTOL development never happened then my bet is the cost of the Air Force version of the F-35 would be right around $100 million. That would have been something.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating not staying ahead. I'm questioning if we need to be THIS far ahead? The F-22 & F-35 are SO far in advance of even anything anyone else has on the books, that it's likely we'll never lose one to an enemy aircraft ever.

So the question isn't should we stay ahead, that's a given. The question is, do we need as much advantage as the F-22 & 35 have.

The F-15 can deal with as many SU-27's as it carries missiles, without much threat of the F-15 being shot down.

The F-22 can deal with as many F-15's as it can carry missiles without much of any threat of ever being shot down.

They would be cheaper, but you wouldn't cut the price by a factor of 10; not even close. That's why the program was stopped, they realized the costs would never come down to anything sustainable. So they stopped the program and doubled down on the F-35 because the F-35 does most of what an F-22 will do at a fraction of the cost.

This is how I feel also. Im sick of democrats and liberals trashing our country. They want this flood of Mexicans just so they can get overwhelming votes. I wish Hispanics would wake up and stop being patsies for the democrats.

Do you carry a 22 for self defense?

Do you "NEED" as much advantage as you get from a larger caliber?

Do you realize how silly your question sounds?

Geek, you're overlooking a number of salient points here. Technology is a force multiplier. The size of our military is quite small in comparison to days gone by and our current opposition. Judging the value of a given weapon system in military action has not a thing to do with purchase price.

The F15 had a shocking sticker price when new, but unless I'm misinformed there have been none shot down due to enemy air action or ground fire. As I recall, the last time I heard anything about its kill ratio it was 160:0 and that includes action by the Israeli Air Force.

Are you REALLY advocating not having every possible advantage in a life and death struggle?

And advocating that point at the expense of those who serve our country and are willing to give up their very lives?

Does your carry piece cost $100 million dollars? Do you realize how silly your question sounds?