Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
the F22 is definitely not a waste of money. its purpose is an air supremacy fighter, and it does that job well. in fact i think more should be built.
the F35 is also not a waste of money, its biggest issue though is the number of variants being built. instead of three, there should be two, one for the air force and one for the navy and marines but with a better thrust vectoring system that allows the use of VIFFing, rather than just vertical take off and landing.
as for fleet defense, the best fighter we ever had in that role was the F14. long range, heavy load capacity, could fire the phoenix missile, and with the computer controlled swing wings had very good maneuvering capability. and a sharp pilot could use the wing sweep override to fool his opponent into thinking that the cat had more or less energy than they thought.
everyone knows that when the wings start to sweep forward, the air craft is losing energy, and they fly accordingly. keep the wings swept back in that situation though, and the opponent tends to push up their air speed and fly right on by the cat putting them in a bad position. (i had a friend that flew tomcats).
one thing i think that needs to be done, is for someone to take the F23, dust it off, and make a navy variant. it would then become the best fleet defense fighter ever. i doubt that will ever happen though.
I have read far more then one book on this subject. I am less concerned with spending money on the Air Force than with its ability to defeat the "enemy" (unless the enemies are our own Army and Navy) or actually defend anything. It seems that the entire surveillance and drone system is designed to create enemies and prolong war in a continuous and profitable conflict anywhere and everywhere in the world with a definite emphasis on the Muslim regions.
IMHO The air Force is far less concerned with defending our country than with defending its budget and command structure.
Well we've had an actual F-16 pilot tell us that the F-22 spanked him real bad.... Nuff Said
Yes they did. However, how many F-16s could have been built for the price of the F-22? How much does the F-16 cost to fly per hour compared to the F-22?
Yes they did. However, how many F-16s could have been built for the price of the F-22? How much does the F-16 cost to fly per hour compared to the F-22?
The cost of a Viper (at least the ones I flew) was anywhere from $15 million to $30 million, depending on the model. Today's cost, adjusted, is around $45 M. That's three F-16s for each F-22. The cost for an F-35 is about $150 M.
The cost per hour is hard to quantify. The best unclassified source I know of has the F-16 at ~$25K and the F-22 at ~$70K. So again about three for one.
When I flew against an F-22 at Nellis a few years back we got our hindquarters handed to us, and we even knew where the F-22 was. 4 F-16s against one F-22, and that wasn't a fair fight, not when you can't see the other guy on radar and he's swatting you out of the sky from well beyond visual range.
There is, at the higher headquarters planning level, a a risk assessment for each mission. Sending 6 or 8 F-16s against a BVR threat, for example 4 Su-30s, makes less sense than sending 2 F-22s against the same threat. The F-16s (and F-15s) have advantages, parity and disadvantages through a wide range of parameters over an Su-30 flight, but the F-22 generally enjoys the advantage, especially beyond visual range.
Last edited by SluggoF16; 12-17-2015 at 07:12 AM..
Yes they did. However, how many F-16s could have been built for the price of the F-22? How much does the F-16 cost to fly per hour compared to the F-22?
Also, keep in mind that the price per unit of the F-22 is grossly distorted because of 1) the pitifully small numbers in which the airplane was finally purchased; and 2) repeated changes, stops, and starts to the program throughout most of the 90's.
It's hard to call them a "waste of money" although cost overruns certainly tend to push them towards that.
They're replacing current aircraft that have been in service for 30+ years in many cases. The stresses on airframes over that time make them less capable and the advances in sensors and weaponry may not be compatible with older planes.
Modernizing is a process that needs to be done occasionally, even though the likeliest air combat in the next few decades won't involve dogfighting. Still, it's a possibility that can't be overlooked.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is the F22 and F35 a waste of money?
