[Southack]

No, what it looks like to the enemy is the U.S. pouring money into a never-ending hole.

Moreover, it's the F-22, not the F/A-22. It's a fighter. It wasn't designed for plinking at muddy ground targets.

What has happened is that everyone in the world now realizes that something more advanced than the F-18 isn't needed. The F-22 is overkill for replacing the F-15, F-16, and eventually the F-18 (and the F-35 isn't even worth talking about).

So after spending $26 Billion for 23 F-22's, the Pentagon bureaucrats are scrambling to justify keeping the Raptor around...hence: now it's the F/A-22. Yeah, right.

This is vastly too much money to be spending for a fighter that isn't sub-orbital...much less one that still carries a man in it.

Yes, it's stealthy, but we've already got stealthy ground attack fighters and bombers. Why spend for more?

What we don't have are orbital and sub-orbital fighters. Likewise, we need to spend more for unmanned bombers and fighters.

The F-22 missed its time. It was born just at the point where it offers no cost-benefit advantage in battle. It's fast, yes. It's stealthy, yes...but we've already got those traits in our existing fleet.

If we are going to pay for more, then we should be getting more. That leaves the F-22 out.

[Pukin Dog]

Too many wrongs to note, so just WRONG. Name a single aircraft in the inventory that can TODAY drop a couple JDAM on a North Korean Nuke plant and get out?

[JasonC]

Same old nuance. Air superiority is the one mission to never compromize on, because it makes all the others possible. The F-22 is far and away the biggest advance over existing capabilities on the table. It is to older fighters what they were to early jets, or those to prop planes. It makes every existing threat AC obsolete. And that is worth plenty.

[GBA]

"No, what it looks like to the enemy is the U.S. pouring money into a never-ending hole."

"What has happened is that everyone in the world now realizes that something more advanced than the F-18 isn't needed. The F-22 is overkill for replacing the F-15, F-16, and eventually the F-18 (and the F-35 isn't even worth talking about)."

There is so much of you post that begs to be commented on. I will say that yo probably got something right. In this context, "the F-35 isn't worth talking about". Beyond that one point, you're lost. Why is it that only you thinks that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and the French is just rolling over and peeing on themselves at the mere thought about facing US air power. We are the best, clearly, but no one is just giving up. And only you thinks that the battle is going into space by the end of the month.

C'mon. Look at the life of any modern weapon system. You build it and then fit it to whatever roll it needs to fit as the budget demands. The F-117 is a nice exception, but that's about it. And as nice as the F-18 is, or the F-15, F-16 or even the F-14 are, they are almost out-dated by the modern Russian airframes. Let's leap ahead in technology again...as is the American birthright, and make them all play catch up for a few decades to come. We need to build the F-22. We owe it to our pilots to give them the best the world can conceive of. Right now, that honor is going to the Typhoon II. And that fact that the french have better tech than we do should not sit well with anyone.

Space? Sure, someday. We'll all be in Rutan's spaceforce, oK? But let's live in the moment, and live in the next a few decades to come and buy the F-22. (I wish is would have been the F-23, as I might still have the dream job I loved, but that's life.)

[lt.america]

Bingo! I did not read the entire story, but I saw the part when it was talking about dogfights with the F-15. When was the last time we were in a dogfight? The bigger question is CAS, and from what I have seen this is not the most ideal fighter for this mission.

[Veloxherc]

What the heck is with the F-18? IMHO it is not as good as everyone makes it out to be. Making a plane 125% bigger as in the super hornet is not an answer. I do not even fly fighters so I really do not have dog in this fight. IMO we should build the F-22. We should not let any other country get close to us, fighter wise. How would you like to see our ground troops under air attack? Yet we could do so much more with the money, heck I would like a good raise. With that said it will be the last U.S. manned fighter.

[Nip]

I wish I could remember when, it had to be a year to 17 months ago when the AF was trying to justify buying about 383 of the (then) F-22. Some ex-Air Combat Command Commander said the AF needed 383 of the F-22s so each Air Expeditionary Wing would have their own F-22 Wing supporting it.

He kind of glossed over the fact that , using that logic, we also needed 383 bombers, 383 aerial refueling platforms, 383 search and rescue platforms, 383 recce platforms, and the numbers go on and on… But, none of those were being funded or built.

I also find it disheartening to read that the AF is still trying to perform the close air support mission with a high speed, single seat fighter platform. The effectiveness of that effort (sarcasm off) was "proven" during Vietnam when the single seat fighter showed up too late, without the correct weapons load out, with no staying power, and all too often hit the wrong target. The AF knew this problem, and documented it, in an internal report about 1965. Guess the new technology has changed everything (sarcasm off - again) (darn thing is spring loaded to the ON position!); but the man flying the machine hasn’t changed and he will induce the same human factors we saw 40 years ago.