Posted on 12/13/2011 4:00:17 PM PST by ColdOne
MARIETTA, Ga. – The final F-22 Raptor fighter jet rolled off the assembly line during a ceremony at the Lockheed Martin aircraft plant at Dobbins Air Reserve Base. The product line is being replaced by the less costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as concerns arose in Washington that the $153 million F-22 was too costly and too high-tech for its own good.
Although foreign governments have expressed interest in purchasing the F-22, Congress banned its sale overseas out of concerns that the technology it carries is too sensitive to share.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
The product line is being replaced by the less costly F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as concerns arose in Washington that the $153 million F-22 was too costly and too high-tech for its own good.
Cost estimates for the F-35 have risen to $382 billion for 2,443 aircraft, at an average of $156 million each.
Only in Congress is a $156m aircraft les costly then a $153m aircraft.
Both aircraft are useless..
If the people who made and flew these aircraft were reliably Democrat voters, he’s put one in every Christmas stocking in America.
However, since servicemembers are normally Conservative by nature (not always but usually) he could care less.
Great catch! I didn’t notice that.
That statement is at least misleading.
The F-35 can take any aircraft in the sky except the F-22.
It has superior radar, Fire Control, data links to other aircraft...etc.
It's nearly invisible to any radar on the F-15C or any version of the F-16.
Now, if your measure is dollars per G-force or Mach rating...may as well buy Russian or Chinese. They beat the F-22 in those immaterial ratings with their most advanced airframes.
The F-35 ALSO has the ability to control and manage un-manned fighter drones via the datalink in it's radar package.
Lemme see: Put up a squadron of F-35s with 4 drones apiece, flying at Mach 1.2...cruising....35,000ft. Not seen by ground radar or AWACS...certainly not visible to airborne radar of their opponents until AFTER missile release.
Against 4 squadrons of F-16 or any F-18/F-15 variant and you tell us, who will win?
Current cost is $186 million each, and $ 64,000 an hour operating expense.
>>The F-35 can take any aircraft in the sky except the F-22.<<
You are speaking of the one they wanted not the one they got. The F-35 project has been rife with falling well short of expectations.
I haven’t seen any head to head reports but everything I have read says the new generation F-16s and F-18s have been close to a match.
You both understate the abilities of the F-16/18s (and the price points) and way overstate the deployed capabilities of the F-35. The one they are trying to deploy is a brick with wings.
Whether there is any point to manned jets at all is a discussion that would be interesting, but on another thread.
>>The F-35 can take any aircraft in the sky except the F-22.<<
You are speaking of the one they wanted not the one they got. The F-35 project has been rife with falling well short of expectations.
I haven’t seen any head to head reports but everything I have read says the new generation F-16s and F-18s have been close to a match.
You both understate the abilities of the F-16/18s (and the price points) and way overstate the DEPLOYED capabilities of the F-35. The one they are trying to deploy is a brick with wings.
Whether there is any point to manned jets at all is a discussion that would be interesting, but on another thread.
“It can’t even match up well against the new generation F-16 and F-18s it is supposed to replace”
Do you mean in terms of payload and range, etc. or in metal on target capability?
This is a bad decision made for the wrong reasons.
From a similar story about the last Raptor rolling off the line by Stephen Trimble's Dew Line:
Lockheed rolled out F-22 tail number 4001 in April 1997, the first of nine flight test aircraft. Development delays and cost overruns forced the USAF to reduce the original 750-aircraft programme to about 330 by 2000. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumseld trimmed the final number in 2006 to 187, and two aircraft have since been lost to crashes.
Congress banned its sale overseas out of concerns that the technology it carries is too sensitive to share.
I wonder how much of that high tech is still secure now that Iran has a fully operational copy of our most sophisticated stealth drone.
***
It should have had a cruise missile sent after it, or a laser guided bomb.
If we had a President with balls, he would have done that first.
If the Iranians had gotten it undercover before we could get to that point, he would have said, “Give it back or we will destroy it in place — and if we can’t be sure where it is, we will destroy every place we think it MIGHT be.”
But that would require having a President who is actually an American.
I swear, the next time, the VERY NEXT TIME, I meet a confessed Obama voter, I am going to punch him/her right in the mouth.
There are several less now due to crashes.
Thank you for your respectful and informative response.
The current generation of F-15, F-16 and F-18 variants are STILL the best birds up when compared to any non-US aircraft. But it's not necessarily their flight parameters that make them the best.
As is WELL KNOWN the F-15C has never been beat by any aircraft, ever. Nobody wants to tangle with it now and even "5th Generation" fighters from other countries can't beat it. To top it off we have about 400 of them...and another 300 or so F-15E coming online.
Problem with the C's is that they were all built by 1990 or so. The airframes are a little creaky.
I would not be opposed to building another 300 of the C's...new airframes. Make the easy, modern upgrades in controls, engines, materials, avionics and weapons.
Thing is, they'd likely be $150mil aircraft.
As for the F-35.
Yes, it was SUPPOSED to be faster, with greater range and payload than how it ended up.
But it's "almost stealth" characteristics and state-of-the-art avionics/weapons/controls makes it a suitable replacement for the F-16, with this exception:
They cost too much.
We need to build 3,000 combat aircraft in the next 15 years. Almost ANY existing airframe will do.
Most of the high danger business will be done by drones...under the DIRECT AND IMMEDIATE control of the weapons officer within 10 years.
>>But it’s “almost stealth” characteristics and state-of-the-art avionics/weapons/controls makes it a suitable replacement for the F-16, with this exception:
They cost too much.<<
Sounds like we have been following similarly and come up with similar conclusions. Sorry if I was a bit glib.
I did mention price point, but emphasizing it as you did is really where the bat hits the ball (the bug hits the windshield?).
As I said upthread, the future of drones vs. manned aircraft now and into the future will be a fascinating series of conversations/threads — just not one for now.
Late F-35 ping, Jet.
I seem to remember the same thing being said around 1965 or so. Even the Air Force and Navy believed it to the extent that they deliberately left a gun out of the original versions of the F-4 Phantom.
The same sort of "it's useless" crap was said about the F-15 and F-16 in their early days, by folks of the same political stripes that are saying it about the -22 and -35 today.
Long as I get to pick the pilot and carry a full complement of EW/Jamming gear, plus ARMs.
But you have to be at the Patriot site when I have 'em let the ARM's go.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.