The MOST LETHAL fighter ever made shouldn't just be replaced, sure, it is getting old and maintnance costs are going up, but that doesn't mean we can't build new f-15s, with better radar, engines, etc. Instead, the F-15 and F-22 should be paired, until the F-22 has been proven in battle, and even the F-4 hasn't been replaced, even though it is one of the worst jet fighters in history. So why on earth replace the F-15 without even considering building newer, better ones??
You make a good point and there are those that agree with you. Espically since the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II which has been designed to satisfy the diverse needs of each of the military services and it is affordable.
By using many of the same technologies developed for the F-22, the F-35 has the opportunity to capitalize on commonality and modularity to maximize affordability.
Most of it has to do with stealth. It cost a lot less to build SAMS than it is to build and maintain an airforce.
Stealth is the Key...
SAMS are not a joke. The S-300 is a series of Russian long range surface-to-air missile systems by the Almaz Scientific Industrial Corporation all based on the initial S-300P version. It was developed as a system against aircraft and cruise missiles for the Soviet Anti-Air Defence branch of the military, but later variations were also developed to intercept ballistic missiles.
The closest western equivalent is the United States of America MIM-104 Patriot system or the US Navy RIM-66 Standard Missile 2 (SM-2). Both systems can engage multiple targets simultaneously, employ advanced guidance methods, and rely on a single phased array guidance radar to guide the missiles in the air, but S-300 has longer range and faster missiles. Almaz claims a deployment time of five minutes.[1] Like the Patriot, the S-300 missiles are sealed rounds and require no maintenance over their lifetime.
Export users include the People's Republic of China, India, Ukraine, Belarus, Slovakia, Greece, Bulgaria, Kazakhstan, Vietnam, Algeria and Libya.
What I want to know is why are we building another nimitz class carrier?
For one it does go any place without a lot of other ships needs to be protected and supported. Since they are so expensive to build we are not going to risk losing one to a speed boat, mine, torpedo, missiles or any other Improvised Explosive Device.
The U.S Air force made a great case why it was more effective to invest in stealth bombers like the B1 and F 111 as well as unmanned aircraft than in a Nimitz Class Carrier.
When you consider the cost to deliver a single bomb by a carrier based plane verses the cost to deliver a single bomb by a B1 or F 111 it is millions verses thousands.
Remember as of today none of the Nimitz Carriers can carry a Stealth Aircraft. The one slated for use is the F35 but that has Vertical Take Off and Landing ability.
There are many that think the Large Carrier is obsolete. We have the ability to strike from the U.S to any place in the world; the British have demonstrated that Vertical Landing and Take off Aircraft (Remember soon we will be seeing the F35) on smaller Carriers is just as effective as aircraft off of larger carriers.
When it comes to ground support is the F18 a better cost effective solution to the AV-8B Harrier or Attack Helicopters that can be deployed from small carrier as well as some surface ships and can be stationed at makeshift basses closer to the battle field than the carrier based F18A? Lets not forget the F35 will make the F18 obsolete.
Personally we need a craft that can both deploy aircraft as well as transport military personally as well as armor, an entire marine or army unit.
Building a new Carrier the George Brush is a waste to time and money . We can use the money to pay for the F22's.
Frank
This message has been edited. Last edited by: kim g,
the f22 is way too expensive, the US military is getting to the point in technology, where it's technology is just to expensive, and therefore, i think that the f 15 should be upgraded, and also produced in large numbers instead of a couple of f22s
If you think about it, you can see key similarities between the F-15 and F-22, so an F-22 is pretty much a stealthy F-15. And besides, the F-22, while it does have better manuverablilty, the Russain Mig-29 still outdoes it. We could be upgrading F-15s with thrust vectoring, which has already been done on 1 example. Thrust vectoring on an F-15 would give it better manuverablilty than the F-22. So just upgrading F-15s would be less expensive, and it would help the United States debt from going up even farther. We are already in the tens of trillions.
A program to upgrade the F15 and F16 would not be a bad idea.
The way it works now is we use our stealth technology, F111 and B1 and B2 for first strike capabilities to sneak in and take out air defenses, command centers and air field before we send in our F15, F16 and F18A/F.
Problem is the Stealth planes have to work at night, they are venerable because of subsonic flight of being seen and shot down by conventual’s aircraft with guns.
In early 2006, after an exercise involving just eight F-22s in Nevada in Nov. 2005, Lieutenant Colonel Jim Hecker, commander of the 27th Fighter Squadron (FS) at Langley AFB, Virginia, commented "We killed 33 F-15Cs and didn't suffer a single loss. They didn't see us at all".
In June 2006 during Exercise Northern Edge (Alaska's largest joint military training exercise), the F-22A achieved a 144-to-zero kill-to-loss ratio against F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s simulating MiG-29 'Fulcrums', Su-30 'Flankers', and other current front line Russian aircraft, which outnumbered the F-22A 4 to 1 at times. The small F-22 force of 12 aircraft generated 49% of the total kills for the exercise, and operated with an unprecedented reliability rate of 97%.
The Russian Mig-29 is no match for the F22. It would not be able to pick it up on radar or get a lock. Before the Mig-29 got a visual on the F22 he would be shot out of the air. The F22 and F35 solves the problem of supersonic stealth and can operate in daylight. Maximum speed is estimated to be Mach 1.72 in supercruise mode (No After bunner) and without external weapons; with afterburners, it is "greater than Mach 2.0" (2,120 km/h), according to Lockheed Martin. The Raptor can easily exceed its design speed limits, particularly at low altitudes; max-speed alerts help prevent the pilot from exceeding the limits. That is scarry.
The F22 has both activate passive systems, it sits our in stealth mode in a non-radiating mode or can receive information from other sources and lock and fire and disappear.
With new G Suits and breathing techniques pilots are taking 9 G’s.
It all comes down to who sees who first gets the kill.
The new F22 and F35 have 360 degrees of sight as well as they can look down and it is all projected in a pilot’s visor.
The truth is the F35 JSF is the future and perhaps a much better plan. With its stealth ability it can dominate the sky as well as any area that it fly’s in. It can see you and you can not see it or lock on it and it can cruses also at 1.6 Mach with out an after burner.
Non Stealth planes are venerable to the new portable SAMS. It is not being shot down form a fighter but from a portable SAMS they are worried about.
You have a lot of good points a mix of both makes sense.
I'm split 50/50 on this one. The F-22 and F-35 are both great fighter with tons of potential like stealth and supercruise. but the cost of making them is pretty high for my taste. The F-15 and F-16 are both easy to maintain and we have plenty of good pilots for them. but we also need to meet the threat of the Su-47 so there's my little note
The Mig-29 can out-manuver the F-22, but just barely, and again, like Frank said, it is only if the Mig can see the F-22 and avoid being shot down long enough to be able to engage in a dogfight. There is also a Russian fighter, the Su-47, that has even greater manuverability than the Mig-29. I have only recently heard of the Su-47.
This message has been edited. Last edited by: neowing,
what fberts said about the george bush is wrong. it makes sense to build it because we are already retiring nimitz class ships like the kennedy and the first cvn 21 won't be ready for a while. and the navy plans to use both the newer nimitz class ships and the new cvn 21s thus increasing the striking power of the navy. the george bush can also be upgraded with technology from the cvn 21 class ships so it does make sense to build it.
if you can carry 90 plus aircraft though that means you can have more variety in aricraft allowing you to carry out more roles such as intercept missions, antisub missions, and all of that type of stuff. if you have 90 plus aircraft that means you can have more aircraft for each mission. Besides that, other countries have smaller carriers but they don't project power like the nimitz class does.
and by the way the USN does have smaller carriers called assault carriers. the wasp class in service right now. it can carry about 2000 marines, helicopters and boats and ospreys to transport them, and harriers for close air support.
You are right Frank about if you cannot see it then you cannot gt a lock, but what about heat-seeking missiles? You do not need a radar lock for a heat-seeker to get a lock-on.
Did you catch the show the Future of the U.S N? More enphase on smaller faster Stelther ships.
Many will carry vertical take off aircraft.
More flexability, use of UAV as well as Unmanned ships simular to the UAV's.
Aircraft ground atack missions appears to be changing. The use of UAV to spot targets as well as small teams and droping smart bombs and cruse missles seem to be the trend.
Which leads to what is the future of the big carrier strike.
The primary mission of the USN is to protect the sea lanes and shipping and not to invade nations.
Yes we need a airfield at sea, one in which all forces can use and support all aircraft not just USN aircraft.
Note that the USN uses a different refueling system than the airforce uses or the US Army for thieir helicopters.
The USN seems to be in a world of thier own and do not like playing with other arms of our armforces.
the navy can pretty much do anything that is needed in any nation relativly close to the ocean. marines are techinally part of the navy so with marines and all of the airpower the navy cold fight a war by itself. so if the navy really didn't want to they wouldn't need to cooperate. but the navy does cooperate in close air support. it was the navy that provided the diversion during desert storm by firing on the kuwati coast with the big guns of the missouri and wisconsin.
Yes, the navy does use more UAVs and the such, but with those, why would we need stealth fighters like the F-22 or the new F-35? We could just use the UAVs to do all of the air roles pretty much, they may not carry a heavy payload, but it is cheaper to mass produce them as opposed to making just one F-22 or F-35.
uavs can't do everything. a piolt in an f-22 or f-35 is going to be a better dogfighter than some guy with a joystick a thousand miles away. there are some areas where you can't replace human intelligence.
your are right about the F-22 or F-35 pilot being a better dogfighter, but would it be worth losing a human pilot? it would be a lot easier to send, say, 50 uavs on a mission than it would to send 25 human pilots on a mission, the uavs are expendable, the humans aren't.
