Mike
Is the F-22 a waste of money?
July 18, 2008 12:00 AM
There has been a lot in the news recently about the battle between Boeing and Airbus, both in civilian aviation, and more recently in the battle over who will supply the US Airforce with its next generation of midair refueling tankers.
Now, it is an undeniable fact that the US (and for that matter, Britain) is operating a rapidly aging fleet of aircraft. In 2007 Defence Industry Daily announced that the current US fleet is the oldest in USAF history, with an average aircraft age of 23 years. Many of the refuelling tankers are 40 years old, and according to this article may be 70 or 80 years old before they retire.
On this evidence - and with the current world security situation remaining tense it is obvious that the USAF should be looking to refresh its fleet. Hence the development of the awesome F-22.
But, this article on the BBC website really got me thinking. The F-22 is quite clearly an awesome machine, the first in the so-called fifth-generation of jets. But as far as I can tell it seems destined to come up against the problems that the Eurofighter has faced. Put quite simply, it isn't needed.
At $140 million each, the F-22 is an expensive bird, and I am sure would be a fantastic addition to any airforce engaged in a conventional war. The only problem with that being the fact that there is not any single nation capable of waging a conventional war against the US anymore. Sure, the F-22 is an impressive dogfighter. But who is it going to be fighting? Today there just isn't the sort of global world threat that requires this level of air superiority is there? As it stands the F-22 programme is under threat because the US airforce are threatening to cut back on their orders and the F-22 is banned from being sold to other countries. Sure the current air fleet is an old one, but it seems to be doing the job in Iraq and Afghanistan, would the F-22 make any noticeable difference on the ground there?
Oh, well - my personal feeling is that it is unnecessary - what do you all think? Oh and just for laughs, have a look at the F-22 clip below...and the super cool F-35 clip below that...another aircraft which is too expensive and too advanced in my eyes, but look how pretty!
COMMENTS
Thinking to the actual conflicts as the only form of future warfare is big mistake. With this logic not only the Raptor but any weapon system not connected to the land warfare against light or “irregular” infantry is a waste of money. So we could cut the F-22, the F-35, but even new SSK or SBN, or even the entire Navy: technically speaking the Western Forces need new small fire arms, better protected vehicles against IED, better communications, light attack and observation UAVs, turboprop attack aircrafts (why waste money in a jet?), transport aircrafts and navy, more helos and nothing more. With the logic of “no useful on the present conflicts” we could cut everything else.
But this logic is valid for the future? The answer is NO.
Conventional conflict remain very probable (see the Middle East today) and new, more capable weapons system are becoming more cheap and available. See the pacific region: sophisticated new “double digit” SAMs (with hundred of miles of range, capable of “deny” the access to entire area) and derivate of the Su-27 Flanker are brought in significant number and the same thing can happen everywhere (see Venezuela). Russians are developing new SAM (S-400), and a new stealth fighter (PAK-FA); in the future we will see the export version of these weapon systems.
And the cheaper F-35 is not a fighter, but a subsonic stealth bomber, lacking the speed, the range and the kinetic dynamic of the Raptor. BTW it’s false that the USAF don’t want anymore the Raptor; they really want to continue the production and have 300+ fighters. It’s the actual Secretary of Defence who wants to terminate the production and has removed the USAF higher ranks Raptor supporters.
So if the American taxpayers don’t want waste hundred of millions dollars in a future six-generation fighter or on a new fighter UCAV to counter future menace is better that they buy TODAY a sufficient of Raptor. The F-35 is not the answer and even worse is to continue with 30 years old 4- generation fighters that are falling from the sky (see the F-15).
Report this comment