US Stealth Air Fleet mostly grounded?

[Prydain]

I love the F22 apologists, they are like the average youtube Christian. No matter what it is the best thing ever. I especially was intrigued by that Hayek/Mises apologist being in favour of an aircraft that is basically a costly failure of a public project.

The thing about the F22 is, it wouldn't be supportable in total war, it isn't fit for current wars and it is unlikely, or be able, to be deployed ever. For that money the US tax payer could have 60-70billions worth of equipment that would have been saving lives and contributing more to the efforts the US military is engaged in or, if the 14 year olds insist, buy one very big mobile gas-van that can fly to get the same results as they have now.

[PELHAM]

If that's true, why is it several nations are constantly lobbying the US to sell it to them? Why has Russia been probing US airspace since 2007 to trigger intercepts by the F-22 so they can take photos and analyse it's radar emissions? Why is it unfit for current and future wars, that simply isn't true? Are you also aware the F-22 has deployed overseas since 2007? Your second statement shows you have no understanding of strategic military thinking.

[Max Power]

it wouldn't be supportable in total war, it isn't fit for current wars and it is unlikely, or be able, to be deployed ever.

Yeah, I think that's going to need to be qualified. It's quite a bold statement with no support.

[NoRailgunner]

What is more cost effective (incl. training, maintenance etc) an air superiority fighter (eg F-22) or an multirole fighter (eg F-35)?
How many need to be build and fielded within the next 10 years?
When is the start/rollout date for the 6th gen fighters?

[RangerPL]

A multirole fighter like the F-35 makes more sense for a small country as it can perform a wide range of roles without the need to specialize. However, having a dedicated A2A machine like the Raptor means that you can gain control of the sky more easily.

I don't think we'll be seeing 6th Generation fighters for a looong long time. The other generations are the result of the NATO/WARPAC arms race as well as experience gained in proxy wars such as Vietnam and Korea.

Currently there is nothing Russia and China can put up that comes close to the Raptor (J-20 and PAK FA won't be entering service for a while). The US will develop new planes once it feels threatened again.

[Max Power]

a dedicated A2A machine like the Raptor

It has ground attack capability. I'm not sure if that means the f22 is a dedicated air dominance machine or not, but it is able to carry precision air to ground weapons.

[Slatts]

its called preparation

i see the same common thought slipping back into peoples minds..that dogfighting is over

people said the same thing after WW2, korea and vietnam, but its not and never will be. the F-22 was built as the "ultimate fighter plane"(although you can make your mind up on that) that could take down planes before the enemy knows its there, but can also dogfight just in case. after all, it was meant to take on flankers which were born to dogfight

sure there might not be a need for raptors right now, but who knows in the near future

[RKSL-Rock]

It has ground attack capability. I'm not sure if that means the f22 is a dedicated air dominance machine or not, but it is able to carry precision air to ground weapons.

Only in a very, very limited way. It can only carry up 1000lb JDAM internally or the new GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb. It has no Laser designation capability and is not compatible with any pod currently in service. Nor does it have the capability to datalink and share targets like other modern aircraft. It can - at this time - only use conventional radio. So it either has to have the targets pre-programmed or have the pilots manually input the coords. Or have a separate aircraft designating for them. Which, lets be honest, highlights its short comings as a multi/swing role platform.

As I've said several times before and several other people have also commented on. Its not a bad plane. Its just been designed to fulfil a role that isn't a major priority for the USAF at this time. It is designed as an Air Superiority platform for the Cold War type of scenario, defending the US and Allied Air Space against a more conventional enemy with a strong air force. Which in the current climate of asymmetrical warfare isnt a high priority.

Since the budget cuts the US Congress and the USAF have been trying to shovel more capabilities into the airframe and make it do things it was never really intended to do. As a result they are finding it harder to meet budgets and requirements because the money keeps draining away and the requirements keep changing. All you have to do is look at the Original requirements and compare it to the current ones. Then look at the projected vs actual in-service dates and capability upgrades. What was planned as a regular update cycle has now turned into a protracted and phased in-service development programme. And each time it fails a capability milestone the requirement has either been changed prior to it or re-written after it to deflect the blame.

The project has been mismanaged from a very early stage. Attempts to rescue it and add capability it was never really designed for have just pushed up the cost to the point where it's not economically viable to produce in large numbers with out export sales. Something that the US congress won't allow. I'm sure its a fine fighter. I'll go so far as to say I know it is. People I know very well work for Lockheed. I've even met a real live F-22 pilot and had a long talk with him in the company of Typhoon and Tornado pilots that have taken part in Red Flag exercises with and against F-22s. They all say the same. Despite it short comings it's a very good fighter. But it's not a very flexible (swing or multirole) platform when considered in terms of the current modern conflicts.

[Max Power]

Edifying.

I read an article on an Australian appraisal of the F-35 and its capabilities an limitations. It seemed quite honest. One of the things they were discussing was the proposal of the RAAF to use the F-35 to replace its F-111s in the penetration bomber role. One of the aspects they were discussing is the F-35 may not live up to expectations because its stealth is not as 'disciplined' as the F-22s, and is meant primarily to work against shorter range, tactical air defence radars. They were supposing that the doctrine that the F-35s was designed for was for use after the strategic air defence capability was already destroyed by F-22s. It seems like the F-35 is not the only aircraft that the Australians have (or had) an undeservedly high appraisal of.

[Spooky Lynx]

If that's true, why is it several nations are constantly lobbying the US to sell it to them? Why has Russia been probing US airspace since 2007 to trigger intercepts by the F-22 so they can take photos and analyse it's radar emissions? Why is it unfit for current and future wars, that simply isn't true? Are you also aware the F-22 has deployed overseas since 2007? Your second statement shows you have no understanding of strategic military thinking.

1) Marketing and advertisement. I've seen huge and colorful articles promoting Raptor long before it went to serial production.
2) It's a new aircraft so it's good to have some true info about it. Who knows when and where it will be used...
3) It's unfit because only few countries have fighters that may compete with F-22. Raptor requires complicated maintenance, so it can't be operated from all airbases. So who may be its counterpart? Looking at US enemies, it is quite enough to use current 4th gen fighters, they can do all the work of Raptor for less money. They are in large numbers, they are easier to maintain, they can operate from nearly every airbase, they are supported by AWACS and ECM aircrafts, they can use the same weapons as Raptor does. Maybe they are less stealthy but they can see their enemies at the same range through AWACS and J-STARS as F-22 does (don't even try to tell me that F-22 will be ever operated without AWACS support during any serious war).
So, Raptor is too expensive for using it against taliban-style guerrillas and Iran-style countries and too small in quantity for being used against Russia or China. It's just 'look what we can produce' thing.