The world's only operational 5th generation stealth fighter has waded into combat for the first time in its almost decade old career with the USAF. Ironically, an aircraft that was built to be the ultimate air-to-air fighter went to war for the first time slinging bombs. Regardless of its mission, the first combat use of the F-22 has been tragically long overdue.
The F-22 can't be used on carriers. That's the main reason. The F22 is a pretty big bird, though it's no bigger or heavier really than the now retired F14. The main issue is it wasn't designed for catapult launches and arrested landings, so the airframe can't take that kind of abuse. There were plans early in its development to have a Navy version, but it would have been a lot heavier due to the beefing up needed for cats and traps.
The F35 is SUPPOSED to cost less, but currently the program's overrun ALONE is double the F22's entire program cost. The per-unit cost (minus development) is still projected to be about half the cost of an F22 for the Air Force version and about 2/3rds for the Navy and Marine Corps versions. It's creative accounting- because the overall program cost is still projected to be 20 TIMES the program cost of the F22... for about 20 times the number of aircraft. All in all, it'll probably be a wash.
The argument is the F35 is more versatile. But history has shown you can always modify an existing weapon system to do other duties. The F22 is far more capable than just an air superiority fighter. It can be used in close range and strategic use, but the Air Force is really too scared to use their crown jewel in riskier roles because they have so few of them. The original plan was 750 of them, there were only 187 built.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
Lets get some of Dale Browns ideas in the open,I think we wasted a great platform in the A-6,I got deleted in a few minutes when I suggested they were being real careful when they sawing the empennage off of a B-52(believe they could reattach(probaly better then new,pretty quickly)that moderator deleted Me in about 3 minutes at that defense site,So maybe there is some life in Dales ideas after all,those old A-6s used to screech over here all the time,now all you see on occasion are the electronic warfare version and they are pretty rare,now about all you see are the Hornets,rubbing the "brush"'
It really seems the F-35 program is jinxed,maybe its went so far now(like the shuttle) it has to run its course.
Just had a thought,maybe its time to develop more anti missile tech or countermeasures,maybe some type of canister type munitions to "swarm" an in coming missile and maybe "hard pellet" turbine destructors to down enemy aircraft,lets face it I think the age of standoff and drones are upon us.
Maybe a new age of reason will emerge,so we dont need so many "engines of destruction".
You wont believe what happened at Cherry Point,once upon a time concerning the Harriers,I wont elaborate,because it will step on somebodies toes,but it was a classic example of govt waste( and the Marines like their VTOL aircraft)the Harrier was a feisty aircraft in the proper hands.
The A-6 was retired mainly because the F/A-18 existed. It's a common tactic by the military to retire older systems for the "cost savings" so they can buy new systems, even if the new systems can't do the job any better than the old ones. Though if the A-6 was still around NOW, the airframes would be plain worn out, as most were built prior to 1980 (they did build a few a year through the 80s into the 90s to replace airframe losses, but that accounts for less than 100 of the nearly 700 built). The EA-6B was just recently retired from the Navy mostly for that reason (the Marines will retain them for about 4 more years) as the EA-18G production wound down.
The F/A-18 ended up taking both the A-6 and the F-14's roles. Makes for easier maintenance, but its a compromise.
Death is Nature's way of telling you to slow down.
wesw wrote:it s been a while since I ve seen film of a harrier, but that looked a lot smoother, if I recall
Not surprising, seeing the Harrier has been doing it since December 1967.
“If you trust in yourself, and believe in your dreams, and follow your star. . . you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things and weren't so lazy.”
How come we cant have an upgraded "Hog" that is as fast as the Russian attack plane?A little more power and clean the aerodynamics up a little,the Thunderbolt is a good platform and we really need a coin aircraft.Its survivability is amazing,COIN planes are needed,ask the Vietnam groundpounders,what they thought of "Sandy"
datsunaholic wrote:The A-6 was retired mainly because the F/A-18 existed. It's a common tactic by the military to retire older systems for the "cost savings" so they can buy new systems, even if the new systems can't do the job any better than the old ones. Though if the A-6 was still around NOW, the airframes would be plain worn out, as most were built prior to 1980 (they did build a few a year through the 80s into the 90s to replace airframe losses, but that accounts for less than 100 of the nearly 700 built). The EA-6B was just recently retired from the Navy mostly for that reason (the Marines will retain them for about 4 more years) as the EA-18G production wound down.
The F/A-18 ended up taking both the A-6 and the F-14's roles. Makes for easier maintenance, but its a compromise.
Bullshit. The Air Force is still flying B-52s that were built in the Eisenhower administration! The newest A-10 was built in 1984. Most B-1s are over 25 years old. The A-1 Skyraider was in service 30 years.
