The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter and is probably superb in that capacity when pitched against existing or potential air superiority fighters of rival powers. However, it is a hugely costly option as a means of providing air support for ground operations and I suspect that is what motivated the US Senate to vote down funds to add more F-22 to the US military inventory, especially in the current context of arms-reduction talks between the US and Russia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
BTW on defence (mis)spending and cutting public spending, readers may be fascinated to compare this news for the situation in the US a few years ago with our predicament:
"The [US] Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes. . . " http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL
This is vastly different from Gordo keeping our troops unfunded. The local Walmart in the US has more helicopters than the entire British army. These planes would not really make much of an impact in Afghanistan anyway.
See this comparison between the F-22 and the Russian Su-47: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVaAMvErA
According to this, 187 F-22 fighters have already been built or are in the pipeline: http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2121960220090721
The F-22 was originally designed back in the 1980s and it could be timely to move on. In prevailing fourth generation or asymmetric conflicts, there's a good case for less sophisticated (and less costly) aircraft to support ground operations for winning hearts and minds.
The F-22 was designed as an air-superiority fighter and is probably superb in that capacity when pitched against existing or potential air superiority fighters of rival powers. However, it is a hugely costly option as a means of providing air support for ground operations and I suspect that is what motivated the US Senate to vote down funds to add more F-22 to the US military inventory, especially in the current context of arms-reduction talks between the US and Russia:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
BTW on defence (mis)spending and cutting public spending, readers may be fascinated to compare this news for the situation in the US a few years ago with our predicament:
"The [US] Department of Defense, already infamous for spending $640 for a toilet seat, once again finds itself under intense scrutiny, only this time because it couldn't account for more than a trillion dollars in financial transactions, not to mention dozens of tanks, missiles and planes. . . "
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/05/18/MN251738.DTL
Ah, so that's the reason.
ReplyDeleteThis is vastly different from Gordo keeping our troops unfunded. The local Walmart in the US has more helicopters than the entire British army. These planes would not really make much of an impact in Afghanistan anyway.
ReplyDeleteRight - I stand corrected.
ReplyDeleteThe F-22 is the basis for the next generation of fighters. The Western world would wiser to keep it growing.
ReplyDeleteSee this comparison between the F-22 and the Russian Su-47:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLSVaAMvErA
According to this, 187 F-22 fighters have already been built or are in the pipeline:
http://www.reuters.com/article/companyNews/idUSN2121960220090721
The F-22 was originally designed back in the 1980s and it could be timely to move on. In prevailing fourth generation or asymmetric conflicts, there's a good case for less sophisticated (and less costly) aircraft to support ground operations for winning hearts and minds.