Funny thing about you foreigners opintions....(F-22)

[pluto77189]

is that the freaking US congress should listen to you guys on this topic.

The people in the government that want to cut the F-22 numbers(totally or to the point of uselessness) are arguing that we don't "NEED" them. They use the history of the F-15 and F-16, and their combat records as evidence. They lobby to the people that make the decisions(but do not "know" anything(congress)that the F-15 will be fine for the future.

They argue that noting can touch the F-15 and the F-16. They use the fact that they have not been shot down by another plane in the past 30 years as evidence. The scary part is that these people convienently ignore the part that says "the last 30 years".

they are trying to convince ongress that putting thrust vectoring nozzels on F-15's and F-16's will be "good enough" for the forseeable future, and "we don't have to worry about any adversaries, as they can't touch the F-15."

We're not going to go to war with Russia. So what? we should be prepared to fight any foreseeable conflict, not just russia.

What happens when some we have to go against any nation that has Su X or Mig 3X's?? or a small rougue state that has SAM 20's or those 250 mile range sam's the Russians are building?? I sure as hell wouldn't want to be flying an F-15 in that combat zone--especially one where a SAM might reach out to touch an E-3. Sure, with the American military infrastructure, we'd probably still win out, but with losses.

I would not want to be a military pilot if I KNEW I was flying in a second rate(literally ) aircraft over hostile territory equipped with first rate, newer generation aircraft and SAMs, would you?

Although a lot of you guys seem to LIKE the non-US built fighters better than the F-22(for whatever reasons), don't most of you agree that NOT building the F-22 would be a bad idea?

Honestly, I have never really cared much for the mig-25-29's, but I can definatly understand that Russia is selling the Su-27 to other countries. And the Su-27 itself(nevermind the advanced versions...)is at least as capable as the F-15.

Keeping the F-15 ( now INFERIOR to potential enemy fighters) as our primary air superiority fighter will mean that we may NOT be able to attain sir superiority in future conflicts. If the US cuts back to less than 200 F-22's, I can tell you what's going to happen.

When we end up in the next gulf-war type thingy, with whoever, whereever, in a coalition with European countries, we're going to have to rely on the tyhpoon for air superiority. Sure, AWACS can give their targets to F-15's, but what if the AWACS are not able to get in range becasue of defensive systems?? We'll be wishing we had something AT LEAST as good as the typhoon, and better than that damned terminator, and something that was able to get just a TAD bit closer to the enemy before it's detected.

I think it's pretty funny. Politicians are trying to kill the Raptor here in the US, because they are unconcerned with national security, and state we have nothing to fear about FUTURE enemy fighters.
And YOU guys are arguing that the PRESENT russian fighters are better than the F-15 and F-16.

Personally, as members of allied nations, don;t YOU think the F-22 is NEEDED? Wouldn't you want your allies fighting along side you country's typhoons and rafales with raptors,and NOT 20+ year old F-15's when you're going up against Su-thirtysomethings and fortysomethings?

[FoverF]

Ahhh yes.
A country is always ready for the last war it fought.

The problem lies in the beleif that America's future wars will be nothing more than subduing 3rd world nations with little-to-no military.

This has been the recent trend, but it is unwise to plan your war-fighting capability around your least capable foes.

When you prepare to fight the strong (USSR) , the weak fall easily (Iraq).
Preparing to fight the weak does not guarantee the same thing.

[jerre]

The F-15 and F-16 still have the capability to secure airspace, even against MiG 29s and Su 27s. These aircraft are (arguably) the better then their US counterparts. The reason is that the US airforce has better backup (awacs, supplies etc), amongst the best trained pilots and outnumbers in the conflicts it will likely face.

You say you don't care much 'bout the MiG 25 and 29, I can agree the MiG 25 isn't a modern fighter anymore and its capabilities have been exaggerated in the past. But the MiG29 is a good fighting machine, designed for the same role as the F-16, and like the F-16 evolved, without the drawbacks the F16C and following had.

however, In a serious conflict, like with Russia, India, China, France ( I do realize this is really hypothetical ), it will not be easy and total air superiority cannot be taken by granted.

Although their budget is only a fraction of that of the USA, other nations won't stand still and will develope new jets and launch new programs. We already have the Rafale, Eurofighter and J-10, which beat the US' teen series of aircraft. they are probably more cost-effective than the F-22 too...

so my conclusion : If the USA wants to keep waging its wars and defend its 'interests', it can't afford cutting even more F-22 than they already did, although the money is badly needed for domestic problems... but i'm getting of topic already

[K-9]

FoverF,

If you think that the USA will only have to fight third world countries in the future then that might be taken as an argument against procuring high tech. aircraft like the Typhoon and Raptor.

I think that we should be prepared for a 'worst case senario' of fighting a war against a competent adversary. Even third world countries these days have Su27s and Mig29s.
How can you say that the USAF which is in the process of buying F/A-22s is 'preparing to fight [only] the weak.' Is this the great British sympathy for the underdog?

Commentators on this forum who are very partisan for different fighter programs are usually simply banging their national drums. It is a kind of 'me too-ism.' Apart from that those who appear so hostile to the F/A-22 are voicing the popular mood of envy and resentment at American power. They have forgotten that in future conflicts Typhoons, Rafales and Raptors will fight side by side.

[Lomik]

"They have forgotten that in future conflicts Typhoons, Rafales and Raptors will fight side by side."- K-9

Sure they will… just like Germany & France, (among others) fought side by side with U.S. in Iraq. And who’s to say they were wrong in not doing so? But that’s another topic…

[JaFu]

I for one will say they were wrong for not doing so, and Lomik, I hope you don't mean to imply that France or Germany will be at war with the U.S. one day. Sure these aircraft may be sold to other nations, but with a price tag as high as the Eurofighters, it will most likely be democratic capitalist countries that are able to afford them.

[Iron-Eagle]

I agree with jerre on this one. The reason the U.S. will remain superior is better support and better training.

Most of the sales of Russian fighters are to otherwise 3rd world countries. They don't bother with buying everything it takes to make them work as part of a real defense strategy. The U.S. will always have the right support in place, but I'm not sure that anyone other than Russia has all the right pieces. Training - forget about it! Russia is probably pretty good, India is probably marginal, and the rest are also rans...