Got to pet a Raptor today.

[Grant]

exactly, and tactical bombing was something that they never envisioned the B-52 would be used for, and how could you even see how something like that would be used in the future? The point is that you don't know the future of the F22 and what it will do, or even what it is capable of.

And ballistic submarines are launching tomahawks and delivering seal teams, again, something that may not have been forseen, but something that they've done and they have most certiainly gotten some use.

Are you saying that the -22 is gonna be adapted for a different role? Its a superiority fighter, for which we have minimal need at the moment. The other role that it could be used for is strike, but it would offer no advantage over what we currently have. So instead of spending over $100 million (or whatever the current pricetag is) for one, why not get bunch of Vipers or a couple Strike Eagles?

The AF redesignating the "F-22" as the "F/A-22" is a joke.

Everything simply my opinion, of course.

 

[TurnandBurn55]

The problem is that the F/"A"-22's cost went out of control in large part to scrub its radar cross signature down to almost nil. This, in turn, limits its weapons delivery to an internal payload. How do you adapt it to a role it wasn't 'envisioned' for?

The B-52 and Trident analogy doesn't work... in their cases, it's (to oversimplify) to change the type of ordnance. The Chair Force has made a decision that F/"A"-22, by design, should lack the ability to put warheads on foreheads that the F-15E has... and the taxpayer has to pay an obscene amount more for that reduced ability. YAYY!

 

[Brett327]

The other role that it could be used for is strike, but it would offer no advantage over what we currently have.

Sure about that one? Ask your average SA-6 operator who they would rather go against - F-15E or an F/A-22. Now, I don't believe that the -22 is the end all/be all, but to make blanket statements like that is just stupid.

Keeping it real,

Brett

 

[Grant]

Sure about that one? Ask your average SA-6 operator who they would rather go against - F-15E or an F/A-22. Now, I don't believe that the -22 is the end all/be all, but to make blanket statements like that is just stupid.

Yes, I overstated, when you look at it like that. But from a cost/benefit standpoint, there is little advantage to the -22 the way I see it. What would you rather have at your disposal, 1 Raptor or a handful of Strike Eagles?

As a strike platform, I'd think that the Raptor is a horrible value.

Dont mean to argue, and I'm no expert, by any means, like I said I'm just throwing out my opinion.

 

[Singer6]

I think there is a place for it. There are things a lot more nasty out there than the SA-6 and since China is deciding it would rather have these than feed its people then we either need some great intel and lots of TLAMs or something that can get in and out fast as hell and take them out.

 

[RHPF]

I think the Black Widow is much cooler than the Raptor. I heard a story that the Test Pilot who flew both aircraft was pissed when they selected the F-22 and was basically told to shut up. Not sure why the YF-23 lost though. Couldn't be cost because the Air Force always gets all the money for the new toys.

I was all of probably 6 at the time, but I was a big fan of the 23 and was disappointed to learn that the 22 won. Later I remember reading that the 23 was based on the 15, and there were complaints about some of its systems. The 22 of course being all new, and apparently 'superior' was picked, but in hindsight its pretty apparent that was a mistake since 'all new' = expensive.

The 22 is of course an amazing performer from everything I read, but what it excels at isnt too much of an issue anymore. None the less, preparing for the future isnt a bad thing IMO.

"According to the Air Force, factors in the selection for production of the F-22 were a better designed for maintainability, greater potential for future development, and slightly lower cost. Secretary of the Air Force Donald B. Rice stated that the choice was based on confidence in the ability of the Lockheed team and Pratt & Whitney to produce the aircraft and its engine at projected costs. Emphasizing the importance of the Lockheed team's management and production plans, he denied that either prototype was significantly more maneuverable or stealthy. A popular view is that the decision reflected a preference for maneuverability over stealth"