F-22 Raptor Thread
- Thread starter Jeff Head
- Start date
Equation
Lieutenant General
One for air superiority (F-22) and one for ground strike superiority (A-10). Who needs an F-35A and F-35C (although B version is still needed IMO)?
That would be the USAF, and partner Air Forces, and the USN, I suppose you could be forgiven for not knowing the USN needs the C, because they have made NO case for needing it. The USAF and Marines have made a great case for needing the A and the B respectively.
I'm afraid the Navies under-estimation of the real threat will cost us all, just as it did with ATF??? Had their been a more mature understanding of the threat going forward the Navy would have bought ATF, and they would be available now as top-cover for those 11 very precious floating air-fields. When we face a tier 1 threat, not if? but when?, the Navy will find itself in a real pickle if they don't keep their commitment to field the F-35C, that poor old A-10 will not "cut it" when the world class AAM go hot, and those systems are proliferating rapidly, and they are "cheap" in the grand scheme of things.
As General Carlisle pointed out, you need the F-35 "In numbers" to do the same job the F-22 is able to do as a two ship, but with sufficient numbers, you will have an aircraft that will bring the old football adage to bear, the best defense, is a good offense!
Make NO mistake gentlemen, this little Ukrainian bull would have never happened except for the BHO teams real world lack of "rocks", they better grow some before its to late!
I'd say that the carrier testing that recently went on with the Charlie, and the next round of tests about to occur, show that the US Navy has made the case for the F-35C and is going about executing the plan to acquire, make operational, and deploy it.
Again...I predict that US naval aviators, once the flight envelope is opened up, and once they take full advantage of the stealth and sensor capabilities...and ten when you add the longer range and heavier payload...I say naval aviators are going to love the Charlie. They may one day refer to them as "Charlie's Angels."
Again...I predict that US naval aviators, once the flight envelope is opened up, and once they take full advantage of the stealth and sensor capabilities...and ten when you add the longer range and heavier payload...I say naval aviators are going to love the Charlie. They may one day refer to them as "Charlie's Angels."
I dare argue it isn't so easy. Had the navy bought into the ATF and gotten the F(/A)-22, the "fighter gap" (of which we heard in the past from the navy) / budget issues would have been a lot bigger.
After all the fixed cost money was spent on the program, I believe estimated incremental cost for additional copies (beyond 183 jets) were about $140M each. Allowing for navalization let's make it easy and say 150? In realitiy probably even more. That would be $15 billion for 100 jets, not a large fleet by any stretch.
On the other hand Super Hornets have become really price competitive over the years, while still providing great capability. At a cost of just over a third of the notional naval Raptor the navy would have missed the money for maybe 250 Super Hornets? Out of about 500 delivered so far. That would have been 150 jets less that are more modern then legacy Hornets.
Would the SeaRaptor have been 2,5 times as effective? Perhaps, but just to make up the numbers to fill all the different deployments and be "on scene" around the globe would require a very high operational tempo (not that it's low now) incurring additional cost for intense maintenance / high readiness. The flight hours would mount really fast, leading to quicker airframe fatigue.
After all my drivel here, I'm not so easily decided.
Interesting master Scratch, although those Raptors will also do a fine job of force mulitpliction, my point though is that the Charlie is an opportunity for USN to get back on track, those Naval Aviators will love the Charlie, as master Jeff says, it will be an angel, though any single engine carrier aircraft give a Navy Driver cold sweats at night?
Well, the US Navy has had great experience with the likes of the A-4 Skyhawk, the F-8 Crusader, and the A-7 Corsair II. Those aircraft were in service with the US Navy, flying off of carriers from 1954 with the A-4, and for the US Navy, the A-7 was retired in 1992.
But the F-8 Served with the French Navy until 2001, and the A-7 with the Greeks until 2014. So that was a total of 60 years of service...and of course, A-4s still serve on today in small numbers by Brazil, and by Draken International as aggressor aircraft.
So, we were able to build them then to be reliable and get the job done off of the carriers., and I believe the F-35 C will can do the same now.
