The Great Fighter Debate: Does the USAF really need the F-22 and F-35 right now?

Question

So the United States Air Force has finally begun to bring into service the next-generation F-22 and, in a few years, the F-35 (Joint Strike Fighter).

Each F-22 costs around $160,000,000 and in order to do this, the Air Force is having to Force Shape and downsize by about 40,000 jobs.

In a time where its current fighters are still well ahead of the rest of the world and the Air Force still operates tankers and bombers that are reaching 50+ years of age, is it still worth buying these super-expensive airplanes right now over updating and improving the rest of the Air Force?

So I agree that both these airframes are important and eventually necessary to have... I agree with y'all on that. However, my real question is do we need these aircraft at this very moment? My question was about priorities... should building a next-generation fighter really be the Air Force's top priority? What about the tankers that we have been using since the '60s and the B-52's since the '50s? Should the Air Force right now focus on building a new tanker and long-range bomber, instead of new fighters that really aren't a dire need YET. What about the USAF's lack of an electronics warfare platform... the use Navy EA-6s and those are bound to be retired very soon. Is the need for these new fighters so great that the Air Force needs to make personnel cuts and ignore other looming material needs in other areas... especially the ones that give the fighters their legs?

Answer 1

Did you forget that we sold are F-15, F-16, and F/A-18's to other countries. Saudi Arabia has some F-15s. If S.A. goes against us, we have are own planes fighting against us. We need a plane that no one else has. You can only be ahead if you don't give or sell are own military tech to other countries remember Iran, the government flipped out after it turn against us and had a number of are F-14s in their arsenal. For some strange reason the Iranians' F-14s were unable to fire missiles after the Grumman Techs left the Country.
Let us not forget the new planes that are coming out like the Eurofighter, and other European fighters that are being built out their to. The old airframes are still in use until the plane is too old to be good for combat, but the next generation is coming out everywhere else. We need a new generation of fighters as well.

OH, by the way, The Growler is coming out a F/A-18F airframe that is used for Electronic Warfare.

Bomber are somewhat easier to upgrade over fighters. They are made to do one job, get to the target and drop a ton of hell on them. The fighter needs to face other fighter and go toe to toe over them. Also we have other planes supporting the other planes . Finaly some airframes allow upgrades easier then other

For Ex: B-52 has a easier time getting new engines over others thanks to hanging them from the wing from placeing them in the wings or body.

I understand a little, The pilot is the most important piece of the fighter equation. A plane is only as good as the pilot flying it.

"What's important is not the box, but the man flying the box." The Red Baron

Answer 2

Well the F-15 is 35 years old, the F-16 is 30 years old.

While we still might use the B-52 and KC-135 tankers,

We also have the B1B and the B2 Bomber.

And Most tankers are now KC-10's based on the DC-10.

B-52's would never be used over a SAM environment.

They are kept now, mainly as a cruise missile launching platform, and for their maritime role of dropping mines.

It's not a choice of building new fighters or developing better armor for the Army.

.
The reason the Air Force can downsize with the new fighters coming online, is that the ratio of maintenance hours required per flight hour is much lower with the newer aircraft.

The Air Force just won't need as many people to maintain the aircraft as they did before.

.
We don't live in a vacuum, Europe has started production of the Euro-Fighter Typhoon and are exporting it.

The Russians are building the upgraded SU-30Mki which has a slight edge over the F-15, and again, they are exporting it.

And that's the whole point, we don't want to go into a conflict where the other side has equivalent technology.

Answer 3

Contrary to what you might think (and what others think, judging by some of the answers), our current fighters are not "still well ahead of the rest of the world". The newest versions of the MiG-29 and Su-27 are just as good, actually better in some respects, than the F-15C, F/A-18E, and F-16C. The Russian R-77 long-range AAM is just as good if not better than AMRAAM. The Swedish Gripen, French Rafale, and Eurofighter Typhoon are all excellent planes on par with if not better than our current fighters.

The Air Force has greatly cut it's initial procurement of the F-22 by several hundred due to budgetary constraints. If we don't develop and put into service such planes now then 10-15 years down the road we'll be in serious trouble when China, India, and other nations have develped such planes. You have to realize that new weapons systems, ships, aircraft, etc, take years to make it from the drawing board to actual service. During that time rapidly advancing technology can make the designe obsolescent or even obsolote by the time it enters service, which is why you have to stay ahead of the curve.

The US brought the F-14,F-15, and F-16 into service when all the branches were primarily equipped with the F-4, which was the best fighter in the world at the time. Using your argument, we'd probably still have the F-4 now, and we'd be in deep trouble.

I think Yak Rider is a bit confused. The F-22 is only being procured by the USAF, so the logistics argument goes out the window with that. The F-35 JSF will be produced in 3 different versions, which means that there won't be 100% parts commonality for them, and the different variants will require different training. Sorry, that washes out your entire argument. Money will be saved on the F-35 because it's planned that a large run of them will be produced for several different branches, and 9 different nations are involved in its development.

Answer 4

I would say yes. Among other things I might point out that in some areas we are not as far ahead as one might think. Last year in a dogfighting excercise a group of Indian airforce defeating and American squadron flying f-15s. At teh time the b-29 was developed there were several influnetial groups that wanted the project halted because of cost. It was the second most expensive development project in the U.S. and the most expensive plane development. Later these same money gripes haunted the b2. I think both of these planes particularly the b-29 have proven the value of the investment made over time. In a literal sense we don't need the f-22 especially the way interational combat is going, however the goal of advancement and development is not to make what you need but what you will need. If everything went right in teh world all of our military expenditure would seem like waste because it wouldnt get used (we almost abondened the a-10 thunderbolt 2 after the collapse of the soviet union only to find out how truly usefull it was during the persian gulf war).Howver I think it is a far better thing to have a thing you don't need then to need a thing you don't have. Introducing a larger number of stealth aircraft may be vital, not against iraq or aphganistan, but what about the ifs and whens of fighting china or.... bad guy X. There was a time in which the military focused more on what it needed at the moment and didnt push the envelope of technology. In fact up untill ww2 most civilians that owned arms in the US were better armed per person then the military. Union soldiers in the civil war would sometimes use their own pay to buy spencer rifles. In the spanish american war our infantry was outgunned by the spanish. and in many of these wars only thorugh superior productivity and a draft military did we perserveer. The constant rive we have had particularly in aircraft technology starting during ww2 and enduring untill now has allowed us to maintain the same amount of national firepower while reducing military size. But I suppose only time will tell.

Answer 5

Depends on what you want.

If you want to simply maintain the status quo, the answer would be no, as no other nation as a fighter that can match the F-16, F-15, F-18, and even the now retired F-14.

But, that doesn't meant that other countries are developing better fighters and that future wars that we haven't become imbroiled in yet, might require a better fighter then the ones we posses at present. And if you want to maintain the present technological advantage the US has and the superiority of its military, the F-22 and F-35 are far better then even our present front line fighters because of their stealth capability, with improves their chances of surviving, making them very necessary. An F-22 could fly through an enemy radar defense, hit pin point targets, and return without being either detected or shot at, at least not by missiles, you'd need to get a visual and use guns, but in the modern era of supersonic speeds and radar, it is unlikely that WWII, Korea type dogfights will ever really happen. They're necessary for preserving American Air Supremacy in the future.

Answer 6

I notice almost all the replies argue tactics and air to air superiority so I won't touch on it. Instead, I'll argue logistics.

The F-22 and F-35 are going to be multi service platforms (Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force). In theory this should greatly simplify the logistics support. Additional money should also be saved through combined joint service training schools.

The ability to quickly service and repair these aircraft shouldn't be discounted either. I spent a lot of time around naval aviation. Many times I saw an Air Force F-15 or F-16 come in for an unplanned landing with a problem. The plane had to sit until an Air Force C-130 with a team of mechanics and parts flew in to fix it. With the 22 and 35 the navy would have the parts and mechanics to service the plane and send it on its way.

Answer 7

The older planes won't go away yet. they will be sold off to allies and put in with the national guard.

The F-22 and the F-35 are on the list of aircraft that can outfly the pilots. Their stealth is the number one reason why both aircraft are desired. The problem with humans is they can at best pull just over 9g. The Russians have air to air missles that can pull 12g. It's no longer about outflying the enemy aircraft, it's about outflying the enemy missles. A F-18C and a Tornado were both shot down by U.S. patriot missles. The planes never had a chance. Russia, China and othr countries have or eventually will have surface to air missles that would have the ability to shoot down the F-18 aircraft as easily as shooting down WWI bi-planes.

Answer 8

No, the technology for an unmanned fighter is just not quite there. They possibly could be the last just because the F-35 is expected to be an "ultimate fighter" and wont need to be replaced. After these planes there could still be manned planes with active camoflauge and better stealth capabilities. There will always be a need to have a human in the seat of a fighter plane.

Answer 9

i've been saying that since i was old enough to realize that it was a complete waste of money. the cold war is over and yet we still build these weapons for a giant war we will hopefully never fight. no nation we are fighting at the moment has a fighter that can match the f-15 or f-16 with a skilled pilot. with the f-22 its over kill with the jsf-35 its just not even worth the money.
ive been saying get that money off those projects and into making body armor and armored vehicles that the troops desperately needed 4 years ago before the war started,
or even to develop the newer land warrior systems, to get the troops and everyone connected on the battlefield, and to help in the urban environments. the ability to see around a corner by just sticking your weapon out would be great for the boys and gals in iraq and afghanistan

but i guess thats why i am not a policy maker, my policy just wouldn't make any sense

Answer 10

I dont think your asking the correct question. The cost per unit of both new jets is high we should buy more to lower that. The real question is should we be relying on piloted airframes or should we instead go to more remotely piloted aircraft like the ones currently in use in Iraq or Afganhstan. If one goes down we don't use a pilot like the one we did in South Carolina at that airshow.