Why would the U.S. have ANY need for its new, HIGHLY advanced fighter plane, the f-22 raptor?

Question

20+ years ago, the U.S. asked aircraft makers to produce the ultimate stealth bomber that could penetrate soviet-influenced territories. Northrop Grummon answered the call, with the B2 stealth bomber, up to that point, the most expensive aircraft in existence, at around $156 billion per plane. Yet, after all the hype surrounding the plane, it sat in the hanger, thanks to the collapse of the soviet union. It wasnt needed until nearly 8 years later, in bosnia, then again 5 years later, in iraq. The raptor's maiden flight as a prototype was back in 1990, and as a completed project, in 1997. Apparantly it also sat in the hanger for 8 years, until its introduction in 2005. So my question is: why would the U.S. suddenly put a highly advanced aircraft into use, when we can apparantly easily overthrow iraq, a poorly-stiched-quilt of a country (which we are STILL struggling to control after 4 years)? What enemy is at our doorstep? Who is the government hiding? Are we on the brink of world war?

ok, first of all, can ANY of you answer the question of when the last time a fighter plane was shot down in combat by an enemy? Youd have to think back pretty far, maybe to bosnia 10 years ago. Second of all, it costs $1.2-2.2 bil to BUILD it, not maintain it. Third of all, most fighter planes active are not scheduled to be retired for many years ahead, and when they ARE retired, theyre not fighters, theyre LIGHT BOMBERS (aka nighthawk, one of my favorites). Im not saying that the f-22 isnt a great investment, or that the U.S. should make itself vulnerable, simply that we waited all these years to suddenly activate this magnificent weapon. And fourth of all, that is a retarded statement: "peace is maintained through strength". Thats like saying "health is maintained by smoking cigarettes".

peace is maintained through strength. thank you mein fuhrer!

AHHHHHHH You all are interpreting me WRONG!!!!! Im all for having the best and baddest-*** equipment in the world!!!!! I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!!! No doubt about that!!!! But this plane has been around since '97!!! Why wait until 2005 to introduce it? Im comparing it to the b2 (which costs $156 bil over its expected lifetime to maintain) because the b2 was shelved until it was needed. And if the raptor took its maiden flight in '97, and introduced barely 2 years ago, its APPARENTLY needed for something!! Im not saying we sit back and wait for the world to take over us!!! That just sounds crazy!

Answer 1

The main idea, as evinced by the Cold War with Russia, wasn't so much the fact that these fighters, weapons of mass destruction, etc were going to actually be used, but the fact that the country has these things that COULD be used, if they were threatened by other nasty people. It's the perception of strength, not strength itself, that maintains peace. Nobody brings a knife to a gunfight.
So the reason would be: don't mess with me, because I can cause you some grievious hurt if you do.
Why wait so long to introduce these planes after their maiden flights? There are a lot of reasons, but I think it's because maiden flights are little more than glorified test flights.
After that, so each plane has to go thru combat situations testings (of avionics, targetting, stealth, etc) and the engineers tweak the planes accordingly. Once the aircraft is deemed combat worthy, then they are "commissioned" or formally introduced into service. Testing takes time, and in this case, compounded with curtailing costs, debates about the reliability, etc... it took almost eight ears before the F-22 was commissioned.
So it's not, "oh, there's something wrong so we need to use this aircraft."
Prevention is better than cure.
Or I might be wrong.

Answer 2

Well first, Einstein, the B-2 cost right around $2.2billion a copy and had a life expectancy cost of about $2.1billion, for a total cost per of $4.3billion. Very costly but not $156billion each.

Secondly, you need to run for king of the country since you obviously can see into the future and determine who will threaten the country for the next 50 years. Wow, you are smart!

North Korea, Iran, China, Saudi Arabia, are you sure we won't be challenged by them? Do you know for sure what equipment they have? Our relations with Russia aren't exactly friendly.

I'm no hawk and I certainly am not a Bush supporter. But the vast majority of our defense equipment is there for the "what if" scenario. Look how poorly prepared for fighting in Afghanistan we were.

Get your facts straight and open your eyes.

Answer 3

First; because the American aircraft currently relied upon for the nations defense were designed in the 60's (F14/16/18 group). Many of these planes are old and must be replaced so it makes sense to replace them with the latest technology.

Second; not every enemy of the United States is a third world nation with outdated supplies from Russia. Peace is maintained through strength - not old figher planes.

Answer 4

I suppose the answer is that it takes so long to develop modern weapons that you have to develop and build them because the threats for which they may be needed are beyond the horizon. Why these things get priority in budgeting, I can't say. The Air Farce has always overemphasized fighters and strategic bombers to the detriment of transport and close air support. It's natural, since their leadership are exclusively fighter and strategic bomber drivers. They'll of course argue that the emphasis is for pilot survivability. I'm thinking transport and tactical bombing might be better served by reverting to an Army Air Corps as pre-1947, and the budget arguments would at least be more balanced to requirements.

Answer 5

The Flanker and Fulcrum are 70's technologies, and the F35 Lightning is the Joint Strike Fighter (think of somebody from L/M could understand that). there's no longer something comparable -possibly the typhoon yet even it incredibly is have been given some themes. specific, it incredibly is totally solid at shielding Counter Air and Offensive Counter Air missions. on the USAF weapons college, it incredibly is incredibly rewriting the e book on air-air war. No i'm no longer kidding.

Answer 6

It is better to use the investment and ensure that we will have the best fighter in the world for the foreseeable future. Becoming weak invites attack and encourages rivals to build up forces to intimidate and expand their influence. By your logic we wouldn't have had the B-2 that were used so efficiently recently.

By the way they don't cost 156 billion per plane.
"The B-2 is one of the most expensive planes ever built: estimates for the costs per plane range from 1.157 billion[2] to 2.2 billion US dollars"

Answer 7

You never stop designing better weapons and getting them to the troops. One fact has been proven time and time again throughout history, and that is to have peace you must be ready for war. Granted the F-15 is still a great plane but the F-22 ensures we will be ready for war for several decades which as a result means American lives will be saved.

Answer 8

Ever hear of the SU29 and the MiG32? Care to have USAF pilots shot by third world pilots flying first line fighters? We control the skies because our military aviation assets fly the best aircraft there is, bar none!

Answer 9

What a great idea, next time why don't we wait until other countries are already ahead of us in technology, and then when they attack us, we can call a quick time-out and spend a few years playing catch-up. Surely they will patiently wait while we do this. We all know that all other countries in the world are fair and reasonable.

Answer 10

No, but china is rising. We will have at the very least a cold war with china within the next hundred years or so if not sooner. Funny that our biggest trading partner is the single biggest threat to this country.

Stop supporting china, stop shopping at walmart.