Is the F-22 Raptor necessary right now, or should the $138Million per plane go to the men on the ground?

Question

It also cost $62 billion for research and development. Is our current fighter fleet adequate for near to medium term threats? Could the money be better spent on Strykers, close air support, or the VA health system?

Answer 1

No, most of the military high tech new toys are designed after the whole vs. a superpower mentality. They are useless against stateless terrorists that we now face.

Answer 2

The reason that the F-22 is so expensive is because Congress is in control of the military and determines to a very large extent what money will be spent on. It wouldn't cost much more to build twice as many. Yes, our current fighter fleet is adequate for near to medium term threats.....but if we don't build the F-22 and F-35, then by the time we get to the long term, we won't have any fighters. The world's largest military with no fighter aircraft? Lot of money to be spending on targets for enemy aircraft.

The idea that we don't need fighters because we own the skies doesn't make any sense. We own the skies BECAUSE of our air assets.

Answer 3

It is very necessary. Maintaining Air Superiority is the primary function of the USAF. The F-15 is valuable (though not currently flying), but it needs to be retired within the next 20 years. The F-15 is aging rapidly and the USAF has recently grounded all non-mission critical F-15 operations.

Same goes for the F-16, it is valuable, but aging rapidly and needs to be retired. So, that is why the DoD/MoD is investing in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Remember, if we can't rule the skies, we might as well not be there. And what good is a grunt without a jet in the air that has his back?

For those that said that F-22s are useless against terrorists, look up "Shock and Awe".

Answer 4

Since the F15 fleet has been grounded due to airframe problems might be the best time to ask if they can go a few more years. Most military procurement is long term based; would more Stykkers or other vehicles be good right now-yes but is it worth the additional cost in the long term? The F-22's are ordered and you break the contract they get money, shut down lines and then it cost more to restart. The VA health system is not part of the military budget so moving money to that would be difficult and take Congress to do it but the truth is the system was destroyed by Congress looking at the short term and cutting maintenance dollars so that building went in to disrepair, much of the same thing here-sometimes long term savings cost extra money short term.

Answer 5

In order to stay on top as the nation with air superiority, you have to invest in the future. Besides, the F-22 in the long run protects the troops on the ground. Close air support is invaluable!! An aging fleet of F-15's, and A-10's are slowly reaching the end of the road. Look at what happened just the other week with the 15's. Yes, money well spent.

EDIT: For those of you who said "we already own the skies", or that we should wait until someone else comes out with something better?? If you are in the military, what does being reactive get you? Your @$$ kicked, that's where. We need to be PRO_ACTIVE, and stay ahead!! By the way, if any of you who ansered that knew anything, you should look at what the Russians just released!! AND, how big of a technological power is China getting to be? What do they have in works?? Hmmmmmm......

Answer 6

Its very neccissary. The F-22 gives us a very big air superiority advantage against any other fighter jet in the world. War technology needs to move forward so it will advance & we will stay the only world super-power. Now if you want to talk about money thats getting spent on usless stuff then look at how much we spend on contractors in this war that cost billions. That money could go to towards making every service member set with the newset equipment & VA benifits out the ***. We could totally replace the HMMVV with MRAP's & make the military a more quality place were people will join because they know their getting treated like heros & people might join more often to serve then to just suck up college money or bonuses.

Answer 7

$138m per plane sounds like a lot until you realized we spent $50 million per copy of planes like the FA/18 and F14. The F14/15/16 class were designed in the 1960's....yes its time for an upgrade.

Remember the men and women on the ground right now seem to be having it tough according to the media; but imagine how tough they'd been having it if we didn't have air dominance. Imagine how long it might have taken to defeat Saddams army without the same. We can't afford not to have air superiority and anti aircraft systems are getting better.

Answer 8

Perhaps the money would be better spent on plane fare home so that some of our well-respected, dutiful troops could surprise their families with an in-person visit over the holidays! That might be a morale booster for our soldiers and their families.

Answer 9

perfect for when we end up fighting north korea, you have to look at it as a big pic thing. just because one country doesnt have an air force doesnt mean another doesnt. we arnt going to fight the same wars every time we fight. progress is key

Answer 10

They are always necessary, they could be deployed at any moment, and just think, how nice is it to have them when the call goes out for an air strike. It could happen at any moment.

Answer 11

It is totally unnecessary until there is proof that a better aircraft is being built by another nation. Even so, its value is only useful in a hypothetical matchup which may never happen. Those Humvees in Iraq are getting blown all over the road. If you really want to invest in useful air power, give them more rotary winged aircraft.