Sort of pointless to continue this argument since the F-22 program was just canceled by order of Gates and Obama. All funding has been shut off in the new budget. The USAF is already scrambling to figure out how they are going to extend the life of the aging F-15s that were scheduled to be replaced.

Originally Posted by 19kilo30K4

Sort of pointless to continue this argument since the F-22 program was just canceled by order of Gates and Obama. All funding has been shut off in the new budget. The USAF is already scrambling to figure out how they are going to extend the life of the aging F-15s that were scheduled to be replaced.

This s**t happens and with an economic meltdown,was inevitable. It's more a "put on hold" than a true cancel. The USAF will eventually get most of the Raptors expected (not the full wish list). at this point in time, the existing F 15, F16, F18 aircraft have not even met serious competition,but looking ahead, that will change.

Originally Posted by redwood

This s**t happens and with an economic meltdown,was inevitable. It's more a "put on hold" than a true cancel. The USAF will eventually get most of the Raptors expected (not the full wish list). at this point in time, the existing F 15, F16, F18 aircraft have not even met serious competition,but looking ahead, that will change.

I'm not saying that the existing aircraft are not good, I'm saying that a lot of them have exeeded the amount of flight hours on their frame and were slated for replacement. If that doesn't happen, then they are going to have issues and high expenses in maintaining them. Did you not hear about the whole fleet of F-15s being grounded for a frame splitting in mid air? http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123081718 They determined that there was a manufacterer defect but the fact remains that that aircraft was over it's listed flight hours which is what I'm saying. When you purchase an aircraft and the manufacterer says that the frame can safely be flown "X" number of hours and you hit that number then it needs to be replaced. Most of the old fleet was to be replaced by the F-22 which according to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...d=axTCIPm9TkxM will be capped at 187 planes.... the current F-15 fleet is a little over 400.

One thing that really bothers me is the very people who caused the price to go up by cutting the funding and stretching out the program, now complain about the price of the F-22A! Had the Pentagon not told Lockeed and the sub-contractors back in 1990 to stretch out the development time by at least seven years and to anticipate the production run to be cut at least in half thereby, increasing the cost by tens of billions of dollars. The F-22A would have become operational in the mid to late 1990s and cost in-line with the Typhoon, Rafale, F/A-18G Growler, etc.!

but you have to also say this, a plane could be so expanive their they cant afford to lose it, which also means they cant afford to use it, this is with the b2, the F-22 at well over 200 million dollars a pop, an enemy can afford to lose 5 F-15's to 1 F-22, in a large scale war its numbers that win

It's a balance of the two.
But you have a good point. There are some missions where losses are inherent and therefore you need aircraft that don't cost the same as the entire national annual education budget a pop.