GAU-8 Avenger said:
Yes it dwarfs their budget on paper and rightfully so, yet when you factor in the averages wages paid, the total amount of effort going towards R&D, not to mention production may be closer than it appears. And the Chinese certainly have a good grasp at reverse-engineering Russian and other technology. Don't underestimate them, or the Russians.
Yeah, still dwarf china's budget even all these factors are taken into account. That's what I was saying. You are intentionally deluding yourself if you think these factors gonna change that fact. The problem isn't that I'm underestimating China or Russia, it's people like you (and there are a great deal of them) that have blown russia and china to such a laughable proportion for the sake of maintaining the f-22 production. Go here to see my analysis of the PAK FA:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5644.180.html
Same thing applies for J-XX but much much worse.
Just like it
had to be cut because you said so? :
I never said we have to, I'm saying we need to, becuase it's a waste of money justified only by delusion that somehow canceling the f-22 will compromise our ability to project air superiority now and the future. And unlike those particular baseless statements of yours that I singled out, I've been typing to support my statement for the past several pages.
Yet we don't have some sort of stealthier mach 3 aircraft?
Stop trying to change the point. How does this change my point that arguing for the f-22 based on the "high and low" definition is false logic? I'm asking you again, if your logic applies, wouldn't you argue for more mach 3 stealth aircraft and says that f-22 isn't good enough since f-22 is in the "low." I'm pretty sure you understand perfectly what I meant. Shouldn't the right way would be to look at the capabilities presented in the platform to see if it can meet current and future threats.
The F-35 is not as suitable as an air-superiority aircraft when compared to the F-22. It doesn't have the same performance, stealth, supercruise capability, internal air-to-air missile carriage, or radar capability. Hell, when compared to upgraded F-15s, it's only real advantage is stealth and it's IR/EO sensors. In USAF service the F-35A should be viewed as a F-16 replacement, and not a replacement for F-15s (or A-10s in my opinion).
First, just because the f-35 isn't as good in that role as the f-22, doesn't mean it's not good enough. Last time I checked, it doesn't have to go against the f-22. Secondly, just because you are judging 5th generation fighter based on the understanding of 4th generation fighter because you are ignorant of how 5th generation fighters shape the way we fight and bring new definition to air combat doesn't mean you're right.
The PRC is a real country, with their own ambitions and interests that conflict with the United States at times. Ever hear of Taiwan for example?
Ever heard of the fact that both countries' economies intertwined enough that any conflict would bankcrupt both countries even before any bomb dropped, or ever heard of the word "deterrence?" And even in the unlikeliest event that we do go into such conflict, saying that the numbers of raptors we have and the numbers of f-35 we gonna have will not be able to ensure air supremacy against china is laughable. And if you're gonna fall back to the "but we don't know what they gonna have by then." Come back to my analysis.
As a multi-role aircraft it is not optimized for the air-superiority mission. Especially considering it is a single-engined design with lower costs in mind. The F-16 was used and built with air-to-air combat in mind too, and later models had the same ability to fire AIM-120s as the F-15. Yet due to it's range and avionics, it isn't nearly as capable at exchanging missiles at range. It would have been superior in close in dogfight, unlike the F-35 which will could certainly be outmaneuvered by the F-22.
Again, we are not gonna face a scenario of civil war, so f-35 vs. f-22 is irrelevant.
Yet the idea that performance is much less important is always mentioned by the anti-Raptor crowd when the F-35s rather "average" performance is mentioned. Even if this was the case, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-35 anyway. Unbeatable? What if the enemy in a modernized Flanker or Fulcrum with advanced IR guided missiles and helmet mounted sight gets within the range to use these? What if a number of cheap Migs get close after F-35 expends all four of their internal AIM-120s? Or what if the PAK-FA is actually comparable to the F-22?
Both sides have their extremists, just as there are pro f-22 extremists that suggested Marines to abandon f-35 and adopt f-22, or using f-22 for pirates hunting. As for your questions, get informed here where your questions are already addressed, starting from this page to save time:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5790.30.html
Because we are in a ECONOMIC recession, not a MILITARY recession? That's why military budget gotta be tightened to be spent on reviving the economy?
And you know that a global economic recession could cause political instability and conflict right? Tossing around billions as if they are singles at a strip club is hardly the right way to go about reviving anything. We simply can't compromise defense at a time like this, even with the economic problems. All present concerns would have been an excuse to lower the rate of production, yet not halting the program completely.
The belief that we are compromising our defense is based on the self declared truth that nothing but the f-22 is able to fullfill our air supriority, which is completely unfounded.
Yet Cartwright's opinion on the EA-18G didn't change the USAF's requirement for more F-22's or justify the decision to halt the program. The USAF probably wants their own organic jamming capability rather than having to rely on Navy assets.
But in the mean time, only the NAvy has electronic warfare capabilities, and commanders accross the board need that. The USAF's requirement for more f-22, as unfounded as it is, does not change the requirement for more EA-18 that is needed by the entire military, not just a single branch.
The war on terror should have only resulted in a reduced production rate if anything, not a total halt of the program. Also Virginia class in comparison to Seawolf is not sacrificing much of anything besides for fewer torpedo tubes.
Arguing for slow rate production is even crazier than just buying up to speed, it's not only gonna cost more, but waste a hell lot more money.