F-22 and US-101 Cancelled

[sdoc 0]

the question is not if the f22 is capable or better, but if it is cost efficient. The cost of a F17 should be around $ 30M, four would cost less than a f22. there's still. would 4 f15 armed with standoff weapons and led by awacs as capable as a f22?

now go to higher numbers, compare 200 F15 to 50 F22.

today large scale war and air combat is not likely, survivability does not have to factored into the equation thus. For smaller operations F15 would need to be about 4 times less likely to return from a sortie than aF22.

i can only guess what a pilot costs, but i guess it's well below $ 2M investment. in case of casualty, not salaries. so the pilots live does not matter when considering such expensive systems.

running costs are something quite different. at the moment f15, not to old airframes, should be cheaper to keep operative than f22. with costs expected to rise with increasing age. f22 will only drop in maintenance costs if there are considerably more sales - wich is unlikely.

Let's reduce the first stipulated order of 4 F15 instead of one F22 to 3. This frees another 30M to 40M, and tco. i'm don't have any numbers here, but i speculate both would be comparably expensive to maintain for the next 10 to 15 years, wich would be enough as i outline below.

would be 12 F15 as capable as 4 F22?

At the moment we are at the end of the century of the jet fighter, advances in autonomous systems make them obsolete.

In defense situations CAS is hardly necessary anymore, as artillery is more capable now. Air superiority in defense situations is also much more affected by ground based air defense. If the ground is under your control your planes only fill a niche.

Both roles are only required to a large extend for power projection, an euphemism for being the agressor. I don't expect such scenarios for the next decades, the west had learned that it doesn't work from the examples of iraq and afghanistan. (with the latter becoming completely snafu because of extensive use of bombing. OT: sometimes i think US generals are more afraid of loosing a hand full of soldiers than inflicting heavy civillian casualties as 'collateral damage')

What are perspectives for the future? Large scale conflicts with functional states are unlikely, and easily avoidable. North Korea is not to be taken seriously, and china has it on the short leash. (Imho they keep it only as they are afraid of millions of refugess if NK breaks down) There's no real conflict with russia, just the normal power game and some cold war dinausaurs in the US scaring the people. Iran is in a game of power for regional dominance with Israel. However there's no immediate threat, just a bit of a low intensity dirty war (Hamas, Hezbola). Not much of the hyped hatefull desire to destroy Israel, the US or the West. That's just show all sides profit of greatly. By allowing Iran to become a regional power AND involving them in international organizations the tension in the conflict could be greatly reduced.

Intervention and reestablishment of the state in disfunctional states and small scale operations against new forms of terrorism will become major tasks however. The piracy at somalia show how important the first. For the latter the emphasis lies on new. Technological advance will allow smaller and smaller organizations to access weapons and methods with huge destructive potential.

The first task requires raw manpower, lots of infantry. And the capability for logistic support. Having a squadron of ground attack crafts at ones disposal doesn't help anything if there are only a few hundred soldiers available to seize, secure, police and support a medium sized city. More soldiers and less use of bombings will also cause higher casualties. Somehow the american public doesn't accept them very well. My suggestion do as France did: légion étrangère. This provides manpower, reduces the cost of casualties (40 years of taxes, 60 years of healthcare if incapacitated) and the us public will be mostly ignorant of the coffins.

The second task requires an excellent inteligence network, international cooperation, well trained police, and small anti terror forces wich are available in abundance already. My suggestion: Get the congress to spend some hundred millions to set up a global training program for police. and i mean police who are worth that name, not paramilitary thugs or torturers. police has to be accepted by the vast majority to be effective. thus they need high civil standards.

[Mudkip 0]

The U.S. had no involvement (or intrest) in Malaya.

My bad, I thought the US was part of the Malayan Emergency. It was actually only Commonwealth countries who fought the Malayan Communists.

[Saint Warrior 10]

Yea thats why the SU-30MKI uses Isreali equipment on board, So the isreali have access to the Plane, see its designs and radar signitures etc.

First, there is no need to investigate an RCS of SU-30MKI, russian fighters got it tradiotionally high due do large radars fitted into their noses (compared to western radars, smaller due to the use of more innovative technologies), bad construction of engine air intakes and external weapon mounts, as well as russian air-to-air missiles with their extensive wings and stabilizers. So, RCS of SU-30MKI is known to be about 10-15 square meters, depending of munitions fitted.

Second, Israelis have access to lot's of world's aircraft as they carry out various modernization programmes.

Third, F-22 has an edge in technology becuase Russians or Chinese have nothing even similar to it, and will not have for long years to come. Sukhoi and Mig corporations have been making money during last 17 years or so, thus refusing all projects for development of 5th generation fighters. PAK-FA is just a mysterios name, and multiple experts are quite sceptic that there is nothing behind it.

Fourth, sticking with 4++ or F-15SE Silent Eagle, F-16IN Super Viper means adopting a counterpart's playing style. Cause everybody else has nearly the same stuff, or going all the way towards gaving it. It's like a degress after making a huge progress.

Financial issues are imprortant, but not in case of F-22's importance to all Western World. This is just a strategic, well done product, that cannot be replaced by anything else.

[fumo 0]

I think the US governement know better then anyone else what they need and what not. If they cancel the F22 then there will be some reasons that we don't have to know or understand.

If good and superior or not, that aircraft is ugly :D. I like more "natural"-designs instead of "the computer say that have to look so"-designs.

@Saint Warrior

You realy speak like a paranoic general while the 70s - 80s. Just to know, the cold war is over and Russia IS NOT a hostile anymore (if they ever was is an other question ;)). The countrys that your governement declare as hostile, are it just because of the natural ressources that they have and USA want to conquer. Of course they invent reasonable and plausible reasons to attack (Iraq has nuklear weapons as example ;)), but noone realy believe it (how many NATO members are in Iraq? 4 or 5? from 28... not the majority). That proof how credible that gov. was while the Bush "dinasty". I just hope Obama makes it better.

Greetz

Fumo

[Saint Warrior 10]

I think the US governement know better then anyone else what they need and what not

It is very bad when questions of strategic defence are left down to government, politicians but not military specialists.

Can civil official with Harward academic degree in economics understand a CIA provided throughout analysis of estimated hostile force and it's capability, and take appropriate decisions? I would say no. Cause he thinks as economist but not as military specialist.

And let us leave statements like "Russia is no longer hostile" to 24-hour propaganda of Russian TV. Here, in Lithuania, we had really enough of russian rule, and I don't want my children parade with Kremlin flags and say "Thanks for happy childhood!" in front of leader portraits. Russia will never change, even russians admit this, they need a "Tsar, President" or whatvever else totalitaristic leader, they need a Russian empire with key-nation "Russians", they need total control in zone of influence, which lasts as far as the former Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall.

But we do not want. We did not want this in 1939, when Russians signed a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with a Hitler's regime, deciding the fates of entire generations, we wanted a liberation in 1945, but got 60-year occupation istead.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Saint Warrior this topic is about F22 not about your personal feelings against Russia. Open your both eyes - the world is not only black/white.

Seems to me that you glorify US and their military projects because they were the "OPFOR" for Soviet Union. Cold War is over.

[-ZG-BUZZARD 0]

Bah, the whole F-22 issue really is moot, the only question mark on the current political landscape that make it worthwhile is China, and even that hasn't been known for making the best of aircraft...

As for the F-35, that's a plane that should never have been made... Sometimes some planes for some roles already reached their pinnacle, anything newer doesn't mean better, as in the case of the F-35 this is especially true. The F-16 is cheaper and can carry more. And it doesn't come anywhere near the A-10 for it's role, since it's neither armored enough nor carries enough nor does it carry a big enough gun in the nose, nor is it ugly enough so that people would love it. Actually, I think the A-10 looks sexier than the F-35, which is just about as bland as new-age plane construction could get. And something tells me that even the Royal Navy would be better off having something else than the F-35 to fly off it's future aircraft carriers. So I say - reopen the A-10 production line, don't just give 'em upgrades, the USAF needs more. Ha - having A-10's fly off RN carriers, now wouldn't that be something? Since CAS and COIN seem to take a much higher priority in today's conflicts...

[JdB 151]

It is very bad when questions of strategic defence are left down to government, politicians but not military specialists.

Politicians deciding on what to buy and not the military itself, what an innovative idea.

The F86, F4, F15, F16 and F18 were all acquired this way, and initially lots of "experts" doubted if any of them would live up to their expectation, which they more than did. The F35 has not yet been proven to be a good aircraft, but it hasn't been proven to be a bad one either, just as the above were before they were first used in combat, all against inferior forces and not the fully blown USSR itself. The military always wants the latest and greatest to show off to the other big boys. Politicians want the best thing at the best price, so it is only logical that those that will be held politically responsible for the purchase are the ones that decide on the matter.

It's always been like that, it's how we won the Cold War.

Edited April 15, 2009 by JdB

[Baff1 0]

BUZZARD;1270458']. Ha - having A-10's fly off RN carriers' date=' now wouldn't that be something? Since CAS and COIN seem to take a much higher priority in today's conflicts...[/quote']

The RN has to go to war with Argentina again soon, they still need naval air superiority.

But otherwise yes, A-10's would be a great plane for the British very useful.

One of those AC 130's wouldn't go amiss either.

I think the other advantge of the F 35 for CAS that no one has been mentioning is it's short take off capability. So that in a blitzkrieg it can be based very close to a mobile front. In a side street or a sports field for example.

I think it is being designed to replace the Harrier in it's CAS role, not the A 10.

Edited April 15, 2009 by Baff1

[Spetz 0]

It is very bad when questions of strategic defence are left down to government, politicians but not military specialists.

Can civil official with Harward academic degree in economics understand a CIA provided throughout analysis of estimated hostile force and it's capability, and take appropriate decisions? I would say no. Cause he thinks as economist but not as military specialist.

And let us leave statements like "Russia is no longer hostile" to 24-hour propaganda of Russian TV. Here, in Lithuania, we had really enough of russian rule, and I don't want my children parade with Kremlin flags and say "Thanks for happy childhood!" in front of leader portraits. Russia will never change, even russians admit this, they need a "Tsar, President" or whatvever else totalitaristic leader, they need a Russian empire with key-nation "Russians", they need total control in zone of influence, which lasts as far as the former Iron Curtain or Berlin Wall.

But we do not want. We did not want this in 1939, when Russians signed a Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with a Hitler's regime, deciding the fates of entire generations, we wanted a liberation in 1945, but got 60-year occupation istead.

Saint Warrior thats your personal opinion, you havn't taken account to the facts of reality, people in the US are losing their homes, they can't pay mortgages, the country is in a severe recession, look how much debt the country is in right now? 11trillion and growing, while their economy is 13 trillion and declining, Russia and China's economy combined has only has like 3 trillion.

Canada a country of only 26million has a bigger economy then Russia a country of like 150million.

Also I can safely say 99% of America don't know there is a country called Lithuania, or even Kazakhstan (look at movie Borat:D) If your country was re-invaded no one in America would even care, they would be too watching the NBA playoffs.

[echo1 0]

The other problem with SaintWarrior's case is the assumption that if Russia went to war with America, that the quantity of F-22s would be the sole factor that decides whether America wins or loses...

[NoRailgunner 0]

Politicians want the best thing at the best price..

Sadly not all politicians are that clever - look at the actual discussions about getting a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. Same discussions are going on: HK416s possible replacing the M4s. On one side there is the national pride on the other side the bills...

[Saint Warrior 10]

Also I can safely say 99% of America don't know there is a country called Lithuania, or even Kazakhstan (look at movie Borat:D) If your country was re-invaded no one in America would even care, they would be too watching the NBA playoffs.

I believe in fact, that the world is divided into "zones of interest" by key-players of the big game - U.S., Russia and maybe China. My country is a member of NATO alliance, and this fact shows that serious people there in Washington actually know that there is a country, called Lithuania, as well as other Baltic States and Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary who were liberated out the soviet occupation in 1991.

And I am glad, that U.S. military aircraft industry did not stop after development of F-15, F-16 and F-18 but went all the way towards the jets of 5th generation. As I said earlier, no other nation made such progress in aircraft production. Russian Sukhoi and Mig were making money building SU-30's for India and Venezuela, fitting them with western equipment (you really have to put efforts in order to develop competetive domestic technologies, buying and reselling imported stuff is much easier). If we take China, for example, they even failed trying to copy engines of Su-27, so we should not even mention their possible development of next generation fighters.

I always read various Russian forums, devoted to military aviation. There all people admit that F-22 Raptor is unmatched fighter to any modern russian jet like Mig-35 and Su-35. Sukhoi designers were shocked, when they saw Raptor's exhibitional flight at Farnborough Air Show in 2008, all they wanted was that F-22's show off to end as soon as possible as "potential customers of Su-35" could see it and make conclusions, not favorable for Sukhoi Corporation.

[Hell_Toupee 0]

I always read various Russian forums, devoted to military aviation. There all people admit that F-22 Raptor is unmatched fighter to any modern russian jet like Mig-35 and Su-35. Sukhoi designers were shocked, when they saw Raptor's exhibitional flight at Farnborough Air Show in 2008, all they wanted was that F-22's show off to end as soon as possible as "potential customers of Su-35" could see it and make conclusions, not favorable for Sukhoi Corporation.

Ehh ild doubt that, you do not see the advantages the f22 has from an airshow demonstration.

F-22 isn't offered for export to anyone, not even closest allies, the US has trouble justifying the costs itself.

Do not discount China either, they had troubles at first producing engines for su-27s, but they did succeed in the end and now use their own engines they are constantly improving.

[An-225 0]

I doubt Sukhoi were shocked either.

For a stealth fighter, it has pretty good maneuverability. But for the price of $65 million, I can see where TVC on the Su-35 would be better.

[Saint Warrior 10]

I doubt Sukhoi were shocked either.

They were, actually. Here you can see the real time comparison of supermaneurability between SU-30MKI and F-22 Raptor. It is quite obvious, that Raptor's performance at critical AOA's is far more clear and stable, cause F-22 was originally designed to be a super agile fighter of 5th generation, while Su-30 is just an ordinary aircraft with thrust vectored engines.

[An-225 0]

Considering that the MKI is based on a design that originated in the 70s, I'd say that its maneuverability is extremely impressive. I agree with your assessment on the Raptor, but the MKI seems to be able to outperform the Raptor under some circumstances, at high AoA. Watch it from 0:12 to 0:19. The Raptor seems to win at maneuvering at lower speeds.

All in all, I'm not surprised that a 5th generation fighter can outperform a 4/4.5 generation fighter. You must give credit to the Russians for developing such a versatile basis.

[fumo 0]

while Su-30 is just an ordinary aircraft with thrust vectored engines.

I think that would shock Sukhoi instead of the F22 performance... a Flanker is ordinary... :D

[Saint Warrior 10]

You must give credit to the Russians for developing such a versatile basis.

The only credit we can give Russians is for developing an all-around thrust vectoring (F-22 Raptor uses a two-dimensional one). Everything else is just the basis of highly-maneurable Su-27 Flanker, but this supermaneurability can be achieved during demonstrations only.

In combat units of Russian Air Force they have flight control system switched on to strict limitations of AOA, while it is regular for USAF pilots to fly in quite agressive way with high G - forces.

[An-225 0]

The Kobra has no real place in modern air combat anyway, so I guess it is natural that the Alpha Limiter is left ON inside Flankers.

[Saint Warrior 10]

The Kobra has no real place in modern air combat anyway, so I guess it is natural that the Alpha Limiter is left ON inside Flankers.

The main reason is that Russian fighters have not very good fly-by-wire control system, I don't know whether it is unstable or unreliable etc. Strict limitations are set for piloting those aircraft.

You can see the difference in fly-by-wire systems watching the performance of Blue Angels with their F-18 Hornets and the same exhibition flights shown by Russian Knights on Su-27s or Martlets on Mig-29s. U.S. aerobatic pilots manage to fly in far more closer formations (only a few meters from each other).

[ricoadf 0]

that would be more the pilots than aircraft, they practise more and are putting the extra effort, also means that chances are higher of a big stuffup that will kill people, their showing off :p

If you really look at the F-22 & F-35's capabilities there are limitations to them that really bring in question as to weather they are worth the cost compared to say a F-15E or F-15 SE (for the F-22) or F16 Block II or F-18E/F (for the F-35A)

While the 5th generation planes have stealth, that is requireing them to have 0 outboard hardpoint, thus reducing their payload to approx 2 500 or 1000/lb bombs and 2 AA missiles and no extra fuel tanks. Now that gives them a large range limitation and low combat capability.

Compare that with the F-15 E which can carry approx 12 bombs (depending on weight and type) and is more than combat proven.

The F-16 again has the upper hand of carrying capability over the F35 and can still keep up with the SU-30's (some say the F-35 wouldnt be able to keep up with a SU-30 in a dogfight, however thats speculation for now)

Now before you say the F-22 and F-35 have stealth etc, yes they have far better 'stealth' capabilities but they are not 100% stealth, and the way they are stealth is by having 0 targeting radar, which is why the F-22 is using JDAM's and not LGB's. The moment you put an IR pointer on the plane the stealth disapears, its like turning a flash light on in a dark room, you might as well scream out shoot me. So with that you either must break the stealth (thus voiding the point of the millions spent on the plane) or limit the plane to JDAM's and other passive weapon systems which than limits its capabilites (once again, not cost effective).

The F-15E can defend itself and with jamer aircraft and AWAC's it can do a far better job the the F-22 ever will, the F-15 E is the workforce of the USAF, the F-22 is just the US saying "we have the best aircraft, and no-one can have it" when the other countries are going "whatever, its not worth it", hence the vast drop of F-35 orders.

TBH I wish the ADF grew some balls and told the gov to get what needs to be bought, if we had F-15 E or SE's not only could we defend outselves (for once) but the RAAF could actually be deployed for a useful purpose, other than just to look good :rolleyes:

Also for the F-35 C (either B or C, cant recall which is which), the VTOL one, it's the only F-35 with any real use and as already stated its still outproformed by the aircraft its meant to 'replace', so I don't see it going far either.

If you disagree fine, but instead of rambling on find some facts and post them.

Some related sites:

F-15E

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15E_Strike_Eagle

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=102

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f15.html

F-22:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f22.html

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?fsID=199

F-35:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/uswpns/air/fighter/f35.html

http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

[Blackhawk 0]

If a war breaks out with a nation that has thousands of advanced Aircraft like Russia or China, sure, roll out the F-22's, but wars like that are not going happen any time soon. yeah, The F-35 is underpowered, but it doesn't exactly need to evade a Eurofighter or a Fullback. It seems like a decent Counter Insurgency fighter bomber, good for blowing out caves and compounds.

[Saint Warrior 10]

While the 5th generation planes have stealth, that is requireing them to have 0 outboard hardpoint, thus reducing their payload to approx 2 500 or 1000/lb bombs and 2 AA missiles and no extra fuel tanks. Now that gives them a large range limitation and low combat capability

5th generation fighters do not actually need any external weapon mounts due to extreme level of digital electronics and technologies inside them.

You see, if we turn fighter into a striker, like Boeing did in case of F-15E Strike Eagle or Israelis with F-16I Sufa, you need to have one man more inside. Pilot is piloting the aircraft at terrain-following altitudes, weapons operator tries to deliver his munitions with pinpoint accuracy. But he is only a human, that means he can make mistakes. That's why more munitions and their mounting points are needed in order to destroy a number of targets planned. Having 12 bombs on board does not mean all of them will go on target. Some will miss or do little or no damage.

That's why F-35 Lightning II is a one - seater with no external weapon mounts in standard stealth configuration. Cause designers suppose, that all weapons from internal bays will lay on targets due to continiously computed impact points and all other state-of-the-art hardware installed on this aircraft.

The moment you put an IR pointer on the plane the stealth disapears

Nope. IRST systems, like the one on F/A-18E/F Super Hornet Block II work in a completely passive way - they just see any heat sources emited from other aircraft, called individual IR signatures.

Themselves they emit nothing. This is the same principle which in implemented in heat-seeking sensors of various Surface-to-Air, Air-to-Air IR seeking missiles, like FIM-92 Stinger, or AIM-9 Sidewinder as well as Israeli Python series. RWR systems do not respond to the launch of such missiles, cause they are just seeking a source of a target, without any illumination.

AWAC's it can do a far better job the the F-22 ever will

It will not. Compare the technical specifications of APG-77 radar, notice it's Low Probability of Intercept Mode (LPI) as well as effective range and you will see, that F-22 is an AWACS itself, but just small and stealthy, having an RCS of a golf game ball.

The F-15E can defend itself

Are you sure? Have you heard of the fact, that usage of conformal fuel tank puts aditional limits to the airframe reliability of an F-15 and restricts it's top speed down to Mach 1.8 figure?

F-35 wouldnt be able to keep up with a SU-30 in a dogfight

Will SU-30MKI have any chance to survive as far as to a dogfight distance with F-35? Taking into consideration AIM-120D Amraam missile has effective range up to 100 miles, first shot-kill probability of 1.0?

Edited April 20, 2009 by Saint Warrior

[Guest RKSL-Rock]

5th generation fighters do not actually need any external weapon mounts due to extreme level of digital electronics and technologies inside them.

I'm sorry but that's rubbish. The reason they don't have external pylons is nothing to do with being "5th generation" its about Radar Cross Section. Its purely to satify the "stealth" requirements imposed on both the projects in the late 80's and early 90's. And in fact both the F-35 and F-22 can and do have external pylons. Nor is it anything to do with electronics. The ability to use sensors to find a target doesn't mean squat if the aircraft cant carry enough weapons to hit it.

You see, if we turn fighter into a striker, like Boeing did in case of F-15E Strike Eagle or Israelis with F-16I Sufa, you need to have one man more inside. Pilot is piloting the aircraft at terrain-following altitudes, weapons operator tries to deliver his munitions with pinpoint accuracy. But he is only a human, that means he can make mistakes. That's why more munitions and their mounting points are needed in order to destroy a number of targets planned. Having 12 bombs on board does not mean all of them will go on target. Some will miss or do little or no damage.

The avionics of the F-35 etc reduces the pilots work load making it easier for him to drop weapons and fly at the same time. If you do some research and look at the systems that are being put into the F-35 (a direct result of the failures of the F-22 programme) you see that 90% of a pre planned mission profile can be flown "hands off". Meaning that once airborne all the pilot needs to do is authorise the key points of the mission. like confirm the target and weapons release.

Incidentally neither the F-35 and F-22 will have true TFR. The doctrine they are being made under doesn't have them being flown below 1000ft in wartime. The autopilot just wont let the pilot descend below the preset at speed to prevent accidents. Which itself means the pilots are able to ensure they don't crash as so many F-16s did in the first Gulf war.

It will not. Compare the technical specifications of APG-77 radar, notice it's Low Probability of Intercept Mode (LPI) as well as effective range and you will see, that F-22 is an AWACS itself, but just small and stealthy, having an RCS of a golf game ball.

Again, i don't know where you are getting your information but its wrong. The F-22 could never provide the same capability as the AWACS. First of all the F-22's APG-77 has an effective range of 150km with a 68degree arc (electronically steerable +/- 15 degrees) in ideal conditions. Approximately 40% less in LPI mode. It can scan/track 256 objects at that range but can only begin to track/engage 16-24 (depending on which source you use) .

The E-3D has an effective track range of 320km in a 360degree arc in combat conditions (note the difference) and can track over 1000 targets and provide real time targeting data to every Link 16 equipped aircraft, vehicle and ground station within theatre. Whereas the F-22, cannot. It doesn't have the datalink capability. Right now there only link to the AWACS and other netcentric systems is a simple voice link. It cant even share data between F-22s. There is a project underway to provide a limited data link but its unlikely to come into service with 5 years due to the software and budget issues. But even then its unlikely to be fully Link 16 compliant.

Will SU-30MKI have any chance to survive as far as to a dogfight distance with F-35? Taking into consideration AIM-120D Amraam missile has effective range up to 100 miles, first shot-kill probability of 1.0?g

I see someone has been watching Future Weapons on Discovery again. Its pure propaganda. The AIM-120C/D/ER will hit anything 100% if its in the right hit envelope. IE its flying straight and level above 7000 feet and below 25,000 (air density is low enough to allow rapid manoeuvring but not thin enough to reduce controllability.

Seriously guys reading this thread its like reading a Lockheed propaganda piece. The flag waving is ridiculous. Just because its American doesn't mean its the best. I don't care who made the F-22, I'd say the same thing. Its a cold war relic designed to be a Fighter in a world that needs Swing Role aircraft that's costs far too much and doesn't do enough for it price tag. You shouldn't believe the pop culture TV shows like Future Weapons they don't show you the whole truth. Hell most of thier research is hoplessly out of date or just BS from the sales team at Lockheed. The truth about the F-22 programme is that it has been a series of disasters from the beginning:

1. Early structural composites fatigue life was found to be about 1500 flying hours causing a huge cost overrun and redesign
   
2. "Stealth" coatings were found to oxidise making the airplane glow on radar when exposed to the 'wrong sort' of rain (high salt content). More cost overuns and delays to develop a replacement.
   
3. The flight control system had numerous serious flaws and was rebuilt from the ground up several times over the years.
   
4. Problems with excessive electrical power consumption caused the downgrade of the avionics.
   
5. Redesigned avionics packages meant the bays had to be redesigned so that they could fit which had the know on of reducing the internal fuel load.
   
6. increases in the mass of the APG-77 radar and supporting equipment meant the CofG had moved causing problems with the Flight control system and stability. It took 18 months to finally fix.
   
7. Weapons integration and release caused numerous delays. Notably the cannon's vibration and heat/gas emissions still remain a serious problem. Compromising the IR signature and causing an ongoing problem with the "stealth" coatings and panel which surround it.
   

There are far more. Most of which are easily found on various industry News sites and magazines over from the past 10 years.

But the most damning of all the F-22's flaws is its limited capability. Its designed to be a fighter in a world where its just too expensive for anyone to operate a dedicated fighter. It can carry JDAM (a weak concession to a threat of budget cuts in 1999/2000) but not much else and given its total lack of Link 16 compatibility that means absolutely nothing in today's combat scenarios.

The only upside for those already buying into the F-35 project is that Lockheed learnt a hell of a lot from the disaster of the F-22 that the F-35 isnt suffering form the same production and design flaws. Its finding new and interesting ones instead :)

Edited April 20, 2009 by RKSL-Rock