Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (36013)	7/17/2009 3:06:40 PM
From: Jim S	3 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 71588

I'm not exactly in the middle of the intel loop, unless you count these threads. <GGG> So, I don't know what other nations have planned for air superiority aircraft that the F-22 could be called upon to fight. So far as I know, about the only real threat the F-22 faces are some of the newer ground to air missile systems. (Not counting Congress, that is.<G>) If there is a fighter threat on the 20-year horizon, I simply don't know about it. As far as I know, the current fleet of F-22s could easily gain dominance for an air cap against anything it could come up against in the foreseeable future. I'm eager to hear of any expected threats that would invalidate my opinion. The F-22's air-to-mud capability is an afterthought in its design. It has a very limited payload and is not designed for long loiter times. It is a fantastic aircraft for what it was designed to do, but that doesn't include operating from unimproved runways, communicating with ground forces, or even potentially operating from a carrier deck. The military is often accused, and rightly so, of planning to fight the last war. From where I sit, the last war, and the war before that, and the war before that, all required more capability in air-to-mud combat and transport than with air supremacy. Keep in mind that the key reason for air-to-air capability is to provide an umbrella for transport and air-to-mud operations. Given that the DOD budget is limited, their money should be spent on what they expect their needs to be. EVEN IF the F-35 per unit cost will be the same as the F-22's (which I don't think will be the case), isn't that a good reason to buy the aircraft that meets expected needs, rather than the aircraft that isn't expected to be needed in any great quantity?