the fighter that never fights

abcnews.go.com... just to make it clear and simple

The $77 Billion Fighter Jets That Have Never Gone to War
Stealth F-22 Raptor, Most Expensive Fighter Ever, Not Used in Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan

now if this is not a waste i do not know what is.Could it be that this fighter is not meant for combat as we know it but some other type of combat say ET. or is it like the J20 yes it does fly but that's it.
mods feel free to move this.
To me this is a skunk work it smells of rotten wrong doing, if you know what i mean. the article does say they will use it in Iran and NK when needed ??? is that not what the B2 is for???

reply to post by bekod


They don't use it because it is like swatting a fly with an axe! Our reserve fighters which are much cheaper if lost are more then adequate to do the job.

This is a very expensive tool that will only be implemented when tactically necessary.

reply to post by AnteBellum

would you not test this in combat, this is to the job a 4 or 5 different air craft why not try it out? Give it a test run see what it can do, or do they know something we do not, like, it does not work just a smoke screen.

reply to post by bekod


Its an air superiority fighter, not a bomber.

reply to post by bekod


I would never test an aircraft in combat, it is reckless and irresponsible!

All testing should be done in combat type simulations in a secure location by our own people. I would not ever want to risk the lives of the pilots (which are the best our country has to offer in order to fly this), the technology or disclose the abilities of this weapon until it is absolutely necessary. The element of surprise is a tactical advantage of its own that the other enemy may have also (their own secret fighter). So for them to not know the stats on this fighter is a good thing because they will have to learn its achilles heel at the cost of there lives.

reply to post by bekod


You do not buy a $77 billion fighter jet if you think it needs to be "battle tested".
These things would have dropped more ordinance in test combat then will be used against Gadaffi.

Nor do you send out an Air-interceptor fighter to bomb an old, run-down despots ineffective hardware,

reply to post by SirMike

wrong!!!! it is multiply roll fighter en.wikipedia.org... from the link

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth-generation supermaneuverable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.[6] Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.

so i ask again why not run it through its paces?

Its probably for usage in bigger country conflicts as other crafts. Mentality of dont just pull the big guns out at first you let the psy ops of the other country to take effect why they attempt to build better fighters. If a China and US war brokeout I am sure they would be patrolling the skies.... The money tho could feed a poor 3rd world country for a few days.

Originally posted by bekod
reply to post by SirMike

 

wrong!!!! it is multiply roll fighter en.wikipedia.org... from the link

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a single-seat, twin-engine fifth-generation supermaneuverable fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.[6] Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Defense, Space & Security provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.

so i ask again why not run it through its paces?

It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter,

Huh?!?!?!? Why is this wrong?????

Originally posted by AnteBellum
reply to post by bekod

 

They don't use it because it is like swatting a fly with an axe! Our reserve fighters which are much cheaper if lost are more then adequate to do the job.

This is a very expensive tool that will only be implemented when tactically necessary.

Sounds more like a deterant. How much do ICBMs cost?

reply to post by randyvs


The best way to defeat an enemy is without fighting.

Remember the cold war. . .

reply to post by bekod


You do understand what the adjective “primarily” means, don’t you? Reading comprehension must not be your strong suit.

reply to post by AnteBellum
just in case you missed it

It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles.

so why not show it off lets see what it can do or do they have something to hide. 3 wars and it has not seen action yet???? come on why not!!!!!

reply to post by SirMike
yes i know what it is for and what it can do or is to do so why not try it out give it a run down find the bugs or are there bugs that keep it from combat that is what i am getting at.

It is a deterrent, and it is an insurance policy. At this point in time it is virtually indestructible by the technology of our enemies, but if we start putting it into these little conflicts, we will eventually lose one, and then it can be dissected for its vulnerabilities or cloned by a foreign enemy.

We don't put it into battle, because we don't need to, and the risks outweigh the rewards, but we still have it, in case we do need it for a large-scale war with another super power!

The best weapon is the one they haven't seen yet. That goes for everything from schoolyard brawls to world wars.

reply to post by AnteBellum
the time for cold war is over sad to say , so why not give our tech weapons a run through show that they can do what they where built to do then maybe others will think twice as to starting a war.

reply to post by getreadyalready
what good is it if it a flop??? say the times comes and we need to use it and it fails?? do you see the light now?

reply to post by AnteBellum


Remember Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Laos, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Indonesia, Guatemala, Angola, The Suez, Congo, etcetera. There was plenty of fighting during the Cold War.

reply to post by bekod


It is plenty battle tested before we chose to purchase it, and in the 1000s of training sorties that it flies every year. If they had any doubts, maybe they would put it in an active theatre, but obviously they don't have any doubts, and they don't want to risk losing their valuable tech to enemy hands.

reply to post by bekod


Do you really think our government would place an order for a fighter at that price if they didn't resolve the bugs first?
It is done at the proving grounds before they ever release the order.

If only I could sell faulty equipment to our government for billions of dollars. I will make an aircraft carrier out of styrofoam and plaster, sell it for billions and then when it fails I could say, "At least it didn't sink!" Or when fighters try to land embedding themselves into the deck of the ship, it can be taken as a successful landing!

Your right about the cold war comment, but I specifically meant Russia and the stockpiling of nuclear arms both country's did. Sorry, I was not clear enough.