The F-22 is the best and is ready. It's not every day that you have the best weapon system in the world. There is no real alternative for now. Anyway the F-22 will be improved like any other aircraft. The F-117s for instance have been improved in the mid 1990 to improve their stealth. A new version of the AMRAAM is also scheduled for the F-22 with a range of at least 100km. I think the USAF is going to make sure its F-22 remains the best. Don't forget also that the F-22 is part of an entire force. It can escort USAF stealth bombers, thus increasing thei surivability. The F-22 and bombers are force mutlipliers : in one sortie of B52/B1/B2, the USAF should be able to destroy most ennemy aircraft shelters with stealth missiles(JASSM..). After such an incredible attack never seen in the history of air warfare, gaining air dominance should not be hard for the F-22s. The survivability of other american aircraft can will be reduced if the F-22 and bombers take out ennemy aircrafts, thus reducing their price and increasing their numbers. Improved F-16s, F-15Es, F18s, and JSFs are enough if the F-22 is here. What's more, I really doubt any aircraft in the world will come close to it if the next 20 years.

You forget that when other equipment advances, the U.S. weapon advances 2 folds maybe even more cause the U.S. spends the most on defense. Maybe in the future, russia will be able to paid for their electric bills, let alone put money on more research.

Well, time doesn't hold still while you integrate all the technology that is constantly improving and becoming more economical around you. We can upgrade the F-22's later if need be; we'll have F-22C/D/E craft like we do for the rest of our fleet. In addition, the F-22 still apparently represents a major technological jump over the F-16. Modular electronic warfare systems can be installed later as upgrades for defenses against future generations of SAM's. The only thing I worry about is coming to rely too much on technology and too little on pilots. A good pilot in an old jet will run rings around a beardless boy with no training, regardless of the kind of equipment you give him, unless you can get him one of those interceptors from Independence Day. Also, while new systems capable of defeating the F-22 will be rolled out eventually, many areas will still be protected by older systems that will be potentially much easier for an F-22 to penetrate. Iraq comes to mind, as does much of the Second World. Does anyone know how an F-22 is rated to fare against the Russian S300? --Phoenix Rising

The new fighter project was *never* predicated on a full stealth design. The original specs were written for a plane which incorporates a number of technological improvements. In fact, a "full stealth" design was never requested and the plane which won the contract, the F-22, is a *less* stealthy design than it's competition, the F-23. IOW, the Air Force never put all it's eggs in one basket. For that matter, stealthing remains valuable and is being used *more*, not less, internationally, even after a number of reports of new radars which have some success against stealthy designs. Take a look at recent designs, test beds, demonstrators, etc. and you'll see many advertisements for a degree of stealthing. At the moment, the USN is testing a stealth surface warship design acquired from the Swedes. The French navy has new frigates with stealth elements. The point *isn't* finding a 100% invisible design. It's ****reducing**** the ability of the enemy to locate the craft in tactically useful manner. If you're a fighter pilot, and your own radar, or that of your AWACS, can detect an Opforce significantly further away than he can detect you, then you have a killing advantage. Or, an evasive advantage.

The f-22 may be a great aircraft system,but when you have hardly any there isn't much point in it. Rums has decided to bring it's numbers down below 200.

"(H)ardly any", in this case, is a number greater than the total number of fighters in almost every other air force in the world

True, but we don't measure our standards by "almost any other air force in the world." We're not likely going to have to face the mighty Ugandan Air Force anytime soon. Most of the countries that occupy our attention are more serious players; if they weren't, we'd be paying less attention to them.

We measure by what jobs we feel we may need to get done. I'm worried about decreasing buys, too. But, 300+ seem to be enough to secure air superiority against virtually any opponent for the foreseeable future save, perhaps, an all-out war with China, near China.

I have read Rumsfeld wants to cut F-22 production to 150. And cut the B-1b totally. I have also heard that the FB-22 concept seems to be gaining advocates on the Hill and in the Pentagon. I've seen only rudimentary info on the FB-22, but it seems promising. And it would seem that a strike bomber based on the F-22 platform would bring down unit costs, and make upgrading easier. Does anyone have any info on this? Thanks.

The biggest shortcoming I see, besides the exceptional expense, is the absence of secure bases for these super aircraft near areas of US interest. Afghanistan made the Pentagon/Air Force jump through hoops to secure and provide logistics for tactical air strips in the AO.