In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Chad Irby
writes
In article ,
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
Trouble is, you need to generate enough sorties to protect your own base
and _then_ generate offensive capability... which means you need
numbers, and the rising cost and falling procurement of the Raptor means
it'll be seriously stretched.

That's only if you plan on using only one type of fighter, in small
numbers, for everything.

So, you plan to consign US pilots to agonised fiery deaths as their
antiquated deathtraps are blasted from the skies by newer, deadlier
enemies?

Note that those old "antiquated deathtraps" are competitive with the
current offerings from Europe, and much better than anything else in the
world.

Or are these upgraded aircraft thoroughly capable against the current
and projected threat, making the F-22 an expensive luxury?

They're good enough for air support and moderate-threat missions, but
not as good as the next generation planes (the F-22 and F-35).

Either your existing platforms are obsolete and need replacement, or
they aren't...

False premise. There's more than one mission, more than one level of
threat, and more than one plane in the inventory.

For *offense*, though, the new-generation European fighters are going to
have a much more difficult time.

I'm interested in the scenario where this is the case.

Long range missile combat.

There's not going to be that many of
them, either, at the rate they're cutting procurement.

"Not many" being around 150 Typhoons for the RAF _if_ Tranche 3 bites
the dust (which is by no means a given - serious contractual and
workshare issues to resolve before it's doable).

Just wait until the new planes hit the inventory, and watch the old
planes disappear completely overnight...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.