Recently I read a question where an asker stated the fighter plane is outdated in modern war.?

Question

What is your opinion?

Answer 1

As long as it is multirole with ground attack capability it is essential. But F22 is really just a waste. We only need it for a conventional war, but that won't ever happen again.

Answer 2

Not really, as China will be a future enemy, as they build up their military, and air force, then there is Russia, they too have an air force still. It would be unwise to under estimate our enemys, there will be future wars and conflicts that require air power..

Answer 3

I'm a former fighter guy and I agree the F22 is a waste of money. It was designed to perform Defensive Counter Air against a Soviet style airforce.  In the ensuing 25 years since its conception, the USAF and USN have greatly changed how such conflicts will be fought.  In fighter guy terms:  "We dont' fight that way anymore".  The single best way to achieve air superiority is to destroy an airforce on the GROUND.  Currently, that's done with ALCMs, Tomahawk, and B2s launching standoff weapons; none of these weapons existed in 1982.  HOWEVER, I believe the F35 is not: air/mud and UAVs are the future of tactical airpower.  The history of the last 40 years has shown that since Vietnam, 4th generation warfare is the norm-warfare the USAF at least has been reluctant to acknowledge.  Non-state actors are the "new" issue-not nation-state conflict.

There is no serious strategic reason to go to war with China.  Taiwan is not a vital US interest, considering the vast majority of our trade is now the mainland China and not Taiwan.  

The South Koreans can take care of themselves, it's obvious the majority of the population doesn't want us there; every survey I've ever seen confirms this view.  If they do get "taken over" so what?  Our Samsungs and Hyundais might go up in price-again no vital interest threatened.

The idea that one "has to defend against all kinds of warfare" has an analog in WW2.  The British spent millions of R&D money on basically a WW1 tank.  This 60 ton beast was to be used "in case trench warfare broke out again".

If one absolutely insists on "new" aircraft, F15s could be rebuilt with redesigned vertical stabs, screened intakes, and RAM material on the leading edges.  Certainly the F22's firecontrol system will work:  an Eagle was the testbed.  Redesign of the engine mounts would be more intensive, but doable.  All of this would be cheaper than an F22.  Other case in point is the F16XL.  This was a cranked-delta version that in testing was shown to roughly double the payload of an F16C.  Again cheaper to the US taxpayer than developing a brand new aircraft...

Answer 4

This is a totally false statement. The fighter and all combat aircraft are much needed to prosecute any war.

History since WWII has taught us, you cant win a war in the air, and you can't win on the ground until you control the air.

Since WWII we have controlled the air in any conflict.

Answer 5

Mark, I do not think that the fighter is outdated. A look at history will tell you that you never know what is going to happen next. Some say that we are always ready to fight the last war, but this is not necessarily so. The past has indicated that it is always helpful to have air superiority, and somebody that can arrive quickly with cannon fire, rockets and bullets.

We live in a world where p****y is still going on, even though we thought they were all gone by 1900! We still have troops in South Korea, Germany and the Middle East who are just waiting for something to happen, plus the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

When we are strong and alert, we are safe. When we are complacent and stupid and cheap we are not. As a taxpayer, I am not always pleased with some of the ways the military has spent money, but we are better off even with some waste, just so the waste is spent here in the USA. (I am a West Virginian, and our Senator Robert Byrd made the Army spend some $335 million on an aircraft that they did not want and did not need, just to spend money in WV and keep WVirginians working in Clarksburg. This was a TOTAL waste and pure pork! This we could have done without, totally. But this is not the waste I refer to. I mean the waste in programs like the Bradley Fighting Vehicle, a 20 year boondoggle, and some other programs that I cannot recall the names.)

Anyway, I think that we need fighter aircraft, and we should have the best ones around-manned and unmanned. Better to have them and not need them in a crisis than to need them and not have them. This is something that once lost, is lost forever.

Regards,

Dan

Answer 6

The idea that the fighter is obsolete has been around almost as long as the fighter has been. About midway through WWI, fighters and bombers were getting faster and flying higher. It was believed that fighter pilots would not be able to fight at those increased speeds and that fighters would be obsolete. After WWI, there was the same idea combined with the feeling that war would now be impossible. WWII proved that wrong. After WWII, there was an idea building that fast interceptors were needed and an idea that dedicated, agile fighters were a thing of the past. This didn't make it far because of the Korean war and the MiG-15 and the F-86. These were some of the last dedicated fighters for decades because that same idea of fast interceptors came back strong with planes like the century series fighters and mid generation Sukhois and MiGs. During the Vietnam era, it was said that aeial warfare would be fought entirely with missiles fired from fast interceptors and eventually it would all be missiles and missile defense systems with no aircraft at all. This was obviously incorrect and there was a renewed fervor for fighter design leading to aircraft like the MiG-29, Su-27, and the F-15. After all of that, I'd bet that the fighter is still going to be around for a while. UCAVs will certainly be a great addition to our force structure and will certainly continue to compliment our conventional air forces but they aren't a cure-all replacement. UCAVs might someday operate as effectively as a pilot, but it will still take a tremendous advance in flight control and combat computers. While destroying an air force on the ground is certainly the best way to fight (the gulf war proved that conclusively) an effective and dominant fighter force guarantees our ability to do so. I'll agree that the F-22 is extremely expensive and that the F-35 is getting to be the same way, but you do get what you pay for. What we'll probably be doing in about ten years is rebuilding and re-fitting new engines to F-15s and F-16s to shore up our numbers at a lower cost but new, advanced fighters are still absolutely necessary. The fighter isn't going to be going away any time soon.

Answer 7

Just because we don't need fighter's in our current wars does not mean we won't in the future.  That kind of thinking always leads to trouble.  While I agree that a full-scale conventional war is nearly out of the question, fighters will always have a reason to exist.

Answer 8

The fighter plane will not be outdated in modern war for many more decades if not centuries. Comanding the air is not an option to neglect. With that type of power over your enemy you own whats on the ground. Not only will this provide you with airspace for military action such as bombing and survalance for ground forces; it will provide you with support for your ground forces when in a tough spot. With this, the fighter plane is far from outdated.

There are different methods of war fighting to be recognized but all provide a vital part of the effort.