# This is bad



## thewritingwriter89 (Jan 3, 2009)

This sucks. I saw a news report on FOX that just sickened me. There were several politicians that decided that the F-22 wasn't needed because it hadn't flown any combat missions. These morons completely miss the point. The best weapon is the kind you never have to use. The F-22 is a symbol of American excellence, and a deterent against aggressive action toward the US. I think we should start a petition to save it.  





Orlando Sentinel February 22, 2008 

Pentagon F-22 cuts may be felt in Orlando area
Lockheed Martin says production could be halted by the end of this year on the stealth fighter jets.
In-Depth Coverage By Richard Burnett

Proposed Pentagon spending cuts on the F-22 stealth fighter jet have stirred questions about the program's long-term future, including some key work being done by contractors in Central Florida, company officials said Thursday.

The Defense Department's latest budget plan for fiscal 2009 contains a significant shortfall for the F-22, which could trigger a shutdown of production this year, according to prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp.

Though the final assembly is done in Marietta, Ga., Lockheed Martin's Orlando-based missiles and simulation-training units also produce critical systems for the F-22 Raptor. Melbourne-based Harris Corp. is another big subcontractor, and the F-22 work also involves numerous smaller suppliers in the region.

Overall, hundreds of high-tech jobs in Central Florida and thousands of jobs in 44 states are tied to the multibillion-dollar F-22 program. Including all contracts, it is the largest single defense program in Florida, according to local economic development agencies.

But the Pentagon has now axed the number of F-22 stealth fighters it plans to buy and cut back certain "long-lead" supply money for the next several years. The cuts were part of the Bush administration's proposed 2009 budget introduced this month.

Lockheed Martin officials say the proposal could cripple efforts to complete the work.

"Among other things, the budget does not include the advance money we need to keep our supply chain in place," said Rob Fuller, spokesman for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, based in Fort Worth, Texas. "Without that, our production lines would be shut down by the end of 2008. And since there's nothing in the budget for shutdown costs, this program overall is really in limbo right now."

Until the funding issues are resolved, however, it will be business as usual for the F-22 program, the company said.

For example, Lockheed was awarded a $183 million Air Force contract this week to provide maintenance, logistics and other support services to the F-22 fleet.

That could also mean additional work for Lockheed's Missiles Fire Control unit based in south Orlando, officials said. The missiles unit is building the F-22's missile detection system.

Lockheed's training technology unit in east Orlando produces certain flight-simulator training and courseware for F-22 pilots, who train at Tyndale Air Force Base in the Panhandle.

Harris Corp.'s Melbourne operation builds the F-22's high-speed fiber-optic cockpit communications system. The company has received hundreds of millions of dollars in F-22 related contracts since the program began in the early 1990s.

But the F-22 has been a controversial effort from the start. It is the costliest fighter jet in military history, at about $175 million per copy, budget documents show. The Pentagon has cut billions of dollars and hundreds of aircraft in the program in the past 15 years.

The current budget supports production of 183 F-22s, down from the original request of about 700.

Air Force officials are still pushing for money that would produce 380 F-22 fighter jets to replace the aging F-15 Eagle fleet, which had to be grounded last year because of technical problems.

Critics of the F-22 argue that the military should speed up funding and production of the Joint Strike Fighter -- another Lockheed program -- that is a less costly, next-generation aircraft. Critics say it is wasteful to pour billions into two fighter jet programs at the same time.

But defense expert John Pike said it is not likely that F-22 production will shut down any time soon.

"I think Lockheed and the F-22 supporters are going to argue that the production line should remain open at least one more year so the next president will be able to make the decision on what will be done," said Pike, president of Globalsecurity.org, a defense research firm in Washington. "And I think they have enough friends on Capitol Hill that will make that argument work for them."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© Copyright 2008, Orlando Sentinel


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 3, 2009)

There's a pissing contest going on between Congress and the Pentagon. Congress has OK'd 5 more airframes in this fiscal year, but the Pentagon is playing games with the funding. Until they reach some resolution on the total number needed, this is going to go on for a while.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

The AF is selling its soul for the F-22 and F-35. I believe the aircraft will be procured, we might see the B-52 or B-1 go away first. IMO the F-117A still had some life but again I think costs dictated its retirement and the desire for the F-22 and F-35. Time will tell.


----------



## ratdog (Jan 3, 2009)

there are some words being exchanged about the B-2 going away before the B-1 and the reason nobody has truly attacked the mainland US with military craft since WWII is because of our extraordinary air force and carrier fleets to protect us and the F-22 is part of that system


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 3, 2009)

ratdog said:


> there are some words being exchanged about the B-2 going away before the B-1 and the reason nobody has truly attacked the mainland US with military craft since WWII is because of our extraordinary air force and carrier fleets to protect us and the F-22 is part of that system




Very true, but the last attack on US soil, and probably the next one too, were made by means that an F-22 could do nothing to stop... why spend the money on weapons that do not fit the war you are fighting? The money spent on a single F-22 airframe would buy an incredible amount of border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again. It wouldn't look as sexy or an intimidating as a Raptor, but it would probably save many more lives.

The situation is much the same here with our new aircraft carriers - I can't imagine what use they're going to be in the future, but we could have used that money to combat the radicalisation of young Muslims, or even to give our Army in Afghanistan more of the tools they need to do their job. I think many countries, with the terrorist threat on one hand and the economic downturn on the other, will start cutting funds for high-tech, high-unit-cost systems that don't answer the needs of the situation at hand.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

ratdog said:


> there are some words being exchanged about the B-2 going away before the B-1


I don't know where you're getting that from but I seriously doubt it. The B-2 fleet still has way more life hours left on it than the B1 fleet. Additionally the cost to operate the B-2 is less than the B-1. If anything the B-52 will go first.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very true, but the last attack on US soil, and probably the next one too, were made by means that an F-22 could do nothing to stop... why spend the money on weapons that do not fit the war you are fighting? The money spent on a single F-22 airframe would buy an incredible amount of border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again. It wouldn't look as sexy or an intimidating as a Raptor, but it would probably save many more lives.


The reason why the USAF wants an aircraft like the F-22 is to maintain a total air superiority fighter force that will actually be smaller and easier to maintain and have longer longevity than the current F-15 fleet. Right now the "big mission" in the US are areas like you stated (border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again) but those items could be easily covered with way less sophisticated equipment on the short term. The world is very dynamic, 20 years ago the requirement for the F-22 was priority, 20 years from now that requirement could be back in place. I rather see it paid for now than wished for later.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 3, 2009)

One word: the ABL (Airborne Laser).

Want a system that will prevent sneak attacks by a salvo of cheap homebuilt cruise missiles launched from a ship offshore by terrorists?

ABL!

Want a system that can stop tac nukes? 

ABL!

Want a system that can shoot down low earth orbit satellites?

ABL!

Want a system that can self deploy to almost any hot spot in the world?

ABL!

Want a system that can patrol the border between two states BOTH of whom the US needs (read: India and Pakistan) but who might just start a nuclear pissing contest with each other, and can tell BOTH of them to "cool it or we'll shoot the toys of BOTH you guys out of the air even as you launch them"?

ABL!

Want a system that doesn't need to evade any missiles or planes that come after it, 'cos it can fry them from 100 miles out?

ABL!

Yep, the ABL is the way to go. We need to spend more to research and perfect this thing. If we can truly make it work, everyotherthing everyoneelse has will be obsolete.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 3, 2009)

Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope

Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope

Will it stop insurgents planting IEDs and killing NATO troops in Baghdad/Basra/Helmand? Nope

Will it stop Iran/N. Korea developing nuclear weapons? Nope

Will it p*ss Moscow off even more than ABMs already have and re-ignite the Cold War arms race, consuming billions of tax dollars in the process? You betcha

All ABL will do is create new problems (i.e increasing hostility from Moscow/Beijing), while doing nothing to solve existing ones. And consume vast amounts of money which could be better spent elsewhere, militarily, economically and socially.

FlyboyJ, I see your point about replacing F-15, and understand the need for the USAF to have air superiority capability. I think the key issue in these most recent cuts is _how much_ capability the USAF needs vs. how much capability the govt. is willing to pay for. As ever, the political paycheck will be smaller than the generals want, although in this case I can see good reason for that course of action


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 3, 2009)

Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope *And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *

Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *Ditto*

Will it stop insurgents planting IEDs and killing NATO troops in Baghdad/Basra/Helmand? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *Ditto*

Will it stop Iran/N. Korea developing nuclear weapons? Nope *BUT it can provide cover for Israel and Japan from the delivery systems of those weapons*

Will it p*ss Moscow off even more than ABMs already have and re-ignite the Cold War arms race, consuming billions of tax dollars in the process? You betcha *And just how is Moscow going to counter this without spending its own tax dollars...and I recall the last time Moscow went into a money pissing contest with the West...bankruptcy city!*


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> FlyboyJ, I see your point about replacing F-15, and understand the need for the USAF to have air superiority capability. I think the key issue in these most recent cuts is _how much_ capability the USAF needs vs. how much capability the govt. is willing to pay for. As ever, the political paycheck will be smaller than the generals want, although in this case I can see good reason for that course of action


Those in the USAF will always want state of the the art and will settle for nothing less - I hate to say it, they want their cake and eat it too!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 3, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope *And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *
> 
> Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *Ditto*
> 
> ...


While and ABL is an effective weapons system, in the end there will be a need for advanced fighter and strike aircraft. An effective ABL is still several years off even if its fully funded.


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jan 4, 2009)

The US is in trouble because of Wall Street. If the crisis gets worse, the US will start to lose it's superpower status. 

Not having enough money to build F-22's is a part of that. This fighter is after all an air superiority fighter, and without it we may find ourselves in trouble down the road.


Will the F-22 become like the Me 262, too little, too late?


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 4, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope *And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *
> 
> Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. *Ditto*
> 
> ...



BB, I'm not supporting additional F-22s, so we agree on the first three points. Much better, IMHO, to spend the money somewhere else altogether.

As for defending Israel and Japan from 'enemy' nukes, that is a valid point, but do you feel that US interests in those countries justifies expenditure on such a system to defend them? Or would you have them contribute to the development/procurement processes and costs?

For the final point... do you actually want the Cold War to start again? The failure of Soviet Communism was much more complicated than a simple bankruptcy bought on by arms building, and the Putin regime is an entirely different animal to the Gorbachev administration. Under Putin, Russia is more financially secure than it was twenty years ago, and much more in control of the natural resources which secure it's economy. Russia has felt less relative effect from the global downturn than the US - now is not a sensible time for the US to be picking fights with other major powers, IMHO.

And, honestly, do folks round here want a new Cold War with Russia? I get that impression sometimes from things I see on these forums, and it almost beggars belief that after decades of waking up every morning wondering if it would be the last, the US seems to want to go back to that. It also strikes me that if the US does want a return to the Cold War, it might well go on it's own - I can't see any European states being up for a return to the days of MAD. Nor, for that matter, can I see Obama taking the US there, but in four years time he might not be in a position to make that decision.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Russia has felt less relative effect from the global downturn than the US .



Your kidding right?

The fast deteriorating state of Russia's economy | Boom to bust and worse | The Economist


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 4, 2009)

I am always happy to be corrected 8) But the question still stands - what is there to gain from a new Cold War? Even if the Russian economy is broken, it's US counterpart is not in the rudest of health, and neither side would benefit from pouring money into a new arms race. It would increase discontent on both sides - and if you are counting on Russia cracking before the US does, that is a _very_ dangerous game to play with a society.


----------



## drgondog (Jan 4, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Very true, but the last attack on US soil, and probably the next one too, were made by means that an F-22 could do nothing to stop... why spend the money on weapons that do not fit the war you are fighting? The money spent on a single F-22 airframe would buy an incredible amount of border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again. It wouldn't look as sexy or an intimidating as a Raptor, but it would probably save many more lives.
> 
> *The F-22 is all about China in 2020 - not asymetrical warfare - we need a force multiplier to replace the F-15/F-18/F-16 force at that time.*
> 
> The situation is much the same here with our new aircraft carriers - I can't imagine what use they're going to be in the future, but we could have used that money to combat the radicalisation of young Muslims, or even to give our Army in Afghanistan more of the tools they need to do their job. I think many countries, with the terrorist threat on one hand and the economic downturn on the other, will start cutting funds for high-tech, high-unit-cost systems that don't answer the needs of the situation at hand.



The DoD will be cut by Obama - as every Dem has done in office including Roosevelt until war was upon us.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I don't know where you're getting that from but I seriously doubt it. The B-2 fleet still has way more life hours left on it than the B1 fleet. Additionally the cost to operate the B-2 is less than the B-1. If anything the B-52 will go first.


Last I heard they wanted to keep the B-52 through 2040.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Last I heard they wanted to keep the B-52 through 2040.


Wishful thinking if the AF want to keep the F-22 and F-35 alive.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 4, 2009)

They keep trying to resurrect the BUFF as an AF ECM platform. But that has failed two times in the last 3yrs. And at face value, it does seem kinda silly given the other civil derived platforms that are much cheaper to maintain.

Besides the AF is pushing for a modernized bomber/ISR platform post B-2. Doesn't make sense to support so many different airframes.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 4, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wishful thinking if the AF want to keep the F-22 and F-35 alive.


Why can't they just pick one of the two?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 4, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> Why can't they just pick one of the two?



In actualality they probably can.

I was on the F-22 program before I got laid off from Lockheed in 1990. Even back then the program had inefficiencies and cost over runs mainly due to the managers running the programs not being what I would call "true" aviation people. Fast forward about 8 years - I became acquainted with many of the people who developed the X-35. All the stops were pulled to make that one a winner and many of the F-22's mistakes were not repeated in the development stage of the program. It walked away from Boeing's flying tadpole and became a record breaker.

In many respects the F-35 can fulfill many of the roles the F-22 was intended for. The air force still wants a true dog fighter and they'll get that with the F-22. In the long run the F-35 may not have the dogfighting capability of the F-22 but it will have more longevity in the airframe as the lift fan can be removed or re-installed depending on the mission and the customer. In the end, more bang for the buck.

Personally I think both are needed - say about 180 F-22s and maybe about 300 F-35s (I'm talking USAF only). I could see the navy getting another 200 F-35s and the marines maybe about 100 more. Also remember that if the contract is cancelled, Lockheed will be paid cancellation fees which will amount in the millions of dollars. I say this is an investment. Money may be tight now but in the long run the tax payer will get their money's worth when these aircraft are still around 50 years from now.

The B-52, F-15, most of the F-16 and A-10 fleet could be dumped to support these programs. Personally I would keep about 100 A-10s on hand.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 5, 2009)

I agree with dumping the F-16 and F-15s, or rather selling them off to other nations we like.

The A-10s and B-52s have important and different roles and dumping them for a fighter is retarded.

If it were up to me, I'd dump the F-22 and go whole hog for the F-35. From what I understand, it can be mass produced like the F-16 and unit price will be reduced with each new run.


----------



## Burmese Bandit (Jan 5, 2009)

Coming back to the point of the ABL starting an arms race...

The world - not just the west - needs credible ABMs. More and more rogue nations either have now, or will in the future, have MRBMs and either wholly whole grown or bargain basement nukes. 

Now, Russia has said that ABMs will start a whole new arms race. True. But take a look at the small print in what they have said. They have dropped heavy hints that they would like to negotiate with the US on developing a joint ABM system, and should the US do so in good faith, they just might - just might - be willing to compromise in other areas...

If the west can negotiate intelligently and hard headedly with the Russkies, this is a window of opportunity. But negotiations will need to keep away the interference of both the radical right, who think that weapons alone will bring peace, and the even more stupid loony left, who think that all that is necessary to bring about a new Eden is to disarm everything in sight. 

Remember the Romans - "If you would have peace, prepare for war" and "money is the sinews of war". And Ole Teddy. "Speak softly and carry a big stick". Let's do both. Let's speak softly. But let's not forget the big stick, too.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2009)

Clay_Allison said:


> I agree with dumping the F-16 and F-15s, or rather selling them off to other nations we like.


Many of these aircraft will be scrapped or in the case of the F-16, converted into drones. Selling them off doesn't always happen because of their airframe lives an the receiving nations realize it will cost more to keep them in the air than it will to acquire newer airframes.


Clay_Allison said:


> The A-10s and B-52s have important and different roles and dumping them for a fighter is retarded.


Not really - the B-52 is becoming more an more expensive to operate. The B-1 can carry a heavier bomb load depending on the mission and the B-2 has a greater range. The A-10 does have a dedicated role in today's world but the airframe it getting old an you could only rebuild an airframe so many times over


Clay_Allison said:


> If it were up to me, I'd dump the F-22 and go whole hog for the F-35. From what I understand, it can be mass produced like the F-16 and unit price will be reduced with each new run.


Maybe - again it's not the dogfighter like the F-22 but will bring a lot to the table.


----------



## BombTaxi (Jan 5, 2009)

Burmese Bandit said:


> Coming back to the point of the ABL starting an arms race...
> 
> The world - not just the west - needs credible ABMs. More and more rogue nations either have now, or will in the future, have MRBMs and either wholly whole grown or bargain basement nukes.
> 
> ...



Ok, a Joint ABM I can go with - that would, perforce, unite East and West rather than divide. Of course, it would still p*ss off whichever power the ABMs were meant to protect against. I'm guessing that this power is China? 

Oh, and as a fully paid-up lifetime member of the 'loony left', let me just say that we don't want to disarm everything - you always need to defend yourself (in a proportionate manner). Disarmament won''t bring about Eden either - although the money saved could be re-invested to help people rather than kill them. We just want to get shot of civilisation-ending systems that the two main post-war ideologies have pointed at each other for the last sixty years. War is one thing - blowing away the entire planet to prove that consumerism is better than a command economy is entirely another  8)


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2009)

> I agree with dumping the F-16 and F-15s, or rather selling them off to other nations we like


We are friendly ( cough) we need some fighters ( cough).

Honestly due the extension of the Us territory 180 F-22 sounds like a small number.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 5, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> We are friendly ( cough) we need some fighters ( cough).
> 
> Honestly due the extension of the Us territory 180 F-22 sounds like a small number.


Promise not to stir up the Brits again? The Falklands are a terrible place, I don't see why you want them.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2009)

> Promise not to stir up the Brits again?



I ( cough) cannot promise that ( cough) , we usually beat them in their favorite sports, football ( soccer) and Rugby.

The Falklands ? that is really unlikely. But think about this: Pakistan, a country full of wackos with nuclear weapons and the sword of the extremism always swinging over their heads have F-16...so why not us?


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 5, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> I ( cough) cannot promise that ( cough) , we usually beat them in their favorite sports, football ( soccer) and Rugby.
> 
> The Falklands ? that is really unlikely. But think about this: Pakistan, a country full of wackos with nuclear weapons and the sword of the extremism always swinging over their heads have F-16...so why not us?


I personally love Argentina as a country so I'd sign off on it. If I ever left Texas, Argentina and Chile are tops on my list.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 5, 2009)

Avoid Chile, too many pickpockets.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 5, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Honestly due the extension of the Us territory 180 F-22 sounds like a small number.


Actually about 20 on each coast could probably provide all the air defense the US needs. Remember, the F-15 will probably be around until the F-22 is fully deployed.


----------



## renrich (Jan 6, 2009)

Always wise to remember that the US, among other things, is a maritime nation that relies on trade for it's existence. If we cannot control the sealanes, we are done for as a major power. Homeland security is important but not nearly as important as access to trade.


----------



## SoD Stitch (Jan 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The B-52, F-15, most of the F-16 and A-10 fleet could be dumped to support these programs. Personally I would keep about 100 A-10s on hand.



I totally agree with you; at this point, the A-10C/OA-10 is a lot more useful than a bunch of fast-movers, we should keep them around as long as possible. Phase out ALL B-52's, F-15A's, and F-16A's, keep the B-1's flying as long as possible. We could try and sell the surplus, but most countries don't want second-hand goods, even good second-hand aircraft. Most, if not all, of the surplus a/c will end up at Davis-Monthan AMARG; they've already started sending high-hour A-10's B-1's there.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jan 6, 2009)

> Actually about 20 on each coast could probably provide all the air defense the US needs. Remember, the F-15 will probably be around until the F-22 is fully deployed.




Humm, that would require a serviciability of 100 % of that poor 40 aircraft force.

In any case dont tell the politicians that...they could cut down the procured figure even more.


----------



## Matt308 (Jan 6, 2009)

And the F-22 currently has a very poor readiness rate. There is MUCH room for improvement in that area. And the politicians have that parameter squarely in their sites.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Humm, that would require a serviciability of 100 % of that poor 40 aircraft force.


I woul think with an MC rate of about 90% and an FMC rate of about 75% they should still be able to do the job


CharlesBronson said:


> In any case dont tell the politicians that...they could cut down the procured figure even more.


See below!



Matt308 said:


> And the F-22 currently has a very poor readiness rate. There is MUCH room for improvement in that area. And the politicians have that parameter squarely in their sites.


I'm hearing it has a 62% MC rate.


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2009)

Sorry for buting in fellas.... Another problem with the F-22 and F-35, I think, is that each airframe is waaaayyyy too expensive to export, to friendly nations that previously bought F-15's, F-16's and F-18's, to cut thew costs from development etc. How many JAS-39 and Eurofighters do you get for one '22 or '35? And with all those electronic gizmos and gadgets, for each loss of an airframe in combat, I'm sure that they're 100% immune, since they're known at this point, people are franticly working on ways to bring them down....wouldn't USAF kinda be in the same seat as Luftwaffe in late '44 and 45'?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 6, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Sorry for buting in fellas.... Another problem with the F-22 and F-35, I think, is that each airframe is waaaayyyy too expensive to export, to friendly nations that previously bought F-15's, F-16's and F-18's, to cut thew costs from development etc. How many JAS-39 and Eurofighters do you get for one '22 or '35? And with all those electronic gizmos and gadgets, for each loss of an airframe in combat, I'm sure that they're 100% immune, since they're known at this point, people are franticly working on ways to bring them down....wouldn't USAF kinda be in the same seat as Luftwaffe in late '44 and 45'?


Not really - I think it would take years if not decades to see the -22 or -35 being effectively countered. As far as overseas sales and costs - I would bet, based on an initial US buy, foreign sales would be cheaper. Additionally there would be offset agreements as well as production licenses that will also reduce costs.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 6, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I woul think with an MC rate of about 90% and an FMC rate of about 75% they should still be able to do the job
> See below!
> 
> I'm hearing it has a 62% MC rate.



62%??? That's awful! A-10s in the Gulf War had a Mission Capable rate of 95.7%!


----------



## Lucky13 (Jan 6, 2009)

Cheers Joe! Also, with all this electronics...how long before we're back to square one, when it'll be all up to, well, guns and the pilots abilities, because the radar and the missiles won't see the target....


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 7, 2009)

Lucky13 said:


> Cheers Joe! Also, with all this electronics...how long before we're back to square one, when it'll be all up to, well, guns and the pilots abilities, because the radar and the missiles won't see the target....



Very true - it happened in Vietnam with the MiG-17.


----------



## walle (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Not really - I think it would take years if not decades to see the -22 or -35 being effectively countered.


I don’t know what you base those assertions on, the F-22 is only “superior” so long as its stealth remains in full effect, should the stealth be compromised (weather conditions could be one cause, think rain) then she would have a problem. The fact is that “stealth” only decreases detectability, it doesn’t make you invisible and once she switches on her radar or get close enough to an enemy aircraft…

Don't get me wrong, she is impressive in many ways but I'm affraid she may prove to be more window dressing. I’d actually go so far as to say that any modern combat aircraft is obsolete as soon as it enters service, not so much design wise as countermeasure wise, today’s tech is moving in a very rapid pace and also to a much lower cost, which means that you could get away with a more conventional (or, if you will, "simpler") design yet with more than adequate performance whilst saving money in the process.


just my 2cents


//Eric


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2009)

walle said:


> I don’t know what you base those assertions on, the F-22 is only “superior” so long as its stealth remains in full effect, should the stealth be compromised (weather conditions could be one cause, think rain) then she would have a problem. The fact is that “stealth” only decreases detectability, it doesn’t make you invisible and once she switches on her radar or get close enough to an enemy aircraft…


The F-22's stealth capability is just one part of the aircraft's superiority - unlike first and second generation Stealth aircraft, rain won't necessarily compromise the F-22s RCS. Additionally the RCS material is a lot more durable than what was found on the F-117A and the B-2


walle said:


> Don't get me wrong, she is impressive in many ways but I'm affraid she may prove to be more window dressing. I’d actually go so far as to say that any modern combat aircraft is obsolete as soon as it enters service, not so much design wise as countermeasure wise, today’s tech is moving in a very rapid pace and also to a much lower cost, which means that you could get away with a more conventional (or, if you will, "simpler") design yet with more than adequate performance whilst saving money in the process.


While I could agree with that, the obsolescence of a modern combat aircraft is also dependent on what your potential adversary is developing. The closest aircraft in operational capability is the Typhoon. Aside from that I see no other close competitors.

Its funny though - I could also remember hearing folks say the same thing in the early 70s when the F-15 is being developed.


----------



## fly boy (Jan 8, 2009)

thewritingwriter89 said:


> This sucks. I saw a news report on FOX that just sickened me. There were several politicians that decided that the F-22 wasn't needed because it hadn't flown any combat missions. These morons completely miss the point. The best weapon is the kind you never have to use. The F-22 is a symbol of American excellence, and a deterent against aggressive action toward the US. I think we should start a petition to save it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



i will hurt them so much if that happends


----------



## walle (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-22's stealth capability is just one part of the aircraft's superiority - unlike first and second generation Stealth aircraft, rain won't necessarily compromise the F-22s RCS. Additionally the RCS material is a lot more durable than what was found on the F-117A and the B-2


True that stealth is one of the aircrafts abilities and with that comes also the tradeoffs, as with any other design, conventional or otherwise. Regarding combat conditions they are very seldom perfect since battle is not a static affair, neither the weather, things happen.



FLYBOYJ said:


> While I could agree with that, the obsolescence of a modern combat aircraft is also dependent on what your potential adversary is developing. The closest aircraft in operational capability is the Typhoon. Aside from that I see no other close competitors.


True, but development during peace time opposed to war time is different; you are not as hard pressed on time. In a war situation (should it drag out over a long period of time) things would quickly change, and history has showed on that on more then one occasion, people tend to increase their ingenuity and results tend to follow.



FLYBOYJ said:


> Its funny though - I could also remember hearing folks say the same thing in the early 70s when the F-15 is being developed.


I was never involved in such discussions myself and will refrain from commenting on it, as such, though I hope that you didn’t try to infer that I would have fitted/or/fit in that category as based on my thoughts around the F-22.


We will just wait and see what happens to her, and again; darn she is a beauty!


//Eric


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jan 8, 2009)

FLYBOYJ said:


> The F-22's stealth capability is just one part of the aircraft's superiority - unlike first and second generation Stealth aircraft, rain won't necessarily compromise the F-22s RCS. Additionally the RCS material is a lot more durable than what was found on the F-117A and the B-2
> While I could agree with that, the obsolescence of a modern combat aircraft is also dependent on what your potential adversary is developing. The closest aircraft in operational capability is the *Typhoon*. Aside from that I see no other close competitors.
> 
> Its funny though - I could also remember hearing folks say the same thing in the early 70s when the F-15 is being developed.







.................?


----------



## walle (Jan 8, 2009)

I’d rather go with the more modern “version” and some meteor ramjet missiles to be honest, whilst your at it; give me some of that A 1 paint too.

Nice pick of that classic Clay, very nice.



Ps:
I have to confess however (but don’t tell anyone please) that I have a thing for French birds, just can’t help it.


//Eric


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jan 8, 2009)

walle said:


> True that stealth is one of the aircrafts abilities and with that comes also the tradeoffs, as with any other design, conventional or otherwise. Regarding combat conditions they are very seldom perfect since battle is not a static affair, neither the weather, things happen.


Agree



walle said:


> True, but development during peace time opposed to war time is different; you are not as hard pressed on time. In a war situation (should it drag out over a long period of time) things would quickly change, and history has showed on that on more then one occasion, people tend to increase their ingenuity and results tend to follow.


and agree...



walle said:


> I was never involved in such discussions myself and will refrain from commenting on it, as such, though I hope that you didn’t try to infer that I would have fitted/or/fit in that category as based on my thoughts around the F-22.


Not really - but in the 1970s there were many critics wondering why we were developing the F-14 and F-15, still clinging to the old "obsolete air-to-air fighter theory when in the 60s, Vietnam and the Israeli-Arab conflicts showed us differently.


walle said:


> We will just wait and see what happens to her, and again; darn she is a beauty!
> 
> 
> //Eric



And agree!



Clay_Allison said:


> .................?



No................


----------



## fly boy (Jan 9, 2009)

i hope that if it does go off it will be like the b-1


----------

