This is bad

[Clay_Allison]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Avoid Chile, too many pickpockets.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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

See below!

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]

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]

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]

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%!