WT Forums

Sorry. Didnt see the posts below. I guess it is. Well, Well, Well. The F22 up to 260M a pop and climbing. The AF will probably have to scrap every aircraft in the inventory to buy a couple hundred of these over-priced, over-hyped new generation lawn-darts. LOL Just being a teensy bit sarcastic. At least I hope Im exaggerating. Lets see, no BBs, no Hogs(the Army will never get the money to operate them), no M1A1 tanks(Cebrowskis latest), no Crusader and very possibly no DD(X). Just a bunch of lonely groundpounders with whatever they can carry with them. And please dont start me on the Apache.

Hopefully they will come to their senses soon, but you know blue suiters. Maybe I need to mail a copy of "BOYD" to all the generals.

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

Hi Rick.

Good to see you here bro.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Well, you know guys, when you piss your funds away on political BS, you just gotta kill the programs that are necessary and actually proven to work...

A sucking chest wound is life's way of telling you to slow down...

We just don't want this to come at the expense of the pre-eminent CAS aircraft in the world, probably of all time.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

I agree that we need the F22 in the long run. However, as much as I dislike the F-16 (LGPOS) its radar is far superior to any threat that we are likely to encounter. I would gladly stack the USAF minus the F15C vs. any military force on the planet, anywhere. The North Koreans and the Chinese have some advanced technology, but not in the numbers that we do. They can hardly afford to feed their pilots, much less give them the number and quality of flying hours that it takes to be a world-class fighter pilot.

I think the price of the F22 is too much for what we get. But, we live in an Air Force run by generals who love the Air-to-Air fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
But, we live in an Air Force run by generals who love the Air-to-Air fight.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

The one that doesnt exist right?<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>

<i>Integrity first-service before self-Excellence in all we do</i>

IF we go Toe to Toe against the Chinese or North Koreans. You will guarantee their will be an Air-Air fight. A country does not need a savings account to prosecute a Combat Campaign. What resources currently exist will be expended as well as all civil assets.

Only the Communists have proven that overall Political Structure is more important than their citizens Lives, health and Quality of life.

The importance of the F22 is that they will be able to open a lane of station and Route for Mud assets to remove infrastructure to help pave the way for Follow on less capable airframes and Ground forces. That is the advantage the stealth technology brings us.

They provide opportunity were one will not exist with current conventional assets.

This is where the new Litoral Ideas are focusing in the design of our forces.

This allows light strategic forces to maintain ground taken by Stealth Assets until the brunt of conventional forces can Beachhead and or Offload at seized airfields. The Stealth Assets have a heavy burden on them. This is why their is a focus on light Ground Forces to occupy zones and routes of march, To not sterilise, but to disrupt and handicap the enemies ability to fortify, Collect, and threaten Heavy assualt assets from landing and creating the advance.

What is the purpose of this. To not allow a Foriegn power the 6 months to prepare for a US Invasion. Our New defense policy is now Troops to be inside Litoral Theater in the First Week of Hostilities. Holding their strategic goals that handicaps the enemies abilty to delay our route of march.

Unconventional warfare on a Strategic Theater level.

The Current Pentagon thinking is to remove any Threat of Nuclear and Biological threat Immediately, Second focus is then the conventional "War" that begins the completion of Political destruction of the Target entity.

NOBODY IS SAYING WE DONT NEED THE F-22,WE JUST NEED OR FEEL IT WILL DO THE CAS ROLE.

THERE IS A BIG DIFFEREANCE BETWEEN 15,000FT AND UP AND 10,000 FT AND BELOW.
F-22 COULDNT TAKE EVEN A PART OF WHAT THOSE BATTLE CREEK OR POPE HOGS TOOK.
BUT THEN AGAIN SOMEONE WILL SAY,"WITH LASER GUDIED WEAPONS AND ETC..... WONT HAVE TOO"
BUT YOU MISS THE WHOLE POINT
YOU CAN READ ALL THE REORTS AND HOW THEIR GOING TO DO THIS,THAT ETC... BUT JUST LIKE THIS LAST WAR,THE PLAN GOES OUT THE WINDOW DAY-1!!

WE COULD USE THE F-22,BUT NOT AT THAT PRICE!!!! BUT IT CANT BE A JACK OF ALL TRADE. STEALTH DONT HELP MUCH AT UNDER 10,000 FT DOING CAS.

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

The F-22 is the state-of-the-art, premier Air Superiority fighter. It is nothing else. Any attempts to make it so are nonsense. But they will try because they dont have a choice. But its already at 260M a pop. To give it F-15E and F-117 capabilities will drive the cost even higher, not to mention compromise its primary mission. But thats the way things have been and continue to be. The AF never wanted the Hog in the first place. And thats one of the reasons some people think the AF should never have been a separate service to begin with and should now be abolished. It was only made a separate service to begin with because of the promises of strategic bombing which have long been unrealized and now teter on the brink of being an anachronism. The cost of the F-22 tethered with the AF giving up the CAS mission may soon bring this about.

Perhaps if the F-22 was given the JATF comncept from the get go.........We could afford to buy what we need for both services, plus the JSF and no F/A-18E/F.............

If the USAF does not get the F-22 they treasure, the brass needs to look in the mirror, not unlike what the Navy is forced to do.

Its called failure to compromise, because the USAF did not want any drawbacks to using a carrier aircraft, despite the fact they had grown to love the F-4, and the glutteny of having major cold war bucks to apropriate and waste money into A-12's etc.........I wish the Ruskies could atleast have held on untill 1995. The maybe we wouldn't be dealing with agenda decesions, rather than intelligent weapons procurement. Any of you ever see the cartoon in Proceedings of a man labled SECDEF holding a cocked pistol at a CVN, while he standing next to it and trying to cover his ears..........Really hits the mark doesn't it?

Getting back to the F-22.........It is now called the F/A-22 and you guys may lose the A-10 cause it needs to get greased through congress, and eliminating the A-10 may just do that. Pick your poison, but I am certain many soldiers out there if they had their druthers, would prefer the A-10 providing CAS, and the F-15C providing Air Superiority.......Than scarapping the A-10 to make fiscal room for the F/A-22......you watch, its gonna get a new name to match its new multi role mission (eg) the F/A-22 "Teradacto"

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on May 30 2003 6:00 PM

Edited by - chadrewsky on May 30 2003 6:02 PM

Ahh piss on it,

I just wanna see Bush Jr, hold up his favorite barley-pop sitting next to a campfire with his trusty dog "Nuke" petting her. And simply say, Well it was nice knowing the middle east......

Who needs planes and tanks any ways? Oil prices will drop and we can all drive our Ozone killen SUV's.

Just to play devil's advocate here, it's not like the A-10 is a spring chicken- without issues.

It needs $ invested to correct some things that have manifested themselves. A pretty sizable amount of $ at that.

If you ask me, we need both the F-22 and the A-10.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

Indeed we do need both airframes........But where to we set our prioritys?

The military all in all does not get a large portion of our country's GNP..........Yet it is fighting the war on terrorism, staving off the North Korean threat, as well as remaining vigilant to defend freedom. Look at the foreign military aid we invest else where, Egypt for example recieved almost 2 billion in military asistance last year alone. The A-10 is dated, and yes the A-10 could use some upgrades, but unlike other mission specialized aircraft, the A-10 is not obsolete or losing the edge in survivability. The technology represented in the A-10 is still state of the art when compared to its primary mission, the aircraft with upgrades is very hard to beat. The F-22........Its a one show pony, and while we need air dominance for aircraft such as the A-10, and Helos to do their job, air dominance can still be achieved today, and in the near future with our 4th generation air superiorty aircraft. The ATF concept was concieved to dominate the next generation of Soviet aircraft, that were in turn designed to counter the F-14/F-15..........This technology gap still exists today, and will continue to exist as long as our potential adversary's are dependent on Russian fighter aircraft designs.........China is still not capable of breaking free from this, and aircraft such as the SU-35 still do not achieve parity with the F-15C, or F-14D, when one considers the technology at our disposal. The most critical aspect right now is protecting our ground assets with CAS, and the A-10 is still the right aircraft for this job today, despite its advanced age.

America needs the A-10.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

I'm with A-10 Stress. If we're going to cancell somtething, it should be JSF....now, BEFORE it costs 10s of billions id development.

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

THE HOG'S OLD,AND IN SOME PARTS OLDER THAN THE YOUNG GUYS CREWING HER,BUT LOOK AT THE BUFF(B-52) YOU COULD HAVE FATHER & GRANDPA GIVING TIPS TO THE KID ON "CREWCHIEF SECERTS"

BUT YOU DONT SEE THE OLD GIRLS BEING LEFT HOME DO YA?

THAT GOES FOR THE OLD C-130 TOOOOOO STILL A BLOODY WORKHORSE,NEWER DONT MEAN BETTER SOMETIMES

PRESS TO TEST

_________________
\"Live Free Or Die\"

Cancel the JSF?

That is the most vital tactical aircraft program for the United States right now........Our future as a viable dominant air power hinges on the F-35. The F-35 is not only the future of the USAF, but the USN, and USMC. The F-35 can do the F-22's job, but the F-22, even if you call it the F/A-22 canot remotley acomplish what the F-35 can do. The F-35 fits the needs of the Navy, the USMC, and the USAF........If we were to cancel the F-35, so that the USAF could have its prized F-22, every service would compromise its ability to field a tactical strike fighter. The situation is desperate, its not about air dominance, we can achieve that in the forseeable future with our 4th generation air superiority technology. Its about aircraft falling out of the sky, its about airframe fatiuge, its about doing something to rememedy the neglect the military receieved in the 90's, with TACAIR suffering the greatest from this neglect.. The F-35 cannot be procured soon enough, axe the Raptor, axing the F-35 for the F-22 is neglecting the needs of every single servive for the needs of the USAF. The USAF has added what it calls an expeditionary mission to its doctrine, that being the case its time over do for them to get qualified as Naval Aviators.

Canceling the F-35 makes no sense, nor does it make any sense economicaly.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

The JSF(F-35) appears on track however one source which I posted over at Warships1 states the cost at 79M now up from 37M for the AF and in the 40+ range(forget exactly) for the Marine and Naval variants. Thats why the F-22(F/A 22(FB-22) or whatever other name you want to give it is very close to pricing itself out of existence. The Stupid Bug for all its flaws(real and /or imagined) is beyond that. It was the quick, dirty way to overcome the A-12 disaster,the A-6 premature retirement(not to mention the pretty much single mission aspect which seems to have become anathema at least for combat aircraft and ships), the aging(costly to maintain and operate also) F-14 dilema along with the fact they destroyed the tooling for it(F-14). Finding out the true costs of things can be maddening. When decreased #s, add-ons, upgrades, over-runs and inflation(real or created) is finally added in there is no telling where the final cost will end up for any military system. Or at least that has been my perception.

lol, lets not get into what happended to the F-14. I have a complete library of posts regarding that decesion.


If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on May 31 2003 11:38 AM

I can quite imagine. My intention was not to open up a can of worms at least in this regard. Just trying to put some perspective on the decsion making process irregardless of its being good or bad.

Naw............this is a "can of worms" we need to keep opening, lest it be repeated. The procurement process is very flawed. We are talking about billions of dollars in hi tech weaponary that has the potential to make or break our war fighting capability. It seems simple now, with the benefit of hindsight.......But a force composed of F-22's (USAF/USN) variant could provide the high cost end of the high/low mix of tactical aircraft. Strategic air dominance would be provided by the USAF, and Maritime air dominance provided by the USN..........F-35 could then serve the strike fighter needs of all three services, as the low cost end of this mix. All of today's buzz-words would be covered.........."commanality" (F-22 and F-35 have it) "Jointness"...........All the services using a variation of the same aircraft, which then gives a low fly away cost per unit......... "Export potential" we would be exporting variations of the F-35 to our allies to replace the F-16. "Growth Potential" the F-22 and F-35 are designed to grow with the changing threat and global situation. Major subcontracting would reduce the aerospace monopoly by Lockheed, Northrup Grumman or Boeing could provide the carrier experience for the navalized versions.......Everyone would have what they wanted, aviators, war planners, politicians, and trust-busters.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on May 31 2003 1:01 PM

Rationale behind cancellation of the JSF:

1) So far, we have very little invested in it.
2) The basic airframe is already 20% overwieght(Ouch).
3) The navy has the Super Hornet already in production. With proper engines it COULD really be a hotrod. Making that happen will certainly cost less than JSF.

No JSF means the USAF, USMC, and USN have just freed 10's of billions of dollars each over the next 10 yrs. We can accelerate F-22 production, Repair the A-10, Up engine the F-18E/F, and the USMC can replace a lot of it's decrepit old helo's.

Solves a lot of problems, no?

"Trample the wounded...hurdle the dead"

I would be an advocate of re-engining the SuperHornet anyways if it is to provide maritime air superiority...With better engines the F-18F could provide the USN with an aircraft comparable to the SU-27, only with a quantom leap in situational awareness, and avionics........There I said it, lol (happy now Boomer) . The APG-79 is shit hot. Still like the advanced F-14, but the SuperHornet is growing on me, the more I am reading about its operational performance, but it still needs more airspeed and more muscle from its engines. Ok axe the JSF for a better F-18E/F for the USMC and USN........a few problems though.......No VTOL strike fighter for the USMC, no follow on the the F-16 (Lawn darts need to be replaced) unless of course the USAF wants to replace the F-16, with the F-18E/F?

The the USAF gets the biggest badest fighter on the planet in the F-22, not cool.......... It should not be a USAF exclusive. Durring mid-evil times, the best soldiers, leaders, and calvarymen were out in the front, the tip of the spear..........The reserves and second rates where tasked with the garrison duty, now I am not calling the USAF second rate by any means, but their mission is almost "garrison" in nature, when compared to the foward deployed stauts of the USN........ Naval Aviators should be getting the biggest badest toy, if they are to be the first to fight.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on May 31 2003 2:26 PM

Sniper, I thought you hated the F-18E/F? And now Im to understand better engines solves all this? I must be way behind on this. That would be an easy fix, at first glance, but look at all the trouble trying to get uprated engines for the underpowered F-14. This is the first Ive heard of outright cancellation of the JSF. Im not in love with it and hate the USMC version(not being a harrier fan either at least Im consistent) LOL. But if its not going to be a relatively high-performance, low-cost aircraft that can be built(again) in relatively large #s, Im against it period. But maybe Im not understanding the issues correctly. As for the USN getting a navalized version of the F-22(F/A 22 whatever, its a no go, unless of course they can get it for a 120M in 2007 $s. Which from my reading is a pipe dream. But I certainly am interested in your guys take. LOL I really didnt think this A-10 story would provoke such a far reaching discussion. Im pleasantly surprised.