Any guesses as to when or if the F-22 will ever show up at Paris or Farnborough?

[Scott Ferrin]

[José Herculano]

I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft
would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR
record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual
events.

_____________
José Herculano

[robert arndt]

"José Herculano" > wrote in message >...
> I'd say 2005.
> _____________
> José Herculano

Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
projected at $162 million each!!!
That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
SHOULD have but really doesn't.
Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
Flanker and Eurofighter.
I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
emerging until after 2010 at least.
Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Rob

[Ed Rasimus]

On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
you think the F-22 is so inferior.
>
>Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
>projected at $162 million each!!!
>That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
>SHOULD have but really doesn't.

What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
shortfall?

>Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
>for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
>and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
>French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.

Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
Lexus that is just as good a transporter?

Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

>The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
>aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
>Flanker and Eurofighter.

So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the
Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised
aspects of the F-22?

>I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
>many other taxpayers.

That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in
the hands of the taxpayers.

> It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
>role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
>production.

Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
the UCAV never sees before being morted?

>I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
>F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
>wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
>modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
>without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.

The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now
obsolescent, if not obsolete.

>However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
>emerging until after 2010 at least.

This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will
finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of
the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010?

>Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
>This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
>working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
>development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
>I think our money should be spent more wisely...

Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely
to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed
that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What
would you spend our money on, oh wise one?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
> On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:

<snip>
> What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
> Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
> shortfall?

Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.

[Leslie Swartz]

"At Paris?"

Never.

"Over Paris?"

Soon, I hope . . .

Steve Swartz

"José Herculano" > wrote in message
...
> I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
> can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft
> would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR
> record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual
> events.
>
> _____________
> José Herculano
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:15 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Ed Rasimus" > wrote in message
...
>> On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
><snip>
>> What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
>> Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
>> shortfall?
>
>Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are
>all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be
>sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall.
>


Any specific numbers and cites to go with those assertions? Didn't
think so.

[Rob van Riel]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
> demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
> numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
> Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
> Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The sort of conflict you refer to has never occurred. Russia's finest
was never in the hands of anyone but the Russians themselves (barring
a few defectors who brought their ride along). Even if they had been,
you Bekaa example probably doesn't hold up. I think that if the Arabs
had had the same technology as the Israelis, the Israelis still would
have walked all over them, although at a somewhat higher cost. It just
doesn't get much leaner and meaner than the IDF.

I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
easily.

I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
as these tests showed.

I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.

Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

>I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
>West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
>just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
>German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
>superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
>relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
>had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
>easily.
>
>I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
>bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
>as these tests showed.


Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts
from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I
specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting
waxed by "lousy Phantoms".




>
>I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.
>
>Rob

[John Smith]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
om...
> "José Herculano" > wrote in message
>...
> > I'd say 2005.
> > _____________
> > José Herculano
>
> Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
> projected at $162 million each!!!
> That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
> SHOULD have but really doesn't.
> Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
> for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
> and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
> French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
> The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
> aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
> Flanker and Eurofighter.
> I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
> many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
> role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
> production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
> F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
> wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
> modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
> without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
> However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
> emerging until after 2010 at least.
> Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
> This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
> working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
> development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
> I think our money should be spent more wisely...
>
> Rob

Too bad you don't win a war based on the cheaper fighter jet. You put a
squadron of F-22s at some country's doorstep and you show me any country
that will be willing to fight in the air. That fact alone will probably
save you months to years on the duration of a war and billions of dollars in
cost savings and thousands of lives. They will pay for themselves just by
their meir existance.

How many billions have we spent on nuclear weapons? How many times have we
used them? You sleep well at night?

We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the
battlespace. If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into
another Kora, Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new
car, or big new house, won't matter for a damn if you get drafted to go
fight some war that's dragging on because we outfitted our military with the
lowest bidder.

[phil hunt]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:55:29 GMT, John Smith > wrote:
>
>We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the
>battlespace.

Absolutely! The USA should spend 90% of GDP on armaments! Abolish
the civilian economy!

> If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into
>another Kora,

I see the progrsamme of reducing expenditure on education is already
paying dividends.

> Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new
>car [...] won't matter for a damn

Absoluetely! After all, shins on a car are useless.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: >, but first subtract 275 and reverse
the last two letters).

[Keith Willshaw]

"Rob van Riel" > wrote in message
om...
>
> I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
> West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
> just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
> German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
> superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
> relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
> had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
> easily.

I think you'll find that within visual range the Mig-29's had the
edge but the Phantom's would have killed them BVR. In any
event the Germans ditched the Mig's and kept the F-4's

Keith

[Lyle]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>
>>I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
>>West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
>>just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
>>German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
>>superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
>>relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
>>had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
>>easily.
>>
>>I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
>>bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
>>as these tests showed.
>
>
>Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts
>from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I
>specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting
>waxed by "lousy Phantoms".
wasnt that article from '93? if i remember that article right, the
west german flown F-4 out fought the mig-29s flown by the former East.
but once the Former East Germans were taken in hand and taught how to
dogfight by the West Germans, the F-4 was on the loosing end of the
stick. which gose to show that now matter how good your technology is
or how supperior your equipment is, if you are not trained to take it
to its maximum potential, its useless.

correct me if im wrong please, remembering this article from memory.
>
>
>
>
>>
>>I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better.
>>
>>Rob

[Scott Ferrin]

On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:39:44 -0800, Lyle > wrote:

>On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:55:13 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>
>>>I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a
>>>West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had
>>>just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East
>>>German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the
>>>superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most
>>>relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that
>>>had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies
>>>easily.
>>>
>>>I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the
>>>bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly,
>>>as these tests showed.
>>
>>
>>Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts
>>from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I
>>specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting
>>waxed by "lousy Phantoms".
>wasnt that article from '93? if i remember that article right, the
>west german flown F-4 out fought the mig-29s flown by the former East.
>but once the Former East Germans were taken in hand and taught how to
>dogfight by the West Germans, the F-4 was on the loosing end of the
>stick. which gose to show that now matter how good your technology is
>or how supperior your equipment is, if you are not trained to take it
>to its maximum potential, its useless.
>
>correct me if im wrong please, remembering this article from memory.

Same here :-) I'm pretty sure we're talking about the same article.

[Rob van Riel]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> I think you'll find that within visual range the Mig-29's had the
> edge but the Phantom's would have killed them BVR.

With AIM-7 missiles presumably. I don't know if the Germans also got
AA-10 missiles, but if they did, I wouldn't be too confident about the
Phantoms coming out on top. If no AA-10 were available, the Migs were
hardly performing at full potential.


> In any event the Germans ditched the Mig's and kept the F-4's

Both are slated to be phased out in favour of Eurofighters. The
Phantoms will go last, but then, they were recently updated with new
electronics. I can imagine many good reasons why the Germans chose to
upgrade the Phantoms rather than the Migs, most of which have to do
with having a reliable supplier.

Rob

[robert arndt]

Ed Rasimus > wrote in message >...
> On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>
> Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
> importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
> such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
> beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
> you think the F-22 is so inferior.

First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into
any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that
are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical
new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd
definately pick the Su-47.
> >
> >Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
> >projected at $162 million each!!!
> >That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
> >SHOULD have but really doesn't.
>
> What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
> Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
> shortfall?

The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air
superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47
and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon,
Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and
integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft.
And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its
infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that
role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the
Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next
decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the
advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might
carry BVR missiles as well.
>
> >Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
> >for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
> >and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
> >French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
>
> Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
> Lexus that is just as good a transporter?

The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not
comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial
manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to
mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters
are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available
armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational.
>
> Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has
> demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some
> numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the
> Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability.
> Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE.

The aircraft cases you mention historically deal primarily with export
versions flown by undertrained pilots of client states. Try using the
F-22 over Russia or China against their defense systems and trained
pilots flying non-export aircraft.
>
> >The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other
> >aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the
> >Flanker and Eurofighter.
>
> So, specifically, how much "NOT that much better overall" is the
> Raptor? How are you quantifying the advanced, not-yet-publicised
> aspects of the F-22?

What not-yet-publicised aspects? Ha! Supercruise, glass cockpit, and
the ability to fire BVR missiles... so what? The best Typhoons will
have the wide HUDs, all glass cockpit, voice command authority,
sextaplex redundancy, a future fly-by-light system, full auto-recovery
even in combat mode, self diagnostics, impregnated sensors, a
radar-cancelling emitter pod, as well as a huge array of armaments
including Mauser's modified dual-feed jamless BK-27.
>
> >I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do
> >many other taxpayers.
>
> That's it. I really like the idea of putting the technology choices in
> the hands of the taxpayers.

A dog is a dog and the F-22 is barking loudly.
>
> > It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its
> >role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series
> >production.
>
> Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
> the UCAV never sees before being morted?

More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched
killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by
ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator.
>
> >I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed
> >F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really
> >wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could
> >modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense
> >without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future.
>
> The F-15 is 30 years old! The technology was incredible, but it is now
> obsolescent, if not obsolete.
>
> >However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat
> >emerging until after 2010 at least.
>
> This is 2003. We've been in development of Raptor since 1985 and will
> finally reach IOC in 2006. So, when do you want to start production of
> the counter to that "serious threat" emerging after 2010?

Our enemies are China, N Korea, Iran, Syria... with China the most
serious threat air-wise over Taiwanese independence. That would pit
our carrier aircraft against mainland fighters in the Taiwan Straight.
But China will only be able to send up a majority of older
stretch-MiGs in any invasion attempt plus their indigenous Xian strike
aircraft. None of these pose a real threat to our aircraft... unless
China decides to nuke a carrier battlegroup.
The problem arises over Russian sales of advanced Sukhoi aircraft on
the open market and their final adoption of a new air superority
fighter around 2012+.

>
> >Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6.
> >This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also
> >working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under
> >development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems.
> >I think our money should be spent more wisely...
>
> Have you considered that the greatest value of F-22 will be precisely
> to counter "primarily a ground attack family".... Have you noticed
> that US forces have not had enemy aircraft overhead since Korea? What
> would you spend our money on, oh wise one?

The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that
the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval
variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber.
I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority
fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not
an astronomical $150-200 million dog.
I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene
expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt.
Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's
axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology
upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile
systems.

Rob

[Kyle Boatright]

"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
> > On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
> >
> > Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
> > importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
> > such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
> > beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
> > you think the F-22 is so inferior.
>
> First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into
> any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that
> are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical
> new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd
> definately pick the Su-47.

NOT largely classified? Woah.. Find me an official site (Lock-Mart or USAF)
that lists the actual performance of the F-22. Top speed, supercruise
speed, range, max altitude, etc. You won't. Those figures are not
published. In the books you mention, "experts" estimate the aircraft's
performance or quote official sources that give nebulous answers.

Second, the Su-37/47 isn't a production aircraft, and never will be.
Comparing a more-or less paper airplane (the SU) to an aircraft in series
production is a joke. You might as well say the F-22 wouldn't fare well
against the Starship Enterprise. It isn't relevant.

> > >
> > >Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
> > >projected at $162 million each!!!
> > >That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
> > >SHOULD have but really doesn't.
> >
> > What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
> > Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
> > shortfall?
>
> The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air
> superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47
> and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon,
> Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and
> integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft.
> And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its
> infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that
> role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the
> Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next
> decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the
> advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might
> carry BVR missiles as well.

The F-22 should be superior to anything that will be in production for the
next 10+ years, and will always have a significant advantage against
airborne or groundborn threats compared to conventional aircraft. Even IF
(a big IF in my opinion, given the finances of that country) Russia decides
to produce a next generation fighter, it won't be in service in meaningful
numbers until when??? 2015 or later?

One thing that isn't frequently mentioned is that the aerodynamic
performance and relative stealth of the F-22 will allow it to disengage
enemy aircraft, radar, and missiles. First, with the speed of the aircraft,
the opponent has less time to ID, track, and fire on it. Second, aircraft's
stealth also reduces the radar's effective range, and further reduces the
launch window. Third, if a missile is launched, the aircraft's speed will
allow it to extend the range of the engagement, hopefully to the point where
the targeting radar (for instance) loses lock, and the missile loses track.


> >
> > >Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
> > >for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
> > >and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
> > >French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
> >
> > Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
> > Lexus that is just as good a transporter?
>
> The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not
> comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial
> manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to
> mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters
> are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available
> armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational.

As has been discussed time and time again, radical low speed maneuvers look
great at the Paris Airshow, but will not be effective in combat. If they
were, the airforces of the world would be flying sidewinder equipped Pitts
Specials.


<snip>

> >
> > Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
> > the UCAV never sees before being morted?
>
> More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched
> killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by
> ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator.

Who is going to field these UCAV's? The Martians? Other than the US,
nobody else has the money or technology to field a formidable UCAV system,
and even the US is still years away.

<snip>

> The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that
> the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval
> variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber.
> I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority
> fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not
> an astronomical $150-200 million dog.
> I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene
> expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt.
> Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's
> axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology
> upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile
> systems.
>
> Rob

Do you understand the concept of fixed costs? The $100 million plus "cost"
of the F-22 includes all of the fixed development costs. Engineering,
testing, tool building, software development, etc. That money is gone.
Never to be recovered. Any sane person takes a look forward view and
realizes that IN TOTAL, it would cost more to design, develop, and field
your "$80" million aircraft than it will cost to field an equivalent number
of F-22's..

What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars?
Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander
was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to
rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same
situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a
position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that
position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any
other large twin engined fighter...

KB

KB

[No Spam!]

phil hunt wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:55:29 GMT, John Smith > wrote:
>>We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the
>>battlespace.
> Absolutely! The USA should spend 90% of GDP on armaments! Abolish
> the civilian economy!

The US currently spends about 4.6% of its GDP on the military, down from
about 6% during the Reagan years. If the US were closer to 6% not only
could it perhaps replace equipment that's older than its troops, but
also afford more troops so the ones in Iraq could spend a bit more time
at home with their loved ones.

>>If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into
>>another Kora,
> I see the progrsamme of reducing expenditure on education is already
> paying dividends.

And this relates to a warning about avoiding another Korean conflict
how? And given that fifty years later we're still having problems with
North Korea shows, just like Gulf War I, we should have finished it
properly the first time.

>>Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new
>>car [...] won't matter for a damn
> Absoluetely! After all, shins on a car are useless.

I also suggest before you criticize others misspellings you check
yourself; "progrsamme" and "Absoluetely" come to mind...

[Scott Ferrin]

>What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars?

Believe it or not I recall it was in the vicinity of FOUR billion.
Even developing the first generation of Pentium chips I've read was
over a billion.






>Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander
>was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to
>rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same
>situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a
>position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that
>position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any
>other large twin engined fighter...
>
>KB
>
>KB
>

[Lyle]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 14:46:51 GMT, "Kyle Boatright"
> wrote:

>
>"robert arndt" > wrote in message
m...
>> Ed Rasimus > wrote in message
>...
>> > On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote:
>> >
>> > Gosh, Robert, tell us what you really think. But, maybe more
>> > importantly, tell us what particularl in your experience gives you
>> > such insights into a still largely classified program. In other words,
>> > beyond the typical "omigod, look at those dollars" argument, why do
>> > you think the F-22 is so inferior.
>>
>> First of all, the program is NOT largely classifield; you can go into
>> any military bookstore and buy shelfs full of F-22 Raptor books that
>> are updated frequently. Nothing in them suggests anything of radical
>> new technology. Between the F-22 Raptor and Su 47 Firkin, I'd
>> definately pick the Su-47.
>
>NOT largely classified? Woah.. Find me an official site (Lock-Mart or USAF)
>that lists the actual performance of the F-22. Top speed, supercruise
>speed, range, max altitude, etc. You won't. Those figures are not
>published. In the books you mention, "experts" estimate the aircraft's
>performance or quote official sources that give nebulous answers.
>
>Second, the Su-37/47 isn't a production aircraft, and never will be.
>Comparing a more-or less paper airplane (the SU) to an aircraft in series
>production is a joke. You might as well say the F-22 wouldn't fare well
>against the Starship Enterprise. It isn't relevant.
>
>> > >
>> > >Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is
>> > >projected at $162 million each!!!
>> > >That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22
>> > >SHOULD have but really doesn't.
>> >
>> > What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes.
>> > Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the
>> > shortfall?
>>
>> The entire purpose of the F-22 program is premiere air-to-air
>> superiority- period. This is simply not so against the Su-35, Su-47
>> and MiG MFI (if any are adopted) as well as the best armed Typhoon,
>> Gripen, and Rafale. This is also not so against anti-stealth radar and
>> integrated Russian missile systems that can lock onto this aircraft.
>> And none of this addresses the future air-to-air UCAV which is in its
>> infancy right now. We tried to use an experimental Predator in that
>> role a while back and it failed- the Iraqi MiG shot it down. But the
>> Predator isn't a true UCAV. Once those become available in the next
>> decade man vs machine engagements will take place and the UCAV has the
>> advantage of small target size, enhanced manouverability, and might
>> carry BVR missiles as well.
>
>The F-22 should be superior to anything that will be in production for the
>next 10+ years, and will always have a significant advantage against
>airborne or groundborn threats compared to conventional aircraft. Even IF
>(a big IF in my opinion, given the finances of that country) Russia decides
>to produce a next generation fighter, it won't be in service in meaningful
>numbers until when??? 2015 or later?
>
>One thing that isn't frequently mentioned is that the aerodynamic
>performance and relative stealth of the F-22 will allow it to disengage
>enemy aircraft, radar, and missiles. First, with the speed of the aircraft,
>the opponent has less time to ID, track, and fire on it. Second, aircraft's
>stealth also reduces the radar's effective range, and further reduces the
>launch window. Third, if a missile is launched, the aircraft's speed will
>allow it to extend the range of the engagement, hopefully to the point where
>the targeting radar (for instance) loses lock, and the missile loses track.
dont forget with the higher initial velocity of the missle launches of
the F-22, it should be able to engage at longer distance.
>
>
>> >
>> > >Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin
>> > >for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million,
>> > >and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the
>> > >French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen.
>> >
>> > Why is it that they can make a Yugo for $3500 but it costs $55K for a
>> > Lexus that is just as good a transporter?
>>
>> The Typhoon, Gripen, Rafale, Su-35, Su-47, and MiG MFI are not
>> comparable to a Yugo. The Russian aircraft can perform aerial
>> manouvers our aircraft can't and they have BVR misiles also... not to
>> mention continued development of plasma stealth. The European fighters
>> are all excellent canard/deltas with a vast array of available
>> armament; and unlike the F-22 are already operational.
>
>As has been discussed time and time again, radical low speed maneuvers look
>great at the Paris Airshow, but will not be effective in combat. If they
>were, the airforces of the world would be flying sidewinder equipped Pitts
>Specials.
>
>
><snip>
>
>> >
>> > Exactly how does a UCAV beat a Raptor in the integrated system which
>> > the UCAV never sees before being morted?
>>
>> More like the reverse- the F-22 that is swarmed by UCAV-launched
>> killvehicles and can't shake them. Or the F-22 that is barraged by
>> ground and air systems directed by a loitering UCAV designator.
>
>Who is going to field these UCAV's? The Martians? Other than the US,
>nobody else has the money or technology to field a formidable UCAV system,
>and even the US is still years away.
>
><snip>
>
>> The F-22 is supposed to be an air superiority only fighter. Now that
>> the program is jeopardized financially there is all this talk of naval
>> variants, strike craft, and stretched tactical bomber.
>> I personally still favor developing a seperate air superiority
>> fighter... but with a reasonable price tag of $75-80 million each- not
>> an astronomical $150-200 million dog.
>> I guess you don't mind forking out the cash for such obscene
>> expenditures. Reminds me of the USAF $8000 toilet seat and $700 bolt.
>> Unless we are covertly funding black projects with F-22 money let's
>> axe the program and pour the funds into UCAV development, technology
>> upgrades on all frontline combat aircraft, and more advanced missile
>> systems.
>>
>> Rob
>
>Do you understand the concept of fixed costs? The $100 million plus "cost"
>of the F-22 includes all of the fixed development costs. Engineering,
>testing, tool building, software development, etc. That money is gone.
>Never to be recovered. Any sane person takes a look forward view and
>realizes that IN TOTAL, it would cost more to design, develop, and field
>your "$80" million aircraft than it will cost to field an equivalent number
>of F-22's..
>
>What do you think the first production Ford Taurus cost? A billion dollars?
>Maybe $10,000 of that was the cost to produce the first car and the remander
>was the cost to design the car, develop and test prototypes, and then to
>rework the factories to be able to produce the car. That's the same
>situation with the F-22. It costs a HUGE amount of money to get to a
>position where you are ready to build aircraft. Once you're in that
>position, the actual production costs are not that much different than any
>other large twin engined fighter...
>
>KB
>
>KB
>

[Lyle]

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 10:16:01 -0600, "No Spam!" >
wrote:

>phil hunt wrote:
>> On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 19:55:29 GMT, John Smith > wrote:
>>>We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the
>>>battlespace.
>> Absolutely! The USA should spend 90% of GDP on armaments! Abolish
>> the civilian economy!
>
>The US currently spends about 4.6% of its GDP on the military, down from
>about 6% during the Reagan years. If the US were closer to 6% not only
>could it perhaps replace equipment that's older than its troops, but
>also afford more troops so the ones in Iraq could spend a bit more time
>at home with their loved ones.
>
>>>If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into
>>>another Kora,
>> I see the progrsamme of reducing expenditure on education is already
>> paying dividends.
>
>And this relates to a warning about avoiding another Korean conflict
>how? And given that fifty years later we're still having problems with
>North Korea shows, just like Gulf War I, we should have finished it
>properly the first time.
>
>>>Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new
>>>car [...] won't matter for a damn
>> Absoluetely! After all, shins on a car are useless.
>
>I also suggest before you criticize others misspellings you check
>yourself; "progrsamme" and "Absoluetely" come to mind...

you can abolish the military spending and it wont even put a dent in
the social programs, yet you will then have massive unemployment not
only the millions of servicepersonal. but also the civilian defense
contractors. and that is just the tip of the iceberg