Question about the F-22 and cost.

[Scott Ferrin]

I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
instead of chewing old fat.

[John Cook]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
wrote:

>

The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
aircraft are bought.

There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
remains the same.

How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..

150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
the cost..
Its difficult isn't it...



>I thought congress put a cap on the program cost and basically said
>"this is how much you get for the program, buy however many you can
>with it". That being the case why is congress bitching and moaning
>about it (not to mention the idiots at POGO) again? If they cost a
>billion a pop for the airforce then they get fewer. If it costs $100
>million they get more. From what I've read the USAF has a handle on
>it and would just as soon have the politicians go earn their money
>instead of chewing old fat.

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
> wrote:
>
> >
>
> The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
> aircraft are bought.
>
> There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
> when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
> remains the same.
>
> How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..
>
> 150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
> the cost..
> Its difficult isn't it...

Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
now.

Brooks

[Harry Andreas]

In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

> Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
> around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
> test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
> currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
> any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
> managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
> now.

6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational utility.
The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in inventory.
A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Kevin Brooks]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> > Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
> > around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
> > test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
> > currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower in
> > any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
> > managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
> > now.
>
> 6 squadrons may or may not be enough, but the comparison to the F-117 is a
> poor one. The F-117 is a very specialized a/c with narrow operational
utility.
> The F-22 is supposed to replace the most effective a/a platform in
inventory.
> A much broader role is(was) envisioned for the F-22.

But if you consider that the "super capabilities" of the F-22 will only be
*required* against a very few potential threats, then the analogy still
holds true IMO. Other platforms remain capable of dealing with the majority
of potential air threats. The move to relabel the F-22 as F/A-22 was born
from the desire to counter this kind of argument.

Brooks

>
> --
> Harry Andreas
> Engineering raconteur

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>
>Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
>around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training, and
>test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
>currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower in
>any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
>managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of years
>now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:20:53 +1100, John Cook > wrote:
>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>
>
>The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
>aircraft are bought.
>
>There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
>when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
>remains the same.
>
>How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..
>
>150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
>the cost..
>Its difficult isn't it...

I expect if they asked nicely, Eurofighter GmbH would sell them a
few Typhoons. A quick BOTE calculation suggests they'd get 619
Typhoons for what they're spending on manufacturing the Raptor. (i'm
not including development costs).

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >
> >Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
> >around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
and
> >test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
> >currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
in
> >any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
> >managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
> >now.
>
> I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
> several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
> F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
> F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC (the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

Brooks

>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 19:20:53 +1100, John Cook >
wrote:

>On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 01:58:12 GMT, Scott Ferrin >
>wrote:
>
>>
>
>The reason is that the usefulness of the system is degraded as fewer
>aircraft are bought.
>
>There is a point at which even a brillient system becomes marginal
>when so few are brought into service, However the massive cost
>remains the same.
>
>How many would you consider adequate for the USAF..
>
>150 is a joke, so choose a figure higher than this that is still worth
>the cost..
>Its difficult isn't it...


The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
to work the problem.

[Denyav]

>The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
>295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
>to work the problem.
>

Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them will
probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
> >to work the problem.
> >
>
> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
will
> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.
Right now there is still a possibility of 160 airframes;180 minus the twenty
FSD airframes. A fantastic waste of money for so small a force.

As much as I hate to say it, America would be btter off making a buy from
the UK.

There is however, that sweet Georgia pork to consider.

[John Cook]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> wrote:

>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
>> >around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
>and
>> >test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
>> >currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
>in
>> >any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
>> >managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
>years
>> >now.

How many aircraft do you have now (F15/F16) Your present rate of
replacement will not be 1 to 1 at the price thats being quoted..

The idea was that the f-22 was the silver bullet force that would
make up for t he JSF's shortcomings.

The JSF was to have used off board sensors to fulfill its missions.

But the cuts to the F-22 buy and pressure from the non US partner in
the JSF mean its capability has grown to start encroaching on the
F-22.

This is where the US has to be very careful, If the JSF get to
look too good then the F-22 dies a death.

If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
F15's') then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
elsewhere.

The nasty part of this is then the price of the JSF skyrockets!!
(it started out at around $25M USD), you'll find it will be well over
double that now, and possible treble come production time.

Which means the USA will not have an 'F16' replacement ie a Light
Weight Fighter in the $30-40M USD bracket.

So what's it to be??? cut the number of wings, cut the number of
aircraft in a wing, to make it look like there are no cuts while
cutting the number of aircraft to be purchased or the very slight
chance of doubling/trebling the amount spent of fighter
procurement in the next decade or two.

Some thing has to give - I still think the F-22 is vulnerable.
I just cannot imaging the present fiscal bloat continuing.

Cheers





>>
>> I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
>> several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
>> F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
>> F-22s.
>
>Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
>buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC (the
>Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
>the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
>namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
>however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
>could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
>entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
>dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
>foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
>(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
>USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
>environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
>coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.
>
>Brooks
>
>>
>> --
>> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
>> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
>> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>>
>>
>

[Kevin Brooks]

"John Cook" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
> >> >around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition,
training,
> >and
> >> >test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
> >> >currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower
> >in
> >> >any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
> >> >managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
> >years
> >> >now.
>
> How many aircraft do you have now (F15/F16) Your present rate of
> replacement will not be 1 to 1 at the price thats being quoted..

It does not have to be. The F-22 is lauded as being so much more effective
than both its contemporaries and forseeable opponents, a one-for-one
replacement is not required. Same goes for the F-35 versus F-16. And recall
that in the case of the latter, the later block F-16's will be serving long
after the F-35 enters into service.

>
> The idea was that the f-22 was the silver bullet force that would
> make up for t he JSF's shortcomings.

Actually, I think you have that sort of backwards. The ATF program was well
underway before the JSF program even coalesced into its current form. The
JSF enables the F-22 to be bought in lower numbers than would be the case
without the JSF. Under the evolving views, your statement becomes more true
today--the F-22 can be a silver bullet that can enhance the abilities of the
F-35 (and other aircraft) to do their missions. The old days' philosophy of
"not a pound for air-to-ground" just does not really cut it in the modern
threat environment; hence the belated "F/A-22" wordsmithing to try and
portray it as *really* being a platform that was equally intended to serve
in the strike role.

>
> The JSF was to have used off board sensors to fulfill its missions.

Programs evolve and change--that has always been the case with major weapons
sytems like these.

>
> But the cuts to the F-22 buy and pressure from the non US partner in
> the JSF mean its capability has grown to start encroaching on the
> F-22.
>
> This is where the US has to be very careful, If the JSF get to
> look too good then the F-22 dies a death.
>
> If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
> as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
> F15's') then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
> Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
> elsewhere.
>
> The nasty part of this is then the price of the JSF skyrockets!!
> (it started out at around $25M USD), you'll find it will be well over
> double that now, and possible treble come production time.
>
> Which means the USA will not have an 'F16' replacement ie a Light
> Weight Fighter in the $30-40M USD bracket.
>
> So what's it to be??? cut the number of wings, cut the number of
> aircraft in a wing, to make it look like there are no cuts while
> cutting the number of aircraft to be purchased or the very slight
> chance of doubling/trebling the amount spent of fighter
> procurement in the next decade or two.
>
> Some thing has to give - I still think the F-22 is vulnerable.
> I just cannot imaging the present fiscal bloat continuing.

I mmay have misunderstood your earlier comments. I believe the F-22 buy will
in all likelihood never exceed the 180-200 aircraft figure. The F-35 will
indeed have more capabilities than may have originally been envisioned for
it. Improved PGM's, improved C4ISR, advances in UAV (to the point of
UCAV)...all of these point eventually to a smaller force structure
footprint, IMO. The F-22 will be a silver bullet asset, while the F-35 will
be capable of dealing with all but the most advanced opposition systems.
Actually, I think the case for the F-22 would have been much stronger had
the USAF committed early to developing a somewhat modified strike version
(not necessarily having to go as far as the FB-22 proposal put forth by
LMCO) to eventually replace the F-15E.

Brooks

>
> Cheers
>
>
>
>
>
> >>
> >> I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
> >> several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
> >> F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
> >> F-22s.
> >
> >Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total
US
> >buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC
(the
> >Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured).
Secondly,
> >the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
> >namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who
*can*,
> >however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter
that
> >could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft. Dumping the F-22
> >entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
> >dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
> >foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
> >(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when
the
> >USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
> >environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
> >coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.
> >
> >Brooks
> >
> >>
> >> --
> >> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> >> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> >> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
> >>
> >>
> >
>

[phil hunt]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
>> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
>wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would allow
>> >around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition, training,
>and
>> >test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
>> >currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply airpower
>in
>> >any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We have
>> >managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
>years
>> >now.
>>
>> I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
>> several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
>> F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
>> F-22s.
>
>Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total US
>buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC

Yes, that's "several thousand".

> (the
>Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured). Secondly,
>the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
>namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who *can*,
>however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter that
>could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft.

There are planes around today which are as good, or better, than the
USAF's and USN's current aircraft. The Typhoon and Gripen, for
example. Flanker varients with good avionics would probably qualify
too.

It's likely that future such aiorcraft will be developed in the
future. China and Russia are both keen to develop more modern
aircraft. But, any future aircraft will be developed in a timescale
where the F-35 will already be in service. So a potential enemy will
have to deal with that too. The sort of hypothetical force we're
talking about, then, would consist of large numbers (1000+) of
Typhoon-class aircraft. The only people who could field such as
force are Europe, Japan, and China. Europe and Japan aren't going to
fight the USA unless the USA starts behaving like Nazi Germany or
the USSR.

China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
afford more planes (and other military cabability).

> Dumping the F-22
>entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
>dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
>foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
>(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when the
>USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
>environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
>coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
political climate changes a lot.

The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
F-35s.

Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
its place? I don't know.

I expect the F-22 program will contine, in the short run. But I
think if in future cost savings are looked for, it's likely to be
one program that is looked at very closely.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:01:18 +1100, John Cook > wrote:
>
>If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
>as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
>F15's')

I've not heard that before. Is it likely the F-35 sensors will be
that cut-down?

> then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
>Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
>elsewhere.

I expect in that instance Britain would consider having its F-35s
contain the same sensor set as the Typhoon.

>The nasty part of this is then the price of the JSF skyrockets!!
>(it started out at around $25M USD), you'll find it will be well over
>double that now, and possible treble come production time.

All military aircraft increase in price over time. In part this is a
deliberate ploy by defence contractors, some of whom have admitted
as much.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 19:58:07 -0500, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>
>The old days' philosophy of
>"not a pound for air-to-ground" just does not really cut it in the modern
>threat environment; hence the belated "F/A-22" wordsmithing to try and
>portray it as *really* being a platform that was equally intended to serve
>in the strike role.

Indeed.

The F-22 is suffering from the same root cause that's affected the
Typhoon program -- the enemy against which it was envisaged, the
USSR, no longer exists.

>I mmay have misunderstood your earlier comments. I believe the F-22 buy will
>in all likelihood never exceed the 180-200 aircraft figure.

That seems probable.

>The F-35 will
>indeed have more capabilities than may have originally been envisioned for
>it. Improved PGM's, improved C4ISR, advances in UAV (to the point of
>UCAV)...


And that.

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:
> >
> >"phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
> >> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks
>
> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
> >> >around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition,
training,
> >and
> >> >test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
> >> >currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower
> >in
> >> >any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
> >> >managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
> >years
> >> >now.
> >>
> >> I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
> >> several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
> >> F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
> >> F-22s.
> >
> >Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total
US
> >buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC
>
> Yes, that's "several thousand".

Well, I call that a couple, not "several"; Websters defines several as being
"greater than 2 or 3".

>
> > (the
> >Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured).
Secondly,
> >the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
> >namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who
*can*,
> >however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter
that
> >could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft.
>
> There are planes around today which are as good, or better, than the
> USAF's and USN's current aircraft. The Typhoon and Gripen, for
> example. Flanker varients with good avionics would probably qualify
> too.

Gripen is good, and affordable--but it is not demonstrably better than the
latest F-16 blocks; some claim it is even inferior in some ways to the block
52/60 F-16's. I don't see Typhoon going to any likely foes. Flanker is big
on hype, not so big on proof, and the avionics are the key. So I still don't
see any world-beaters in the hands of likely foes in the forseeable future.

>
> It's likely that future such aiorcraft will be developed in the
> future.

Then we can deal with that in the future. Based upon the pace of progress on
recent Chinese and Russian programs, there is not that much to be concerned
over.

China and Russia are both keen to develop more modern
> aircraft. But, any future aircraft will be developed in a timescale
> where the F-35 will already be in service. So a potential enemy will
> have to deal with that too. The sort of hypothetical force we're
> talking about, then, would consist of large numbers (1000+) of
> Typhoon-class aircraft. The only people who could field such as
> force are Europe, Japan, and China. Europe and Japan aren't going to
> fight the USA unless the USA starts behaving like Nazi Germany or
> the USSR.

Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of the
Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category (China
excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it in
the forseeable future).

>
> China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
> a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
> last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
> USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
> afford more planes (and other military cabability).

And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.

>
> > Dumping the F-22
> >entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
> >dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
> >foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
> >(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when
the
> >USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
> >environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
> >coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.
>
> I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
> and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
> there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
> political climate changes a lot.

Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
to" figure.

>
> The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
> fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
> likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
> F-35s.

Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.

>
> Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
> than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
> loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
> room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
> alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
> signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
> its place? I don't know.

You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.

>
> I expect the F-22 program will contine, in the short run. But I
> think if in future cost savings are looked for, it's likely to be
> one program that is looked at very closely.

I'd wager it will NEVER be completely cut--too much investment to date, both
capital and moral. The cut back to the 180-200 range is more likely by far.

Brooks

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..

> I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
> and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
> there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
> political climate changes a lot.

You are mistaken, the number of F-22s to be produced was 180 a year ago.
The funding for the f-22 is dollar capped and each slide in time reduces the
number of airframes delivered. The 276 number is only a fantasy some ram
participant pulled out of their ass.

The likely maximum operational F-22 airframes has fallen further over the
past year, as another year has been ****ed away.

> The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
> fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
> likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
> F-35s.

Shutting down the line in Gerogia will not be cheap, as that was the main
thrust for going into production so prematurely. The money is pretty much
spent, whether the US builds F-22s, or not.

[Tarver Engineering]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:01:18 +1100, John Cook >
wrote:
> >
> >If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
> >as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
> >F15's')
>
> I've not heard that before. Is it likely the F-35 sensors will be
> that cut-down?

The F-35 was late enough to get some COTS relief, so it is likely to have
superior sensors and integration when compared to the F-22. Letting
engineers buy parts saves a lot of heartache, if the program follows a few
simple rules.

[Michael Zaharis]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>
>>I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
>>and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
>>there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
>>political climate changes a lot.
>
>
> Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
> thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
> some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
> was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
> to" figure.
>
>

A source for the 276 figure:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm

From that (Last paragraph):

"Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

[Michael Zaharis]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
>>and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
>>there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
>>political climate changes a lot.
>
>
> Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
> thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
> some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
> was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
> to" figure.
>
>


A source for the 276 figure:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm

From that (Last paragraph - the second-to-last paragraph discusses the
180 figure):

"Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

[Kevin Brooks]

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> > "phil hunt" > wrote in message
> > . ..
> >
> >>I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
> >>and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
> >>there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
> >>political climate changes a lot.
> >
> >
> > Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
> > thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by
using
> > some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180
figure
> > was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible
"reduce
> > to" figure.
> >
> >
>
>
> A source for the 276 figure:
>
> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-cost.htm
>
> From that (Last paragraph - the second-to-last paragraph discusses the
> 180 figure):
>
> "Air Force officials announced 07 November 2002 a potential cost overrun
> of up to $690 million in the engineering, manufacturing and development
> phase of the F/A-22 program. The potential overrun appeared to be
> related to achieving cost and schedule in the developmental phase of the
> program, officials said. It is not related to its technology or
> performance. The aircraft remains on schedule for first aircraft
> delivery in 2004 and initial operational capability in 2005 as planned.
> The projected overrun is about 3.3 percent of the program's $20 billion
> development phase and about 1 percent of the program's $69.7 billion
> estimated total pricetag. The Pentagon approved an $876 million
> restructure to finance the extended development effort. The restructure
> sliced $763 million from the procurement profile, cutting 49 airframes
> from years 2004 to 2009. This decision brought the procurement profile
> from 325 to 276 through FY-09. "

Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
295."

www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf

Note the "minimum".

Brooks

>

[Michael Zaharis]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

> Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
> 2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
> 295."
>
> www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf
>
> Note the "minimum".
>
> Brooks
>


I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
remainder."

[Michael Zaharis]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

>
> Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
> 2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
> 295."
>
> www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf
>
> Note the "minimum".
>
> Brooks
>
>

I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
remainder."

Anyway, it looks like the military is going to have a hard time
purchasing even 276 under the existing cost cap, and the Air Force is
trying to seek "relief" from this cost cap.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/search/autosuggest.jsp?docid=2681&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aviationnow.com%2Favnow%2Fnew s%2Fchannel_aerospacedaily_story.jsp%3Fview%3Dstor y%26id%3Dnews%2Ffa04033.xml

[Harry Andreas]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 09:01:18 +1100, John Cook > wrote:
> >
> >If the JSF isn't made to be a pretty good autonomous fighter (read
> >as 'the JSF must have a sensor suite that's as good as the present
> >F15's')
>
> I've not heard that before. Is it likely the F-35 sensors will be
> that cut-down?
>
> > then the Partner nations won't be very happy (Note how the
> >Netherlands are keeping in with the Typhoon program), and may shop
> >elsewhere.
>
> I expect in that instance Britain would consider having its F-35s
> contain the same sensor set as the Typhoon.

You may be surprised at the capabilities of the so-called "cut down"
sensor system. Typhoon currently has a mechanically scanned
radar. It does not have the capabilities of even the cut down JSF
system.


> >The nasty part of this is then the price of the JSF skyrockets!!
> >(it started out at around $25M USD), you'll find it will be well over
> >double that now, and possible treble come production time.
>
> All military aircraft increase in price over time. In part this is a
> deliberate ploy by defence contractors, some of whom have admitted
> as much.

I've never heard such a confession and I've been in the industry for
25+ years. Can you provide a source please?
IME the cost growth over time have been the result of a steady
increase in performance at the request of the customer.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

[Tarver Engineering]

"Michael Zaharis" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> >
> > Different sources use differing verbage; from an anylist's report on the
> > 2004 budget request: "The minimum purchase quantity was cut to 276 from
> > 295."
> >
> > www.trianglesecurities.com/files/AERO020403.pdf
> >
> > Note the "minimum".
> >
> > Brooks
> >
> >
>
> I remember when that 276 number first came out. I think that the deal
> was, "The project will be capped money to buy 276 at present cost
> estimates; if you can make 'em cheaper, you can buy more with the
> remainder."

And in 2003 the number of airframes available under the cap was 180 and has
dropped with the current slip in delivery.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Harry Andreas" > wrote in message
...

>
> I've never heard such a confession and I've been in the industry for
> 25+ years. Can you provide a source please?
> IME the cost growth over time have been the result of a steady
> increase in performance at the request of the customer.

The schedule slippage is the cause of the steadily decreasing number of
F-22s for delivery. The schedule slip is a direct rsult of performance
issues.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
>> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
>> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
>> >to work the problem.
>> >
>>
>> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
>will
>> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.
>
>Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
>posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.


Strakes.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Denyav" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
> >> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
> >> >to work the problem.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
> >will
> >> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.
> >
> >Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
> >posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.

> Strakes.

Yes little stinky, Lockmart tried to use 8 inch strakes to correct their
tail problems. do try and keep up.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:59:34 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Denyav" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
>> >> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
>> >> >to work the problem.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
>> >will
>> >> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.
>> >
>> >Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180 I
>> >posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so soon.
>
>> Strakes.
>
>Yes little stinky, Lockmart tried to use 8 inch strakes to correct their
>tail problems. do try and keep up.
>


You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
full of **** as ever though.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 10:59:34 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 14 Feb 2004 09:16:47 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Denyav" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can
get
> >> >> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could
try
> >> >> >to work the problem.
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of
them
> >> >will
> >> >> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.
> >> >
> >> >Now now Denyav, little stinky Ferrin is just catching up with the 180
I
> >> >posted a year ago. You can't expect him to convert to reality so
soon.
> >
> >> Strakes.
> >
> >Yes little stinky, Lockmart tried to use 8 inch strakes to correct their
> >tail problems. do try and keep up.

> You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
> full of **** as ever though.

I was always respectable Ferrin, you have been a fool.

I have already written that I will not oppose the production run any longer,
(Georgia pork) so I don't see why you can't just discuss the numbers issue
in a sober manner. The money is already spent, that is what jumping
straight to production was all about, instead of the 19 airframe FSD that is
real. Perhaps the titanium tail spar is a fix and perhaps not, there is no
way to know until the airplane stacks up some hours. (AV19)

Now go back to aviation and stop your personality attack. The tab to me is
so wide that there is no possibility of discrediting me, so calm down.

[phil hunt]

On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0500, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>> >
>> >Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total
>> >US
>> >buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC
>>
>> Yes, that's "several thousand".
>
>Well, I call that a couple, not "several"; Websters defines several as being
>"greater than 2 or 3".

I meant it as greater than 2.

>> China and Russia are both keen to develop more modern
>> aircraft. But, any future aircraft will be developed in a timescale
>> where the F-35 will already be in service. So a potential enemy will
>> have to deal with that too. The sort of hypothetical force we're
>> talking about, then, would consist of large numbers (1000+) of
>> Typhoon-class aircraft. The only people who could field such as
>> force are Europe, Japan, and China. Europe and Japan aren't going to
>> fight the USA unless the USA starts behaving like Nazi Germany or
>> the USSR.
>
>Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of the
>Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
>quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category (China
>excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it in
>the forseeable future).

You're probably right there, in the short and medium term. In the
long term, China is very interested in modern technologies, and has
a largish and rapidly growing economy, so they are bound to catch up
in aeronautical engineering.

>> China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
>> a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
>> last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
>> USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
>> afford more planes (and other military cabability).
>
>And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
>against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.

If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
likely allow the USAF to base there.

>> The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
>> fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
>> likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
>> F-35s.
>
>Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
>commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.

That's true -- over its lifetime, the F-35 may not be that much
cheaper than the F-22. (Having said that, I expect simulators could
make it cheaper to train good pilots).

>> Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
>> than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
>> loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
>> room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
>> alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
>> signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
>> its place? I don't know.
>
>You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
>platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
>optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.

So in the air-to-air role, how many F-35s is one F-22 worth, IYO?

--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[phil hunt]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:16:23 -0800, Harry Andreas > wrote:
>In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:
>
>> I expect in that instance Britain would consider having its F-35s
>> contain the same sensor set as the Typhoon.
>
>You may be surprised at the capabilities of the so-called "cut down"
>sensor system. Typhoon currently has a mechanically scanned
>radar.

Yes, I know, I was considering the phased one to replace it.

>> All military aircraft increase in price over time. In part this is a
>> deliberate ploy by defence contractors, some of whom have admitted
>> as much.
>
>I've never heard such a confession and I've been in the industry for
>25+ years. Can you provide a source please?

Sure.

<http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=2442322>

Sir Raymond Lygo is a former boss of British Aerospace, so I
imagine he knows what he's talking about.

>IME the cost growth over time have been the result of a steady
>increase in performance at the request of the customer.

Yes, that's part of the ploy. to quote the article:

---------------------- begin ----------------------
I think it's a well-known fact, whether anybody admits it or not, is
you'll never get any programme through the Government if you ever
revealed the real cost.

Whatever you want to get through Government, you have to first of
all establish what is the Treasury likely to approve in terms of
money? And then you think, what can you offer for these terms within
the parameters that have been set? And pretty often it is pretty
nearly impossible.

So you say right, we can do this and we'll do it for the price and
then the programme goes ahead. But you know automatically that it's
going to cost more than that because it will.

And so after a year you say 'I'm terribly sorry but the costs have
now risen for this reason and the other reason'.
----------------------- end -----------------------


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Scott Ferrin]

>> You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
>> full of **** as ever though.
>
>I was always respectable Ferrin, you have been a fool.

Uh huh. I guess some things still zip right over your head though
huh?



>
>I have already written that I will not oppose the production run any longer,
>(Georgia pork) so I don't see why you can't just discuss the numbers issue
>in a sober manner.

As far as the numbers go the more F-22s the merrier. My gripe is a
cap was given, the USAF seemed okay with that, and now the **** is
getting stirred about cost again. A cap is a cap. As far as
sobriety goes my rant isn't about how many are being bought but how
the purse strings are being handled. If the Air Force says they can
make do with the cap and aren't asking for money above and beyond it
then I don't see what the problem is. IMO part of the reason the
airforce is okay with the cap is at least it gave them a number to
shoot for and the possiblility of stable funding. Not unlimited
funding. STABLE funding. It's no wonder things are as screwed up as
they are. I suppose it's the nature of the beast but there's got to
be accountability. I completely agree on the issue of PORK (wow
agreeing with Tarver, what's the world coming to). Not all expensive
programs are pork though. Certainly not the F-22. Consider who wants
it and who doesn't. The airforce wants it. The couldn't give a ****
LESS where the damn thing is built or who gets the contracts, they
just want the aircraft. Now look at the C-130J and Osprey. There's
some pork with a capitol "P". Anytime the politicians say "you WILL
buy these aircraft" and the services saying "we don't want them" you
can hear the bacon frying. I like the B-1. The airforce doesn't want
to spend the $$$ to pull those 30 back out of retirement but the
politicians are trying to push them to. Pork. Just because you hate
a weapon system or think it's expensive or even if it IS expensive,
what determines whether or not it's pork is WHO wants it built.






> The money is already spent, that is what jumping
>straight to production was all about, instead of the 19 airframe FSD that is
>real. Perhaps the titanium tail spar is a fix and perhaps not, there is no
>way to know until the airplane stacks up some hours. (AV19)
>
>Now go back to aviation and stop your personality attack.

Sorry, did I hurt your feelings "stinky"?






> The tab to me is
>so wide that there is no possibility of discrediting me, so calm down.

How about in english for the rest of us?

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>
> >> You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
> >> full of **** as ever though.
> >
> >I was always respectable Ferrin, you have been a fool.
>
> Uh huh. I guess some things still zip right over your head though
> huh?

Scott, consider for a moment that you are not respectable, therefore you
have no connection whatsoever to my credibility.

> >I have already written that I will not oppose the production run any
longer,
> >(Georgia pork) so I don't see why you can't just discuss the numbers
issue
> >in a sober manner.
>
> As far as the numbers go the more F-22s the merrier.

That is not the question. The issue is how many F-22s are necessary to have
a viable force.

[Scott Ferrin]

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:32:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> wrote:

>
>"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >> You're getting more and more respectable all the time. Still just as
>> >> full of **** as ever though.
>> >
>> >I was always respectable Ferrin, you have been a fool.
>>
>> Uh huh. I guess some things still zip right over your head though
>> huh?
>
>Scott, consider for a moment that you are not respectable, therefore you
>have no connection whatsoever to my credibility

And I'm all weepy over here that you feel that way. And you'd need to
actually *have* credibility in order for anyone to be connected to it.





>
>> >I have already written that I will not oppose the production run any
>longer,
>> >(Georgia pork) so I don't see why you can't just discuss the numbers
>issue
>> >in a sober manner.
>>
>> As far as the numbers go the more F-22s the merrier.
>
>That is not the question. The issue is how many F-22s are necessary to have
>a viable force.

Depends what you want to do with it.

[Kevin Brooks]

"phil hunt" > wrote in message
.. .
> On Sun, 15 Feb 2004 18:45:06 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
wrote:

<snip>

> >Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of
the
> >Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
> >quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category
(China
> >excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it
in
> >the forseeable future).
>
> You're probably right there, in the short and medium term. In the
> long term, China is very interested in modern technologies, and has
> a largish and rapidly growing economy, so they are bound to catch up
> in aeronautical engineering.

But it appears likely that the cost of "catching up" may well be their
continued embracing of capitalism, and with it the usual attendant move
towards democracy--so by the time they get there, move them out of the
threat category.

>
> >> China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
> >> a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
> >> last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
> >> USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
> >> afford more planes (and other military cabability).
> >
> >And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
> >against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.
>
> If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
> likely allow the USAF to base there.

If the PRC attacked one of its neighbors, none of which have exactly a lot
of geographic space to trade for the time to get US landbased tactical
airpower into the fray, so I'd be surprised to see US ground based aircraft
move into the nation in question. The only way the landbased tactical
airpower comes into play is from the periphery (i.e., Okinawa and ROK), and
then it is going to be limited mostly to the coastal region. In the end you
are going to confront a basing problem, so a six or seven squadron force of
F-22's would likely be capable of supporting the deployment of the two to
four squadrons you'd be squeezing into the available bases as your silver
bullet force.

>
> >> The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
> >> fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
> >> likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
> >> F-35s.
> >
> >Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
> >commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.
>
> That's true -- over its lifetime, the F-35 may not be that much
> cheaper than the F-22. (Having said that, I expect simulators could
> make it cheaper to train good pilots).

Simulators will indoubtedly continue to help in such training, and grow in
terms of that capability. But you are still postulating a three-for-one
increase in pilots just to replace the "missing" F-22's. If you assume that
the F-22 is three times as good as the F-35 in the air-to-air role, you now
need another 600 F-35's *and* pilots, and you have to keep them proficient,
which means 150-200 hours of airtime per year per pilot, more O&M costs,
etc. So the replacement of those 200 F-22's would likely not be the massive
savings you might originally think it to be.

>
> >> Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
> >> than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
> >> loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
> >> room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
> >> alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
> >> signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
> >> its place? I don't know.
> >
> >You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
> >platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
> >optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.
>
> So in the air-to-air role, how many F-35s is one F-22 worth, IYO?

I can't say, and I doubt anyone else could definitively answer that
question. But the key to the problem is this--if you are fielding the
reduced-force of F-22's as an insurance policy against the likelihood of any
potential threat fielding an aircraft that could defeat our capability of
acheiving air dominance over a chosen piece of real estate, and you instead
decided to merely field *more* less capable F-35's, you are still left with
the problem of not being able to acheive that air dominance, especially
since the USAF is NOT going to assume an attritionary stance and try to win
it at the cost of the hundreds of F-35 airframes (and pilots) that it might
take to win by numbers advantage alone.

I personally like the idea of reducing the F-22 force to that 200 ballpark.
It gives us that silver bullet capability and frees up some funding for
other vital requirements (i.e., tankers, ISR platforms, improved precision
strike capabilites, airlift, UCAV's, etc.). Military planners are used to
having to deal with two threat scenario categories--the most likely enemy
course of action, and the most dangerous enemy course of action. Minimizing
the F-22 buy makes more funds available to take care of the kind of
contingencies that fall into the former category, while still maintaining a
force of them large enough to handle forseeable threats that require the use
of the 24-karet solution means you have also addressed the latter categry.

Brooks

>
> --
> "It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
> people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
> (Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)
>
>

[Tarver Engineering]

"Scott Ferrin" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 19:32:42 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
> > wrote:

> >That is not the question. The issue is how many F-22s are necessary to
have
> >a viable force.
>
> Depends what you want to do with it.

That has become the major question WRT the F-22.

[Lawrence Dillard]

"Denyav" > wrote in message
...
> >The impression I'd got was that the Air Force is convinced it can get
> >295 if the funding was just left alone ie. stable, so they could try
> >to work the problem.

> Air Force will eventually get 80-110 Jurassicfighters and most of them
will
> probably be converted to ECM aircraft.

According to press reports from early February, the Raptor is seriously
under the gun, again, as the Office of Managment and Budget has ordered the
Penatagon to review anew that fighter as well as the Commanche helicopter.

The White House's OMB study places significant limits on USAF and Lockheed
participation, whereas previously the two organizations have earlier
presented effective united lobbying on its behalf.

This study is supposed to evaluate whether the F/A-22 will fundamentally
alter the way the USAF operates or will merely represent another step in the
evolution of manned fighter aircraft, according to the OMB's directive. At
issue will be so-called "opportunity cost", or whether the money needed to
support the Raptor is denied to "new transformational programs" which would
not be pushed forward.

SECDEF Rumsfeld has cancelled high-profile programs such as the Army's
Crusader artillery system, in calling for "transformation" to become the key
to military procurement so as beter to match up with swift pace of smaller,
swifter and distant conflicts he believes the US military is most likely to
face in future.

Raptor had survied at least five earlier reviews since 1991. However, SECDEF
Rumsfeld apparently was displeased with the results of those reviews. In any
event, the scope and parameters of this latest review seems to stack the
deck against the F/A-22.

Lockhed has built at least 24 Raptors at its Marietta, Ga., facility, with
21 delivered to the USAF operational bases and three to a transitional unit
at Tynsdale AFB, Fla.; 19 more are currently planned to be constructed in
2004. Most of those delivered so far have gone to USAF bases in Nevada and
California and are taking part in a series of exhaustive operational tests
in aerial maneuvers against late-model F-15s and F-16s. Officialy, the
results of the test hae not yet been revealed, but unofficial reports
indicate that the F/A-22 has met or beaten its goals. Lockheed spokemen
insist that the Raptor clearly represents transformatinal war-fighting
capabilites, in that it will; bw able to establish such air-dominance in the
airspace over any batlefield that all other forces commited can accomplish
those things they need to accomplish in relative safety.

The USAF has said it wanted to acquire some 276 Raptors, according to the
press reports, a cut from the 750 originally sought. Last year, the Pentagon
suggested a reduction to only 180 craft. Lockheed has argued that each
reduction leads to increased unit costs and to stretched-out delivery dates.

In the meantime, residents north of Marietta have reported the sound of
sonic booms rather frequently since shortly before the new year.

Lockheed is also said to be working out a proposal for a long-range
smart-bomber derivative of the F/A-22, the F/B-22.

The proposed bomber would retain many features of the Raptor, including all
current functions and with more added to carry out the bomber role. Most of
the Raptor's stealth character and its suprcruise ability would be retained.
The bomber version would delete the two-dimensional thrust-vectoring of the
F/A-22, feature a delta wing with a serrated tailing edge, and, with an
extended fuselage, be capable carrying perhaps 25-30 small-diameter
gps-guided 250-pound bombs and a pair of "fire-and-forget" missiles for
self-defense.

USAF officials are expected to announce whether they want to upgrade
existing types, go to unmanned platforms or acquire a new aircraft for the
long-range strike role, within the next few months. Lat year, USAF Sec Roche
said that the USAf is considering whether and how to fill a gap between
subsonic B-52s, supersonic but non-stealthy B-1s and stealthy but slow B-2s
which can only safely operate in a target area at night, by acquiring up to
150 medium bombers. The proposed F/B-22 could strike distant targets, with
in-air refueling, quickly and around-the-clock.

Lockheed spokesmen have indicated Lockheed's belief that the expanded
mission capability is inhrent in the F/A-22, and the modifications necessary
are easily attainable by using much of the tooling and basic structure,
merely tweaking the Raptor's airframe. It would thus be differentiated from
the USN's Super Hornet in that respect, as the Super Hornet retains the name
of an earlier a/c while retaining only a superficial resemblance and few
parts in common.

[Tarver Engineering]

"Lawrence Dillard" > wrote in message
...

> Lockheed spokesmen have indicated Lockheed's belief that the expanded
> mission capability is inhrent in the F/A-22, and the modifications
necessary
> are easily attainable by using much of the tooling and basic structure,
> merely tweaking the Raptor's airframe. It would thus be differentiated
from
> the USN's Super Hornet in that respect, as the Super Hornet retains the
name
> of an earlier a/c while retaining only a superficial resemblance and few
> parts in common.

The b-one works now, the role is taken.

[phil hunt]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:26:09 -0500, Kevin Brooks > wrote:
>>
>> If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
>> likely allow the USAF to base there.
>
>If the PRC attacked one of its neighbors, none of which have exactly a lot
>of geographic space to trade for the time

None? Not even Russia, India or Kazakhstan? Come to think of it, a
Chinese invasion of Vietnam, Laos or Burma would have to cross some
rough terrain. And then we get to those of China's near enghbours
separated by water...


--
"It's easier to find people online who openly support the KKK than
people who openly support the RIAA" -- comment on Wikipedia
(Email: zen19725 at zen dot co dot uk)

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
(phil hunt) wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 20:26:09 -0500, Kevin Brooks >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> If China attacked one of its neighbours, that country would very
> >> likely allow the USAF to base there.
> >
> >If the PRC attacked one of its neighbors, none of which have exactly a lot
> >of geographic space to trade for the time
>
> None? Not even Russia,

Russia's got some room, but the parts of Russia that China would be
interested in are close to the border.

> India

New Delhi is just a couple of hundred miles from the closest Chinese
border. Having your capital city a half hour away by bomber or
transport plane is hardly a problem nowadays.

> or Kazakhstan?

About 400 miles. In modern terms, that's not far. Again, planes.

> Come to think of it, a Chinese invasion of Vietnam, Laos or Burma
> would have to cross some rough terrain.

But not much of it to get to the important parts of those countries, and
the whole "airplane" thing gets into the mix again.

> And then we get to those of China's near enghbours
> separated by water...

....as China gets ready to launch four new aircraft carriers...

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.