Confusion Surrounds F/A-22 Upgrade Program

[John Cook]

see

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml


cheers
John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk

[Henry J Cobb]

John Cook wrote:
> http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml
> ...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

> As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
> air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.

Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

> you come to what I refer to as a 'regional bomber' that might have
> range that is something like 75% of the B-2. The FB-22 is in that
> class.

Given that we've got basing rights in 130 countries it shouldn't be hard
to find someplace in each region to base a regional bomber in. As long
as the President is a uniter, not a divider.

> THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth
> aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the
> SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets

Won't the Raptor-Weasel still need Growlers? And shouldn't the JSF make
at least as good a Weasel?

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> John Cook wrote:
> >
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml
> > ...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.
>
> No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
> (killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
> what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Do I hear the shrill call of the rare Purple Crested Cobb Crow?

>
> > As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
> > air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.
>
> Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
> flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7 billion is
directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications, ISR
modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
reading comprehension thingie.

>
> > you come to what I refer to as a 'regional bomber' that might have
> > range that is something like 75% of the B-2. The FB-22 is in that
> > class.
>
> Given that we've got basing rights in 130 countries it shouldn't be hard
> to find someplace in each region to base a regional bomber in. As long
> as the President is a uniter, not a divider.

Extending your dim-witted lunges into the field of politics now, eh Henry?
What, you are done trying to "square away" all of those
less-intelligent-than-you-are folks in the USN and USAF?

>
> > THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth
> > aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the
> > SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets
>
> Won't the Raptor-Weasel still need Growlers? And shouldn't the JSF make
> at least as good a Weasel?

No, you obviously did not read the article; (sigh)....

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

[Henry J Cobb]

Kevin Brooks wrote:
>>Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
>>flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?
>
> Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7 billion is
> directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications, ISR
> modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
> reading comprehension thingie.

Like not having processor chips for 100 aircraft so they have to port
everything to a new CPU?

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> >>Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
> >>flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?
> >
> > Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7
billion is
> > directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications,
ISR
> > modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
> > reading comprehension thingie.
>
> Like not having processor chips for 100 aircraft so they have to port
> everything to a new CPU?

Wow. The idea of changing the computer hardware in an advanced weapons
system. If that seems completely strange to you, then one has to wonder what
you have thought of the myriad other systems that have seen major hardware
changes during their lifetimes. Now, didn't that nice article anwer your
questions in regards to what that $11.7 billion covers afterall?

Brooks

>
> -HJC
>

[Jeb Hoge]

Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
> John Cook wrote:
> > http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml
> > ...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.
>
> No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
> (killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
> what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
construction that I saw in Bath.

[Henry J Cobb]

Jeb Hoge wrote:
> Henry J Cobb > wrote in message >...
>>John Cook wrote:
>>>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/03224wna.xml
>> > ...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.
>>
>>No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
>>(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
>>what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?
>
> Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
> attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
> invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
> construction that I saw in Bath.

The last DDGs get started next year.

And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

(If each sub lasts 30 years and you only buy one a year, how many will
you wind up with?)

Starting in 2009 we get a "Rush order sought for untried vessel".

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040322-9999-news_1n22ship.html

So the big LCS buy might get put off for a few years after that point.

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Jeb Hoge wrote:
> > Henry J Cobb > wrote in message
>...
> >>John Cook wrote:
>
>>>http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_awst_story.jsp?id=news/0322
4wna.xml
> >> > ...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.
> >>
> >>No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
> >>(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
> >>what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?
> >
> > Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
> > attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
> > invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
> > construction that I saw in Bath.
>
> The last DDGs get started next year.
>
> And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

Wow...uhh...nope. You kind of forgot the Navy's premier
shipbuilding-expense-eaters, the CVN's. CVN 78 is under construction, and
will remain under construction through most of this period, entering the
fleet in 2009. Meanwhile, in 2007 NNSDD will start construction of CVN 79.

Kind of easy to slam the DoD for spending all of that money on the USAF,
etc., when you are willing to ignore the billions of bucks going into CVN
production, huh? Not to mention all of those construction programs you are
ignoring...

The actual scenario is quite different:

"Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three
ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) Class destroyers; one VIRGINIA (SSN 774) Class
submarine; one SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) Class Amphibious Transport Dock ship;
two LEWIS & CLARK (T-AKE) Class Auxiliary Cargo & Ammunition ships; one
DD(X); and one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). If approved, this would increase
to 38 the total number of ships authorized and under construction. The FY
2005 Budget request represents an increase of two ships over the seven ships
in the FY 2004 program. In addition, we have requested funding for advance
procurement of the eighth and ninth VIRGINIA Class submarines, Economic
Order Quantity (EOQ) material procurement for the eighth, ninth, and tenth
VIRGINIA Class submarines, advance procurement for CVN 21 construction and
CVN 70 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH), continued funding for SSGN
Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) and conversion, continued funding for
LHD 8, funding for TICONDEROGA Class cruiser modernization, and the service
life extension for five Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) craft."

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1078546974&lp=1078633039

Hardly a case of "killing off shipbuilding". Henry, when are you going to
give up this ridiculous "Chicken Little" parody of your's?

Brooks

>
> (If each sub lasts 30 years and you only buy one a year, how many will
> you wind up with?)
>
> Starting in 2009 we get a "Rush order sought for untried vessel".
>
>
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20040322-9999-news_1n22ship.html
>
> So the big LCS buy might get put off for a few years after that point.
>
> -HJC
>

[Henry J Cobb]

Kevin Brooks wrote:

When will you learn to read?

> "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> ...
>>The last DDGs get started next year.

I.e., 2005, the last good year for shipbuilding until 2009.

>>And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

I.e. for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008

> "Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three

Right, 2005, exactly.

Now let's look at those middle years.

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/05pres/highbook/Section_IV_Tech_Insertion.pdf

2006: 1 SSN, 1 LPD, 2 LCS and a pair of auxiliaries.

2007: Finally another carrier after a long wait, 1 SSN, 2 DDX, 1 LPD, 1
LCS and an auxiliary.

2008: 1 sub, 2 DDX, 3 LCS and 1 LPD.

Counting LCS squadrons as warships, this is just about what I said
above. And note that last year's plan was for 7 in 2006 and 2007 and 9
in 2008 for a total of 23 and this year's plan has cut that down to 6, 8
and 8 for a total of 22 and most of the "gain" is in LCS. (6 vs 4 in
the old plan.)

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/highbook/Section_III.pdf

-HJC

[Kevin Brooks]

"Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
...
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
>
> When will you learn to read?

"The last DDGs get started next year. And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2
other warships until 2009." H'mmm--dem was your words, huh? But the truth is
quite a bit different (as is usual for HenryWorld)...

>
> > "Henry J Cobb" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >>The last DDGs get started next year.
>
> I.e., 2005, the last good year for shipbuilding until 2009.

Yeah, 2007 is gonna be a bitch, what with another CVN start and all...

>
> >>And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.
>
> I.e. for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008
>
> > "Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three
>
> Right, 2005, exactly.
>
> Now let's look at those middle years.

Idiot. You think they snap their fingers and they slide down the ways that
same year? Those ships will be under construction throughout that
oh-so-terrible period you keep whining about.

>
>
http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/05pres/highbook/Section_IV_Tech_Insertion.pdf
>
> 2006: 1 SSN, 1 LPD, 2 LCS and a pair of auxiliaries.
>
> 2007: Finally another carrier after a long wait, 1 SSN, 2 DDX, 1 LPD, 1
> LCS and an auxiliary.
>
> 2008: 1 sub, 2 DDX, 3 LCS and 1 LPD.
>
> Counting LCS squadrons as warships, this is just about what I said

Bull****. What you said was "The last DDGs get started next year. And then
it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009." That is a total of
four ships beside your DDG's (which should have read DDX). The actual count
is quite different, as you (finally) note below. So we have CVN's under
construction throughout this *terrible* drought you have created in your
tiny little mind, along with DDX's, LPD's, SSN's, LCS, and some less
glamorous support types that you are ignoring.

Henry, you are truly an idiot. And like most idiots, you are the only one
who can't seem to realize that fact.

Brooks



> above. And note that last year's plan was for 7 in 2006 and 2007 and 9
> in 2008 for a total of 23 and this year's plan has cut that down to 6, 8
> and 8 for a total of 22 and most of the "gain" is in LCS. (6 vs 4 in
> the old plan.)
>
> http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud/04pres/highbook/Section_III.pdf
>
> -HJC
>

[Thomas Schoene]

Henry J Cobb wrote:
> Jeb Hoge wrote:

>> Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
>> attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
>> invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
>> construction that I saw in Bath.
>
> The last DDGs get started next year.

They get ordered next year, but it's a multi-year buy; construction on the
last ships will probably take a bit longer to get rolling.

But the basic point is that even if the Air Force had cancelled F-22 years
ago, that would not translate into more Navy procurement money. It simply
doesn't work that way. In reality, the services each get a nearly fixed
share of the budget (their top-line) and then work out how to spend it. The
relative percentages of service budgets change very slowly and almost never
over single programs.

If the Air Force axed the F/A-22, it would reallocate that money to other
Air Force programs, not to the Navy shipbuilding accounts.

Every now and then the Navy talks about getting a larger fraction of the
overall DoD budget, but the internal politics make this a very hard sell
within OSD, where the top-lines are prepared. The services guard their
total allocations very closely.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"Our country, right or wrong. When right, to be kept right, when
wrong to be put right." - Senator Carl Schurz, 1872

[John S. Shinal]

"Kevin Brooks" wrote:

>Idiot. You think they snap their fingers and they slide down the ways that
>same year? Those ships will be under construction throughout that
>oh-so-terrible period you keep whining about.

It takes a long time to learn how to fold a Washington Post
into an aircraft carrier shape.



----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---