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?