On Jun 12, 3:14*am, eatfastnoodle wrote:
On Jun 12, 2:43*pm, "Roger Conroy"
wrote:





"Tiger" wrote in message

...

g lof2 wrote:
On Jun 10, 10:03 pm, Tiger wrote:

g lof2 wrote:

On Jun 10, 5:32 pm, Tiger wrote:

William Black wrote:

"Mike" wrote in message
...
Inside the Air Force
Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded
YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

---------------------------------

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.

What they need is something very reliable that lugs a largish bombload
around and can absorb ground fire while dropping it in smallish

quantities

with great precision.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers

that are

designed to fight a major European war.

In other words."Why pay 2008 Corvette money to do a job your old 1988
F150 could do?" I'm sure there plenty of stuff in the boneyard that
fits
the bill. A-10's, A6's, A-4's, Phantoms, A-7's. Old stuff, but to drop
bombs in zones with no Mig threats they work. I think the A-1 may be
pushing the concept a bit, but I hear you.....

Until the run into the a battery on the latest SAMs , ot a Nex-Gen
Stealth fighter, which are design to handle the latest fighters. At
which point they become so much flying scrap metal. And remember, the
reason we have air conreol is because we have the best fighter to
knock the other sides fighter out before the get to shoot at our
troops.

Frankly what I read in the story reminds me of the old warning about
fighting the last war, and not planning for the next.

The bad guys of late seem to prefer Ied's & rpg's to Radar guided SAm
sites... Nor does most of the world *have the $$$ for next gen Stealth
fighters. Even our Allies can bearly put a decent force together. The
topic point was spending money on a F22 air superiorty fighter. A job it
does well but there is no air threat. That makes it useless when the
current need for the airforce is to supply CAS. The F35 which will do,
said mission is years away. If your planning for the next war, Nethier
plane is *really what you want.- Hide quoted text -

The problem with your argument is your assumion that there cannot be
future threat to US air superiority. The key to US military power over
the last sixty years was your control of the air. It is important for
us to maintain that superiority if we are to remain the top military
power. Therefore we must build enough F-22 to assure we retain that
power while the production lines are still open, else it will become
far more expensive to re open the production lines later when it
becomes necessary.

- Show quoted text -

Going back to the start of this " GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER
CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As." We are not exactly facing any Battles of Britian
from anybody or collection of somebodies. The F-22 is a high end Air
superority fighter. Great! And we are going to buy about 180 of them. At
something like $100 Million each. About the price of 4 F-15's. We never
intended for a whole airforce of them. The volume plane is the F35. Most
our allies or enemies don't even have 180 planes in there whole air force;
let alone fighters. You might like to refuel those F22's? Where are going
to get $$$ for tankers? You might like Transport troops and parts for your
F-22's? Where's the money to upgrade your airlift that has racking up
flight time running back & forth to Kabul & baghdad??? I like the F-22 as
well. But we are not spending the whole DOD budget on it, Hoping to
re-fight Eagle-Day.....

Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
"Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

it's not unreasonable to expect a new fighter every 30 years or so.
But F22 price tag is simply outrageous, it threatens everything else
the air force needs, remember, fighter by its own doesn't count for
much, you need a integrated force with a balanced procurement policy.
What looks like right now is the air force officials, who all used to
be fighter pilots, seem to be more than ready to scrap everything else
in order for them to have a few more F22s. That's not right and that's
not going to help the force and anybody else in the long run.
Everybody wants to have the best toy in town, but there are only so
much money around, especially with the budget deficit already so high,
so the escalating cost overruns must stop, otherwise, you will end up
with a military so advanced that any war they fight will prove to be a
financial disaster, win or lose. Despite the patriotic rhetoric, war
is and should be considered a investment, and return of investment
should be considered before war, especially oversea military
adventure, is launched. precisely the kind that US will most likely
face in the future, whether it's against a ragtag group of guerrillas
or a great power with high tech weaponry. Countless great powers, with
their best equipped and best trained troops, lost to insurgency and
seemly weak rebellions because the cost of fighting a high cost war
against an enemy with vastly lower cost of waging wars. Take Iraq as
an example, 3 trillions in five years is not sustainable, not even for
the US. That's why I think US will lose the Iraq war no matter how
unwilling the Republican is to accept it. Shiny weapon like F22 is
just the kind of weapon that will further increase the cost, it's very
much likely future adversary will exploit this weakness in a
protracted war.- Hide quoted text -


Yes, the project unit cost per unit is high, but the marginal cost of
buying addition F-22 would be quit a bit less. The hugh start up cost
imposed by congress and the civilian in the Pentagon that is
responsible for that $100 MILLION dollar price tag. That why it so
important to buy enough F-22 now, when the cost of additional fighters
are low, instead of waiting unit we have to pay the bureaucates $20
billion dollar tab a second time.


- Show quoted text -