Question about the F-22 and cost.

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.

"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

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

"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

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" 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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)