Question about the F-22 and cost.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

"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.

"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.

"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.