Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22

snip


Errr. one tiny small point do you know how many F15/F16's will the 200
odd F-22 replace?,

Errr...one tiy small point; do you know that the F/A-22 will replace NONE of
the F-16 fleet?

Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
F15's?.

the Raptor looks very good on paper, but it can't
be everywhere at once, IIRC theres 400 F-15s and 1200 F-16s air
superiority fighters that were to be replaced by 800 F-22's.

No, there are some 400 F-15's that will likely be replaced by some 200 plus
mare capable F/A-22's; the F-16's (which are not normally considered "air
superiority fighters" in the USAF, though they are quite capable in the
air-to-air role) wait until their replacement (the F-35A and now F-35B, too,
apparently) come on-line. And you can expect to see some of the more modern
F-15's remain in service for a few more years in the ANG/USAFR, I'd imagine.


The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the latest numbers.




Can you tell me at what point does one say 'thats far too few to
matter' (Remember Germany 1944 - ME 262).

When we see us facing a scenario where the bad guys can field 200 plus
*more* capable air-to-air fighters, and we are concurrently restricted from
using any other means of combatting them (i.e., taking their airfields out,
killing them on the ground, blinding their supporting sensor platforms,
etc.)? Which means--not very likely.


They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
equipment. and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!


If the F-22 is that good why not just buy one?, Ok that patently a
stupid idea, how about 10 or 50 or 200, at what point does it become
worth the cost?.

A rather complex question. You have to weigh operational requirements
against program costs, analyze the effect on unit-cost of reduced
production, and then toss in the issue of a likely future F/A-22 derivitive
optimized towards the strike role and the effect of your less-than-realistic
fifty plane buy.

The F-22's maintainability will affect its sortie generation rate, at
present is pretty poor (really really poor), Its being worked on but
it has been worked on for years now and the time between anomolies
(read application crashes) hasnt climbed past 3 hours. the total
system shutdowns are quite a bit better than before but still not
good, and nowhere near where an operation fighter should be.


I doubt either one of us has the horsepower or supporting
data to fully analyze the problem. But 200 plus aircraft will be sufficient
to seven or eight 24 aircraft squadrons (and given that it is always a
distinct possibility that when considering the greater effectiveness of the
F/A-22 that squadron PAA allocation could dropto twenty or less aircraft
per, allowing another squadron to be formed) and still allow for training,
RDT&E, and attrition airframes. Can you ennumerate the scenarios that would
require *more than* five or so F/A-22 squadrons to be deployed, keeping in
mind that their "little brother" the F-35 will also be in the theater and
will be no push-over in the air-to-air arena itself?


No I can't enumerate any senario, nor can I think of any senario that
cannot be handled with the present fleet of fighters, now you could
correctly argue this may change in the next 15 to 20 years, but that
doesn't mean you should rush a half arsed engineering and development
program into the front line now.



You might have to weight the possible purchase of 1000 to 1600 new
F15's rather than 200 F-22's, what force would you rather have?.

The one that we can actually *man* and pay the O&M costs for, and the one
you notehere ain't it. When will people understand that sheer mass is no
longer the supreme objective of modern and future military structures?


Quantity has a quality all of its own, you yourself admit that 50
isnt enough but 200 is OK!!!?, If the GAO report is true the present
state of the F-22 means that 200 is too small a number to be
effective, and even with massive effort its marginal, Hmmm. IMHO at
this stage of development the original 800 would be too few!


All I'm asking is for a number at which the F-22 force is not worth
the $80B cost, and what alternative force could you have purchased??.

See above.


(you could have purchased well over 1000 Eurofighter Typhoons for
example)

But we don't want the Typhoon; and note that even the RAF is hastening the
transition of the Typhoon from pure air-to-air scrapper to multi-role strike
platform, too.

I can't think of a senario that 400 Typhoons couldn't handle at this
time, what sort of threat are you expecting?.

The Typhoon does seem to be a mature design with a more
mmm....'robust looking program' to back it.

What will be the best option if the F-22 is cancelled?, its worth
thinking about as the program does look very troubled.

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

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:


So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

-HJC


Indonesia trying to take soem of Australias land for their population
explosions? thats IIRC is within F-22 range of Okinawa/Guam and you'd
probably have the aussies damn glad to put them up in a base somewhere
around.

rnf2 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

Indonesia trying to take soem of Australias land for their population
explosions? thats IIRC is within F-22 range of Okinawa/Guam and you'd
probably have the aussies damn glad to put them up in a base somewhere
around.

And the Super Hornets can beat the entire Indonesia air force, no
Raptors needed.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
rnf2 wrote:
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

Indonesia trying to take soem of Australias land for their population
explosions? thats IIRC is within F-22 range of Okinawa/Guam and you'd
probably have the aussies damn glad to put them up in a base somewhere
around.

And the Super Hornets can beat the entire Indonesia air force, no
Raptors needed.

That would be the Indonesia that has just contracted to buy its first lot of
the very same aircraft that in PLAAF or Russian hands you were claiming were
a viable threat that would justify purchase of the F/A-22? Odd how your
parameters seem to be ever-changing, Henry.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040301183100.oj5mf3an.html

Brooks



-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
That would be the Indonesia that has just contracted to buy its first lot of
the very same aircraft that in PLAAF or Russian hands you were claiming were
a viable threat that would justify purchase of the F/A-22? Odd how your
parameters seem to be ever-changing, Henry.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040301183100.oj5mf3an.html

Would they maintain or use them as well?

-HJC

On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 22:13:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Kevin Brooks wrote:
That would be the Indonesia that has just contracted to buy its first lot of
the very same aircraft that in PLAAF or Russian hands you were claiming were
a viable threat that would justify purchase of the F/A-22? Odd how your
parameters seem to be ever-changing, Henry.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040301183100.oj5mf3an.html

Would they maintain or use them as well?

-HJC

probably better. they have a better economy than the russians at the
moment. and they train reasonably well.

besides which they are gonna get a LOT more than the aussies are gonna
get S-hornets... and even those S-hornets seem to be in doubt, the
Aust govts cut the numbers to be aquired at least once that I have
heard of.

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
That would be the Indonesia that has just contracted to buy its first
lot of
the very same aircraft that in PLAAF or Russian hands you were claiming
were
a viable threat that would justify purchase of the F/A-22? Odd how your
parameters seem to be ever-changing, Henry.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040301183100.oj5mf3an.html

Would they maintain or use them as well?

Why no, Henry, they are merely interested in buying some rather expensive
"gate guards"... Get real. Now, back to the issue of why you seem to think
the Su-27/30 family in the hands of anyone other than the Russians or
Chinese magically changes from being a threat that YOU acknowledged merited
procurement of the F?A-22 to being a non-entity?

Brooks


-HJC

"rnf2" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:


So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?

-HJC


Indonesia trying to take soem of Australias land for their population
explosions? thats IIRC is within F-22 range of Okinawa/Guam and you'd
probably have the aussies damn glad to put them up in a base somewhere
around.

Have you ever had a look at the Indonesians ability to deliver troops?

The TNI is set up mostly to fight Indonesians.