GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
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.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.

On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:24 am, Zombywoof wrote:





On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:

snip

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.

Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

As a concept only? *Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
to Blitzkrieg. *Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). *Large massive overwhelming
lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
Defenders in some version of awe. *More times then not with a
resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".

The Air Force retired all 64 F-117's on 22 April 2008,primarily due to
the purchasing and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22
Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. *Even though the F-22 is primarily an
air superiority fighter, it has multiple capabilities (as almost all
new USAF Aircraft do) that include ground attack, electronic warfare,
and signals intelligence roles.

Now if you think that purchasing 183 of them is a bit much, note that
the USAF originally planned to order 750 ATFs (the original concept
program that gave birth to the F-22), with production beginning in
1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648
aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it
became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997
Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air
Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the
purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft,
which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and
this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a
multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility
for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006
was $62 billion.

By the time everything is said & done and all 183 fighters have been
purchased & deployed, $34 billion will have been spent on actual
procurement. *This will *result in a total program cost of $62 billion
or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one
additional F-22 is around $138 million; decreasing with larger
volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost
of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional
aircraft purchases.

Now as to the F-35 Lightning II, one of the primary reasons its costs
(to US Taxpayers) is less is that it is a "Jointly" designed &
produced platform with United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada,
Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributing US$4.375 billion
toward the development costs of the program. *The entire concept
behind the *JSF program ( F-35 Lightning II) was created to replace
various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating
costs down via sharing the development costs with the aforementioned
countries. Cost were also kept down *by building three variants of one
aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts.

All-in-all the MORE you build of anything, the overall lower per unit
cost you come up with. *When you have other Nations assisting in the
funding of the development phase you also reduce (to the US Taxpayer)
those "sunk" costs.

Just like the F-16 is the cheaper, sleeker one engine version of the
F-15, a similar statement can be made about the F-35 as it is also a
one engine aircraft which in & of itself reduces both production &
operational costs. *This is all part of the Hi-Low strategy to have a
mix of two different fighters that was started with the F-15/F-16
program in the USAF and the F-14/F-18 program in the Navy.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...tmlexplainsthe
entire Hi-Low strategy fairly well and in simple terms.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Shock and Awe looked good on TV, looks even better in the briefing
room. IIRC nobody was actual hurt during that display, oh, except for
a few civilians.

addam's bunker, a draw for tourists in Green Zone
Dec 7 01:45 PM US/Eastern

* * * * * * * * Saddam Hussein's underground bunker, surprisingly undamaged despite
heavy US bombing in 2003, has become an informal tourist attraction
for visitors and residents of Baghdad's downtown Green Zone area.

US forces hurled two 900 kilo (2,000 pound) GBU-28 bunker-busting
bombs at the building on the opening night of the US-led offensive to
invade Iraq, March 19, 2003, according to the US military.

Over the next four days at least six more bunker-busters were dropped
on the building, and the holes they smashed in the roof are still
visible.

The blasts caused impressive damage to the six-story high steel and
concrete structure, known as the Believers Palace, built atop the
bunker.

US soldiers and visitors who tour the site today pose for pictures
near giant craters in the palace, amid heaps of twisted steel rods,
concrete blocks and charred marble slabs.

Souvenir hunters can still find crystals from the giant chandelier
that once hung in the main hall.

Yet despite the whirlwind of destruction, most of the palace is still
structurally sound.

And the bunker, which lies under the rubble, is virtually intact --
more than 20 years after it was built for 66 million dollars by the
German firm Boswau and Knauer (Walter Bau-AG building group).

Deep inside, the only light comes from flashlights carried by
visitors, and the only sounds are their footsteps and a steady drip,
drip, drip of water from a broken water pipe.

"We still cant find the water main," said Sergeant First Class Patrick
McDonald, who works with a civil affairs unit and is the Green Zones
de facto bunker expert.

"Even to this day some of the rooms have an inch of putrid water with
some type of biological life."

Saddam's room is about the size of a small master bedroom in a
suburban house and differs from the other rooms only by its tan
wallpaper.

One of the last images of him as president was televised footage of a
meeting he held with top aides in the 30-square-meter (320-square-
foot) bunker conference room just before the "shock and awe" phase of
the war began.

Karl Bernd Esser, the bunker architect, told Germany's ZDF television
when the war began that the structure he designed could survive
anything short of a direct hit from a Hiroshima-style nuclear weapon.

Overall, the three-level, sprawling bunker is large enough to house
250 people, say US officials. It has an air filtration system, a large
kitchen and was fully prepared for an attack with biological or
chemical weapons.

It also has its own power supply. Its large generators, which are
powerful enough to supply the whole Green Zone area with electricity,
seem brand new.

"The only danger was that Saddam and his people would have been buried
here," said McDonald.

"But there are tunnels to get out that lead to the Tigris River," some
200 meters (yards) away, he said.

Between the Believers Palace and the bunker was even more protection
-- a two-floor "plug" -- a reinforced helmet of sorts to make up for
one of the bunkers shortcomings: it was barely underground.

A reinforced concrete box inside a box, the bunker was long ago
stripped of any valuables, first by Iraqi looters as US troops entered
Baghdad, and later by US troops seeking to furnish outside
headquarters buildings.

Some of the recovered valuables are in storage, said McDonald.

"The high water table in Baghdad makes it difficult to build anything
deep underground," explained McDonald.

The "plug" consisted of two 25 centimetres (10-inch) thick false
floors separated by one meter (three feet) of empty space.

"The false floors served to trick the smart bombs into thinking they
have penetrated into the bunker," McDonald said.

"As far as we know this is the most extensive bunker facility in the
country," McDonald said.

"There are a number of small single, or three and four room bunkers
under different palaces, but this is the biggest one, and the most
extensive."

According to locals, Saddam used the bunker less than eight times
since it was built, McDonald said, although he kept a staff to
maintain its elaborate water, cooling, air filtration and electrical
system.

Iraq's new government, which takes over in late December, will have to
decide what to do with the site.

The structure is so well built it would be difficult to demolish, and
the massive palace above makes it impossible to bury.

"So its left there for people like myself to give tours when I have
the time," said McDonald.

They can give tours like the Greenbrier, so it could be fine to just
leave it and give tours. maybe even have guests pay to "stay in the
bunker?"

"Jack Linthicum" wrote in message
news:23b02533-0a2e-4799-8ce1-
Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

shock&awe has been the biggest strategic mistake the U.S. has made in
iraq.{besides attacking in the first place}
our army was more than capable of defeating the iraqi army without it
it was pure wanton destruction that destroyed the very infrustructure we
need to set iraq right.
how different would it be if iraqis had running water and electricity.
a restored economy would be the best thing towards pacifying the country.

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

snip

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.

Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

As a concept only? Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
to Blitzkrieg. Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). Large massive overwhelming
lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
Defenders in some version of awe. More times then not with a
resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".

the germans didn't destrot the infrustructure ot the countries they over
ran and only two, fr and pol. had real armies.
the bombings were close air support for the advancing ground troops.
the fact the germans captured the countries intact greatly facilitated their
pacification.
the fact we didn't has hampered ours.

On Jun 12, 5:16*am, Yeff wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
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.

It's actually a combined effort. *AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
idea. *It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". *If I
see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
home.

Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. *If you
end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. *Granted,
sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
rule-of-thumb.

Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
say that I win the fight.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot.
It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do
anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding
contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are
force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to
protect yourself.

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 -

"g lof2" wrote in message
...
On Jun 12, 5:16 am, Yeff wrote:
On Tue, 10 Jun 2008 20:42:02 -0700 (PDT), g lof2 wrote:
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.

It's actually a combined effort. AWACS, Rivet Joint, ground radar assets,
ground-based intelligence assets, sea-based radar assets... you get the
idea. It all goes back to the concept of "First Look, First Kill". If I
see you before you see me, the odds favor the fact that you'll be walking
home.

Modern doctrine isn't to go in and mix it up with the enemy fighters,
today's doctrine is to snipe the hostile aircraft out of the sky. If you
end up in a furball then you screwed up somewhere along the way. Granted,
sometimes you can't anticipate that happening but it's a good
rule-of-thumb.

Current fighters are snipers, and if I see the enemy first, betting odds
say that I win the fight.

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

Your absolutly right, but you still need the fighter to take the shot.
It does you no good to know were the enemy is when you can't do
anything about it. The is a limit to manuver warfare, amd avoiding
contact only good when your on offense. I your the defence you are
force to react to an attack, and that means sending fighters out to
protect yourself.


we have fighters, and better ones than others too
if we were falling behind and there was a credible threat thn sure. but we
aren't and there isn't.

"Tiger" wrote in message
...
Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 09:44:22 -0700 (PDT), eatfastnoodle
wrote:


On Jun 13, 12:15 am, Jack Linthicum
wrote:

On Jun 12, 11:58 am, Zombywoof wrote:




On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 12:30:41 GMT, Yeff wrote:

On Wed, 11 Jun 2008 05:05:34 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum wrote:

I went through a long discussion on this newsgroup advocating a
carrier-able version of the A-10

Not gonna happen. Increase the strength of the landing gear and you
sacrifice the amount of ordnance you can carry.

or a new design.

Yeah, something with an incredible sensor suite, stealthy, and a good
bomb
load. Hey, maybe we could modify the F-35?

One of the versions of the F-35 is for Carriers. Part of the whole
design concept behind it. One Aircraft with 80% parts
interchangeability reduces design, production & maintenance costs.

One of my concerns is that with the F-22 & F-35 the USAF once again
appears to be neglecting the Close Air Support role which is always
going to be needed regardless of the amount of Air Superiority. I
know that they are "predicting" that the F-35 will take over some of
that role, but a "Fast-Burner" is not the most effective platform for
the CAS mission, especially at its 100 million+ price tag.

Perhaps the SM-47 Super Machete needs to be given a closer look at
for this role as the A-10 ages. After all it projected that the SM-47
will be produced in manned, as well as unmanned/remote
pilot-in-the-loop and unmanned autonomous configurations. At I think a
projected cost of 10 Million each, a much better alternative to the
100 Million+ F-35. It also doesn't leave our field personnel without
a good strong CAS platform once the A-10 dies of old age.

Seehttp://www.stavatti.com/SM47_OVERVIEW.htmlformore 411
--


How much time in the USAF do you have to know so much about this
"hate"?

Who is going to buy this plane for the Army? Train the pilots? The
maintainers? The supply chain? The weapons? Just buy a plane and give
it to the Army? You also seem woefully ignorant about the entire concept
of joint
operations. Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org


Aggreed!
The playing with the deck chairs of who drops bombs vs flys cover is a
waste. The basic point The F-22 fanclub seems to be missing is we are not
in 1940 England and there is no major air battle comming. The need now &
for the forseeable future is under 10,000 ft. Not Mig chasing. We have the
the force for that & a surplus. Yet the fan club wants more????
Rest of the force be damned? What good is a 500 plane F22 force if they
have no Tankers, Cargo planes, SAR or anything elese?


or an enemy.
the air force should never have been spun out of the army.

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 14:42:30 -0400, Raymond O'Hara wrote:

Am I the only one who remembers the preemptive war debate?


which proved to be based on false{made up} intelligence.

Who "made up" the intelligence?

Do you remember the debate about whether we should wait to have proof - a
mushroom cloud rising over Israel - or whether we should just stop him
before he had a chance to go nuclear?

Oh, and do you remember when Clinton made regime change in Iraq national
policy? Hey, we did that, too!

--

-Jeff B.
zoomie at fastmail fm

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
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.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.


Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
exclusive.