If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Typhoon502" wrote in message ... On Jun 11, 6:51 am, "Roger Conroy" wrote: "Tiger" wrote in message ... Raymond O'Hara wrote: "Ian B MacLure" wrote in message ... "Raymond O'Hara" wrote in : we are in two wars now{which we are losing} and you're worried about an imaginary war against an imaginary opponent. russia is not a credible threat. and it is decades away from being one. Losing? Lose to whom? Current events don't seem be anywere close. As for Russia? They have in the last year expanded their military activity. They are flying Bears again, opposed our missile defence plans, and Nato expansions. Decades may be a bit much. Russia is not the only possible future technologically advanced enemy - don't take your eyes of China, or a possible Arab alliance.- Hide quoted text - Not to mention Venezuela... we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote: Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". IBM Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted the next war. many did predict it. and its not 1930 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message ... "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote: Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". IBM Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted the next war. many did predict it. and its not 1930 So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer this: Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons systems will be used? |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
I'd advocate an F-22C with:
more powerful, more efficient engines (40,000+ lbs trust each) IRST, plus the other things that were cut out of the 1980s ATF spec as the YF-22 was finalized.. improved stealth larger weapons bay that can hold 8-10 AMRAAMs Upgrade current F-22A models with as much of the tech that goes into F-22C as possible. F-35 is no replacement for F-22 Just like F-16 was no replacement for F-15C, F-15E. On Jun 10, 1:16 pm, Mike wrote: Inside the Air Force Next-gen bomber must be adequately funded YOUNG: GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As Date: June 6, 2008 Allowing the Air Force to buy more F-22As in exchange for fewer F-35 Lightning IIs does not make sense given the nature of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Pentagon acquisition chief John Young told reporters this week. Any decision on buying more F-22As at the expense of F-35s would have to be based on operational requirements that the service identifies, Young said during a June 5 briefing. He will leave this decision up to the Air Force. “The Air Force has taken some looks at that and been uncomfortable with cutting some more Joint Strike Fighters, so that’s coupled [to] a force-structure decision,” Young said. The “Joint Strike Fighter is totally coupled to the requirements and force-structure decision. It’s not a law of just buy fewer and see if everything works out.” Both aircraft have unique capabilities that are best suited for specific missions, he said. However, when looking at the current conflict environment, Young said that the F-35 is probably the better-suited airplane, pointing to the F-35’s ground- attack capability and datalinks as advantages in the current wars. “JSF is incredibly capable, half the price of the F-22 . . . I would agree that any decision to buy more F-22s at the expense of JSF is not a good choice for the taxpayer,” Young said. “F-22 is still working to add the air-to-ground capability after the fact and at some significant cost,” he said. Still, Young warned that future requirements may change, especially with a new administration taking power next year. Alluding to the Air Force’s next-generation bomber, the acquisition czar also repeated comments he made earlier this week claiming that he would not approve any program he determines is not likely to stay on-budget and on-time. This week, Young told lawmakers that he does not believe the Air Force will be able to field the bomber by 2018 because of funding issues. “I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the 2018 was a nice planning date in the [Quadrennial Defense Review], it is not a mandatory date . . . the degree to which the Air Force is willing to fund [the bomber] will determine the date that [it] will be available,” Young said. Early cost estimates for the bomber were “significantly less” than comparable programs, especially given how quickly the service wanted to field the plane, he said. He is now waiting for the results of a Defense Science Board review into the costs and schedule for the program before he will sign off on the program. “I do not want to be part of another marquee failed program,” he said, adding that he hopes to use their review in budget decisions about the bomber by 2009. Also at this week’s briefing, Young told reporters that the C-5 Reliability Enhancement and Re-engining Program could be challenged by the fact that many parts for the 40-year-old airlifter are becoming obsolete, and the service could face a supplier gap. “We are discovering that we may have some suppliers who want to get out of that business space,” Young said. “I may have some obsolete parts. [But] I have no authority to go buy a life-of-type buy for that program” because of a current law. He noted that, without being able to lock in current parts in a multiyear deal, he will be forced to find new parts that will have to be re-qualified and retested, causing the costs to rise by tens of millions of dollars. “So the law will force me to let those parts go obsolete, and then I’ll have to go spend $10 [million], $20 [million], $40 million to re-qualify and test the new parts and I can’t do it,” he said. In an effort to reign in costs, the C-5 RERP program has been slashed to 48 aircraft from 108, allowing the Pentagon to save $9.8 billion from the program which was re-certified earlier this spring after breaching the Nunn-McCurdy statute that caps per-unit cost growth in military programs. The Pentagon recently ordered the Air Force to infuse another $1.8 billion into the program which DOD expects to cost $7.7 billion through 2015. The C-5 RERP is meant to make the airlifters 75 percent more mission capable than current C-5s. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Roger Conroy" wrote in message ... "Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message ... "Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ... On Jun 10, 8:14 pm, Ian B MacLure wrote: Who with? Right now the "who" and "with" are unknown. Rest assured however that at some point there will be both "who" and "with". IBM Look at world conditions in 1930 and see if you could have predicted the next war. many did predict it. and its not 1930 So if you are incapable of understanding historical analogy, then answer this: Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons systems will be used? and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation? who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have? who is building up anything. its not the 1930s its not the cold war. so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you imagine. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 11, 11:34*am, "Roger Conroy"
wrote: Who is going to be at war with whom in 2022, and what types of weapons systems will be used Napoleon was unknown in 1790. In 1910 England and Germany were each other's best trading partners. Germany was the model democracy in 1930. In 1940 the Air Corps had prepared to defend our coastlines. WTF is a Guadal Canal? Who expected the Korean War in early 1950, or Vietnam in 1960? Argentina taking on England??? Are you dreaming? There was no chance of war with Iraq in 1990 or 2000. Whatever comes will be the war we are least prepared for so they have a better prospect of winning. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
On Jun 11, 4:07 am, "Paul J. Adam" wrote:
The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be (though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless, wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable effectiveness and longevity...) Don't forget the ultimate example of this sort of thing: the A-4 Skyhawk. Heinemann's fanatical devotion to weight saving meant that you had an excellent air frame capable of holding its own in a dogfight (as Aggressor pilots proved on numerous occasions). And in the hands of a determined pilot, well, ask the RN how effective it can be as an attack aircraft. Unfortunately, it really took until the A4D2 (aka the A4B after the great renaming) to get an airplane that was functional in more conditions than daylight only- with guided weapons, adequate navigation systems, etc. The A4D2N (aka A4C), with all sorts of fancy-pants radars and ECM's and so on was even more useful, and not surprisingly, 4x as many A4C's were made as A4-nils. Heinemann was a fantastic designer and I really admire his discipline about weight, but I think he might have gone a bit too far with mission weight from time to time. Chris Manteuffel |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message ... Not to mention Venezuela... we don't need F-22s to fight venezuela. Unless they buy a **** load of su-27's and S-400's with all that oil money the US is supplying them. With production running at 3 million barrels per day they have an income of around $170 billion per annum which is double what they had last year. That could buy Chavez a lot of shiny new toys that go bang. Keith |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Tiger writes William Black wrote: 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..... Fine until the Bad Guys hit it with a 1960s-vintage SA-7 or similar, which is cheap and widely proliferated and very effective against such aircraft (as evidenced by the withdrawal of the A-1 from Vietnam by the end). The cost vs. benifit seems out of wack. You want a $100 milion plane designed for chasing Migs to drop bombs on Bad guy X. Rather than a $20 million A6 or A10 designed for that purpose 30 years ago? Both in theory can get hit by the golden BB.Based on combat so far Choppers are a more likely target for your SA-7. Lower flying, slow. Our losses in rotor wing craft far excedes any fixed wing losses. Also even recently retired planes are equiped with flares & chaff to counter missle threats. By the time you've added the IRCM capability to survive MANPADS, included the navigation and comms gear needed to hit *that* building to support the troops, and bolted on the sensors that let you operate at night as well as by day... your solution is no longer quick, cheap and simple. It's the old problem of the Blitzfighter: it's an appealing notion to fill the skies with cheap, simple aircraft armed with a simple but deadly gun and unburdened by complex electronic boondoggles, but the reality falls over when many are blotted from the sky by SAMs, others can't be reached on a swamped VHF voicenet, those that can get to where they're needed get into long conversations about "I see the street, I think, and some red smoke, you want me to hit the red smoke?... okay, across the street and three houses north of the red smoke... I show two red smokes now... was that you calling 'Check! Check! Check!'?" All the pricey toys of Saddam's Air defence got few kills. The f-16 may old enough to drink,but I could take a few down to Venezeula turn Hugo's shinny new toys into toast in a day. The F-16 and A-10 are good examples, both initially hailed by the Lightweight Fighter Mafia as everything a combat aircraft should be (though the ideal aircraft, according to the LWF, seems to have been the A6M Zero...) and both being "ruined" by the addition of the useless, wasteful electronics that let them do more than excel at range-shooting on bright sunny days (and both subsequently demonstrating remarkable effectiveness and longevity...) A-10's are lightwieght? As for the Zero. It's strengths play to a difference in design philosophy. It was to be used offensively & swiftly like a Katana sword. It's armor was it's speed & climb. We on the other hand take the suit of armor approach to planes. Thus we build stuff like the Hellcat or P47. The LWF program also helped close the quantity gap over our foes. The f-14 & f-15 had quality, but a $30 million a pop not numbers. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As
"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message ... and you want to spend billions on pure fantasy speculation? Thats what defense planning amounts to who has anything anywhere near as good as what wer have? Russia and increasingly China who is building up anything. Russia, China, India , Iran its not the 1930s No its the 21st century where increasing numbers of industrialized nations are chasing decreasing natural resources. The prospect of nation deciding it needs to go to war to secure its oil supply has happened before - see Pearl Harbor Then there's the continuing radicalisation in the Muslim world and rising Russian nationalism. its not the cold war. so stop fighting WWII andWWIII, they aren't going to happen as you imagine. Or as you do. What planners are expected to do is work on the basis of capabilities not intentions. Todays ally can become an enemy overnight. See Iran as an example. Keith |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Logger Choice | Jamie Denton | Soaring | 10 | July 6th 07 03:13 PM |
Headset Choice | jad | Piloting | 14 | August 9th 06 07:59 AM |
Which DC Headphone is best choice? | [email protected] | Piloting | 65 | June 27th 06 11:50 PM |
!! HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Military Aviation | 2 | September 3rd 04 04:48 PM |
!!HELP GAMERS CHOICE | Dave | Soaring | 0 | September 3rd 04 12:01 AM |