A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Naval Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 10th 08, 09:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Mike[_7_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 111
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

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.
  #2  
Old June 10th 08, 10:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"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.

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

..


  #3  
Old June 10th 08, 11:19 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
eyeball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that are
designed to fight a major European war.


Until the next war?
  #4  
Old June 10th 08, 11:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
William Black[_1_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 176
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"eyeball" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers that
are
designed to fight a major European war.


Until the next war?


Who with?

--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.



  #5  
Old June 11th 08, 01:14 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Ian B MacLure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

"William Black" wrote in
:


"eyeball" wrote in message
.
..
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


Until the next war?


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
  #6  
Old June 11th 08, 01:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Ian B MacLure
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 100
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

"William Black" wrote in
:

[snip]

Given current wars they'd be better off buying a load of Douglas A-1
Skyraiders and a few WWII twin engined bombers.


Rubbish.

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.


Evidently you've missed the point that PGMs can be delivered
from altitudes where the carrier is largely immune from ground
fire of the kind asshats have available.

What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are designed to fight a major European war.


Which would neatly rob us of the ability to deal with a war
of that kind. You may think thats wise but most folks don't.

IBM

  #7  
Old June 11th 08, 01:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Tiger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 125
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

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.....

  #8  
Old June 11th 08, 03:02 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Raymond O'Hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"Ian B MacLure" wrote in message
.. .
"William Black" wrote in
:


"eyeball" wrote in message
.
..
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.

Until the next war?


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


its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
threat that will probably never materialize.


  #9  
Old June 11th 08, 03:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
eyeball
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 10, 9:02 pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in 7.131...



"William Black" wrote in
:


"eyeball" wrote in message
.
..
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


Until the next war?


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


its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
threat that will probably never materialize.


Can you guarantee that?
  #10  
Old June 11th 08, 04:11 AM posted to rec.aviation.military,rec.aviation.military.naval,sci.military.naval
Raymond O'Hara
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 88
Default GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As


"eyeball" wrote in message
...
On Jun 10, 9:02 pm, "Raymond O'Hara"
wrote:
"Ian B MacLure" wrote in
7.131...



"William Black" wrote in
:


"eyeball" wrote in message
.
..
On Jun 10, 4:20 pm, "William Black"
wrote:


What they don't need right now is large complex jet fighter/bombers
that are
designed to fight a major European war.


Until the next war?


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


its best to deal with real threats now than to worry about a hypothetical
threat that will probably never materialize.


Can you guarantee that?


can you envision any scenario in which the U.S. and russia fight?
are we going to invade them? i think we'd notice a huge naval build up for
them to invade us?
do you think they are going to overrun europe?



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:02 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.