Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22
Henry J Cobb
> Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
> estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
> "complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
> the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
> a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."
I don't see how they can be relevant.
There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the F/A-22s.
Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.
China might move for a limited "internal affairs" war by attacking
Taiwan and discover after the fact that the US really does care.
So in say 2012, China's missile bombardment has destroyed all the
airbases in Taiwan and the only thing keeping them from moving in is a
CAP of Super Hornets over the island.
In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
countries in the area.
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
even a tiny bit relevant?
-HJC
Kevin Brooks
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:2sadnaasqu5...@io.com...
> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
> > Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
> > estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
> > "complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
> > the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
> > a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."
>
> I don't see how they can be relevant.
Why are we not surprised?
>
> There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
> in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
F/A-22s.
While I am one of those folks in favor of minimizing the F/A-22 buy (the
Silver Bullet approach seems quite satisfactory), just how do you come up
with only two?
>
> Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.
Ah, you chose the two nations which we are arguably the *least* likely to
get into a shooting war in the next few years...
>
> China might move for a limited "internal affairs" war by attacking
> Taiwan and discover after the fact that the US really does care.
>
> So in say 2012, China's missile bombardment has destroyed all the
> airbases in Taiwan and the only thing keeping them from moving in is a
> CAP of Super Hornets over the island.
Yeah, and their lack of sealift, the existance of the Taiwanese Navy, and
hordes of mobilized Taiwanese Army troops waiting for them has nothing to do
with this equation, huh?
>
> In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
> be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
> refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
> especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
> countries in the area.
Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I too
was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player, until that
is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is within
range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh? In which case the
F/A-22's supercruise capability and reduced (compared to F-15C's)
requirement for tanking support, not to mention its overall improved combat
effectiveness (meaning less aircraft required to do the job) becomes of
value. Nor is the PRC scenario the only one where the F/A-22 could be a
valuable asset; imagine any conflict where we have to execute offensive air
superiority missions far from available bases (i.e., an Afghanistan scenario
where the bad guys have *some sort* of IADS including fighters, even those
of lesser capability than the Su-30). You can send eight or twelve F-15C's
on a mission, or maybe four F/A-22's, which on a one-for-one basis are both
more effective and require less tanking support--you gain a net reduction in
tanking support, cheaper operating costs (paying for flying hours for four
aircraft versus twelve), etc.
Then consider that the F/A-22 is very likely to spawn a morphed version
dedicated to the strike role (those F-15E's won't be around
forever)--another reason that maintaining a minimal production effort for
the F/A-22 would be valuable in the long run.
>
> So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
> even a tiny bit relevant?
FYI, if you have not noticed the watchwords of the day are preparation to
meet unpredictable/unforseen threats--get your head out of the Cold War era
"we know who we'll be fighting and where it will go down" toilet, Henry.
What if things go south in one of those Asian nations currently buying
Su-27's or Su-30's? What if a future India becomes tangled up in a regional
fight that we decide we have to get in on? Sorry, but there are no
guarantees as to who/where/when we will have to fight. You recently posited
in this NG how we should supposedly put F/A-22 production on "hold" for a
few more years while we (laughably) conduct a much more rigorous testing
program; as many posters pointed out, that proposal was ridiculous. What is
this animosity you have towards the USAF in general and the F/A-22 in
particular based upon? You are sounding more and more like the Tarverbot.
Brooks
>
> -HJC
>
Jeb Hoge
> > Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
> > estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
> > "complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
> > the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
> > a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."
>
> I don't see how they can be relevant.
>
> There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
> in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the F/A-22s.
> even a tiny bit relevant?
I guess the relevance will come into sharp focus after a few more
F-15s disintegrate from airframe weakening due to 15-20 years of use.
The relevance is, what else is there that can command the air
dominance role?
Tarver Engineering
"Jeb Hoge" <ho...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:1303f039.04031...@posting.google.com...
F/A-18E. :)
Lyle
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
>"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
>news:2sadnaasqu5...@io.com...
>> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
>> > Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over 1986
>> > estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
>> > "complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
>> > the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has made
>> > a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."
>>
>> I don't see how they can be relevant.
>
>Why are we not surprised?
>
>>
>> There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
>> in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
>F/A-22s.
>
>While I am one of those folks in favor of minimizing the F/A-22 buy (the
>Silver Bullet approach seems quite satisfactory), just how do you come up
>with only two?
>
>>
>> Russia would be suicidal to take on an enlarged NATO so that leaves China.
>
>Ah, you chose the two nations which we are arguably the *least* likely to
>get into a shooting war in the next few years...
we will go up against thier equipment like we always do, and both
china and Russia are designing aircraft to go against the F-22
D. Strang
>
> ... until recently I too
> was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player, until that
> is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is within
> range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?
Okinawa is history. I'd say in less than 10 years, we will be gone. The giant
F-16 clone (F-2 ??) will probably be based there with nationals.
Besides, the ZZ on the tail was won through cowardice during the Korean war.
There hasn't been a General yet that would let the Wing change the letters.
Henry J Cobb
> "Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> news:2sadnaasqu5...@io.com...
>>be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
>>refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
>>especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
>>countries in the area.
>
> Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
> indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I too
> was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player,
until that
> is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is
within
> range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?
I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread my post again.
Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.
Can you name a base that doesn't require either a permission slip or all
day flying there and back every time the F/A-22 cycles through it's
limited load of internal missiles?
If you use the wing hardpoints for missiles or fuel you give up a lot of
that stealth.
I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending $11.7 billion
dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf
-HJC
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > "Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
> > news:2sadnaasqu5...@io.com...
> >>In this scenario the F/A-22s wouldn't be very useful because they would
> >>be operating very far from their bases and even with air to air
> >>refueling they still can't be rearmed without returning to base,
> >>especially if they can't get any permission slips from the other
> >>countries in the area.
> >
> > Actually, I am ashamed (God forbid agreeing with the HenryBot; could be
> > indicative of a growing loss of sanity)to admit that until recently I
too
> > was of the opinion that the F/A-22 would have to be a non-player,
> until that
> > is I noticed that Okinawa, where we *already* have basing rights, is
> within
> > range for the F/A-22. Guess you missed that one, huh?
>
> I'm sorry, but you seem to have misread my post again.
No, and nice sidestep of the "only two nations" bit...
>
> Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
> might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.
No, it does actually does not really require their approval. The latitude
for the US to use Okinawa bases as it saw fir has been codified in treaty
format since as early as 1952: "Such forces may be utilised to contribute to
the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to
the security of Japan..." Note the "and" in that sentence from the original
agreement. When the treaty granting reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control
was negotiated, the following clause was included: "the return of the
administrative rights over Okinawa...should not hinder the effective
discharge of the international obligations assumed by the United States for
the defence of countries in the Far East including Japan." Note the use of
"including".
See: http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-1.html
>
> Can you name a base that doesn't require either a permission slip or all
> day flying there and back every time the F/A-22 cycles through it's
> limited load of internal missiles?
As I just showed you, Okinawa does not require a permission slip. Nor, at a
range of a bit over 500 miles from Taiwan, does it require F/A-22's to fly
"all day" to get there. More like a bit under one hour at likely economical
cruise speed.
>
> If you use the wing hardpoints for missiles or fuel you give up a lot of
> that stealth.
As shown above, not really required. And if it *were*, then dropping the
tanks would do a reasonable job of stealthing her back up, at least as far
as any likely PLA fighter or nascent AWACS radars are concerned.
>
> I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending $11.7 billion
> dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.
But we are not spending $11.7 billion to add the "A".
Brooks
>
> http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf
>
> -HJC
>
rnf2
>
>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.
Henry J Cobb
>>I like the F-35, but I can't see the point of spending 11.7 billion
>>dollars to add the "A" to F/A-22.
>
> But we are not spending $11.7 billion to add the "A".
>
Read the report.
-HJC
Henry J Cobb
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2004 07:05:53 -0800, Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote:
>>So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s are
>>even a tiny bit relevant?
>
> 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
Kevin Brooks
LOL! I did. And you know what? As usual, you are trying to make sources say
something to suit your needs instead of actually digesting what they have to
say. That $11 billion is for *all* F/A-22 spiral development, including
enhancing the air-to-air capabilities, enhancing it as an ISR platform, etc
(and care to guess how much we have spent on continued RDT&E on other
systems like the F-16, F-15, etc., over their lifetimes?). Not to "add the
"A"". Geeze Henry, why don't you READ the crap you are using before you cram
that other foot in your mouth? And it is interesting how quickly you dropped
that whole "Okinawa requires a permission slip and is too far away" BS...you
figure if you snip it away it just disappears, huh?
Unfortunately this is about par for your pronouncements--short on reasoning,
short on conclusions, and bolstered by inappropriate supporting evidence. No
wonder the folks in SMN regularly unload a broadside at you when you uncloak
and make similar utterances.
Brooks
>
> -HJC
>
Kevin Brooks
"Henry J Cobb" <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:zL2dnR5CXtD...@io.com...
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
>
Henry J Cobb
> 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
John Cook
Errr. one tiny small point do you know how many F15/F16's will the 200
odd F-22 replace?, 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.
Can you tell me at what point does one say 'thats far too few to
matter' (Remember Germany 1944 - ME 262).
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?.
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?.
All I'm asking is for a number at which the F-22 force is not worth
the $80B cost, and what alternative force could you have purchased??.
(you could have purchased well over 1000 Eurofighter Typhoons for
example)
Good luck!!!
John Cook
Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.
Email Address :- Jwcook@(trousers)ozemail.com.au
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk
rnf2
probably better. they have a better economy than the russians at the
moment. and they train reasonably well.
besides which they are gonna get a LOT more than the aussies are gonna
get S-hornets... and even those S-hornets seem to be in doubt, the
Aust govts cut the numbers to be aquired at least once that I have
heard of.
Ragnar
"D. Strang" <dstrang...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:wdM5c.25310$m4.14673@okepread03...
I suppose you have a cite for this cowardice?
Cub Driver
>Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
>might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.
We are not going to get into a shooting war with the Chinese. That is
the one war that cannot be fought, and fortunately the Chinese seem to
realize it as well as we do. Every year that goes by makes a war even
more improbable.
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: war...@mailblocks.com (requires authentication)
see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com
L'acrobat
"rnf2" <rn...@NOSPAM.waikato.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:o03g50pieif0uhc11...@4ax.com...
Australia has never indicated a buy of Superhornets, let alone a number.
AIR6000 is still running to select the F/A-18 replacement, Aust is a partner
in the F-35 program so that is probably the frontrunner.
L'acrobat
Have you ever had a look at the Indonesians ability to deliver troops?
The TNI is set up mostly to fight Indonesians.
Kevin Brooks
"John Cook" <Jwc...@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
news:uqsf50906drl6edcu...@4ax.com...
> On 16 Mar 2004 11:09:24 -0800, ho...@my-deja.com (Jeb Hoge) wrote:
>
> >Henry J Cobb <hc...@io.com> wrote in message
news:<2sadnaasqu5...@io.com>...
> >> http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
> >> > Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over
1986
> >> > estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
> >> > "complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
> >> > the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has
made
> >> > a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."
> >>
> >> I don't see how they can be relevant.
> >>
> >> There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
> >> in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the
F/A-22s.
> >> So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s
are
> >> even a tiny bit relevant?
> >
> >I guess the relevance will come into sharp focus after a few more
> >F-15s disintegrate from airframe weakening due to 15-20 years of use.
> >The relevance is, what else is there that can command the air
> >dominance role?
>
>
> 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?
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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. 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?
>
> 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?
>
> 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.
Brooks
Kevin Brooks
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
>
Henry J Cobb
> We are not going to get into a shooting war with the Chinese. That is
> the one war that cannot be fought, and fortunately the Chinese seem to
> realize it as well as we do. Every year that goes by makes a war even
> more improbable.
Then what are they getting prepared for?
Military balance goes against Taiwan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3545361.stm
-HJC
Henry J Cobb
>>Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
>>might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.
>
> No, it does actually does not really require their approval. The latitude
> for the US to use Okinawa bases as it saw fir has been codified in treaty
> format since as early as 1952: "Such forces may be utilised to contribute to
> the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to
> the security of Japan..." Note the "and" in that sentence from the original
> agreement. When the treaty granting reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control
> was negotiated, the following clause was included: "the return of the
> administrative rights over Okinawa...should not hinder the effective
> discharge of the international obligations assumed by the United States for
> the defence of countries in the Far East including Japan." Note the use of
> "including".
>
> See: http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-1.html
And this treaty can be changed.
The people on Okinawa are fed up with the American bases and will
continue to apply presure until something is done about it.
http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040313wo03.htm
> Inamine also told Rumsfeld that "we can't put up with an increase in
> practice drills and other noisy activity by U.S. forces. Our patience
> is limited."
-HJC
Kevin Brooks
ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
"Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the treaty
section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and as
it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of Okinawa
back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do much
about it).
You were wrong, Henry. Be a man for once and admit it.
Brooks
Cub Driver
You don't really believe that we would go to war with China in order
to preseve Taiwan's independence?
We spent 20 years trying to persuade the world that China ("Red
China") and Taiwan ("Formosa") were one and the same, with the
government located in Taipei. Why would we destroy Chinese and
American civilization now that China agrees with us (with the
comparatively minor difference that the seat of government is in
Beijing)?
all the best -- Dan Ford
Henry J Cobb
> ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
> "Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the treaty
> section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and as
> it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of Okinawa
> back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do much
> about it).
If Japan asks not to be a part of the fight the United States will not
press the issue.
China can hit Japan with IRBMs without using any of their ICBMs.
And Kadena Air Base will remain in a very well known location that the
CSS-5s can take out at any time.
-HJC
Kevin Brooks
> Kevin Brooks wrote:
> > ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
> > "Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the
treaty
> > section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and
as
> > it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of
Okinawa
> > back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do
much
> > about it).
>
> If Japan asks not to be a part of the fight the United States will not
> press the issue.
Ah, so now we are to accept YOUR personal viewpoint on an issue that you
obviously were utterly clueless regarding in the first place, and just
ignore the FACT that the treaty does allow the US carte blanche in terms of
its use of the facilities to support military operations throughout the
region? I don't think so.
>
> China can hit Japan with IRBMs without using any of their ICBMs.
So what?
>
> And Kadena Air Base will remain in a very well known location that the
> CSS-5s can take out at any time.
CSS-5's with a CEP of around 400 meters, and a warhead of only about 600 kg
in the HE mode, will be of only limited affect, especially given that you
can expect layers of Aegis and Patriot coverage defending the bases. But it
is interesting that you have now switched from the "US has to have a
permission slip" (proven false) to the "Okinawa will be toast" argument
(which would seem to point to early entry of the japanese into the
confrontation, as they won't be likely to stand idle while CSS-5's are flung
at them).
Stop dancing, Henry--admit you were clueless about the ability of the US to
use its bases on Okinawa without having to secure Japanese approval.
Brooks
>
> -HJC
>
Henry J Cobb
> Ah, so now we are to accept YOUR personal viewpoint on an issue that you
> obviously were utterly clueless regarding in the first place, and just
> ignore the FACT that the treaty does allow the US carte blanche in terms of
> its use of the facilities to support military operations throughout the
> region? I don't think so.
OK, I give.
If the F/A-22 ever actually works it will be allowed to operate from
Okinawa.
http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-5.html
> Japan has clearly and systematically shifted the overwhelming burden
> for Japan's commitment to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and
> Security to Okinawa, which is distant from the mainland, and is
> perfectly content to leave it that way.
-HJC
John Cook
>>
>>
>> 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
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>> 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
Kevin Brooks
> <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?.
Can you point to any reputable source that indicates the F/A-22 is supposed
to replace the F-16? And FYI, when the original 800 number was proposed, we
had a few more F-15's in the inventory, and werestill engaged in the Cold
War--neither is applicable today.
> >
> >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
What's the what? Get over this idea of your's that replacements have to be
on a one-for-one basis. When the F-35 enters service we will still operate
F-16's; expect to see the later blocks in service for many years after the
F-35 has entered the picture. As was noted in a recent article
(www.afa.org/magazine/March2004/0304f35.asp ), production figures may
fluctuate in the out years; IIRC the current total for the USAF is some 1700
plus.
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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.
Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.
Even the PRC/PLA has belatedly realized that pure mass is not the answer.
You are using the Lanchesterian attrition model to base that statement
upon--unfortunately, it has proven to be less than accurate, especially
when, as you are here, applying it to the force as a whole. It further
ignores the fact that the USAF will use its advantages in the ISR and C4
fields to acheive localized superiority when it so desires. And it derails
completely when viewed against the backdrop of stealth and precision
engagement. Had you applied Lanchester's laws to the operations during
either Gulf War you would have found that the coalition forces should have
experienced exponentially greater casualties than they did in either
conflict.
and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
> the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!
Wise to have that "Silver Bullet". By your reasoning, the ICBM, nuclear
bomber, and SLBM forces we bought and maintained throughout the Cold War
were a complete and utter waste--but in fact it was their status as a
force-in-being that acheived their purpose (deterring nuclear, and in the
end even large scale conventional, war between the superpowers).
> >
> >>
> >> 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),
New, complex systems frequently have that problem. Had you used that
yardstick, your own force would have never gotten the F-111, or the F-18,
and the US would never have continued with fielding of the M1 tank series.
The F-100 would have been dumped early because of its initial
problems/shortcomings, as would the F-104, F-14, etc. It does not work that
way.
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.
So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the program?
Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
role...? We are pushing the envelope in terms of capabilities--expect
difficulties to arise. You sound exactly like some of the more vocal
detractors of the M1 Abrams program back when it was in its teething
stage--and it has turned into one of the top two or three tanks currently in
service.
>
>
> >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 are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the next
operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case of
rushing them into service, IMO. And being prepared for the potential threats
of ten or fifteen years down the line is precisely why we are building the
F/A-22; if you have not noticed, we no longer live in a world like that
which typified the WWII era, when you could design, build, and place into
service a major combat aircraft during a span of three years or so.
>
> >
> >>
> >> 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!!!?,
Yep. Gotta have enough to ensure we can surge enough aircraft into the
theater to conduct round-the-clock operations, but that is a far cry from
trying to outweigh every comer in terms of sheer mass.
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!
So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus far. I
have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22 (and IIRC the F-35),
and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased analysis
of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of your
single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22, so it is obvious that further
discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.
Brooks
John Cook
<broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>> Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
>> F15's?.
>
>Can you point to any reputable source that indicates the F/A-22 is supposed
>to replace the F-16? And FYI, when the original 800 number was proposed, we
>had a few more F-15's in the inventory, and werestill engaged in the Cold
>War--neither is applicable today.
yes you had a few more but you still haven't answered the questuion
why 800?, there wasn't that many F-15C's AFAIK there was only 400 odd
F-15C delivered, this would be in the timeframe of the ATF, as for the
209 (ish) F15E's they came a while later around the early 1990's when
the F-22 orders were being cut from 750 to 648.
It wasn't originally conceived as a one for one replacement for the
F-15, but a new top teir bomber/fighter, born from a study that said
both the F-15 and F-16 would soon be obsolete because of the new
russian fighters being produced.
The original designs submitted for the ATF ranged from 17,000lbs upto
an astonishing 100,000lbs, are you sure they had the F-15 in mind
then?:-).
You mention your not involved in the cold war any more, is that an
arguement for a reduction in F-22 numbers from you!!.
>> The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the
>
>What's the what?
My apologies, it was meant to read 'whats the latest figures...'
>Get over this idea of your's that replacements have to be
>on a one-for-one basis. When the F-35 enters service we will still operate
>F-16's; expect to see the later blocks in service for many years after the
>F-35 has entered the picture. As was noted in a recent article
>(www.afa.org/magazine/March2004/0304f35.asp ), production figures may
>fluctuate in the out years; IIRC the current total for the USAF is some 1700
>plus.
Theres a bit of a problem with timing, the best your going to get is a
force thats 10% smaller some time in 2028, But with a deficiet to make
up of over 1000 aircraft when the JSF arrives in 2012. (see the
Quadrennial defence review regarding the Air combat Command), your
older aircraft are falling to bits, so I would expect to see some
legacy aircraft buys soon.
>> They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
>> equipment.
>
>Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
>the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
>(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
>further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.
Of course he's in trouble, if he plays your 'club the seal' game, If
he goes all out to kill your runways and logistics in one big swamp
attack, then your aircraft numbers do count and no matter how good
your fighters are they will need stop virtually all attackers so they
have somewhere to land.
I wouldn't expect an adversary to play fair and come up to fight in
managable numbers....
>Even the PRC/PLA has belatedly realized that pure mass is not the answer.
>You are using the Lanchesterian attrition model to base that statement
>upon--unfortunately, it has proven to be less than accurate, especially
>when, as you are here, applying it to the force as a whole. It further
>ignores the fact that the USAF will use its advantages in the ISR and C4
>fields to acheive localized superiority when it so desires.
Again another of your arguements which undermines the need for the
F-22!
> And it derails
>completely when viewed against the backdrop of stealth and precision
>engagement. Had you applied Lanchester's laws to the operations during
>either Gulf War you would have found that the coalition forces should have
>experienced exponentially greater casualties than they did in either
>conflict.
All thing being equal that should have been the case, however the
massive technological advantages of C4, AWAC's,Jammers,etc,etc made
even the most mediocre coalition fighters almost unbeatable, The
opposition not going on the offensive is possibley the greatest
mistake they made.
Early raids into bordering countries would have severly hampered the
coalition buildup and deployment, I would have immediatly attacked any
bordering country that allowed foreign troops to land, first by Air
attack then followed up by land forces.
IRAQ's strategy of just sitting there waiting to get pummeled doesn't
seem to be the hallmark of a good commander, and as such should not be
viewed as a good model to base any doctrine on.
>
>and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
>> the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!
>
>Wise to have that "Silver Bullet". By your reasoning, the ICBM, nuclear
>bomber, and SLBM forces we bought and maintained throughout the Cold War
>were a complete and utter waste--but in fact it was their status as a
>force-in-being that acheived their purpose (deterring nuclear, and in the
>end even large scale conventional, war between the superpowers).
Don't put words into my mouth, it might be' wise' to have that
technology, but ask the Russians who's economy collapsed under the
strain of trying to have it all, if it was ultimately worth it.
All I'm asking is if the F-22 is worth it, and all I'm hearing is
jingoism's with some unhealthy paranoia thrown in...
>
>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.
>
>So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the program?
>Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
>role...?
You would do exactly what the USN did when they cancelled the A12, or
what the USAF did when the Valkyrie was scrubbed, Think about the
Arrow, TSR2 etc etc...
Did any of those cause the government to fall, society to crumble?, a
bruised nation pride is the worst thats on offer.
It would perhaps be better if the USA technological edge was not to
far ahead, then maybe your politicians would not be so gung ho, in
having a hair trigger on the military option!!, the world may be
safer that way!.
>>
>> 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 are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the next
>operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case of
>rushing them into service,
Hmmm at the present time has engineering and development finished,
no!!, is it close to finishing... no, are there any major obstacles to
overcome?... yes quite a few, then why the hell did they start limited
production 3 years ago???...
Thats why I'm asserting its been rushed into production (for
political reasons because its much harder to cancel a program with
'production' aircraft flying)
>IMO. And being prepared for the potential threats
>of ten or fifteen years down the line is precisely why we are building the
>F/A-22; if you have not noticed, we no longer live in a world like that
>which typified the WWII era, when you could design, build, and place into
>service a major combat aircraft during a span of three years or so.
The JSF is the aircraft to deal with threats in the next decade, the
F-22 just seems to be superflous.
>> >> 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!!!?,
>
>Yep. Gotta have enough to ensure we can surge enough aircraft into the
>theater to conduct round-the-clock operations, but that is a far cry from
>trying to outweigh every comer in terms of sheer mass.
I've never advocated that you try to outweigh every comer in terms of
sheer mass. I simply stated a widely held belief that a tiny number of
very good fighters will be beaten by a large number of average
fighters. we are arguing about the numbers of Tiny force vs Large
force.
>
>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!
>
>So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus far. I
>have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22
Rants!!!, I can't honestly recall any Rants!!!, I'm very sceptical
about claims that some big budget items are necessary, nay vital to
the very fabric of society....
>(and IIRC the F-35),
>and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased analysis
>of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of your
>single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22,
>
Unbiased! I never ever claimed to be unbiased, but my 'single-minded
animosity towards the F/A-22' is a figment of you imagination, I just
don't accept that its good value, its a fine aircraft that pushed
several boundries, for an enormous price.
>so it is obvious that further
>discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
>long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
>weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.
Are they ever right???, comanche? ;-)
Cheers
L'acrobat
> >Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
> >the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
> >(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
> >further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.
>
> Of course he's in trouble, if he plays your 'club the seal' game, If
> he goes all out to kill your runways and logistics in one big swamp
> attack, then your aircraft numbers do count and no matter how good
> your fighters are they will need stop virtually all attackers so they
> have somewhere to land.
>
> I wouldn't expect an adversary to play fair and come up to fight in
> managable numbers....
When the a/c numbers are so small, a limited sized attack by commandos at
the start of the war on airbases can take out a significant percentage of
the a/c.
10 or 20 a/c out of 180 or so hurts.
Kevin Brooks
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 11:46:08 -0500, "Kevin Brooks"
> <broo...@notyahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
> >> F15's?.
> >
> >Can you point to any reputable source that indicates the F/A-22 is
supposed
> >to replace the F-16? And FYI, when the original 800 number was proposed,
we
> >had a few more F-15's in the inventory, and werestill engaged in the Cold
> >War--neither is applicable today.
>
> yes you had a few more but you still haven't answered the questuion
> why 800?
You must have missed the bit about more F-15's being in the inventory at the
time, *and* the Cold war factoid?
, there wasn't that many F-15C's AFAIK there was only 400 odd
> F-15C delivered, this would be in the timeframe of the ATF, as for the
> 209 (ish) F15E's they came a while later around the early 1990's when
> the F-22 orders were being cut from 750 to 648.
You conveniently ignore the fact that the F-15A was also (and continues to,
in its MSIP form) still flying during the timeframe the ATF requirements
were developed. Total F-15A and F-15C production for the USAF was in the
order of around 760 aircraft. The 800 number for the F/A-22 was a *total*
program requirement, to include attrition replacements, etc.--compare it to
the *total* number of F-15 models produced for the USAF (760 A and F mods,
120 B and D mods, and 200 E mods, equals 1080). So it appears that if you
dump the E mods from the equation, you are looking at about 880 F-15's
procured as dedicated air superiority fighters--meaning that the old
still-looking-at-the-Cold-War requirement of 800 F-22's was indeed inline
with the existing F-15 situation at that time.
>
> It wasn't originally conceived as a one for one replacement for the
> F-15, but a new top teir bomber/fighter, born from a study that said
> both the F-15 and F-16 would soon be obsolete because of the new
> russian fighters being produced.
It was never intended to replace the F-16. Period.
>
> The original designs submitted for the ATF ranged from 17,000lbs upto
> an astonishing 100,000lbs, are you sure they had the F-15 in mind
> then?:-).
You are apparently wandering away from the discussion at hand.
>
> You mention your not involved in the cold war any more, is that an
> arguement for a reduction in F-22 numbers from you!!.
Duh.
>
>
> >> The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the
> >
> >What's the what?
>
>
> My apologies, it was meant to read 'whats the latest figures...'
>
> >Get over this idea of your's that replacements have to be
> >on a one-for-one basis. When the F-35 enters service we will still
operate
> >F-16's; expect to see the later blocks in service for many years after
the
> >F-35 has entered the picture. As was noted in a recent article
> >(www.afa.org/magazine/March2004/0304f35.asp ), production figures may
> >fluctuate in the out years; IIRC the current total for the USAF is some
1700
> >plus.
>
>
> Theres a bit of a problem with timing, the best your going to get is a
> force thats 10% smaller some time in 2028, But with a deficiet to make
> up of over 1000 aircraft when the JSF arrives in 2012. (see the
> Quadrennial defence review regarding the Air combat Command), your
> older aircraft are falling to bits, so I would expect to see some
> legacy aircraft buys soon.
Well, you keep on expecting. It is no secret that we have continued to
purchase both the F-16, lately in the Block 52 guise, and F-15E (though I
think we are now done with that one) over the past few years, but that does
not imply that we are going to change our course in the immediate future and
buy a whole bunch more "legacy aircraft".
>
> >> They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
> >> equipment.
> >
> >Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
> >the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
> >(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
> >further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.
>
> Of course he's in trouble, if he plays your 'club the seal' game, If
> he goes all out to kill your runways and logistics in one big swamp
> attack, then your aircraft numbers do count and no matter how good
> your fighters are they will need stop virtually all attackers so they
> have somewhere to land.
If he "goes all out" and tries that and succeeds, your numbers no longer
matter; 200 aircraft sitting on an airfield that is unusable are just as
worthless as 80 aircraft sitting on that same airfield. Of course, to do
this he has to run a gauntlet of not only fighters, but also depending upon
his route USN surface-to-air assets and regardless of his route the
inevitable Patriot and Avenger systems that will be defending the critical
bases. Then there is the matter of the USAF now buying into the F-35B...
>
> I wouldn't expect an adversary to play fair and come up to fight in
> managable numbers....
And I would not expect us to fight on his terms; bad move. So...we won't.
>
> >Even the PRC/PLA has belatedly realized that pure mass is not the answer.
> >You are using the Lanchesterian attrition model to base that statement
> >upon--unfortunately, it has proven to be less than accurate, especially
> >when, as you are here, applying it to the force as a whole. It further
> >ignores the fact that the USAF will use its advantages in the ISR and C4
> >fields to acheive localized superiority when it so desires.
>
> Again another of your arguements which undermines the need for the
> F-22!
Hardly. It points out that precision and qualitiative advantages outweigh
sheer overall mass in the modern fight, and how the relatively small F/A-22
force can defeat a much larger, less capable force. I don't really see us
*likely* facing such an adversary, but in order to keep the picture like
that we have to be *able* to do so, hence the need for the F/A-22 "silver
bullet" force (keeps those nasty vampires at bay).
>
> > And it derails
> >completely when viewed against the backdrop of stealth and precision
> >engagement. Had you applied Lanchester's laws to the operations during
> >either Gulf War you would have found that the coalition forces should
have
> >experienced exponentially greater casualties than they did in either
> >conflict.
>
> All thing being equal that should have been the case,
What?! Read up on Lanchester--he specifically addressed the situation where
side A has equipment that is twice as good as side B's, but side B has twice
as much of it. His Square Law indicates that under that that scenario, with
a 100% better force in quality terms, the smaller force still loses. Using
his model, the casualties we should have sustained during both of the Gulf
conflicts should have been horrendous--but they were not. Lanchester is nice
for tabletop gaming, not so nice for real modern combat, at least when
applied from the aspect of simple brute mass advantage, as you are doing.
After you brush up on Lanchester, go read some of the treatises on maneuver
theory (Lind might be a good starting point); it is applicable to air
warfare just as it is to ground warfare (not to say that pure maneuver
theory is the simple answer to the problem, but it does point out the flaws
in the simple "mass kicks ass" theory you are advocating).
however the
> massive technological advantages of C4, AWAC's,Jammers,etc,etc made
> even the most mediocre coalition fighters almost unbeatable, The
> opposition not going on the offensive is possibley the greatest
> mistake they made.
But according to Lanchester that is not the proper outcome. And the Iraqis
did try to go on the offensive--the Khafji operation was actually supposed
to be a division (plus?) spoiling attack to cause heavy casualties to
coalition forces--it got hammered, badly. had the Iraqi air component tried
the same thing, it would have resulted in a lot fewer new additions to the
Iranian inventory, and probably not a significant increase in coalition
casualties. Where they made their mistake (other than attacking Kuwait in
the first place) was in not *continuing* their offensive to seize the Saudi
coastal areas when they had the opportunity, while we still trying to get
the DRB from the the 82nd ABN DIV into the country.
>
> Early raids into bordering countries would have severly hampered the
> coalition buildup and deployment, I would have immediatly attacked any
> bordering country that allowed foreign troops to land, first by Air
> attack then followed up by land forces.
You'd have been too late--they had to attack and seize the SPOD's and APOD's
*before* the US could get forces into Saudi Arabia. Attacking afterwards
merely ensures you piss off the US public by killing our "tank bumps" (what
we called the 82nd troopers when tossed into a desert environment versus an
enemy heavy force). usually not a wise move.
>
>
> IRAQ's strategy of just sitting there waiting to get pummeled doesn't
> seem to be the hallmark of a good commander, and as such should not be
> viewed as a good model to base any doctrine on.
But it is a darned good model with which to debase the Lanchesterian
conclusions, which would indicate that regardless of the fact that we were
twice as good as they were (maybe even moreso), we should have sustained
significant casualties in the effort. Take it to a smaller level--run the
numbers per Lanchester regarding the fight at 73 Easting, or the tank battle
the USMC forces fought as they neared the airport in Kuwait City. In both
cases the Iraqis fought, and in the latter they were credited with having
had some fairly decent battlefield leadership. But again, the conclusions of
Lanchester would lead to a significant casualty count on the coalition
side--but that did not happen. The conclusion is simple--in the modern
fight, pure mass does not assure victory, or even a creditable attrition
result.
> >
> >and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
> >> the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!
> >
> >Wise to have that "Silver Bullet". By your reasoning, the ICBM, nuclear
> >bomber, and SLBM forces we bought and maintained throughout the Cold War
> >were a complete and utter waste--but in fact it was their status as a
> >force-in-being that acheived their purpose (deterring nuclear, and in the
> >end even large scale conventional, war between the superpowers).
>
> Don't put words into my mouth, it might be' wise' to have that
> technology, but ask the Russians who's economy collapsed under the
> strain of trying to have it all, if it was ultimately worth it.
Our economy has not collapsed, and despite the periodic economic slump that
we have *all* experienced, it appears to be quite sturdy. And we are not
trying to "have it all"--that is why we have cut the F/A-22 program back to
its current 269 aircraft level as of last count.
>
> All I'm asking is if the F-22 is worth it, and all I'm hearing is
> jingoism's with some unhealthy paranoia thrown in...
LOL! All I am hearing from you is outdated mass arguments and allusions to
immediate economic ruin if we proceed with the current limited production
run for the F/A-22; neither are particularly convincing arguments.
>
> >
> >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.
> >
> >So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the
program?
> >Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
> >role...?
>
> You would do exactly what the USN did when they cancelled the A12, or
> what the USAF did when the Valkyrie was scrubbed, Think about the
> Arrow, TSR2 etc etc...
> Did any of those cause the government to fall, society to crumble?, a
> bruised nation pride is the worst thats on offer.
Go read up on the early fielding problems withthe F-15 and its reliability
concerns. Then come back and tell me that the F/A-22 program is really any
different in that regard.
>
> It would perhaps be better if the USA technological edge was not to
> far ahead, then maybe your politicians would not be so gung ho, in
> having a hair trigger on the military option!!, the world may be
> safer that way!.
Ah, your true sentiments finally come out! The old, "Those nasty 'mercans
got too much advanced military stuff for their own good, and I really don't
like how they dare to use it!" Get back to the topic at hand and stop trying
to wiggle red capes in hopes of misdirecting the discussion, OK?
>
> >>
> >> 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 are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the
next
> >operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case
of
> >rushing them into service,
>
> Hmmm at the present time has engineering and development finished,
> no!!, is it close to finishing... no, are there any major obstacles to
> overcome?... yes quite a few, then why the hell did they start limited
> production 3 years ago???...
> Thats why I'm asserting its been rushed into production (for
> political reasons because its much harder to cancel a program with
> 'production' aircraft flying)
You have lost your status as an unbiased observer, and when you start
talking about a program that has been ongoing for some eighteen or twenty
years as being "rushed into production", then you need to stop, wipe off
your glasses, take a deep breath, try to forget your anti-US bias, and
rethink your argument.
> >IMO. And being prepared for the potential threats
> >of ten or fifteen years down the line is precisely why we are building
the
> >F/A-22; if you have not noticed, we no longer live in a world like that
> >which typified the WWII era, when you could design, build, and place into
> >service a major combat aircraft during a span of three years or so.
>
> The JSF is the aircraft to deal with threats in the next decade, the
> F-22 just seems to be superflous.
Haven't you also been rather critical of the JSF? Odd...
>
>
> >> >> 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!!!?,
> >
> >Yep. Gotta have enough to ensure we can surge enough aircraft into the
> >theater to conduct round-the-clock operations, but that is a far cry from
> >trying to outweigh every comer in terms of sheer mass.
>
> I've never advocated that you try to outweigh every comer in terms of
> sheer mass. I simply stated a widely held belief that a tiny number of
> very good fighters will be beaten by a large number of average
> fighters. we are arguing about the numbers of Tiny force vs Large
> force.
Sorry, that "widely held belief" is not supported by the results of modern
combat operations and is a rather dated conclusion.
>
> >
> >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!
> >
> >So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus
far. I
> >have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22
>
> Rants!!!, I can't honestly recall any Rants!!!, I'm very sceptical
> about claims that some big budget items are necessary, nay vital to
> the very fabric of society....
Yes, rants. When was the last time you acknowledged anything *good* about
the F/A-22? You recently went to great lengths to try to demonstrate that it
was incapable of attaining a sufficient combat radius, only to get handed
your head on a platter by an honest-to-goodness aerospace engineer type who
thumped your assumptions. I have yet to see you acknowledge any positive
points of the F/A-22 (i.e., supercruise, stealth, data fusion, etc.), while
you are continually jumping onto what you perceive as horrendous failures.
That be ranting.
>
> >(and IIRC the F-35),
> >and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased
analysis
> >of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of
your
> >single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22,
> >
>
> Unbiased! I never ever claimed to be unbiased, but my 'single-minded
> animosity towards the F/A-22' is a figment of you imagination, I just
> don't accept that its good value, its a fine aircraft that pushed
> several boundries, for an enormous price.
Name those good qualities.
>
> >so it is obvious that further
> >discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
> >long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
> >weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.
>
> Are they ever right???, comanche? ;-)
FYI, Commanche had its share of detractors even within the green-suited
crowd, and has seen a big chunk of its original raison d'etre assumed by the
UAV, not to mention the switch from being prepared to deal with a massive
armored assault directed at central Europe to having to deal with a more
widely ranging threat scenario. The F/A-22 has also been impacted by the
change in the threat map--but we still need to be able to conduct offensive
counter air operations and stealthy stike missions against the threat of a
good enemy IADS that includes opposing fighter aircraft of the Su-30 or even
Rafale-class (not knowing who the French will deign to sell them to in the
future). Hence the wisdom behind the "silver bullet" theory.
Brooks
> Cheers
> John Cook
>
John Cook
>You conveniently ignore the fact that the F-15A was also (and continues to,
>in its MSIP form) still flying during the timeframe the ATF requirements
>were developed. Total F-15A and F-15C production for the USAF was in the
>order of around 760 aircraft. The 800 number for the F/A-22 was a *total*
>program requirement, to include attrition replacements, etc.--compare it to
>the *total* number of F-15 models produced for the USAF (760 A and F mods,
>120 B and D mods, and 200 E mods, equals 1080). So it appears that if you
>dump the E mods from the equation, you are looking at about 880 F-15's
>procured as dedicated air superiority fighters--meaning that the old
>still-looking-at-the-Cold-War requirement of 800 F-22's was indeed inline
>with the existing F-15 situation at that time.
Boeing state:-
"During the past three decades, Boeing has produced more than 1,500
F-15s. The U.S. Air Force and Air National Guard operate five F-15
models: the E and it's A, B, C, and D predecessors. Only the F-15C
air-superiority variant is to be replaced by the F-22 Raptor. A team
led by Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney produces the
F-22."
Can you point top where the requirement changed from all F15A/B/C/D to
just F15C's, and where the 800 or indeed the 750 number equates to
just C's and what sort of justification that a much more capable
fighter would need more airframes??.
>> It wasn't originally conceived as a one for one replacement for the
>> F-15, but a new top teir bomber/fighter, born from a study that said
>> both the F-15 and F-16 would soon be obsolete because of the new
>> russian fighters being produced.
>
>It was never intended to replace the F-16. Period.
>>
>> The original designs submitted for the ATF ranged from 17,000lbs upto
>> an astonishing 100,000lbs, are you sure they had the F-15 in mind
>> then?:-).
>You are apparently wandering away from the discussion at hand.
Its what were arguing about!!, If 7 companies are asked to design
the next generation F-15C, why such a disparity of designs, it only
makes sense if the TAC-85/ATF design criteria was markedly different
and specified capability's only! and not as a request to replace
aircraft X criteria.
>
>If he "goes all out" and tries that and succeeds, your numbers no longer
>matter; 200 aircraft sitting on an airfield that is unusable are just as
>worthless as 80 aircraft sitting on that same airfield. Of course, to do
>this he has to run a gauntlet of not only fighters, but also depending upon
>his route USN surface-to-air assets and regardless of his route the
>inevitable Patriot and Avenger systems that will be defending the critical
>bases. Then there is the matter of the USAF now buying into the F-35B...
If your talking in simplistic terms then quality only makes up for a
limited enemy numerical advantage, If your talking about the whole box
and dice then your numerical advantage of Surface to air
assets/Patriot etc etc will of course take their toll.
Your going to have to clearly define what your arguing about!, If you
saying the silver bullet force of F-22 depends on several multilayer
assets to make up for their lack of numbers, then you'll get no
argument from me.
You seem to be arguing that on one hand they are all that's needed to
defeat a greatly numerically superior air force, and on the other the
vastly more capable US ground/air/sea assets would have sorted that
same air force out thus rendering your F-22 fleet as superfluous.
We seem to have the same opinion!!!.
>> All thing being equal that should have been the case,
>
>What?! Read up on Lanchester--he specifically addressed the situation where
>side A has equipment that is twice as good as side B's, but side B has twice
>as much of it. His Square Law indicates that under that that scenario, with
>a 100% better force in quality terms, the smaller force still loses. Using
>his model, the casualties we should have sustained during both of the Gulf
>conflicts should have been horrendous--but they were not. Lanchester is nice
>for tabletop gaming, not so nice for real modern combat, at least when
>applied from the aspect of simple brute mass advantage,
The results were for a coalition force with 100's of top tier
aircraft against what? how many top tier assets did Iraq have?.
Iraqi Awac's??
Iraqi Joint Rivets??
How about top tier fighters???.
They didn't even have much second rate air assets, what they had
plenty of was third rate assets that were mostly unserviceable.
What were arguing about is a silver bullet air force v's a numerically
superior force of _capable_ fighters.
I agree that a technological superior force with a numerically
superior advantage will beat an opposing force easily.
>>
>> Early raids into bordering countries would have severly hampered the
>> coalition buildup and deployment, I would have immediatly attacked any
>> bordering country that allowed foreign troops to land, first by Air
>> attack then followed up by land forces.
>
>You'd have been too late--they had to attack and seize the SPOD's and APOD's
>*before* the US could get forces into Saudi Arabia. Attacking afterwards
>merely ensures you piss off the US public by killing our "tank bumps" (what
>we called the 82nd troopers when tossed into a desert environment versus an
>enemy heavy force). usually not a wise move.
That's was the trick! get Iraqi ground Forces onto Saudi airbases and
port installations, They were the areas that would have made the build
up 100 of times more difficult, two days of demolition work should
have sorted it out quite nicely, I'm stunned as to why it wasn't done.
> IRAQ's strategy of just sitting there waiting to get pummeled doesn't
>> seem to be the hallmark of a good commander, and as such should not be
>> viewed as a good model to base any doctrine on.
>
>But it is a darned good model with which to debase the Lanchesterian
>conclusions,
It misses half of the equation, those numbers _have_ to be used
offensively, if there defensive then it just means more targets.
>> Don't put words into my mouth, it might be' wise' to have that
>> technology, but ask the Russians who's economy collapsed under the
>> strain of trying to have it all, if it was ultimately worth it.
>
>Our economy has not collapsed, and despite the periodic economic slump that
>we have *all* experienced, it appears to be quite sturdy. And we are not
>trying to "have it all"--that is why we have cut the F/A-22 program back to
>its current 269 aircraft level as of last count.
I was pointing out the Russian couldn't afford the top tier military
equipment, this directly lead to their 'defeat', and as such the
weapons they were trying to procure did not defend them from the
threat that 'beat' them.
>
>>
>> All I'm asking is if the F-22 is worth it, and all I'm hearing is
>> jingoism's with some unhealthy paranoia thrown in...
>
>LOL! All I am hearing from you is outdated mass arguments and allusions to
>immediate economic ruin if we proceed with the current limited production
>run for the F/A-22; neither are particularly convincing arguments.
I have never suggestesd the US will crumble economicallty if the F-22
purchhase goes ahead, All I have said is I'm not convinced the
capability of that one system ist worth the cost of development and
production, I can say that other programs will suffer because of the
F-22 purchase, and they may have provided a greater counter to real
threats for the price.
>> >So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the
>program?
>> >Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
>> >role...?
>>
>> You would do exactly what the USN did when they cancelled the A12, or
>> what the USAF did when the Valkyrie was scrubbed, Think about the
>> Arrow, TSR2 etc etc...
>> Did any of those cause the government to fall, society to crumble?, a
>> bruised nation pride is the worst thats on offer.
>
>Go read up on the early fielding problems withthe F-15 and its reliability
>concerns. Then come back and tell me that the F/A-22 program is really any
>different in that regard.
The ramifications to the cancellation of the F-22 are not as great
as you make out...
>> It would perhaps be better if the USA technological edge was not to
>> far ahead, then maybe your politicians would not be so gung ho, in
>> having a hair trigger on the military option!!, the world may be
>> safer that way!.
>
>Ah, your true sentiments finally come out! The old, "Those nasty 'mercans
>got too much advanced military stuff for their own good, and I really don't
>like how they dare to use it!" Get back to the topic at hand and stop trying
>to wiggle red capes in hopes of misdirecting the discussion, OK?
True sentiments yes, but I bet there not what you think...
Its not the 'nasty mericans' at all, I would think that way about any
nation that had any capability so far ahead of any potential threats.
How would you feel towards a tiny country having nuclear weapons!
Cuba for instance!!!.
Not too keen on it are you?, how exactly do you feel about those nasty
Cubans having nukes?.
OK how about some of those countries to the south of you??
No??
>> >You are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the
>next
>> >operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case
>of
>> >rushing them into service,
>>
>> Hmmm at the present time has engineering and development finished,
>> no!!, is it close to finishing... no, are there any major obstacles to
>> overcome?... yes quite a few, then why the hell did they start limited
>> production 3 years ago???...
>> Thats why I'm asserting its been rushed into production (for
>> political reasons because its much harder to cancel a program with
>> 'production' aircraft flying)
>
>You have lost your status as an unbiased observer, and when you start
>talking about a program that has been ongoing for some eighteen or twenty
>years as being "rushed into production", then you need to stop, wipe off
>your glasses, take a deep breath, try to forget your anti-US bias, and
>rethink your argument.
Rethink!!!,
Answer this
Is the Raptor ready for production?.
Yes or No
In 1998 general Mushala stated "I doubt that any of the 339 F-22's
that I build would be the same" due to technological obsolences, this
can only have got worse in the interveining years as more 'production'
aircraft have joined the ranks without the required development work
having been completed.
>> The JSF is the aircraft to deal with threats in the next decade, the
>> F-22 just seems to be superflous.
>
>Haven't you also been rather critical of the JSF? Odd...
Yes I have doubted some aspects as many people have attributed costs,
abilities and systems to what is still very much a paper plane...
>> >So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus
>far. I
>> >have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22
>>
>> Rants!!!, I can't honestly recall any Rants!!!, I'm very sceptical
>> about claims that some big budget items are necessary, nay vital to
>> the very fabric of society....
>
>Yes, rants. When was the last time you acknowledged anything *good* about
>the F/A-22? You recently went to great lengths to try to demonstrate that it
>was incapable of attaining a sufficient combat radius,
Sufficent combat radius for what?, the parameters of the mission have
not been disclosed, the range stated was shorter than several people
had envisioned, why can I not question it?, FYI I was under the
impression it was going to be further than it was...
>only to get handed
>your head on a platter by an honest-to-goodness aerospace engineer type who
>thumped your assumptions. I have yet to see you acknowledge any positive
>points of the F/A-22 (i.e., supercruise, stealth, data fusion, etc.),
>
Supercruise, Stealth, Data fusion, are all worthy of note, so is the
sticker price, I'm impressed with the Engines, it seems from the
limited information available to posses enough thrust as it seems to
be a near turbojet in design (low BPR), as for important things like
MTBO I havn't a clue, perhaps its still in development with regard to
those sort of things!.
You only get to hear 'good' things form the manufacturer and USAF, the
bad things come from watchdogs and other interested parties, you tend
to side with the former, I with the latter.
>> >and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased
>analysis
>> >of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of
>your
>> >single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22,
>> >
>>
>> Unbiased! I never ever claimed to be unbiased, but my 'single-minded
>> animosity towards the F/A-22' is a figment of you imagination, I just
>> don't accept that its good value, its a fine aircraft that pushed
>> several boundries, for an enormous price.
>
>Name those good qualities.
Supercruise, Agility... are the only definate measures that can be
asertained, LO values remain cloaked in euphamisms and as such cannot
be subjectivly measured Insect sized and bird sized are not on the SI
scale, and are meaningless, The Eurofighter Team are not exempt from
marketing type statements, My favourite is 'from some aspects the
Typhoon has a smaller radar than the F-117", its simpely meaningless.
>> >so it is obvious that further
>> >discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
>> >long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
>> >weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.
>>
>> Are they ever right???, comanche? ;-)
I ask again are they ever right about anything, could they be right in
the case of the F-22?, or is there anything bad about the F-22 you
want to share with us or is it all rosey???.
Cheers
>FYI, Commanche had its share of detractors even within the green-suited
>crowd, and has seen a big chunk of its original raison d'etre assumed by the
>UAV, not to mention the switch from being prepared to deal with a massive
>armored assault directed at central Europe to having to deal with a more
>widely ranging threat scenario. The F/A-22 has also been impacted by the
>change in the threat map--but we still need to be able to conduct offensive
>counter air operations and stealthy stike missions against the threat of a
>good enemy IADS that includes opposing fighter aircraft of the Su-30 or even
>Rafale-class (not knowing who the French will deign to sell them to in the
>future). Hence the wisdom behind the "silver bullet" theory.
>
>Brooks
>
>> Cheers
>> John Cook
>>
>
John Cook