• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

The topic formerly about the YF-23

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
Lampshade111 said:
I have no doubt any problems could have been worked out, but the idiots politicians could have killed it earlier. Although maybe the fact that it looks nice would have saved it.
I'm gonna be careful to call anyone idiot, there. However, I agreed, as I said earlier a few pages back, I believe if you already built the prototype, which means you proved that the concept works, then any technological challenge gonna be worked out, as long as you keep pumping money to it, of course. I didn't mean that no f-23 flying because northrop failed, but that DoD would cut it in the middle of the development. The f-22 also has commercial giant Boeing, with strong lobbyist support from Congress, which means that if the USAF choose it, it will less likely face the axe than the other competitor if the time comes. I addressed all this in my other post to conclude that these factors could have been influencial in the final down selection.
That would have been a greater scenario how? From what F-14D said....

I said that before f-14D made the comment. I didn't know that fact.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
I'm gonna be careful to call anyone idiot, there.

Killing off a fighter that provides a massive leap in capability over the existing design it replaces, and has resulted in new engines, radar, avionics, etc. that can be used in other designs is sheer idiocy if you ask me, like many post cold war cuts. It would be the same no matter what design won.

The f-22 also has commercial giant Boeing, with strong lobbyist support from Congress, which means that if the USAF choose it, it will less likely face the axe than the other competitor if the time comes. I addressed all this in my other post to conclude that these factors could have been influencial in the final down selection.

Indeed Boeing has plenty of influence, but wouldn't McDonnell Douglas condition have been factored into a decision to cut the F-23 if had been chosen?
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
I don't think Boeing had taken MDD over yet at the time when the decision was made...
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Stargazer2006 said:
I don't think Boeing had taken MDD over yet at the time when the decision was made...

Yes, but what I meant to say was that if the F-23 was selected, perhaps the program's chances of survival would have been improved by a desire of some to keep McDonnell Douglas as an independent, functioning, company.
 

elmayerle

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jan 8, 2006
Messages
1,415
Reaction score
231
Stargazer2006 said:
I don't think Boeing had taken MDD over yet at the time when the decision was made...

True, Boeing didn't takeover of McDonnell-Douglast until 1997, just after they bought all of what used to be North American Aviation, and its subsidiaries, like Rocketdyne, from Rockwell International
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
Lampshade111 said:
Killing off a fighter that provides a massive leap in capability over the existing design it replaces, and has resulted in new engines, radar, avionics, etc. that can be used in other designs is sheer idiocy if you ask me, like many post cold war cuts. It would be the same no matter what design won.
You speaks with a very simplistic view of an issue with many complex facets. If you are a lobbyist of the ATF making your case before Congress or the DoD, this argument only serves your enemies. There are many more sensible and convincing arguments pro ATF than this ethusiastic reasoning. "A massive leap in capability" can just be interpreted as "look at how awsome this plane is." No military strategist gives a damn about how awsome a platform is, or what kind of leap in capabilities it provide. The single most important thing is whether it is needed. and that whether there is any other alternative that is more sufficient and/or relevant. These require extensive analysis.
Indeed Boeing has plenty of influence, but wouldn't McDonnell Douglas condition have been factored into a decision to cut the F-23 if had been chosen?
At the time, Lockheed looks like the guy that would go broke before McDD would.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
230
Lampshade111 said:
Indeed Boeing has plenty of influence, but wouldn't McDonnell Douglas condition have been factored into a decision to cut the F-23 if had been chosen?

In first quarter 1991 McAir had F-15, F-18, AV-8B and T-45 production lines running. While their 50% stake in the A-12 development program had just been cancelled Douglas had the C-17 being readied for first flight. So I doubt anyone would have been ringing bells in favour of the F-23 because of McAir’s “under capacity”. Certainly compared to Lockheed and Boeing the F-23 team (Northrop and McAir) had significantly more combat aircraft work and backlog in 1991.
 

Stargazer2006

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2009
Messages
13,227
Reaction score
644
At the time, Lockheed looks like the guy that would go broke before McDD would.

This reasoning works on paper... but I've always had the notion that Boeing was too big a contractor, and Lockheed and Northrop kept too many engineering and military secrets for them to just go broke and vanish in the air... The government needs to contain the possible proliferation of information that might result... and so it seems to me that they would keep the latter two manufacturers going, no matter what... even if it means buying out every other manufacturer on the market...

And indeed... Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman hold a vast majority of the business in their hands... Is this a naive outlook on things, or would some of you concur?
 

sferrin

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
13,877
Reaction score
2,150
It takes a certain amount of overhead to be able to design and build sophisticated military aircraft and that almost by definition will dictate a big company. Furthermore, if said company wants to stay in business during the lean times they need to deversify to stay in business which means they'll get bigger still. That's how we ended up where we are. As for going broke and disappearing look at what became of North American. They designed and built the X-15, XB-70, B-1, Space Shuttle, and numerous other things but they'd have closed their doors had Boeing not bought them up.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
Technological secrets will never disappear just because a company about to file bankcruptcy. First of all, if their secrets come from government funded programs, the knowledge gained through those programs does not exclusively belong to said company. Second of all, those secrets gonna transfer to another company who is gonna absorb it.

McDonnell Douglas' Phantom Work carries their stealth technology in their bird of prey to boeing's works today for example.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
You speaks with a very simplistic view of an issue with many complex facets. If you are a lobbyist of the ATF making your case before Congress or the DoD, this argument only serves your enemies. There are many more sensible and convincing arguments pro ATF than this ethusiastic reasoning. "A massive leap in capability" can just be interpreted as "look at how awsome this plane is." No military strategist gives a damn about how awsome a platform is, or what kind of leap in capabilities it provide. The single most important thing is whether it is needed. and that whether there is any other alternative that is more sufficient and/or relevant. These require extensive analysis.

I think the F-22s performance in training exercises and all of the USAF's studies speak for themselves when it comes to the capability of the ATF, and I imagine the F-23 would have demonstrated similar performance. Any military strategist certainly wants the best equipment possible, especially when an increase in survivability is factored into the decision. The most important thing is ensuring that his forces can get the job done, not whether or not his given equipment is "overkill". No officer is going to complain about having a superior air-superiority aircraft, even if F-15s could have done the job. There is plenty of analysis involved in any project like this, yet when it comes down to it, all too often it comes down to the decision of men who think they know better than the guys doing those studies. Plenty of promising upgrades and entire programs killed for political reasons, usually when it is decided that money should be used in other government projects. CF-105, TSR-2, the F-14 engine upgrade, B-1A, and so forth, the same is the case of a hypothetical F-23 cancellation or the current F-22 production halt. The fact that the Cold War never went hot doesn't justify anything in my opinion.

Certainly most of the work companies like MDD, North American/Rockwell, and so forth never disappeared. The nature of the technology involved is bound to bring down the number of companies in the business of advanced military aircraft, yet what number is too few?
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
There's nothing such as "overkill" only if it all cost the same.
 

Abraham Gubler

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
3,555
Reaction score
230
Lampshade111 said:
Plenty of promising upgrades and entire programs killed for political reasons, usually when it is decided that money should be used in other government projects. CF-105, TSR-2, the F-14 engine upgrade, B-1A, and so forth, the same is the case of a hypothetical F-23 cancellation or the current F-22 production halt. The fact that the Cold War never went hot doesn't justify anything in my opinion.

Politics as in left vs right, red vs blue, etc doesn't have anything to do with it. It’s a case of financial management, making sure your country has enough cash to pay for all the cheques you want to sign. The brutal reality is it was, or appeared to be, at the time cheaper to cancel many of these projects without production despite having to write off huge up front investments without recouping any capability. AFAIK no one has yet developed a method of successfully wishing for cash to appear.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Abraham Gubler said:
Politics as in left vs right, red vs blue, etc doesn't have anything to do with it. It’s a case of financial management, making sure your country has enough cash to pay for all the cheques you want to sign. The brutal reality is it was, or appeared to be, at the time cheaper to cancel many of these projects without production despite having to write off huge up front investments without recouping any capability. AFAIK no one has yet developed a method of successfully wishing for cash to appear.

Politics always get involved in one way or another. When it comes to past projects like the TSR-2, where all the tooling and partially built aircraft were destroyed, politics were certainly behind that. It becomes a matter of different groups wanting money for their own projects, and all too often major defense contracts provide the perfect target for gutting. It is financial irresponsibility to waste of years of development and billions of dollars when an aircraft that will be needed sooner or later is close to or in production. Especially in the case of governments that have no problem racking up huge amounts of debt or spending large sums in non-defense related areas. Oddly enough just printing more money has been effective enough for the current administration.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
368
Lampshade111 said:
Oddly enough just printing more money has been effective enough for the current administration.

And the previous administration as well. It still comes down to where you get the money. Many politicians promise everything under the sun and then underfund many of the programs to push them down the road to become someone else's problem. Hell, just ask NASA.

I actually blame the Pentagon, more than anyone else, though. How many programs have we had that didn't have cost over runs? It isn't as if they don't know what's going on at the Pentagon. Also, look at JSF, it was originally supposed to be a low cost replacement for many of the aircraft currently in use and they were to attain this, partly, be using "other" sensor systems not onboard the JSF. However, the Pentagon found if they put many of the sensors onto JSF, they could use it for all kinds of other scenarios and a node in it's net centric warfare plans. Which is all fine and great, but THAT isn't what JSF was supposed to be and they ramped the costs way up by throwing all of this stuff into JSF. Great idea, but it ramps up the costs and then they'll piss and moan because they aren't getting as many as they "need." Who knew?

What it comes down to is most politicians and apparently managers at the Pentagon have yet to realize we can't afford to rule the world and they need to adjust their plans accordingly. In fact, I would have a "core" sensor system for combat aircraft under development on a year over year basis, sort of like windows, only more reliable :D. I would then develop the airframes separately and base them on a "current" iteration of the system platform. I would be willing to bet we would be able to contain our costs much better that way and we wouldn't have to spend twenty years just to develop a knew aircraft system.

This would allow us to upgrade to new airframes more often and it would give our aero teams the know how and experience to actually build them, especially now that so much know how is retiring.

Anyway, back on track, the F-22 is a fine aircraft, but it's become something of a hanger queen. I would like to see what would happen if the Navy used an active stealth system like Dassault is using on the Rafale and place it on a Super Hornet, then see how it compares to a baseline F-22. I think we need stealth, but I still don't see where it's that maintainable. I think it's going to be very interesting to see how the F-35C fares in a sea water environment, although it's requirements aren't as stringent as those of the F-22's. Although, it's one area where I "thought" the F-22 was better than the YF-23. With it's "low to the ground" stance, I always thought that would make it easier to maintain than the YF-23. The F-22 is a great airplane, but I will always consider the YF-23 the better performer of the two. At least until I see actual performance data that proves otherwise.
 

flateric

ACCESS: Above Top Secret
Staff member
Top Contributor
Senior Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2006
Messages
9,151
Reaction score
1,289
I wonder if every YF-23 thread, ever started, anywhere, always comes to this? ;)
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
Lampshade111 said:
It is financial irresponsibility to waste of years of development and billions of dollars when an aircraft that will be needed sooner or later is close to or in production.
It's also financial irresponsibility to ram money into a cost overrun disaster of a program with promise in capabilities that are only justified by hollywood's imagination when that money is needed elsewhere for a very relevant reality that is happening right now.

Especially in the case of governments that have no problem racking up huge amounts of debt or spending large sums in non-defense related areas.
Because they are NON-defense related areas. Citing non-defense spending to justify for defense waste is completely illogical. Unless we are living under Stalin, I don't want to see a economy driven by weapons deals. Secondly, you can argue that the current administration is wrong in its spending, but one thing is certain, they didn't intentionally mean to waste money. They actually believed that their spending would help the economy, whether it actually works out or not is a different matter. If I slipped and fell down the stair, you can't fault me for having started to walk toward the stair. I don't know that I would be falling. The money that is spent to help the economy failed because its planning failed, it has nothing to do with defense spending.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Sundog said:
And the previous administration as well. It still comes down to where you get the money. Many politicians promise everything under the sun and then underfund many of the programs to push them down the road to become someone else's problem. Hell, just ask NASA.

Indeed, you sums it all up quite nicely, but it is a shame to see so many projects scrapped or used to so little of their potential year after year.

Sundog said:
I actually blame the Pentagon, more than anyone else, though. How many programs have we had that didn't have cost over runs? It isn't as if they don't know what's going on at the Pentagon. Also, look at JSF, it was originally supposed to be a low cost replacement for many of the aircraft currently in use and they were to attain this, partly, be using "other" sensor systems not onboard the JSF. However, the Pentagon found if they put many of the sensors onto JSF, they could use it for all kinds of other scenarios and a node in it's net centric warfare plans. Which is all fine and great, but THAT isn't what JSF was supposed to be and they ramped the costs way up by throwing all of this stuff into JSF. Great idea, but it ramps up the costs and then they'll piss and moan because they aren't getting as many as they "need." Who knew?

Indeed plenty of problems can be traced to the Pentagon's decisions and not just those of those in congress. The contractors certainly make mistakes too, and any weapon system is going to have some problems during it's development. Yet for all of the noise and hot air about procurement reform, all of the focus seems to be on the contractors and manufacturers, and not on the government end where changing requirements and so forth are major issues. And the level of misinformation and rumors in the media has not changed from the 1980s.

In my eyes JSF has become an example of trying to use one airframe for too much, yet the compromises wouldn't have been such a concern if the USAF and USN were able to get other new 5th gen. aircraft. New aircraft are bound to cost more than their predecessors by their nature, but we can't let that hold us back.

Sundog said:
What it comes down to is most politicians and apparently managers at the Pentagon have yet to realize we can't afford to rule the world and they need to adjust their plans accordingly. In fact, I would have a "core" sensor system for combat aircraft under development on a year over year basis, sort of like windows, only more reliable :D. I would then develop the airframes separately and base them on a "current" iteration of the system platform. I would be willing to bet we would be able to contain our costs much better that way and we wouldn't have to spend twenty years just to develop a knew aircraft system. This would allow us to upgrade to new airframes more often and it would give our aero teams the know how and experience to actually build them, especially now that so much know how is retiring.

We can't afford to rule the world but we can certainly afford to modernize our military across the board. There are certainly measures we can take to cut costs in the future, without reducing performance. Common sensor and computer systems that could incorporate updates easier would help. Overall we need to work at getting more out of the money we spend in the DoD. Yet that doesn't mean we should be spending any less, and it doesn't mean we can afford to cancel programs that are ready now, just because they have had troublesome developments. It is a terrible waste even if past problems may have justified cancellation of that program in the past.

Sundog said:
Anyway, back on track, the F-22 is a fine aircraft, but it's become something of a hanger queen. I would like to see what would happen if the Navy used an active stealth system like Dassault is using on the Rafale and place it on a Super Hornet, then see how it compares to a baseline F-22. I think we need stealth, but I still don't see where it's that maintainable. I think it's going to be very interesting to see how the F-35C fares in a sea water environment, although it's requirements aren't as stringent as those of the F-22's. Although, it's one area where I "thought" the F-22 was better than the YF-23. With it's "low to the ground" stance, I always thought that would make it easier to maintain than the YF-23. The F-22 is a great airplane, but I will always consider the YF-23 the better performer of the two. At least until I see actual performance data that proves otherwise.

The F-22 does have reliability issues and a collection of problems that will be worked out eventually. Yet they are not as bad as the usual yellow journalism would lead you to believe. Many seem to forget that at one stage dozens of F-15s were sitting without engines, the F-14A was plagued with engine trouble throughout it's whole life, and the FA-18A/B was hardly a success. They act as if the F-22 is the only aircraft with a rough service entry and development ever, and when the F-35 enters service, we will see the same complaints.

Sadly at the current rate I doubt that we will see a reversal of this trend of procurement mistakes.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
It's also financial irresponsibility to ram money into a cost overrun disaster of a program with promise in capabilities that are only justified by hollywood's imagination when that money is needed elsewhere for a very relevant reality that is happening right now.

Yet the program isn't a disaster and has finally delivered results with major improvements in real capabilities. That money for that program is not needed elsewhere, it was just wanted elsewhere by those who killed it. There is still a need for such aircraft and will be for the foreseeable future.

Because they are NON-defense related areas. Citing non-defense spending to justify for defense waste is completely illogical. Unless we are living under Stalin, I don't want to see a economy driven by weapons deals. Secondly, you can argue that the current administration is wrong in its spending, but one thing is certain, they didn't intentionally mean to waste money. They actually believed that their spending would help the economy, whether it actually works out or not is a different matter. If I slipped and fell down the stair, you can't fault me for having started to walk toward the stair. I don't know that I would be falling. The money that is spent to help the economy failed because its planning failed, it has nothing to do with defense spending.

Illogical? It is perfectly logical. Like it or not money that is cut from defense programs is all too often used in other areas. The real waste is missing an opportunity like this to modernize a significant portion of the USAFs, it is far more important that some nonsense like cash for clunkers. When you continue what a relatively small sum it would take to maintain low-rate production, there is no excuse. There was no attempt to simply waste money, but there were certainly plenty of foolish projects funded based on sheer incompetence, personal connections, or ideological views. And when a program delivering results is canceled partly due to such spending, it becomes an even worse offense. If you fell down the stairs I can't fault you for that, yet I can fault you if you cut new security cameras and fire alarms in order to address the stair issue.
 

NilsD

ACCESS: Restricted
Joined
Feb 25, 2009
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
GAU-8 Avenger said:
The real waste is missing an opportunity like this to modernize a significant portion of the USAFs, it is far more important that some nonsense like cash for clunkers.
No it isn't if you want to reduce pollution and the rate at which fossil fuel reserves are being used up. Just because you do not understand the implications of removing a large portion of old, unsafe, uneconomic and unefficient vehicles from the market doesn't mean it's a waste of money.

If you want to talk nonsense pork projects, look no further than the LCS and Zumwalt.
 

Sundog

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Aug 2, 2006
Messages
2,877
Reaction score
368
flateric said:
I wonder if every YF-23 thread, ever started, anywhere, always comes to this? ;)

Oh, rarely have more true words been spoken. ;D
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
NilsD said:
GAU-8 Avenger said:
The real waste is missing an opportunity like this to modernize a significant portion of the USAFs, it is far more important that some nonsense like cash for clunkers.
No it isn't if you want to reduce pollution and the rate at which fossil fuel reserves are being used up. Just because you do not understand the implications of removing a large portion of old, unsafe, uneconomic and unefficient vehicles from the market doesn't mean it's a waste of money.

If you want to talk nonsense pork projects, look no further than the LCS and Zumwalt.

Oh I understand the concept of reducing oil usage. But handing out our tax dollars so other people can buy cars in a poorly disguised UAW bailout is not a solution. If we had the money for something of as questionable value as cash for clunkers, we certainly have enough to maintain development and low rate production of aircraft the USAF needs. There are far better ways the government can reduce oil usage.

LCS or a similar ship is needed to replace the remaining FFG-7 class ships and serve a number of roles. It was just horribly mismanaged. Zumwalt was bound to be expensive, but is a significant development in warship design. Sooner or later we will need a new generation of warships, and even if DDG-1000 isn't that, it can provide a useful basis for our next design. Consider the whole Los Angeles - Seawolf - Virginia class progression.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
Why's the name change? I like "Lampshade" better.

GAU-8 Avenger said:
Yet the program isn't a disaster and has finally delivered results with major improvements in real capabilities.
wrong stuff, buddy! We are talking about Govt cutting the supposedly hypothetical f-23. If you talking about the f-22, I agreed. That's why we have 183 of them.
That money for that program is not needed elsewhere, it was just wanted elsewhere by those who killed it. There is still a need for such aircraft and will be for the foreseeable future.
Yeah, it's wanted elsewhere by those who killed it because they saw a greater need for those money elsewhere. Hollywood war of the future vs real war today= real war today wins.

If you fell down the stairs I can't fault you for that, yet I can fault you if you cut new security cameras and fire alarms in order to address the stair issue.
Comepletely missed the metaphor, mate, but it's probably my fault for coming up with a bad one. And we aren't cutting security cameras or alarms for that. We cut the f-22 to address the shortfall in the military RIGHT NOW (I already quoted you 2 sources for this, don't know if you read it. By the look of it, you probably didn't since you are too busy trying to prove you right).
New aircraft are bound to cost more than their predecessors by their nature, but we can't let that hold us back.
Do you need me to play the Star Spangled Banner in the background while you say that. This pretty much sums up yoru method of arguing. You agree with the fact in the first clause of your statement, then you make a completely contradicting clause following after that with the "but that doesn't mean" conjunction while providing nothing to back that up. By the way, just because the earth is round doesn' t mean that we won't fall off at the edge of the earth.
 

Evil Flower

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
4
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Oh I understand the concept of reducing oil usage. But handing out our tax dollars so other people can buy cars in a poorly disguised UAW bailout is not a solution. If we had the money for something of as questionable value as cash for clunkers, we certainly have enough to maintain development and low rate production of aircraft the USAF needs. There are far better ways the government can reduce oil usage.
Yes, but not many ways that can immediately be put to use helping your stumbling auto industry. I'm sorry but it's more important to make sure hundreds of thousands of auto workers do not go unemployed just yet than it is to buy fighter jets. I'm not sure if you have anything resembling the dole like we have but unemployed people cost society tons of money.

LCS or a similar ship is needed to replace the remaining FFG-7 class ships and serve a number of roles. It was just horribly mismanaged. Zumwalt was bound to be expensive, but is a significant development in warship design. Sooner or later we will need a new generation of warships, and even if DDG-1000 isn't that, it can provide a useful basis for our next design. Consider the whole Los Angeles - Seawolf - Virginia class progression.
All that I've heard from industry insiders points to the DDG-1000 as an awful design done by people who have simply thrown out all established shipbuilding rules.

As for the LCS, it's designed to a similar specification to our Visby stealth corvette and not the OHP FFG's. Those are blue water ASW vessels and not littoral ships IIRC.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
wrong stuff, buddy! We are talking about Govt cutting the supposedly hypothetical f-23. If you talking about the f-22, I agreed. That's why we have 183 of them.

Well this has already gone off the F-23A line of discussion.

Yeah, it's wanted elsewhere by those who killed it because they saw a greater need for those money elsewhere. Hollywood war of the future vs real war today= real war today wins.

Hollywood war? We don't know what the next two decades could bring and like it or not we can't keep those F-15s flying forever. When it comes to the F-15, the F-35 is not the suitable replacement. There is no excuse when you consider the relatively low cost it would take to maintain production year-to-year, especially when our government is tossing around billions in a manner not seen throughout our history. Gates has done some smart things, but his "my-way-or-the-highway" approach is disturbing at best.

Comepletely missed the metaphor, mate, but it's probably my fault for coming up with a bad one. And we aren't cutting security cameras or alarms for that. We cut the f-22 to address the shortfall in the military RIGHT NOW (I already quoted you 2 sources for this, don't know if you read it. By the look of it, you probably didn't since you are too busy trying to prove you right).

That is what is always said when any major program is cut, yet the results are usually lacking. Years after the RAH-66 cancellation the Army still has yet to get a new reconnaissance helicopter, and a good portion of their helicopter fleet has their own share of problems. After the XM2001, well the Paladin is still in use and it's second attempt at a replacement under the GCV program (hopefully) has yet to be revealed. Cutting the F-22 and using some of that money in an attempt to accelerate the F-35 program only creates ANOTHER shortfall in the USAF structure. We can certainly spare 2 billion at maximum to sustain production another per year.

Do you need me to play the Star Spangled Banner in the background while you say that. This pretty much sums up yoru method of arguing. You agree with the fact in the first clause of your statement, then you make a completely contradicting clause following after that with the "but that doesn't mean" conjunction while providing nothing to back that up. By the way, just because the earth is round doesn' t mean that we won't fall off at the edge of the earth.

Go ahead if you. Yes I agree with some of your points. Aircraft are expensive and there are plenty of other needs in the military at the moment. Yet none of them justify the halting of F-22 production for the sake of less than $2 billion a year, well below required levels, and resulting in a very high cost if production was to be restarted again at a later date. Immediate needs in other branches like MRAPs and so forth were supposed to be addressed through war supplements, and not stripping other services of what they need.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Evil Flower said:
Yes, but not many ways that can immediately be put to use helping your stumbling auto industry. I'm sorry but it's more important to make sure hundreds of thousands of auto workers do not go unemployed just yet than it is to buy fighter jets. I'm not sure if you have anything resembling the dole like we have but unemployed people cost society tons of money.

Considering that a good portion of that money went to foreign owned companies and the short-term increase in sales is over, it wasn't worth it, and for the companies that haven't sorted themselves out, they are still facing failure. We can't bail them out forever and I certainly think getting the USAF what they need is more important than a poorly thought out "stimulus" project.

All that I've heard from industry insiders points to the DDG-1000 as an awful design done by people who have simply thrown out all established shipbuilding rules.

As for the LCS, it's designed to a similar specification to our Visby stealth corvette and not the OHP FFG's. Those are blue water ASW vessels and not littoral ships IIRC.

Well despite it's early failings, DDG-1000 seems on track currently, which I must admit is rather surprising. As far as shipbuilding rules go, are you talking about the hull design or the actual manufacture? One of the requirements of LCS is that it had to have a long range, meaning the selected design would probably be closer in size to such a corvettes than the littoral ships of many European nations. I won't deny that LCS was horribly mismanaged, but it or a ship similar to it was needed.
 

F-14D

I really did change my personal text
Senior Member
Joined
Oct 4, 2007
Messages
1,784
Reaction score
170
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Well despite it's early failings, DDG-1000 seems on track currently, which I must admit is rather surprising. As far as shipbuilding rules go, are you talking about the hull design or the actual manufacture? One of the requirements of LCS is that it had to have a long range, meaning the selected design would probably be closer in size to such a corvettes than the littoral ships of many European nations. I won't deny that LCS was horribly mismanaged, but it or a ship similar to it was needed.


Getting a bit away from topic here, but there were supposed to be 32 DDG-100s, and now the program is being terminated at three, which generally means you can only cont on one being available on a given day. I wouldn't reaaly count that as being on track, but admittedly all these things are constantly in a state of flux.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Well this has already gone off the F-23A line of discussion.
Yeah, you brought it here just now. I've never ever said anything relating to the issue of stopping the production of the f-22 until the very previous post to respond to what you said. You can quote me to prove otherwise. Anyway, it's all fine if you want to go there, since this thread is no longer yf-23.
Hollywood war? We don't know what the next two decades could bring and like it or not we can't keep those F-15s flying forever. When it comes to the F-15, the F-35 is not the suitable replacement.
yeah, just like we don't know if martian chimps gonna attack us in giant banana spaceships. Our military budget dwarfs the crap out of everyone several times over, with an uncontested military industrial strength, and yet we have to cut the f-22, combining all requirements into one single airframe called JSF to be able to afford it for our military, so thinking that china or russia is gonna build aircraft able to go head to head with anything but the f-22 is delusional. Gates put it best, it's time to stop imagining going against adversary with UNLIMITED resourses of money and time. The only realistic mission for the f-22 is being the "silver bullet," penetrating the most highly defended airspace, in which we have 183 of them already.

As for the keeping the f-15, why the hell anybody wants that? The f-35 can murder the f-15 any given day, which means that f-35 is much more effective at air superiority than f-15. Using 4th generation aircraft basic understanding to label 5th generation is irrelevant if you actually spent time doing some honest analysis. It's time to stop comparing whose knife is bigger in the age of guns.

There is no excuse when you consider the relatively low cost it would take to maintain production year-to-year, especially when our government is tossing around billions in a manner not seen throughout our history.
Yeah, because we are in the middle of a recession, that's why money is being used the way they are. Now, which way you should use that money to stimulate the economy is a different and debatable topic, but asking why are we spending so much money during this time kinda make people questioning your mental state a bit.

Gates has done some smart things, but his "my-way-or-the-highway" approach is disturbing at best.
Care to elaborate what you mean by that term?

Cutting the F-22 and using some of that money in an attempt to accelerate the F-35 program only creates ANOTHER shortfall in the USAF structure. We can certainly spare 2 billion at maximum to sustain production another per year.
This statement proves that you didn't read my citations. Here's the hint: cutting the f-22 wasn't because that money is needed to accelerate f-35 program.

Go ahead if you. Yes I agree with some of your points. Aircraft are expensive and there are plenty of other needs in the military at the moment. Yet none of them justify the halting of F-22 production for the sake of less than $2 billion a year, well below required levels, and resulting in a very high cost if production was to be restarted again at a later date. Immediate needs in other branches like MRAPs and so forth were supposed to be addressed through war supplements, and not stripping other services of what they need.
The f-22 has been stripping money from the other services that needed it for the need TODAY for a long time. It's time to do the sensible thing. The f-22 is one among many that has been cut, yet the overall military budget increases by 4%. First of all, that shows HOW MUCH our soldiers are needing. And they have been needing it for a long time now, thanks to Gates, it has finally been answered. Second of all, that shows that's there no space left for we to take the liberty of spending several billions a year.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
Yeah, you brought it here just now. I've never ever said anything relating to the issue of stopping the production of the f-22 until the very previous post to respond to what you said. You can quote me to prove otherwise. Anyway, it's all fine if you want to go there, since this thread is no longer yf-23.

Considering the name of the topic and your continued responses I already presumed it was fine with you.

yeah, just like we don't know if martian chimps gonna attack us in giant banana spaceships. Our military budget dwarfs the crap out of everyone several times over, with an uncontested military industrial strength, and yet we have to cut the f-22, combining all requirements into one single airframe called JSF to be able to afford it for our military, so thinking that china or russia is gonna build aircraft able to go head to head with anything but the f-22 is delusional. Gates put it best, it's time to stop imagining going against adversary with UNLIMITED resourses of money and time. The only realistic mission for the f-22 is being the "silver bullet," penetrating the most highly defended airspace, in which we have 183 of them already.

How much do you think the Chinese pay their average scientist or engineer, their average soldier, their average worker on the factory line? The truth is such numbers are deceiving, especially when you consider they certainly have "black projects" of their own. We did not HAVE to cut the F-22, and JSF was not some sort of F-22 fallback, and nobody believes in a one-airframe solution for the entire USAF and USN. Again it is the high-low ratio, which still involves having a good number of the "high" end aircraft, in this case the F-22. The USAF said 380ish was their minimum requirement, and I would trust their studies and analysis more than those who killed the program, despite the badmouthing the USAF always gets. Part of Gate's duty is to prepare for the next war, and not hurt overall capabilities by focusing to narrowly in one area. You could argue all day about the likelihood of such a conflict, but that doesn't change the fact that we could theoretically fight China or any nation. The Russians are no slouches when it comes of aviation and the PAK-FA is likely to emerge itself eventually. And with the possible exception of our intelligence agencies, none of us really know how far the Chinese or Russians are. The realistic mission for the F-22A is and always has been air superiority, what it was designed to do. Yet it could still haul some JDAMs once air-superiority is achieved.

As for the keeping the f-15, why the hell anybody wants that? The f-35 can murder the f-15 any given day, which means that f-35 is much more effective at air superiority than f-15. Using 4th generation aircraft basic understanding to label 5th generation is irrelevant if you actually spent time doing some honest analysis. It's time to stop comparing whose knife is bigger in the age of guns.

And why the hell should you be trying to replace that F-15 with a F-35 to begin with? You should replace it with the aircraft designed for and more capable in that role. Especially when it is already in production. I simply don't believe raw-performance no longer matters, and considering the F-22 has a more powerful radar in air-to-air mode, and is stealthier, the lower price tag just not justify the lessened capability in that role of air superiority.

Yeah, because we are in the middle of a recession, that's why money is being used the way they are. Now, which way you should use that money to stimulate the economy is a different and debatable topic, but asking why are we spending so much money during this time kinda make people questioning your mental state a bit.

Oh yes, because spending widely while focusing less on national defense is a great combination. I am clearly insane for questioning our spending habits when we are already trillions in debt. How dare I question the wisdom of the government saving less than $2 billion to halt a project with far more than dozens of items in the stimulus. Seriously, don't bother me with this "if you don't agree your crazy" line of thought. Or else your going to end up like poor Mike Sparks.

Care to elaborate what you mean by that term?

His choice of who to fire based on that cruise missile mishandling incident oddly ended up being commanders insisting on the F-22 requirement. He rapidly dismisses any concern of the USAF regarding their future capabilities or the "fighter gap." He seems fixated on the F-35 as the solution to all our airpower needs, much as a recently deceased Secretary of Defense was once fixated on the F-111. He seems to be insisting the Army find a way to jam in MRAPs into their Ground Combat Vehicles program, and other specific decisions. He may be better than Rumsfield in a load of different ways, yet he also seems unwilling to compromise and seriously look at the reasoning behind those who don't support his decisions.

This statement proves that you didn't read my citations. Here's the hint: cutting the f-22 wasn't because that money is needed to accelerate f-35 program.

I haven't seen citations in any of your posts in this topic. Although I am not familiar with all of this forum's features, so perhaps I am overlooking them. Anyway, Gates himself make a big deal about accelerating the F-35 program seemingly in an attempt to justify his choice regarding the F-22.
The f-22 has been stripping money from the other services that needed it for the need TODAY for a long time. It's time to do the sensible thing. The f-22 is one among many that has been cut, yet the overall military budget increases by 4%. First of all, that shows HOW MUCH our soldiers are needing. And they have been needing it for a long time now, thanks to Gates, it has finally been answered. Second of all, that shows that's there no space left for we to take the liberty of spending several billions a year.

The F-22 was stripping money from the other services no more than an Abrams modernization would have been "stripping" funding, or a Virginia class submarine. All of the services have their needs and the F-22 was a need of the USAF. The USAF had a long fight to keep the program during the post-Cold War budget cut years. They make sacrifices as did all of the services due to such funding cuts. If anything stripped funding from other programs, it certainly wasn't the Raptor and other programs that did survive the 1990s.

You could have argued the F-22 should have been canceled years ago due to that lack of funding. Yet now that it is here in production, that doesn't cut it. It is complete illogical, short-sighted, and unjustified, especially when you consider the relatively small cost it would take to maintain production. The F-22 being cut shows nothing other than the "art" of politics at work. And considering how war supplements are now being factored into the base budget, I would question any figures when it comes to "overall funding." Regardless there was certainly space for F-22 production in our military budget, and even if there wasn't there is certainly room for it in our nation's budget. Naturally those who supported halting production claimed otherwise, as is the case for any program that is canceled.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
F-14D said:
Getting a bit away from topic here, but there were supposed to be 32 DDG-1000s, and now the program is being terminated at three, which generally means you can only cont on one being available on a given day. I wouldn't reaaly count that as being on track, but admittedly all these things are constantly in a state of flux.

Well of course the program is overall a disaster in THAT regard. Yet oddly enough all of the various subsystems seem to be on track for the ships. John Young (huge DDG-1000 supporter) wrote an interesting piece in defense of the program awhile back. Who knows how accurate the numbers were, but according to him the numbers being cut wasn't justified by any problems being encountered.

It doesn't really relate to the discussion but John Young has been accused of having a "personal grudge" against the F-22 program for some reason. I don't buy it but I know a guy who thinks Gates inherited a dislike of the program from him.
 

Evil Flower

ACCESS: Secret
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
223
Reaction score
4
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Considering that a good portion of that money went to foreign owned companies and the short-term increase in sales is over, it wasn't worth it, and for the companies that haven't sorted themselves out, they are still facing failure. We can't bail them out forever and I certainly think getting the USAF what they need is more important than a poorly thought out "stimulus" project.
The USAF doesn't generate any revenue, it just eats tax dollars - Tax dollars which have to come from somewhere, like the auto industry and it's workers. The fact that governments have bailed these incompetent private sectors out this time is the sole reason we didn't have to go through 1929 all over again. Can you imagine what would happen if all of Wall Street would've done a Lehman Brothers and sunk and burned? It's bad enough that lots of people have lost their homes over this, but it could've been much worse.

Hopefully with stimulus money, your auto makers can regroup and start producing contemporarily suited cars that aren't APC's on wheels.

Well despite it's early failings, DDG-1000 seems on track currently, which I must admit is rather surprising. As far as shipbuilding rules go, are you talking about the hull design or the actual manufacture? One of the requirements of LCS is that it had to have a long range, meaning the selected design would probably be closer in size to such a corvettes than the littoral ships of many European nations. I won't deny that LCS was horribly mismanaged, but it or a ship similar to it was needed.
The latest I heard about DDG-1000 was that they had major problems with the composite antenna because it would jam itself with interference. Of course for the hull, you just have to look at it to see it's a bad idea.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Considering the name of the topic and your continued responses....
Which all came after your particular post. However, yeah, I have no problem with it. It's a thread with no particular topic in its name in the Bar section now, so I'm up to it. You're fine!

How much do you think the Chinese pay their average scientist or engineer, their average soldier, their average worker on the factory line? The truth is such numbers are deceiving, especially when you consider they certainly have "black projects" of their own.
The number is deceiving, but that doesn't change the fact that our military budget dwarfs them by very significant margin. Believing that it does is only the intentional delusion for the sake of arguing.

We did not HAVE to cut the F-22, and JSF was not some sort of F-22 fallback, and nobody believes in a one-airframe solution for the entire USAF and USN.
Yeb, because you said so. Isn't it enough with the baseless statements already?

Again it is the high-low ratio, which still involves having a good number of the "high" end aircraft, in this case the F-22. The USAF said 380ish was their minimum requirement, and I would trust their studies and analysis more than those who killed the program, despite the badmouthing the USAF always gets. Part of Gate's duty is to prepare for the next war, and not hurt overall capabilities by focusing to narrowly in one area.
Who decides what exactly is low and what exactly is high? If the ATF was to be some sorta mach 3 ultra stealth fighter, and the JSF was to be the f-22, then would you also use this same argument to push for more mach 3 ultra stealth fighter because the f-22 wouldn't be able to ensure our air superiority? Just using the fact that the JSF falls into the "low" catergory is a shallow and false argument, as the word "low" or "high" is a variable. As for the studies, the studies which already based on the ground of self declared truth that nothing but the raptor can ensure our air superiority, in which case, results in the predictable conclusion that there isn't enough raptors to be placed in our foreign bases.
You could argue all day about the likelihood of such a conflict, but that doesn't change the fact that we could theoretically fight China or any nation. The Russians are no slouches when it comes of aviation and the PAK-FA is likely to emerge itself eventually. And with the possible exception of our intelligence agencies, none of us really know how far the Chinese or Russians are. The realistic mission for the F-22A is and always has been air superiority, what it was designed to do. Yet it could still haul some JDAMs once air-superiority is achieved.
Since we don't know if aliens exist or not, and if they do, we have no proof that they will not be chimps, so space chimps attacking from Mars is also theoretically possible. You're more than welcome to do all the theoretical speculation, while let the guys in charge doing the REALISTIC thinking.

And why the hell should you be trying to replace that F-15 with a F-35 to begin with? You should replace it with the aircraft designed for and more capable in that role. Especially when it is already in production.
Who told you that the f-35 isn't designed for air superiority? It's designed as a multirole fighter, with both air to air and air to ground capabilities. Even though it isn't as capable as the f-22 in certain area, that is no reason to say that it isn't good enough to fulfill that role. If I have a platform that is good enough to fullfill that role, cost less and is affordable and adaptable for all branches, I'll go with that, thank you!
I simply don't believe raw-performance no longer matters, and considering the F-22 has a more powerful radar in air-to-air mode, and is stealthier, the lower price tag just not justify the lessened capability in that role of air superiority.
The argument is never that raw performance is no longer relevant. If that's the case, the JSF would have been stealth version of the Cessna 172 Skyhawk. The argument is that the raw performance of the f-35 combined with its stealth and sensors, provide a unbeatable package.

Oh yes, because spending widely while focusing less on national defense is a great combination.
Because we are in a ECONOMIC recession, not a MILITARY recession? That's why military budget gotta be tightened to be spent on reviving the economy?

I haven't seen citations in any of your posts in this topic. Although I am not familiar with all of this forum's features, so perhaps I am overlooking them. Anyway, Gates himself make a big deal about accelerating the F-35 program seemingly in an attempt to justify his choice regarding the F-22.
Not this one, the other one. Here's what the article comes down to: "Cartwright said the latter jet's Growler model, designed for electronic warfare tasks, became a key part of the decision to halt the F-22 program. That's because the military's war fighting commanders, in conversations with Cartwright, all expressed a desire for more aerial EW capability. And right now, that means more Growlers."

The F-22 was stripping money from the other services no more than an Abrams modernization would have been "stripping" funding, or a Virginia class submarine. All of the services have their needs and the F-22 was a need of the USAF. The USAF had a long fight to keep the program during the post-Cold War budget cut years. They make sacrifices as did all of the services due to such funding cuts. If anything stripped funding from other programs, it certainly wasn't the Raptor and other programs that did survive the 1990s.
Yeah, but you forgot the fact that we didn't have to burden with 2 wars, nor does the fact that the virginia class, in comparison to the seawolf, is the equivalent of the f-35 to the f-22.
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
donnage99 said:
The number is deceiving, but that doesn't change the fact that our military budget dwarfs them by very significant margin. Believing that it does is only the intentional delusion for the sake of arguing.

Yes it dwarfs their budget on paper and rightfully so, yet when you factor in the averages wages paid, the total amount of effort going towards R&D, not to mention production may be closer than it appears. And the Chinese certainly have a good grasp at reverse-engineering Russian and other technology. Don't underestimate them, or the Russians.

Yeb, because you said so. Isn't it enough with the baseless statements already?

Just like it had to be cut because you said so? ::)

Who decides what exactly is low and what exactly is high? If the ATF was to be some sorta mach 3 ultra stealth fighter, and the JSF was to be the f-22, then would you also use this same argument to push for more mach 3 ultra stealth fighter because the f-22 wouldn't be able to ensure our air superiority? Just using the fact that the JSF falls into the "low" catergory is a shallow and false argument, as the word "low" or "high" is a variable. As for the studies, the studies which already based on the ground of self declared truth that nothing but the raptor can ensure our air superiority, in which case, results in the predictable conclusion that there isn't enough raptors to be placed in our foreign bases.

Yet we don't have some sort of stealthier mach 3 aircraft, and the JSF is not the F-22. The F-35 is not as suitable as an air-superiority aircraft when compared to the F-22. It doesn't have the same performance, stealth, supercruise capability, internal air-to-air missile carriage, or radar capability. Hell, when compared to upgraded F-15s, it's only real advantage is stealth and it's IR/EO sensors. In USAF service the F-35A should be viewed as a F-16 replacement, and not a replacement for F-15s (or A-10s in my opinion). Nothing but the Raptor should be trusted with our air superiority in the coming decades, unless a better aircraft is introduced.

Since we don't know if aliens exist or not, and if they do, we have no proof that they will not be chimps, so space chimps attacking from Mars is also theoretically possible. You're more than welcome to do all the theoretical speculation, while let the guys in charge doing the REALISTIC thinking.

The PRC is a real country, with their own ambitions and interests that conflict with the United States at times. Ever hear of Taiwan for example? The chances of war with them happening are far greater than your space monkeys. And not the politicians, but the generals and admirals, have prepared for that possibility for years now. It would be very difficult to restart Raptor production at a later rate, and a decade from now, who knows what and in what numbers the Chinese will have flying. Or what AA systems they will have on the ground.

Who told you that the f-35 isn't designed for air superiority? It's designed as a multirole fighter, with both air to air and air to ground capabilities. Even though it isn't as capable as the f-22 in certain area, that is no reason to say that it isn't good enough to fulfill that role. If I have a platform that is good enough to fullfill that role, cost less and is affordable and adaptable for all branches, I'll go with that, thank you!

As a multi-role aircraft it is not optimized for the air-superiority mission. Especially considering it is a single-engined design with lower costs in mind. The F-16 was used and built with air-to-air combat in mind too, and later models had the same ability to fire AIM-120s as the F-15. Yet due to it's range and avionics, it isn't nearly as capable at exchanging missiles at range. It would have been superior in close in dogfight, unlike the F-35 which will could certainly be outmaneuvered by the F-22.
The argument is never that raw performance is no longer relevant. If that's the case, the JSF would have been stealth version of the Cessna 172 Skyhawk. The argument is that the raw performance of the f-35 combined with its stealth and sensors, provide a unbeatable package.

Yet the idea that performance is much less important is always mentioned by the anti-Raptor crowd when the F-35s rather "average" performance is mentioned. Even if this was the case, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-35 anyway. Unbeatable? What if the enemy in a modernized Flanker or Fulcrum with advanced IR guided missiles and helmet mounted sight gets within the range to use these? What if a number of cheap Migs get close after F-35 expends all four of their internal AIM-120s? Or what if the PAK-FA is actually comparable to the F-22?


Because we are in a ECONOMIC recession, not a MILITARY recession? That's why military budget gotta be tightened to be spent on reviving the economy?

And you know that a global economic recession could cause political instability and conflict right? Tossing around billions as if they are singles at a strip club is hardly the right way to go about reviving anything. We simply can't compromise defense at a time like this, even with the economic problems. All present concerns would have been an excuse to lower the rate of production, yet not halting the program completely.

Not this one, the other one. Here's what the article comes down to: "Cartwright said the latter jet's Growler model, designed for electronic warfare tasks, became a key part of the decision to halt the F-22 program. That's because the military's war fighting commanders, in conversations with Cartwright, all expressed a desire for more aerial EW capability. And right now, that means more Growlers."

Yet Cartwright's opinion on the EA-18G didn't change the USAF's requirement for more F-22's or justify the decision to halt the program. The USAF probably wants their own organic jamming capability rather than having to rely on Navy assets.

Yeah, but you forgot the fact that we didn't have to burden with 2 wars, nor does the fact that the virginia class, in comparison to the seawolf, is the equivalent of the f-35 to the f-22.

The war on terror should have only resulted in a reduced production rate if anything, not a total halt of the program. Also Virginia class in comparison to Seawolf is not sacrificing much of anything besides for fewer torpedo tubes.
 

Dreamfighter

Senior Something
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
175
Reaction score
11
Being a European, it's not up to me to give much advise about how the US government or its citizens should spend their money...but I'd like to express my "50 cents" about the issue ;D
I think our military most powerful alley should not end F-22-production; a number of at least 250 - 300 Raptors would be extremely usefull, as I too think one most be prepared for a possible major conflict with a technologically potent opponent (air force), and I don't expect the F-35 (which might be bought here as well in the next decade as a F-16 replacement) to be a true air-superiority fighter. Such a conflict might not happen (soon), but we can't ask Nostradamus. Russians or Chinese aren't the enemy anymore, but remember what happened a while ago in Georgia? Such a conflict could allways escalate and get other countries and NATO (and thus the US) dragged in...

Sure, the F-35 will be capable in A2A too, certainly against 4th generation fighters. But despite all its new tricks, IMHO it is not powerfull enough (f.e. T/W ratio, hopefully the F136 engine which should have more thrust potential doesn't get axed as well) and possibly manouvrable enough to take on close-in Su-35 Super Flankers, Pak-Fa's (most likely to be in the F-22-league) or any other new not-Western 5th generation-fighters that might show up. It is a F-16 replacement, and the F-16 never was the US's air-superiority too, right? It would be like in 1980 the F-15 would have been cancelled because the word would have been that the cheaper F-16 could do the mission just as well. I too don't believe the close-in dogfight is completely gone, or that aircraft manoeuvering is becoming irrelevant thanks to HMCS/DAS/AIM-9X and such... In theory perhaps, but in practice...hmmm. And ok, the F-35 will we procured in the thousands... (according to what is planned ::) ), but it will have to be available for all the other roles as well... and as I understood there have to be 2 F-35's for the mission of 1 F-15 or F-22?!

Question:
Would re-opening the F-22 production line in let's say 5 to 10 years from now be feasable, perhaps with an upgraded Raptor, when the need would arise (f.e. in case Pak-Fa turns out to be a serious threat) ? Or would that be too costly?
 

Lampshade111

ACCESS: Confidential
Joined
Oct 5, 2008
Messages
151
Reaction score
4
Dreamfighter since the end of the Cold War most nations have seriously cut down on the size of their air forces, including the USAF. I just don't think the US should continue to follow this trend, and cut numbers any further as we replace current designs with 5th gen aircraft.

Resuming F-22 production would be possible as long as the major tooling for the airframe isn't destroyed. And some of the similar technology being used in the F-35 would help the process. However it would be quite costly and take quite a bit of time (probably a few years) to restart. It is not cost effective compared to continuing production. Yet since it is almost a certainty that the production line will be shut down in the near future, I hope we someday restart production of an upgraded variant.

Honestly Donnage, I don't think we are going to come to an agreement here. I'm not going to convince you, and your not going to convince me that we can't afford the investment for continued low rate production. This has really gotten more frustrating than an interesting debate for myself, so I am done here.
 

donnage99

"Robert Gates, is that you??" sublight
Joined
Jun 17, 2008
Messages
986
Reaction score
40
GAU-8 Avenger said:
Yes it dwarfs their budget on paper and rightfully so, yet when you factor in the averages wages paid, the total amount of effort going towards R&D, not to mention production may be closer than it appears. And the Chinese certainly have a good grasp at reverse-engineering Russian and other technology. Don't underestimate them, or the Russians.
Yeah, still dwarf china's budget even all these factors are taken into account. That's what I was saying. You are intentionally deluding yourself if you think these factors gonna change that fact. The problem isn't that I'm underestimating China or Russia, it's people like you (and there are a great deal of them) that have blown russia and china to such a laughable proportion for the sake of maintaining the f-22 production. Go here to see my analysis of the PAK FA:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5644.180.html
Same thing applies for J-XX but much much worse.
Just like it had to be cut because you said so? ::)
I never said we have to, I'm saying we need to, becuase it's a waste of money justified only by delusion that somehow canceling the f-22 will compromise our ability to project air superiority now and the future. And unlike those particular baseless statements of yours that I singled out, I've been typing to support my statement for the past several pages.
Yet we don't have some sort of stealthier mach 3 aircraft?
Stop trying to change the point. How does this change my point that arguing for the f-22 based on the "high and low" definition is false logic? I'm asking you again, if your logic applies, wouldn't you argue for more mach 3 stealth aircraft and says that f-22 isn't good enough since f-22 is in the "low." I'm pretty sure you understand perfectly what I meant. Shouldn't the right way would be to look at the capabilities presented in the platform to see if it can meet current and future threats.

The F-35 is not as suitable as an air-superiority aircraft when compared to the F-22. It doesn't have the same performance, stealth, supercruise capability, internal air-to-air missile carriage, or radar capability. Hell, when compared to upgraded F-15s, it's only real advantage is stealth and it's IR/EO sensors. In USAF service the F-35A should be viewed as a F-16 replacement, and not a replacement for F-15s (or A-10s in my opinion).
First, just because the f-35 isn't as good in that role as the f-22, doesn't mean it's not good enough. Last time I checked, it doesn't have to go against the f-22. Secondly, just because you are judging 5th generation fighter based on the understanding of 4th generation fighter because you are ignorant of how 5th generation fighters shape the way we fight and bring new definition to air combat doesn't mean you're right.

The PRC is a real country, with their own ambitions and interests that conflict with the United States at times. Ever hear of Taiwan for example?
Ever heard of the fact that both countries' economies intertwined enough that any conflict would bankcrupt both countries even before any bomb dropped, or ever heard of the word "deterrence?" And even in the unlikeliest event that we do go into such conflict, saying that the numbers of raptors we have and the numbers of f-35 we gonna have will not be able to ensure air supremacy against china is laughable. And if you're gonna fall back to the "but we don't know what they gonna have by then." Come back to my analysis.

As a multi-role aircraft it is not optimized for the air-superiority mission. Especially considering it is a single-engined design with lower costs in mind. The F-16 was used and built with air-to-air combat in mind too, and later models had the same ability to fire AIM-120s as the F-15. Yet due to it's range and avionics, it isn't nearly as capable at exchanging missiles at range. It would have been superior in close in dogfight, unlike the F-35 which will could certainly be outmaneuvered by the F-22.
Again, we are not gonna face a scenario of civil war, so f-35 vs. f-22 is irrelevant.

Yet the idea that performance is much less important is always mentioned by the anti-Raptor crowd when the F-35s rather "average" performance is mentioned. Even if this was the case, the F-35 is not as stealthy as the F-35 anyway. Unbeatable? What if the enemy in a modernized Flanker or Fulcrum with advanced IR guided missiles and helmet mounted sight gets within the range to use these? What if a number of cheap Migs get close after F-35 expends all four of their internal AIM-120s? Or what if the PAK-FA is actually comparable to the F-22?
Both sides have their extremists, just as there are pro f-22 extremists that suggested Marines to abandon f-35 and adopt f-22, or using f-22 for pirates hunting. As for your questions, get informed here where your questions are already addressed, starting from this page to save time:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,5790.30.html

Because we are in a ECONOMIC recession, not a MILITARY recession? That's why military budget gotta be tightened to be spent on reviving the economy?

And you know that a global economic recession could cause political instability and conflict right? Tossing around billions as if they are singles at a strip club is hardly the right way to go about reviving anything. We simply can't compromise defense at a time like this, even with the economic problems. All present concerns would have been an excuse to lower the rate of production, yet not halting the program completely.
The belief that we are compromising our defense is based on the self declared truth that nothing but the f-22 is able to fullfill our air supriority, which is completely unfounded.
Yet Cartwright's opinion on the EA-18G didn't change the USAF's requirement for more F-22's or justify the decision to halt the program. The USAF probably wants their own organic jamming capability rather than having to rely on Navy assets.
But in the mean time, only the NAvy has electronic warfare capabilities, and commanders accross the board need that. The USAF's requirement for more f-22, as unfounded as it is, does not change the requirement for more EA-18 that is needed by the entire military, not just a single branch.

The war on terror should have only resulted in a reduced production rate if anything, not a total halt of the program. Also Virginia class in comparison to Seawolf is not sacrificing much of anything besides for fewer torpedo tubes.
Arguing for slow rate production is even crazier than just buying up to speed, it's not only gonna cost more, but waste a hell lot more money.
 

Similar threads

Top