This is a discussion on Another dozen F-22 Raptors within the Air Force & Aviation forum, part of the Global Defense & Military category; Originally Posted by Scorpion82
Congress approved the acquisition of another 12 F-22s for the USAF using funds from the Energy ...
Congress approved the acquisition of another 12 F-22s for the USAF using funds from the Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites. It was a 31:30 voices decision and 369 mln $ has been approved for advanced procurment of long lead items. The contract will supposley be valued at 2.8 bln $.
Yet, President Obama has threaten to "Veto" any bill that includes more "F-22's"............Plus,Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain (R) both leaders of the Senate Defense Committee are against the plan...........along with Defense Secretary Gates.
There is no Air force on Earth, extant or projected that is as capable as the USAF.
There are VERY few forces as capable as the USN and USMC. US airpower is a dominant force within world military capabilities, today.
Well, i'm sorry then. Didn't mean to set anyone off on it. After hearing, seeing, reading and analysing multiple takes on the state of the USAF versus a few other major notable forces this just isn't the way i see it. And it really feels like others don't see it this way either. I more or less look at it like this: 20 years ago the USs' major front line ASF was the F-15. And at the time it was considered the global yardstick by which to measure other ASFs. Then they had about 500 of them, and no major conflicts anywhere to send them. That was 20 years ago. Now, they are that much older. There are only about 300 of them (we're not counting the E model here). And other forces have had the time to catch up technologically while they're still using those same F-15s. Now, i grant that they've had their various upgrades. But the design is still approaching 40 years on. And my main question relating to that (and why i feel the need for more F-22s) is: If there were no projected conflicts when the US felt the need to build 700 of them back in the 70s, why is that now that the US is actually engaged in conflicts the need is only for a fraction of that number of its replacement? On top of all that, other countries forces have caught up (and in the F-15s sake, most feel past).
Quote:
As for the "2 engine" requirement, USAF F-16's have the best safety record of any current USAF aircraft
Firstly, i thought that title belonged to the KC-10. Secondly, i wouldn't believe it anyway - i have seen so many comics, heard so many degrading comments on it (why is one of its nicknames The Lawn Dart?) to make me think otherwise. And off all of that, i would still consider the number skewed for the simple fact that there are up to 1100 in the inventory. A few losses to that number would make that ratio look better than most others anyway (1 crash per 1100 F-16s = 1:1100, 1 crash per 60 F-117s = 1:60).
Not enough to replace all the F-15s. Not enough to achieve air superiority on just 126 combat cable F-22s out of 187.
Why not? A wing of F-22A's supporting five or six wings of F-35A's equipped with JDRAAM, whatever tanker they decide to buy and the best C5ISTAR capability on the planet is going to be more than enough to achieve air superiority in virtually any geographical location (where the basing is available) against any foe. Remember all those F-15C's were produced during a cold war footing, times have changed. Why does the USAF of 2020 have to be a technologically upgraded version of the USAF of 1980 when the world it operates in is massively different? Operational requirements driven by contemporary technology and the strategic landscape should determine your force structure and platform choice, not the other way round.
Look i agree 204 isn't a heap of platforms, and more would be nice. But a 1 for 1 replacement for the F-15 fleet seems extremely excessive to me.
The same Senators who approved 7 Raptors are also pitching for an export variant, for possibly Japan and other allies.
Yeah, and I am Tom Brady, from the New England Patriots. Last week I teleported to Mars. And next week and Me, Ahmadinejad, and Netanyahu are going to a BBQ together...we're BFF's.
They're congressmen, and they have as much chance of getting an export variant of the F-22 as I have of building an aegis DDG in my backyard.
Its worth noting that any export model of the F-22 wouldn't be available for years. So, what happens when Lockheed Martin runs out of USAF Orders??? Is Japan going to pay to keep the production line open??? Especially, considering the proposed Japanese F-22 is already in the region of 250-290 Million per copy!
Its worth noting that any export model of the F-22 wouldn't be available for years. So, what happens when Lockheed Martin runs out of USAF Orders??? Is Japan going to pay to keep the production line open??? Especially, considering the proposed Japanese F-22 is already in the region of 250-290 Million per copy!
I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.
I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"
The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.
I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.
I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"
The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.
Cheers for the link GF, very interesting. I didn't realise the development/through-life issues for the F-22 were so far reaching! Certainly puts things in perspective...
Cheers for the link GF, very interesting. I didn't realise the development/through-life issues for the F-22 were so far reaching! Certainly puts things in perspective...
It's also my last comment on this as I had a US colleague contact me earlier today and suggest that I should not contribute anymore to the debate.
________________ A corollary of Finagle's Law, similar to Occam's Razor, says:
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity"
[COLOR=SlateGray][SIZE=2][FONT=Verdana] Firstly, i thought that title belonged to the KC-10. Secondly, i wouldn't believe it anyway - i have seen so many comics, heard so many degrading comments on it (why is one of its nicknames The Lawn Dart?) to make me think otherwise. And off all of that, i would still consider the number skewed for the simple fact that there are up to 1100 in the inventory. A few losses to that number would make that ratio look better than most others anyway (1 crash per 1100 F-16s = 1:1100, 1 crash per 60 F-117s = 1:60).
To be accurate you must consider accident rate per number of flight hours, not per numbers of aircraft.
I'm not going to re-type all my comments, so I am going to cardinal sin and beg Webs indulgence and link externally to make my own life easier. This is a complex issue, and probably beyond this forum.
I've written on this a number of times, and after 4 years it is slowly coming out how and why I was "right"
The Japanese aren't getting an export F-22, some of the reasons are obvious.
Wow, that was enlightening... I didn't have a clue the F-22A had through life sustainability issues of that magnitude. Geesch, that fills in a few blanks. LM clearly screwed the pooch, lets all be thankful that the F-35 is in a much healthier position. You would expect that on the 3rd generation jet platform LM would have thought of architecture obsolescence issues, although that form of technology has been moving awfully quickly lately. Why haven't we seen similar issues on legacy platforms?
