U.S. Aircraft Production

[10ringr]

With an every increasing threat from countries who's economies are surging and infusing huge amounts of money in their military the U.S. must produce fighters, bombers and aircraft of all types not just in terms of cutting edge, world beating technology but in numbers that will maintain the military dominants that the U.S. has enjoyed for over a half a century. The attitude that we can buy less then 200 fighters to accomplish this is ludicrous not to mention dangerous. With more effective SAM, AAM's and IR detection it is highly cost effective for other less developed military's to erase the technological superiority of these advanced aircraft so there is no getting around the need to have aircraft in substantial numbers. The recent decision to once again reduce the amount of F/A 22'S is an example of this. It is now at a figure of less then 200 aircraft when only a few decades ago fighters were purchase in the thousands as was the fighter the F/A 22 is supposed to replace (F-15) as the air superiority fighter for the U.S. which by the way is an absolute must to have and maintain air superiority in any conflict and you can't do that particularly in multi theater operations when you don't have the aircraft to pull it off. The monetary constraints are well understood but it is the most important necessity and the number # 1 priority to insure that we can fight and win any conflict so though we have the F-35 also on the horizon let us remember it isn't here and won't be for quite a while. The same things can be said of our navy etc but this is a difficult enough topic to stay focused on and I challenge those of you in the know to talk about it. Hutch

Mod edit: Kindly break up your posts into different paragraphs. It makes it easier to read and follow what points a poster is making, or what questions one has. Also, please post in appropriate areas. The title and subject of this post is U.S. Aircraft Production. With that title, it belongs in the Aviation/Air Force category, not the Naval Forces/Navy category.
-Preceptor

 

[rjmaz1]

I completely agree with you and feel your pain.

As an Australian obviously we dont have the money, knowledge and skill to build top level aircraft. Having the ability to produce high tech military equipment has many advantages to a country. It creates "smart" jobs and attracts smart people. This is much better than creating "dumb" jobs such as producing food and clothing. Having these dumb jobs does not help increase the intelligence of the general population on a world standing. Im not saying that we shouldn't grow our own food but we should shift slightly towards importing basic items and producing our own hightech items.

This has been a hot topic in Australia with most common items on our shelves being made in China. In my opinion if all the worlds clothing was made in China then that would be a very good thing. The people who think this is bad are uneducated morons. There are many advantages to buying basic items from China and only a few disadvantages. For instance if you can buy a T shirt for $2 and sell it for $20 that Australian company would make a huge profit. That profit would then get taxed and the government gets the same amount of money as it would if the T shirt was made here. As the clothing is made in China this would mean every chinesse citizen either produces cotten, produce material for clothes or make the clothes themselves. This would prevent the Chinesse from becoming a smart nation and slow their modernisation. As soon as they start producing cars they can make tanks, as soon as they can make computers they can make AESA radar etc.

The US seems to be doing quite well in this regard though alot of work is now being outsourced to Japan. The US still has a huge capability of producing every form of military item. It also has a huge collection of smart people who research and develop these items. During the Cold War the US was at its peak in terms of military capability with the F-22, B-2 and AESA being developed. It has gone down hill since then but it is still the best by a golden mile so i wouldn't be worrying just yet. The war on terror is definitely taking its toll as spending is being cut everywhere and this will cause severe longterm problems when it comes to the ability to develop and produce new equipment.

For Australia i think we should start developing as many military items as we can. Find niche products that will sell on the international market and get the full weight of the Australian government behind the products. The weight of the Australian government behind any product would cause it to sell like hot cakes or should i say yellow cake One example on the car market is that Australia has successfully sold the holden monaro oversea's. Being Australian the labour is cheaper compared to a US produced car so our Holden monaro works out to be better value for money than any car the US can produce. This would be the same as us buying from China it would be win win for Australia and the US. The US get a cheap product and we create smart jobs and attract all the smart people in the world. Plus as these products improve in technology, the number of smart jobs will increase.

What kind of high-tech or rare products we produce isn't up to me. Just as long as its produced by an Australian owned and run company.

Sweden and Israel are two countries that are very good in this regard. They produce high tech equipment and create smart jobs, attract smart people and sell the products on the international market. If Australia produced a military product that didn't sell well and did not make a profit then who cares. You cant put a price on intelligence.

 

[f-22fan12]

With an every increasing threat from countries who's economies are surging and infusing huge amounts of money in their military the U.S. must produce fighters, bombers and aircraft of all types not just in terms of cutting edge, world beating technology but in numbers that will maintain the military dominants that the U.S. has enjoyed for over a half a century. The attitude that we can buy less then 200 fighters to accomplish this is ludicrous not to mention dangerous. With more effective SAM, AAM's and IR detection it is highly cost effective for other less developed military's to erase the technological superiority of these advanced aircraft so there is no getting around the need to have aircraft in substantial numbers. The recent decision to once again reduce the amount of F/A 22'S is an example of this. It is now at a figure of less then 200 aircraft when only a few decades ago fighters were purchase in the thousands as was the fighter the F/A 22 is supposed to replace (F-15) as the air superiority fighter for the U.S. which by the way is an absolute must to have and maintain air superiority in any conflict and you can't do that particularly in multi theater operations when you don't have the aircraft to pull it off. The monetary constraints are well understood but it is the most important necessity and the number # 1 priority to insure that we can fight and win any conflict so though we have the F-35 also on the horizon let us remember it isn't here and won't be for quite a while. The same things can be said of our navy etc but this is a difficult enough topic to stay focused on and I challenge those of you in the know to talk about it. Hutch

Mod edit: Kindly break up your posts into different paragraphs. It makes it easier to read and follow what points a poster is making, or what questions one has. Also, please post in appropriate areas. The title and subject of this post is U.S. Aircraft Production. With that title, it belongs in the Aviation/Air Force category, not the Naval Forces/Navy category.

I also agree with you. You couldn't have said it better. Every time I think about this I feel terrible. First over 700 F-22s then 381 and now, 181. What a bad thing. One thing I don't get: The U.S. defence budget rises every year. So why do we decrease our #s of procurment every year? (number of planes ships...)

China's economy is growing and growing. And so is their military.

 

[10ringr]

With an every increasing threat from countries who's economies are surging and infusing huge amounts of money in their military the U.S. must produce fighters, bombers and aircraft of all types not just in terms of cutting edge, world beating technology but in numbers that will maintain the military dominants that the U.S. has enjoyed for over a half a century. The attitude that we can buy less then 200 fighters to accomplish this is ludicrous not to mention dangerous. With more effective SAM, AAM's and IR detection it is highly cost effective for other less developed military's to erase the technological superiority of these advanced aircraft so there is no getting around the need to have aircraft in substantial numbers. The recent decision to once again reduce the amount of F/A 22'S is an example of this. It is now at a figure of less then 200 aircraft when only a few decades ago fighters were purchase in the thousands as was the fighter the F/A 22 is supposed to replace (F-15) as the air superiority fighter for the U.S. which by the way is an absolute must to have and maintain air superiority in any conflict and you can't do that particularly in multi theater operations when you don't have the aircraft to pull it off. The monetary constraints are well understood but it is the most important necessity and the number # 1 priority to insure that we can fight and win any conflict so though we have the F-35 also on the horizon let us remember it isn't here and won't be for quite a while. The same things can be said of our navy etc but this is a difficult enough topic to stay focused on and I challenge those of you in the know to talk about it. Hutch

Mod edit: Kindly break up your posts into different paragraphs. It makes it easier to read and follow what points a poster is making, or what questions one has. Also, please post in appropriate areas. The title and subject of this post is U.S. Aircraft Production. With that title, it belongs in the Aviation/Air Force category, not the Naval Forces/Navy category.

Yes, I see. This is my first post ever and I'm afraid I've got some bugs to work out. Thanks for the guidance. Hutch

 

[10ringr]

I also agree with you. You couldn't have said it better. Every time I think about this I feel terrible. First over 700 F-22s then 381 and now, 181. What a bad thing. One thing I don't get: The U.S. defence budget rises every year. So why do we decrease our #s of procurment every year? (number of planes ships...)

China's economy is growing and growing. And so is their military.

I feel like I'm talking to myself! Yes, not only that fan but when you think about all the infrastructure we have and how that eats up our procurement money it makes the situation all the worse. The Chinese do not have these issues like massive issues with infrastructure (yet) so where duz all that capital go? Yes, you got it, right into J-10's and new SLBM's. Frustrating though that we consider ourself at war, check out what percentage of money from our GNP that we spend on defense in wars past compared to the WOT. It's not going to get any better when our economy is about 16 trillion and China is about 12 trillion with twice the growth rate. Hutch

 

[10ringr]

Yes, I see. This is my first post ever and I'm afraid I've got some bugs to work out. Thanks for the guidance. Hutch

Also, I tried to cut/paste this into the right category as you said and I see that it is already here. I assume you did that, thank you. Hutch

 

[rjmaz1]

One thing I don't get: The U.S. defence budget rises every year. So why do we decrease our #s of procurment every year? (number of planes ships...)

The USAF doesn't need more F-22's.

The US has such a large advantage that it doesn't need a huge amount aircraft. You only need alot of aircraft or ships if you plan on loosing a few.

The F-22 is so much better than anything else in the air that with only 183 aircraft they could single handed take on any country in the world.

The USAF needed 700 F-15's as the F-15 was not significantly superior to the soviets. The foxhound had superior kinetic performance and possibly could have come out on top in beyond visual range combat. It would have been a battle of attrition. Though the F-15's may have won they would have suffered heavy losses. The US may have very well lost 50% of the F-15 fleet in attempt to eliminate 100% of the foxhounds.

When the F-15 improved in capability the SU-27 arrived. Again the F-15 had only a slight edge. Combat statistics may show the F-15 being the unstoppable but that was against untrained pilots who had no idea how to fly. Again the US may have very well lost 50% of its Eagles when attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. We are talking hundreds of F-15 eagles being shot down and pilots lost.

Now with the F-22. The F-22 is a whole generation ahead of the the SU-30. It wouldn't be unrealistic if you said that not a single F-22 would be lost attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. There will be no battle of attrition so you dont need 700 aircraft so you can sustain losses.

Now lets talk about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This aircraft is shaping up to be so good that in air to air combat its moderate levels of stealth and advanced radar will give it an edge over the latest Su-30 aircraft. We are talking a second tier US aircraft being able to beat the top tier Russian aircraft. Now the F-35 will have an edge that would be comparible to the one the F-15 use to have. So you would be incorrect in stating the US only has 183 aircraft replacing its F-15 fleet. It will actually have 1500+ aircraft that are better than any aircraft it could face.

The only reason why you would need more F-22's would be to counter a possible future aircraft being produced by China or Russia. Though it may be 20 years until we see something that can even match the F-22. By then the USAF would be flight testing its X-wing starfighter.

An air breathing missile equiped aircraft at 50,000feet wont have much chance against a Mach 5 aircraft flying at 300,000 feet with a giant laser

 

[10ringr]

The USAF doesn't need more F-22's.

The US has such a large advantage that it doesn't need a huge amount aircraft. You only need alot of aircraft or ships if you plan on loosing a few.

The F-22 is so much better than anything else in the air that with only 183 aircraft they could single handed take on any country in the world.

The USAF needed 700 F-15's as the F-15 was not significantly superior to the soviets. The foxhound had superior kinetic performance and possibly could have come out on top in beyond visual range combat. It would have been a battle of attrition. Though the F-15's may have won they would have suffered heavy losses. The US may have very well lost 50% of the F-15 fleet in attempt to eliminate 100% of the foxhounds.

When the F-15 improved in capability the SU-27 arrived. Again the F-15 had only a slight edge. Combat statistics may show the F-15 being the unstoppable but that was against untrained pilots who had no idea how to fly. Again the US may have very well lost 50% of its Eagles when attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. We are talking hundreds of F-15 eagles being shot down and pilots lost.

Now with the F-22. The F-22 is a whole generation ahead of the the SU-30. It wouldn't be unrealistic if you said that not a single F-22 would be lost attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. There will be no battle of attrition so you dont need 700 aircraft so you can sustain losses.

Now lets talk about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This aircraft is shaping up to be so good that in air to air combat its moderate levels of stealth and advanced radar will give it an edge over the latest Su-30 aircraft. We are talking a second tier US aircraft being able to beat the top tier Russian aircraft. Now the F-35 will have an edge that would be comparible to the one the F-15 use to have. So you would be incorrect in stating the US only has 183 aircraft replacing its F-15 fleet. It will actually have 1500+ aircraft that are better than any aircraft it could face.

The only reason why you would need more F-22's would be to counter a possible future aircraft being produced by China or Russia. Though it may be 20 years until we see something that can even match the F-22. By then the USAF would be flight testing its X-wing starfighter.

An air breathing missile equiped aircraft at 50,000feet wont have much chance against a Mach 5 aircraft flying at 300,000 feet with a giant laser

This reminds me of Mohammed Ali's fight with Spinks. Even though he was slow, couldn't evade the punches and didn't have the gas. Somehow, someway he would magically get it back for just 1 round. Sadly that day never materialized and all the emotionalism and wishful thinking wouldn't and couldn't change that fact. The F-15 did have that superiority your talking about. This is already well understood. The technology that the latest generation of fighters produced like EuroFighter Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen, SU37 etc. is already out there and one of our biggest nemesis the Russians who announced in the news today they're building a new 5th Gen. fighter. It is not only the opponent fighter that's the problem presents itself and with the advances in SAM's, AAM's IR. and such we cannot afford to not have them in quantity......... period. Hutch

 

[10ringr]

With an every increasing threat from countries who's economies are surging and infusing huge amounts of money in their military the U.S. must produce fighters, bombers and aircraft of all types not just in terms of cutting edge, world beating technology but in numbers that will maintain the military dominants that the U.S. has enjoyed for over a half a century. The attitude that we can buy less then 200 fighters to accomplish this is ludicrous not to mention dangerous. With more effective SAM, AAM's and IR detection it is highly cost effective for other less developed military's to erase the technological superiority of these advanced aircraft so there is no getting around the need to have aircraft in substantial numbers. The recent decision to once again reduce the amount of F/A 22'S is an example of this. It is now at a figure of less then 200 aircraft when only a few decades ago fighters were purchase in the thousands as was the fighter the F/A 22 is supposed to replace (F-15) as the air superiority fighter for the U.S. which by the way is an absolute must to have and maintain air superiority in any conflict and you can't do that particularly in multi theater operations when you don't have the aircraft to pull it off. The monetary constraints are well understood but it is the most important necessity and the number # 1 priority to insure that we can fight and win any conflict so though we have the F-35 also on the horizon let us remember it isn't here and won't be for quite a while. The same things can be said of our navy etc but this is a difficult enough topic to stay focused on and I challenge those of you in the know to talk about it. Hutch

Mod edit: Kindly break up your posts into different paragraphs. It makes it easier to read and follow what points a poster is making, or what questions one has. Also, please post in appropriate areas. The title and subject of this post is U.S. Aircraft Production. With that title, it belongs in the Aviation/Air Force category, not the Naval Forces/Navy category.
-Preceptor

Yes, of course. Thank you. 10ringr [Mod Edit: What's with necroposting in a 3 year old thread that has no merit or current relevance?]

 

[T.C.P]

The USAF doesn't need more F-22's.

The US has such a large advantage that it doesn't need a huge amount aircraft. You only need alot of aircraft or ships if you plan on loosing a few.

The F-22 is so much better than anything else in the air that with only 183 aircraft they could single handed take on any country in the world.

The USAF needed 700 F-15's as the F-15 was not significantly superior to the soviets. The foxhound had superior kinetic performance and possibly could have come out on top in beyond visual range combat. It would have been a battle of attrition. Though the F-15's may have won they would have suffered heavy losses. The US may have very well lost 50% of the F-15 fleet in attempt to eliminate 100% of the foxhounds.

When the F-15 improved in capability the SU-27 arrived. Again the F-15 had only a slight edge. Combat statistics may show the F-15 being the unstoppable but that was against untrained pilots who had no idea how to fly. Again the US may have very well lost 50% of its Eagles when attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. We are talking hundreds of F-15 eagles being shot down and pilots lost.

Now with the F-22. The F-22 is a whole generation ahead of the the SU-30. It wouldn't be unrealistic if you said that not a single F-22 would be lost attempting to kill 100% of the Flankers. There will be no battle of attrition so you dont need 700 aircraft so you can sustain losses.

Now lets talk about the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. This aircraft is shaping up to be so good that in air to air combat its moderate levels of stealth and advanced radar will give it an edge over the latest Su-30 aircraft. We are talking a second tier US aircraft being able to beat the top tier Russian aircraft. Now the F-35 will have an edge that would be comparible to the one the F-15 use to have. So you would be incorrect in stating the US only has 183 aircraft replacing its F-15 fleet. It will actually have 1500+ aircraft that are better than any aircraft it could face.

The only reason why you would need more F-22's would be to counter a possible future aircraft being produced by China or Russia. Though it may be 20 years until we see something that can even match the F-22. By then the USAF would be flight testing its X-wing starfighter.

An air breathing missile equiped aircraft at 50,000feet wont have much chance against a Mach 5 aircraft flying at 300,000 feet with a giant laser

First of all I seriously doubt upon the F-15 being superior to the su-27( Since Vs topics aren't allowed on DT it would be foolish to elaborate on this argument).[Mod Edit: If you know this is against the rules, why are you still discussing it? More importantly, you are discussing the topic in an uninformed fanboy manner that lacks conceptual coherence with regards the application of air power. Further, your post is not supported by reputable links and substitutes your dubious opinion for facts.] Su-30 is in no way the latest Russian combat aircraft, Su-35s and Mig-35s are newer and more modern and the Mig-35 also has an AESA radar like you F-35, It has a new OLS sensor and thrust vectoring capabilities, the only F-35 advantage is that it is stealthy. The sukhoi T-50 will be able to match your f-35 and since its suppose to enter service in 2015, thats 5 years not 20.

Back to the topic U.S will not require more than 181 F-22s as this no. supplemented by 150 golden eagles and 1500+ F-35s will be more than enough to take on the entire worlds air forces combined.

[Mod Edit: Thread closed pending discussion by Mod Team]