Gates to cut F-22

Just saw that on Yahoo.

CSAR-X going too. At least KC-X isn't gone......pending the AF can ever get it right.
 
This is going to go flamebait...but I mean common...I think almost 200 F-22's is enough.
 
enough for what? Not a flame but asking how you arrived at the number.

Right in the article it says production will stop at 187 F-22's. I think that the extra 150 million dollars per pop could go to much better use then this imaginary war with China, Korea, and Iran in the near future.:sarcasm:
 
Enough to obtain Air Superiority over any threat we will face in the coming years. Just my (uneducated) guess.

There was for a while a ppt on the net showing the 187 Raptors going against the Chinese who are producing their copy of the Flanker along with a few other very capable fighters. The j-10 is reportedly no 'grape' and the Chinese are reported to being producing them in numbers. One site said the J-10 has 10-16 hard points. That is a lot of weapons coming out of China and we have few bases to place the Raptors in that area.

No doubt, Gates knows more than we do and he has been no fan of the -22. But the -35 is less stealthy, slower, has a lower op ceiling, shorter range and less punch. And it is not operational.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.140/pub_detail.asp
 
There was for a while a ppt on the net showing the 187 Raptors going against the Chinese who are producing their copy of the Flanker along with a few other very capable fighters. The j-10 is reportedly no 'grape' and the Chinese are reported to being producing them in numbers. One site said the J-10 has 10-16 hard points. That is a lot of weapons coming out of China and we have few bases to place the Raptors in that area.

No doubt, Gates knows more than we do and he has been no fan of the -22. But the -35 is less stealthy, slower, has a lower op ceiling, shorter range and less punch. And it is not operational.

http://www.strategycenter.net/research/pubID.140/pub_detail.asp

Do you really see a war with the US and China anytime in the next 25 years? No...our economy is to far intertwined.
 
Just saw that on Yahoo.

CSAR-X going too. At least KC-X isn't gone......pending the AF can ever get it right.

Dude, they can't figure it out after more than 50 years, why would they now? Watching the idiocy everyday gets pretty old. I am not saying I have all the answers, but damn...
 
There might be something philosophically wrong with a 150 million dollar fighter (or a billion dollar bomber). Just one engineer's opinion.

F-16: 15 million
F-15: 25 million
F-22: 150 million

I leave it to the tacticians to discuss: is 1 F-22 worth 5 F-15s in a reasonably conceived conflict?
 
What is that??? :confused:

A conflict with a realistic enemy.

I am not a military man so I will defer to those with tactical / strategic knowledge, intuition, and experience regarding military platforms.

However, take this example from a civilian behemoth program: the Space Shuttle.

The Space Shuttle Main Engine has a specific impulse of 450 seconds (that's really good in rocket talk). Physically speaking, it is very efficient. It is also ridiculously complicated. The shuttle can land on a runway. That also makes things ridiculously complicated. The heat shield is non-ablative and can be reused, but it requires significant maintenance and is fragile. The booster cases are reusable, but they have to be hammered back into round every time after colliding with the ocean. It's a system that went after a series of desirable traits but at considerable cost. Was it worth it? Probably not. Sometimes it's better to have a simpler, lower cost system even if it is technically not the Most-Advanced-Thing-Ever-Built.
 
Do you really see a war with the US and China anytime in the next 25 years? No...our economy is to far intertwined.

Part of a weapon system is never having to use it. As for a war with China in x years.. we have stumbled into other events less complex. Listen to the global warmers and there are finite resources.

All out war? Not probable but more likely scuffles over resources without any real fear of the US as a potent adversary. North Korea does not seem to hesitate challenging us.

Reading now Burn Before Reading, Turner's look at the US and its intel efforts through various Presidents. It seems clear pictures and courses are illusions and thus choices can be made based on best info with unintended consequences.
 
The F-22 is expensive. I just hope the idea isn't to pay for the crazy spending Obama is doing with military cuts.
 
Change you can beleive in, eh comrads.
Clearly you've forgotten that Gates is a holdover from the Bush administration.

Give it a rest already.

The F-22 is expensive. I just hope the idea isn't to pay for the crazy spending Obama is doing with military cuts.
As opposed to the previous administration's logic of "paying" for increased military spending with tax cuts?
 
This is going to go flamebait...but I mean common...I think almost 200 F-22's is enough.

Right in the article it says production will stop at 187 F-22's. I think that the extra 150 million dollars per pop could go to much better use then this imaginary war with China, Korea, and Iran in the near future.:sarcasm:

So "almost 200" is enough because we should simply spend the extra 150m on other, unspecified projects? Hell, we don't even need fighters if we're never going to war with anyone with an Air Force, right? No matter that the other 2,000 fighters in the Air Force inventory are falling apart. Thanks for such insightful commentary, as usual, Jhugz.

There might be something philosophically wrong with a 150 million dollar fighter (or a billion dollar bomber). Just one engineer's opinion.

F-16: 15 million
F-15: 25 million
F-22: 150 million

I leave it to the tacticians to discuss: is 1 F-22 worth 5 F-15s in a reasonably conceived conflict?

Why don't you post the actual cost of 16s and 15s, including inflation and R&D? Or the cost of the 22 if we would actually acquire more than 183? Or the cost of the F-16/15 40 years ago when we didn't want to export every design feature? Or the cost of the 16 if most of that technology didn't come from the 15?

Not saying we have a perfect system or a "bargain" in the 22, but really...those numbers are grossly misleading.
 
In conflicts like Iraq and Afghanistan what is the role of the -22 once we've achieved uncontested air superiority?

I like the -22 as much as the next guy but it's very expensive and I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea to spread the money we do have available for defense around. It's about what's best for the country, not the current job situation, not the Air Force, and not the politicians.

Flame on. :D
 
Back
Top