DescentBB

Anyone else happy living with a government that would happily dump billions if not trillions into worthless economic stimulus that DOESN'T WORK but cut our defense programs to save only $1.75 billion?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington ... sp=usat.me





I've had it.

they should apply for a bailout.

1.75 billion can buy a lot more 5 million UAVs than 200+ million F-22's.

fliptw wrote:1.75 billion can buy a lot more 5 million UAVs than 200+ million F-22's.

200+ million dollar F-22s can post 100-1 or better kill ratios against F-15s and similar. How do 5 million dollar UAVs fare?

Of course, it's not like they're cutting F22 before production. They're just cutting off production at I think 180 (in 2011) instead of the 250-ish the Air Force wanted (by maybe 2016) to replace the 250-ish older aircraft they're retiring. So the Air Force will have a reduced number of planes, but each plane is significantly more effective. I think they're making a mistake shutting down the line quite so soon, but I don't think it's as huge a mistake as some people think it is.

I wonder how many jobs Obama will once again cause to be lost.

187, but who is counting. The title of this thread is very misleading, in the face of the facts. The program in fact, has not been killed, only downscaled.

187 Raptors is plenty, when you consider the fact that we also produce the F35, and a number of other fighters.

I have thought about this issue many times, over the years…and over producing a fighter in my opinion is a mistake, considering how fast the technology advances.

So, it’s all good.

Spidey wrote:187, but who is counting. The title of this thread is very misleading, in the face of the facts. The program in fact, has not been killed, only downscaled.

Right on.

I do find it a little disturbing (though not in the least surprising) that this administration seems to be seeking to cut back on military expenditures, while simultaneously weakening our position in the world arena.

What would you think if I said we were going to be nuked?

I’m not sure how that question relates to the Raptor, but I’ll play.

The answer would be…………




Duck & Cover…aka….Bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

Agreed. It isn't like they are stopping all production, they're just blocking the additional units that were in the queue to get ordered.

The question is, are they doing anything to develop the next fighter that will replace the F22? We probably don't know the answer because if they were, it's probably secret information still.

Spidey wrote:187, but who is counting. The title of this thread is very misleading, in the face of the facts. The program in fact, has not been killed, only downscaled.

Sort of true, but also sort of misleading. Once the Raptor assembly line shuts down, it's VERY difficult/expensive to get it going again. So we'll get exactly 187 Raptors with no option for more.

187 Raptors is plenty, when you consider the fact that we also produce the F35, and a number of other fighters.

Plenty for what task? We do produce other fighters, but none of them do what Raptor does. None of them dominate air-to-air combat. F35 is more of a ground attack aircraft that can hold its own in air-to-air combat.

over producing a fighter in my opinion is a mistake, considering how fast the technology advances.

Raptor has been under development since before I was born. "Fast" is a relative term.

Overproducing a fighter is a mistake, but only a small one with a monetary cost; underproducing a fighter is a much bigger mistake, as losing a war comes with a much larger cost.

I'm confused. Why do we need a large number of expensive F-22 Raptors when terrorists don't have fighters of their own? Wouldn't the money be better spent on more mobile Special Ops Forces and better intelligence gathering? Last I looked, modern warfare has to deal with a new type of foe that is spread out worldwide and hard to find.

Now there is some clarity in that statement. It really is a very good point. How about offsetting the powers of other world countries with firepower to rival our own.

Lothar, can you tell me the difference between 187 and 250 in strategic terms…beyond the obvious, in the world as it stands? Also, never underestimate the ability to restart production, of whatever in a time of war.

…………………

Plenty for “any” task.

…………………

Losing what war? The Raptor was designed to take on the Soviet Union. Most experts don’t see this kind of war in the next 20-30 years minimum.

You guys do know it’s a Republican, leading the charge to reform the military, including the reduction in production of the F22.

tunnelcat wrote:I'm confused. Why do we need a large number of expensive F-22 Raptors when terrorists don't have fighters of their own? Wouldn't the money be better spent on more mobile Special Ops Forces and better intelligence gathering? Last I looked, modern warfare has to deal with a new type of foe that is spread out worldwide and hard to find.

Cause we don't just have to worry about a potential terrorist threat. Remember those two big countries that take up most of the land mass of Asia. Not to mention Iran and North Korea. We have to be prepared over the short to medium term - you can't just whip up next-gen air superiority fighters on a few weeks notice.

oh, and I'm all for beefing up spec ops and intel capabilities.

I don’t think the Russian 5th generation prototype has even been finished, the Chinese fighter is probably a myth (kidding, maybe) and the rest are years away. (other than the f35)

The US military has plenty of extra capacity, and I doubt this is going to change anytime soon. (except for ground troops)

If the Russians or Chinese begin to look like they are heading for air superiority, I’m sure we will adjust.

I’m pretty sure the Air Force only ordered 183 of these badboys anyway, so I can’t see the fuss.

F-22 was really just an air to air fighter. Unlike the JSF f-35.

with a huge cut like that to military spending, you can bet that there will be not as many F-35's as first promised.

And spidey, the top of the line migs are nothing to sneeze at.

I think I read somewhere that the F22 has lots of problems anyways, so this might have played a role as well.

edit: long article here
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03020.html

One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant to replace an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of Los Angeles on March 25, during his review of the program.

it crashed during Gates review? I bet this did not go down well...

At my bother's job there's a posting on the bulletin board showing a graph. One line on the graph goes up over time and the other down. Title: \"F-22 price goes up while number of uses fall.\"

If we were ever to go to war with the Chi-Coms, winning will not be about how many high tech planes we have, but rather how many Chinese troops we can mow down before they over run our positions.

woodchip wrote:If we were ever to go to war with the Chi-Coms, winning will not be about how many high tech planes we have, but rather how many Chinese troops we can mow down before they over run our positions.

...Which we could do faster if we have more high-tech planes

I've heard the F-35B VTOL fighter is supposed to be the next generation of warplanes. I don't know if it's stealthy but it is VTOL and very fast and cool.

perhaps I missed this posted, but 1.75 billion bucks is price of about 12 F-22's. (at suggested retail \"flyaway\" price of 143 million.)

flyaway price is contracted price for the plane only. gas and pilot not included.

Red-5, The F-35b is one of 3 variasions on the JSF. They are all fast and have stealth Tech; although not as stealthy as the F-22.

The F35 will be replacing the F-15, F-16 and the F-18. All are aging and are \"nickel and diming\" the branches to death. The reason for the F18 is that carrier launching over stresses the planes so the wear faster. That and it's a common joke that the navy fly guys are harder on them as well.

As an FYI, the ThunderBirds and Blue Angels get the planes that are nearly ready for retirement. They don't get new aircraft. After they are done with them, they either get \"put on a stick\" for display, go to a training grounds or go to the grave yard for canablization.

It still pisses me off they're worried about a measley 1.75Billion after these bailouts...

well yeah, and i think that's what really's been getting at folks. But, Congress has been wanting to find a way to not buy \"any more than they have to\" for some time and the time was right for them to drop the axe and get away with it.

Pandora wrote:I think I read somewhere that the F22 has lots of problems anyways, so this might have played a role as well.

Yeah, apparently it takes up about 30 hours of maintenance for each hour in the air. Also, it tended to keep the pilot IN the cockpit when they tried to eject! Not good! Spendy, deadly toy.

\"The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.\"

Source

The SR-71 cost 50k/hr to fly.
Source
(First Ref I found)

\"The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government Accountability Office reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still in development. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23 claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissed the Post’s claim that the F-22’s stealthy skin maintenance issues are somehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in saying the trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. “Not true,” the service said. The rates “have been improving.” The Air Force said the Raptor’s cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of the F-15—$19,750 vs. $17,465—and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capable machine. The Post had claimed a cost of more than $40,000 per flying hour. Likewise, whereas the Post claimed the fleet had to be retrofitted due to “structural problems,” this claim is “misleading,” USAF said. Lessons learned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraft and retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing and development process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22 canopy’s stealth coatings last only about half as long as they’re supposed to. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and “coating life continues to improve.” The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed's contention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68 percent fleetwide today.\"

Source - July 13th, 2009 (sry, this article is in java <horrible font too>)

tunnelcat wrote:I'm confused. Why do we need a large number of expensive F-22 Raptors when terrorists don't have fighters of their own? Wouldn't the money be better spent on more mobile Special Ops Forces and better intelligence gathering? Last I looked, modern warfare has to deal with a new type of foe that is spread out worldwide and hard to find.

We could conceivably be at war with a full-fledged world power, if things go the wrong way with, say, Iran (or North Korea). Some might not think it's probable, but it's certainly in the realm of possibility.

By way of explanation about the nukes question, I just think that no one really believes that the U.S. could be nuked (except maybe folks working in Defense).

In the event nuclear weapons were fired at the United States, you have two possible options:
1) live in a well supplied and sturdy cave, it doesn't even have to be particularly deep underground as long as it is in a fairly isolated location.
2) duck and cover (AKA bend over and kiss your ass goodbye).

The problem seems to be arrogance. \"No one would dare nuke us\" type of stuff... How would we react if they do?

remember that the F-4 Phantom was built without guns as it was thought that they were \"obsolete\" with the advent of A2A missiles.

Guess what.

Sure there is no \"clear and present danger\" RIGHT NOW that would warrant this kind of machinery, but what in 10 years? what changes will there be in that period of time? Look at the last ten. How'd have guessed at the things that have transpired in the last decade or so.

We didn't NEED the telephone or the MRI when it was created. Both of which very nearly never happened.

Thorne, I’m still not sure I understand you…are you saying I think we are invulnerable because we have a certain amount of fighters. (less than the pentagon wanted) I was thinking maybe the F22 can shoot down ICBMs or something.

If that is the case, let me make myself very clear…I don’t believe this country is invulnerable, with “any” amount of weapons or weapon systems.

Just look what happened on 911.

……………………………….............

Duper…Guess what? (that was kinda my point)

Can you say for sure that the F22 could meet the challenge 10 years from now. (probably, because everyone else lags years behind, but that could change)

Yea...big mistake on the f4.

Here’s my reasoning…

We have been able to build large fleets of fighters and leave them in service for many years, with the luxury of the only real threat being some 20 years behind in avionics or resources. (aircraft only, in this case)

I don’t believe that is a luxury we have any more, so in my opinion, we need to build smaller fleets more regularly.

Say…100 or so every 10 years, keeping the fleets up to date & leading edge. (doesn’t have to be these numbers) And that just applies to pure fighters, fighter bombers are another matter.

Something that may or may not be getting lost here…the F35 can go on sorties without fighter escort. (lessening the need for fighters)

Militaries are very slow to adapt, unless at war…I remember seeing film of cavalry troops being massacred in the beginning of WW2 by tank corps. (or, was it WW1) So I have to give Gates some kudos.

OK…I’m done…

Duper wrote:remember that the F-4 Phantom was built without guns as it was thought that they were "obsolete" with the advent of A2A missiles.

Guess what.

Sure there is no "clear and present danger" RIGHT NOW that would warrant this kind of machinery, but what in 10 years? what changes will there be in that period of time? Look at the last ten. How'd have guessed at the things that have transpired in the last decade or so.

We didn't NEED the telephone or the MRI when it was created. Both of which very nearly never happened.

True true and more true.

I'm placing a bet that almost everything this government does will come around and bite them in the butt at some point in time.

Spidey wrote:Say…100 or so every 10 years, keeping the fleets up to date & leading edge

How do you propose cutting the engineering time on a top-of-the-line fighter down to a small enough number to make your plan work?

You could probably cut development down to just a few years, with modern computer aided design & fabrication. But I can’t prove that. Of course you have to start the system so the overlap can take place.

8 to 10 years seems doable. (I would bet on less)

So every decade you could have a new fighter in production, instead of waiting for the entire fleet to become obsolete, then starting again.

I can’t really pin down numbers on this, but smaller production runs, across shorter time periods seems like a thing we could do. (and it makes sense, because other countries are catching up fast) In 10 years the F22 could be totally obsolete.

Acura used these techniques to design their new P1...pretty spiffy.

But this discussion is moot, because the military is not going to change. And these things are just my opinion.

Red_5 wrote:The problem seems to be arrogance. "No one would dare nuke us" type of stuff...

I don't know if I would call it arrogance. Ignorance, certainly.

No, Spidey. I don't know about the F22 thing. I just think it's a trend that is playing out. Or I could be wrong. In my mind Obama will follow one of two paths with regard to the American military: 1) He will weaken it in what I would call typical liberal fashion, or 2) He will disappoint/confuse/disarm the people expecting him to do so, and bolster his image as a tough new leader, by going in a more fascist direction while strengthening the military for his own purposes.

Whatever happens, the future holds difficulty for the U.S., and it's not the difficulty that Obama and his staff speak of.

Personally I don't like the argument that building these crafts would be good for the economy. I think it's insufficient grounds, though I can understand that these people are trying to get something for themselves. I don't know enough about what's involved to say that they're wrong, but I feel like a grown-up needs to step in and put a stop to it. We don't need more F22s for any other reason than needing F22s. In my book it's as simple as that, and I think making it more complicated is really too complicated to further anything but private interests to the injury of public interest.

Spidey wrote:8 to 10 years seems doable. (I would bet on less)

You give CAD (Computer Aided Design) way wayyyyyy too much credit.

Lets make a comparison:
Nvidia and ATI sometimes pump out a new generation of video cards every 6-12 months, do you think after they finish one generation they start on the next and have it ready to launch only 6-12 months later? Of course they don't, at any given time Nvidia is working on 3-5 different generations of GPU at the same time. The actual development time on the latest GTX 200 series was close to 6 years long, meaning they were already working on the GTX 200 series when people were still complaining furiously about the performance of the Geforce 5 series. Ancient history!

The cost of development for just one next generation fighter is already phenomenal. Developing one every 8-10 years would be astronomically expensive because it would surely require running several development projects simultaneously.

Spidey wrote: Say…100 or so every 10 years, keeping the fleets up to date & leading edge. (doesn’t have to be these numbers) And that just applies to pure fighters, fighter bombers are another matter.

This is really cumbersome from an economic stand point. As a manufactorer, you will need to keep resources on hand to build only 10 whatever each year. How do you run a company on that? If that were true, you would proportionately spend the same. ... people already complain about paying teacher for the 3 or so months of the year "they don't work". Why would the public be willing to pay for a company that isn't manufactoring for however many months? I'm not condicending, just musing over the practicality. What you've purposed is interesting and seems to makes sense but in the real world, it might not pan out very well.

As it is, we continually upgrade the craft we have in service now with the latest radar and other electronics. (where it's applicable) and structural repairs are made constantly.

Oh, btw, the Navy version of the F35 has a slightly larger wing span for carrier use. The navy and marines will be getting the VTOL version, which looks like it might be a logistical nightmare after it's been in service a while. The lift fan's drive train is horribly complex.

But back on topic. .. do we NEED 250 over 183 or whatever? I have no idea. I do know that congress has been trying to kill this project from the word go.

Spidey wrote:You could probably cut development down to just a few years, with modern computer aided design & fabrication. But I can’t prove that. Of course you have to start the system so the overlap can take place.

8 to 10 years seems doable. (I would bet on less)

So every decade you could have a new fighter in production, instead of waiting for the entire fleet to become obsolete, then starting again.

I think your over-estimation of CAD systems is caused by the fact that complexity of the designs has gone up at about the same rate as the ease of design.... meaning that these days there are more things for the engineers to miss.

You have a good idea, but I think it would require a new approach:

Like people have pointed out, it probably wouldn't happen for a whole new plane every 10 years.

What about future fighters (or planes in general) being built with modularity in mind? This would push the initial price up, but if it was done right, you could theoretically have a whole class of planes (fighter, bomber, heavy fighter, etc.) that would be capable of evolution via smaller steps than a full redesign, or even a (possibly) full airframe redesign.

They already have A, B, C, etc. versions of planes that constitute upgrades of this or that type... why not try to take it to the next level, and make a plane that can be retrofitted time and time again to keep it up to date? You'd have to make it as modular as possible, and as easy to work on as possible. From there, slap the super anti radar wings for some planes, and the carrier wings on another, and the heavy lift wings on a third.