Why do they need ground attack? I thought the purpose was to make the dominant Air to Air fighter... do we need the ground attack? It wont be CAS; or are we trying to keep some aerospace engineers busy?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Britain cites overweight JSF
- Thread starter 46Driver
- Start date
- Status
I'm of the inclination that our lack of money isn't due to insufficient government income. It's due to non-defense spending growing way faster than the rate of inflation. Everyone wants their pet project funded, but now we're at war and can't even stop paying farmers not to grow food or maintaining the strategic helium reserve. Dirigibles, anyone?
It isn't DOD that should be making tough choices. When was the last last time a major domestic program was ever completely axed from the budget?
It isn't DOD that should be making tough choices. When was the last last time a major domestic program was ever completely axed from the budget?
The downfall of the F-22 as an air-to-air only aircraft is seen in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. It's great to have a fighter that can kill anything that's put up against it. The problem is that the Taliban or Saddam wouldn't be able to put up anything... let alone a fighter to even remotely compare to the F-22. So now we have spent a lot of money and don't even get the opportunity to use it. And it's not like that opportunity doesn't exist because countries are afraid to fight it. We're not dealing with a detterence. We're dealing with the inability for other countries to even compare to us on our 1970/80's technology (talking purely air-to-air). I'm sure you could say that North Korea or others could put up a fight. That's great. Should we spend a ton of money on an aircraft that's usefullness depends upon air-to-air battles?
What we really need..... More CODs! How about the Common Support Aircraft? What ever happened to that? C-2B?!?!? Ok I'll stop.
What we really need..... More CODs! How about the Common Support Aircraft? What ever happened to that? C-2B?!?!? Ok I'll stop.
vegita1220
User
Doesn't the F-22 already have JDAM carrying capability? And isn't JDAM a "strapon," so that the pilot needs nothing but GPS coordinates...adding little to nothing to the basic airframe? Also, I'm pretty sure that it can take 2 fuel tanks and 4 AMRAAMs on the externals, in addition to a load of 2 AMRAAMs and 2 1000lb JDAMs internal, plus 2 AIM-9Xs in the side bays.
Maybe that additional money is to buy laser designators for the F-22. In which case every current strike fighter uses an additional external strapon laser pod, so you're not really paying any more than you normally would.
And the AF itself says the flyaway cost of the aircraft at full rate production, accounting only for production values, is only 81M dollars. Considering the Navy states that the Super Hornet costs about 57M apiece, I'm not convinced the Raptor is a waste of money. But then, naval aircraft always seem to cost a LOT more...the JSF C actually costs more than the B...
Jesus, I'm DEFENDING the Air Force here.
Maybe that additional money is to buy laser designators for the F-22. In which case every current strike fighter uses an additional external strapon laser pod, so you're not really paying any more than you normally would.
And the AF itself says the flyaway cost of the aircraft at full rate production, accounting only for production values, is only 81M dollars. Considering the Navy states that the Super Hornet costs about 57M apiece, I'm not convinced the Raptor is a waste of money. But then, naval aircraft always seem to cost a LOT more...the JSF C actually costs more than the B...
Jesus, I'm DEFENDING the Air Force here.
kmac said:
The Navy is considered supplimenting C-2's with V-22's but getting an all new aircraft equal to the C-2 will be tough, especially being that full SLEP has already been funded. Unfortunetly, it will take something like a C-2 going down with a full load of VIP's and the fault not lay with the aircrew before serious consideration will be given to replacing the COD's. They are not war fighting vehicles and projects like the JSF and V-22 are much higher in the food chain. Plus, how many states benefit from their production as opposed to re-opening the Grumman line? I don't know. A lot of politics involved. My idea is to put bomb racks on the C-2. Now we may not drop bombs but the pointy nose guys who write the checks will think we do so just perhaps, just perhaps, we would get money for that reason alone. Just a thought
46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
As for technology, very good article in Popular Science this month concerning future weapons. You can read more about them if you do a google search for the RAND corporation or the Air Force Battle Plan 2025. I think one of the big problems is the time it takes to implement the concept. Most of the big ticket items (Crusader, Comanche, Osprey, Raptor, etc) were all conceived during the Cold War and many of us wonder about their relevance - and cost effectivensss - in light of today's missions and threats.
I did see in the proposed Pentagon budget, an increase for 30,000 more Army troops, 9,000 more Marines, and a 2 year delay in the BRAC. That's a good thing - the Congressional delegation (mostly Republicans) in Alabama continues to try and shut down South Whiting Field and move all helicopter training to Fort Rucker.
Finally, some one said earlier about pulling the Army troops out of Germany. Some will be pulled but not all of them - there is the political dimension. As for Clinton causing the reliance on the reserves, that actually began in the mid-70's with the change from a draftee army to a more expensive all volunteer force. Can't blame Clinton for that one. And to be fair, neither Republicans nor Democrats knew where to focus foreign policy following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
I did see in the proposed Pentagon budget, an increase for 30,000 more Army troops, 9,000 more Marines, and a 2 year delay in the BRAC. That's a good thing - the Congressional delegation (mostly Republicans) in Alabama continues to try and shut down South Whiting Field and move all helicopter training to Fort Rucker.
Finally, some one said earlier about pulling the Army troops out of Germany. Some will be pulled but not all of them - there is the political dimension. As for Clinton causing the reliance on the reserves, that actually began in the mid-70's with the change from a draftee army to a more expensive all volunteer force. Can't blame Clinton for that one. And to be fair, neither Republicans nor Democrats knew where to focus foreign policy following the breakup of the Soviet Union.
vegita1220
User
kevin said:
I'm just curious, why's it so unbelievable?
I actually got that number twice...once from the AF, the other time from Standard and Poor's annual report's LMT section back in 2002 for an econ project.
My econ is rusty, but the figures indicated that without further F-22 buy cutbacks(as of winter 2002), LMT stood to make a net income of 81M*number of F-22s once the buy was completed(along with a sh*t ton more off the JSF). Unless I'm missing something, net income for an aircraft is the direct amount you're getting paid for its delivery.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean LMT is basically reporting to its stockholders that it stands to make a net income of 81M per F-22 sold? And wouldn't they actually want to report the highest possible cost to their stockholders to give them confidence?
And unless the financial system is all F-ed up, wouldn't their reports to the financial market be damn accurate?
Just some thoughts...
46Driver
"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
The General Accounting Office is saying $257.5 Million per airplane as of April 2003.
www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-030405-f22.html
www.pogo.org/p/defense/da-030405-f22.html
It didn't say whether that was the flyaway cost, or the program cost per aircraft. I'm sure the manufacturer is pushing the flyway, or sticker cost, i.e. the check the gov't writes for each aircraft delivered. Defense critics always use the program cost, which is everything spent on the aircraft divided by the number bought. This cost always balloons whenever the number bought is reduced, which makes them seem even less economical, which further feeds the pressure to kill a program. Neither figure tells the whole story. Obviously, a program can't be judged purely on the unit cost. However, when're going to production, a lot of program costs are sunk costs--you aren't getting that money back no matter what.
Jolly Roger
Yes. I am a Pirate.
kevin said:
At least Boeing's prototype wasn't selected. (shudder) Man that thing was ugly! It looked liked a flying guppy!
- Status