"John Cook" wrote in message
...
snip


Errr. one tiny small point do you know how many F15/F16's will the 200
odd F-22 replace?,

Errr...one tiy small point; do you know that the F/A-22 will replace NONE
of
the F-16 fleet?

Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
F15's?.

Can you point to any reputable source that indicates the F/A-22 is supposed
to replace the F-16? And FYI, when the original 800 number was proposed, we
had a few more F-15's in the inventory, and werestill engaged in the Cold
War--neither is applicable today.


the Raptor looks very good on paper, but it can't
be everywhere at once, IIRC theres 400 F-15s and 1200 F-16s air
superiority fighters that were to be replaced by 800 F-22's.

No, there are some 400 F-15's that will likely be replaced by some 200
plus
mare capable F/A-22's; the F-16's (which are not normally considered "air
superiority fighters" in the USAF, though they are quite capable in the
air-to-air role) wait until their replacement (the F-35A and now F-35B,
too,
apparently) come on-line. And you can expect to see some of the more
modern
F-15's remain in service for a few more years in the ANG/USAFR, I'd
imagine.


The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the

What's the what? Get over this idea of your's that replacements have to be
on a one-for-one basis. When the F-35 enters service we will still operate
F-16's; expect to see the later blocks in service for many years after the
F-35 has entered the picture. As was noted in a recent article
(www.afa.org/magazine/March2004/0304f35.asp ), production figures may
fluctuate in the out years; IIRC the current total for the USAF is some 1700
plus.





Can you tell me at what point does one say 'thats far too few to
matter' (Remember Germany 1944 - ME 262).

When we see us facing a scenario where the bad guys can field 200 plus
*more* capable air-to-air fighters, and we are concurrently restricted
from
using any other means of combatting them (i.e., taking their airfields
out,
killing them on the ground, blinding their supporting sensor platforms,
etc.)? Which means--not very likely.


They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
equipment.

Ah, still rooted in the old "mass always kicks ass" philosophy, huh? When
the other side can't see your lesser numbered force, can't act as agilely
(in terms of reacting to a changing situation) as you can, and can't is
further flying aircraft less capable than your's, then he is in trouble.
Even the PRC/PLA has belatedly realized that pure mass is not the answer.
You are using the Lanchesterian attrition model to base that statement
upon--unfortunately, it has proven to be less than accurate, especially
when, as you are here, applying it to the force as a whole. It further
ignores the fact that the USAF will use its advantages in the ISR and C4
fields to acheive localized superiority when it so desires. And it derails
completely when viewed against the backdrop of stealth and precision
engagement. Had you applied Lanchester's laws to the operations during
either Gulf War you would have found that the coalition forces should have
experienced exponentially greater casualties than they did in either
conflict.

and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!

Wise to have that "Silver Bullet". By your reasoning, the ICBM, nuclear
bomber, and SLBM forces we bought and maintained throughout the Cold War
were a complete and utter waste--but in fact it was their status as a
force-in-being that acheived their purpose (deterring nuclear, and in the
end even large scale conventional, war between the superpowers).



If the F-22 is that good why not just buy one?, Ok that patently a
stupid idea, how about 10 or 50 or 200, at what point does it become
worth the cost?.

A rather complex question. You have to weigh operational requirements
against program costs, analyze the effect on unit-cost of reduced
production, and then toss in the issue of a likely future F/A-22
derivitive
optimized towards the strike role and the effect of your
less-than-realistic
fifty plane buy.

The F-22's maintainability will affect its sortie generation rate, at
present is pretty poor (really really poor),

New, complex systems frequently have that problem. Had you used that
yardstick, your own force would have never gotten the F-111, or the F-18,
and the US would never have continued with fielding of the M1 tank series.
The F-100 would have been dumped early because of its initial
problems/shortcomings, as would the F-104, F-14, etc. It does not work that
way.

Its being worked on but
it has been worked on for years now and the time between anomolies
(read application crashes) hasnt climbed past 3 hours. the total
system shutdowns are quite a bit better than before but still not
good, and nowhere near where an operation fighter should be.

So what? You think they will solve these problems by cancelling the program?
Leaving us with exactly what to replace the F-15's in the air superiority
role...? We are pushing the envelope in terms of capabilities--expect
difficulties to arise. You sound exactly like some of the more vocal
detractors of the M1 Abrams program back when it was in its teething
stage--and it has turned into one of the top two or three tanks currently in
service.



I doubt either one of us has the horsepower or supporting
data to fully analyze the problem. But 200 plus aircraft will be
sufficient
to seven or eight 24 aircraft squadrons (and given that it is always a
distinct possibility that when considering the greater effectiveness of
the
F/A-22 that squadron PAA allocation could dropto twenty or less aircraft
per, allowing another squadron to be formed) and still allow for
training,
RDT&E, and attrition airframes. Can you ennumerate the scenarios that
would
require *more than* five or so F/A-22 squadrons to be deployed, keeping
in
mind that their "little brother" the F-35 will also be in the theater and
will be no push-over in the air-to-air arena itself?


No I can't enumerate any senario, nor can I think of any senario that
cannot be handled with the present fleet of fighters, now you could
correctly argue this may change in the next 15 to 20 years, but that
doesn't mean you should rush a half arsed engineering and development
program into the front line now.

You are the one making that claim. AvLeak has just announced that the next
operational testing phase for the F/A-22 is being delayed--hardly a case of
rushing them into service, IMO. And being prepared for the potential threats
of ten or fifteen years down the line is precisely why we are building the
F/A-22; if you have not noticed, we no longer live in a world like that
which typified the WWII era, when you could design, build, and place into
service a major combat aircraft during a span of three years or so.




You might have to weight the possible purchase of 1000 to 1600 new
F15's rather than 200 F-22's, what force would you rather have?.

The one that we can actually *man* and pay the O&M costs for, and the one
you notehere ain't it. When will people understand that sheer mass is no
longer the supreme objective of modern and future military structures?


Quantity has a quality all of its own, you yourself admit that 50
isnt enough but 200 is OK!!!?,

Yep. Gotta have enough to ensure we can surge enough aircraft into the
theater to conduct round-the-clock operations, but that is a far cry from
trying to outweigh every comer in terms of sheer mass.

If the GAO report is true the present
state of the F-22 means that 200 is too small a number to be
effective, and even with massive effort its marginal, Hmmm. IMHO at
this stage of development the original 800 would be too few!

So you say, but to be honest your analysis is not too impressive thus far. I
have been watching your repeated rants against the F-22 (and IIRC the F-35),
and it has become obvious that you offer anything but an unbiased analysis
of the situation--you are a bit remindful of the Tarvernaut in terms of your
single-minded animosity towards the F/A-22, so it is obvious that further
discussion of this subject with you is pointless. And BTW, the GAO has a
long and lusterous career of nitpicking and opposing a broad range of US
weapons systems, so you might want to broaden your database a bit.

Brooks



All I'm asking is for a number at which the F-22 force is not worth
the $80B cost, and what alternative force could you have purchased??.

See above.


(you could have purchased well over 1000 Eurofighter Typhoons for
example)

But we don't want the Typhoon; and note that even the RAF is hastening
the
transition of the Typhoon from pure air-to-air scrapper to multi-role
strike
platform, too.

I can't think of a senario that 400 Typhoons couldn't handle at this
time, what sort of threat are you expecting?.

The Typhoon does seem to be a mature design with a more
mmm....'robust looking program' to back it.

What will be the best option if the F-22 is cancelled?, its worth
thinking about as the program does look very troubled.

Cheers.

John Cook

Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All
opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them.

Email Address :-
Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me
Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk