Question about the F-22 and cost.

"phil hunt" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 15:58:48 -0500, Kevin Brooks
wrote:

"phil hunt" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 09:55:27 -0500, Kevin Brooks

wrote:


Not necessarily. The number that has been bandied about (180) would
allow
around six squadrons to be fielded, along with with attrition,
training,
and
test aircraft. That would, given the likely air-to-air threats we can
currently envision, be sufficient to ensure our ability to apply
airpower
in
any likely required scenarios, withthe F-35 bulking up the force. We
have
managed to do quite well with only one wing of F-117's for a number of
years
now.

I have difficulty imagining a threat that could not be dealt with by
several thousand F-35s (plus no doubt large numbers of legacy
F/A-18s, F-16s, etc), but which could be dealt with by an extra 180
F-22s.

Firstly, I think you are exaggerating the F-35 situation a bit--the total
US
buy is a bit over two thousand over the lifetime of the rpogram, IIRC

Yes, that's "several thousand".

Well, I call that a couple, not "several"; Websters defines several as being
"greater than 2 or 3".


(the
Navy has already reduced the number of aircraft to be procured).
Secondly,
the F-22 in those numbers mentioned can indeed still serve a vital role,
namely as a "silver bullet" asset in case we run into an opponent who
*can*,
however unlikey that may be right now, field a truly advanced fighter
that
could challenge the capabilities of the legacy aircraft.

There are planes around today which are as good, or better, than the
USAF's and USN's current aircraft. The Typhoon and Gripen, for
example. Flanker varients with good avionics would probably qualify
too.

Gripen is good, and affordable--but it is not demonstrably better than the
latest F-16 blocks; some claim it is even inferior in some ways to the block
52/60 F-16's. I don't see Typhoon going to any likely foes. Flanker is big
on hype, not so big on proof, and the avionics are the key. So I still don't
see any world-beaters in the hands of likely foes in the forseeable future.


It's likely that future such aiorcraft will be developed in the
future.

Then we can deal with that in the future. Based upon the pace of progress on
recent Chinese and Russian programs, there is not that much to be concerned
over.

China and Russia are both keen to develop more modern
aircraft. But, any future aircraft will be developed in a timescale
where the F-35 will already be in service. So a potential enemy will
have to deal with that too. The sort of hypothetical force we're
talking about, then, would consist of large numbers (1000+) of
Typhoon-class aircraft. The only people who could field such as
force are Europe, Japan, and China. Europe and Japan aren't going to
fight the USA unless the USA starts behaving like Nazi Germany or
the USSR.

Nobody (no one nation) is going to field that many advanced fighters of the
Typhoon classs. And you are right in that the nations that *could* pose a
quality threat are not the ones that are in our "likely foe" category (China
excepted, and I doubt, based upon the J-10 experience, they can manage it in
the forseeable future).


China is unlikely to seek confrontation with the USA, but
a war between the two could break out by accident (as happened the
last time those countries fought each other), and in any case the
USA has an economy 10 times bigger so would always be able to
afford more planes (and other military cabability).

And fixed wing land fighter aircraft would be the least usable platforms
against the PRC threat; lack of basing being a biggie.


Dumping the F-22
entirely at this point would seem to be a big waste with no capability to
dominate any foe that might be able to realistically challenge us in the
foreseeable future; OTOH, building the currently desired USAF quantity
(around 400 plus, IIRC, with the funding currently capped for 339), when
the
USAF has other requirements that appear to be even more vital in the
environment we now face, and that which we are likely to face during the
coming years, seems to me to be a bit of overkill.

I was under the impression that the current build number was 276,
and congress is considering reducing it to around 180. In any case,
there seems no likelihood that 400 will be built unlress the present
political climate changes a lot.

Last I heard the authorized (by Congress) total was 339, with the USAF
thinking it might be able to stretch that into a 400 aircraft total by using
some economies (which is looking increasingly less likely). The 180 figure
was being bandied about by the DoD procurement gurus as a possible "reduce
to" figure.


The F-35 is a cheaper plane than the F-22, and having just one
fighter would provide savings on training, spare parts, etc, so it's
likely that for every F-22 not built the USA could afford 3 or so
F-35s.

Which would also require three more pilots (an increasingly stretched
commodity), and leave us without that "silver bullet" as insurance.


Now, it's certainly true that the F-22 is a omre capably fighter
than the F-35: it has a better power-to-weight ratio and lower wing
loadinmg, which means it will be more manouvrable. It's also got
room for more missiles. (It's proasbly less stealthy, since it's
alrager aircraft, thus probably has larhger radar and IR
signatures). Is one F-22 better than the 2-3 F-35s one could buy in
its place? I don't know.

You are missing the avionics advantage; F-22 was optimized as an anti-air
platform, so it will indeed be much more capable than the F-35, which is
optimized in the strike role, in that air dominance role.


I expect the F-22 program will contine, in the short run. But I
think if in future cost savings are looked for, it's likely to be
one program that is looked at very closely.

I'd wager it will NEVER be completely cut--too much investment to date, both
capital and moral. The cut back to the 180-200 range is more likely by far.

Brooks