GIVEN CURRENT WARS, F-35s ARE BETTER CHOICE THAN MORE F-22As

On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Jack Linthicum
wrote:
On Jun 12, 11:24 am, Zombywoof wrote:





On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum

wrote:

snip

Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is an
idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They came
off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their useful
life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable for a
1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
"Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority over
the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at parity to
the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

As a concept only? *Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
to Blitzkrieg. *Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). *Large massive overwhelming
lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
Defenders in some version of awe. *More times then not with a
resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".

The Air Force retired all 64 F-117's on 22 April 2008,primarily due to
the purchasing and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22
Raptor and F-35 Lightning II. *Even though the F-22 is primarily an
air superiority fighter, it has multiple capabilities (as almost all
new USAF Aircraft do) that include ground attack, electronic warfare,
and signals intelligence roles.

Now if you think that purchasing 183 of them is a bit much, note that
the USAF originally planned to order 750 ATFs (the original concept
program that gave birth to the F-22), with production beginning in
1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648
aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it
became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997
Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air
Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the
purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft,
which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and
this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a
multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility
for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006
was $62 billion.

By the time everything is said & done and all 183 fighters have been
purchased & deployed, $34 billion will have been spent on actual
procurement. *This will *result in a total program cost of $62 billion
or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one
additional F-22 is around $138 million; decreasing with larger
volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost
of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional
aircraft purchases.

Now as to the F-35 Lightning II, one of the primary reasons its costs
(to US Taxpayers) is less is that it is a "Jointly" designed &
produced platform with United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Canada,
Turkey, Australia, Norway and Denmark contributing US$4.375 billion
toward the development costs of the program. *The entire concept
behind the *JSF program ( F-35 Lightning II) was created to replace
various aircraft while keeping development, production, and operating
costs down via sharing the development costs with the aforementioned
countries. Cost were also kept down *by building three variants of one
aircraft, sharing 80% of their parts.

All-in-all the MORE you build of anything, the overall lower per unit
cost you come up with. *When you have other Nations assisting in the
funding of the development phase you also reduce (to the US Taxpayer)
those "sunk" costs.

Just like the F-16 is the cheaper, sleeker one engine version of the
F-15, a similar statement can be made about the F-35 as it is also a
one engine aircraft which in & of itself reduces both production &
operational costs. *This is all part of the Hi-Low strategy to have a
mix of two different fighters that was started with the F-15/F-16
program in the USAF and the F-14/F-18 program in the Navy.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question...tmlexplainsthe
entire Hi-Low strategy fairly well and in simple terms.
--
"Everything in excess! To enjoy the flavor of life, take big bites.
Moderation is for monks."

Shock and Awe looked good on TV, looks even better in the briefing
room. IIRC nobody was actual hurt during that display, oh, except for
a few civilians.

addam's bunker, a draw for tourists in Green Zone
Dec 7 01:45 PM US/Eastern

* * * * * * * * Saddam Hussein's underground bunker, surprisingly undamaged despite
heavy US bombing in 2003, has become an informal tourist attraction
for visitors and residents of Baghdad's downtown Green Zone area.

US forces hurled two 900 kilo (2,000 pound) GBU-28 bunker-busting
bombs at the building on the opening night of the US-led offensive to
invade Iraq, March 19, 2003, according to the US military.

Over the next four days at least six more bunker-busters were dropped
on the building, and the holes they smashed in the roof are still
visible.

The blasts caused impressive damage to the six-story high steel and
concrete structure, known as the Believers Palace, built atop the
bunker.

US soldiers and visitors who tour the site today pose for pictures
near giant craters in the palace, amid heaps of twisted steel rods,
concrete blocks and charred marble slabs.

Souvenir hunters can still find crystals from the giant chandelier
that once hung in the main hall.

Yet despite the whirlwind of destruction, most of the palace is still
structurally sound.

And the bunker, which lies under the rubble, is virtually intact --
more than 20 years after it was built for 66 million dollars by the
German firm Boswau and Knauer (Walter Bau-AG building group).

Deep inside, the only light comes from flashlights carried by
visitors, and the only sounds are their footsteps and a steady drip,
drip, drip of water from a broken water pipe.

"We still cant find the water main," said Sergeant First Class Patrick
McDonald, who works with a civil affairs unit and is the Green Zones
de facto bunker expert.

"Even to this day some of the rooms have an inch of putrid water with
some type of biological life."

Saddam's room is about the size of a small master bedroom in a
suburban house and differs from the other rooms only by its tan
wallpaper.

One of the last images of him as president was televised footage of a
meeting he held with top aides in the 30-square-meter (320-square-
foot) bunker conference room just before the "shock and awe" phase of
the war began.

Karl Bernd Esser, the bunker architect, told Germany's ZDF television
when the war began that the structure he designed could survive
anything short of a direct hit from a Hiroshima-style nuclear weapon.

Overall, the three-level, sprawling bunker is large enough to house
250 people, say US officials. It has an air filtration system, a large
kitchen and was fully prepared for an attack with biological or
chemical weapons.

It also has its own power supply. Its large generators, which are
powerful enough to supply the whole Green Zone area with electricity,
seem brand new.

"The only danger was that Saddam and his people would have been buried
here," said McDonald.

"But there are tunnels to get out that lead to the Tigris River," some
200 meters (yards) away, he said.

Between the Believers Palace and the bunker was even more protection
-- a two-floor "plug" -- a reinforced helmet of sorts to make up for
one of the bunkers shortcomings: it was barely underground.

A reinforced concrete box inside a box, the bunker was long ago
stripped of any valuables, first by Iraqi looters as US troops entered
Baghdad, and later by US troops seeking to furnish outside
headquarters buildings.

Some of the recovered valuables are in storage, said McDonald.

"The high water table in Baghdad makes it difficult to build anything
deep underground," explained McDonald.

The "plug" consisted of two 25 centimetres (10-inch) thick false
floors separated by one meter (three feet) of empty space.

"The false floors served to trick the smart bombs into thinking they
have penetrated into the bunker," McDonald said.

"As far as we know this is the most extensive bunker facility in the
country," McDonald said.

"There are a number of small single, or three and four room bunkers
under different palaces, but this is the biggest one, and the most
extensive."

According to locals, Saddam used the bunker less than eight times
since it was built, McDonald said, although he kept a staff to
maintain its elaborate water, cooling, air filtration and electrical
system.

Iraq's new government, which takes over in late December, will have to
decide what to do with the site.

The structure is so well built it would be difficult to demolish, and
the massive palace above makes it impossible to bury.

"So its left there for people like myself to give tours when I have
the time," said McDonald.

They can give tours like the Greenbrier, so it could be fine to just
leave it and give tours. maybe even have guests pay to "stay in the
bunker?"

"Zombywoof" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 03:18:07 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
wrote:

snip

Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
an
idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
came
off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
useful
life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not acceptable
for a
1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that his father did.
"Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of superiority
over
the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle equipped at
parity to
the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.

Shock and awe has been demonstrated as a concept only. Useful for
Power Point, useless, or more than useless, in terms of actual
application. If you do s&a, and it doesn't, your enemy is encouraged
to resist.

As a concept only? Tell that to the any number of countries that fell
to Blitzkrieg. Tell that to Saddam (after you dig him up) about
Desert Storm (heavy on the Storm). Large massive overwhelming
lightening shook attacks (from land, sea or air) definitely leaves the
Defenders in some version of awe. More times then not with a
resounding "Holy ****, what was that?".

the germans didn't destrot the infrustructure ot the countries they over
ran and only two, fr and pol. had real armies.
the bombings were close air support for the advancing ground troops.
the fact the germans captured the countries intact greatly facilitated their
pacification.
the fact we didn't has hampered ours.

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that
his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of
superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle
equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of their
useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane that
his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear margin of
superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces into battle
equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross incompetence.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.


Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
exclusive.

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...

"Raymond O'Hara" wrote in message
...

"Roger Conroy" wrote in message
...
Anyone who bases their armaments aquisition programme on CURRENT wars is
an idiot and is doomed to be on the losing side in the NEXT war. Major
equipment is intended to be used for about 20-30 years.
Take the example of the "Teens" generation of US fighter aircraft. They
came off the drawing boards in the 1970's and are now at the end of
their useful life as first world front-line equipment. It really is not
acceptable for a 1st world fighter pilot to be flying the same plane
that his father did. "Shock and Awe" only works if you have a clear
margin of superiority over the enemy. Any leader who sends his forces
into battle equipped at parity to the enemy should be shot for gross
incompetence.


anybody who ignores the war they are fighting now to worry about a
hypothetical war against an yndetermined enemy at an undetermined future
date will lose the current war and render worries about future wars moot.

nobody has anything in the pipeline either.


Why would "worry[ing] about a hypothetical war against an [u]ndetermined
enemy at an undetermined future date" mean that you would lose the current
war? Fighting a war and preparing for the next one are not mutually
exclusive.





we don't have an unlimited budget.
inWWII we concentrated on WWII not WWIII.