Raptor vs Eagle

8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
world.

nit: 8 on 2. But yeah, that seemed to be amazing.

Well, that was kind of a weird thing about the show. I heard them say
it BOTH ways (once it was 8 on 1; then I thought I heard 8 on 2)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In a previous article, Stubby said:
I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen

Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.

--
Paul Tomblin http://xcski.com/blogs/pt/
Windows, another fine product from the folks who gave us edlin.

I suspect the "superiority" is largely a function of better radar- the
ability to track more targets at the same time or from a greater distance.
Most of these shots were probably beyond visual range AMRAAM launches, not
1v1 dogfighting.

On the other hand, if they merged, it might be a lot different fight.

Dan Luke wrote:


"Bob Noel" wrote:

Congress has been upset about the astounding cost of the Raptor,
which
has gone from around $90 million to nearly $200 million per plane.

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost
$90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?

From the Project on Government Oversight:

The F-22 fighter development and testing program is dragging behind
schedule and attempts by the Air Force to control costs are failing
miserably, according to a new report by the U.S. General Accounting
Office (GAO),
Tactical Aircraft: DOD Needs to Better Inform Congress about
Implication of Continuing F/A-22 Cost Growth, GAO-03-280.

The new report, released late Wednesday by Representative John Tierney,
(D-MA), concludes that the Air Force has been unable to implement the
cost-saving measures it promised and has essentially kept Congress in
the dark about excessive cost overruns.

The report further states:
a.. At the current rate of spending, the Air Force will be able to buy
only 224 F-22s, and not the 339 planned as recently as last fall.


b.. The Department of Defense failed to disclose $1.3 billion in F-22
program cost overruns.


c.. The F-22 program is on target to exceed cost limitations imposed
by Congress.

"The story of the gold-plated F-22 fighter just gets worse with every
financial analysis," said POGO Senior Defense Investigator Eric Miller.
"We hope that Defense Secretary Rumsfeld will finally say 'enough is
enough' and pull the plug on this overpriced and unneeded Cold War
relic."


History repeats itself.

In the late 60's early 70's the "Fighter Mafia" and others showed how the
numbers of planes the USAF could buy kept going down donw donw from one
conflict to another. They argued that if we continue to gold plate our
fighters we'll end up with 10 solid gold planes.

A good brief analysis (tho not the only point of view) can be found in the
book "The Mind of War".

So anyways (according to the book) at that time the USAF was adding more
and more to the F-15 - gold plating - and that's when others started
pushing for the F-16. The USAF was forced into it because the Sec Def was
on board with the idea. They were told to have a hi-low cost mix so that we
could field a decent number of fighters.

Later on, all the USAF press releases sounded as if Hi/Lo was their idea
all along. Just one of the myths of the era, I suppose.

Same thnig seems to be happening now, with regard to gold plating and fewer
squadrons.

My concern is that we haven't fought a first rate, numerically equal or
superior, quality-equal Air Force in a long long time. Some day I expect
that we will. But when will that be? And will the F-22 be what we want
then? And if the fight is 10-20 years down the road, would it have been
better to field a few F-22's and get to work on the next one?

My pet theory is that the next time we are in a long term all out war with a
first rate power, all the fancy gizmos will be used up within 3 weeks and
we'll be back to bullets, grenades, and bayonets. I may exxaggerate
slightly but you gt my point. We don't have the manufacturing ability to
put out dozens of F-22's every month. And that kind of manufacturing
capability isn't build overnight.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

In a previous article, Stubby said:
I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen

Paul Tomblin wrote:
Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.

"The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
USAF Museum in 1980's.

In article ,
"Dan Luke" wrote:

Congress has this insane ability to be astounded at cost growth, even
cost increases they inflict on the system. :-/

Well, *I'm* astounded at a $200M fighter that was supposed to cost
$90M (which would have been bad enough), how about you?

The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
reduction in total production numbers, and the acceptance of unrealistic
initial cost estimates. If you want to be even more astounded, check
out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be severely
challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more wasteful
than it is currently.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Bob Noel" wrote:

The point was that it is disingenuous for Congress to be surprised
at cost growth. Congress itself causes cost growth through funding
profiles that are idiotic for both development and production, through
reduction in total production numbers,

The reductions in total production numbers for the F-22 came from the
Air Force's attempting to keep total project cost below ever-advancing
limits. They started out at 750 airplanes; it's less than half that
now.

and the acceptance of unrealistic initial cost estimates.

No question that many absurd weapons programs get farther than the
should. There appears to be no accountability for Defense Dept.
"salesmen" who tout these systems to Congress at bait-and-switch prices.

Accountability for congressmen who keep these balls of money rolling is
in the hands of the voters, so we ultimately have ourselves to blame.
Of course, many people stay in congress precisely because they are able
to keep the defense pork flowing to their states and districts.

If you want to be even more astounded, check
out the federal acquisition regulations. An adeversary would be
severely
challenged to make our acquisition system less efficient and more
wasteful
than it is currently.

I've done many contracts administered by the Navy and the Corps of
Engineers. Believe me, I understand the incredible ways they can find
to make everything more expensive and difficult.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

john smith wrote:

In a previous article, Stubby
said:
I still don't get it. From what I've read the last real dog fight was
in Korea. Air-to-Air attacks today involve firing at a dot on a screen

Paul Tomblin wrote:
Don't tell Randy Cunningham that.

"The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
USAF Museum in 1980's.

One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

"The only reason the F-18 was built is because components are produced
in 49 of the 50 states." - Randy Cunningham at a lecture given at the
USAF Museum in 1980's.

One wonders what his opinion is as to the reason the F-16 was built.

Actually, one of the graphics shown in the History Channel's show
depicted the number of states contributing components to the Raptor.

It, too, has parts originating from almost every state, thus assuring
that each senator and representative has a vested interest in the
construction of this awesome machine.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 20 Aug 2005 10:53:29 -0700, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:


8 versus 1! And this against arguably the best fighter (and pilots) in the
world.

nit: 8 on 2. But yeah, that seemed to be amazing.

Well, that was kind of a weird thing about the show. I heard them say
it BOTH ways (once it was 8 on 1; then I thought I heard 8 on 2)

There were multiple demonstrations. One of them was either 4 or 5 vs
1, and the other 8 vs 2.