Confusion Surrounds F/A-22 Upgrade Program

see

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/03224wna.xml


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

John Cook wrote:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/03224wna.xml
...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.

Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

you come to what I refer to as a 'regional bomber' that might have
range that is something like 75% of the B-2. The FB-22 is in that
class.

Given that we've got basing rights in 130 countries it shouldn't be hard
to find someplace in each region to base a regional bomber in. As long
as the President is a uniter, not a divider.

THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth
aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the
SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets

Won't the Raptor-Weasel still need Growlers? And shouldn't the JSF make
at least as good a Weasel?

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
John Cook wrote:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/03224wna.xml
...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Do I hear the shrill call of the rare Purple Crested Cobb Crow?


As a contributing factor, the GAO report contends that adding an
air-to-ground attack capability to the F/A-22 will cost $11.7 billion.

Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7 billion is
directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications, ISR
modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
reading comprehension thingie.


you come to what I refer to as a 'regional bomber' that might have
range that is something like 75% of the B-2. The FB-22 is in that
class.

Given that we've got basing rights in 130 countries it shouldn't be hard
to find someplace in each region to base a regional bomber in. As long
as the President is a uniter, not a divider.

Extending your dim-witted lunges into the field of politics now, eh Henry?
What, you are done trying to "square away" all of those
less-intelligent-than-you-are folks in the USN and USAF?


THE UPGRADED F/A-22 air-to-ground capability will produce a stealth
aircraft able to "defeat modern surface-to-air missiles" like the
SA-20 or S-400 family and to track and attack moving targets

Won't the Raptor-Weasel still need Growlers? And shouldn't the JSF make
at least as good a Weasel?

No, you obviously did not read the article; (sigh)....

Brooks


-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7 billion is
directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications, ISR
modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
reading comprehension thingie.

Like not having processor chips for 100 aircraft so they have to port
everything to a new CPU?

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
Avleak just doesn't get that the $11.7 billion is also to fix fatal
flaws in the air-to-air role, right Kevin?

Actually, if you *read* the article, they explain what that $11.7
billion is
directed at--spiral development, to include air-to-air modifications,
ISR
modifications, etc. Henry, you need to pay more attention to that whole
reading comprehension thingie.

Like not having processor chips for 100 aircraft so they have to port
everything to a new CPU?

Wow. The idea of changing the computer hardware in an advanced weapons
system. If that seems completely strange to you, then one has to wonder what
you have thought of the myriad other systems that have seen major hardware
changes during their lifetimes. Now, didn't that nice article anwer your
questions in regards to what that $11.7 billion covers afterall?

Brooks


-HJC

Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
John Cook wrote:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/03224wna.xml
...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
construction that I saw in Bath.

Jeb Hoge wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message ...
John Cook wrote:
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...s/03224wna.xml
...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
construction that I saw in Bath.

The last DDGs get started next year.

And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

(If each sub lasts 30 years and you only buy one a year, how many will
you wind up with?)

Starting in 2009 we get a "Rush order sought for untried vessel".

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m..._1n22ship.html

So the big LCS buy might get put off for a few years after that point.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Jeb Hoge wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote in message
...
John Cook wrote:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/new...p?id=news/0322
4wna.xml
...and they have stripped other projects to keep F/A-22 alive.

No wonder they need more money than the Navy and Marines combined
(killing off American shipbuilding until at least 2009), anybody know
what inside the Force itself has been gutted to feed this beast?

Huh? What shipbuilding are they killing off? Let's see some
attribution; DDG-51-class and LPD 17-class production alone
invalidates your claim, unless those really aren't ships under
construction that I saw in Bath.

The last DDGs get started next year.

And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

Wow...uhh...nope. You kind of forgot the Navy's premier
shipbuilding-expense-eaters, the CVN's. CVN 78 is under construction, and
will remain under construction through most of this period, entering the
fleet in 2009. Meanwhile, in 2007 NNSDD will start construction of CVN 79.

Kind of easy to slam the DoD for spending all of that money on the USAF,
etc., when you are willing to ignore the billions of bucks going into CVN
production, huh? Not to mention all of those construction programs you are
ignoring...

The actual scenario is quite different:

"Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three
ARLEIGH BURKE (DDG 51) Class destroyers; one VIRGINIA (SSN 774) Class
submarine; one SAN ANTONIO (LPD 17) Class Amphibious Transport Dock ship;
two LEWIS & CLARK (T-AKE) Class Auxiliary Cargo & Ammunition ships; one
DD(X); and one Littoral Combat Ship (LCS). If approved, this would increase
to 38 the total number of ships authorized and under construction. The FY
2005 Budget request represents an increase of two ships over the seven ships
in the FY 2004 program. In addition, we have requested funding for advance
procurement of the eighth and ninth VIRGINIA Class submarines, Economic
Order Quantity (EOQ) material procurement for the eighth, ninth, and tenth
VIRGINIA Class submarines, advance procurement for CVN 21 construction and
CVN 70 refueling complex overhaul (RCOH), continued funding for SSGN
Engineered Refueling Overhaul (ERO) and conversion, continued funding for
LHD 8, funding for TICONDEROGA Class cruiser modernization, and the service
life extension for five Landing Craft Air Cushion (LCAC) craft."

http://www.network54.com/Hide/Forum/...p=1078 633039

Hardly a case of "killing off shipbuilding". Henry, when are you going to
give up this ridiculous "Chicken Little" parody of your's?

Brooks


(If each sub lasts 30 years and you only buy one a year, how many will
you wind up with?)

Starting in 2009 we get a "Rush order sought for untried vessel".


http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/m..._1n22ship.html

So the big LCS buy might get put off for a few years after that point.

-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:

When will you learn to read?

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
The last DDGs get started next year.

I.e., 2005, the last good year for shipbuilding until 2009.

And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

I.e. for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008

"Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three

Right, 2005, exactly.

Now let's look at those middle years.

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud..._Insertion.pdf

2006: 1 SSN, 1 LPD, 2 LCS and a pair of auxiliaries.

2007: Finally another carrier after a long wait, 1 SSN, 2 DDX, 1 LPD, 1
LCS and an auxiliary.

2008: 1 sub, 2 DDX, 3 LCS and 1 LPD.

Counting LCS squadrons as warships, this is just about what I said
above. And note that last year's plan was for 7 in 2006 and 2007 and 9
in 2008 for a total of 23 and this year's plan has cut that down to 6, 8
and 8 for a total of 22 and most of the "gain" is in LCS. (6 vs 4 in
the old plan.)

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud...ection_III.pdf

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:

When will you learn to read?

"The last DDGs get started next year. And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2
other warships until 2009." H'mmm--dem was your words, huh? But the truth is
quite a bit different (as is usual for HenryWorld)...


"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
The last DDGs get started next year.

I.e., 2005, the last good year for shipbuilding until 2009.

Yeah, 2007 is gonna be a bitch, what with another CVN start and all...


And then it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009.

I.e. for the years 2006, 2007 and 2008

"Our FY 2005 Budget request calls for construction of nine ships: three

Right, 2005, exactly.

Now let's look at those middle years.

Idiot. You think they snap their fingers and they slide down the ways that
same year? Those ships will be under construction throughout that
oh-so-terrible period you keep whining about.



http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud..._Insertion.pdf

2006: 1 SSN, 1 LPD, 2 LCS and a pair of auxiliaries.

2007: Finally another carrier after a long wait, 1 SSN, 2 DDX, 1 LPD, 1
LCS and an auxiliary.

2008: 1 sub, 2 DDX, 3 LCS and 1 LPD.

Counting LCS squadrons as warships, this is just about what I said

Bull****. What you said was "The last DDGs get started next year. And then
it's 1 LPD, 1 Sub and 1 or 2 other warships until 2009." That is a total of
four ships beside your DDG's (which should have read DDX). The actual count
is quite different, as you (finally) note below. So we have CVN's under
construction throughout this *terrible* drought you have created in your
tiny little mind, along with DDX's, LPD's, SSN's, LCS, and some less
glamorous support types that you are ignoring.

Henry, you are truly an idiot. And like most idiots, you are the only one
who can't seem to realize that fact.

Brooks



above. And note that last year's plan was for 7 in 2006 and 2007 and 9
in 2008 for a total of 23 and this year's plan has cut that down to 6, 8
and 8 for a total of 22 and most of the "gain" is in LCS. (6 vs 4 in
the old plan.)

http://navweb.secnav.navy.mil/pubbud...ection_III.pdf

-HJC