If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Any guesses as to when or if the F-22 will ever show up at Paris or Farnborough?
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor
can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual events. _____________ José Herculano |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"José Herculano" wrote in message .. .
I'd say 2005. _____________ José Herculano Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is projected at $162 million each!!! That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22 SHOULD have but really doesn't. Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million, and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen. The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the Flanker and Eurofighter. I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future. However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat emerging until after 2010 at least. Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6. This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems. I think our money should be spent more wisely... Rob |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message ... On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: snip What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes. Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the shortfall? Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"At Paris?"
Never. "Over Paris?" Soon, I hope . . . Steve Swartz "José Herculano" wrote in message ... I'd say 2005. At this stage of the program they cannot afford a crash, nor can they pull a test aircraft from its duties. In 2005 a few test aircraft would be "free" to other pursuits, and I'd wager we'll see a lot of PR record breaking and some very agressive aerial demonstrations at the usual events. _____________ José Herculano |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:15:15 -0800, "Tarver Engineering"
wrote: "Ed Rasimus" wrote in message .. . On 26 Nov 2003 06:15:22 -0800, (robert arndt) wrote: snip What would those capabilities be? Stealthy--yes. Supercruise--yes. Agile--yes. Sensor data integration--yes. What seems to be the shortfall? Weapons sensor integration, weapons integation and structural integrity are all current shortfalls of the F-22 program. Perhaps these issues can be sorted out by the end of this fiscal year, but perhaps the ax will fall. Any specific numbers and cites to go with those assertions? Didn't think so. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ed Rasimus wrote in message . ..
Give me an example of a conflict in which Russias finest product has demonstrated superiority. The last time you might be able to find some numbers that could give that impression, you'd be talking about the Vietnam war, but there you'd be looking at ROE rather than capability. Try Bekaa Valley stats for the same airplanes without the ROE. The sort of conflict you refer to has never occurred. Russia's finest was never in the hands of anyone but the Russians themselves (barring a few defectors who brought their ride along). Even if they had been, you Bekaa example probably doesn't hold up. I think that if the Arabs had had the same technology as the Israelis, the Israelis still would have walked all over them, although at a somewhat higher cost. It just doesn't get much leaner and meaner than the IDF. I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies easily. I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly, as these tests showed. I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better. Rob |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
I do recall an article in Time magazine that had an interview with a West German pilot, shortly after the two Germanies rejoined. They had just been doing air combat trials between their Phantoms and East German Fulcrums. Despite all the confidence they had in the superiority of Western technology prior to this event, he was most relieved that these combats were not in earnest, as he believed that had they been, the Phantoms would have been swept out of the skies easily. I realise that by that time the Phantom was hardly the pick of the bunch anymore, but the sense of superiority still prevailed, wrongly, as these tests showed. Actually from an article I recall reading back then, quoting accounts from the pilots who actually participated, the F-4s *did* win. I specifically remember the laments of East German pilots of getting waxed by "lousy Phantoms". I hope that we will never really know the answer to which is better. Rob |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"robert arndt" wrote in message om... "José Herculano" wrote in message .. . I'd say 2005. _____________ José Herculano Hopefully never. By IOC of 2006/7 the unit cost of each F-22 is projected at $162 million each!!! That is obscene considering the supposed capabilities that the F-22 SHOULD have but really doesn't. Why is it the Russians can make a Su-35 Superflanker or Su-47 Firkin for $40-60 million, Europe can make the Typhoon for $75-80 million, and the Raptor comes in at $150-162 million? That's not counting the French Rafale nor Swedish Gripen. The Raptor is NOT that much better overall than any of the other aircraft, especially the most high-tech (non-export)versions of the Flanker and Eurofighter. I am firmly against the F-22 and want the entire program axed as do many other taxpayers. It is a money pit and not likely to fulfill its role as an air superiority machine once the UCAVs go into series production. I do, however, favor the less expensive and badly needed F-35 to "fill the gap" of aging aircraft. But there is nothing really wrong with the best F-15s. Look at the Israeli F-15I. The US could modernize the F-15 further and eliminate a huge amount of expense without sacrificing current R&D on a suitable successor in the future. However, threat analysis of today does not indicate a serious threat emerging until after 2010 at least. Germany's Taifun/Brevel/Mucke UCAV system will be operable by 2005/6. This is primarily a ground attack family but the Germans are also working on air-to-air and AUVs as well. Others have UCAVs under development too as well as anti-stealth radars/missile systems. I think our money should be spent more wisely... Rob Too bad you don't win a war based on the cheaper fighter jet. You put a squadron of F-22s at some country's doorstep and you show me any country that will be willing to fight in the air. That fact alone will probably save you months to years on the duration of a war and billions of dollars in cost savings and thousands of lives. They will pay for themselves just by their meir existance. How many billions have we spent on nuclear weapons? How many times have we used them? You sleep well at night? We should be willing to pay any price to continue to completely dominate the battlespace. If we ever lose that edge, we'll find ourselves back into another Kora, Vietnam, WWII nightware that no one wants. Your shinny new car, or big new house, won't matter for a damn if you get drafted to go fight some war that's dragging on because we outfitted our military with the lowest bidder. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|