A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #17  
Old March 17th 04, 01:51 PM
Kevin Brooks
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"John Cook" wrote in message
...
On 16 Mar 2004 11:09:24 -0800, (Jeb Hoge) wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote in message

...
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/8197864.htm
Noting that development costs have increased by 127 percent over

1986
estimates, GAO officials called on the Department of Defense to
"complete a new business case that determines the continued need for
the F/A-22." The White House Office of Management and Budget has

made
a similar request to determine if the F/A-22 is "still relevant."

I don't see how they can be relevant.

There's only two countries with advanced aircraft who might be involved
in a conflict with the United States and so justify the cost of the

F/A-22s.
So can anybody come up with anything more probable where the F/A-22s

are
even a tiny bit relevant?


I guess the relevance will come into sharp focus after a few more
F-15s disintegrate from airframe weakening due to 15-20 years of use.
The relevance is, what else is there that can command the air
dominance role?



Errr. one tiny small point do you know how many F15/F16's will the 200
odd F-22 replace?,


Errr...one tiy small point; do you know that the F/A-22 will replace NONE of
the F-16 fleet?

the Raptor looks very good on paper, but it can't
be everywhere at once, IIRC theres 400 F-15s and 1200 F-16s air
superiority fighters that were to be replaced by 800 F-22's.


No, there are some 400 F-15's that will likely be replaced by some 200 plus
mare capable F/A-22's; the F-16's (which are not normally considered "air
superiority fighters" in the USAF, though they are quite capable in the
air-to-air role) wait until their replacement (the F-35A and now F-35B, too,
apparently) come on-line. And you can expect to see some of the more modern
F-15's remain in service for a few more years in the ANG/USAFR, I'd imagine.


Can you tell me at what point does one say 'thats far too few to
matter' (Remember Germany 1944 - ME 262).


When we see us facing a scenario where the bad guys can field 200 plus
*more* capable air-to-air fighters, and we are concurrently restricted from
using any other means of combatting them (i.e., taking their airfields out,
killing them on the ground, blinding their supporting sensor platforms,
etc.)? Which means--not very likely.


If the F-22 is that good why not just buy one?, Ok that patently a
stupid idea, how about 10 or 50 or 200, at what point does it become
worth the cost?.


A rather complex question. You have to weigh operational requirements
against program costs, analyze the effect on unit-cost of reduced
production, and then toss in the issue of a likely future F/A-22 derivitive
optimized towards the strike role and the effect of your less-than-realistic
fifty plane buy. I doubt either one of us has the horsepower or supporting
data to fully analyze the problem. But 200 plus aircraft will be sufficient
to seven or eight 24 aircraft squadrons (and given that it is always a
distinct possibility that when considering the greater effectiveness of the
F/A-22 that squadron PAA allocation could dropto twenty or less aircraft
per, allowing another squadron to be formed) and still allow for training,
RDT&E, and attrition airframes. Can you ennumerate the scenarios that would
require *more than* five or so F/A-22 squadrons to be deployed, keeping in
mind that their "little brother" the F-35 will also be in the theater and
will be no push-over in the air-to-air arena itself?


You might have to weight the possible purchase of 1000 to 1600 new
F15's rather than 200 F-22's, what force would you rather have?.


The one that we can actually *man* and pay the O&M costs for, and the one
you notehere ain't it. When will people understand that sheer mass is no
longer the supreme objective of modern and future military structures?


All I'm asking is for a number at which the F-22 force is not worth
the $80B cost, and what alternative force could you have purchased??.


See above.


(you could have purchased well over 1000 Eurofighter Typhoons for
example)


But we don't want the Typhoon; and note that even the RAF is hastening the
transition of the Typhoon from pure air-to-air scrapper to multi-role strike
platform, too.

Brooks



Good luck!!!


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



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? John Clonts Instrument Flight Rules 81 March 20th 04 02:34 PM
Report: Pentagon needs to justify new fighter jet Michael Petukhov Military Aviation 0 March 16th 04 12:44 PM
Report: Sedatives found in pilot's blood Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 November 15th 03 11:55 PM
Bu$h Jr's Iran-Contra -- The Pentagone's Reign of Terror PirateJohn Military Aviation 1 September 6th 03 10:05 AM
MEDIA ADVISORY ON 767A REPORT TO CONGRESS Otis Willie Military Aviation 0 July 11th 03 09:30 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:57 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.