Report asks Pentagon to justify F/A-22

"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

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
That would be the Indonesia that has just contracted to buy its first
lot of
the very same aircraft that in PLAAF or Russian hands you were claiming
were
a viable threat that would justify purchase of the F/A-22? Odd how your
parameters seem to be ever-changing, Henry.

http://www.spacewar.com/2004/040301183100.oj5mf3an.html

Would they maintain or use them as well?

Why no, Henry, they are merely interested in buying some rather expensive
"gate guards"... Get real. Now, back to the issue of why you seem to think
the Su-27/30 family in the hands of anyone other than the Russians or
Chinese magically changes from being a threat that YOU acknowledged merited
procurement of the F?A-22 to being a non-entity?

Brooks


-HJC

Cub Driver wrote:
We are not going to get into a shooting war with the Chinese. That is
the one war that cannot be fought, and fortunately the Chinese seem to
realize it as well as we do. Every year that goes by makes a war even
more improbable.

Then what are they getting prepared for?

Military balance goes against Taiwan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3545361.stm

-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.

No, it does actually does not really require their approval. The latitude
for the US to use Okinawa bases as it saw fir has been codified in treaty
format since as early as 1952: "Such forces may be utilised to contribute to
the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and to
the security of Japan..." Note the "and" in that sentence from the original
agreement. When the treaty granting reversion of Okinawa to Japanese control
was negotiated, the following clause was included: "the return of the
administrative rights over Okinawa...should not hinder the effective
discharge of the international obligations assumed by the United States for
the defence of countries in the Far East including Japan." Note the use of
"including".

See: http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-1.html

And this treaty can be changed.

The people on Okinawa are fed up with the American bases and will
continue to apply presure until something is done about it.

http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040313wo03.htm
Inamine also told Rumsfeld that "we can't put up with an increase in
practice drills and other noisy activity by U.S. forces. Our patience
is limited."

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Use of Okinawa requires the permission of the Japanese government, which
might not want to get involved in a shooting war with the Chinese.

No, it does actually does not really require their approval. The
latitude
for the US to use Okinawa bases as it saw fir has been codified in
treaty
format since as early as 1952: "Such forces may be utilised to
contribute to
the maintenance of international peace and security in the Far East and
to
the security of Japan..." Note the "and" in that sentence from the
original
agreement. When the treaty granting reversion of Okinawa to Japanese
control
was negotiated, the following clause was included: "the return of the
administrative rights over Okinawa...should not hinder the effective
discharge of the international obligations assumed by the United States
for
the defence of countries in the Far East including Japan." Note the use
of
"including".

See: http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-1.html

And this treaty can be changed.

The people on Okinawa are fed up with the American bases and will
continue to apply presure until something is done about it.

ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
"Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the treaty
section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and as
it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of Okinawa
back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do much
about it).

You were wrong, Henry. Be a man for once and admit it.

Brooks


http://www.yomiuri.co.jp/newse/20040313wo03.htm
Inamine also told Rumsfeld that "we can't put up with an increase in
practice drills and other noisy activity by U.S. forces. Our patience
is limited."

-HJC

You don't really believe that we would go to war with China in order
to preseve Taiwan's independence?

We spent 20 years trying to persuade the world that China ("Red
China") and Taiwan ("Formosa") were one and the same, with the
government located in Taipei. Why would we destroy Chinese and
American civilization now that China agrees with us (with the
comparatively minor difference that the seat of government is in
Beijing)?

On Wed, 17 Mar 2004 07:02:26 -0800, Henry J Cobb wrote:

Cub Driver wrote:
We are not going to get into a shooting war with the Chinese. That is
the one war that cannot be fought, and fortunately the Chinese seem to
realize it as well as we do. Every year that goes by makes a war even
more improbable.

Then what are they getting prepared for?

Military balance goes against Taiwan
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3545361.stm

-HJC

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: (requires authentication)

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Kevin Brooks wrote:
ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
"Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the treaty
section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and as
it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of Okinawa
back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do much
about it).

If Japan asks not to be a part of the fight the United States will not
press the issue.

China can hit Japan with IRBMs without using any of their ICBMs.

And Kadena Air Base will remain in a very well known location that the
CSS-5s can take out at any time.

-HJC

"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
ROFLOL! Henry, you have gone now from "*requires* a permission slip" to,
"Well, they may change their minds..." (ignoring the FACT that the
treaty
section noted was a joint document signed by both Japan and the US, and
as
it set forth the conditions under which we agreed to cede control of
Okinawa
back to the japanese, they are not in any position to unilaterally do
much
about it).

If Japan asks not to be a part of the fight the United States will not
press the issue.

Ah, so now we are to accept YOUR personal viewpoint on an issue that you
obviously were utterly clueless regarding in the first place, and just
ignore the FACT that the treaty does allow the US carte blanche in terms of
its use of the facilities to support military operations throughout the
region? I don't think so.


China can hit Japan with IRBMs without using any of their ICBMs.

So what?


And Kadena Air Base will remain in a very well known location that the
CSS-5s can take out at any time.

CSS-5's with a CEP of around 400 meters, and a warhead of only about 600 kg
in the HE mode, will be of only limited affect, especially given that you
can expect layers of Aegis and Patriot coverage defending the bases. But it
is interesting that you have now switched from the "US has to have a
permission slip" (proven false) to the "Okinawa will be toast" argument
(which would seem to point to early entry of the japanese into the
confrontation, as they won't be likely to stand idle while CSS-5's are flung
at them).

Stop dancing, Henry--admit you were clueless about the ability of the US to
use its bases on Okinawa without having to secure Japanese approval.

Brooks

-HJC

Kevin Brooks wrote:
Ah, so now we are to accept YOUR personal viewpoint on an issue that you
obviously were utterly clueless regarding in the first place, and just
ignore the FACT that the treaty does allow the US carte blanche in terms of
its use of the facilities to support military operations throughout the
region? I don't think so.

OK, I give.

If the F/A-22 ever actually works it will be allowed to operate from
Okinawa.

http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/base/chap2-5.html
Japan has clearly and systematically shifted the overwhelming burden
for Japan's commitment to the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and
Security to Okinawa, which is distant from the mainland, and is
perfectly content to leave it that way.

-HJC

snip


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?

Wonder why they were going to order 800ATF to replace those 400
F15's?.

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.


The F-35 will replace how many airframes???, whats the




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.


They don't have to be more capable!, quantity can overwhelm superior
equipment. and our your quite correct its not very likely, thats why
the F-22 isnt' really required, (for that price anyway)!!


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.

The F-22's maintainability will affect its sortie generation rate, at
present is pretty poor (really really poor), Its being worked on but
it has been worked on for years now and the time between anomolies
(read application crashes) hasnt climbed past 3 hours. the total
system shutdowns are quite a bit better than before but still not
good, and nowhere near where an operation fighter should be.


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?


No I can't enumerate any senario, nor can I think of any senario that
cannot be handled with the present fleet of fighters, now you could
correctly argue this may change in the next 15 to 20 years, but that
doesn't mean you should rush a half arsed engineering and development
program into the front line now.



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?


Quantity has a quality all of its own, you yourself admit that 50
isnt enough but 200 is OK!!!?, If the GAO report is true the present
state of the F-22 means that 200 is too small a number to be
effective, and even with massive effort its marginal, Hmmm. IMHO at
this stage of development the original 800 would be too few!


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.

I can't think of a senario that 400 Typhoons couldn't handle at this
time, what sort of threat are you expecting?.

The Typhoon does seem to be a mature design with a more
mmm....'robust looking program' to back it.

What will be the best option if the F-22 is cancelled?, its worth
thinking about as the program does look very troubled.

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