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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
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 $80B cost, and what alternative force could you have purchased??. See above. (you could have purchased well over 1000 Eurofighter Typhoons for example) But we don't want the Typhoon; and note that even the RAF is hastening the transition of the Typhoon from pure air-to-air scrapper to multi-role strike platform, too. I can't think of a senario that 400 Typhoons couldn't handle at this time, what sort of threat are you expecting?. The Typhoon does seem to be a mature design with a more mmm....'robust looking program' to back it. What will be the best option if the F-22 is cancelled?, its worth thinking about as the program does look very troubled. Cheers. John Cook Any spelling mistakes/grammatic errors are there purely to annoy. All opinions are mine, not TAFE's however much they beg me for them. Email Address :- Spam trap - please remove (trousers) to email me Eurofighter Website :- http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Report Leaving Assigned Altitude? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 81 | March 20th 04 02:34 PM |
Report: Pentagon needs to justify new fighter jet | Michael Petukhov | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:44 PM |
Report: Sedatives found in pilot's blood | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | November 15th 03 11:55 PM |
Bu$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 |