On Fri, 1 Aug 2008 08:34:38 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:

FURTHER F-22 PRODUCTION IS CRUCIAL TO WINNING FUTURE WARS.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/1294.shtml


(SNIP)

Not relevant now, but I'd feel safer if it were Northrop F-23s coming
off the assembly line.

It made me nervous when Lockheed took over General Dynamics, for
Lockheed's sake. Despite GD's great success with the F-16, they
became the king of cost overruns with the A-12, resulting in
cancellation (?) of the program by our pal Dick Cheney (also
responsible for destroying the tooling for the SR-71). Now the F-22
looks like "A-12 Lite". True, we have actual functional aircraft
being produced, but at a huge cost, with all the technology we can
cram in per square inch.

Does tech = a robust aircraft?

Rumsfeld thought tech equaled or substituted for troop numbers, "the
electronic battlefield", etc., etc. Works great in theory, and in
practice most of the time, but apparently can be overcome by what are
in comparison primitive countermeasures (IEDs).

Not in any way disputing airworthiness or performance, but the Intl
Date Line debacle was hard to believe given the cost per unit
aircraft. Kind of like sending F-4s to Vietnam with no guns.

Assuming equal stealth (if the Russkis have a plasma equivalent),
what's the outcome of an Su-35 vs. F-22? Minus the hype. please. How
many F-22s could we afford to lose should a newly enriched Russian
Federation or the PRC choose to mass produce the Sukoi
supermanuverable models?


T.L. Davis