Adios F/A-22?

[SupremeKaioshin]

Even if the F/A-22 get's cancelled, some newly elected president will put the 22 back in production. That's what Reagan did with the B-1A Excalibur.

[ewilen]

Even if the F/A-22 get's cancelled, some newly elected president will put the 22 back in production. That's what Reagan did with the B-1A Excalibur.

Egad, what a terrible example. Even the present administration, for all its admiration and emulation of all things Reagan, wanted to finally kill the B-1 until 911 gave a new boost to spending on all things military.

Mike, we didn't miss the F/A-22 when we were fighting Saddam, we didn't miss it when we were fighting the Taliban, it couldn't possibly help us in the present non-war in Iraq--and there is no conflict looming in which it would make a significant difference. The Cold War is over.

Also, I didn't say that Russia has surpassed the F/A-22--I was implying that they may have achieved a rough technology parity with the F-15C in certain areas, but only before you consider numbers, training, doctrine, and infrastructure. At which point, the US overwhelms the Russians. Outside of China, the countries that are buying Flankers aren't in much better financial condition than Russia, either. In fact, I believe that South Korea considered and discarded the idea of buying Sukhois--they chose the F-15K instead. Undoubtedly there were significant economic and political considerations, but that's how it shook out. Singapore has also decided against Sukhois, though they haven't yet decided whether they will buy Eagles, Rafales, or Typhoons.

Regarding China, yes, it will in all likelihood eventually become a superpower economically, and possibly militarily. But that's still a long way off. Saying that "anything can happen" isn't a serious threat analysis. Comparison with World War I is particularly inapt, since the war had been preceded by years of international tensions, huge arms buildups, and rival alliances among peer military powers. ("The powderkeg of Europe", it is called historically.)

[Mislovrit]

Furthermore, as I wrote in the other thread, by the time China, Russia, or whoever may achieve not only technological parity with our present frontline fighters but the numbers, training, and infrastructure to challenge our command of the sky in a conventional war,

The Russians and the rest of the Warsaw Pact had already had that plan in place during the Cold War.

[David Hingtgen]

Unless Cheney orders the jigs destroyed, thus ensuring a permanent halt.

PS--a new F-15 fighter would cost about $80 million. At least, that's what F-15K's cost. F-22 isn't that much of a jump, especially considering its capabilities. Inflation is a tremendous factor. Even using late-90's numbers can cause a HUGE difference in comparing price.

:edit: Heh, stuff was posted while I was typing. Just FYI, East German air bases already had new currency and road signs printed up to replace all the Belgian/Dutch/West German ones, for when the "last gasp of capitalism" occurred and they rolled across central Europe.

PPS---know why nobody buys Russian planes? Customer service/support is zilch. Need a new engine? Wait 6 years.

And that's why some people don't buy US planes---we're finicky, and may or may not send parts, depending on the current politcal mood. Service/support is MANDATORY for planes.

Edited April 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Mislovrit]

On another note, these Iraqi insurgants remind me of stubborn Americans.

Imagine for a second if the USA was invaded. The Government was destroyed, and a foregin military was sitting around trying to enforce a new government.

Would your normal Joe Schmo take this sitting down? I would like to think that he wouldn't.

I would like to think that the people would band together to at least get the idea through the invaders head that we are not going to take this lying down!

You like being a troll don't you?

[mighty gorgon]

J A Dare:  yes.  The Super Flanker can out-turn, out-climb, out-roll, out-gun, out-radar, out-missile, and just about anything else, over the F-15.  The F-15 has no advantages, other than if it jettisons every single thing it has, it can out-run the Flanker.  Which is probably the best tactic at this point....

(answering to J.A. Dare also) However there are also other factors: tankers, ecm aircraft, AWACS... I guess no pilot would climb on it's F-15 (or Su-27 or whatever), without all these assets out there. And (I think), THIS is the real strength of the US Air Force. Which makes me think if the most important planes of the USAF are the Boeing 707, the MD-11 or the EA-6B (after the retirement of the EF-111)...

Edited April 15, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[David Hingtgen]

Nit-pick: no military MD-11's exist, and the EF-111's already retired.

Comment: not buying MD-11's as KC-11's was frankly stupid. KC-10's are considered nothing less than a strategic asset due to their far superior cargo/fuel capacities compared to a KC-135. A KC-767 is inferior, despite being my fave airliner. (And the MD-11 is my 2nd-fave airliner). If the KC-10's greatest asset is simply size, and the MD-11 is bigger, why wouldn't you snag some? Especially with MDC being quite desperate to sell, could have gotten them cheap. Won't happen now of course.

767--much smaller than a DC-10, how will that help? 707-320's and 767-200's have nigh-identical MTOW's. Size-wise, they're really really close. (Though KC-135's are a bit smaller than a 707). 767's have wider bodies, but aren't overall much larger. Though I do wonder if the USAF isn't going to order HEAVILY strengthened airframes to vastly increase the KC-767's max weight, to or beyond 767-300/400 levels, as they ordered tremendously powerful engines for them, more powerful than even the highest-weight 767-300ER's use, and far more powerful than ANY 767-200 variant uses.

(Boy did that get off-topic)

Edited April 15, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[one_klump]

You like being a troll don't you?

No, I don't, it was just a thought I had. I would type more, but my wife spilled tea on the keyboard, and the keys are sticking

[Mislovrit]

You like being a troll don't you?

No, I don't, it was just a thought I had. I would type more, but my wife spilled tea on the keyboard, and the keys are sticking

Careful with that thought as trolls sure to do like using that line of reasoning contracy to the facts, i.e most of the insurgants fighting now aren't Iraqis.

[Mislovrit]

Comment: not buying MD-11's as KC-11's was frankly stupid. KC-10's are considered nothing less than a strategic asset due to their far superior cargo/fuel capacities compared to a KC-135. A KC-767 is inferior, despite being my fave airliner. (And the MD-11 is my 2nd-fave airliner). If the KC-10's greatest asset is simply size, and the MD-11 is bigger, why wouldn't you snag some? Especially with MDC being quite desperate to sell, could have gotten them cheap. Won't happen now of course.

Boening haves a bigger lobbying group and more money to buyout members of Congress and especially the Pentagon, and thus the inferior plane wins the contract.

[Mislovrit]

In Vietnam, despite us bombing the crap out of them, we lost mostly due to low morale... consider that the Tet Offensive was actually a military win for us... but we weren't prepared to think that the North Vietnamese could even go on an offensive (same thing happened at Battle of the Bulge, although we handled that better...).

Low morale of the public at front and the frontline in spite of Washington's contant micromanagement. The NVA been fighting Americans since 1962 and the U.S troops knew all about what the NVA can do.

[Noyhauser]

About the Tanker aircraft, The KC-135s aren't nearly at the point where they need replacing. the 434 aircraft have a operational lifetime of 39000 hours, and today, most of them average about 300 hours per year. Estimates show that they can last until 2040. They have been excellently upgraded with new engines, avionics and skins. Its the Airforce who suddenly decided that they needed a new Tanker as a stop gap (probably by proding from Boeing), however the situation isn't nearly that bad as of yet.

Boeing is making a KILLING off of the KC-767. They are getting a 15% Military profit margin on a Plane that is mostly commercial in nature, which nominally entails a 6% profit margin (thats generally what Boeing makes off of Civillian market planes). The Plane should only get a 6% because its cheap as hell for Boeing to build them. While they are intended to be a stop gap between the KC-135s and the KC-X program, however its just diverting funds from the replacement. The KC-X isn't supposed to start funding until FY-2006 and probably more like FY-2009 if the KC-767 goes through.

[Mislovrit]

Might want to see this.

Air Force allowed Boeing to rewrite terms of tanker contract, documents show

Air Force allowed Boeing to rewrite terms of tanker contract, documents show

By Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.

"snip"

Edited April 15, 2004 by Mislovrit

[the white drew carey]

Careful with that thought as trolls sure to do like using that line of reasoning contracy to the facts, i.e most of the insurgants fighting now aren't Iraqis.

A- one-klump wasn't trolling.

B- You have no way to back up your statement. Did you poll these insurgents to see who's Iraqi or not, or do you believe what Dubya's been saying?

Truth is the only country saying that the insurgents aren't Iraqi is us. Just about every foreign news source states otherwise. Face it: The Iraqis are, and always have been, a very independent people. They are now chafing under foreign control.

Part of the problem is that we are trying to impose a democracy in a region that traditionally conducts business along religious allegiances than a sense of goodwill for all of their fellow citizens.

[David Hingtgen]

My point is that we don't need KC-135 replacements, as you said, they'll last quite a while yet. But we DO need more BIG tankers, and the KC-767 sure isn't that. Bigger than a -135 yes, but certainly not a -10. And a KC-11 would have added another 100,000lbs of payload over the -10. Heck, we should just make 747-400F tankers. LOTS of fuel/cargo, and a built-in cargo-loading hinged nose. And the upper deck could be used for electronics, mini-surgical suite (like a C-9), VIP's, etc. Could probably refuel 4 or 5 planes at a time, with a 213 ft wingspan.

[Noyhauser]

In fact, I believe that South Korea considered and discarded the idea of buying Sukhois--they chose the F-15K instead. Undoubtedly there were significant economic and political considerations, but that's how it shook out. Singapore has also decided against Sukhois, though they haven't yet decided whether they will buy Eagles, Rafales, or Typhoons.

Don't even get me started about these procurements. The South Koreans were definately not on the level with that contract. These were completely based on Political motivations especially the South Korean contract, in which Dassault actually won the competition in all areas except in Interopterability, and offered more domestic offsets than Boeing.

[Noyhauser]

But we DO need more BIG tankers, and the KC-767 sure isn't that. Bigger than a -135 yes, but certainly not a -10. And a KC-11 would have added another 100,000lbs of payload over the -10. Heck, we should just make 747-400F tankers. LOTS of fuel/cargo, and a built-in cargo-loading hinged nose. And the upper deck could be used for electronics, mini-surgical suite (like a C-9), VIP's, etc. Could probably refuel 4 or 5 planes at a time, with a 213 ft wingspan

thats what the KC-X is supposed to do, however the KC-767 program is just sapping the funds from it,

[the white drew carey]

Might want to see this.

Air Force allowed Boeing to rewrite terms of tanker contract, documents show

Air Force allowed Boeing to rewrite terms of tanker contract, documents show

By Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON - The Air Force gave the Boeing Co. five months to rewrite the official specifications for 100 aerial refueling tankers so that the company's 767 aircraft would win a $23.5 billion deal, according to e-mails and documents obtained by Knight Ridder.

In the process, Boeing eliminated 19 of the 26 capabilities the Air Force originally wanted, and the Air Force acquiesced in order to keep the price down.

The Air Force then gave Boeing competitor Airbus 12 days to bid on the project and awarded the contract to Boeing even though Airbus met more than 20 of the original 26 specifications and offered a price that was $10 billion less than Boeing's.

"snip"

Good lord!

Well, this is part of the issue. It's been said many times before that if the USA was a corporation, it'd be bankrupt in weeks.

[David Hingtgen]

Can you say "YF-22 vs YF-23"? (Man, the F-35 has got to be about the ONLY plane to ever "rightfully" win a competition--and then probably only due the the -32's utter fugliness, not it's vast inferiority)

[Noyhauser]

Ah but the question is about the Airbus contracts... what was the domestic offset program for it? I'd bet it was below 50% while the Boeing Contract was 100%. With a domestic offset your effectively recycling the money back into your economy and creating jobs in the United States, while the Airbus contract would have seen much of the money go to EADS. Effectively your just dumping money into the sea. Thats a big factor in its cost.

[Lightning]

Well, this is part of the issue. It's been said many times before that if the USA was a corporation, it'd be bankrupt in weeks.

maybe if we ran it like a corporation we wouldnt be in debt.....

[David Hingtgen]

I'm presuming the Airbus tanker would have been based off the A300-600R or A310-300ET. That said, the engines, avionics, and gear would have come from the US. By far the highest-value parts of the plane, could be 50% of the total value. Heck, 15-foot-diameter aluminum tubes are cheap. Jet engines are not. Newer Airbuses have more European equipment, but the A300/310 have a very large percentage of US products.

Not to mention that most of the 767 is made in Japan, Italy, and Canada. (And if you choose Rolls-Royce engines...)

[J A Dare]

The F-22 however, has incredibly advanced gizmos, and is extremely agile. Probably not #1 in every category vs every other plane, but overall most likely the best.

OK, now how would an upgraded F-15 (adv gizmos & ACTIVE mod) compare to an F-22 and the other fighters mentioned (Super Flanker, Rafale)?

[Graham]

One of the things I love about Macrossworld is that we frequently have deeper and more intelligent aviation discussions than on many dedicated aviation forums

A bit OT, but I've always thought it would be cool if all the world's militaries could agree on arms limitations for military aircraft. Basically, planes could only be armed with machineguns, cannons or unguided rockets and bombs (no guided missiles allowed) and no jet engines either, propeller driven only. It would be interesting to see with today's technology how good a prop-driven fighter plane/ground attack plane/bomber we could make compared with WWII planes.

Going back to the days of big dog fights and fleets of bombers would be fun.

Graham

[Mislovrit]

No need to believe Bush when it's the CoW troops and the Iraqis been the ones reporting the nationality of the insurgants. Plus even the liberal media agencies such as ABC, CBS, BBC, Reutars(sp) also been reporting it as well.

[ewilen]

Well, this is part of the issue. It's been said many times before that if the USA was a corporation, it'd be bankrupt in weeks.

maybe if we ran it like a corporation we wouldnt be in debt.....

Nonsequitur.

See: Enron.

Noyhauser, where can I find the best info on how well Dassault did in the Korean F-X competition? In my brief tour of the web earlier, I did see a mention that they did something like "1.3% better", but elsewhere it was said that no inside information was available (and presumably Dassault was voicing sour grapes).

TWDC: I'm not even sure Mislovrit would argue with you. It's hard to figure out what he's saying other than calling one-klump a troll. And on that--I certainly disagree; OTOH, this topic isn't really about Iraq except as it relates to the F-22.

Edit: Oops. I see that Mislovrit does disagree. In which case I disagree with his disagreement.

Graham: Ideally, we could get everyone to agree to arm fighters with paintball guns!

Edited April 15, 2004 by ewilen

[JsARCLIGHT]

I've always thought it would be cool if all the world's militaries could agree on arms limitations for military aircraft. Basically, planes could only be armed with machineguns, cannons or unguided rockets and bombs (no guided missiles allowed) and no jet engines either, propeller driven only. It would be interesting to see with today's technology how good a prop-driven fighter plane/ground attack plane/bomber we could make compared with WWII planes.

But that goes against the true spirit of war!

All is fair in love and war my good man. If washington could find a way to make our planes invisible, carry infinate ammo, have star trek shields and auto aim then they would do that... and they would foist those planes on people who just learned how fire works if the winds blew that way.

Edited April 15, 2004 by JsARCLIGHT

[David Hingtgen]

If I could only have a gun-armed prop, give me an F4U. Mustangs beware.

Anyways---new gizmos are so integrated into the airframe (because they have to be), it'd be VERY difficult to simply add them into the F-15. I mean, a lot of the F-22's antennas etc actually form part of the wing's leading edge.

Also, the F-15ACTIVE could never pitch or roll as fast as the F-22. The F-22 is unstable. Not F-16 unstable, but unstable nonetheless. And has more widely-spaced engines.

Finally--the F-15 would still rate a "0" on the stealthiness scale. Probably the least stealthy fighter we have. (At least the F-14's stabs cant outwards a bit, as do the intakes---both features probably help a little) The F-15 is a flying collection of right-angles.

[ewilen]

Last post before I go home and figure out how much I owe to pay for whatever Uncle Sam decides to buy...

Just want to provide a few relevant links, not all of which I've read thoroughly...

rec.aviation.military discussion (What to do if the F-22 is cancelled?)

R.A.M. (Report asks AF to justify F-22)

R.A.M. (More about the report)

GAO Report:TACTICAL AIRCRAFT: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case (PDF Format)

News Article on the Report

[Noyhauser]

Noyhauser, where can I find the best info on how well Dassault did in the Korean F-X competition? In my brief tour of the web earlier, I did see a mention that they did something like "1.3% better", but elsewhere it was said that no inside information was available (and presumably Dassault was voicing sour grapes).

Phew.. thats a tough one. I did ALOT of research on the European Union Security and Defence Policy last summer (including attempts to get a EU arms agency set up, which is called OCCAR), and I remember reading the piece and a few others on it. It may have been from a Janes Publication (Janes Defence Weekly, and others.) which I get through my research position at the University.

I'm presuming the Airbus tanker would have been based off the A300-600R or A310-300ET. That said, the engines, avionics, and gear would have come from the US. By far the highest-value parts of the plane, could be 50% of the total value. Heck, 15-foot-diameter aluminum tubes are cheap. Jet engines are not. Newer Airbuses have more European equipment, but the A300/310 have a very large percentage of US products.

ITs a 330-200 that they were proposing and its Final assembly would have been done in the Toulose, while the 767 would have been done in Kansas... which was the sponsoring senator's home state.

One BIG no no I just found out. They were going to lease the tanker from the operations and Management Budget rather than the Usual Capital accounts..... Instead of paying for it from money dedicated for building the later airforce, they were going to use money from the money earmarked for day to day operations and readiness of the military. I can't tell you how wrong that is from Defence manager's stand point. Remember what Mc Cain was talking about? Stripping money from capital accounts to pay for day to day operations? well this program would have done the exact opposite.

[Apollo Leader]

If I could only have a gun-armed prop, give me an F4U. Mustangs beware.

Anyways---new gizmos are so integrated into the airframe (because they have to be), it'd be VERY difficult to simply add them into the F-15. I mean, a lot of the F-22's antennas etc actually form part of the wing's leading edge.

Also, the F-15ACTIVE could never pitch or roll as fast as the F-22. The F-22 is unstable. Not F-16 unstable, but unstable nonetheless. And has more widely-spaced engines.

Finally--the F-15 would still rate a "0" on the stealthiness scale. Probably the least stealthy fighter we have. (At least the F-14's stabs cant outwards a bit, as do the intakes---both features probably help a little) The F-15 is a flying collection of right-angles.

When I've read about the proposals for using a souped up F-15 with some RCS improvements or even the (GASP) Super Hornet as substitutes for the Raptor, the comment I've seen is that you are getting 50% of the Raptor's capability for 90% of the cost.

The F/A-22 is a bird in the hand that is running off the production line NOW. Going with a substitute would be a colossal waste of 20+ years of time of the ATF program and the many billions of tax payer dollars poured into the program. It would take billions more to develop an inferior product and even years more to get it in to service. Those who don't think that the F/A-22 Raptor will provide a level of deterence and that it will see combat some time during its life are fooling themselves... these same people thought that the B-1 and B-2 were unneeded, too.

[Noyhauser]

Last post before I go home and figure out how much I owe to pay for whatever Uncle Sam decides to buy...

Just want to provide a few relevant links, not all of which I've read thoroughly...

rec.aviation.military discussion (What to do if the F-22 is cancelled?)

R.A.M. (Report asks AF to justify F-22)

R.A.M. (More about the report)

GAO Report:TACTICAL AIRCRAFT: Changing Conditions Drive Need for New F/A-22 Business Case (PDF Format)

News Article on the Report

I just read the summary of the GAO F-22.

pretty well its arguing what I said above. Sunk costs, whatever you wasted on it before is money down the drain. From this point on is there any reason why should we be procuring this capability. Its calling for a new business case analysis... which means a whole new study at whether it should be continued to be funded. It points out that the Air to ground capability has not even been discussed financially, and that there will probably be further delays. It looks like the whole computer architecture will be replaced because the old computer chip is nolonger made. I can't "read into" this report very much. If this was a Canadian government audit, I would just brush it off because this sort of language is typical for a the Auditor General's office angsty sort of way. But Having read a few GAO audits in my day, it could go either way. It looks to me that the DOD is pushing this hard. Let me explain.

Page 20 GAO-04-391 F/A-22 Aircraft

Additionally, DOD’s response acknowledged that

this year the department is undertaking a broader set of reviews under the

Joint Capabilities Review process; the F/A-22 will be a part of this review.

The President’s budget submission to Congress will reflect the results of

these review efforts of the F/A-22 business case.

We believe that the various reviews and assessments in the budget process

along with the Joint Capabilities Review process present excellent

opportunities for DOD to conduct a business case analysis.

Translation: Bureacratic inertia.... unless a program becomes singled out for analysis, it never gets culled. Part of a "joint capabilities review process" means a sweep under the rug, and that it will be examined along with a whole host of other capabilities which inevitably will take a year or so.

Mc Cain got the KC-767 culled, because it was done on shaky grounds with limited tender. The F-22 is a different beast entirelyI don't think he'll get the F-22 because it is such a long standing program.

Edited April 15, 2004 by Noyhauser

[mighty gorgon]

Nit-pick:  no military MD-11's exist, and the EF-111's already retired.

I thought the KC-10 was an MD-11 (why???) and already know that my favourite F-111 is gone for good... (attached my EF-111 Monogram model).

Anyway... the 707 RULEZ!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Edited April 15, 2004 by mighty gorgon

[the white drew carey]

... these same people thought that the B-1 and B-2 were unneeded, too.

Ummm... because they are?

The B-1 and the B-2 are based on an out-dated operational concept. The B-2 is one of the most wasteful programs ever and the B-1's only claim to fame is a cameo as the testbed for Crossbow-1 in the 80's classic Real Genius.

I'm all for a strong military arm, don't get me wrong. But I think the benefits simply do not justify the insane costs of this pogram.

[Noyhauser]

The F/A-22 is a bird in the hand that is running off the production line NOW. Going with a substitute would be a colossal waste of 20+ years of time of the ATF program and the many billions of tax payer dollars poured into the program. It would take billions more to develop an inferior product and even years more to get it in to service. Those who don't think that the F/A-22 Raptor will provide a level of deterence and that it will see combat some time during its life are fooling themselves... these same people thought that the B-1 and B-2 were unneeded, too.

Uhh not NOW. The decision for full rate production has not even been made, neither has the final test and evaluation. The thing has major avionics problems, and it looks like, nobody will be able to service it until at least 2006 more likely 2009. The fighter probably won't even be in full rate production until then.