| Author |
Message |
|
Conan
|
 Posted: Feb 24, 2010 - 02:06 PM
|
 
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Apr 27, 2007 - 08:23 AM
Posts: 964
Status: Offline
|
|
poop_deck_popeyes_chicken wrote:
It was followed on the production line by the AIM-120C-6, which features an updated TDD (Target Detection Device).
Well, there you go. Learn something new every day. I was of the understanding that the C6 never eventuated and the C7 became the production missile, similar as happened when the C8 designation was dropped for the new -D designation. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 26, 2013 - 12:28 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATFS_Crash
|
|
Posted: Mar 14, 2010 - 11:58 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM
Posts: 760
|
The Obama administration is accelerating the downfall of the US. F-22 production ceased, missile defense cut, JSF cut, our economy is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing, etc...
Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Russia-to ... 18518.aspx |
_________________
How many F-22s and JSFs could have been bought with $700 billion? Correct that.
Make that $1.7 Trillion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrightwing
|
|
Posted: Mar 14, 2010 - 01:28 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Oct 23, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Posts: 2025
Status: Offline
|
|
ATFS_Crash wrote:
The Obama administration is accelerating the downfall of the US. F-22 production ceased, missile defense cut, JSF cut, our economy is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing, etc...
Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Russia-to ... 18518.aspx
The headline is misleading. Russia and India have mentioned procuring ~200 PAK FAs each. The remaining 600 aircraft would be if other airforces bought them. There's no chance of the RuAF operating 1000 PAK FAs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DarthAmerica
|
|
Posted: Mar 14, 2010 - 06:18 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 19, 2006 - 04:17 PM
Posts: 627
Status: Offline
|
|
ATFS_Crash wrote:
The Obama administration is accelerating the downfall of the US. F-22 production ceased, missile defense cut, JSF cut, our economy is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing, etc...
Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Russia-to ... 18518.aspx
I love how misinformed nonsense from even more misinformed people fill the boards. The "Obama administration" is merely continuing the policy of the last 4 administrations regarding the Raptor which has been rightly stopped at 187. F-35 has not been cut either and missile defense is a very high priority. If you doubt that check with the Russians. Regarding the economy, it's cyclical.
Russia making 1000 stealth jets? No. Who's going to fly them and what will maintain them? Do some of you bother to look at force structures, personnel before and logistics before making such assertions? The USA has been operating stealth aircraft for decades and we don't haven't made "1000" stealth jets. Jesus...
-DA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATFS_Crash
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 07:50 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM
Posts: 760
|
|
wrightwing wrote:
ATFS_Crash wrote:
The Obama administration is accelerating the downfall of the US. F-22 production ceased, missile defense cut, JSF cut, our economy is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing, etc...
Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Russia-to ... 18518.aspx
The headline is misleading. Russia and India have mentioned procuring ~200 PAK FAs each. The remaining 600 aircraft would be if other airforces bought them. There's no chance of the RuAF operating 1000 PAK FAs.
I don't think it's really misleading. It says "make", not "operate". Though I'd see how someone could easily confabulation/misread/misinterpret the headlines. 
DarthAmerica wrote:
ATFS_Crash wrote:
The Obama administration is accelerating the downfall of the US. F-22 production ceased, missile defense cut, JSF cut, our economy is collapsing, our infrastructure is collapsing, etc...
Russia to make 1,000 stealth jets
http://www.hindustantimes.com/Russia-to ... 18518.aspx
I love how misinformed nonsense from even more misinformed people fill the boards. The "Obama administration" is merely continuing the policy of the last 4 administrations regarding the Raptor which has been rightly stopped at 187. F-35 has not been cut either and missile defense is a very high priority. If you doubt that check with the Russians. Regarding the economy, it's cyclical.
Russia making 1000 stealth jets? No. Who's going to fly them and what will maintain them? Do some of you bother to look at force structures, personnel before and logistics before making such assertions? The USA has been operating stealth aircraft for decades and we don't haven't made "1000" stealth jets. Jesus...
-DA
I find your rhetoric to be dishonest and misleading; it's hard to believe that you are so misinformed.
The previous administrations foolishly cut the F-22; whereas Obama has effectively ended production.
Contrary to what you say the Obama administration has cut the JSF and has lowered the priority of missile defense. Missile defense is nowhere near foolproof our capability is extremely limited; and Obama is peeling away at the layers of our defense. In many ways Obama is an extreme version of Bush. Much of what was bad about Bush is much worse with Obama.
IMAO Obama is putting too many eggs in too few baskets. |
_________________
How many F-22s and JSFs could have been bought with $700 billion? Correct that.
Make that $1.7 Trillion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
DarthAmerica
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 08:07 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 19, 2006 - 04:17 PM
Posts: 627
Status: Offline
|
There's nothing foolish about ending production of an aircraft we have in sufficient numbers when you have other higher priorities. Also, Obama has not cut the JSF. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "foolproof" defense. Nor has Obama lowered the priority of missile defense.
Since we are throwing labels around and calling people "dishonest", I challenge you to prove ANY of the wild assertions you just made. Please spare me the google fu or fanboy links. Time to back up what you said.
-DA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 09:22 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
|
Quote:
There's nothing foolish about ending production of an aircraft we have in sufficient numbers when you have other higher priorities.
Only 83x block 35 units (now factor in attrition over the next 15-20 yrs), and being the increment capable of and actually planned to be the longer-term air-superiority capability, is very arguably NOT the sufficient number of which national strategy might require. Moreover, given QDR's issue of uncertain future now, one which will be far more lethal and capable a threat than any time since the end of Cold war, a recalculation is justified given totality of recap issues as stated (note: more stable, certain immediate post-cold war time when far more F-22 were deemed required as part of future recapitalization mix).
So I'm sorry, but you have failed to demonstrate any logical reason for stopping at 83 modern block 35 units, for AF's long-term, 'High-end' air-superiority deterrence structure... especially taking into account all peace time attrition and damage/plausible early/mistake-jet write offs (and potential combat loss). Again, this 'High-end' recapitalization acquisition program was NEVER intended nor calculated to be stopped at 83 modern-block 35 aircraft - short of world Peace breaking out.
Quote:
'...when you have other higher priorities'
sir, the HIGHER priority for USAF Tacair Recapitalization (the portion of the allocated annual Procurement budget) is to get (or somehow keep) jets into service to meet national strategy requirements/minimizing gaps and the F-35 is NOT accomplishing that goal nor will it unfortunately. The arguably justified plan B therefore is the Higher priority recapitalization portion of the annual budget, in which absolutely could logically include some extension of block 35 Raptor production, being part of said Tacair recap priority.
Now with highest respects, if one is trying to argue that Defense wide priorities today (and over the past 5-6 yrs) vis-a-vis ground occupation, nation rebuilding/COIN wars are not sufficiently directed, then one could take up the issue first and foremost with Army and Marine procurement + planning in that aspect of things and with the Operational Strategists/planners of the time and today in the broaders sense. Neither of which though (not sure if you were going on that track of thought) are relevant to USAF's specific Tacair recap budget allocations and the choices behind evolving policy.
God speed. |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ATFS_Crash
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 09:47 AM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Dec 15, 2006 - 12:28 AM
Posts: 760
|
|
DarthAmerica wrote:
There's nothing foolish about ending production of an aircraft we have in sufficient numbers when you have other higher priorities. Also, Obama has not cut the JSF. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "foolproof" defense. Nor has Obama lowered the priority of missile defense.
Since we are throwing labels around and calling people "dishonest", I challenge you to prove ANY of the wild assertions you just made. Please spare me the google fu or fanboy links. Time to back up what you said.
-DA
I feel it is foolish. The numbers don't seem to be sufficient. I don't think pork and corruption should have higher priority. I think national defense, infrastructure, and the economy should be the priority.
You are being dishonest, there has been many castration and redundancy cuts in the JSF program. Take for instance the F-136 has been cut. IIRC the initial production rate has been cut with the promise that the long-term numbers will be more, that's the same broken promise that was made in the F-22 program.
You are being dishonest as I'd never asserted there was anything such as foolproof defense. I'm just against naïve people like you that think a minimalist idealistic approach is the best. Airframes will be lost to attrition. The numbers of F-22's that we have might be sufficient if there wasn't possible stealth opponents, and if the JSF vastly exceeds expectations.
Lawmakers Warn Slashing Missile Defense Leaves U.S. Vulnerable
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04 ... ulnerable/
One of many things Obama has cut to our missile defense is he scrapped plans last year for interceptor missiles in Poland and a radar in the Czech Republic. |
_________________
How many F-22s and JSFs could have been bought with $700 billion? Correct that.
Make that $1.7 Trillion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrightwing
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 01:57 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Oct 23, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Posts: 2025
Status: Offline
|
|
DarthAmerica wrote:
There's nothing foolish about ending production of an aircraft we have in sufficient numbers when you have other higher priorities. Also, Obama has not cut the JSF. Moreover, there is no such thing as a "foolproof" defense. Nor has Obama lowered the priority of missile defense.
Since we are throwing labels around and calling people "dishonest", I challenge you to prove ANY of the wild assertions you just made. Please spare me the google fu or fanboy links. Time to back up what you said.
-DA
Sufficient numbers for the high risk route yes. Not sufficient numbers to fully equip 10 AEFs plus training and attrition aircraft. One of the basis that the F-22 was cut, was the F-35(and its high numbers). With the costs increasing on the F-35, it's highly likely that we won't be getting the 1,763 USAF, or the full buys of USN/USMC aircraft either. It would've been prudent with these shifting IOCs, to keep the F-22 line open for a few more years, to help recapitalize the fleet. Having said all that, I highly doubt Russia will find customers to buy 600(much less 1,000) export models of the PAK FA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DarthAmerica
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 04:28 PM
|
|
|
Forum Veteran
Joined: Jul 19, 2006 - 04:17 PM
Posts: 627
Status: Offline
|
ATFS_Crash you used the exact word "foolproof". Not only that, missile defense wasn't cut, it was shifted to a much more capable and modern sea based system. The GBI in eastern Europe represented a technologically limited strategy, required permanent basing in country which works against our interest with respect to compelling Russian cooperation in OEF and Iran and are vulnerable. I warned you against googling up some pithy simple response to this. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
GeoGen and Wrightwing, both of you are casual observers with a demonstrated misunderstanding of the procurement challenges that the SecDef is making right. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE "strategic deterence" airframes. The 187 Raptors we are getting are more than enough to handle combat and normal attrition. Here is a statement you'd be quoting if you actually understood the situation...
"I am personally convinced that 187 is enough for a single major campaign," said Schwartz. "I have no doubt that we can prevail."
"The truth is that our country is in a difficult financial situation. Things aren't as good as they were years ago, and we in the Department of Defense have to make adjustments, too," General Schwartz said in his closing remarks. "We will give America the very best Air Force we can given the resources made available to us. It is better for the Air Force to make the tough choices. We are all in."
There isn't a need for all AEF to fly F-22's. And cutting the F136 engine does not represent cutting F-35 procurement. It's cutting an unnecessary redundancy. A redundancy that you have to qualify and establish logistics for. Get a clue guys...
-DA |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrightwing
|
|
Posted: Mar 15, 2010 - 06:13 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Oct 23, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Posts: 2025
Status: Offline
|
|
DarthAmerica wrote:
ATFS_Crash you used the exact word "foolproof". Not only that, missile defense wasn't cut, it was shifted to a much more capable and modern sea based system. The GBI in eastern Europe represented a technologically limited strategy, required permanent basing in country which works against our interest with respect to compelling Russian cooperation in OEF and Iran and are vulnerable. I warned you against googling up some pithy simple response to this. Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
GeoGen and Wrightwing, both of you are casual observers with a demonstrated misunderstanding of the procurement challenges that the SecDef is making right. WE DONT NEED ANY MORE "strategic deterence" airframes. The 187 Raptors we are getting are more than enough to handle combat and normal attrition. Here is a statement you'd be quoting if you actually understood the situation...
"I am personally convinced that 187 is enough for a single major campaign," said Schwartz. "I have no doubt that we can prevail."
"The truth is that our country is in a difficult financial situation. Things aren't as good as they were years ago, and we in the Department of Defense have to make adjustments, too," General Schwartz said in his closing remarks. "We will give America the very best Air Force we can given the resources made available to us. It is better for the Air Force to make the tough choices. We are all in."
There isn't a need for all AEF to fly F-22's. And cutting the F136 engine does not represent cutting F-35 procurement. It's cutting an unnecessary redundancy. A redundancy that you have to qualify and establish logistics for. Get a clue guys...
-DA
You're leaving out General Schwartz's remarks about the risk levels(i.e. 187 high risk, 243 moderate risk, 381 low risk). Yes we can prevail, but at what cost. That's the whole point- we want to prevail without losing a lot of aircraft and pilots to do so. You also have to bear in mind that we won't have 187 Raptors for combat operations. Many of them will be training or attrition replacement birds. Additionally, and we've gone around in circles about this before, these aircraft are going to have to last for the next 30 or more years. Unless the pilots don't get many hours of flight time, the average number of airframe hours over the fleet is going to be high. Going with the lower number requires us to lower our standards too, of being able to fight 2 major regional conflicts simultaneously. You can see how well that plan worked out for the Army and USMC in Afghanistan and Iraq, having to make do with a smaller force to accomplish the mission. You have higher optempos, equipment wears out faster, you take higher casualty rates, etc... when you accept a higher risk plan. If anything should be cut, it's in the entitlements portion of the budget, so that the military gets the funding it needs. If we'd bought higher numbers of Raptors in the first place, the per unit cost wouldn't have spiralled so high. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Mar 16, 2010 - 11:27 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
WW, very true... regarding Schwartz's more complete viewpoints. Also, the truly simplistic 2 dimensional oriented consideration of merely being able to win in one major conflict, speaks for itself. Furthermore, when estimating such a 'sufficient' F-22 force, given all current factors today of financial, strategic, tactical, geopolitical, asymmetrical, hypothetical, etc, all point to a much higher complex formula necessary to make those determinations. (far beyond merely being able to fight one Major conflict over the next 30 yrs).
DA - yes, being a casual observer (sometimes clueless, yes) I am well aware of Gen Schwartz's views and policy points, thanks. Besides, to totally contradict his point about 'financial stress' being an excuse, that very argument is one reason why 60-100 additional block 35 F-22s as long-term 'High-end', combined with 'low-end' upgraded F-16 and possibly F-15 and even Super Hornets (plus future UCAV) would have been FAR more affordable, incurring less cost to USAF, while providing more reliable and flexible airpower deterrence and capability through 2030. (leaving room for future, superior 5.5/6th gen replacements for such outgoing 4.5 force by late 2020s/2030, if strategically/geopolitically required then). Again, that plan was (and arguably still is today) more reliable and LESS costly then staying the course. Flat out, the JSF/JPO office needs to be brought before the Hill and probed for honest, transparent info on the program and not the latest truly unfortunate deception made by Dr Carter last week. (He should be brought back again too, in order to be given an extra chance to inform Congress with more honest information). That way, Congress and Taxpayers can get a better clue and the policy deciders some help in making more accountable, proper decisions. |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
msupepper
|
|
Posted: Jun 18, 2010 - 08:41 PM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Sep 13, 2006 - 09:55 PM
Posts: 55
Status: Offline
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
