Forum: Program and politics

Laxman wrote:

You guys crack me up.

Some points though

- As UAVs get added capability, the prices increase exponentially. see Global Hawk cost issues. There are also other issues that UAVs can not handle in its current form. But the future promises better capabilities. Are UAVs useful? You bet they are. Are they the end all be all? HELL no!
- The Viper IS getting old. I love the jet. But an F-35 brings a lot more to the table than most people think.
Even the Blk 60 doesnt quite compare. Also, fixing just the avionics doesnt alleviate the wear and tear on the other systems on the jet that are fly to fail parts. Parts that now require constant attention and sometimes end missions early while having to throw that E word out, tightening the straps and sweating a bit.
-People seem to forget that you can sling weapons under the wings of the 35. Something you can do, should you gain and maintain air dominance.
-CAS is NOT, let me repeat that one, NOT the only ground attack mission. Just one of many. Though you could argue it is one of THE most important. There are plenty of missions that the A-10 in incapable of handling. The A-10 is an awesome machine in its own right and I have a lot of friends in that community. But, they arent the only players in town and they are glad to have a Viper or Eagle way up high when Darkstar calls hostiles turning hot.
-The F-117 is also a very old airplane so I wont even go there.
-Buying more updated Vipers and Mud Hens is like bandaging the big hole in the damn. But if I were king for a day, screw the mud hens, give me a Viper with the JSF motor, 3-D thrust vectoring, AESA, HMS, a more integrated display system, a bigger better wing, and then lets rock.
- A LOT of countries have a LOT riding on the JSF.
- The AIM-9x can't be fired when mounted internally? Really? Explain the F-22 please
- The bomber fleet is actually showing its worth as iron haulers. I wouldnt just dicount them as "moronic .. screw ups on a glactic scale" That actually sounds rather... not well thought out
-Having F-15Cs around after gaining air dominance is like parking a truck in your garage and still having to work in there. A lot of space wasted. At least the -22 will drop bombs as well.
- Does the F-35 VTOL really need to carry a pair of 2000 pounders(though they really are crowd pleasers) or just a bunch of SDBs? Smaller bomb, same boom boom....hmmmmm, maybe I can just carry a few of those things

I'll leave it at that, but for all the monday morning QBs complaining about how there are no threats and how unneccessary the jet is, it not your butt in the jet pushing forward on day one.

I am less worried about threat profiles and more worried about bleeding the USAF white in all other areas just to buy a weapons system of which it's mission can be done in other ways in the next big air plan, ... and no one would miss it.

F-16.net Sponsor

Remember that during GW1 the AF deployed only about 650 aircraft, including only 220 F-16s.
Only 220 F-16 out of 650 aircraft = around 34% of the total force - quite an significant share of the total, don`t you think !?

Many of you seem to be forgetting a few things when talking $$$$ F/A-22 vs. F-35:
For one, the FA-22 has been in developement for the last 15 yrs(?) while the F-35 hasn`t taken that long, although its taking time too. When you compare cost of an aircraft - regardless of wich - you must always compare on equial terms, by that I mean total cost including R&D for both - not just one!
Second, if the FA-22 was the soloution to all future fighter/attacker needs, there would never have been opened up any development that leads to the F-35. The FA-22 would already fill the spot intended for the F-35. Look at the F-15; how many nations fly this plane today? Japan, Saudi-Arabia, USA and soon South Korea and Singapore and - what no more? The F-16 is flown by 23+ countries. Why ? Because the F-15 is way too expensive for a lot of nations regardless of where in the world they are. Also look at the total F-15`s produced (Around 1400-1700) compared to the F-16 (4400+)!
The same would apply for the FA-22. Even if an export version of the FA-22 was to be made available, hardly any nation would be able to afford it. Therefore, the assumption that the FA-22 and the F-35 would eventually cost the same can`t be correct. Also please take into account production-optimal cost levels to wich all production is aimed; most times production cost per unit is reduced (to a certain point) when increasing the numbers produced, wich is will give the F-35 a price much below that of an FA-22. Also why would the USAF reduce the number of FA-22`s from the original 350 planes to currently around 175 (50% cut) if not to reduce the cost ? The equial numbers for the F-35 is a reduction from around 2250 to currently 1760(?) (22% cut)! Why less cut in the F-35 than the FA-22 unless because the F-35 fills the need of tomorrows battleground (just as well?) as the FA-22, but to a lesser cost? (Both might still be reduced even further, though!)
Third; Let us forget about the F-16, A-10, F-117 and the F-15. The A-10 will barely live out the F-16 if at all, and the F-15 - they are even older and have more hours than the Vipers, even if they might fly to 14000-16000 hrs (F-15E only). All of these jets - as I`ve said before - are all in the final quarter of life.
If these planes would in any way cover the futures need, there would not have been any FA-22 OR F-35 ! Instead the air forces of the world would have just bought more of the current jets, of wich Greece is so far about the only nation to do this that I know of.
Fourth; Deplyment of all of any nations fighter jets regardless of type will never be an issue. You must always cover your own ground (country), and all troops - air, sea & land - needs rest. This means that you must always make sure you have forces in reserve to replace those fatigued by fighting.Thus the claim of deploying all jets is not relevant to this discussion.
Fifth: Production of Russian jets are not exactly threatening, they simply haven`t got the money for it these days. China? I don`t know. They might be a threat, but the latest fighter development from them looks quite like a copy of the Eurofighter Typhoon! (Hmmm, strange!?) Other than that, they still keep producing ofsprings of the Mig-21, and that jet don`t need further introduction.
Lets face it, one might not like it but its true; The FA-22 will be in the top half of the class when it comes to A2A and (to some extent) A2G. The F-35 will also be a good jet that will replace the F-16`s in many nations air forces in both A2A and A2G. Still there will be fields wich the FA-22 and F-35 doesn`t cover that I`m sure we`ll see other jets emerging to cover instead - and from more nations than just the US or Russia.
After all, part of what makes market economy run is that there is more than 1-2 players in the field. If the FA-22 and/or the F-35 was the only game in town, there would be no competition and no market economy, and we would soon be closer to the old Soviet way of rule.

I do enjoy many of the comments that are made on this topic, but I`m also scared by some of the statements made. One should always try to see these things from a bigger picture than just that of one nation.
After all, no-one is perfect - either plane nor man, and thank the forces above for that !

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I think I disagree with every sentence you've said, including the fact to thank the forces above, since I don't give a rat's a$$ about them..

Quote:

Remember that during GW1 the AF deployed only about 650 aircraft, including only 220 F-16s.
Only 220 F-16 out of 650 aircraft = around 34% of the total force - quite an significant share of the total, don`t you think !?

What? The AF had much more than 650 F-16s in 1991. They had about 1500-2000 of them.

Quote:

Many of you seem to be forgetting a few things when talking $$$$ F/A-22 vs. F-35:
For one, the FA-22 has been in developement for the last 15 yrs(?) while the F-35 hasn`t taken that long, although its taking time too. When you compare cost of an aircraft - regardless of wich - you must always compare on equial terms, by that I mean total cost including R&D for both - not just one!

The R&D of the F-22 is done.. An F-22 now costs 120 million. The 275th aircraft is expected to cost 100 million because unit cost continues to go down. The R&D of the F-35 is not done yet!

Quote:

Second, if the FA-22 was the soloution to all future fighter/attacker needs, there would never have been opened up any development that leads to the F-35. The FA-22 would already fill the spot intended for the F-35.

Noone expected the F-35 would cost so much. The original figure was 28 million for the AF variant. It's now more likely that it will be 60+ million.. and closr to 100 million including R&D and everything. Again, 245 million for 2500 aircraft.

Quote:

Look at the F-15; how many nations fly this plane today? Japan, Saudi-Arabia, USA and soon South Korea and Singapore and - what no more? The F-16 is flown by 23+ countries. Why ? Because the F-15 is way too expensive for a lot of nations regardless of where in the world they are. Also look at the total F-15`s produced (Around 1400-1700) compared to the F-16 (4400+)!
The same would apply for the FA-22. Even if an export version of the FA-22 was to be made available, hardly any nation would be able to afford it. Therefore, the assumption that the FA-22 and the F-35 would eventually cost the same can`t be correct. Also please take into account production-optimal cost levels to wich all production is aimed; most times production cost per unit is reduced (to a certain point) when increasing the numbers produced, wich is will give the F-35 a price much below that of an FA-22.

That's right, that's why the F-35 is going to be cheaper to produce, because 2500 will be built, vs 200 F-22s or so. Since usually unit cost is cut by half when production is increased by a factor of 10, the 1000th raptor should cost about 60-70 million, since the 100th costs 120 million or so. HUH.

Also, concerning the F-15/F-16 comparison, a real comparison shows the problem with the F-35. First of all the F-16 R&D was far less expensive than the R&D of the F-15. Which is not the case for the F-35, since its development - for the 3 versions that's right -, is going to be about 40 billion, vs 23 billion for the F-22.

Second of all, the F-16 is close to an F-15 in terms of a/a performances. Same kind of speed, acceleration. It is MORE manoeuvrable, and has about 1/10th the RCS, which compensates in part for its disadvantages. The result is that the F-16 has something like 80% of the a/a capabilities of the F-15. Also, the F-16 had a/g capabilities, the F-15C didn't, and most forces want a versatile aircraft, and don't have to face heavy fighters like the su-27..

The F-35 on another hand in not comparable IN ANY WAY with the F-22. It is LESS manoeuvrable, MUCH SLOWER, LESS stealthy, carries only 4 AAMs internaly. In a/a it is MUCH WORSE.

In a/g, both could have about the same capabilities if the F-22 was modified to carry the same weapons. It fact if would probably be a better strike aircraft. It's more survivable, and can generate more sorties because it's faster.

So yes the F-16 was well worth its price compared to the F-15, but the F-35 is not worth its price compared to the F-22, especially now that the F-22's price is coming down..

Quote:

Also why would the USAF reduce the number of FA-22`s from the original 350 planes to currently around 175 (50% cut) if not to reduce the cost ? The equial numbers for the F-35 is a reduction from around 2250 to currently 1760(?) (22% cut)!

You can't compare a cut of 350 F-22s with a cut of 350 F-35s.. completly ridiculous.

Quote:

Why less cut in the F-35 than the FA-22 unless because the F-35 fills the need of tomorrows battleground (just as well?) as the FA-22, but to a lesser cost? (Both might still be reduced even further, though!)

No. Not just as well, that's the problem. Not even close.

Quote:

Third; Let us forget about the F-16, A-10, F-117 and the F-15. The A-10 will barely live out the F-16 if at all, and the F-15 - they are even older and have more hours than the Vipers, even if they might fly to 14000-16000 hrs (F-15E only). All of these jets - as I`ve said before - are all in the final quarter of life.

If these planes would in any way cover the futures need, there would not have been any FA-22 OR F-35 ! Instead the air forces of the world would have just bought more of the current jets, of wich Greece is so far about the only nation to do this that I know of.
Fourth; Deplyment of all of any nations fighter jets regardless of type will never be an issue. You must always cover your own ground (country), and all troops - air, sea & land - needs rest. This means that you must always make sure you have forces in reserve to replace those fatigued by fighting.Thus the claim of deploying all jets is not relevant to this discussion.

That's why you replace them with F-22s and UCAVs. But upgrading the F-16s, especially the CCIPs which are the newest, might well be worth it in the meantime.

Quote:

Fifth: Production of Russian jets are not exactly threatening, they simply haven`t got the money for it these days. China? I don`t know. They might be a threat, but the latest fighter development from them looks quite like a copy of the Eurofighter Typhoon! (Hmmm, strange!?) Other than that, they still keep producing ofsprings of the Mig-21, and that jet don`t need further introduction.

The thing is that the F-22 would be much better than the F-35. You buy a fighter for 30 years. If you buy F-22s you're pretty sure nothing will ever come close. An F-35 that you buy in 2025, not sure at all. You buy time when you buy performance.

Quote:

Lets face it, one might not like it but its true; The FA-22 will be in the top half of the class when it comes to A2A and (to some extent) A2G. The F-35 will also be a good jet that will replace the F-16`s in many nations air forces in both A2A and A2G. Still there will be fields wich the FA-22 and F-35 doesn`t cover that I`m sure we`ll see other jets emerging to cover instead - and from more nations than just the US or Russia.
After all, part of what makes market economy run is that there is more than 1-2 players in the field. If the FA-22 and/or the F-35 was the only game in town, there would be no competition and no market economy, and we would soon be closer to the old Soviet way of rule.

The USAF is not in charge of upgrading other air forces...

Viperalltheway wrote:

Also the AF doesn't need so many stealth aircraft. For the ANG it makes virtually no difference if they have upgraded F-16s or an F-35s.

Exactly, I just don't why they won't take upgraded Vipers (Which would be cheaper to maintain), rather than a stealth aircraft that would have no unique purpose in the ANG.

Viperalltheway wrote:

Why that? With 245 billion you can buy a shitload of F-22s at 100 million each. Again, the price difference between the 2 would not be so much if you include the R&D cost in the F-35 unit price. And the F-22 is MUCH better. The F-35 will hardly be better that new versions of rafales and typhoons.

Good point, we could've used that money to purchase at least 700 more Raptors, new Vipers (Preferrably the Block 60 variant), as well as more tankers and transport aircraft (Which I hear we badly need).

Viperalltheway wrote:

What? The AF had much more than 650 F-16s in 1991. They had about 1500-2000 of them.

Perhaps he meant that the USAF deployed a total 650 aircraft (F-15's, F-16's, A-10's, F-111's, etc.), 220 of which were F-16's.

We can't keep our enemies at bay by intimidating them with F-15's and f-16's forever. Every aircraft has it's useful lifespan. Eventually it has to be replaced by something more capable.

Quote:

We can't keep our enemies at bay by intimidating them with F-15's and f-16's forever.

True, but it seems some people cant understand that.

Shev

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

That kind of remark is completly retarded! Who the f.... do you think is gonna mess around with 1000 F-22s??? 1000 F-22s are much more disuasive than anything else.

And you keep the F-16s for the ANG. Should be enough to deal with 60 CF-18s and the f...... pathetic mexican air force!!!!

Even if they're deployed, they can still be very effective, because the air dominance would be complete, because you will already have 500+ raptors..............

Ok, about Vipers in GW1, they didnt have pods, no SEAD capability, and no AMRAAM. Now they do and a whole lot more. Which is one of the reasons why comparing the Viper to its past GW1 form is useless. So that whole arguement about how we only sent over X Vipers when we had Y Vipers is pretty ...well to put it nicely, weak minded. Its like why didnt we send over Bones back in the day? But why do they do so much now? And in this day in age, who does the most work overseas? Strike Eagles or Active/Guard Vipers? And to the cheaper to maintain and the better A/A player...are you sure, and can you really be sure without being directly involved with the jets? A lot of the money you are saving is from maintenance cost over the life of the a/c and in support of that a/c in wartime. ie tanker support, airlift support equipment, etc . And would you want to take a 4th Gen, non stealthy jet, against the newer SAMs? ... be my guest, I'll start writing the letter home

Laxman wrote:

Ok, about Vipers in GW1, they didnt have pods, no SEAD capability, and no AMRAAM. Now they do and a whole lot more. Which is one of the reasons why comparing the Viper to its past GW1 form is useless. So that whole arguement about how we only sent over X Vipers when we had Y Vipers is pretty ...well to put it nicely, weak minded. Its like why didnt we send over Bones back in the day? But why do they do so much now? And in this day in age, who does the most work overseas? Strike Eagles or Active/Guard Vipers? And to the cheaper to maintain and the better A/A player...are you sure, and can you really be sure without being directly involved with the jets? A lot of the money you are saving is from maintenance cost over the life of the a/c and in support of that a/c in wartime. ie tanker support, airlift support equipment, etc . And would you want to take a 4th Gen, non stealthy jet, against the newer SAMs? ... be my guest, I'll start writing the letter home

"Bones" or B-1s "back in the day" ( if you mean Desert Storm ) were not available because they had a nuke SIOP mission to fill and standby for, hadn't matured enough conventionally vs. any real ability to deploy them in theater at the time including a decision was made and the rest is history. Now of course with no SIOP mission ( they aren't allowed by treaty to carry nukes either ) and to include BLOCK D with JDAM made it into a real killer ( even if it is an expensive_per_flying_hour_cost_of_ownership thing to fly. Assuming it doesn't go broke_d!ck on you for any number of reasons, it is still pretty useful.

I think we will have the newer SAMs managed with our current plans to field stuff and even current weap systems. If anyone was to follow my rantings ( the pentagon holds their breath at everything I say_E.F. Hutton etc Laughing

) F-16's can come in and play after the playground has been made safe of large SAMs and high end A2A enemy jets. It's PGM ability means the other threats can't touch it. If we do our work correctly we don't have to worry about an F-16 facing a newer 4th gen or a large super SAM. As for "defending". F-22 and B-2 "defend", by killing off every possible ( enemy fighter or large SAM threat, or theater ballistic missile threat ) within reach of yet another useless Team America_World Police effort.

Quote:

Viperalltheway wrote:

What? The AF had much more than 650 F-16s in 1991. They had about 1500-2000 of them.

Perhaps he meant that the USAF deployed a total 650 aircraft (F-15's, F-16's, A-10's, F-111's, etc.), 220 of which were F-16's.

Bingo! Glad you read what I wrote, AgileFalcon16 Thumb

Quote:

That's right, that's why the F-35 is going to be cheaper to produce, because 2500 will be built, vs 200 F-22s or so

Thought you disagreed with much everything I said, Viper Wink

I`m not going to deny that I don`t know the full story on the FA-22 and the F-35. Still, I`m amazed as to how sensitive someone are on this subject !
Nontheless, I`ve had my say and you can like it or not, it still stands.
What the final total for the F-35 and FA-22 will be, and if they make full production and in what quantities still remains to bee seen in the future, so debating it more here is not something I see the point in anymore.

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

Laxman wrote:

Ok, about Vipers in GW1, they didnt have pods, no SEAD capability, and no AMRAAM. Now they do and a whole lot more. Which is one of the reasons why comparing the Viper to its past GW1 form is useless. So that whole arguement about how we only sent over X Vipers when we had Y Vipers is pretty ...well to put it nicely, weak minded. Its like why didnt we send over Bones back in the day? But why do they do so much now? And in this day in age, who does the most work overseas? Strike Eagles or Active/Guard Vipers? And to the cheaper to maintain and the better A/A player...are you sure, and can you really be sure without being directly involved with the jets? A lot of the money you are saving is from maintenance cost over the life of the a/c and in support of that a/c in wartime. ie tanker support, airlift support equipment, etc . And would you want to take a 4th Gen, non stealthy jet, against the newer SAMs? ... be my guest, I'll start writing the letter home

You want to save money on maintenance? you buy UCAVs.. UCAVs will be in service in 2010. They'll be used for SEAD missions at the beginning, which will increase the survivability of non stealthy aircraft.

Not only that, but they will also be able to perform basic strike missions, like attacking fixed targets. Thousands of fixed targets can be destroyed in a few days without risking manned aircraft..

The F-35 would in fact be put into service after the UCAV, which is rather ironic.

My previous remark was not retarded. In the 100 years or so aviation has grown by leaps and bounds. If it wasn't for man constantly looking for the "next best thing" we'd probably still be flying sopwith camels. It's called progression. All fighters eventually become obsolete.

Boman wrote:

Remember that during GW1 the AF deployed only about 650 aircraft, including only 220 F-16s.
Only 220 F-16 out of 650 aircraft = around 34% of the total force - quite an significant share of the total, don`t you think !?

Many of you seem to be forgetting a few things when talking $$$$ F/A-22 vs. F-35:
For one, the FA-22 has been in developement for the last 15 yrs(?) while the F-35 hasn`t taken that long, although its taking time too. When you compare cost of an aircraft - regardless of wich - you must always compare on equial terms, by that I mean total cost including R&D for both - not just one!
Second, if the FA-22 was the soloution to all future fighter/attacker needs, there would never have been opened up any development that leads to the F-35. The FA-22 would already fill the spot intended for the F-35. Look at the F-15; how many nations fly this plane today? Japan, Saudi-Arabia, USA and soon South Korea and Singapore and - what no more? The F-16 is flown by 23+ countries. Why ? Because the F-15 is way too expensive for a lot of nations regardless of where in the world they are. Also look at the total F-15`s produced (Around 1400-1700) compared to the F-16 (4400+)!
The same would apply for the FA-22. Even if an export version of the FA-22 was to be made available, hardly any nation would be able to afford it. Therefore, the assumption that the FA-22 and the F-35 would eventually cost the same can`t be correct. Also please take into account production-optimal cost levels to wich all production is aimed; most times production cost per unit is reduced (to a certain point) when increasing the numbers produced, wich is will give the F-35 a price much below that of an FA-22. Also why would the USAF reduce the number of FA-22`s from the original 350 planes to currently around 175 (50% cut) if not to reduce the cost ? The equial numbers for the F-35 is a reduction from around 2250 to currently 1760(?) (22% cut)! Why less cut in the F-35 than the FA-22 unless because the F-35 fills the need of tomorrows battleground (just as well?) as the FA-22, but to a lesser cost? (Both might still be reduced even further, though!)
Third; Let us forget about the F-16, A-10, F-117 and the F-15. The A-10 will barely live out the F-16 if at all, and the F-15 - they are even older and have more hours than the Vipers, even if they might fly to 14000-16000 hrs (F-15E only). All of these jets - as I`ve said before - are all in the final quarter of life.
If these planes would in any way cover the futures need, there would not have been any FA-22 OR F-35 ! Instead the air forces of the world would have just bought more of the current jets, of wich Greece is so far about the only nation to do this that I know of.
Fourth; Deplyment of all of any nations fighter jets regardless of type will never be an issue. You must always cover your own ground (country), and all troops - air, sea & land - needs rest. This means that you must always make sure you have forces in reserve to replace those fatigued by fighting.Thus the claim of deploying all jets is not relevant to this discussion.
Fifth: Production of Russian jets are not exactly threatening, they simply haven`t got the money for it these days. China? I don`t know. They might be a threat, but the latest fighter development from them looks quite like a copy of the Eurofighter Typhoon! (Hmmm, strange!?) Other than that, they still keep producing ofsprings of the Mig-21, and that jet don`t need further introduction.
Lets face it, one might not like it but its true; The FA-22 will be in the top half of the class when it comes to A2A and (to some extent) A2G. The F-35 will also be a good jet that will replace the F-16`s in many nations air forces in both A2A and A2G. Still there will be fields wich the FA-22 and F-35 doesn`t cover that I`m sure we`ll see other jets emerging to cover instead - and from more nations than just the US or Russia.
After all, part of what makes market economy run is that there is more than 1-2 players in the field. If the FA-22 and/or the F-35 was the only game in town, there would be no competition and no market economy, and we would soon be closer to the old Soviet way of rule.

I do enjoy many of the comments that are made on this topic, but I`m also scared by some of the statements made. One should always try to see these things from a bigger picture than just that of one nation.
After all, no-one is perfect - either plane nor man, and thank the forces above for that !

The bigger picture I look at is:

1. Dollars. We don't have them anymore and we need to run a complete AF. Not using a large amount of resources to field a medicore fighter. The list is long here of other things USAF needs to be spending money on - ( all previous mentioned upgrades to B-1 which increase mission up time ) Accelerate C-5 new cockpit avionics and motors ( again = high mission up times ) ....a lousy +12 billion. .... numerous other important logistical and/or force shaping projects that are going into standby for lack of $$ because we have to spend it on the next $ex toy. Everybody getting enough flying hours? Laughing

? Speak up now. Laughing

2. Threat. Hand me any threat in the next 30 years and I can put together a winning joint air plan overview that doesn't even involve J$F and yet still stomp the guts out of the enemy.

3. Procurement is corrupt. Add to that FMS is corrupt x2. Allies are fine. But the government tit funded by the U.S. taxpayer for all of the shoddy FMS deals ( Poland etc and other give aways ) has to stop. I am not interested one bit if x country doesn't get a JSF.

----

Some other thoughts from the above post ( not picking on you Boman Smile

)

*Hog-up can make an A-10 last another 25 years. Yet you won't hear much of that from the corrupt mil industrial complex who only wants the next big sale and not sustain properly what we already have.

*The Chinese J-10 was partly influenced by the mostly U.S. taxpayer funded R&D Israeli Lavi that was cancelled and some other western ideas. Not much original there, yet shows one HUGE problem with FMS. We R&D stuff and our corrupt mil industrial complex bleeds away technology to potential threats. Congressman are the cheapest force multiplier to buy off re: bang for your buck on investment. Laughing

*A typical fast mover combat jet can do the work of 4 strikers in Desert Storm and do it better because of near all weather cheap PGMs. Between then and now we transfered from sorties per target to targets per sortie. This is hugely important in force shaping. Consider in DS one the first day.... we hit one SA2 complex with a squadron of F-16As doing 2 EA MK84s in good visibility. Today 4 ( CONVENTIONAL non stealth ) airframes could have cleaned that same threat out at range in garbage visibility and been at much less threat risk...... I can touch you... but you can't touch me.... in any weather. If it is a fixed target, it's dead.

Thanks Elp, never thought I`d say this, but your growing on me - and I mean that in a poisitive way.
I know I said I wasn`t gonna spend more time on this topic, but a more objective reply like yours make it all worth it.
There are many things that you highlight that I don`t know enough about, yet I still have an opinion on - I gladly admit to that. This is one of many ways to learn new things about a subject.
Still, it strikes me quite strange that the USA in the first place with the F-35 JSF invited so many other allies into the development face - at any and all stages - if not to make it a contender for more Air Forces than just the US`s !?
Canada and Australia bought the F/A-18 last time yet still are partners in the F-35 JSF ? It is meant to replace more fighters than just the F-16, and with more air forces than just the USAF or NATO allies.
This topic is not about the FA-22, it`s about the F-35 and what it might or will be. What the R&D becomes when complete is all guesswork untill the final tap is on the table. Yet some seem to know already what it will be, and forget a whole lot of other things - and diss other who try to show other sides to the story.
Believe me, I can understand people of any nations frustrations with budgets beeing overrun, wether it be F-35`s, FA-22`s or other projects - Hell, I`m frustrated with my own government beeing incapibal of even getting the RNoAF proper transport planes to replace our 35-40 yrs old C-130H`s !!!

Still, there is a purpose with the F-35 that involves a hell of a lot more things than just the USAF and what it might need. The USAF is getting its FA-22 - maybe not in the numbers some think it should be, but its getting it. AND its already getting operational - NOW!
For all of the rest of us, the F-35 is just one of the contenders that include the latest Mirage, the Eurofighter and other airplane types, and it or any of the contenders will replace the current fleet of fighters. When, well we`ll just have to see - so also when it comes to in what numbers.

Boman out !

As for the F-35, well its intended to suite more applications that just that of the USAF.

I should think that the people evaluating the F-35 in the Pentagon and other places do know what they are doing, and with more education and insight into the background and tests than some claim on this topic.
There has been sufficient number of new Generals since GW1 and VietNam in the USAF to know what a true fighter should be or not to be, to not let them be fooled by empty promises that don`t hold water.

will someone please tell me what R&D stands for?

Forum: Program and politics

Pentagon may scrap jet plans