Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

golden_eagle wrote:

You don't believe China is a threat to us? 350 Su-30MKK attack aircraft, 238 J-11 fighters, and 40 Su-27UBK trainers in service with the PLAAF [for a total of 628], and at least 24 in service with the PLAN, for a grand total of 652 airframes...old data as of 2009...cost a hek of alot less than the stimulus did...next how about a resurgent Russia?

When there is going to be 187 Raptors, 1000 f-35s, 400 super hornets, there should be little to fear. And why would China attack the US? That would be a very big mistake.

F-16.net Sponsor

1000 F-35's Ha Ha Ha! that’s funny...

China won't attack the US we will support our allies, either SoK, Japan or most likely Taiwan...the possibility of this happening is probably way sooner than your projected 1000 F-35's...but I hope not!

Oh and not to mention the 70% (at best) reliability of our airframes theses day's that knocks your numbers even further down...

With the downsizing that's coming I predict we buy less than 800 F-35's and the price rises per unit, congress gets scared and we end up with around 500 of them...just wait and see...

Gates and Norman are trying to assassinate the fighter pilot anyhow so the AF can concentrate on cargo and space...heck if they could get the Army to take on the cargo role they'd be ecstatic to have the Navy take over the TacAir role and only be a space and cyber command...SkyNet !

Let's hope that Congress learned it's lessons from the F-22 and not cut the YEARLY F-35 buys in order to keep the prices down. If they want to cap the F-35 buys to a certain number, then cap the number of buy-years, not the number of buys per year.

I doubt there will be any lessons learned by Congress, afterall the B-2 program should have been the only lesson they needed yet they managed to bungle it up again with the F-22 orders.
And 'golden Eagle' - even if you did end up with only 500 F-35 you still have more 5th gen fighters then any other nation could even dream of. (Better than 500 golden eagles too I should add)

Even with 100 Raptors, if you deploy half, only half work, and only half of that are on station at any point in time, and only have their missiles find targets, that is still 36 BVR kills at a time of the enemies highest asset weapons from an unseen source. This is not including the effect the Raptor has on improving the kill ratios of F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s. The Red Flag results have been amazing.

golden_eagle wrote:

1000 F-35's Ha Ha Ha! that’s funny...

China won't attack the US we will support our allies, either SoK, Japan or most likely Taiwan...the possibility of this happening is probably way sooner than your projected 1000 F-35's...but I hope not!

Oh and not to mention the 70% (at best) reliability of our airframes theses day's that knocks your numbers even further down...

With the downsizing that's coming I predict we buy less than 800 F-35's and the price rises per unit, congress gets scared and we end up with around 500 of them...just wait and see...

500 between all 3 services? Even Raptors have better than 70% availability rates, and the F-35s should be easier to maintain still.

Quote:

Gates and Norman are trying to assassinate the fighter pilot anyhow so the AF can concentrate on cargo and space...heck if they could get the Army to take on the cargo role they'd be ecstatic to have the Navy take over the TacAir role and only be a space and cyber command...SkyNet !

Step away from the pipe.

SpudmanWP wrote:

Let's hope that Congress learned it's lessons from the F-22 and not cut the YEARLY F-35 buys in order to keep the prices down. If they want to cap the F-35 buys to a certain number, then cap the number of buy-years, not the number of buys per year.

Greetings, Spud:

I second your motion on the issue above. Yours is indeed the only economically sensible way to apply any prospective cuts to the program. As I know you’re aware, cutting the yearly buys merely eliminates learning-curve opportunities to minimize unit costs of production. Doing so probably kills most of the program’s economic advantages. If the program must be cut, it is undoubtedly wiser to implement “vertical” cuts rather than “horizontal” cuts, as you suggest.

While the case of the F-22 doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that Congress knew better, I will offer one observation in its defense: unlike the F-35 program, the relatively small periodic scale of F-22 production from the beginning may not have offered much in the way of learning-curve opportunities to be lost by cutting “horizontally” in this particular case. The case of the F-22 may not serve as a useful comparison, therefore, to the F-35 program. Nonetheless, your central point is well taken. I’m hopeful that even the most cursory discussion between DOD officials and Lockheed-Martin execs would persuade Congress & Administration to administer cuts accordingly.

Your analysis, as usual, is most lucid on this point.

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

GOP control of House could revive the F-22