Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

I like your style too, aaam, thanks for the viewpoint.

Perhaps one hypothetical allowance in your DC flip flopping theory however, could be in exploiting a typical 'technicality'... i.e. in terms of spinning a particular issue in a way where it suddenly appears you are now exercising superior leadership abilities in being responsive to 'latest findings' or whatever the technical reason now being justified to reverse a position?

Just saying it could be (and is) creatively massaged, if and when DC needs to make a sudden change?

Otherwise I would largely concur with your analysis and approach re: F-15 vs F-22 related feasibility and possible difficulty/issues re-ramping up a productive F-22 line (something indeed needing to factor in). Perhaps I'd only differ in that a new build F-15E+ could be less costly to operate than the current F-15C,D,E... for one thing, if powered by say, a GE-132 class engine (or even more so, via a next gen F110 motor) yet modulated down in Thrust to 29k lbf class - providing superior reliability and reduced operational/maintenance costs. Of course, in the case of a new-build F-15's systems and components et al, being new, would potentially also by definition incur less maintenance and time in shop?

F-16.net Sponsor

Snake- Just to let you know you're preaching to the choir here. We'd all love to see more Raptors built (in my case, in leu of F-35's, but that's another argument), but the fact of the matter is we cannot afford it with all the other programs going on.

It's kind of ironic the thought of using borrowed money from China to build weapons to fight of the threat of a new Chinese 5th gen fighter.

Oops. Double post

aaam wrote:

Reagan overturning a Carter decision isn't the same thing. A whole new team came in, so they could say, "What the other guys did was wrong" (they were correct in this, BTW). This increases status. Keep in mind Reagan was an anomaly, a true Washington "outsider". Not many of those ever get into power.

after reading 'skunk works' - i was under the impression there was political (read: jobs) motivation to keep the B-1 going, even though it was clear LO was the direction to go.

e.g., once reagan was sworn into office, it was a political favor to those that got him into office (californian jobs for the B-1, if i recall correctly).

someone could probably provide the rest of the historical details that i cannot recall.

so no, he wasn't a true "washington outsider" and his new team didnt say "what the other guys did was wrong" - it was about restoring jobs for those that helped propel him into office ... even though it may not have been the best decision

pissflaps wrote:

aaam wrote:

Reagan overturning a Carter decision isn't the same thing. A whole new team came in, so they could say, "What the other guys did was wrong" (they were correct in this, BTW). This increases status. Keep in mind Reagan was an anomaly, a true Washington "outsider". Not many of those ever get into power.

after reading 'skunk works' - i was under the impression there was political (read: jobs) motivation to keep the B-1 going, even though it was clear LO was the direction to go.

e.g., once reagan was sworn into office, it was a political favor to those that got him into office (californian jobs for the B-1, if i recall correctly).

someone could probably provide the rest of the historical details that i cannot recall.

so no, he wasn't a true "washington outsider" and his new team didnt say "what the other guys did was wrong" - it was about restoring jobs for those that helped propel him into office ... even though it may not have been the best decision

pissflaps wrote:

aaam wrote:

Reagan overturning a Carter decision isn't the same thing. A whole new team came in, so they could say, "What the other guys did was wrong" (they were correct in this, BTW). This increases status. Keep in mind Reagan was an anomaly, a true Washington "outsider". Not many of those ever get into power.

after reading 'skunk works' - i was under the impression there was political (read: jobs) motivation to keep the B-1 going, even though it was clear LO was the direction to go.

e.g., once reagan was sworn into office, it was a political favor to those that got him into office (californian jobs for the B-1, if i recall correctly).

someone could probably provide the rest of the historical details that i cannot recall.

so no, he wasn't a true "washington outsider" and his new team didnt say "what the other guys did was wrong" - it was about restoring jobs for those that helped propel him into office ... even though it may not have been the best decision

Having met Ben Rich, I can tell you he was a brilliant and fiercely dedicated man, but also one of very strong opinions and fiercely loyal to Lockheed Also keep in mind that was written at the end of his life when he was very ill.

At that point, in time, USAF's B-52s were requiring a lot of maintenance and were really not going to be capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace. The stealth bomber program was only given a go-ahead in 1981, and was going to be a long time coming. What were we supposed to do in the meantime? Something was needed in the interim and with the B-1 already flying, it could be available sooner and cheaper than anything else. Thus the B-1B, stealthier than the A but not as versatile, was born. Since the stealth bomber would eventually take over, only 100 were ordered.

And yes, Reagan and his Defense team did say that, "what the other guy did was wrong", a lot. And you know what? They were right.

To say that the restart of the B-1 was just for political payoffs to those who supported him (since Reagan beat Carter 489 electoral votes to 49, that would involve a lot of paying off) and for California jobs (the stealth bomber was to be built in California, so they would have come anyway) is like saying the only reason Reagan ordered aircraft carriers was to pay off Virginia. This ignores the world as it was.

Going further is really Off Topic

. I brought it up in respond to whynot's question as to why I didn't think the restart of the B-1 was an example of the powers-that-be admitting they made a mistake, which is relevant to the current goings-on with the F-22 production line.

Wouldn't this be a great use of stimulus money.

Quote:

Wouldn't this be a great use of stimulus money.

We think alike Thumb

repost, sorry!

arl8733 wrote:

Wouldn't this be a great use of stimulus money.

For perspective:

For what was blown on the stimulus, we could have got around 8,000 F-22s. Heck! We wouldn't even need to fight enemies, just smother them with airframes!

aaam wrote:

arl8733 wrote:

Wouldn't this be a great use of stimulus money.

For perspective:

For what was blown on the stimulus, we could have got around 8,000 F-22s. Heck! We wouldn't even need to fight enemies, just smother them with airframes!

Many observers noted at the time that only a token amount of the "stimulus" went to the DOD, and that was for military construction. SecDef Gates (there he is again) was criticized at the time for not making the case that defense production is truly stimulative - and badly needed.

aaam wrote:

pissflaps wrote:

aaam wrote:

Reagan overturning a Carter decision isn't the same thing. A whole new team came in, so they could say, "What the other guys did was wrong" (they were correct in this, BTW). This increases status. Keep in mind Reagan was an anomaly, a true Washington "outsider". Not many of those ever get into power.

after reading 'skunk works' - i was under the impression there was political (read: jobs) motivation to keep the B-1 going, even though it was clear LO was the direction to go.

e.g., once reagan was sworn into office, it was a political favor to those that got him into office (californian jobs for the B-1, if i recall correctly).

someone could probably provide the rest of the historical details that i cannot recall.

so no, he wasn't a true "washington outsider" and his new team didnt say "what the other guys did was wrong" - it was about restoring jobs for those that helped propel him into office ... even though it may not have been the best decision

pissflaps wrote:

aaam wrote:

Reagan overturning a Carter decision isn't the same thing. A whole new team came in, so they could say, "What the other guys did was wrong" (they were correct in this, BTW). This increases status. Keep in mind Reagan was an anomaly, a true Washington "outsider". Not many of those ever get into power.

after reading 'skunk works' - i was under the impression there was political (read: jobs) motivation to keep the B-1 going, even though it was clear LO was the direction to go.

e.g., once reagan was sworn into office, it was a political favor to those that got him into office (californian jobs for the B-1, if i recall correctly).

someone could probably provide the rest of the historical details that i cannot recall.

so no, he wasn't a true "washington outsider" and his new team didnt say "what the other guys did was wrong" - it was about restoring jobs for those that helped propel him into office ... even though it may not have been the best decision

Having met Ben Rich, I can tell you he was a brilliant and fiercely dedicated man, but also one of very strong opinions and fiercely loyal to Lockheed Also keep in mind that was written at the end of his life when he was very ill.

At that point, in time, USAF's B-52s were requiring a lot of maintenance and were really not going to be capable of penetrating heavily defended airspace. The stealth bomber program was only given a go-ahead in 1981, and was going to be a long time coming. What were we supposed to do in the meantime? Something was needed in the interim and with the B-1 already flying, it could be available sooner and cheaper than anything else. Thus the B-1B, stealthier than the A but not as versatile, was born. Since the stealth bomber would eventually take over, only 100 were ordered.

And yes, Reagan and his Defense team did say that, "what the other guy did was wrong", a lot. And you know what? They were right.

To say that the restart of the B-1 was just for political payoffs to those who supported him (since Reagan beat Carter 489 electoral votes to 49, that would involve a lot of paying off) and for California jobs (the stealth bomber was to be built in California, so they would have come anyway) is like saying the only reason Reagan ordered aircraft carriers was to pay off Virginia. This ignores the world as it was.

Going further is really Off Topic

. I brought it up in respond to whynot's question as to why I didn't think the restart of the B-1 was an example of the powers-that-be admitting they made a mistake, which is relevant to the current goings-on with the F-22 production line.

thanks -