Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

In my rant above (a prior post) concerning all the issues in the US, I forgot to
add that our infrastructure is crumbling along with all of the issues I mentioned above.
DandC, our leadership is failing us from the state level to the federal government.
At the federal government level, they are mostly more interested in attacking
each other (Democrats and Republicans) and getting ready for the next election so
that they can get raises and re-elected. More money, more power, more prestige
and screw the tax payer.

F-16.net Sponsor

cutlassracer wrote:

DarthAmerica wrote:

Tinito_16 wrote:

I'm in TEG's camp: I believe about two-thirds of planned F-35's will eventually be built - unless a new conventional threat materializes. If we are to look into the future as most people and lawmakers do, we will only be fighting Iraq/Afganistan type wars in the next 20-30 years. Using the F-35 for these conflicts is in many cases overkill, because in the vast majority of instances the enemy won't even have radars. Not that overkill is bad - it's good. You want to win all wars 100-0. But that also means that countries will buy only as many as they need to effectively replace their legacy fighters (read - they won't buy at a 1 to 1 ratio). Which means that eventually the numbers will be cut, and we will have MANY more F-35's than F-22's, but certainly not as much as people are envisioning right now. This will only change if a new threat arises.
DA, hopefully this government can change the way the U.S. aquires weapons systems. For far too long we have waited too long and paid too much for almost all our shiny new weapons. Industry has to get it's senses back and do things on time and on budget. But, given that for the last 20 years (or more), the vast majority of weapons programs have had delays and/or cost overruns, don't you think it's a bit naive to think the F-35 won't run into some of these problems?

There you go using the word "certainly". What's certain is the USAF is telling you they intent to buy 1763 F-35s. The intent is certain. You saying they wont is speculation. Do you see the difference and why I criticize your post?

So, intent means that it is set in stone? Seems to me the fact that not a single production F-35 has yet to be built it would be speculation to say that they are going to get 1763 for the USAF.

The F-35 has been delayed and has had cost overruns. Thats business as usual and I agree it's something to watch for. I also agree that circumstances in the future could change the total numbers of F-35s purchased. But any specifics are SPECULATION which is what you do except that you assert it as fact.

Pretty much EVERYTHING in your posts is speculation of an aircraft not yet in operation yet.

Finally, F-35s are not overkill for OIF/OEF type wars. They can carry external weapons and their stealth features are more robust than those found on Raptor. That they are going to put the F-35C on carrier desks should tell you how far beyond the F-22/B-2 high maintenance stealth features the F-35 is. It operates at about or below the cost of a legacy fighter but 8x more efficiently! That means that not only is it capable of the jobs F-16, F/A-18C/D, AV-8B do, its better.

External stores huh? Well, that pretty well kills the whole stealth aspect of it now doesn't it? Why do you think they didn't design the 117 to hang GBU-27's off the wings? Also, where are the operational squadrons that you are basing your maint cost's on? Wouldn't those costs be SPECULATION at this point in the game? Just cause LM says this it what it will cost to operate DOESN'T make it fact.

It seems that a lot of the F-35s avionics capability and maintenance requirements are lost on you Tinito. Look into it because it makes a big difference. So much so that they are retro fitting pods onto legacy aircraft and bombers to do what a bone stock F-35A does off the production floor.

-DA

DA you strike me as an ineffectual middle management suck up in the LM PR dept with way too much free time on your hands, but thats just my opinion.

And you strike me as the loser of a debate who's had to resort to personal attack for lack of knowledge. Don't take the easy way out. Test your knowledge if you dare.

-DA

TEG,

Nice post but still speculation. Granted you are relying on your experience as am I. The facts are that the F-35 is being designed to operate more cheaply than legacy fighters with cost as the primary factor. All indications are that the F-35 is meeting it's design criteria to include passing CDR. F-35 also boast a superior logistics support system. So as it stands now, things RE: F-35 are looking quite good from a cost point of view. So what you have is experienced based skepticism vs experience based optimism. Thus far the data suggest the F-35 will live up to expectations.

-DA

Not a personal attack slick. That is petty much who you seem to be. You act as the all seeing, all knowing king of all info. Anyone who happens to not see it your way is a blockhead? That about sum it up?

cutlassracer wrote:

Not a personal attack slick. That is petty much who you seem to be. You act as the all seeing, all knowing king of all info. Anyone who happens to not see it your way is a blockhead? That about sum it up?

Not everyone, but you certainly are. Also, if my information is in anyway incorrect, all you need to do is provide the correct data. If you can't then you you can't. But don't get offended because I know better than to support procurement of a fighter just because I think it looks cool.

It's not my way, it's the way. Buying F-22's we don't need to fight enemies that don't exist is stupid in the extreme and decisions like it have killed at least about ~10,000 Americans.

If we had the right SecDef and POTUS following the fall of the Soviet Union there is a good chance that we would not be looking at OIF or OEF and if we were we would have went to those wars prepared for the right kind of opponent rather than learning it the hard way to the cost of thousands of dead US Military. SecDef Gates sees that. GWB Saw that. BHO see's it too. I know men who saw that in the mid 1990's. But because they weren't in the right career path, no one listened until 9/11.

Again, criticize all you want. If you really what a challenge try to find something I've been wrong about. Until you do I may as well be all knowing ect ect as you said.

-DA

DA, it's your tone that makes many dislike you, not your intellgence. You are so quick to criticize any gripe that doesn't suit your opinion that offends most. I tend to agree on most of your posts, but your language offends most, me included. It's okay to care, we all do since we take the time to share our feelings with people we don't even know for the most part. But to suggest that your opinion is the best way forward, ESP. Considering you have never been in an actual fighter squadron, leaves you at best a humble advocate of the subject. Your bragging about your Army exp. is no big deal to me. I have much more exp. in the aviation field but don't let it any way make an expert. Be humble. It will suit you much better in this forum.

DarthAmerica wrote:

TEG,

Nice post but still speculation. Granted you are relying on your experience as am I. The facts are that the F-35 is being designed to operate more cheaply than legacy fighters with cost as the primary factor. All indications are that the F-35 is meeting it's design criteria to include passing CDR. F-35 also boast a superior logistics support system. So as it stands now, things RE: F-35 are looking quite good from a cost point of view. So what you have is experienced based skepticism vs experience based optimism. Thus far the data suggest the F-35 will live up to expectations.-DA

"is being designed to operate more cheaply"
"all indications"
"looking quite good"
"data suggest"

Seems like speculation to me?

How about we speculate how much fuel costs have increased in the last 10 or 12 years? Well let's not speculate and look at some data.

Quote:

While the total defense budget authority increased 233% over the period of FY1997-FY2007 (in current dollars), fuel costs increased 373%.

So you think the DoD's use of the F-35 across all branches can negate the 140% historical rise in fuel costs? If fuel continues to rise at 14% a year something will give, it will be our aircraft. Or are we going to 'speculate' that oil will be less than $20/barrel by 2025?

Back in 1994 (pre 9/11) the USAF slashed fighters by 14.6% in active service, and 21.7% in guard/reserves!?!

It is already happening, just to pay for expenses and the 'new' programs in the current budget, A-10s F-15s and F-16s are being retired early before the F-35s are even in place to take over the load. They are already passing their useful lives. This will increase the flight, maintenance and logistics demands of the remaining fleet until something is there to replace it. In the mean time it will CONSUME the budget like a snow-ball rolling down a pile of money! This will further impact the budget, and will impact aircraft procurements!

Quote:

between 2001 and 2007, failures on Air Force aircraft—as indicated by the "break rate," or failure per 100 sorties—have risen by 17 percent, according to the Air Force.

Now there is the little tid-bit, the F-35 may not be as 'cheap' to operate as Lockmart is leading everyone to believe. Cheaper than what the Raptor you're so quick to bash?

Quote:

the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated the cost of developing the JSF at $1 trillion, and the cost of buying the planned 2,456 aircraft at more than $300 billion. The report estimated the lifetime cost of operating the planes at $760 billion, almost 33 percent higher than originally projected.

1/3 higher lifetime operating costs!?! WTF

is the GAO speculating all this? These are the reports that congress and the president use to slash programs like this. (Right or Wrong, the GAO speaks and congress seems to listen)

I'm going to speculate you've never been involved with a Fighter Wing's budget, management, or day to day operations to know exactly WHAT we're spending money on. I'd further speculate you don't know much about maintenance costs or labor rates on combat aircraft and/or their engines.

I'd love to see new F-35s W/F135 engines sitting on the ramp, but I doubt there will be as many Lightning's sitting there as there were Vipers just today. After all there are about 30% less Vipers on our ramp today than there were 15 years ago. (And the 70% we still have are 15 years older)

Shall we discuss the bomber, tanker, or cargo aircraft shortfalls next? How old they are? Or is it just 'speculation' that serious grounding problems with any of these before they are replaced WILL impact the fighter programs almost instantly.

You can't discuss F-35 procurement without looking at EVERYTHING the USAF (or DoD) needs to deal with in the next 20 years.

To coin a recently used phrase; DA you're a bonehead.

Keep 'em flyin' Thumb

TEG
(Edit - had to remove an improperly placed zero)

Quote:

Buying F-22's we don't need to fight enemies that don't exist is stupid in the extreme and decisions like it have killed at least about ~10,000 Americans.

One of the outright stupidest kind of comments made on these forums. I'm sure you wish you could rephrase that and undoubtedly it would be accepted if you made the genuine effort.

I'm sorry sir, but you indeed might wish to check your demeanor apart from your extremely skewed, absolutist argumentation. Some fresh air for all may help too, once in awhile.

Agree about the tone to an extent. But I really don't care to be liked. It's not my purpose. I post facts as much as possible and my not being in a fighter squadron is actually rather irrelevant. If we were talking about how best to make certain maneuvers in an F-22, fighter tactics or the flight profile of some aircraft or something specific to flying fighters that would be relevant and I would STFU and listen. We are talking about force mix/grand strategy/procurement issues. Issues where I do have considerable knowledge and that does extend into this domain. Again, I don't care to be liked. I WANT TO BE PROVEN WRONG. Thats how I learn. The problem is that forums are full of armchair warriors and kids who are full of misconceptions about warfare. When these fanboys are confronted with something they never heard of, it's like finding out there is no Santa. For instance, notice that all the lamenting about how we need x number of Raptors and NOT ONE of the Pro F-22 lobby have been able to describe even a single threat in any detail that would justify the Raptor. NOT ONE. But they will insist we are on the cusp of national destruction over not buying Raptors.

TEG, please. Spare the hyperbole. I'd expect more from a so called expert. Look, you are basically saying you don't believe LM can deliver on their design criteria. You are also saying you don't think the USAF will buy the 2400+ F-35s it says it will. And you are calling my reference to official statements and data as some sort of proof of speculation. Moreover, you are pointing to the irrelevancy of being a member of a fighter squadron as some sort of prerequisite to informed opinion...lol. OK. Ever here of a man named SecDef Gates. How many flight hours does he have? How many wrenches did he turn? Seriously, and referring to the GAO as a source? At least you had the sense to qualify it with right or wrong but still. If you want test yourself then by all means give it a shot. But do it minus the hyperbole and actually include parametric data. And with regard to looking at EVERYTHING USAF. It's kind of funny that you are the SECOND guy in the room to mention that after me. Why do you think I keep craming "SYSTEMS" down the various fanboys throats. Now, bonehead, show that the F-35:

a. Will not be cheaper

b. Will not have superior logistics

c. wont meet design criteria

d. wont be procured in numbers greater than 2400

Go on, give it a shot.

-DA

geogen wrote:

Quote:

Buying F-22's we don't need to fight enemies that don't exist is stupid in the extreme and decisions like it have killed at least about ~10,000 Americans.

One of the outright stupidest kind of comments made on these forums. I'm sure you wish you could rephrase that and undoubtedly it would be accepted if you made the genuine effort.

I'm sorry sir, but you indeed might wish to check your demeanor apart from your extremely skewed, absolutist argumentation. Some fresh air for all may help too, once in awhile.

If it's so stupid then it should be no problem for you to prove it incorrect. I DARE YOU TO TRY. I'm not rephrasing anything. Our USG/DoD's lack of preparedness for 4GW and emphasis on making the PRC=USSR KILLED ~10000 Americans. Don't try to tell me something many of us lived in the 1st person.

-DA

This is getting a little too heated for my tastes...

I think it's kind of ridiculous to believe things are going to be as good as LM says they are, I mean, pretty much every military project ever turns out over budget, over time, or lacking in capability (or all three!). I think it's wrong to assume that the F-35 will be as cheap as claimed or be purchased in the amounts planned right now. But that's totally different from saying it's a completely flawed program or deserving of cancellation, however. It's just the reality of the system right now.
So yeah, it's going to be a good airplane, but we shouldn't delude ourselves into thinking that anyone really knows how things are going to turn out, no matter what they say.

I'd be happy to turn down the volume if the others would as well. However, LM has already demonstrated areas where the F-35 EXCEEDS requirements. So until the program is completed of evidence of failure presents itself, the suggestions thus far as baseless. Do I think the F-35 will meet all objectives? NO. Will it meet KPP? Yes. That is the point.

-DA

DA, what you fail to realize is that the F-22 for the most part met it's design criteria. And no, it was NEVER designed to be cheap. And yet it was cut. It's not about the fighter, it's about what the politicians think about it in the context of the world picture at that particular point in time. If they decide that a particular fighter is not needed because the threat isn't there or it's too expensive, they will cut it no matter what. The ONE thing the F-35 has going for it right now isn't that it's cheap (it's not as cheap as we'd hoped, anyway). It's not that it's such a leap in capability over existing platforms (although it SHOULD be - we're paying quite a bit for that program). The ONE thing the F-35 has going for it as far as a long production run is concerned, is that it doesn't need a threat to justify production as much as the Raptor did. Why? Because how are you going to replace 1,500+ legacy fighters in the U.S. Air Force? The F-35 is the only game in town now. THAT ALONE makes it almost cancellation-proof, UAV's or no UAV's.

[quote="taans1"]

sewerrat wrote:

I'd crew 15s before I'd crew a hornet.
The 16 is the workhorse of the military. Don't get it twisted.

Workhosre or not, its a relatively fragile airframe with known flaws for lack of a better word. It was never intended to fly for 20 years. Hornets are structurally stronger airframes due to being designed for the carrier environment.

Tinito_16 wrote:

DA, what you fail to realize is that the F-22 for the most part met it's design criteria. And no, it was NEVER designed to be cheap. And yet it was cut. It's not about the fighter, it's about what the politicians think about it in the context of the world picture at that particular point in time. If they decide that a particular fighter is not needed because the threat isn't there or it's too expensive, they will cut it no matter what. The ONE thing the F-35 has going for it right now isn't that it's cheap (it's not as cheap as we'd hoped, anyway). It's not that it's such a leap in capability over existing platforms (although it SHOULD be - we're paying quite a bit for that program). The ONE thing the F-35 has going for it as far as a long production run is concerned, is that it doesn't need a threat to justify production as much as the Raptor did. Why? Because how are you going to replace 1,500+ legacy fighters in the U.S. Air Force? The F-35 is the only game in town now. THAT ALONE makes it almost cancellation-proof, UAV's or no UAV's.

Wrong. The F-22 meets it's flight performance goals. It fails in the logistics, sustainability and maintenance areas. AKA operations and support cost. And it was not designed as a multirole full spectrum platform. It was designed to combat a specific threat that no longer exist.

-DA

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Vote in the Senate today for 1.75 Billion F-22