Posted on 08/10/2009 9:39:43 AM PDT by jazusamo
The Liberty was attacked in ‘friendly fire’ from Israeli jets. The USAF and USN were not trying to protect it, since there was no reason for Israel to attack it.
“Both the Israeli and American governments conducted inquiries into the incident, and issued reports concluding that the attack was a tragic mistake, caused by confusion about the identity of the USS Liberty. The conclusions reached in the inquiry reports remain controversial, and some veterans and intelligence officials who were involved in the incident continue to dispute the official story, claiming Israel’s attack on the USS Liberty remains the only major maritime incident in American history not investigated by Congress.[10] In May 1968, Israel paid US$3,323,500 as full payment on behalf of the families of the 34 men killed in the attack. In March 1969 Israel paid a further $3,566,457 in compensation to the men who had been wounded. On 18 December 1980 Israel agreed to pay $6 million as settlement for the U.S. claim of $7,644,146 for material damage to the Liberty itself.”
“While on routine patrol in the central Persian Gulf, Stark was hit by two Exocet anti-ship cruise missiles. The missiles were fired by a single Iraqi F-1 Mirage fighter aircraft, apparently mistaking the frigate for an oil tanker enroute to a port of call in Iran. The attack was unprovoked and indiscriminate. Stark was in international waters, well outside the Iraqi and Iranian declared war zones. The frigate never fired a weapon nor employed any countermeasures, either in self-defense or in retaliation.”
As much as I hate McPeak (and I hated him after meeting him while he was Commander of PACAF, and my tag line would apply to him as well as his buddy Obama), his point is that air supremacy has worked extremely well in combat.
As you have pointed out, you can be attacked and have good men die while not involved in a war. I don’t think even @$$hole McPeak meant any disrespect to those who died on the Liberty or Stark.
Sure he does.
As was the case before the program was cancelled.
The Chickens came home to roost, McPeak, old chap.
Stupid cost cutting, the more planes in production, the less the unit cost.
BUMP for later read
Perhaps the ability to avoid and take out anti-access weapons, penetrate enemy air space undetected might be part of the explaination you are looking for?
I’ve seen the F-22 at 2 air shows. Granted I can’t vouch as to whether the pilots were demonstrating its ultimate maneuverability but what I saw was not up to this.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUXAh3DRgg8&feature=fvw
Watch the first 4 minutes. Mig 35, Sukoi ? not sure
An excellent reason to continue F-22 production.
Here's an excerpt of a good article posted earlier this morning on the MIG-35.
The MiG- 29OVT is the first twin-engine aircraft with all-directional vectoring nozzles that can move in all axes. The only restrictions on performance are imposed by the airframe design. Other existing thrust vectoring aircraft - Russia's Su-30MKI and the American F-22 - feature just two-dimensional vectoring nozzles.
And in greatly sufficient numbers to win air superiority in three fronts and survive attrition, maybe letting the Navy and Marines wean off the Air Force’s support by having several squadrons total of their own, albeit the navalized Sea Raptor.
ping to the article....
I recently read that Russia is selling Sukhois to China, but China ended up cloning the 27. Now they have, what, the SU 35?
We can not afford to stand still.
But we need, I agree, all 750 from the original plan. If we could sell to select allies then the cost would fall below 22 mil per copy - figure from “The Untimely Demise of the F-22” in some other F22 thread - this would make it one of the least expensive planes ever made in modern times, I think.
750 Raptors?
The unit price of Raptor would come close to equaling that of a Flanker.
From: The Untimely Demise of the F-22
“The Air Force had initially planned to purchase some 750 of the super-stealthy jet fighter...”
“...procurement of the F-22, putting the per unit cost of each aircraft at roughly $340 million. But the marginal cost of buying one additional aircraft has come down to (just!) $138 million, and the Center for Strategic and International Studies estimated that a larger order of 70 additional aircraft could have brought that number down to $70 million a pop.” This is the cost, as I read it, for adding 70 more planes to the 187 authorized.
For comparison per plane cost:
“In May the Government Accountability Office estimated that U.S. investment in the F-35 would total “more than $300 billion to develop and procure 2,456 aircraft over the next 25 years.” That works out to about $122 million and change for each aircraft.”
As you can see with just 257 F22s, the cost per plane if far below the not-flying F35s full production per plane cost.
I can’t seem to locate the 22 mil reference, but it may be applicable to costs per plane when all 750 built. Exports would lower that cost even further.
Don’t remember costs for Flankers - which model(s) are you thinking of?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.