Posted on 07/14/2009 12:19:29 PM PDT by WhiteCastle
Without congressional intervention, the Air Force's ability to conduct air superiority missions will be increasingly at risk over the next three decades. President Obama's fiscal year (FY) 2010 defense budget request would stop production of the F-22A Raptor at just 187 aircraft and permanently shut down this production line.In reality, the F-22A program would actually end production at 186 fighters and not 187, because the March 2009 crash of an F-22 at Edwards Air Force Base involved a test aircraft not part of the official program of record. President Obama's decision to cap F-22A production at 186 fighters would in actuality yield only about 127 combat-ready aircraft, because some fighters will also be used for training and testing. This reduced number will also ensure that the aircraft's service life expires more quickly than planned.
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
“mostly by preventing the USAF from doing its job”
Speaking as the daughter of an F-105 pilot who participated in the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign over North Vietnam, you are correct in that McNarara prevented the USAF from doing its job. How many less names would be on The Wall if the Thud pilots didn’t have both hands tied behind their backs.
Still, the old Voight Bluebird, Standard and later Curtis Jennys were good aircraft.
3 words: “Joint Strike Fighter”
Each State Air Guard unit needs at least one squadron (18 fighters per squadron). Several coastal States should have a full wing (3 squadrons): Alaska, California, Florida, Texas, Virginia, Hawaii, the Dakotas and Maine. Some pacifist New England States probably may not want any. So figure at least one thousand fighters to cover threats from north, west, south and east.
The whole Pacific Carrier fleet was supposed to be in Pearl Harbor during the attack. If we had lost them, we wouldn't have had the means to retaliate. I have no doubt that we would have gone after them, but it might have taken a long time to do it.
The F-15 entered service in 1974. It's 35 years old. They're breaking in half due to cumulative stress on the structural members. They have flight restrictions on maneuvering due to structural failures. They aren't stealthy. They're vulnerable to SAMs. They don't maneuver as well as the new Russian and French aircraft with thrust vectoring and that makes them vulnerable during BFM engagements.
You're wrong. Delaying the the F-22 puts US Pilots and the US at risk. The longer we delay on the F-22 the more expensive it gets and the higher the risk to US Security.
Here’s another fact to consider. The F-22 isn’t just for fighting other aircraft. It’s also used to intercept Cruise Missiles. Most developed countries have some type of Cruise Missile - Including Iran and Korea. These missiles pose a threat to American interests overseas, including oil production facilities and shipping.
Of course the reality was that neither service wanted it and it didn't perform any mission as well as an aircraft with a specific design. It was a military jet built by a committee.
One of the best quotes that I've heard is that the only positive thing you can say about the FB-111 was that the Soviet Union wasted a fortune copying it.
You really need to get some facts before you post. There are at least two dozen countries that have the capability to launch a sea-launched or air-launched cruise missile that would hit the US. Al Queda just hit the US with an "air strike". North Korea just tested long range missiles that can reach American soil. Iran has been working on long range missiles that could shut down oil production in the middle east and destroy Israel. One of the missions of the F-22 is to defend against missile attacks.
China, Russia, and France are selling advanced fighter aircraft to every country with the gold to buy them.
The fact that you have a "gut feeling" that everything is going to be rosy in the future doesn't fill me with confidence or convince that we should give up our technical advantages.
How do you figure that four squadrons of F-22s is adequate to defend the whole US, in addition to US interests overseas? In addition to providing air cover for any military operations we're conducting?
The F-22 out performs the F-35 in every category for Air to Air. It out-maneuvers the F-35 due to increase thrust and vectored thrust. It has a better radar, allowing it to detect enemy aircraft at greater distances and to distinguish friend from foe at greater distances. It climbs faster, accelerates faster and has two engines - so when you loose one it can still fly. The F-22 can carry twice the combat load of air to air missiles. It can employ those missiles at twice the altitude of the F-35. That means that the range of air-to-air and surface attack missiles are nearly double that of the same missile fired from the F-35.
The main reason the unit cost of the F-22 is so much higher than the estimated cost of the F-35 is economy of scale. They're only looking at buying about 183 F-22s as compared to 1763 F-35s. Stopping and starting the production lines will also drive the cost of the F-22 up significantly.
The reason the Air Force wants the F-22 is Air Superiority. If we can't control the air space over the battlefield, the enemy is free to use it. That means any other US aircraft that flies in that airspace is vulnerable to attack. It also means that the enemy is free to attack our ground troops at will. Air Superiority is a cornerstone to our military strategy and it's important that we spend the money to get the best.
I think we are in basic agreement. It's hard to say exactly what the Navy would have done if the carriers had been caught at Pearl. The USS Ranger was used almost exclusively in the Atlantic, and due to her less-than-ideal sea-keeping charactaristics, she was used basically as an escort carrier or an AVG (delivering aircraft to shore installations). She would have been sent to the Pacific. Probably the USS Hornet and USS Wasp would have been pushed out to sea more quickly than they had been.
The Sara, Lex & Enterprise might have been easily raised & repaired as the Battleships had been. I say "might" because we don't know what the damage would have been. Odds are that 1 could have been saved.
Australia would have been in really tight spot without a serious US carrier force, however.
It’s interesting to look back at the things that happened and see the impact of one or two small factors on world history. It’s fun to play “what if”. What if the visibility had been bad on the day the Japanese had attacked Pearl Harbor? What if the US had detected them days before the attack? What if the carriers had been in port? What if the Japanese Admiral hadn’t decided to rearm his aircraft with bombs during Midway? What if the Germans had removed Hitler as commander during the war in Europe? Would a more competent commander have made a big difference in the outcome? An awful lot rested on a few factors.
The JSF is not going to live up to expectations.
In fact it will barely be as capable as the F-16 that it’s supposed to replace.
It’s slower than the F-16 (despite having twice the engine thrust) and has a huge wing loading in comparison to the F-16 which means that it isn’t anywhere as manuverable
The original contract was for around 750 aircraft.
This was then cut numerous times during the clinton regime.
And twice more during the Bush Administration.
They also deal with SAMs, and help in coordinating attacks while providing better situational awareness for legacy aircraft such as the F-15’s, F-16’s, F-18, etc.
http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022371
Thanks. That was a very interesting link.
Shows what happens when you rush something into production. After the bugs were worked out, the Aarvark was a work horse. And dont forget, thats the plane that bombed Lybia back when we had a President.
Bump
That's the plane we had to use because Carter had stalled production of the B-1. The B-1 would have been a much better airframe than the F-111 for that mission. It had a larger payload, was stealthier, and had longer range. We might not have lost a crew if we had the right equipment.
Actually, we will, because if you want air superiority in two, maybe three theaters of war, plus the defense of CONUS, I’d go for ~700 Raptors.
It’ll bring the unit price to ~$80-95 mil and extend the useful lives of the Raptor airframes.
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.