Posted on 08/02/2003 9:07:46 PM PDT by Paul Ross
Well, there's the thing. They need to re-tool an get back on line. Given the luctarive nature of JSF, I bet there will be a good chance it will happen.
But I guess optimism like this will just be considered "whistling in the dark."
With the closing of vast tracts of federal land and the destruction of mining laws which had the potential to reward those who found new mineral resources, those who go into geology are largely going into environmental career tracks, not resources discovery/exploitation.
Not just WWII ... but also the Cold War ... the shift from a manufacturing based economy to a service based economy has been the greatest mistake in US history. PERIOD.
Good motivation to buy American, especially for our military.
From 1996 onward ..these 2 examination groups have baulked at the Pentagons numbers and forward thinking.
From Pentagon baseline estimates of cost per plane..with increase for certain services like Marines and Navy..the CBO and GAO have been bang on...while the Pentagon has blown this ride in unbelievable fashion.
excerpt assay from 1998:
Breaking down the per-plane costs reveals how much credit Defense is giving itself for achieving "commonality." The Pentagon's cost goal for the air force JSF is $30 million per plane. However, the CBO-relying on the historical relationship between size, capability, and cost-calculates that $45 million per plane is far more likely. The Defense goal for the navy version is between $34 and $41 million, but CBO counters with $57 million. And for the marine corps version, it's $33 to $38 million according to Defense, and $50 million according to the CBO.
By 1999..the single unit cost per plane was up to $63 Million....now it is over $70 Million.
Here..CBO and GAO are thinking ahead..ie.."What are you going to do to address the aging U.S. inventory until this wonderplane comes online"?
Excerpt:
In recent years, op-ed pages and Pentagon reports have fretted that foreign defense contractors would soon be producing fighter planes superior to anything "Made in the U.S.A." But this "fighter gap" is difficult to square with reality. The Russian aerospace industry once had grand plans for twenty-first century MiGs, but it is so cash-strapped that it might not be able to build them until the twenty-second century. The on-again, off-again Eurofighter 2000 is stalled, and the French Dassault Rafale is unproven and available only in limited numbers. American F-15s and F-16s remain the world's preeminent air-to-air fighters. Further, no country boasts anything like the extraordinary numbers of combat-ready fighters the United States has in its inventory [see "Numbers Game," p. 32]. But forget numbers, defense planners say. They argue that the U.S. air fleet is aging and will become less reliable, more expensive to maintain, and more difficult to repair. Unless a next generation is quickly developed, the Pentagon warns, U.S. fighters will reach ages unprecedented in the era of aerial combat. Their solution: the JSF. According to Defense projections, deployment will begin around 2008 and run through 2025. During peak years, 122 planes will roll off of assembly lines and into military hangars. But is building a new type of plane the only way to fix the aging problem? Not according to the Congressional Budget Office. In its 1997 report, "A Look at Tomorrow's Tactical Air Forces," the CBO proposes-among other options-revving up the assembly lines for F-15s and F-16s, which would address short-term needs for planes and allow time to fully test newer designs before rushing into production. Building more planes from existing designs would also save billions, says the CBO. And as Chris Hellman of the Center for Defense Information says, "F-15s can be built for pennies on the dollar" compared to any of the next-generation fighters.
My comment:
One must consider the history of Pan corporate all weather combat aircraft.
The Panavia Tornado may have produced a reasonable platform..but in no way was the aircraft excellent.....by the time it was in production..it was marginal in performance at best..and in no time flat..its electronics were outdated...requiring endless revamping in radar..targeting..commlink.
CBO and GAO can see the writting on the wall with these world consortium aircraft...**They nearly triple in cost.if not double..and they are marginal in performance...ie..nothing new..rehashed 3rd with some 4th gen tech all weathers.
Euro Typhoon is another dog.
The only aspect which verges on being breakthrough..is the multi tasking/target computer suite..and some snappy turn performance.
Really useless..when an opponent can target it from standoff ..and launch a hypervelocity missile at it.
The JSF is not some breakthrough design....it just vector nozzle application..with inboard weapons bays.
You could mod....F-15..and F-16...put the best over the horizon targeting comp suites in them..and mount new generation hypervelocity missiles....and ***Dominate the air with them.
Now..so many seperate world nations are involved in data relay electronics for JSF..it will surely be the doorway for the programs compromise.
Russians and Chinese will do a JSF with little in the way of cost..as they steal all the prevalent technology.
JSF...a complete mismanagement ..forsight reality.
Cudo's to CBO and GAO for being on the ball with this...yet no one can toast a glass on JSF...it has gone just as these 2 examiners have projected..with the American taxpayer reeling in the numbers wake.
Congress should have leashed this puppy from the start.
Keep our F-15 and F-16'S Unmatchable in combat with new generation technologies..for pennies....and JSF...well its Missouri state thinking here folks..."You better Show Me"..before I fund this.
In 1982 Israel forces went into Lebanon.
This required the IAF..to remove force projection from the gameboard at the outset.
Israel was more concerend with Syria 's SAM sites than Syrias airforce.
Basically//IAF flew strike package much as the U.S. Wild weasel opps of the Vietnam era...more advanced electronics in this go round.
In 48 hours IAF dominated The Lebanon....if Syria turned something on..it went by by really quick.
With the SAM grid cleaned out..IAF could support the mechanised move of IDF...IAF helo's were free to cruise about are wreck havock on Syrian mechanised assets.
Syria lost 80 combat aircraft in a few days..it was a slaughter in the skies for the IAF.
In one instance..the Syrians began to chat openly on one frequency as they formed up after take off.
IAF pilots aquired their signature..reset target lock parameters..fired..and turned away.
I moments..a wing of 15 aircraft fell from the skies.
By the time the Syrian onboard radars picked up the IAF missiles it was too late..in some cases..the Syrians never even changed formation...they got annihilated in a milisecond..by superior over the horizon targeting.
And they did not learn from this either..as IAF did them for 3 days this way.
days later..Syrian aircraft stayed in Syria..and what remaining pilots did fly were freaked to do comm traffic for fear of going to Allah shortly.
This was 1982...and is a kodak of what would really occur if nations sent their birds on each other in a theatre conflict.
Today..first to aquire ..is first to go home alive.
Over the horizon targeting technology is still primacy for the U.S. and with Israel..both nations share knowlwedge...they have very efficient aquiring systems and performance missiles.
yet ...the dominance gap is narrowing..as radar technology stolen..and hypervelocity technology stolen..is appearing in Russian and Chinese arsenals.
Electronic warfare is really the threshold now concerning aircombat and theatre dominance.
Phantom projections....radar masking...saturating certain airspace quadrants so as to minimize the attackers abilty to target.
Much of the killing is going to occur at amazing distances.
Staying alive with some of the hypervelocity missiles which exist will be hard..as they are multi tasking as per the defense mechanisms which aircraft will emply once painted.
In some cases..if the radar onboard paints you..you will die..unless you punch out..their is no way to survive once the missile has you data lock.
I suspect..aircombat will become an attrition reality...simply..who has more aircraft and missiles..because both nations will be getting their birds dropped in staggering numbers.
In WW-2..it was the pilots skill which prevailed.
U.S. R and D'd the best way to fly certain aircraft in combat..as the Experten Lugftwaffe pilots fell away to attrition..the contest eventually became a one sided reality..with a youthfull German pilot lucky to survive 3-5 missions.
Today...the pilot is still required in the loop..but is offset by the opponents target aquisition capability.
The opponent may have an inferior aircraft in performance scale..but if he has a capable radar..and sophisticated missile suite...he will be an on par match..if he can survive just a few seconds more..or a dozen miles..to get his shots off.
Janes intel..Stratfor and other intel sites convey what they know of Russian and Chinese radar and missile performance.
Claims are made...exagerations exist.
Yet the gap of air dominace is closing fast...as radars with sat uplink are able to paint aircraft over the horizon..and target fast moving missiles..which are intelligent to defeat countermeasures.
I believe the U.S. and Israel will stay ahead..but clearly..their opponents will not be easy kills like it was in Vietnam..Lebanon and the recent Iraq wars.
And it also would be accurately called, 'singing in the rain'!
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.