The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - July 9, 2008

Advertisement


Advertisement
New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Horent Leader
2.Harpoon 4: Modern Tactical Naval Warfare
3.Empires In Arms

4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge
6.Campaigns of King David
7.Queen of the Celts
8.Danube Front '85
9.Axis and Allies: Guadalcanal
10.Guns of August

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

Utah SEO Firm

Xango

Smiley Gifts for Babies
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: F-22 production
mustang22    2/10/2008 4:32:28 PM
I don't post a lot here mainly because of a lack of technical knowledge but this topic is just eating me up inside. I am not sure if it is good or bad that current decision makers are leaving it up to the next administration to decide the future of the F-22. What I am sure of is that I am tired of hearing about all the critics who say we do not need it at all. I'm guessing that the rest of the world will stop advancing in technology so we can rely on thirty year old F-15's and F-16's to keep our edge in air superiority. Or maybe the crystal ball of future wars has predicted that all foreseen conflicts will be battling insurgents house to house in which case we can mothball the carriers, submarines, bombers, etc. The idea is to be well rounded and diverse. I certainly do not feel that Cold War numbers are required but a study done several years back indicated that 183 yielded 126 combat ready planes. Why bother with millions in r&d and a substantial fly-away cost for 126 planes. It should be double that number. Retiring some of these F-15's that are falling out of sky would save in maintenance, cost of training and maintaining pilots and upgrade a very old fighter force. Maybe I am just talking out my shorts but I have yet to see anyone substantiate an argument against the F-22 that made any sense.
 
Quote    Reply
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
ugadawg5       2/11/2008 10:31:59 PM
agreed
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       2/13/2008 7:53:32 PM
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England expects the F-35A Lightning II will replace F-15s grounded due to a structural defect, instead of the F-22 Raptor.

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the Pentagon's fiscal 2009 budget request, he stated: "I do not believe the F-22s will be replacements for the F-15".

Around 40% of the F-15 fleet is still grounded, after an older F-15C model crashed due to structural defects on Nov 2. It will require billion of dollars to fix them, so the USAF is expected to replace most grounded aircraft.

"So I would expect instead we would try to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more the class of the F-15," England said. "So the Air Force would move into Joint Strike Fighter and not into the much more expensive F-22 airplane."
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England can now officially be classified a moron!
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       2/13/2008 7:56:39 PM
And not relevant. Plans will change in 2009 no matter who we elect as Fearless Leader.

Lame duck means lame duck.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       2/13/2008 8:53:41 PM
England is another Rumsfeld crony; he was in charge of Guantanamo when Wolfowitz quit as deputy SecDef and Rumsfeld sent England up as replacement.  So he's just following the same Rumsfeld party line.

That whole gang will be out the door come 2009, and Lockheed can keep the line funded with their own money in the meantime if they have to.
 
Quote    Reply

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2008StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy