That sounds like a good answer, thanks!  I know the C-5B was structurally different, being able to handle much bigger loads.  Still, by outward appearance at least, it appears the C-5A and C-5B share some substantial parts.  It definitely seems to be a good candidate for possibly reusing old tooling.  And didn't I just read something about maybe producing some new C-5s again?

 

Does anybody see the irony in all the hand wringing about the US "only" having 183 F-22's on this thread? The only country that is going to be arming this "near peer" power can't even keep its own airforce in the air. It isn't going to be building something to challenge 183 F-22's any time in the next 15 to 20 years and to be frank the F-35 would probably wipe the floor with anything likely to come out of Russia or anywhere else during that time. Keeping the F-22 in production "just in case" would be nuts, the USAF would be better off directing money into long term RnD for the next generation of aircraft while the threat remains low. Other than that right now the US Government would be better served by paying down debt, because the "near peer" power's most effective weapon against the US right now is that they finance so much of its economy.

-You need to keep a generation of aviation engineers busy.

-The ORCs plan on building the junk they have (numbers matter)

-The idiot in Washington has no intention of funding R&D. In fact he cuts it for "community programs".

-As for Gates, I hold him in about as much contempt as I hold McNamara and Rimsfeld.

-Our resident F-22 expert isn't. He can't even figure out a roll period, so why should I take his opinion for anything?  

.

As for the R&D for basic science and technology? All for it. Where is it for propulsion, shipbuilding, poweerplants, materials science, basic physics, and basic chemistry? WHY is our money going OVERSEAS to do this?

 

Why don't we do that science at HOME? Well?

 

Herald

 

-You need to keep a generation of aviation engineers busy.

 

Can't they build jumbo jets and upgrade F-35's?

-The ORCs plan on building the junk they have (numbers matter)

 

Not familiar with the acronym.

 

I was talking about what you should do, not what is actually happenning.

-As for Gates, I hold him in about as much contempt as I hold McNamara and Rimsfeld.

Don't know enough about him to comment apart from the fact that I agree with him in this instance.  

-Our resident F-22 expert isn't. He can't even figure out a roll period, so why should I take his opinion for anything?  

My comments were original, they just happenned to agree with DA in this instance. 

 

As for the R&D for basic science and technology? All for it. Where is it for propulsion, shipbuilding, poweerplants, materials science, basic physics, and basic chemistry? WHY is our money going OVERSEAS to do this?

 

Why don't we do that science at HOME? Well?

Dunno, you tell me.

 

 

After all that I still don't see why 183 F-22's and a motza of F-35's backed up by all the other goodies you have isn't going to kick ass for the next 20 years. Spend your money on something else, it doesn't grow on trees.

 

If we take reality of Russian aircraft today, they don't have probably more than 400 serviceable front line fighters like 200 SU27/30 and 80 Mig 29 and as much MIG31.Of course they have about 800 fighter in holding which is not the same than real available fighters.

Plus as much SU24 and SU25 for ground attack (no air to air capability)

And about 130 front line strategic bombers (Blackjack, Bear and backfire)

 

Moreover they do not train as much than NATO and do not have a lot of trained pilots per aircrafts.

They probably could not log more than a sustained thousand sorties per day for non strategic part (or myabe 1500 at peak), which is close to french air force (+navy) for exemple.

1. Fixing the F-22 foulups that LockMart screwed up in the first place has already yielded one materials science breakthrough on top of the previous ones we achieved.

2. We have to many "experts" in Congress. Explain SCIENCE to them. Arrogance and stupidity in one package, remember?

3. I published evidence on Gates in the F-22 thread. He's a liar and political conniver. CREF there for details. 

4. That you happen to agree with Darth should be an automatic alarm bell. Re-examine assumptions.

5. Money goes where profit is. So does research.

6. Bird in hand is worth more than promised bird never delivered.

7. The money isn't there. We're broke. CREF 2, 3, 4, and 5. 

8. ORCs was a typo. PRCs. JH-7s J-10s, J-11s, and other aircraft. 052s, 53s, 054s and other floating PLAN junk. Varieties of TBMs and cruise missiles all of it pointed out to sea-much of it at the RoCs, but MOST of it at the RoKs and Japan and US. Ballistic missiles for example are not exactly DEFENSIVE.

 

Anyway, this is about the MiG 29 which is failung. What is NOT going out of production or grounded for design flaws and wearout, but actually increasing in use is the SUKHOIs. There are more of those FLANKERS being built in the HUNDREDS. Even in Russia.

 

Herald

. 

Ummm... hundreds per decade.  Dozens per year.  In China.  Less than that in Russia.

 

Even with the 2400 or so F-35s we have problems.

 

Herald