Far more qualified than you apparently. At least I know that there are touchscreens in aircraft cockpits. At least I actually understand what a UAV is and what it can do. And least I know know what's going on and off the coast of Somalia is not a naval issue exclusively and the chief of Naval operations agrees with that. At least I know both in theory and from actual experience that you can use a machine gun effectively from a warship. Unlike you, actually understand the threat from Chinese rockets, flanker's and aircraft carriers and what that means in the context of the United States national security.

I hate to break the news to you, but PROFESSIONALS, don't carry silly grudges and know how to disagree without inserting their own personal biases as you've done here. You are neither professional nor qualified. That's why in a thread that's supposed to be about Russian jets, you've chosen to make another personal attack against me which other posters have called you on. You're just upset because you cannot find anyone that will entertain your paranoid delusions.

-DA 

Never said there weren't. Said there was engineering choices why you use switches in an acceleration variable environment.

 

Now you are just ;prevaricating about that as well as a lot of other stuff un this post.

 

I won't comment on your fantasy life. I am noit insode your head, bujt I kno0w baloney when its served and I know cowflop when I smell it.

 

And unfortunately for you, amateur, professionals take PRIDE in their professionalism. Some of them do carry a grudge: 

 

Grudges. 

 

Feel free to post more errors of fact, unqualified opinions and deviations from the mean of accuracy as much as you want.

 

The FACTS speak for themselves: such as  you, poster, demonstrate here when you show that you are often a stranger to those actual facts IN PRINT and try to restructure your assertions as a bluff to masquerade as those facts

 

Your opinions are therefore worthless as a decision factor based on your factless and truthless opinions offered as data. FACT.

 

Herald

 

 

 

Most of the discussion here and in the defense infrastructure in general has been to increase the F22 production a mere 60 or so airframes. A good case can be made that this should be done. That case is based upon current production costs per unit which are going down on the F22 to the point where it will be competitive against the F35s produced in the next 5 years or so. To US the F35 does not exist yet except as a very expensive prototype. There is no certainty that the F35 will be produced in the numbers promised. In fact if we let history be our guide, always a smart thing to do, I would bet we only get about 1,200 of those in total (1/2 of the planned procurement which should be about right for a modern US platform). In the end it does come down to choices between systems within the USAF and the USAF seems to want those extra 60 birds. The most recent "unbiased" review, a post Bush review, asked for 243.

 

I like the economies of scale we see now with the F22 and it certainly has the capabilities today, v. the capabilities that might come in the F35, if it is bought in sufficient numbers, and if our allies decide to buy it too. Neither of those ifs are nearly as certain as the F22 is, right now. I'm for 243 F22s.

 

Check Six

 

Rocky

Or consider the opinions of the technically unqualified to be facts; or their advice to be valid. <Herald

 

Is there a thread here that you participated in that you didn't flame? If you can't behave get the F*#K away from US. This is an interesting thread (with the exception of your posts) don't screw it up!

Just asking because I want to know WHY.

 

Herald

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. <Aussiegunneragain

 

I know I am not perfect in this regard either but I am trying to be better behaved too.

I am telling you that you are driving people away from discussions because you act like a putz. If you disagree with anyone make your case politely. Darth isn't calling anyone names anymore. His behavior has improved; you should take his example.

Mega-dittoes.

 

It is so old.

 

We are at a decision point it seems. The F-22 is a great plane for it's intended role and I believe the 187 or so we have will serve well. But all indications suggest that the threats that justified more than 187 are either rusting away as in the Russian case or don't exist in the Chinese case. In fact, the 243 number as is often referenced is mentioned as a "moderate" risk force for dealing with two simultaneous near peer threats where every AEF will have an 18 plane Raptor squadron and the USAF will have 60 or so reserve, attrition and training aircraft. It's not an unreasonable number to buy 243 Rocky for this case. But all indications and data suggest that we would be highly unlikely to face two simultaneous near peer conflicts in the Raptors lifetime and like the rusting Migs, the USAF also has A LOT of recapitalization to do itself. So we are facing the issue of prudently allocating funds to men and machines that are in high demand right now as well as reorienting the USAF to be more relevant to the actual conflicts it's going to face over the next 20 years or so. That's wars with more failed states, non state actors as well as near pears who are now pursuing strategies that take advantage of the F-22's European/Cold-War centric design limitations. 

I think that 13 billion that would have gone into the F-22 for 60 more could be much better spent addressing the issues above. In addition to needing the F-35A, I think the USAF SOF, tankers, transports, helos, UAVs and space/cyber war capabilities would much better serve us considering the realities this thread is based on. Russia deployed about 100 Mig-29's and 60 Su-27s to Georgia. Compare that to the numbers the USAF deploys on similar sized missions.  

-DA 

Decreasing unit costs in the short run aren't evidence of economies of scale. They may just indicate that LM is prepared to lower the price for larger orders as it spreads the fixed production costs over more units. It's known as decreasing marginal cost and it is a different concept from economies of scale. Economies of scale result from increasing levels of production in the long run, to the extent where efficiencies can be gained from things like increased productivity due to capacity for specialisation or to justify better production equipment. I doubt that another 60 airframes is going to generate additional economies of scale in the F-22 line but I'd bet that a run of even 1200 F-35's would. The prototype may be expensive but you are realising that cost irrespective of whether or not you buy any more F-22's and over the course of the run the F-35 will be much cheaper.

 

You also have to factor in the fact that if you hold off on spending for a few years by leaving the F-22 run at 183 then a lot of money is saved in interest paid on the extra debt your Government would otherwise have to acquire. A lot of that interest would go to the Chinese, which I know that we both agree isn't a good outcome. 

 

Sure, if there was a strategic case for the purchase I'd say go right ahead. As it is however the reality is that your strategic bombers and navy can pound any opposition airfields rubble with cruise missiles, with the fighters that you have being able to tidy up any aircraft that manage to take off. That will remain the case for many years to come. Extra F-22's just aren't needed and there isn't an economic case for buying them either.

Decreasing unit costs in the short run aren't evidence of economies of scale. They may just indicate that LM is prepared to lower the price for larger orders as it spreads the fixed production costs over more units. It's known as decreasing marginal cost and it is a different concept from economies of scale. Economies of scale result from increasing levels of production in the long run, to the extent where efficiencies can be gained from things like increased productivity due to capacity for specialisation or to justify better production equipment. I doubt that another 60 airframes is going to generate additional economies of scale in the F-22 line but I'd bet that a run of even 1200 F-35's would. The prototype may be expensive but you are realising that cost irrespective of whether or not you buy any more F-22's and over the course of the run the F-35 will be much cheaper.

You also have to factor in the fact that if you hold off on spending for a few years by leaving the F-22 run at 183 then a lot of money is saved in interest paid on the extra debt your Government would otherwise have to acquire. A lot of that interest would go to the Chinese, which I know that we both agree isn't a good outcome. 

Sure, if there was a strategic case for the purchase I'd say go right ahead. As it is however the reality is that your strategic bombers and navy can pound any opposition airfields rubble with cruise missiles, with the fighters that you have being able to tidy up any aircraft that manage to take off. That will remain the case for many years to come. Extra F-22's just aren't needed and there isn't an economic case for buying them either.

That's not a very strong case at all for more F-22's. Why? Because we have enough F-22's to do that for a conflict with the PRC. The USAF even acknowledges that and stipulates the desire for the extra 60 Raptors is based on a 18 Raptor squadron for each of the AEF which would allow for fighting two near peer threats in different theaters simultaneously. With China representing only one, and the only one, we would have enough. Moreover, the F-35 can perform that role as well. It may not cruise as fast. But it has the fuel and power such that it can accelerate to those speeds to SHOVE a missile and it will have the numbers. It's also not cost effective to put the F-22 against PRC missiles. For every 216 million dollar F-22(13bn/60 F-22), how many missiles does that buy the PRC? Add to that the fact that there is only so much ramp space for aircraft in range of these targets and much of that is in range of PRC rockets.

Since it is fact that we have enough to confront this single near peer threat and no other threats of this magnitude exist, it would be far wiser to direct those funds to next generation technologies that negate all together the PRC force and don't have to race the clock to get into position to fire. Any analysis of the kill chain associated with going after these mobile missiles would show that the F-22 is limited by RANGE and PERSISTENCE. The distances, support assets necessary and sheer volume to be covered dictate the requirement and it would be far better to have a system that could already BE THERE AND STAY THERE to take the shot. That means a stealthy HALE UCAV.

This concept has been validated in OIF and OEF where the IED and HVT list grew beyond the USAF/U.S. Army ability to counter with QRF and manned fighters. When the Predators and Reapers started taking over the CAPs and could BE THERE. There was a dramatic increase in our ability to take these targets out. This has been noted by friend and foe alike. The difference is no stealth. That's not a problem in this environment when Stinger is the only threat. So if we use this same concept but apply the F-35s affordable sensors and stealth. Your PRC rocket problem solution looks something like this...

 

 ...that vehicle is just an example. However it represents where we should be focusing our air combat energies while we have the luxury of time to develop it in the absence of more threats.

 

I will summarize it. Yo service the PRC bandit target sets you have to kill the PLAAF and the PRC bandit MOBILE IADS asnd infrastructure inside the PRC itself. Robots cannot do this.safely directed from half a world away. It takes MEN LOCALLY behind the missiles. You cannot trust a machine to discriminate and judge between decoy and real ehrn the OTH link goes down. Its not smart enough. 

 

That is one thing the UAS amateur fanboy crowd never figures out, no matter how they simulate it in GAMES.

 

Your example posted is also ludricrously incomplete. In fact as a presentation without addressing doiscrimination and telemetry problems it is totally incompetent.

 

Herald

 

 

Not from the French fanboys and not from the US via  YOU.

 

Herald

 

Again, leave the insults out of this and put up any data IF YOU CAN. That's all you need to be worried about. Specifically, you need to show-

a. how 60 additional F-22's contributes to a campaign against the PRC. I've already shown how the USAF plans to rotate its AEF cycles and how at 18 Raptors each 3 of the AEF are not going to have Raptors which means that the Raptors will either have to sustain a 30% increase in optempo to offset the numbers if each AEF is to have a  Raptor squadron. Or, the three AEF without Raptors will have to use F-15Cs to make up the difference. Both viable alternatives. Or the USAF will have to come up with a new plan that used combat coded F-22's for training.

b. Why an F-22 is a superior alternative to a UCAV in the role of SEAD/DEAD and Scud Hunter when with a UCAV we can generate a higher number of persistent combat CAPs on station and always ready to strike which makes the UCAV FASTER TO RESPOND than a fighter including the F-22.

 

If you can't do that then perhaps you should be careful not to toss around labels POSTER.

 

-DA