Is there anybody out there who can make a case for more F-22's beyond you just you like it or you hate the Politicians behind not buying more? Seriously because we debated this over the weekend at the unit and nobody could honestly say that we can't accomplish our mission with the F-22's we have.

No, I'm asking the question you need to ask yourself. Can the USAF perform it's missions with 150 +/- F-22's. Are there alternatives. The answer is yes! It may not be your preference. But you cannot deny it. And none of what you said constitutes a "technical" argument. It's your opinion which I will counter shortly...

 

OK, so then what about all the countries who have placed orders for this aircraft? The cost of canceling the F-35 would be enormous from a financial and political point of view. 

Plenty. Two I can think of are better situational awareness and lower operations cost. The cost that really matters. Also, smoother integration with NATO allies. And if need be, it would be a lot more survivable if things went tit's up in Pakistan and we had to take action there. Also, because it is stealthy, some of those drone attacks could be done by F-35's configured for LO with a lot heavier ordinance and plausible deniability to boot! 

 

In what role? And why would I recapitalize my fleet with a platform I will not be likely to use as much? With an F-35 I can enjoy the best of both worlds and have much more flexibility.

Look into the logistics program built into the F-35. Also, the F-35 goves commonality with the entire DoD and allies, not just the USAF.

 

LOL.  You responded to my points with baseless opinions and then declared victory.  Way to go.

 

You complain about lack of technical arguments, so here's one for you: explain how the F-35 will have lower operating costs than the F-16.  The F-35 is larger, heavier, burns more gas, and is more mechanically complex.  I hope I don't have to paste numbers to convince you of the size, weight, and mechanical complexity differences; as far as gas, according to Jane's, the F-35 burns 0.886 lb/hr/lbst gas in cruise, versus between 0.72 and 0.75 lb/hr/lbst for the latest block F-16s, and the F-16 is lighter (thus less lbst).  Also, the F-35 has all those stealth features that have to be kept in good shape.  So, where is all this savings going to come from?

 

I know it's tempting to quote that whole "commonality" brochure bullet, but it's basically BS.  Real commonality would be to capitalize on the existing logistics base for the F-16, which a Block 60 would have in spades, versus the much higher cost of both establishing a new logistics pipeline for the F-35 and maintaining the one for the F-16 as it phases out.

Phaid, your F-16 example is carrying AMRAAM, heavier AESA and extra fuel plus increased drag?  Engine-wise alone, I don't see how you are arriving at your numbers in operational stance opposed by a competent foe.

v^2

Regarding UCAV. There are some really radically advanced concepts out there. Some of it operationally tested. If people had any idea how far along we really were jaws would drop to the floor. Look at the known state of the art. Just imagine the kinds of classified programs out there now. 

-DA 

Well, there are a number of foreign countries testing UAV's in the middle of Oz at the moment - and then there is this little tidbit:

 

Boeing Wedgetail able to control drones
April 7, 2009 - 7:29AM

Australia's troubled Boeing Wedgetail airborne early warning and control (AEW and C) aircraft have demonstrated the ability to simultaneously control three unmanned drone aircraft.

In a trial conducted in the United States last month, operators aboard the RAAF aircraft flying over Washington state remotely flew three ScanEagle unmanned aircraft systems (UAS).

The airborne operators issued NATO-standard sensor and flight control commands by way of a UHF satellite communication link and ground-station relay.

Boeing will conduct another demonstration of this capability at RAAF Base Williamtown, NSW, next month with a Wedgetail controlling ScanEagles operated by Boeing Defence Australia personnel at Woomera, South Australia, 1,730km away.

Pierce Lutter, Boeing associate technical fellow for unmanned vehicle control systems, said this would have been a considerable achievement if conducted in a laboratory setting.

"But we used currently fielded platforms and systems in a real-world setting to demonstrate a new level of command-and-control capability for war fighters," he said in a statement.

Under the $3.45 billion Wedgetail program, Australia is buying six Boeing 737 airborne early warning and control aircraft, each equipped with an advanced radar able to watch over a 400km radius, directing fighters to any threat.

The project has faced significant delays because of technical problems with the radar.

Under the original delivery schedule, the RAAF was to receive its first Wedgetails in November 2006. Under a new deed of agreement with Boeing, the first aircraft will arrive this November to begin aircrew training. It will have limited operational capability.

The remaining aircraft are scheduled to arrive by mid-2010 with full capability.

During his visit to the US this week for the annual Australia-US Ministerial talks (AUSMIN), Defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon will hold talks with US company Northrop Grumman on Wedgetail radar progress.

Australia troops employed ScanEagle drones in Iraq and currently do so in Afghanistan.

Maureen Dougherty, Boeing vice-president in charge of the AEW and C program, said the ability to remotely control ScanEagle substantially increased the operational versatility of Wedgetail.

She said it also demonstrated that operational 737 AEW and C systems were robust enough to allow integration of future capabilities.

In the test last month, three ScanEagles were launched from Boeing's Boardman Test Facility in eastern Oregon, about 190km away from the airborne Wedgetail.

Operators tasked them with area search, reconnaissance, point surveillance and targeting. 

ENDS

I'm not sure I'd still be arguing about the acoustic issues, and I'm pretty sure I posted the commentary from the last JSF briefing I attended.  The dutch ran separate acoustic measurement tests which involved an acoustic management solutuion co-developed by USAF/LM and Australias DSTO (our equiv of DARPA) - the changes were significant enough to show that the JSF is within percentiles of the Gripen and F-16 (even with higher thrust), less "noisey" on the averaged deployment cycle test regime than an F-14D and an Eagle.  They also discovered that 85% of the typical flight profiles that a Gripen would require using its afterburner could be done sans afterburner on JSF.  Those tests were done in Nov last year and deliberately withheld while the program was finessed.  The first announcement re the cha nge in acoustic transmission levels was at Avalon in Aust on Mar 12.

I'd also question the issue of an easier spiral path on the F-22 compared to JSF.  RAAF NACC through repeated approaches by the DefMin have consistently indicated that even if we did have access to F-22 (based on Armitages unfortunate "throw away" comment to allow Aust entry and purchase) then they regarded that the future proofing of JSF was far more robust.  We're already aware of some tech migration issues with the F-22, and that comes direct from USAF 

For "us" we know its far easier to integrate the high bandwidth future comms slated for 2014 entry into USMilAir and 7 other countries is going to be easier on JSF. Some of those 7 are JSF customers, a portion are not. 

 

I have given the numbers and sorties analysis elsewhere. if you want it then look up the Guam scenbario and don't waste my time with your complaints that you cannot fathom why I arrive at the 250+ number.

 

Some of you don't seem to understand that you need numbers as well as quality to maintain a functioning CAP, that you need an active sapient control elememt locally in the machine to handle surprise events. That once the enemy aircraft is swept from the skies then you have to go rocket hunting, and that finally a it might be nice to be able to FRY enemy electronics with an in inventory bird than having to build a specialized hoodoo down the road after we get rid of the current cast of idiots who've run us into the ground defense and economy wise.

 

Once again the charge that I am politoically biased won't wash either. You defended these cretins. ikts up to you to establish why they aren't cretins. You've failed to suppply one scintilla of evidence that shows they kniow what they are doing.

 

I'm not here to educate you. I'm not here to make up for your shortfalls in understanding. If you can't understand that the US system starts with air superiority then that is too bad. If you don't know why we have to have a surprise attack cushion of fifty aircraft, a cointinental air defense coverage of fifty aircraft, a training coverage of twenty aircraft, an attrition cushion of thirty aircraft and an offensive war fighting force of one hundred aircraft then there is no hope of you understanding the more complex issues of why Sparkies cannot handle a Flanker surge with S-300 support and Y-8 coverage even with F-15 help over Taiwan. We need an aircraft that can fight over a SAM belt and blink Y-8 radar or don't you even read the intelligence reports about the Chinese anymore? 

 

Sheesh.

 

Herald

 

 

 

   

 

DA,

 

In the event that there is a major conflict with PRC and several hundred adequate F-15's and 16's are needed due to a shortage of F-22's, flying in a high SAM environment against hundreds of comparable aircraft, please state what you believe is an acceptable number of lost pilots and aircraft because Mr Gates wouldn't pony up the cash for 60 additional F-22's?

How many Us citizens dead from an Al-Quaeda attack do you consider 'acceptble" for purchasing an extra 60 F-22's for a war that is most likely to NEVER happen?  But the pruchase of which divert resources from the War in Afghanistan?

 

See many can play that game.....

 

And yes, Herlad, DA has a good point. You want 250 F-22's, for fighting the PRC...but you don't discuss the trade-offs necessary within the fixed DoD budget to pay for them.  What do you give up to pay for them?  After all you've complained about the "gutting" of the Army, but your proposal guts it more...US GNP is shrinking, so even at a fixed rate of GNP for Defense the Defense BUdget will shrink.  You want more F-22's from a smaller pie, what will you cut to pay for them?

Now then do you want to get SERIOUS with me, or do you want to keep putting up straw men?

 

Herald

 

 

Follow up,

 

Nothing that BHO or that fool, Gates plans is going to stop the next Al Qaeda attack.

Item, that satellite canceled would have special forces to airpower node capacity that we now won't have.

Item, we will be left with less air and sea lift.

Item, we will be left with less ammunition stocks and funds for training. 

Item, we won't have a helo UCAS because of a canceled program in artilect research..

Item, we won't have theater missile defense because of MEADS funding cuts.

Item, no particle beam, because that would be deemed as OFFENSIVE and destabilizing, so budget cut.

 

How do we fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan if we can't control the SLOCS/LOCS and supply?

 

Once again I just ask simple common sense questions. How do you support a surrounded army when you don't fund the means to do so? How do you sustain an outnumbered  presence in bandit  country surrounded by hostiles when the enemy controls the land routes in amd out?

 

The question should be, do you want to kill Al Qaeda there; or do you want to die HERE? I get sick and tired of having to explain the obvious, that if you cannot secure your lines of communication and sustain your supply you will LOSE.   

Then there are the PRCs. They aren't going to play nice no matter how many lies you tell yourself. They fund the communist insurrection in eastern India. They supply the Paks with nuclear know how and rocket technology. Ditto the Saudis. They rape and pillage Africa. They tried to lodge into Canada and are trying to lodge into us. What the hell do you think is going on in the Pacific Northwest with their commercial imperialist adventuting in our oil shale fields for example?

 

Just what do you think is going on, JFKY?

     

Sheesh.

 

Herald