Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24309 posts, RR: 47
Posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 8665 times:

Good news for F-22 proponents.

Surprising to see so many in Congress all of a sudden cheering for the plane.

Quote:
Support For More F-22 Soars in Congress
Jan 16 , 2009

Even before President-elect Barack Obama to takes office Jan. 20, U.S. lawmakers are making a push in letters addressed to him to secure the future of the stealthy F-22 production line in Marietta, Ga. Sens. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) and Patty Murray (D-WA) sent a letter to Obama Jan. 16 requesting funding for production for the twin-engine fighter.

A similar letter is being circulated among House members and is said to have at least 150 signatures. Though departing Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England has been cool on the idea of continued F-22 production, Defense Secretary Robert Gates - who is staying on under Obama - has signaled interest in at least considering additional buys.

Flyaway cost is now estimated at about $153 million. Lockheed Martin has approval to produce 187 fighters.

Full story;
http://www.aviationweek.com/search/A...01/16/awx_01_16_2009_p0-112322.xml


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
68 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 8632 times:

Considering how our government just pissed away upwards of a trillion dollars, why not build the 350+ F-22's we need and just add it to our bill?

Think about it, at $6 billion a pop we just commissioned the USS G.H. Bush, the most advanced and technologically advanced aircraft carrier ever - we could have what, 166 of them for that trillion dollars?!


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 2, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8567 times:

It makes sense to build more of them if for no other purpose than to keep people employed in the high-tech industries during a recession. Other good reasons include the need to replace ageing F-15s and to get the most bang for the buck out of the development money that has already been spent on the F-22! The more that are produced, the lower the overall cost per aircraft is whilst getting a decent fleet of the best fighter out there. The US military is oversized per capita than almost any other military in the world (bar crackpot dictatorships and the like). One of the things that almost all economic advisors/experts seem to agree on is that the US DoD needs to get more bang for its buck as it will almost certainly have budget cutbacks in the region of 10-20% over the next decade. Even with such cutbacks it will still have a bigger military budget than the next 10 biggest militaries in the world COMBINED!! This isn't even including the extra funding for the war in Iraq/Afghanistan.


54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently onlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12057 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8569 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
Other good reasons include the need to replace ageing F-15s and to get the most bang for the buck out of the development money that has already been spent on the F-22! The more that are produced, the lower the overall cost per aircraft is whilst getting a decent fleet of the best fighter out there.

Correct. The USAF should buy at least 380 F-22s, to replace the F-15s. We should also sell it to Israel, Japan, and Australia, instead of offering our friends the second rate F-35..


User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 8550 times:

KC135TopBoom,

As far as I'm concern Israel cannot be trusted with an F-22.

In the past we have given Israel technology which they then sold to our enemies (Chinese for example) including nuclear missile technology. How can we in good conscience trust them with such an amazingly sophisticated aircraft/weapon's-system, to not give away technology used on the F-22 to other countries like China?

I think the best solution would be to not give them the F-22.


Blackbird

[Edited 2009-01-18 18:34:32]

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8469 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 3):
We should also sell it to Israel, Japan, and Australia, instead of offering our friends the second rate F-35..

For this I have to agree with Blackbird, unfortunately Israel has not been reliable with safeguarding US secrets. I give former President Clinton credit for putting pressure on Israel to abandon their agreement with China to outfit their aircraft with US AWACS technology.

Besides why does Israel need the F-22 when their Air Force is unchallenged in their region of the World, now Japan on the other hand has proved to be a more reliable partner to the US militarily and unlike Israel Japan does have a need for an aircraft such as the F-22 to help counter the massive Chinese Military.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 8449 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
we could have what, 166 of them for that trillion dollars?!

Well actually, if you spent a trillion dollars on them, wouldn't you get 6535 F-22s?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
Besides why does Israel need the F-22

Why does Australia, another country mentioned for potential export, need the F-22?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 5):
when their Air Force is unchallenged in their region of the World

By their immediate neighbors, at the current time, yes.

But what about 10-20 years from now? How does Saudi Eurofighters, or possible future order of SU-35s/Rafales/JF-17s/J-10s/F-35s by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, etc, alter the balance of air power?

I don't think "they are already the preeminent regional air power" is a sufficient argument to block the sale of the F-22 to Israel.

On the other hand, I do believe the security concerns are valid, and sufficient to block the sale.

-UH60

[Edited 2009-01-18 22:23:49]

User currently offlineContinentalFan From United States of America, joined Oct 2000, 356 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8423 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
But what about 10-20 years from now? How does Saudi Eurofighters, or possible future order of SU-35s/Rafales/JF-17s/J-10s/F-35s by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, etc, alter the balance of air power?

With regard to this specific issue, the Israelis should have thought of that before they bit the hand that feeds by passing on our technology to the Chinese.


User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 8418 times:



Quoting ContinentalFan (Reply 7):

With regard to this specific issue, the Israelis should have thought of that before they bit the hand that feeds by passing on our technology to the Chinese.

I agree with your basic argument, but that really wasn't the reason I brought up those future sales. I did it to dampen the argument that Israel is the premiere regional air power, and thus has no need for an aircraft of the F-22's abilities.

-UH60


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 9, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 8370 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
By their immediate neighbors, at the current time, yes.

But what about 10-20 years from now? How does Saudi Eurofighters, or possible future order of SU-35s/Rafales/JF-17s/J-10s/F-35s by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, etc, alter the balance of air power?

I don't think "they are already the preeminent regional air power" is a sufficient argument to block the sale of the F-22 to Israel.

On the other hand, I do believe the security concerns are valid, and sufficient to block the sale.

I don't think there's much chance of Israel getting the F-22 in anything like the near future, solely on the security issue. They have not held American technology closely, esp. concerning the Lavi, er, J-10.

As well, I believe the new administration is more likely to look at Israel critically than any administration in recent times, hence FMS sales may drop (or stop). Israel has a pretty robust defense industry on its' own, so may not need American arms transfers as much as many believe.

As to several of the other countries, I think it unlikely they will get cutting edge technology anytime soon. After Mubarak, Egypt may well go through civil and political convulsions. Same for Syria after Assad -- although he's fairly young. Iran is hard to be sure about, same for SA. Turkey is interesting as it is playing a bigger role in the ME than before and not constantly worrying about Greece.

Just my $0.02.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 10, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8339 times:



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
It makes sense to build more of them if for no other purpose than to keep people employed in the high-tech industries during a recession.

That's a popular thing to say, but not logical. Why not just pay them to sleep in their beds? Why not pay me to sleep in my bed? That accomplishes the same thing. It produces nothing but it results in me having a good job and a steady income.

Just saying, "full employment" is silly if the people are not doing things the market (or the People) want to pay the money for. If useful products are not being made then we should sleep in our beds and collect the paychecks that way. But of course the F-22 is pretty useful.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
Other good reasons include the need to replace ageing F-15s and to get the most bang for the buck out of the development money that has already been spent on the F-22!

Yes, I think we already spent so much, we might as well build some more. Just don't expect it to filter down to very many American workers. Try Lockheed stockholders instead. A tax cut would do FAR more for the people, putting real cash into our hands.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):
and thus has no need for an aircraft of the F-22s abilities.

Oh they have needs for it... in their eyes....  Embarrassment


User currently offlineZkpilot From New Zealand, joined Mar 2006, 4773 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 8318 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):

Why does Australia, another country mentioned for potential export, need the F-22?

Because Australia is a large country with need for a long-range aircraft (something the F-22 does/will do better than the F-35 particularly due to it have two engines and supercruise). Not to mention that any battle Australia would be involved in would involve flying over large expanses of water to get there (if you lose an engine on a single engine fighter then you just lost that aircraft... on a two engine fighter you can retire and the aircraft lives to fight another day).

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
we could have what, 166 of them for that trillion dollars?!

Well actually, if you spent a trillion dollars on them, wouldn't you get 6535 F-22s?

I believe he was referring to the Aircraft Carrier USS George Bush.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
It makes sense to build more of them if for no other purpose than to keep people employed in the high-tech industries during a recession.

That's a popular thing to say, but not logical. Why not just pay them to sleep in their beds? Why not pay me to sleep in my bed? That accomplishes the same thing. It produces nothing but it results in me having a good job and a steady income.

Just saying, "full employment" is silly if the people are not doing things the market (or the People) want to pay the money for. If useful products are not being made then we should sleep in our beds and collect the paychecks that way. But of course the F-22 is pretty useful.

Yes you have a point regarding many industries, however the military aerospace industry is the kind of industry where you either use it or lose it. It is constantly evolving and any break takes more to recover from than the cost of keeping it going (albeit at a reduced rate of production). Why pay people to do nothing? Better to have them working producing a useful aircraft (not to mention all the jobs in the USA related to parts manufacturing). It would be benefitial to the USA to sell the F-22 to Japan and Australia however to help spread the development costs as well as having strong capable allies.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 2):
Other good reasons include the need to replace ageing F-15s and to get the most bang for the buck out of the development money that has already been spent on the F-22!

Yes, I think we already spent so much, we might as well build some more.

Most of the cost of the F-22 program was taken up by development and research. Whilst a lot of that has been applied to the F-35 program, it is still a waste to have spent so much money to only produce less than 200 aircraft (when there is a need to replace upwards of 300 aircraft). Sure the F-22 is a very expensive toy, but it is the best fighter in the world, and has much lower maintenance costs (both in parts and in man-hours) so by retiring old and less capable aircraft the USAF lowers its running costs.

Having said all that about the F-22, the USAF really needs to look at how they will best utilize this aircraft. It is the best but it is an overkill to be using it for example on CAP over US cities against 9/11 style attacks... an F-16 (at 1/3 the price) is just as effective in shooting down an airliner. The F-22 should be used for gaining air superiority/supremecy in any conflicts. It should also be used as a strategic asset in the Pacific as a counter to the rise of China. So basically there should be F-22s based at Anderson, Hickham, Alaska, Germany.



54 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 8294 times:

I see this as a last ditch effort to save Raptor production and unfortunately, I look for it to be killed in the coming months if not weeks.  Sad


Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 282 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 8274 times:

Saxby pushing more production isn't exactly groundbreaking/likely to be received well by the Dims. Murray does what she can to keep the Boeing unions in line, and this token effort won't make much of a difference to the F-22 program. It is a mischaracterization to term this "soaring" support..

User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 14, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8249 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
But what about 10-20 years from now? How does Saudi Eurofighters, or possible future order of SU-35s/Rafales/JF-17s/J-10s/F-35s by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, etc, alter the balance of air power?

Well, Israel can always buy any of those aforementioned products, but of course they'd have to do it on their own revenue because it's one thing for the US taxpayer to give billions to Israel for military spending - so long as they buy USofA products!

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 11):
Whilst a lot of that has been applied to the F-35 program, it is still a waste to have spent so much money to only produce less than 200 aircraft (when there is a need to replace upwards of 300 aircraft).

As like with the B-2 program, it was only approved under the auspice of making 200 B-2's but then when it came time to write the checks, they looked at their account balance and said they could only afford 20 B-2's.

As a taxpayer I find that to be of gross financial negligence since the B-2 never would have been approved the money that it was if they were only going to build 20 of them. As far as I am concerned the decision to build 200 was made when they authorized the tens of billion to be spent on the development of the aircraft; should the manufactured raise the price by a certain percentage than they would be sued (and ultimately cease to exist for not living up to it's agreements.)

The same for the F-22 - how did we ever approve the program at 750 units? It must have been based on specific cost estimates and then why did those costs exponentially multiply?

I know computer processor technology advanced at rates never before seen of even imagined, but still - there has to be limits as to the variance of the development of modern weapons programs, and they can't last 15 to 20 years like they have with the RAH-66, V-22, and F-22 - WWII was a long 4.5 years and let's just say the US wouldn't have been able to win that war if it were not for being able to design aircraft like the B-29, P-51, and F-4U and F-6 aircraft in months, let alone years or worse yet, decades..


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16689 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (5 years 2 months 4 weeks ago) and read 8243 times:



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
But what about 10-20 years from now? How does Saudi Eurofighters, or possible future order of SU-35s/Rafales/JF-17s/J-10s/F-35s by Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Jordan, etc, alter the balance of air power?

Well seeing that the US has forces in half those countries I don't think Israel has anything to worry about from them, especially Turkey who is a strong Israeli allie.

It's not just the aircraft but the quality of the aircrews and the infrastructure that supports them, the Israeli's participate in Red Flag almost every year, they train with US forces all the time and have AWACS and other capabilities. Even if their aircraft are equaled by other regional powers, that certainly does not mean it's a level playing field.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 6):
I don't think "they are already the preeminent regional air power" is a sufficient argument to block the sale of the F-22 to Israel.

On the other hand, I do believe the security concerns are valid, and sufficient to block the sale.



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 8):
I agree with your basic argument, but that really wasn't the reason I brought up those future sales. I did it to dampen the argument that Israel is the premiere regional air power, and thus has no need for an aircraft of the F-22's abilities.

On the contrary I think it is a strong argument, it's not in the US's interests to encourage a Middle East arms race. The F-22 is not going to protect Israel from it's two largest threats, incursions from Lebanon and the Gaza Strip or ballistic missiles fired from Iran.

Japan on the other hand is totally out numbered and outgunned by the massive Chinese military, F-22s help in that region balance the power.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8204 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 10):
That's a popular thing to say, but not logical. Why not just pay them to sleep in their beds?

Because the needed skills atrophy if you don't use them. Paying aeronautical engineers to stay home and polish their cars doesn't preserve the technological and industrial base.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 14):
As a taxpayer I find that to be of gross financial negligence since the B-2 never would have been approved the money that it was if they were only going to build 20 of them.

It was a waste, yes, but not gross financial negligence. The B-2 program was initiated when the world was still deep in the Cold War, with protests against Pershing IIs and Cruise Missiles in Europe, etc. When the Cold War ended,we didn't need nearly as many B-2's any longer. Think of it like all the 100,000 aircraft the US built during World War II, most of which ended up as scrap shortly after the war ended. It wasn't gross financial negligence to design the F8F Bearcat, F-82 Twin Mustang, or B-36 Peacemaker, even though they never were built in large numbers (as large as originally planned, anyway). Why? The war was over.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 6725 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8149 times:

Would anyone agree that the current impetus for additional F-22's is due to the economy and wanting to keep jobs? If that is the case, I have a few more programs which will do the same thing but provide more bang for the buck, remember that the F-22 is presently a air superiority aircraft, presently unmatched, its major problem is numbers, which its supporters say will be made up by the use of its excellent missiles - heard that before -, so how about:

1. Increase the number of C-17's being purchased. An a/c which will have the military supporting many UN and civilian ventures, also show the US in a good light.

2. Look for and build a real replacement for the A-10 and F-16, you don't really believe the F-35 will cut the CAS role do you?

3. Increase the buy of the C-130's, no need to ship more jobs overseas by purchasing the A400M

4. Buy 100 tankers from Boeing - B-767 - on a fixed prices basis, keep the jobs at home and ditch the Airbus product - A330

5. Dump the current EH101, is there some reason why the POTUS is too good to fly in a home grown product?

6. A lot of hummers need replacing, lot of ammunition expended, trucks, tanks need rebuilding, Bradleys in need of refurbshing, Marine vehicles, essentially a lot of things painter in cammo and green.

There are a lot of programs within the military right now that if jobs are the key factor, will produce much more benefit to the country than a hundred more F-22 with their massive price tag. On another note, I hope that if the decision is made to purchase more, it is done with the US taxpayor bitting the bullet and not selling the a/c to other countries to subsidize the cost, such sharing of technology has certainely come back to bite the US big time as other nations build the technology without spending half the cost of the US R&D.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 8146 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 17):
It was a waste, yes, but not gross financial negligence. The B-2 program was initiated when the world was still deep in the Cold War, with protests against Pershing IIs and Cruise Missiles in Europe, etc. When the Cold War ended,we didn't need nearly as many B-2's any longer. Think of it like all the 100,000 aircraft the US built during World War II, most of which ended up as scrap shortly after the war ended. It wasn't gross financial negligence to design the F8F Bearcat, F-82 Twin Mustang, or B-36 Peacemaker, even though they never were built in large numbers (as large as originally planned, anyway). Why? The war was over.

But the B-2 was supposed to replace our B-52 and B-1's was it not? We should have produced at least enough to retire our B-52's - they certainly are not cost-beneficial to continue to operate.


User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8198 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 8017 times:



Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
5. Dump the current EH101, is there some reason why the POTUS is too good to fly in a home grown product?

So we should just stop trading with the rest of the world? I'm not sure I understand. I like buying imported products, it makes my life good.

For example this computer I am typing on was made in China or Thailand or something. Is that bad? Should I pay somebody $5,000 to make a bad computer in Louisiana? World trade is how we got so rich, how our living standards got as high as they are. It also helps world peace.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
B-52's - they certainly are not cost-beneficial to continue to operate.

We don't have any cheap bombers -- only expensive (B-52), really really expensive (B-1) and really, really, really, really expensive (B-2). We might imagine the B-2 is simple to fly and cheap to maintain, but is that the reality? I doubt that.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
3. Increase the buy of the C-130's, no need to ship more jobs overseas by purchasing the A400M

Why not re-activate Henry Ford's Rouge plant and produce the Model T again? Why not produce pirate ships and opera glasses? The point is, life is too short to engage in make-work. Either do something the job market is willing to pay for, or sit back and relax. To have jobs on command projects is USSR think. I thought they lost. That is not the key to economic prosperity. The collapse of the USSR showed that. Instead, trade is the key to prosperity.


User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5318 posts, RR: 30
Reply 20, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 7942 times:

Canada could use some F-22's to patrol those thousands of square miles of frozen nothing. We're pretty good with secrets, too...(psssst...Hoffa ain't in Jersey...).


What the...?
User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 7842 times:



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
Canada could use some F-22's to patrol those thousands of square miles of frozen nothing. We're pretty good with secrets, too...(psssst...Hoffa ain't in Jersey...).

You know, I agree and I have no issues with selling weapons to Canada, but does that mission profie really require stealth?



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlineBlackbird From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7800 times:

I just hope that Obama because of his ties to AIPAC doesn't end up giving it to them.

Endangering national security is just not cool.


User currently offlineAC788 From Canada, joined Jan 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7787 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 22):

Absolutely not, though it does require speed, range, and reliability.

The reliability of two engines, the advantage of super cruise and increased range (1,600nmi vs. 1,200 nmi) are all aspects where the F-22 exceeds the F-35's performance.

Although, IMHO, I can't see the Canadian government ever footing the bill for these aircraft any time soon.


User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 24, posted (5 years 2 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 7774 times:



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 22):
You know, I agree and I have no issues with selling weapons to Canada, but does that mission profie really require stealth?

That's where the Super Hornet will be just fine - lot's of hardpoints for AAM's, A/G, and/or even air-to-sea weapons, decent stealth for all that Canada will ever use, and general F/A-18 familiarity.


25 Playloud : I see these numbers on Wikipedia, which probably isn't the best source for this kind of information. However, even using that source, it says that th
26 AC788 : Okay well lets assume for arguments sake (and lack of a better source) that there isn't a range advantage for the F-22 or F-35. That still leaves the
27 Alien : That is only making the decision easier. The current planned fleet level (under 200) is not viable in the long term and it does not allow for F-22s t
28 Par13del : Bit extreme, but I'll go along with you, there is nothing made in the US now that is not made elsewhere, so why not close down all US manufacturing T
29 Bennett123 : Clearly even when the A400M enters service in 2011(?) there is no reason to assume that the US will buy it. Equally, airlift is needed now. This seems
30 Nomadd22 : With Russia trying to claim most of the Arctic, I'd say Canada has a pretty good case for a strong force of the best they can get.
31 Bennett123 : Given that AFAIK F22 is not for sale then it is non starter for Canada. That leaves the F18E or F35.
32 Alien : I would bet on it not happening. A400 is overkill as an in theater C-130 replacement and by the time FCS happens (if at all) the USAF will either go
33 AirRyan : Canada could use the range and super-cruise of the F-22 as they'd have more of a need in A/A than A/G when it came to dispelling Russian bombers. I do
34 Nomadd22 : Last time I looked Canada wasn't the type to sit back and let their neighbors take care of defense needs. If you think they're not going to want to t
35 Jutes85 : No we don't. The CF-18's use the basket from the Hercs and Airbuses. Canada doesn't patrol the north, but we do respond to any threats that are prese
36 Flighty : Of course, yes I think since we have paid so much for R&D, we should build more F-22. It's fairly cheap when you compare it to designing yet another
37 JoeCanuck : I wonder what the list price is for each of these units? The flight from Cold Lake to their forward base in Inuvik is over a thousand miles of frozen
38 Jutes85 : I've been up there a few times. Our pilots do prefer two engines due to the distances between airfields up north. On the topic at hand though, the F-
39 JoeCanuck : I decided to go window shopping for a fighter; Info from Wiki...so take it with a grain of salt. The Saudis inked a contract for 72 Tranche 2 Typhoons
40 STT757 : Canada is doing very well with it's oil, Natural gas and mineral reserves near the Arctic. Russia is also expanding their Arctic exploration which le
41 Post contains links Alien : Clean radius (which means with a combat load out for both the F-35 and F-22) for the F-22 is 410 nautical miles of which 100 nautical miles is super
42 JoeCanuck : It is vitally important that Canada do more than draw lines on a map as a way to protect sovereignty in the arctic. We definitely must have a much la
43 Post contains links Alien : Thats an easy one to fix. "This country should just agree to assured U.S. transit and, in exchange, the U.S. should recognize Canadian sovereignty. A
44 Bennett123 : Alien On that basis we may need to wait for the A400M. To scrap the project, (by stages) and leave the US as the only heavylift provider would serious
45 Connies4ever : w.r.t. to all of the above, it's true that the so-called 'sovereignty flights' are an infrequent thing, usually with CP-140 Auroras (P-3s), and that
46 Zkpilot : Thats where the super-hornet makes sense... also UACV are likely to be very effective in the coming decades so why not use those to patrol the frozen
47 Alien : Whatever are you talking about? The A400 is not a heavy lifter. The UK has not had it's own home built heavy lifter in years. The A400 is years away
48 MCIGuy : Exactly, plust two engines don't guarantee anything, as evidenced by last month's Super Bug crash in San Diego.
49 Post contains links Bennett123 : http://www.airframer.com/aircraft_detail.html?model=A400M Whilst the UK does not build the whole plane, we does build a significant element of it. If
50 Alien : And the US supplies many components as well so what's your point? So lets just keep throwing good money after bad. Seeing how this is an internationa
51 Post contains links Bennett123 : If we put all our eggs in the C17 basket, then supply is dependent on only 1 country/company. As part of a consortium we all have leverage on each oth
52 Alien : For the past 60 years you have put your country's eggs in one basket. So what's new? The difference is that Lockheed is not going around selling KC-1
53 Bsergonomics : Just my little 2 Euro-cents' worth... If the F-22 lobby gets its way, all it will get is a large number of F-22As. That succeeds in keeping large numb
54 Spacepope : That crash was an F/A-18D, not a superbug.
55 Art : I don't have any idea how many extra F-22's the USAF should have but it makes sense to me to maintain production at a low level for several more year
56 Bennett123 : Alien Are you saying that you expect the US Military in 2017 to be buying F18E and F35's. Is this going to be a substancial expansion, if not, what ar
57 Bennett123 : My understanding is that the existing F18A/C will be replaced by F35. Presumably the F18A/C will receive some supplementation from F18E in the meantim
58 Alien : It is quite possible considering there will be a need (they just don't know it yet) for jammers for the USAF by then. The Navy is not supposed to get
59 Post contains links Stitch : Well LM recently announced the F-22 was "overperforming" in multiple areas, so that could help the sales campaign: AviationWeek Article
60 Nomadd22 : I just noticed the same article. I knew the 22 was doing a few db better on cross section than specified, but the jump in supercruise caught me offgu
61 Zkpilot : So if thats it's supercruise speed, then its highly likely that it's top speed is also higher than many people thought (even though its classified).
62 Blackbird : You know, I'd almost swear I heard F-22 Test Pilot Paul Metz state that the F-22 could "Walk away" from an afterburning F-15 without using it's afterb
63 Par13del : What we need to see is the caveat which allowed this program to continue, the F-117 replacement, after all, they did add the A for attack to the a/c
64 AirRyan : The Marines evidently think they are smarter than their Navy counterparts (not to mention a fatter wallet) and they are of the position that they can
65 Post contains links Red329 : There is still some love in Washington, 12 more are on the way... http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR
66 Zkpilot : well if it can supercruise at M1.78 then it will be able to do this against most F-15. Only way an F-15 can really go faster is to be flying relative
67 Par13del : How long can the F-22 supercruise, more than an hour, the F-15 theoritically is capable of Mach 3, what we do know is that the F-22 is not as fast as
68 Blackbird : Zkpilot, I thought the F-15 even with four AIM-7's or four AIM-120's had virtually no performance hit? From what I remember they considered such a set
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Senators Pressure White House For More C-17s posted Tue Dec 18 2007 22:32:03 by Echster
CV-22 Participates In Rescue Mission posted Mon Nov 5 2007 18:41:23 by Jrw261
F-22: All In One? posted Sun Oct 14 2007 15:10:56 by Blackbird
F-22 Arrives In Japan posted Sun Feb 18 2007 03:19:37 by BritJap
Rumsfeld's Departure May Mean More F-22 - F-18E/F posted Wed Nov 15 2006 01:06:02 by MCIGuy
Outstanding 360 View Of V-22 Pit In High Detail... posted Sun Jul 23 2006 07:50:37 by AirRyan
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer
Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As posted Wed Jan 11 2006 20:37:06 by NightHawk117
2 More Turkish F-4s In Midair Collision posted Wed Mar 3 2004 01:03:10 by Spacepope
Eads Aggressive Push For More Business posted Wed Nov 12 2003 23:46:51 by AvObserver

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format