Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As — Military Forum

Sponsor Message:


My Starred Topics \| Profile \| New Topic \| Forum Index \| Help \| Search

Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As

NightHawk117 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 175 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2444 times:

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002072.html

Interesting article on how the U.S. Air Force wants to axe ALL of the U-2 and F-117 fleets and cut the overall # of B-52s in half to provide more funding for production of additional F-22As.

While I am in favor of making a 'necessary sacrifice' to fund production of more Raptors, I worry that the total loss of F-117s will hurt the U.S. in the short-term. The F-22A IS operational, but, still in a very small number. I think that we still need a 'backup' stealth platform until there is a larger # of F-22s (and the JSF comes on-line).

Team Stealth...when it absolutely, positively HAS to be taken out overnight!

15 replies: All unread, jump to last

CX747 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 4385 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2429 times:

I can understand retiring the B-52s and F-117s in favor of more F-22s, but retiring the U-2 doesn't make any sense. Are they going to buy Global Hawks or another manned platform to fill in for the U-2?

"History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the weak or timid." D. Eisenhower

N328KF From United States of America, joined May 2004, 6226 posts, RR: 3
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 2386 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 1):
I can understand retiring the B-52s and F-117s in favor of more F-22s, but retiring the U-2 doesn't make any sense. Are they going to buy Global Hawks or another manned platform to fill in for the U-2?

In theory, the Global Hawk fits the U-2 niche very well, so that is a possibility. It's been mentioned before.

When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.' T.Roosevelt

Maiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 51
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 2279 times:

Underscoring the difficulty that the Air Force may face in selling this
plan to Congress, the fiscal year 2006 defense appropriations bill,
signed Dec. 30 by President Bush, includes $9..4 billion to maintain the
fleet of 52 F-117s.

It still might have a chance.

Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2135 times:

The fighter jocks will always try to get rid of the ground pounders and cargo trucks for a few more fastmovers.

I wish I were flying

KC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 11738 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2094 times:

The gain in F-22As is only 4 aircraft. This is crazy.

Flyf15 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 22 hours ago) and read 2078 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The gain in F-22As is only 4 aircraft. This is crazy.

I agree. The F-22 could perform the F-117's role, but loosing 50 or so F-117s and gaining only 4 F-22s? That is rediculus.

They say that the total cuts would save $2.6 billion. This equates to 8-9 more F-22s. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have 33 U-2s, 38 B-52s, 52 F-117s, and 38 C-21s than 9 F-22s.

Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2041 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The gain in F-22As is only 4 aircraft. This is crazy.

You may want to re-work your figures. Using the 2.6billion figure in the article would yield 20 raptors.

-Check

Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 19 hours ago) and read 2039 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 7):

You may want to re-work your figures. Using the 2.6billion figure in the article would yield 20 raptors.

-Check

What's the cost for each additional Raptor, ignoring the costs of sunk R&D?

ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

Sovietjet From Bulgaria, joined Mar 2003, 2342 posts, RR: 14
Reply 9, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 16 hours ago) and read 2017 times:

Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Is it me or is the Raptor not as "stealthy" as the F-117. I have a hard time believeing they are similar in radar signature.

Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39
Reply 10, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2011 times:

Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 9):
Is it me or is the Raptor not as "stealthy" as the F-117. I have a hard time believeing they are similar in radar signature

The amount of computing power available at the time the F-117 was designed was a limiting factor in creating a profile that was stealthy, resulting in the boxy look. One would think that a decade's worth of advances in computational power would let them solve the problem of making a much more aerodynamic design as stealthy.

[Edited 2006-01-14 03:54:02]

ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

Checksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 999 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 2000 times:

Quoting Atmx2000 (Reply 8):
What's the cost for each additional Raptor, ignoring the costs of sunk R&D?

Right now around 120-130 million per copy and still dropping.

Atmx2000 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4576 posts, RR: 39
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 15 hours ago) and read 1993 times:

Quoting Checksixx (Reply 11):
Right now around 120-130 million per copy and still dropping

Why is it dropping? Lockheed and Boeing finding ways to cut manufacturing costs or something else? Does that figure include the manufacturing facilities fixed cost?

ConcordeBoy is a twin supremacist!! He supports quadicide!!

L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29366 posts, RR: 61
Reply 13, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 14 hours ago) and read 1990 times:

Quoting CX747 (Reply 1):
can understand retiring the B-52s and F-117s in favor of more F-22s, but retiring the U-2 doesn't make any sense

I think the opposite is true.

The U-2 missions do more ELINT now then anything else. This could be done by the drones.

But giving up the bombers and F-117....don't know about that.

Can the weapons bay of the F-22 even accomodate Paveways?

OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.

MauriceB From Netherlands, joined Aug 2004, 2477 posts, RR: 28
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 4 hours ago) and read 1946 times:

how much F-22's will they eventually have?

Jwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 21
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 1874 times:

the F-22 AFAIK is certified ONLY for JDAM.

Current F-22 orders are set at about 180 frames.

I wish I were flying

Top Of Page

Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Retiring B-52s, U-2s, And F-117s For More F-22As

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

Check Spelling

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

Similar topics: