Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Pentagon To Support Usaf Request For 381 F-22s  
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 5008 times:

As stated in this Washington Post article, the Pentagon is going to support the Air Force request for additional F-22s. The Air Force has consistently stated they need 381 F-22s to replace the 400 + F-15s in service, the additional F-22 buy is taking on even more urgency in light of recent groundings of F-15s due to fatigue. This would reverse the planning set forth by former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld that 183 F-22s would suffice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2007/12/03/AR2007120301827.html

381 F-22s would allow the Air Force to deploy F-22s in a manner that may look like this..

Langely AFB; 72 F-22s
Lakenheath; 24 F-22s
Tyndall AFB; 72 F-22s
Holloman AFB; 72 F-22s
Elmendorf AFB; 48 F-22s
Hickam AFB; 18 F-22s
Kadena; 48 F-22s
Nellis AFB; 24 F-22s
Edwards AFB; ?


Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 1, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 4989 times:

That's a lot of money, especially for an aircraft that suffers from interpersonal communication problems...

PAGE 40, "MISSING LINK" DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY DECEMBER 2007

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/dti1207/


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4971 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
That's a lot of money, especially for an aircraft that suffers from interpersonal communication problems...

PAGE 40, "MISSING LINK" DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY DECEMBER 2007

http://www.nxtbook.com/nxtbooks/aw/d...1207/

O.K. Give us the jist of it. What are the problems?



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4971 times:

It's about time. But even now I wish the USAF would request at least 600 F-22s. IMHO, this remarkable fighter is a "one-size-fits-all" kind of aircraft. It'll probably replace the F-16 as well as the F-15.
Also, thru a reliable source I can't divulge...the USAF will be getting at least 244 F-22s, even tho 183 is the "official" number. Rumsfeld has no say in the matter any more...thank God.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlineN74JW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 4960 times:



Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 3):
Rumsfeld has no say in the matter any more...thank God.

Really... That is one dude, I will not miss.

Good, glad to see the USAF is getting what they need.


User currently offlineTexL1649 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 296 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4941 times:

I imagine daily there are about 10-20 Rumsfeld decisions being fixed/corrected at the Pentagon.

User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4933 times:

Is there any chance of the Thunderbirds switching to the F-22?


American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4916 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 6):
Is there any chance of the Thunderbirds switching to the F-22?

They are lucky they are getting F-16Cs in 2009. The USAF will NEVER hand over a Billion dollars worth of aircraft to a air demonstration team.


User currently offlineEchster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4915 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 6):
Is there any chance of the Thunderbirds switching to the F-22?

Heck no. Too expensive and too great a combat asset to put a squadron of aircraft on a flight demo team.



If the USAF ends up procuring a larger amount of F-22s than 183, what happens to the aircraft that are replaced? Prior airframes got pushed down to AFR/ANG units, but what of the F-15 airframe problems?


User currently offlineTaromA380 From Romania, joined Sep 2005, 334 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 4910 times:

Never say never.

The F-16 was brand new, sophisticated and expensive in the 70's, nobody would have given a couple to a demo team. However, time went by, F-16 is now a basic design, used by demo teams.

The F-22 is now the state-of-the-art, of course it's hard to imagine it doing demos teams. Let's talk in 30 years.


User currently offlinePar13del From Bahamas, joined Dec 2005, 7202 posts, RR: 8
Reply 10, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 day ago) and read 4841 times:

Lets say the congress does agree to fund these 381 aircraft, exactly how many years will it take to build and deliver these a/c, what type of production rate / numbers are they talking about?

User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29799 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 4832 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
especially for an aircraft that suffers from interpersonal communication problems...

So find the aviation equivelent of Cesear Romero do have a 1-1 counciling sesion and get on it. One nice thing about having a larger purchase is that you will now be able to spread the development costs over more airframes which will reduce the "Per Airplane" price.

Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 5):
I imagine daily there are about 10-20 Rumsfeld decisions being fixed/corrected at the Pentagon

I don't think the number is that low. He did more damage to the miliary then Robert McNamara.

Quoting TaromA380 (Reply 9):
Never say never

Agreed, They where flying F-4's for a while.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineAGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4758 times:

Sorry, I forgot about them switching to the F-16C's. But I guess like you said, way down the road I guess it's a possibility. I just figured being a demo team the AF would like to show off it's premier fighter in the future.


American Aviation: From Kitty Hawk to the Moon in 66 years!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 13, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 4744 times:

I think the fact the're not flying F-15's says a lot

User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 4668 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 6):
Is there any chance of the Thunderbirds switching to the F-22?

Very doubtfull too expensive. Maybe the F-35 is 15-20 years but I doubt you will see them in F-22's at least in our lifetime.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 15, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4652 times:



Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 13):
I think the fact the're not flying F-15's says a lot

The Thunderbirds never were planned to fly the F-15. They changed types after the T-38 accident, and went to the F-16A/B. But, IIRC, the T-38A accident had nothing to do with the change, it had been planned for a while.

It is just like the Blue Angles were never planned to fly the F-14. They changed from the A-4s to the F/A-18s.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 4650 times:



Quoting AGC525 (Reply 12):
Sorry, I forgot about them switching to the F-16C's. But I guess like you said, way down the road I guess it's a possibility. I just figured being a demo team the AF would like to show off it's premier fighter in the future.

The Thunderbirds have been in F-16C Block 32s for a bit; they're switching to the Block 52 for the 2009 season. And you're right, they used to make a point of getting their hands on the newest birds in the inventory. F-100Cs in 1956, the F-105B in 1964 and the F-4E in 1968. Recruiting isn't the only thing the T-Birds do; they also demonstrate the qualities and capabilities of our aircraft, so being equipped with the F-22A isn't completely out of the question, though it's clear getting the first line units (or enough units to meet the immediate need) equipped will come first. The team's use of the F-22A would have the potential for an aerial demonstration that would be nothing less than a mind blowing experience. I, for one, hope it happens. The American people and air show fans the world over would be very impressed.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 4 hours ago) and read 4635 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 15):
The Thunderbirds never were planned to fly the F-15.

indeed, same reason they will never be planned for the F-22, as the F-15 was the topline fighter, and the F-22 is now.


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (6 years 9 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4603 times:



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 1):
That's a lot of money, especially for an aircraft that suffers from interpersonal communication problems...

Why even bring this up?? The main concern is that it can communicate with other Raptor's which it does just fine.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 7):
They are lucky they are getting F-16Cs in 2009.

Huh??? They converted to C/D's in 1992 bud...


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16866 posts, RR: 51
Reply 19, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4568 times:



Quoting TexL1649 (Reply 5):
I imagine daily there are about 10-20 Rumsfeld decisions being fixed/corrected at the Pentagon.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Defense Secretary Robert Gates, he is exactly the type of person the position of Defense Secretary requires. He is correcting some misguided decisions put into place by the former Secretary, without being overt about it.

The most important policy decisions Gates is revisiting from the former Secretary is the level of forces in Europe, specifically the US Army. In 2002 there were about 60,000 US troops in Europe mostly based in Germany, former Secretary Rumsfeld decided to slash that down to a projected 20,000 (two brigades, 173rd Airborne Brigade in Vincenza Italy and the 2nd Stryker Regiment at Vilseck Germany).

If reports that have come out are accurate (I really hope they are), Defense Secretary Robert Gates has decided to stop the draw down of troops in Europe. The current force level of 40,000 troops will be maintained, as will four Army Brigades (the 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team in Italy; the 2nd Cavalry (Stryker) Regiment from Vilseck, Germany; Schweinfurt, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Infantry Division; and the Baumholder, Germany-based 2nd Brigade, 1st Armored Division).

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?s...ion=104&article=57934&archive=true

I strongly feel having these troops remain in Europe is vital to both the US and NATO countries, it allows easier training amongst units in Europe, allows US Service members to serve in cultures outside of the United States which will allow greater education and familiarity with various cultures than could be achieved at Stateside bases. Plus Europe is much closer to the Middle East, Africa and South Asia than bases in the Continental US, making military or humanitarian responses much quicker and effective.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineAirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4563 times:



Quoting Checksixx (Reply 18):
Why even bring this up?? The main concern is that it can communicate with other Raptor's which it does just fine.

While given enough time and money LM will eventually iron this out, but it's not exactly a small point; but of course we are talking about an aircraft that took so long to get into the air that the computers initially intended for it were rendered obsolete and not even available before it even entered service causing millions more that had to be allocated to the program...


User currently offlineChecksixx From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1095 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 4459 times:

I'm glad they took their time with it...it turned out a success! With only one airframe loss in the F-22A program, you'd have to agree I would think.

User currently offlineSCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 4426 times:

If they really want to save money and have a more capable force, the USAF should eliminate the CTOL F-35 and use the money for the full buy of 700+ F-22's.

With the F-15 and F-16 mixed buy it was different because the F-16 was arguably the equal of the F-15 in terms of Air to Air, whereas the F-22 is far superior to the F-35 in every respect, and F-35 cost is closing in on F22 cost. Also the USAF couldn't afford an all F-15 fleet of 1500 aircraft. The Air Force has no such numbers requirement anymore, which makes me wonder why the Air Force even wants to buy the F-35, which save for stealth and minimal internal weapons carriage is no improvement over the F-16, in fact, its actually slower in top speed.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 23, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 4379 times:



Quoting SCAT15F (Reply 22):
If they really want to save money and have a more capable force, the USAF should eliminate the CTOL F-35 and use the money for the full buy of 700 F-22's.

you forget there are some international partners that need this aeroplane as well.. BTW, this is the largest chunk of all JSF's and without themthe USAF wont have a proper frontline strike capability


User currently offlineSeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 352 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 9 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4332 times:

This is a vital step in the right direction. 400 Raptors provide for much greater staying power and cast a disproportionally longer "global shadow", even taking account of surprise losses due to unforeseen events.

Keeping the peace is so much cheaper than fighting it out, but when push comes to shove, we had better own the air.

Furthermore, buying more Raptors not only cashes in on all the money spent, but also spreads the cost of future enhancements over more frames, all the while reducing risk from over-reliance on the F-35.

Finally, I couldn't agree more with above opinions regarding the previous and current Secretaries of War, er, Defense.


25 Thorny : No, certainly not anytime soon. But there will probably be an F-22 demonstration team (one plane that goes around to air shows), like there is for th
26 Par13del : If the Air Force eventually use the F-22 it will be a long way down the road, after the kinks in its numerous electronic systems are ironed out. Like
27 Ozair : Everyone seems to be forgetting the possibility of a F/B-22 and how an extension of the current F-22 production line might allow this to occur. Seems
28 F27Friendship : The F-22 will make a lousy bomber. Will need a lot of redesign and will then only be able to do what a JSF can do for a lot less money.
29 Post contains links Ozair : I'm specifically talking about the delta wing F/B-22 concept, which is a far cry from a single engine short range half-stealth aircraft. http://www.d
30 Zkpilot : The F-16 was designed as a low cost but effective alternative to the expensive F-15. The F-22 is taking inflation into account far more expensive tha
31 Post contains images F27Friendship : lol! you are calling the JSF half stealth and short ranged? nevertheless it is the latest stealth aircraft and has far greater range than the strike
32 Ozair : Take the time to research the design and capabilities of both the F-22 and the JSF. You might be surprised with what you find....
33 Checksixx : It was never designed as a bomber. Although its air to ground performance is excellent, so I wouldn't call it lousy. There will be no F/B-22...not su
34 F27Friendship : I'm quite well aware of their capabilities, are you? I think you are too much influenced by that crazy retired air marshall of yours You are correct,
35 Post contains images Deltaguy : What about us other Guard guys? DeltaGuy
36 STT757 : The Hawaiian ANG will be the only all Guard Unit flying the F-22s from Hickam, the Virginia ANG is in the process or has already turned in their F-16
37 Post contains images DeltaGuy : Virginia Guard got screwed in alot of respects with the "merger", most of their people had to go away completely, just giving some resources/money to
38 Checksixx : LoL!!! You're right...those 'little' thousand-pounders are useless arn't they! Not... Of course I have info on its excellent AtG performance, but sur
39 Wvsuperhornet : Just look up under F-22A in a yahoo search they are easy to find. It seems that you know so much information that you dont want to do the work to loo
40 F27Friendship : I think it's so laughable people still think it'sefficient to send a 400 M$ plane to send a 1000 lb bomb. Even if it hits the target flawlessly, it's
41 Post contains images Brendows : What are the F-22s going to do after they have taken out the Flankers, stand on the ground, unused?
42 F27Friendship : then the JSF's come in.. F-22 probably stay providing fighter cover..
43 Post contains images Boeing4ever : F-22 knocks the door down, F-35 comes in and trashes the house. That's how it works. Or, the F-22 will....ok, I'm sure everyone's sick of me trotting
44 Checksixx : I think its laughable that you think the F-22 is a $400M plane! Lets not forget that we send a $1B dollar aircraft to drop bombs and that's worked ou
45 F27Friendship : the numbers are all over this forum: total programme cost divided by amount of airframes... Well, I have to give you the F-22 has one big advantage,
46 Checksixx : Your right...people that have no clue how the numbers are supposed to be broken down would include all the R&D to come up with that number. They are
47 Post contains images Michlis : Except there are not a lot of those billion dollar airplanes in service and if they lose one or two then no one will be laughing.
48 UH60FtRucker : Look, the thing is, we need to push forward with the program. We cannot wait for the next generation of technology to come out, to finally field an ai
49 Post contains images Michlis : Like most political spiels, the so-called "peace dividend" after the end of the Cold War is actually going to cost more because a lot of hard assets
50 F27Friendship : well, so you don't consider the R&D money spent? Every aircraft has recurring and non-recurring cost, if you like it or not.. Furthermore, I think UH
51 Post contains images DeltaGuy : Very well put, I'll remember to say that sometime at work...sounds like a mob hit to me DeltaGuy
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Pentagon To Support Usaf Request For 381 F-22s
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...
Raytheon To Upgrade Usaf F-15E Fleet W/ Aesa Radar posted Sun Nov 4 2007 19:28:26 by AirRyan
Delta TechOps To Support 767 Tanker Fleet posted Sun Sep 23 2007 09:42:21 by Flynavy
India To Buy Six C-130Js For Special Forces posted Wed May 30 2007 23:03:21 by DEVILFISH
UK To Cancel New Carriers For The Royal Navy? posted Tue Jan 23 2007 21:21:22 by Lumberton
Usmc Looks To Revive OV-10s For Use In Iraq posted Sat Oct 14 2006 17:16:32 by Papoose
USN To Ground All Aircraft For One Day posted Sat Mar 4 2006 16:43:03 by AviationAddict
Usaf Pushing For KC-777 And KC-737 Mix - AW&ST posted Fri Jan 6 2006 22:37:23 by Boeing Nut
Eads Selects Mobile, AL To Build Usaf Tanker posted Thu Jun 23 2005 00:05:19 by AirRyan
Possible Usaf Order For KC-130Js. posted Tue Jan 18 2005 01:04:34 by CX747
Request C/n For French Navy FA50 posted Mon Sep 13 2004 03:26:22 by RobK

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format