STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17091 posts, RR: 50 Posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 5476 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.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 5439 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.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
Echster From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 400 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 5383 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?
L-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 30018 posts, RR: 58
Reply 11, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 5300 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.
AGC525 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 989 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 5226 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!
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.
EBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 5118 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.
STT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 17091 posts, RR: 50
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5036 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).
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.
AirRyan From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 2532 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 5031 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...
SCAT15F From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 402 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 4894 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.
SeJoWa From United States of America, joined May 2006, 399 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 4800 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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....
: 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
: 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,
: What about us other Guard guys? DeltaGuy
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: 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
: What are the F-22s going to do after they have taken out the Flankers, stand on the ground, unused?
: then the JSF's come in.. F-22 probably stay providing fighter cover..
: 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
: 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
: 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,
: 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
: 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.
: 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
: 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
: 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
: Very well put, I'll remember to say that sometime at work...sounds like a mob hit to me DeltaGuy