LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Sun Jan 18, 2009 10:16 pm

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
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Sun Jan 18, 2009 11:39 pm

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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:45 am

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.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:00 am



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..
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:29 am

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 avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:38 am



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
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:09 am



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]
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
ContinentalFan
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2000 2:47 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:48 am



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.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 6:50 am



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
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:34 am



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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 12:48 pm



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 avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 1:30 pm



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.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:28 pm

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
 
texl1649
Posts: 328
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 5:38 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:06 pm

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..
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 3:48 pm



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 avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:00 pm



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
 
Thorny
Posts: 1508
Joined: Thu Jul 07, 2005 8:44 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 5:13 pm



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 avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:16 pm

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.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Mon Jan 19, 2009 7:27 pm



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.
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 4:00 am



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.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 7:46 am

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...?
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 3:16 pm



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
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:40 pm

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.
 
ac788
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 5:59 pm



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.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:08 pm



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.
 
PlayLoud
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:46 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:26 pm



Quoting AC788 (Reply 24):
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.

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 the range of the F-22 is 1600nmi with 2 external fuel tanks.. The 1200nmi range of the F-35, is using internal fuel only.

I don't really see how the F-22 can have greater range than the F-35 (both using internal fuel only). They have similar fuel loads (slight edge going to the F-22), but the F-35 weighs a lot less, and only uses one engine.
 
ac788
Posts: 39
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2009 4:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:35 pm



Quoting Playloud (Reply 26):

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 massive speed advantage the F-22 has over the F-35 which I think is an advantage in intercept missions.

But as I said above, "Although, IMHO, I can't see the Canadian government ever footing the bill for these aircraft any time soon." Financial issues (relatively tight national defense budget) would knock the F-22 out of the running anyway, even if the U.S. decided to lift the export ban.
 white 
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 4:07 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
Would anyone agree that the current impetus for additional F-22's is due to the economy and wanting to keep jobs?

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 to be stationed in all the places they are needed in sufficient numbers. Second until the F-35 enters full rate production they want to have a hot assembly line building 5th generation fighters. Look for another 60 raptors over three years.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
1. Increase the number of C-17's being purchased.

Absolutely and push additional exports to the UK, Italy, Canada, etc.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
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?

The A-10 fleet is being upgraded and modernized as I write. The program is funded. Dropping JDAMs from 15,000ft as F-16s do is not what I call CAS.

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

Better yet fund a new medium lifter based on an upgraded YC-14 or YC-15. C-130s will be too narrow in 20 years.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 18):
Buy 100 tankers from Boeing - B-767 - on a fixed prices basis, keep the jobs at home and ditch the Airbus product - A330

Absolutely correct. There is no need to outsource American jobs when a perfectly good alternative exists here.

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

To me it's more about jobs and the fact that there are perfectly good domestic alternatives. S-92 or a derivative would have been a good choice.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
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.

No we should not stop trading with the rest of the world but as taxpayers (and be extension the government) we should have a strong preference for a domestic solution. As for the rest of your imported argument, I suggest you speak to the millions of unemployed in this country and take a look at where the economy is headed. Eventually it affects us all. I am for free trade as long as it is fair trade. Does the exporting country have a comparable level of environmental, labor, consumer and accounting laws as we do. Does that two dollars a day wage they are paying provide a decent wage for that factory worker?

At what point does the economy go into the toilet and you no longer have a market for the goods or services you produce?

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 25):
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.

The problem for Canada and a lot of potential Super Hornet customers is will it still be available and will it still be competive throughout the life cycle of the plane when Canada needs it.

Quoting AC788 (Reply 27):
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 massive speed advantage the F-22 has over the F-35 which I think is an advantage in intercept missions.

What massive speed advantage? F-22 can Super cruise for about 1/2 hour. After that they both do M .9. I am willing to bet that the F-35 (especially the C) can use full military power for longer than the F-22. So over the long haul the F-35 should probably be faster in that it can cover more ground with the fuel it has on board.

Quoting AC788 (Reply 27):
Financial issues (relatively tight national defense budget) would knock the F-22 out of the running anyway, even if the U.S. decided to lift the export ban.
white

I agree, no F-22s or Typhoons for Canada. Besides overkill (for their own national interests) both would break the bank. It's either F-35 or Super Hornet.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 6670
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 6:29 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
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.

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  Smile That's the type of stuff on the Civ Av forum, not much found here, just because one has a preference for locally produced items does not mean no trade, how much current US military equipment comes from Europe right now? The Europeans seem to be building their own defense industry and they are not being accused of not trading, maybe the US could take a page from their book?

Quoting Flighty (Reply 20):
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

If money is the issue and you are looking for more bang for the buck, how much money is required to produce a all new design and how many years will it take? The F-22 took how long, what about the F-35, the C-17 took a while and all these projects cost mucho dollars.

Quoting Alien (Reply 28):
Better yet fund a new medium lifter based on an upgraded YC-14 or YC-15. C-130s will be too narrow in 20 years

The list was given based on tight monetary constraints, granted the C-130 is getting too narrow, but I'm not sure all the new non-tank vehicles in their current designs and whats on the board should not just be abandoned and produce more tanks, there is only so much protection you can put on smaller lighter vehicles before it becoms cheaper to just produce a smaller tank. With that said, LM asking price to widen the C-130 may just be the price of a all new design after delays are factored in, this in spite of the study they have apready done to show the feasibility of the project.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:05 pm

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 to be a given regardless of what develops in Iraq/Afghanistan.

Why not buy some more C130J ASAP, and push forward with the C130XL at least to the Development Stage ASAP.

Then in a few years time, you will have the option of buying either the C130XL or the A400M.

What I find amusing is the assumption that all Overseas supply of equipment is going to stop and we are going to buy lots of C17's from you.
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:25 pm

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.
Anon
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 8:33 pm

Given that AFAIK F22 is not for sale then it is non starter for Canada.

That leaves the F18E or F35.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:07 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 30):
Clearly even when the A400M enters service in 2011(?) there is no reason to assume that the US will buy it.

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 with an all new design based on a scaled up Osprey, a widened C-130 or as stated before, updated versions of C-14/15.

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 30):
What I find amusing is the assumption that all Overseas supply of equipment is going to stop and we are going to buy lots of C17's from you.

What are the alternatives other than waiting for what looks to be an over weight and over budget A400?

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 31):
With Russia trying to claim most of the Arctic,

Do you really think the US is going to let the Canadians handle the Russians alone? There is clearly a common interest here in not letting that happen.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 9:59 pm

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 don't remember, does Canada have the ability to aerial refuel boom aircraft? I guess they'd need some KC-30's, too?!

[Edited 2009-01-21 14:13:07]
 
nomadd22
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:42 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Wed Jan 21, 2009 11:39 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 33):
Do you really think the US is going to let the Canadians handle the Russians alone? There is clearly a common interest here in not letting that happen.

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 take responsibility for their northern borders, you haven't met very many Canadians. It ain't Iceland.
Anon
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:24 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 34):
I don't remember, does Canada have the ability to aerial refuel boom aircraft?

No we don't. The CF-18's use the basket from the Hercs and Airbuses.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 21):
Canada could use some F-22's to patrol those thousands of square miles of frozen nothing.

Canada doesn't patrol the north, but we do respond to any threats that are present. It's not like we are up there 24/7 flying around buzzing the odd polar bear.
nothing
 
Flighty
Posts: 7651
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 12:54 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 29):
The F-22 took how long, what about the F-35, the C-17 took a while and all these projects cost mucho dollars.

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 new aircraft.

Quoting Alien (Reply 28):
Does that two dollars a day wage they are paying provide a decent wage for that factory worker?

At what point does the economy go into the toilet and you no longer have a market for the goods or services you produce?

Theoretically, trade barriers will only make things worse. Then we will have even more jobless, lower wages, etc.

To prohibit trade is a restriction on human freedom.

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 35):
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 take responsibility for their northern borders, you haven't met very many Canadians.

Canadian defense is a bit like Australia, lots of ground to cover and they do it intelligently and effectively.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:01 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 28):
I agree, no F-22s or Typhoons for Canada. Besides overkill (for their own national interests) both would break the bank. It's either F-35 or Super Hornet.

I wonder what the list price is for each of these units?

Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 36):
Canada doesn't patrol the north, but we do respond to any threats that are present. It's not like we are up there 24/7 flying around buzzing the odd polar bear.

The flight from Cold Lake to their forward base in Inuvik is over a thousand miles of frozen wasteland. It would be interesting know what the pilots would prefer...one engine or two? I grew up in Inuvik. I knew some people who froze to death...in town, much less on the tundra. I'd think having a second engine would greatly reduce the pucker factor.
What the...?
 
jutes85
Posts: 1854
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:50 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:11 am



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
The flight from Cold Lake to their forward base in Inuvik is over a thousand miles of frozen wasteland. It would be interesting know what the pilots would prefer...one engine or two? I grew up in Inuvik. I knew some people who froze to death...in town, much less on the tundra. I'd think having a second engine would greatly reduce the pucker factor.

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-22 would be overkill for Canada, it's just too much airplane for the odd TU-95 intercept.
nothing
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 2:15 am

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 for about 6.2 billion dollars...including support and such. That works out to around 86 million per aircraft.

F-35 is reported to be $83 million.

F/A-18E - 55.2 million dollars each.

F-22 - $122 million.
What the...?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13176
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:44 am



Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 31):
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.

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 leads me to believe the next major crisis may arise in the Arctic, most likely through Russia trying to grab, claim or drill into areas that are not their territory and belong to Canada or the US in Alaska. Keep in mind Saddam thought the Kuwaitis were using slant drilling to drill into Iraqi oil fields which eventually lead to the invasion.

With this is mind I think it's vitally important that Canada reinvest some of the revenues they are generating up there into defense spending to beef up their Arctic military presence, more ice breakers, anti sub aircraft (P-3s) and some advanced fighters. They need to protect their sovereignty, which Russia may very well challenge up there.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:03 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 34):
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.

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 cruise.

For the F-35A it's greater than 590 nm.

For Super Hornet with two AAM and no tanks about 600 nm.

How does the F-22 have more range?

Quoting Nomadd22 (Reply 35):
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 take responsibility for their northern borders, you haven't met very many Canadians.

You probably should re-read what I wrote. I never said that they would not take responsibility for their northern border. I said that we shared a common interest in the arctic and that they would not fight the Russians alone. You would be kidding yourself if you think uncle Sam is going to sit back and let the Russians sail into (well ice break anyway) into Hudson's Bay without helping the Canadians. The F-22s as well as two or three CSGs would be available.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 37):
Theoretically, trade barriers will only make things worse. Then we will have even more jobless, lower wages, etc.

Keep drinking the kool aid. The theory is good if you have fair and equitable trade and you do not have globalization. What held true in the 30's no longer holds true today. We need to start making things other than financial instruments and lawsuits again otherwise we will wind up with 30 million millionaires and 300 million paupers.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 37):
To prohibit trade is a restriction on human freedom.

Where did I say that. Free trade has to be fair trade.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 38):
I wonder what the list price is for each of these units?

I came up with a bit different answer.
Bloomberg said that the Saudi deal was valued at 8.86 billion dollars back in 2007. That makes it 123 million a copy for Typhoon.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...1085&sid=a_tmH4i16wBk&refer=europe
That also jibes with the NAO's estimate of 68 million pounds.

The latest GAO numbers have the F-22 going for about 150 million each.

The 83 million for the F-35 is the average price in then (2036) year dollars. Again the GAO.

Only the USN is getting the 55 million dollar deal for the Super Hornets. Export customers should expect to pay much more.Australia paid about 98 million each for 24 F-18Fs.
 
JoeCanuck
Posts: 3939
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:30 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:07 am



Quoting STT757 (Reply 41):

With this is mind I think it's vitally important that Canada reinvest some of the revenues they are generating up there into defense spending to beef up their Arctic military presence, more ice breakers, anti sub aircraft (P-3s) and some advanced fighters. They need to protect their sovereignty, which Russia may very well challenge up there.

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 larger footprint up there. Russia has been making a show lately of letting the world know how tough it is...tough enough to cut the gas off from Europe for 2 weeks...in the dead of winter.

It is a sure bet they will do whatever it takes to get their paws on as much arctic as they can...and if Canada doesn't shoo them off, we can kiss significant portions of the arctic goodbye.

We also have to worry about the USA. It is an American contention that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, not water internal to Canada. That, of course, is poo but it's a sovereignty issue Canada must deal with.
What the...?
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 6:43 am



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 42):
We also have to worry about the USA. It is an American contention that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, not water internal to Canada. That, of course, is poo but it's a sovereignty issue Canada must deal with.

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. And presto -- let's cut the ribbon on the new binational Northwest Passage Seaway Authority."

http://www.vancouversun.com/Technolo...eud+over+Arctic/1183244/story.html

Good point brought up in the article into the reasons why the US is transiting the passage.
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 8:46 am

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 seriously weaken us.

Incidentally, how did we get to be in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.
 
connies4ever
Posts: 3393
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 10:54 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 11:00 am



Quoting Jutes85 (Reply 35):

Canada doesn't patrol the north, but we do respond to any threats that are present. It's not like we are up there 24/7 flying around buzzing the odd polar bear.



Quoting Flighty (Reply 36):

Canadian defense is a bit like Australia, lots of ground to cover and they do it intelligently and effectively.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):

The flight from Cold Lake to their forward base in Inuvik is over a thousand miles of frozen wasteland. It would be interesting know what the pilots would prefer...one engine or two? I grew up in Inuvik. I knew some people who froze to death...in town, much less on the tundra. I'd think having a second engine would greatly reduce the pucker factor.

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 CF-188 (F-18Cs) are forward-deployed from time to time, to maintain some kind of presence in the Arctic. Bear in mind this area alone is nearly the size of Australia. In future I think you'll see a lot of this region patrolled, perhaps on a more rigorous basis, by a combination of UAVs (poss. Global Hawk) and a manned multi-sensor platform likely built on the BBD Global Express. The a/c forms the basis of the new RAF Sentinel R.1 stand-off ISR system. Long legs and can get to FL450 or so with payload, so can scan a decent area.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 40):
With this is mind I think it's vitally important that Canada reinvest some of the revenues they are generating up there into defense spending to beef up their Arctic military presence, more ice breakers, anti sub aircraft (P-3s) and some advanced fighters. They need to protect their sovereignty, which Russia may very well challenge up there.



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 42):
We also have to worry about the USA. It is an American contention that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway, not water internal to Canada. That, of course, is poo but it's a sovereignty issue Canada must deal with.

With global warming no doubt the situation is changing. You only have sovereignty, really, where you can enforce it. And we can't, actually, in the Arctic. Not in a really effective way. US & Russian, and likely British, nuclear subs have been using the area for decades, but we've closed our eyes to that. Which is why our decision in the early 90s to NOT acquire nuclear submarines for our own navy was strategically foolhardy.

As for the NW Passage being internal waters, the Law of the Sea (which we promoted) may indicate otherwise.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 3:18 pm



Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
The flight from Cold Lake to their forward base in Inuvik is over a thousand miles of frozen wasteland. It would be interesting know what the pilots would prefer...one engine or two? I grew up in Inuvik. I knew some people who froze to death...in town, much less on the tundra. I'd think having a second engine would greatly reduce the pucker factor.

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 wastelands up north and have manned super-hornets for deployment or operations in the Southern half of Canada.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 4:33 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 44):

To scrap the project, (by stages) and leave the US as the only heavylift provider would seriously weaken us.

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 from service. The A400 is not built by the UK. So where is the weakness?

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 44):

Incidentally, how did we get to be in Iraq and Afghanistan in the first place.

Not by A400 thats for sure.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 45):
In future I think you'll see a lot of this region patrolled, perhaps on a more rigorous basis, by a combination of UAVs (poss. Global Hawk) and a manned multi-sensor platform likely built on the BBD Global Express. The a/c forms the basis of the new RAF Sentinel R.1 stand-off ISR system. Long legs and can get to FL450 or so with payload, so can scan a decent area.

Good points. UAVs for patrol will be the way to go. It's probably the only way to get enough of a presence up there without busting the budget.

Quoting Connies4ever (Reply 45):
You only have sovereignty, really, where you can enforce it. And we can't, actually, in the Arctic. Not in a really effective way. US & Russian, and likely British, nuclear subs have

Exactly, and do you really think Canada is going to increase it's defense budget so much that this will change?

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 46):
Thats where the super-hornet makes sense

I am not so sure that the Super Hornet will not be in production in 2017. Right now the USN plans on fielding their first F-35C in 2015 and the current crop of Hornets are wearing out. I also think that Congress is going to talk some sense into the Marines and they will be buying a few F-18Gs in the next 10 years as well. Don't count the Super Hornet out yet. That said I think the whole single engine thing is nonsense. The USN has operated and will operate single engine jets over water for years. Jet engines have come a long way in reliability. Single engine jets are cheaper to buy and maintain. Do trucks and ships all have more than one engine. What about light planes that bush pilots use?
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:12 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 47):
Don't count the Super Hornet out yet. That said I think the whole single engine thing is nonsense. The USN has operated and will operate single engine jets over water for years. Jet engines have come a long way in reliability. Single engine jets are cheaper to buy and maintain. Do trucks and ships all have more than one engine. What about light planes that bush pilots use?

Exactly, plust two engines don't guarantee anything, as evidenced by last month's Super Bug crash in San Diego.
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Support For More F-22 Soars In Congress

Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:17 pm

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 we or others start to reduce our commitment to it we could create a domino effect as less orders means higher unit cost, means less orders.

As part of a consortium, we have some security of supply. With no A400M, we would merely be a customer who could be cut loose at will.

To re phase my over question, part of the reason that our C130K/J are running out of hours so quickly, and we NEED more lift capacity is Afghanistan.

Why are we IN Afghanistan.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Scipio and 10 guests