Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 09, 2009 9:59 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
Not for the USAF's purposes. The only alternatives would be the 777 or 737. The 737 might actually work, but the 777 is too large and more suitable as a KC-10 replacement. The 767 can do the job well.

747. Already in the inventory. Don't get caught up on size. Even the Rand Study included the 747 in the same category as the 767.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 09, 2009 10:54 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 47):
This puts Dodd, a powerful Democrat on Capitol Hill, in a tight spot. Though he is a President Obama ally in a position to be a key cheerleader for his budget proposals, Dodd's poll numbers are at historic lows with an election coming up next year.

Dodd's a goner anyway. He's right in the middle of loosing the laws that caused the Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac disaster. Everyone in CT has turned their backs on him. He has almost no chance of re-election. His best play is to stick to the party line, and hope two years from now he's an ambassador somewhere or raking in the dough as a Washington lobbyist.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
This is silly. We aren't kicking ourselves in the ass for having 707s long after everyone else has retired them.

The reason the KC-135 is still useful now and will be for a few more decades is because it was state of the art when we bought it, not a 30 year old design like 767. It's silly to buy a product that's in it's last year of production. It'd be much more sensible to buy the "more electric" 787 with its gobs of electrical capacity that can be used for the spooky variants. Unfortunately the line to get one is about 8-10 years deep. Lucky for us that we can slap some new engines on KC-135s and get 10-20 more years out of them.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:18 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 50):
747. Already in the inventory. Don't get caught up on size. Even the Rand Study included the 747 in the same category as the 767.

The KC-10s are good for a while yet. The USAF doesn't need a bigger plane, just a newer one.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):

I have no doubt that the 787 is a better plane than the 767. But is it really worth it to pay to upgrade the KC-135s plus develop and pay for the 787 which will most likely be more expensive than the 767. While what you lay out there is definitely a good plan and is what I would have done from the start, the USAF is having so much trouble just getting a tanker I can't imagine them being able to get the upgrade and 787 paid for. Also, the KC-787 would have to jockey for production space with airliners while the 767 wouldn't.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27720
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:55 am

Considering what the USAF appears to be already spending to keep the KC-135 fleet in service, over a decade it might be just as expensive as having bought the 767s now.

Quote:
The cost of carrying out that mission is growing. The Pentagon shifted about $3 billion meant for the new tanker to fixing the KC-135, saying the old plane is still reliable. But an Air Force study from earlier this decade estimated that total upkeep costs for the fleet would grow about 50 percent by 2040, to $3 billion from $2.1 billion in 2002. At that rate, repair costs would come close to the potential $100 billion price for replacing them all. And Air Force leaders say it is better to buy a new tanker than to keep pouring money into a 50-year-old plane that keeps getting older.

"It is like trying to equip your '57 Chevy with modern equipment. It's expensive," said Gen. Arthur Lichte, head of the Air Force mobility command that includes the KC-135s.

Associated Press Article.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:08 am



Quoting Stitch (Reply 53):
Considering what the USAF appears to be already spending to keep the KC-135 fleet in service, over a decade it might be just as expensive as having bought the 767s now.

Re-engining a KC-135E to KC-135R is about $24 million a frame. KC-767 is about $130-$150m/frame, or 5-6 re-engined KC-135 per new KC-787. Also, you seem to be making the assumption that maintaining the 767s will be free, and of course it won't be. You'll have the routine checks to do, as well as the cost of retraining personnel to work on the 767 and developing the spares depots for the 767s. It just doesn't make sense when the 767 production line is almost ready to be shut down save these last minute potential orders.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:28 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 54):
KC-767 is about $130-$150m/frame, or 5-6 re-engined KC-135 per new KC-787.

How much more would the KC-787 cost? I may be missing something, but you seem to be playing both sides of the issue. You say it is most efficient to keep upgrading old KC-135s, but go on to say that the 767 should not be purchased because it is and end of life airframe. The KC-135 fleet has been "end of life" for some time now. Why should buying these "old technology" 767s be a problem? Can't they be upgraded over their lifespan just like the 135s? If upgrading a 135 is cheaper than a 767, then why wouldn't upgrading a 767 be cheaper than a 787?
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:21 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52):
The KC-10s are good for a while yet. The USAF doesn't need a bigger plane, just a newer one.

My question is if this is the case why not just build new of what they have and save us some money instead of going out and speciffying new planes (not disagreeing with your answer I do agree what we have now is fine as far as refueling) just asking?

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
1. How does the F35 compare qualitywise with the potential opposition.

Really good while I am not a fan of the F-35 over the F-22 its is a very capable aircraft if they can ever get it into full scale production, like any large project its going to be alot harder to maintain than the F-22 would have been being just a US aircraft. Thats my worries with the F-35 now evidently is going to be our primary aircraft. If anyone can add any insights on how the Eurofighter production has gone or is going with all the differerent countries involved I would be interested in listening. Also noting that we have decided to cancel an aircraft that is in full scale production over one that hasn't reached that point yet, doesn't make any sense to me.

Quoting Alessandro (Reply 15):
So a new presidental helicopter won´t be ordered? Which helicopter did they intend to use?

I always thought this was a waste anyway I am not sure how old they are but like the presidential airplanes they are extremley well maintained almost to the point of being obscene on how well they are taken care of. A few more years of service will not harm or reduce the presidential capabilties any.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 7:12 am



Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 56):
My question is if this is the case why not just build new of what they have and save us some money instead of going out and speciffying new planes

Well, reopening the DC-10 or KC-135 production lines really isn't a viable option. A lot of things have changed since the KC-135s were built, and they have served well. But it is time to move on and get something with more capability. The 767 and KC-135 are actually pretty close in fuel for transfer, but the 767 is better for carrying cargo. Add in the inherent efficiency of a twin versus a quad and the fact that older planes are generally more maintenance intensive and there is a more than sufficient case for the KC-X.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 12:20 pm



Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 45):
It is not the Air Force's decision on home grown or not. The politicians make those decisions.

And guess who is running the show? Politicians who are looking for cheap and keeping jobs in America.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 44):
I really think 10-20 years from now when all other 767s have been retired we'll be kicking ourselves in the ass for buying an end of life product.

There will be lots of spares in the desert, same as the 707s.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 48):
This is silly. We aren't kicking ourselves in the ass for having 707s long after everyone else has retired them.

Bing!

Quoting Revelation (Reply 51):
Unfortunately the line to get one is about 8-10 years deep.

I am sure, with the current backlog, Boeing would be willing to open a second line if the USAF ordered a few hundred frames. It wont be long till the 767 line closes... a 767 or a 787 order would keep people in jobs at Boeing.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 52):
and pay for the 787 which will most likely be more expensive than the 767

Yes, but you get the benefit of civilian funded upgrades (engines, avionics), and 30-40 years of service. Get in on the ground floor, you get a long ride. The 767 is about done... so you will have lots of spares in the desert, but the USAF will have to pay for some upgrade R&D if they want it to keep flying 30-40 years.


For the record, I would rather see a KC-787, but short of that happening, I would rather see a KC-767 over a KC-30. Both are good aircraft, but I dont see a benefit of losing jobs at Boeing and giving them to Northrop Grumman. IMO Boeing is a more valuable asset and considering it lost on the JSF, it would be good to spread the wealth a bit.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:14 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
How much more would the KC-787 cost? I may be missing something, but you seem to be playing both sides of the issue. You say it is most efficient to keep upgrading old KC-135s, but go on to say that the 767 should not be purchased because it is and end of life airframe. The KC-135 fleet has been "end of life" for some time now. Why should buying these "old technology" 767s be a problem? Can't they be upgraded over their lifespan just like the 135s? If upgrading a 135 is cheaper than a 767, then why wouldn't upgrading a 767 be cheaper than a 787?

Because:

(A) it's a given that the KC-135s have a few more decades of airframe life left and

(B) KC767 isn't enough of an improvement over KC135 to justify replacing them when they still have decades of airframe life left and

(C) the 787 is an entire generation (30 years) newer than tke 767 in every aspect, including composite construction, mostly electric system architecture, advanced engines and aerodynamics, and

(D) I believe when the KC135's lifecycle is truly over, the needs of the Air Force will be different than they are now so we won't have to buy as many 787s and

(E) We just don't have the money to spend on a new tanker fleet now

Quoting Oroka (Reply 58):
There will be lots of spares in the desert, same as the 707s.

If we buy 787s starting ten years from now, when we need to cannibalize frames the 100-200 or more 787s will be in the desert too, given that tankers run up flight hours much slower than do commercial airliners
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:17 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 58):
I would rather see a KC-767 over a KC-30. Both are good aircraft, but I dont see a benefit of losing jobs at Boeing and giving them to Northrop Grumman.

Giving the USAF the best aircraft for the job trumps keeping jobs in America. And for that matter Boeing is not going to go bankrupt if they don't get this contract. That said, I think that the 767 is better for their needs. It is cheaper and the only real advantage the KC-330 has is its size, which isn't needed due to the KC-10.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 58):
For the record, I would rather see a KC-787, but short of that happening,

I would as well, but it is probably not going to happen. Remember that the KC-767 and KC-330 are both actual aircraft. The 787 is not yet flying in any form. People seem to talk about the KC-787 as if developing it would be a copy and paste operation, which it wouldn't be. It would be several years at least before one could fly.
 
DeltaGuy
Posts: 3965
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 5:25 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 23):
Can't say I didn't see it coming, some old "cut defense and give to worthless domestic programs".

No kidding. Essentially, we'll be funding an already broken Universal Healthcare system on the trappings from cutting these defense projects. BS if you ask me.

DeltaGuy
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:50 pm



Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 61):
No kidding. Essentially, we'll be funding an already broken Universal Healthcare system on the trappings from cutting these defense projects. BS if you ask me.

On this we can all agree.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27720
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:19 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 54):
Re-engining a KC-135E to KC-135R is about $24 million a frame. KC-767 is about $130-$150m/frame, or 5-6 re-engined KC-135 per new KC-787.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that maintaining the 767s will be free, and of course it won't be.

The Pentagon is the one making these assumptions, not myself. And since they've operated them for five decades, I'm willing to give them at least some benefit of the doubt. If you don't feel the same, please feel free to take it up with them.  Silly

Still, playing Devil's Advocate, a 40-month old KC-767ADV should have significantly lower operating and maintenance costs then a 40-year old KC-135R.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 55):
How much more would the KC-787 cost?

A 787-8 has similar pricing to a 767-400ER - about $165 million a frame. A 767-300F runs around $7 million then a 767-300ER passenger plane so I could see the 787-8F coming in around $170-175 million. Average list price for an A330-200F is $185 million.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 4:59 pm



Quoting Stitch (Reply 63):
Still, playing Devil's Advocate, a 40-month old KC-767ADV should have significantly lower operating and maintenance costs then a 40-year old KC-135R.

Agreed, once you pay to train all the personnel on 767 and buy all the spares and depot them in all the places they'll need to be. Given that the USAF doesn't operate any 767 derivatives at all, that should cost a bundle.

Face it, the A330 has pretty much pushed the B767 into early retirement. It's pretty surprising to me to see so many people in favor of spending prime tax dollars on a new plane that's known to be obsolescent when we can just keep the current ones going for another decade or two. One reason that there are 879 orders for B787 is the composite construction eliminates corrosion, which is what is ultimately the limiting factor for the lifespan of aluminum airplanes like KC135, KC330 and KC767.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 5:31 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 60):
Giving the USAF the best aircraft for the job trumps keeping jobs in America.

Really, someone needs to relay that to the US congress and the US Air Force. Example, the Air Force have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years, whats better than that 30+ year old a/c?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
Given that the USAF doesn't operate any 767 derivatives at all, that should cost a bundle.

At least the 767 would be able to use existing infrastructure, whether they get the B-787 or A-330, retraining and stocking of parts will be applicable to both.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
Face it, the A330 has pretty much pushed the B767 into early retirement. It's pretty surprising to me to see so many people in favor of spending prime tax dollars on a new plane that's known to be obsolescent when we can just keep the current ones going for another decade or two.

Because its going to be military a/c. As you mention, the A330 is so popular how soon can you get new a/c customized for the military, they are proposing building a/c in France and flying them to the US for customization, why bother with all that extra when you can get a new a/c from a line that already exits and is not in demand, Boeing should be able to build and deliver a/c to the US Air Force faster. Besides, the A330 has been around for how many years, 10, 20 30, probably better to describe it as not as old as the B-767, it certainely is not young. As for the fly by wire ability which the B-767 does not have, how significant is that to the military especially when one considers that the pax versions are in still in service providing benefits to their owners.

I look at it like this, you need a new helicopter for the president, but at what cost, more than Air Force one???, that's overkill, same could be said for the tanker. If the congress continues the C-17 line then the increase in size and cargo capability of any new tanker is diminished, but is the Air Force really going to deploy tankers to carry cargo or schedule training missions around crago runs?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:26 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
Given that the USAF doesn't operate any 767 derivatives at all, that should cost a bundle.

Initially yes. But remember that between the KC-767, E-10, and 767 AWACS, the USAF can replace basically every -135 they have with a 767.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 65):
Example, the Air Force have been trying to get rid of the A-10 for years, whats better than that 30+ year old a/c?

Nothing. The A-10s are dirt cheap too. Dropping them is a mistake.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 65):
If the congress continues the C-17 line then the increase in size and cargo capability of any new tanker is diminished, but is the Air Force really going to deploy tankers to carry cargo or schedule training missions around crago runs?

Hopefully the C-17 line will continue with orders from the USAF and others, especially with the A400M debacle. Remeber that flying a cargo run in a 767 is cheaper than the same flight in a C-17.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 6:29 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
It's pretty surprising to me to see so many people in favor of spending prime tax dollars on a new plane that's known to be obsolescent when we can just keep the current ones going for another decade or two.

Rev, the 767 has been marginalized only when it comes to commercial passenger service. That was the problem with a lot of the arguments made by the pro-KC30 posters - they looked at commercial operations and assumed that just because the 767 was superseded by the A330 in commercial passenger operations then it was obsolete all the way around. If that were true then there would be no value to converting ex-passenger planes to freighters. By way of example, the 744 has pretty much become undesirable to commercial operators flying passengers, but retains a lot of value as a freighter. Its economics can't compete with a 773, but it has a lot of life left in her carrying boxes.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27720
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 8:54 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
Agreed, once you pay to train all the personnel on 767 and buy all the spares and depot them in all the places they'll need to be. Given that the USAF doesn't operate any 767 derivatives at all, that should cost a bundle.

Sure, but the USAF will not take delivery of 100 to 200 frames at one time nor will they base them all at the same time across the world.

Those costs, over the life of the delivery schedule, will be high, but the delivery schedule itself will be at least a decade and probably more.



Quoting Revelation (Reply 64):
Face it, the A330 has pretty much pushed the B767 into early retirement.

While many seem to believe that the day the first A330 sold was also the day the last 767 did, the fact is that during the life of the A330 program, Boeing still sold two 767s for every three A330s Airbus did. The past two years has really skewed those numbers in favor of the A330, but that is in no small part because hundreds of 767 sales instead became hundreds of 787 sales and the desire by Airbus and RR/Pratt to secure what A330 orders they can before the 787 "retires" the A330 from service (which is itself a non-truth).



Quote:
It's pretty surprising to me to see so many people in favor of spending prime tax dollars on a new plane that's known to be obsolescent when we can just keep the current ones going for another decade or two.

Sure, but at what cost? Not just actual dollar amounts, but performance and readiness and safety? The 767 and A330 are proven platforms. They're no longer the latest and greatest, but they are still in regular service with a large in-place parts supply chain and especially with the KC-767, plenty of civilian operation as a freighter to help draft an effective and efficient support operation around.
 
JayinKitsap
Posts: 2680
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2005 9:55 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Fri Apr 10, 2009 9:48 pm

Wasn't one of the knocks on the KC767 was that it was a hybrid, taking the best of a number of existing frames. OK so the wings and fuse are 30 year old designs. But many of the other pieces are more of the vintage of the 764 and 777. However, my wish list for the KC767 would have included the GENx engine from the 748. As I understand it is a bit heavier but its lower fuel burn should allow more fuel offload after 2,000 miles. So the scorecard would be:

Engines - New
Avionics - 748 /764 - nearly new
Frame - old tech but allows for mods for doors, burmps, antenna.
Not composite skin - might be good for lightning with all the fuel on board.
Frontal area - less than 330 probably good for drag.

I think having the new engines would skip past much of the "its 30 years old"

The 767 issue with not being able to carry double pallets has to do with the lower hold. But that would be filled with piping and pumps etc. The upper deck handles normal size pallets & containers.
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27720
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 12:35 am



Quoting JayinKitsap (Reply 69):
Wasn't one of the knocks on the KC767 was that it was a hybrid, taking the best of a number of existing frames.

As I recall, it uses a 767-200 fuselage, 767-400 wings and 767-300 undercarriage.

I still don't understand the hang-up with how old a plane's original design is. If you received a 767-200ER today, it would be a better plane then one delivered in 1984 because over the past 25 years Boeing has been improving it in multiple areas.
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 3854
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:30 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 26):
I get the sentiment, but I hope that combat aircraft receive priority over Presidential helicopters.

Unless a VH-3 crashes or is unavailable due to mechanical difficulties in a situation when we really need to fly the President...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:07 pm



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 71):
Unless a VH-3 crashes

Let's hope not.

It's a real shame that LM, the Navy and the WHO have screwed the pooch so bad on VH-71.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 71):
or is unavailable due to mechanical difficulties in a situation when we really need to fly the President...

Well, they usually fly in groups of 3, and they do receive much TLC from the Marines. I think it'd have to be a really dire situation to not have 1 of 3 available.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:16 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 66):
But remember that between the KC-767, E-10, and 767 AWACS, the USAF can replace basically every -135 they have with a 767.

or you can replace KC-767 with A330 and get the same answer.
 
Galaxy5007
Posts: 661
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:06 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 2:55 pm

Someone should change the thread name to Tanker discussion number 4,536.

Personally, I think them axing the F-22 program this early is a mistake. Nobody else is going to have the F-22s, where several countries are going to have F-35s. Having that extra capability over the other countries that have the F-35 keeps us on top in the fighter world.

As far as the 30 year old 767...the design may be 30 years old, but the plane is going to be brand new. Thats not taking life out of the KC-767. I don't think the 787 is a viable replacement. With the cost over runs and production issues they are having already, and the thing yet to take flight, I don't think the 787 is even an option to the USAF. Maybe in 10-15 years...but the 787 is being designed for commercial operations, not military. People think the 787 will be this great tanker, when it hasn't even proven itself as a passenger aircraft...it hasn't flown yet! Just because its "new" doesn't make it better.

The presidential helicopter thing should just get swept under the rug and forgot about. As a few people have said, they are anal about maintenance on them just as they are with all of the presidential aircraft at Andrews. Its crazy. I mean the hanger floors are painted white, so if they get dirty from the plane, they are all over it...as well as cleaning that floor!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 6:58 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 74):
Someone should change the thread name to Tanker discussion number 4,536.

The F-22 announcement was part of larger cuts in DoD.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 74):
Personally, I think them axing the F-22 program this early is a mistake. Nobody else is going to have the F-22s, where several countries are going to have F-35s. Having that extra capability over the other countries that have the F-35 keeps us on top in the fighter world.

Exactly

Quoting Gsosbee (Reply 73):
or you can replace KC-767 with A330 and get the same answer.

That's true, but the 767AWACS is already in service with the JASDF and the E10 was beginning the prototype stage when it was cancelled. The same aircraft could be done with an A330, but it will most likely take several years to develop.
 
474218
Posts: 4510
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:27 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:45 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 74):
Personally, I think them axing the F-22 program this early is a mistake.

There is a front page article in Sunday's (April 10, 2009) Atlanta Journal Constitution about the congressional fight about to take place over the F-22. For those of you that think the F-22 program is dead the article points out that the V-22 was canceled four (4) times when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. And every time congress voted to fund the program and now, thirteen years later production continues.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 7:57 pm



Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 74):
With the cost over runs and production issues they are having already, and the thing yet to take flight, I don't think the 787 is even an option to the USAF

I am sure that some of the gear from the 767 can be adapted to the 787... they don't have to start from scratch, but that is not saying it is just cut and paste. The 787 itself will probably be in service before the KC-X is chosen, and considering how many of these aircraft are going to be pumped out and flying all over the world in the matter of 6 months, any early deficiencies will be identified and remedies in progress before the first KC-787 tube is wrapped. Even the weight overages of the first 6 787s will be remedied by then... Boeing needs something to do with those 787s once certification is complete... picking up another couple hundred 787 orders would be worth modifying a early 787 to a KC-787.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 74):
the 787 is being designed for commercial operations, not military

Funny, I am pretty sure the 767 or A330 were both designed for commercial operations and not military. Even the KC-135, which was based on the Dash 80, same as the 707 was more of a commercial airframe than a military bird.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 8:17 pm



Quoting 474218 (Reply 76):
For those of you that think the F-22 program is dead the article points out that the V-22 was canceled four (4) times when Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense. And every time congress voted to fund the program and now, thirteen years later production continues.

Personally, I don't think the F-22 will be canceled, at least not without a huge fight from Congressional supporters. Nevertheless, "the times they are a changing." The V-22 never had to compete with so many other projects, including the funding necessary to keep us engaged in two wars, not to mention the severe economic downturn we are in. I also seem to recall the impetus for canceling the V-22 had more to do with its technological development issues than it did for money issues (although money was a big issue). Finally, we have the fact that both houses of Congress and the White House are controlled by the Dems, and Gates' recommendation is more in line with the Dems' proclivity for focusing limited Dollars on social/economic spending vs. military spending.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 11, 2009 11:45 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 77):
Even the KC-135, which was based on the Dash 80, same as the 707 was more of a commercial airframe than a military bird.

Not really. It was supposed to be a tanker before an airliner. At the time the tankers the USAF had were piston powered KC-97s. They had to fly as fast as possible to refuel fighters barely above stall speed. So the USAF sorely needed a faster tanker.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 77):
am sure that some of the gear from the 767 can be adapted to the 787... they don't have to start from scratch, but that is not saying it is just cut and paste.

That is about right, but it would still be a significant delay to the KC-X program to hold out for the 787.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 78):
I don't think the F-22 will be canceled, at least not without a huge fight from Congressional supporters.

I don't care much for the Congressional supporters because they are only concerned with jobs in their district, not the capabilities of the USAF.

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 78):
"the times they are a changing."

For the worse I'm afraid. Obama is quickly turning out to be a Jimmy Carter rerun. Hopefully there is another Reagan around the corner too.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 12, 2009 12:41 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 79):
That is about right, but it would still be a significant delay to the KC-X program to hold out for the 787.

But considering that the 787 has 20-30 years of active production ahead of it, a 20% increase in efficiency, and simplified maintenance. Is an additional year of development worth a (almost) leading technology tanker?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 12, 2009 4:13 pm

Quoting RedFlyer (Reply 78):
Personally, I don't think the F-22 will be canceled, at least not without a huge fight from Congressional supporters.

   Exactly!

Before getting wrapped up in what Gates wants, don't lose sight of how the process works and who gets the final say. Gates said he did NOT consider the industrial base in formulating his recommendations, not did the Obamaites approve or disprove; they were "advised", but they still have a say when the budget is submitted to Congress. Congress has the final say in what will, or will not be funded. Of course, with the Dems in charge of both houses, the Obamaites will likely get most of what they want.

Gates, however, is not an Obamaite. He is a Republican holdover. He is a superb public servant and a man of integrity; these qualities notwithstanding, I wouldn't rule out the Obamites throwing him under the bus at some point.

This has only begun to play out.

[Edited 2009-04-12 09:18:07]
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10988
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 12, 2009 5:25 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 80):
But considering that the 787 has 20-30 years of active production ahead of it, a 20% increase in efficiency, and simplified maintenance

Something else to consider, the B-767 and A-330 are larger than the current KC-135 a/c, guess the size of the B-787?
The B-787 production program is using composits scaled up to a level never seen before in a/c production, the program is so masively out-sourced that Boeing really does not control the pace of production, with the current backlog and penalties involved, how long would it take to get to testing and designing, when one also considers the B-787-9/10/3 etc?

The F-22 is demaned by the US Air Force sometime's you get the imperssion that you can have all the other a/c in the inventory in exchange for the F-22. The OEM knows that and the price of this a/c ain't coming down, sounds funny to say that the only way the military can afford US Technology is by selling it to other countries with the possibility of compromising it.

The C-17 is on more dangerous grounds, congress has kept it going for a few years, those A400M customers may be pressured to wait for the program to die to ensure that their commitment continues, the A400M will be built its just how much more the current customers will have to put up. Look for a push to do the tanker and cargo in one by cancelling the C-17 and speeding up the tanker replacement.

The US Air Force needs to save money elsewhere for its F-22, so how about chopping other programs the way they did the F-117? How many B-52 and presently in the inventory, and where exactly do they intend to use them, how about putting more in the desert and relying more on the B1 and B2, how about grounding more F-16's and the C-130J's which they never wanted but the congress gave them anyway?

The congress is presently in a spending mood, just not military spending, better the military think tanks start putting forward their own cost savings before the politicians do it for them.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:17 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 82):
Something else to consider, the B-767 and A-330 are larger than the current KC-135 a/c,

Actually, the 767 is not that much bigger than the KC-135. The A330 is larger and falls a bit below the KC-10 in most categories.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 82):
chopping other programs the way they did the F-117?

This wasn't really cut but retired. Retiring planes out of production saves money but not nearly as much as stopping development or production, especially considering that those planes may need replacements.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 82):
How many B-52 and presently in the inventory, and where exactly do they intend to use them,

They are actually rather useful for hitting terrorist targets.

Quoting Par13del (Reply 82):
how about putting more in the desert and relying more on the B1 and B2,

There aren't nearly enough B1 and B2s in the inventory. (Thanks President Carter  Yeah sure )
 
Oroka
Posts: 1138
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 12, 2009 9:31 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
This wasn't really cut but retired.

The F-117 was given early retirement to save money for the F-22.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 83):
They are actually rather useful for hitting terrorist targets.

Great for collateral damage too. In these times, you don't need a blunt stick, you need a sharp spear.
 
srbmod
Posts: 15446
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2001 1:32 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 21, 2009 10:53 pm

Looks like Lockheed-Martin is not going to fight the end of production.

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/...ries/2009/04/21/f22_lockheed.html?

Sen. Saxby Chambliss still plans to try to keep the line open and is trying to get 60 more F-22s built. While there will definitely be some job losses as a result, there are reports that the Marietta plant could see a bigger role in the production of the F-35, as the plant does currently built some parts for the F-35. Who knows, perhaps L-M could open up a second US production line at Marietta.
 
redflyer
Topic Author
Posts: 3910
Joined: Thu Feb 24, 2005 3:30 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Wed Apr 22, 2009 5:27 am



Quoting Srbmod (Reply 85):
Looks like Lockheed-Martin is not going to fight the end of production.

We know corporate decisions are driven by the all-important profit motive. This only points to some kind of back-fill occurring with the F-35 program as reported, or perhaps even some other lucrative contract that may be looming in front of L-M.
 
A342
Posts: 4017
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 11:05 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Wed Apr 22, 2009 8:33 pm

Lockheed Martin to accept F-22 termination decision

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles...ept-f-22-termination-decision.html
 
sovietjet
Posts: 2689
Joined: Sat Mar 15, 2003 12:32 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 23, 2009 4:33 am

The problem is that the US wants way more than they need. The closest countries to match the USA are Russia and China which still have inventories of less quantity and quality. Why does USA need more than 200 F-22s to fight terrorists hiding in caves? It's pointless. The US, Russia and China are all smart enough to know not to attack each other. They didn't during the Cold War, much less chance of it happening now.


The B-52 and C-17 are probably more useful than a lot of other planes in the inventory. Why stop the C-17? Retire the C-5. Retire the F-15As. Retire the F-16As. Retire the older C-130s. Retire some of the older A-10As. There's your cost savings...now get some F-22s if you want them that badly. You can't have your cake and eat it too. No point in keeping all these F-15s and F-16s around if F-22s are getting delivered.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 23, 2009 8:48 am

IMO A10's would prob be more use in Afghanistan that much of what is in use at present.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Thu Apr 23, 2009 5:40 pm



Quoting Sovietjet (Reply 88):
Why does USA need more than 200 F-22s to fight terrorists hiding in caves?

We may not always be fighting terrorists in caves.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sat Apr 25, 2009 8:06 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 90):
We may not always be fighting terrorists in caves.

And despite what some may think, we won't be fighting anybody with 180 F-22s, 450 Minutemen ICBMs, 256 Trident II MIRV SLBMs, 100+ strategic bombers, a dozen or so supercarrier battle groups, hundreds of assorted F15s/F16s/F18s/F35s, 40+ attack submarines, 1 million+ soldiers, etc, etc, etc.

I guess some people will never be pleased...

Even on a bad day, the US can open a mean can of whoop-ass on anyone it feels like punishing.

Maybe someone might match the US on one dimension, but the total package is damn overwhelming.

And despite what some may think, no US president, Democrat or Republican, is going to give that up, and that includes the current US president.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Sun Apr 26, 2009 4:40 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
450 Minutemen ICBMs, 256 Trident II MIRV SLBMs, 100+ strategic bombers, a dozen or so supercarrier battle groups, hundreds of assorted F15s/F16s/F18s/F35s, 40+ attack submarines, 1 million+ soldiers, etc, etc, etc.

You are COMPLETELY missing the point of fungibility. Not nearly all of those threats can be made credibly in many all cases. If say, North Korea fires on a Navy ship, will Tridents be a credible threat? Of course not. Nukes are a worst scenario deterrent. Many other conventional deterrents are needed as well to cover the whole spectrum.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 7:13 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 91):
And despite what some may think, we won't be fighting anybody with 180 F-22s, 450 Minutemen ICBMs, 256 Trident II MIRV SLBMs, 100+ strategic bombers, a dozen or so supercarrier battle groups, hundreds of assorted F15s/F16s/F18s/F35s, 40+ attack submarines, 1 million+ soldiers, etc, etc, etc.



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 92):
You are COMPLETELY missing the point of fungibility. Not nearly all of those threats can be made credibly in many all cases. If say, North Korea fires on a Navy ship, will Tridents be a credible threat? Of course not. Nukes are a worst scenario deterrent. Many other conventional deterrents are needed as well to cover the whole spectrum.

And you COMPLETELY didn't read my post. After the ICBMs, I mentioned bomber, fighters, carriers, subs and 1 million+ soldiers, all of whom have conventional roles.

The point of the post is stop worrying, we've got it covered, from soup to nuts.

The rest of the world laughs at us for being scared little boys bankrupting ourselves building weapons that end up rotting in the desert or becoming razors or beer cans.

Maybe when you get a bit older you might realize how stupid this all is.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 2:05 pm

How long would it take to bring 1 million troops to bear against an enemy? Even ships could need days or even weeks to reach a trouble spot. Aircraft have the unique ability to be deployed anywhere in about two days and bombers could strike in a matter of hours. And those hundreds of F-15/-16/-18/-35s are going to be met by hundreds of MiGs and SU-27s that are better than many give them credit for. Not everyone's pilots are as badly trained as the Serbians.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 3:01 pm

No sure which potential enemy you have in mind.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:17 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 94):
Aircraft have the unique ability to be deployed anywhere in about two days and bombers could strike in a matter of hours. And those hundreds of F-15/-16/-18/-35s are going to be met by hundreds of MiGs and SU-27s that are better than many give them credit for. Not everyone's pilots are as badly trained as the Serbians.

Ahh you've been reading Tom Clancy books again.

In such a dire circumstance (potential engagement of thousands of fighters) don't you think we'd also use those two days to move the 180 F-22s into place as well?

BTW who's the boogey-man with the thousands of MIGs and SU-27s we should be afraid of?
 
BMI727
Posts: 11300
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 5:54 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 96):
In such a dire circumstance (potential engagement of thousands of fighters) don't you think we'd also use those two days to move the 180 F-22s into place as well?

Yes, but 180 F-22s, while a credible threat, cannot fight a war by themselves. They need more numbers. The old one plane joke isn't looking so funny anymore.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 96):
BTW who's the boogey-man with the thousands of MIGs and SU-27s we should be afraid of?

Could be anybody. Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran. If we wait until a threat appears to deploy a countermeasure, it's too late. The USAF simply needs to stay a step ahead. And since the government is tossing a trillion dollars into oblivion anyway, what's stopping them?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 8:40 pm

Somehow I doubt that any of those countries could beat the US in a conventional war, even with 0 F22's.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 26983
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: F22 Production To End - Sec. Gates

Tue Apr 28, 2009 9:44 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 97):
Yes, but 180 F-22s, while a credible threat, cannot fight a war by themselves. They need more numbers.

Not a credible threat? Baloney.


Quoting BMI727 (Reply 97):
Could be anybody. Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran. If we wait until a threat appears to deploy a countermeasure, it's too late.

Doubt it.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 97):
And since the government is tossing a trillion dollars into oblivion anyway, what's stopping them?

Nothing, and yet they did.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: RJMAZ, zululima and 12 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos