Group: Super Administrators
Posts: 3040
Joined: Oct. 2003
Posted on: Jul. 22 2009,1:36 am
There's been a lot of sparks in Congress recently over the Administrations plan to stop funding of more F-22 raptors. I believe the original plan was to have over 1,000 of them as a replacement to the now retired F-15. As of May of this year, 141 had been built. The fighter is currently in service, but has NOT been used in Iraq or Afghanistan yet. From the looks of it, most, if not ALL seem to be at bases stateside. Many of which at training and testing locations.
Cost of the plane is complicated, because like other new defense projects, they have to take the cost of research & developement, tooling, etc. and add it to the overall cost, and then divide by number of planes. Seems simple, but I didn't realize this until talking to Jim about the cost of the B-2 Stealth Bomber.
The basic costs are that each additional plane will cost about $140 million, but if 183 were made, after taking total budget cost into consideration, the cost ends up being $339 million per plane. Whatever number they end up stopping at, with all said and done the cost looks to be over $300 million per plane if we stop production indefinitely.
If these plans are followed through and the current administration opts to stop the production of the F-22 we will be left with aircraft who's age is fast approaching retirement. The maintenance on the F-15's will skyrocket as the wear and tear on the airframe and avionics becomes harder to replace.
The F-15 has now been in service for over 20 years in it's various forms and is expected to reach it's maximum viability in 2025. It is fast approaching the time that this aircraft begin to be replaced. The Navy replaced the F-14 with the F/A-18 for this very reason.
The F-16 is even more so in need of being replaced. This aircraft is no longer being purchased by the USAF and it's lifetime of service is expected to end even sooner than the F-15. The F-16's service time ends in 2011. Although the planned replacement for the F-16 is the F-35 this still leaves a gaping hole for a replacement for the F-15.
IMO this is a mistake by the administration to bring this program to a close when we are in need of upgrading our aging aircraft.
Attached Image
-------------- I care not what others think of what I do, but I care very much about what I think of what I do! That is character!
WASHINGTON, July 31 (Xinhua) -- The U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday that it successfully tested a sea-based missile defense system on Thursday night.
A target missile was fired from Hawaii about 11:40 p.m. eastern time Thursday (0340 GMT Friday) and was tracked by Navy ships hundreds of kilometers away, the agency said in a statement.
An Aegis-class U.S. naval ship then fired an interceptor missile, which struck the target about 160 km above the earth.
The process -- from launch to shoot-down -- took less than five minutes.
The United States plans to use the sea-based system on Aegis-class ships to protect against incoming short-to-medium-range missiles fired from hostile countries.
The test was the 19th successful test in 23 attempts of the Aegis sea-based missile defense system since 2002.
Another part of the missile defense protection -- ground-based midcourse defense -- is designed to strike at long-range missiles.
Over the past seven years, the U.S. military has spent billions of U.S. dollars on the missile defense program, with each test costing about 85 million dollars.
I'd say that's pretty good. Only one out of every five or six ICBM's will get through and it's only cost us $1,955,000,000 to get that good. That much money would only give us seven planes.
Don't get me wrong. We still need air superiority.
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
Two of the failures came in the first 10 shots when the ROCKET failed. See article on the tests nullMy Webpage
The article doesn't go into detail on the other tests--but the tracking system WORKS.
Also recall that as the tests progress, they increase in complexity to test for weak spots. For example--they had OTHER ships in the battle group fire the weapon from the HOST ship--and even had a Japanese ship link in and fire.
This isn't just about ICBMs--it is also fleet defense. When I was out on the carrier Abraham Lincoln last year, I asked about fleet defense--that carrier is a "high value target." The carrier people were not too worried about aircraft and missile defense with the long-range missile, short-range missile, and Phalanx Gatling Gun defense.
For some reason, libbies don't like to have us have the ability to defend ourselves. They throw up the "If only a few missiles get through, there wouldn't be much worth saving" defense. In reality (a place that libbies don't visit often) the defense is far less than a defense against the Russians or Chinese than it is against rogue nations. The North Koreans already have a missile that can hit Hawaii or Alaska--and perhaps the U.S. West Coast. Iran has demonstrated a missile that can hit Israel, India, or Europe. Putting that missile on a ship would allow it to hit the U.S. Cuba or Venezuela could be host to missiles--and I don't think Obambi would have the guts to enforce a missile blockade. I would prefer that my government spend the money on defense against these nations.
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
Well said! Our fighters designs for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are now 35 years old. The F-14 from the same era is retired. The F-15s are at the end of their life (remmember when one broke up in Missouri a couple of years ago, and they grounded them all?) The F-16 is obsolete. NONE of them are stealthy, and none can match the new Russian fighters in performance. ONly the F-22 can match the Russians.
Having ONE airplane for all services has always been the Holy Grail of Donk Administrations. Is anyone old enough to remember when Robert McNamara mandated that the services fly the F-11 A/B? It was such a turkey that the services got rid of it as fast as they could. The only foreign buyer was Australia.
The F-35 is another such aircraft that nobody wants.
The AIR FORCE doesn't want it because its max speed is only 1.6 mach--compared to "2.2+ mach" for the F-22. It climbs only HALF as fast as the F-22, and it doesn't climb as high. Altitude and speed are EVERYTHING in a fighter--and there IS no award for "second-best." It also isn't stealthy.
The NAVY doesn't want it because it only has one engine--and the Navy understandably wants two engines overwater. Emergency landing fields are hard to find at sea.
The MARINES don't want it because it only has one engine--and therefore is vulnerable to fire from the ground during close air support. The last single-engine carrier-based aircraft that I can think of was the venerable old A-4 Skyhawk--the airplane that John McCain was shot down in.
Though one version offers Short TAkeoff/Vertical Landing capability--it doesn't replace the Harrier--a design also 35 years old. What good is vertical landing if you can't get back out again?
This aircraft could be workable in Second-Tier countries--but not for an Air Defense fighter.
It's AMAZING that the same libbies that were "incensed" that HumVees were not armored (a mission they were not designed for) would knowingly put our pilots and the ground troops they support in jeopardy by giving them a sub-standard aircraft.
Either you have air superiority, or you don't. If you HAVE air superiority, you don't worry about being attacked. If you DON'T have air superiority, you are vulnerable. You might take a lession from the Germans, Italians, Japanese, North Koreans, North Vietnamese, the Egyptian Air Force, and Saddam's air force during Gulf WAr I.
TAlk about your lessons from Vietnam--you can't have politicians dictating the weapons we go to war with--especially since most of them now HAVE no military experience!
-------------- "If you want to anger a Conservative, tell him a lie. If you want to anger a LIBERAL, tell him the TRUTH!"
Forgive me if I'm a bit ignorant in air warefare, but isn't the Raptor the US answer to the SU-47?
-------------- Actually my wife is especially happy when my google check arrives each month. Thanks to douchbags like you, I get paid just for getting you worked up. -Liberal
If these plans are followed through and the current administration opts to stop the production of the F-22 we will be left with aircraft who's age is fast approaching retirement. The maintenance on the F-15's will skyrocket as the wear and tear on the airframe and avionics becomes harder to replace.
The F-15 has now been in service for over 20 years in it's various forms and is expected to reach it's maximum viability in 2025. It is fast approaching the time that this aircraft begin to be replaced. The Navy replaced the F-14 with the F/A-18 for this very reason.
The F-16 is even more so in need of being replaced. This aircraft is no longer being purchased by the USAF and it's lifetime of service is expected to end even sooner than the F-15. The F-16's service time ends in 2011. Although the planned replacement for the F-16 is the F-35 this still leaves a gaping hole for a replacement for the F-15.
IMO this is a mistake by the administration to bring this program to a close when we are in need of upgrading our aging aircraft.
But Wareagle, Why need such advance (and flat out cool) F-22 Raptors when the Obamasiah will bring our foriegn leaders to the negotiation table, there we can talk it all out
-------------- "Facts are meaningless, they can be used to prove anything." -Homer Simpson Government isn't the solution to the problem. Government IS the problem -Ronald Reagan
Either you put air superiority fighters up, or you don't. Consider the implications of either, and choose which alternative you dislike the least.
Well said! Our fighters designs for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are now 35 years old. The F-14 from the same era is retired. The F-15s are at the end of their life (remmember when one broke up in Missouri a couple of years ago, and they grounded them all?) The F-16 is obsolete. NONE of them are stealthy, and none can match the new Russian fighters in performance. ONly the F-22 can match the Russians.
Thanks, Jim. I was just thinking of the early encounters with the Japanese A6M2. The primary fighter to engage the Zero in early days was the Navy's F4F's, which were outclassed in almost every category save armor. Eventually we did learn of the Zero's weaknesses, with the serendipitous find of an intact downed Zero in the Aleutians. We eventually built fighters that were superior in every way, but it still seems like we got caught with our pants down early on.
-------------- Dear future generations: Please accept our apologies. We were rolling drunk on petroleum.
We're at a point in time when the unmanned aircraft will rapidly replace the weakest link in any aircraft the hypoxic carbon based pilot... Does this capability to produce unmanned fighter exist today?? One has to wonder after we hear statements like the following from the military *The Air Force leadership itself no longer supports continued production of the F-22. Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz have publicly said they would prefer to move on. The plane is not in the Defense Department's proposed budget for fiscal 2010 (which begins in October). It's not even on the Air Force's list of unfunded requests, which consists of items excluded from the budget for which it would nevertheless like funding - a wish list of sorts.
*Moreover, as has been noted by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, the era of producing manned aircraft is coming to an end. Mullen correctly points out that there will be a shift toward unmanned aircraft.
-------------- History is no more than the lies agreed upon by the victors.
That much money would only give us seven planes.
the defense is far less than a defense against the Russians or Chinese than it is against rogue nations. The North Koreans already have a missile that can hit Hawaii or Alaska--and perhaps the U.S. West Coast. Iran has demonstrated a missile that can hit Israel, India, or Europe. Putting that missile on a ship would allow it to hit the U.S. Cuba or Venezuela could be host to missiles--and I don't think Obambi would have the guts to enforce a missile blockade. I would prefer that my government spend the money on defense against these nations. 
Our fighters designs for the F-15, F-16, and F-18 are now 35 years old. The F-14 from the same era is retired. The F-15s are at the end of their life (remmember when one broke up in Missouri a couple of years ago, and they grounded them all?) The F-16 is obsolete. NONE of them are stealthy, and none can match the new Russian fighters in performance. ONly the F-22 can match the Russians.
