The Fighter Mafia may win again

a reply to: mbkennel


Obviously, I wasn't referring to the Naval or Marine version.

Text

a reply to: mbkennel


Double post

a reply to: C0bzz


LOL. If the Aussies don't want the F-22, fine by me. I would think that the Aussie F-35 drivers wouldn't mind a handful of F-22s backing them up upstairs. 'If' they where available.

That was my original point, not comparing the two, which have different roles. Although, the F-22 has enough redundancy to be programmable and upgraded to perform most, if not all, that the F-35 is capable of. On the other hand an F-35 will not improve in it's basic design for speed, altitude and maneuverability. (As Zaph has already posted, the new run would include upgrades in computing and electronics only with the original platform remaining the same. At which point, it would cover all the bases you refer to, as well as it's own strengths.)

As far as your comment on 'merging' of programs Re: the F-35. And citing other earlier programs, as the chief designer stated, it was the F-119 that gave the impetus for the development of the STOL F-35 via the PW F-135. He stated it was his idea to expand to all three variants. (I will try to find that video and forward it, but it was a few years back and memory no longer serves as it once did....)

It would seem obvious that all three variants didn't miraculously appear at the same time. That there was a 'first' version.

The very fact that the U.S. is considering restarting the F-22 line 'might' suggest there is a need for it. Perhaps Australia doesn't feel it needs the F-22. I don't particularly trust the U.S. DOD. They're the ones-with the politicians- that cut the program in the first place despite protest that has never fully waned.

I'm betting there are those that feel similarly about your DOD and there's more than a few Aussies that would dearly love a few Raptors despite the "official" paper...

We have a long love affair with the Hornets,same as what we had with the F111,s.When the Sukhoi boys came over for Pitch Black it gave our pilots a good look at what the opponents were capable of.It may have also scared them into looking sideways at the F22,s capabilities.

a reply to: nwtrucker

And it would be a few unless they were to cut deep into other programs, just as we're going to have to do. And eventually we're going to have the best fighters in the world, that are totally untouchable, because they're going to be unable to get anywhere.

Color me shocked. For months the rumors were flying that the next CSAF nominee would come from Space Command and be a non pilot (or at least non-fighter pilot).

The official nominee was announced today, and we get Gen David Goldfein.

From his resume:

Goldfein is a command pilot with more than 4,200 hours flying in the F-16 C/D, the F-117A, the MQ-9, the MC-12W, the T-37 and the T-38. He flew combat missions over Iraq, Afghanistan and Serbia, and was once shot down flying a combat mission over Serbia in 1999 when a surface-air-missile hit his F-16. He was quickly rescued.

www.airforcetimes.com...

a reply to: BigTrain

Oh look, a private company that has gone over budget and run into massive delays, and is still in business.

You complain about how stupid Boeing is because they can't convert a 767 into a tanker for the Air Force, but Airbus only had to change engines on the A320 and have run into serious issues doing that. They've gone over budget on the A380, have hit big delays in their neo programs, A350, and others and are still in business and highly profitable.

a reply to: Zaphod58


OK, I'm President. Your Secretary of the Air Force....What's your solution to we're short of everything?....

a reply to: nwtrucker

Cut the least necessary programs, delay the F-XX program indefinitely, develop new weapons systems for the bombers to carry, pump money into the tankers, E-8, reengine and upgrade the radar on the E-3, and slowly add Block 60 Vipers and new build Eagles until the money is there for 6th Gen and our worst of aircraft are replaced.

a reply to: Zaphod58


Wouldn't it make sense to try to replace the E-3 and E-8 with palletized mission systems that can be loaded onto KC-46s? Cut the VC replacement program and the president can fly in style on the newest in Boeing's palletized comfort. That should free up plenty of money to develop the palletized computer systems to run all the spook sensors. Ridiculous that the AF is spending so much money in fuel and maintenance on outdated aircraft. Solve the problem in one fell swoop and make your cargo and electronic airliner aircraft multi-role just like the fighters. Shut down the minuteman missiles and let the Navy have a few more boats to keep under some deep body of water for when the world never ends. There are lots of places the Air Force is wasting money. Hell one of the AF1s spends most of it's time flying the Obama family on endless strings of vacations. F----ng joke. I don't agree in buying new F-16s. I think instead just ramp up and accelerate their replacement by ending LRIP of the F-35 and just letting the monster pump out planes already. Supplement them with new F-15Cs instead of F-22s. Ah it's late I have to do actual homework.

KC-46 palletized cargo layout

a reply to: Caughtlurking

And what are you going to do with those giant radar antenna when you're flying tanker missions?

a reply to: Zaphod58


It's palletized.. Design mounts and strap it on when you want that set up. They do it all the time to test the new goodies.

a reply to: Caughtlurking

Won't work. You'd have aircraft down for one to two days between missions while you change out equipment. Then you're out a tanker, a JSTARS, and an AWACS. And what happens if you need it in a hurry?

Not to mention you're adding weight and complexity to the aircraft, which means your crew chiefs have to learn more, you're costing fuel that can be carried and offloaded, and more things to break and maintain.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You didn't really just call Airbus private did you?

LOL

a reply to: BigTrain

They are as much as any other aircraft manufacturers. They began as a consortium of companies, not governments. Just because they get big government subsidies doesn't mean they aren't a private group.

a reply to: Zaphod58

There ya go again...

Trying to bring common sense into military appropriations... Really?



That makes some real sense. I'm not sure why they're so hot to get that f-xx program now...no one else has anything comparable to what's already on board. It just makes so much sense to prioritize support platforms.

a reply to: seagull

I wrote a thread not long ago that it was time to overhaul procurement. There was an article today that proved how broken the system is. The F-35 program office has 2,590 people running the program, and the office has an annual budget of $70M. It's no wonder our forces are as screwed up as they are.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Holy crapballs.

A seventy-million dollar budget just for one office... Safe to say, that's a lot of money to run an office. I'd love to be that office manager...

a reply to: seagull

Even if they only knocked $15-20M of that off it would help. They could put that towards maintenance and upgrades of aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Look, I'm not going to spend much time here ripping you apart, but its funny how your response was almost word for word what pops up on wikipedia when you search for Airbus.

If you had spent maybe 4 more minutes reading, you'd see that AirBus Group is 25% owned by a trio of countries, France, Spain and Germany. So no, not private. Especially when Germany and France had veto power over anything they wanted to do.

What was that you were saying a few posts back about overtime I open my mouth?

I anxiously look forward to your next post about another KC-X delay or another F-35 problem, or another reason why B-21 has a cost over-run before it even begins production. Please do post as fast as possible, and then provide a litany of excuses to why we should still fund these enormously over-budget, under-delivering programs while we continue to soar past 19 TRILLION in debt.