posted on Jul, 30 2006 @ 01:05 AM
1. The best way to employ the F-22 is offensively. Either as a COE standoff slingbomber or as a baselane lockdown OCA system (killing air threats at
reaction distances too close or too S2A protected to be 'blockaded' by LRAAM tactics).
2. Without full LO, the F-22 + AIM-120C5 is not able to beat the Eurofighter + Meteor. Without full LO, 'Allied' F-22 users can neither supplement
nor take over for U.S. presence. Attempting to do so will lead to combat attrition technology loss faster than anything.
3. Without GBU-39 and premission targeting (i.e. U.S. Overhead), the F-22 lacks the ability to hit sufficient numbers of sufficiently 'random'
threats to be useful. Blk.20 with it's SAR modes and SDB qualification will help this. But as these will be 'upgrades' even to the USAF, it is
hard to justify them being sold to other nations as baselines because they are indeed offensive systems. Indeed, it is, IMO _dangerous_ to have as
many if not more Raptors in foreign hands as in ours. Exclusive leveraging is one thing. Absolute inventory WEIGHTED leveraging is another. And we
have too few to cover our own needs to trust them to others.
4. The best-use profile of the F-22 is supersonic from the deck to best height followed by a burn-up/Mach-up optimized run to 600-700nm. Hitting a
tanker. Throttling up to full stride for 300nm to target at back. Hitting a tanker. And coming home to rinse:repeat in the 3-4hrs of a Mach 1.4
average mission evolution compared to the 7-10 you might face with a subsonic equivalent. As a nominally DCA platform for a 'neutral' country like
Japan _is supposed to be_ (_Constitutionally_ prevented from doing otherwise) the F119 with it's ultrahot core may not provide much better endurance
or cruise performance than a 220E + 3X 610 tanked F-15. Fortuately or otherwise, nobody else has the _perceived_ need for such a high-far-fast
profile, as is evidenced by their own _LACK OF TANKING AND SUPPORT MISSIONS_ (EA, DEAD, ISR).
5. Baloney (Lunchmeat Inc.) and The U.S. Fed are in trouble. Having broken several major laws on Anti Deficiency Act (forcing Congress to pay for
something they did not agree to allocate funds for, beforehand) related to Fraud in the Inducement (contractually promising that you can do something
for a given fee+incentive based payment, knowing you will need more money) and 'Buying In' (accepting a hit in R&D for a given system on the
assumption or handshake agreement of later padding the books on DCO/COO/TLCC spares and materials to gain it back) to the F-22 techbase.
When the F-22 was stonewalled by Congress because the USAF wouldn't and then -couldn't- WHORE IT WORLDWIDE, (money for their districts and back
pockets being the onlything they recognize) due to LO and Costs, the number of F-22s was degraded from 750 to 450 to 380 to 276 to 183. Which means
that no amount of realistic Direct Cost Of Operations payback could be hidden.
Around about the same time as the Congressional _treasonous_ backstabbing process /started/, Lunchmeat quickly thought to turn the F-22 baseline over
to the F-35 as a suitably cheap-and-dirty F-16 replacement. Leading to a process by which we are now we are robbing Sam to pay Peter to rob Peter to
Pay Paul. And the U.S. Taxpayer pays Sam.
This evolving debt solution process is yet another moronic act which _will not work_ because the baseline program costs for the F-35 are now up around
276 BILLION dollars and still climbing (original costs were 191 BILLION so it's not like it was ever cheap but this is a 44% increase) with followon
support costs estimated as high as 347 BILLION more.
News of which rate hike, along with cheaper/better options out of Europe has caused potential export customers to begin fleeing like rats off a
sinking ship even as the USAF totals have gone from 2,400 -> 1,763 -> 1,200. And the USMC/USN numbers have sunk from 680->240 and 550 ->170. And the
Admiral in charge of the F-35 conspiracy has publically stated that '1,600 is the break even point' beyond which, there is no way to maintain even a
moderately 'average' unit cost.
So... Right Now, we are back where we started at with Lunchmeat willing to sell 'anything to anybody' (and ain't it ironic that they all want the
Raptor and not the Just So Bleeped) and the Pentagon ready to say /there's no security risk in doing so/. Just to CYA the careers and corporate
health of men who should be in jail facing felony racketeering charges. And a company which should not be allowed to dictate price on ANY system by
virtue their improper and certainly _unwise_ technology investment strategy of the past 2 decades.
And all of Washington D.C. snickers at the wooljob they are once more pulling over the dumb bleating American Sheep, knowing that NEITHER of these
systems will survive a DEWS intensive environment likely to be 'standard' by 2015. But equally well aware that corruption becomes inescapable after
'downsizing' the U.S. military industrial complex to the point where competition is no longer a given but a memory.
This is what We The People have to be 'proud of' in our government.