It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by RedMatt
The only goal was to show just how much cash $276 bil. is, in eqivalent defense programs, as compared to a single massive investment in JSF. And yeah, now that you mention it, that did end up buying a whole bunch of airfcraft...
Originally posted by RedMatt
FIN,
Sorry for the confusion, but I didn't pick out these projects because I thought we needed them. We probably don't need 750 raptors, but that was the original plan so I stuck with it. Likewise at one point or another the Pentagon had stated requirements for 135 B-2s, 350 C-17s, and 32 DD(X) destroyers. My own view is that we don't need all those machines - or the Marine corp. EFVs really - but that wasn't what I was trying to point out.
And I didn't mean to imply that buying military equipment was as simple as swiping your VISA at the register and allowing 4-6 weeks for shipping...
The only goal was to show just how much cash $276 bil. is, in eqivalent defense programs, as compared to a single massive investment in JSF. And yeah, now that you mention it, that did end up buying a whole bunch of airfcraft...
[eddited for miserable spelling *and* grammer]
[edit on 26-8-2006 by RedMatt]
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
First of all, what on earth does the USAF do with 565 F-22, that can only engage in air combat. Totally useless because the planes ordered are enough to do the job.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Sorry Fin but according to the USAF that's not true, they have consistently said that they need at least 380 F-22’s to fill 10 squadrons. Right now They’re only getting 183, is this a case of the AF wanting more than is necessary? Perhaps, but they’re fighting tooth and nail and doing everything they can to keep the F-22 alive so they can order more.
Oh and BTW, the F-22 has A2G capability too, although not as much as the F-35.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
Yes, 380 planes. But the differnece between 565 and 380 is rather big, 185 planes (wich is the same number they are getting now). I'am not saying that they wouldn't mind more planes. But the 183 are perfectly enough in my opinion.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
I know, I'm just pointing out that the USAF says they need 380, and no offense but I’ll take the word of the USAF on that one.
And the F-22 can carry JDAM's and in the not so distant future SDM's. I can picture quite a few scenarios where the F-22 could be useful for A2G, first it’s stealthier than the F-35 and if offers kinematics no other "bomb tuck" or bomber can. So for a very heavily defended target an F-22 in conjunction with a few B-2's might be the way to go.
Now that does not mean an F-22 can replace the bombers and the F-35, or that it will be used for A2G often it just means it can be useful in some A2G scenarios.
Great post. It really shows what waste of money JSF is. Just some corrections - the new F-22 would cost only 110 and not 170 millions so you can have app. 1000 of them (and it this case the price will go down app. to 90 millions). Now that's some force! And the talks like F-22 can do only Air to Air job are untrue. Actually it would be much better than JSF for ground strikes because it is stealthier and can supercruise. If enemy finds way to overcome JSF stealth, F-35 is screwed. It is not nearly as maneuvrable as it's oponents and it's speed is not something special too. Surely F-22 has smaller internal bays, but what about those new external stealthy underwing bomb bays? I saw some proposal concernig them. The point is - Raptor could easily carry 4 of them underwing, each with 5000 lbs bunker buster. Surely it would be not able to supercruise with them but JSF cannot supercruise too. I think such stealthy pods would be much cheaper and easier to make than new plane.
Concering bombers I think 40 B-2 are too much but 20 B-2 and new 150 B-1 Regional (B-1 with F-22 engines and supercruise) would be much better option.
Strategic bombers are much better than tactical bombers, because they carry more bombs and HAVE LONGER RANGE. No more need for bases in persian gulf for example. Those bases could be vulnerable especially for new balistic misilles.
3000 UCAVs are too much, i think, half is enough so you'll have 30 billions left - you can give them to Navy to buy more 450-500 Superhornets.
150 C-17 ARE definitely necessary, in fact it would be still not enough.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
But my opinion is that 180 is enough, except if they are planning a new war in the not so distant future.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Buddy, this is the United States, a new war is not referred to if but rather by when.
Originally posted by longbow
F-15 was also not designed for A2G and look at the Strike Eagle. They just added conformal fuel tanks and few sensors and it is now one of the best Atack planes. All it takes to convert F-22 to A2G role is to add some IR and perhaps LADAR sensors into the nose and develop those stealthy pods. It's range is already very good. And as I said after this few adaptations (which will probably add no more than 10 million to the aricraft price) F-22 will be superior to JSF. Not because of maneuvrability but also because of supercruise. Like I said stealth is JSF only weapon in other aspects save range it is inferior even to Eurofighter or Rafale. F-22 has also superior speed and maneuvrability, so it has 3 advantages over oponents. And like said it will not cost substantialy more than JSF.
The best thing about those big planes like F-15, Su-27 and F-22 is that can be adapted to new roles more easily than smaller ones.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
The F-22 does not cost 110, I think it lies around 120-130 million $.
The F-22 is not designed for A2G and is therefore not as good as other planes. Just because it's manoverable doesn't make it a good attack fighter.
Originally posted on RedMatt
Where Raptor falls short is the ability to find its own targets. However the AESA radar can be updated to include A2G modes through software updates alone, and in the interim F-22s can accepty target data by other aircraft such as JSTARS.
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
For a battlefield ground attack support mission using something as big and expensive as the F-22 would just be a waste of money.
Originally posted by longbow
F-15 was also not designed for A2G and look at the Strike Eagle. They just added conformal fuel tanks and few sensors and it is now one of the best Atack planes. All it takes to convert F-22 to A2G role is to add some IR and perhaps LADAR sensors into the nose and develop those stealthy pods. It's range is already very good. And as I said after this few adaptations (which will probably add no more than 10 million to the aricraft price) F-22 will be superior to JSF. Not because of maneuvrability but also because of supercruise. Like I said stealth is JSF only weapon in other aspects save range it is inferior even to Eurofighter or Rafale. F-22 has also superior speed and maneuvrability, so it has 3 advantages over oponents. And like said it will not cost substantialy more than JSF.
The best thing about those big planes like F-15, Su-27 and F-22 is that can be adapted to new roles more easily than smaller ones.
Originally posted by longbow
Originally posted by Figher Master FIN
For a battlefield ground attack support mission using something as big and expensive as the F-22 would just be a waste of money.
Big and expensive... I JSF budget shows quite clearly that F-35 will probably have the same price as F-22... Not good it all, when you ask me, I don't understand why everyone says it's cost effective.