Originally posted by FredT
Funny have you checked out a mirror lately, strawmanning a report is better how?
I think the language in the report makes it clear that these are not 'upgrades' but fixes for problems that could not and where not resolved before
the initial production runs where started on a insufficiently tested airframe. This has all been documented by many researches online
According to Young :
"The Air Force had planned and accepted to have a two-tiered structure where some of the earlier jets were not fully capable jets, not to the
Block 35 configuration, which provides important capabilities. I think something like 100 jets would kind of be lesser models" under that
plan, Young said. "One thing that's in the [2010 budget plan] is to bring more of that fleet to common, high-end, capable configuration. The cost of
that is $6.3 billion of [research and development]."
He expressed concern about spending so much to upgrade the Air Force's prized fighter because "this is [for] a platform we've already
developed."
"Those discussions need to be had before you talk about buying more jets," he said. "That's really a requirements and capability discussion that
Air Force and OSD has to have."
www.defensenews.com...
From this it looks to me that the Pentagon doesn't see the point of buying more F-22's when the first 100 are non functional without a additional
six billion worth of research and development to make up for what couldn't be afforded before the planes where built for fear of total program
cancellation. This basically looks like a air force trick to get something built despite the fact that they understood that it would be operationally
useless without massive additional spending on a program that exceeded it's original budget estimation by a few hundred percent.
Last i checked they have only built about 120 F-22's so isn't it surprising then that basically the entire production run so far needs further
research and development to prevent their operational costs from seriously escalating?
He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate."
Those tests have shown what he called a negative trend, meaning the "maintenance man-hours per flying hour has increased through those tests. The
last one was a substantial increase."
www.defensenews.com...
So are maintenance ours supposed to escalate noticeable as the test phase continues and more is learnt about how to keep the plane operational?
And then just to make sure that no one could misunderstand:
The bottom line, according to Young: "There is clearly some work that needs to be done there to make that airplane capable and affordable to
operate."
www.defensenews.com...
So they are not affordable to operate nor capable without another 6 billion in research and development. Where is my straw man?
I prefer the term barcolounger warrior myself and unless you are posting from an active duty unit 'Hello pot?
No and that's the funny thing here. Shouldn't even armchair warriors ( or whatever your reclining in) be able to see spot a trend and notice
deception when it's openly declared? What would you require the Pentagon to say as admission that the F-22 program so far has failed to produce a
operational fighter without a large additional infusion of resources and time?
Young piled on, saying the plane “still does not meet most of its KPPs (Key Performance Parameters).” But it’s not just pure operational
shortcomings that have Young worried. “The airplane is proving very expensive to operate.. and it is complex to maintain.”
Of the $8 billion to upgrade the planes, Young said $6.3 billion would be research and development “for a plane that is already in production.”
www.dodbuzz.com...
Its the the kettle.......... your black" 
At anyrate I thought this discussion centered around the Raptor and not the Bone
This discussion does but i have found that people who wish to restrict the parameters of a discussion are normally just worried about others noticing
the overlapping trends.
If anything the bone is a prime example of pentagon wastage which led to a 100 strong force of planes that are so maligned
with trouble's that they are reserved for national emergencies only.
That being said, the mission profiles for the B-2, B-1B and the B-52 are different with the B-2 having the most overlap
Same general mission profile with both altered to make them low altitude penetrating strategic bombers when the USAF finally figured out that high
altitude penetration with or without stealth were no longer a credible deterrent. IF anything the B-2 is a open admission that the B-1 program failed
to meet expectations and the fact that it was redesigned to also make it a low altitude perpetrator may be a reaffirmation of the potency of the SAM
threat or just a acknowledgment that mobile and fixed direct energy weapons were a immediate threat.
That being said the mission ready rates fo the B-1 have had much less to do with the aircraft itself and rather the USAF decison to cut the
number of combat coded airframes and reduce priority levels for parts
Which has almost everything to do with the major problems in it's EW suite which, as i understand, has not been fully resolved to this day. In my
opinion this Monday morning quarterbacking on your part does little to obscure the fact that the B-1 were a total failure in terms of redesigned
goals( low altitude). In my lay opinion the F-22 went exactly the same direction with the JSF following closely in it's footsteps. The USAF have for
decades now consistently failed to deploy planes which are suited for a high operational tempo war and the moment it engaged a first world power (
Yugoslavia) these shortcomings were quickly exposed.
You realize dont you that the Block E upgrades which brought the B-1 into the realm of precision weapons like the WCDM and the JSOW etc were
not completed fleet wide untill 2006 right?
No i didn't which hardly matters given the fact that these planes had to past the twenty year deployment mark before these types of precision weapons
could be integrated. Why do you need a B-1 for anti terrorist policing activities in Afghanistan and Iraq? Hasn't those wars been won? Who is kidding
who here and why wouldn't the B-1 be effective against a occupied country that lacks credible s2a assets?
Considering that the bomber was desinged for the nuclear deterence role as part of the SIOP you cannot expect it to have B-2 targeting
capacities overnight. [/quote
Not overnight just not twenty years after initial SAC deployment and about thirty years after it should have been fully operational but not for the
multitude of problems due to improper testing and development.
Really now I expected abit more research tsk tsk.
We all have our shortcomings with some just far more aware than others. You can keep defending the 'integrity' of this massively wasteful program as
costs keep escalating and i will keep trying to evaluate it in accordance with it's supposed original costs and objectives.
Stellar
[edit on 4-12-2008 by StellarX]
