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.

 

Quality or Quantity an old discussion revisited

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:48 PM
link   
The rumor of F-22 cancellation due to heavy costs of current military expenditures has made me wonder again about the issue of quality over quantity.

The most recent example of this that I can think of was the internal argument preceding F-16 production vs. more heavy but sophisticated A/C like the F-14/F-15 programs of the time.

There existed factions in the Airforce and Congress that wanted more quantity of pilot friendly A/C, and another faction that wanted fewer more expensive sophisticated do it all A/C where the pilot was more of a technician rather than a tactician. Ultimately both sides prevaled and we ended up better off for it in hindsight.

Are we at that point again with the F-22 and F-35 programs. What do you think? I'd especially like to hear from insiders like Intelgurl on this question, is it again a rising consideration.




posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 09:52 PM
link   
I believe it takes both. But, in times of heavy military expenditures, it takes logic. And usually that logic falls toward quantity. Once an aircraft is proven and production, it is so much easier to build a butt-load of them to cover yourself, than to spend those dollars still trying to work out the glitches in the "next generation". The temporary halt that occurs to development when military expenditures halt them, must be viewed as a tactical decision and not taken as a death-hammer to progress.

We'll be back on the forefront of development as soon as we're not having to build workhorses that are covering our arses right now.

Good topic and look forward to reading the responses!



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:19 PM
link   
Thanks for the thumbs up and commentery Valhall, The F-16 being such a success as not only a fighter, bomber and ground attck A/C has not helped settle this argument since it was brought forth in the sixties and seventies, it has proven its detractors wrong many times.

Likewise the F-14 and 15 programs have proven their worth in the A/C's versatility.

Would things have worked out if one direction or the other was picked, thats the unknown question facing us once again. Can we afford multiple A/C programs or would one suffice.



posted on Apr, 11 2004 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I'd say it takes a nice mix of both. As for the US getting rid of the F-22 Raptor, don't count on it. The US must have a dominate A2A platform. They have invested way too much money in it to scrap it, plus they are already under production, with a small number already completed.

Currently the AF plans to purchase around 300 F-22s and 1700 F-35's. This seems to be a nice mix of numbers and quality - even though I'd like to see about 700 of the raptors like the AF originally planned.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 01:47 AM
link   
If they see that 300 is not enough they will probably order more in the future.



posted on Apr, 12 2004 @ 05:39 PM
link   
the f22 isnt a2a its a2g primarily but has a a2a capability



posted on Apr, 13 2004 @ 07:51 PM
link   
F-16 is the great example of quantity turning into quality. A Block 5 'low' cost day fighter from '78 has evolved into today's fully multirole Block 60, although at many times the cost.

The F-35 (to be F/A-35 like F/A-22?) seems to have pitched itself somewhere between the two points. Too much of a compromise? time'll tell, but they could've taken the modular thinking re: CTOL / STOL variants much further when laying it out. Manned / unmanned growth possibilities and plug-in / plug-out mission/cost-specific avionic nodes (etc.) could've allowed any of the bases between quality and quantity to be covered effectively during it's presumed 25 year run.

Instead it runs the risk of losing bays and / or hardpoints to fuel and sensors - for example - within just a few Blocks like the generation before, or very expensive redesign. At which point cue the low-cost modular UCAV's... Maybe that's been the idea all along?



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on how ya look at it), the F/A-22 is down to a total purchase of 213 aircraft, at now $320 mil a pop.



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:20 AM
link   
Woooow, that is alot of money. I really don't understand how something can be sooo expensive especially when it's suppose to be for a "good cause"....



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the f22 isnt a2a its a2g primarily but has a a2a capability


nah youre thinking of the F35 there pal.thats the a2g next gen fighter



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 04:56 AM
link   
The quality Vs quantity argument is one that encompasses a wide range of issues, and one which is not purely about possible kills per aircraft.

I firmly believe that this decision will go the way that previous ones have gone regarding an 'amiable' mixture of the two available platforms.

On the surface it would seem that the sensible option would be to go for the Quality every time. The warrior that is equipped with the best weapons available has a distinct advantage over their adversary and thus has a higher probabilty of survival.

However, allied against that is the political nature of this argument, a reduced number of quality aircraft means a reduced airforce and therefore base reductions/closures, meaning redundancies in the military and related supply chain organisations, this isnt the best way to treat the economy and thus not a fantastic way to win votes.

Thus the effects of this decision will be a far ranging and influential, affecting not only the pilots whom we ask to risk their lives daily to protect our freedoms, but also our livelihood, economy and ultimately the way we are governed.




posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
the f22 isnt a2a its a2g primarily but has a a2a capability


Other way around....
Thats why it was the "F" (F for Fighter) -22 and is now the F/A-22, because they added A2G capability



posted on Apr, 14 2004 @ 05:51 AM
link   
the f23 IS the next generation fighter



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join