Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We Cannot Afford to Lose the F-22 - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/tom-mcinerney-f/ - broken link) This is exactly what some of us knew would happen with this administration. To be fair, the argument against.http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/...land-raptor-f/ Interested in intelligent opinions.
The F-22 is an extremely delicate plane that is apparently damaged by rain, and requires extensive rehabilitation after every mission. I wouldn't want to put too much reliance on such a fragile device.
The F-22 is an extremely delicate plane that is apparently damaged by rain, and requires extensive rehabilitation after every mission. I wouldn't want to put too much reliance on such a fragile device.
The rain apparently damages the plane's outer coat, which is part of its radar-evasion system. The coating has to be meticulously repaired after each flight in order for the plane to maintain its factory specification capabilities.
F-22 is a great case of why our weapons system programs are so expensive. When initially conceived, the approved for service use procurement was supposed to be about 750 aircraft. After all of the Congressional reviews, the number was sliced to about 200 total aircraft. When looking at all of the extensive sunk research and development cost, you end up with a very high price due to the allocation of the fixed development and set up cost over significantly fewer aircraft.
The program cost, often criticized by GAO and others, ran into problems with delayed deployment due to design issues, and then longer multi year procurements (with lower production rates) due to annual funding limitations. As a result, fixed production overhead was distributed to fewer aircraft, also driving up per unit cost. Normally, this could be somewhat offset with Foreign Military Sales (FMS), but this plane is specifically prohibited from participating in FMS due to technology transfer concerns.
The current plan is to replace the F-22 with a less capable and less costly alternative. Once again, we have to be concerned that new research and development cost won't be compiled against lower production thresholds, and hopefully they are taking into account anticipated FMS in the development of the aircraft. My own view is that we already had all of this cost recognized in the current F-22, so it seems that we may be setting ourselves up for another future story of wasted cost on weapon procurement.
One of the things I've found puzzling in the current discussions is the lack of clarity concerning what specific threat they plan on counteracting, and why the anticipated lower capability aircraft would be as suitable as the F-22. I keep reading about Required Operational Capability analysis, but haven't seen much at all concerning the Statement of Operational Need. So from a counter threat perspective, I'm not sure that the overall deployment strategy of the anticipated blended aircraft mix capability has fully been thought out.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,766,834 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by silas777
We Cannot Afford to Lose the F-22 - FOXNews.com (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/07/21/tom-mcinerney-f/ - broken link) This is exactly what some of us knew would happen with this administration. To be fair, the argument against.Time to Scrap the F-22 Raptor - FOXNews.com Interested in intelligent opinions.
Awesome platform, but very expensive. There does not appear to be a clear need for a next-generation, air superiority fighter at the present but it isn't inconceiveable that the need would arise suddenly within the next 20 years.
In light of what is happening right now, I think it was the right move. But keep the plans handy.
I think the F22 is a very impressive aircraft, but it costs more than the small advantage it gives over older and cheaper aircraft. Instead of making more complex planes, the air force should be trying to simplify them. They assume we will always have complete air superiority, but what if in a future war we don't have that luxury?
It would be very easy for an enemy to target the few extra-costly high tech planes on the ground and kill the air force rather than deal with greater numbers of cheap but only slightly less capable planes.
Location: Visitation between Wal-Mart & Home Depot
8,309 posts, read 38,766,834 times
Reputation: 7185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chango
I think the F22 is a very impressive aircraft, but it costs more than the small advantage it gives over older and cheaper aircraft. Instead of making more complex planes, the air force should be trying to simplify them. They assume we will always have complete air superiority, but what if in a future war we don't have that luxury?
It would be very easy for an enemy to target the few extra-costly high tech planes on the ground and kill the air force rather than deal with greater numbers of cheap but only slightly less capable planes.
It may be a bit dubious to infer that the F-22 has only a small advantage over older and less expensive platforms. The F-15, which has never been shot down in combat and has been the most dominant air-superiority fighter in the world for many years, is at an enormous disadvantage when matched with the F-22. A single F-22 was able to engage and lock five F-15's before they were able to detect the F-22's presence. That's a pretty awesome capability. That exercise culminated in a kill ratio of 221-0 for the F-22 when matched against a numerically superior force of F-15s and F-16s. No small advantage.
Still, it's too expensive to develop at this point and the 140 or so currently in Air Force hangers can project a lot of American will if need be.
Last edited by jimboburnsy; 07-22-2009 at 08:04 AM..
The important point here is that the air force is changing, and a major part of the psyche of the men who run it has to change. The service has developed a mystique that is similar to the chivalrous horse-mounted knights of the middle ages. The "top gun" pilots are the elite of the elite, and generations of servicemen have held that as the pinnacle of achievement, much as the top sports players are held in high esteem.
The reality is that the human body is becoming more and more a detriment to air combat systems. It has to be coddled, it adds weight, it can disobey orders, it gets tired on long missions, and it restricts any maneuver to about 9 G. The remotely piloted and computer assisted vehicles can be cheaper (even disposable) safer to personnel, capable of greater feats, and these vehicles are obviously becoming the system of the future.
Any money spent in developing the last few battlehorse armors were wasted when the tank started to dominate the battlefield. Any money spent on those last great cruisers of WWII was lost by the end of the war, when the airplane and aircraft carrier were shown to be a superior weapon system.
The brass at the air force, and the manufacturers have to learn that the last steam locomotives were some of the greatest pieces of machinery ever built, but they went out of production for the very same reason that the F-22 is doomed.
Yeah, a lot of people felt a loss and were angry when battlehorses were no longer needed, when cruisers sailed off into the razor blade factory, when the era of steam came to an end. Life changes. Sometimes we lose what was important to us. We can rail against those who are forced into those final deathblows, or we can go on.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
