# F-22 or F-35? you decide!!



## Navy1960

The Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor is a fifth-generation fighter aircraft that uses stealth technology. It was designed primarily as an air superiority fighter, but has additional capabilities that include ground attack, electronic warfare, and signals intelligence roles. Lockheed Martin Aeronautics is the prime contractor and is responsible for the majority of the airframe, weapon systems and final assembly of the F-22. Program partner Boeing Integrated Defense Systems provides the wings, aft fuselage, avionics integration, and all of the pilot and maintenance training systems.

In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft

F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia








The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a fifth-generation, single-seat, single-engine, stealth-capable military strike fighter, a multirole aircraft that can perform close air support, tactical bombing, and air defense missions.[5] The F-35 has three different models; one is the conventional takeoff and landing variant, the second is short takeoff and vertical-landing variant, and the third is a carrier-based variant.

The F-35 is descended from the X-35, the product of the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. Its development is being principally funded by the United States, with the United Kingdom, and other partner governments providing additional funding.[6] It is being designed and built by an aerospace industry team led by Lockheed Martin with Northrop Grumman and BAE Systems as major partners.[6] Demonstrator aircraft flew in 2000,[7] with the first flight on 15 December 2006.[8]

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling.[47] As a result of these issues the then-Australian defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, requested a formal briefing from the Department of Defence (Australia) on the computer simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate, and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[48]

The criticism of the F-35 has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer.[47][49] The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[49] The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.

The F-35 will have a helmet mounted cueing system similar to the system already in service with the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s,[50] the AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System that "renders maneuverability irrelevant",[51] and improved data processors.[52] Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will have turning agility/ability of up to 9 g's and provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor, and superior to all other fighters.[
F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia






While these two aircraft are good examples of the best American Aviation has to offer, it must be said that the current debate over the F-22 is one that does not take into consideration of actual roles. The F-22 is  a pure air-to-air  fighter aircraft which does have air to ground capability , but it is UNMATCHED in capability when it comes to all around performace. The F-35 is a completly different aircraft  and  it's mission is more akin to a fighter bomber much along the lines of a  F-18 , it has good performance in the air to air role but that is NOT it's primary role. Now while it is my opnion that the USAF should be allowed to purchase whatever the mission calls for, the solution here on an economic level seems to be a simple one. Lift the ban on exports on the F-22 and that would result in around 120 more aircraft  by foreign buyers such as  Aus. and Japan which makes good strategic sense and also good economic sense for this nation.  It will also allow the line to remain open should the USAF wish to revist  more  F-22's should a need arise through attrition without the need to spend billions of dollars to restart the line.  In the mean time the DoD can concentrate  on the F-35 and finally get this aircraft to the warfighters.


----------



## Harry Dresden

just saw a show on this on the military channel,about the top 10 fighter jets of the world....they had 3 "experts" on and they all seemed to agree that the Raptor,which was no.1 is the best jet ever and is so much more advanced than anything out there in air combat that they do not think anyone will try to top it.... it is just to expensive to try....they seemed to think the new wave of jets will be advanced drones...with fighter jet capabilities....


----------



## DiveCon

i've always felt that they made too many compromises on the F-35 to make it fit so many mission roles
while the F-22 fully does the role it was designed for


----------



## Navy1960

My firm recenlty did a write up on the F-22 Harry and the conclusion has always been the same. The aircraft is superior in all phases of performance. However it's a belief among the aviation community that this aircraft represents one of the last manned pure fighter aircraft and the 6th generation will be or at least some will be unmanned. It's also my belief that the aircraft line  can be kept open if the ban on exports is lifted or a partial ban is placed on its sale to approved nations.


----------



## Navy1960

Gen. Norton Schwartz, Air Force chief of staff, said he would not dispute a characterization that over the coming three years the service was seeking to add 60 of the premier fighter jets to the 183 now on order, for a total of 243.

The revised request would be for a fleet totaling fewer than 381 Raptors, the previous Air Force goal, Schwartz told reporters, without disclosing the new number.

The Air Force once sought to buy as many as 750 F-22s, which it reckoned cost about $142 million apiece in fiscal 2008, not including development costs.

The revised requirement is "driven by analysis as opposed to some other formulation," Schwartz said. "And I think it will withstand scrutiny."

The administration must make critical decisions about the F-22 by about March 1 or Lockheed Martin says it will start phasing out the production line, threatening tens of thousands of jobs during the current recession.

Schwartz said he expects to present the Air Force's new F-22 analysis to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates within a few weeks. He said the analysis did not factor in jobs, which he called the responsibility of other U.S. officials.

Pressed on why the Air Force was giving up on the 381 F-22s it had long stated it needed to make sure it could dominate the skies from Day One of any future major conflict, Schwartz spoke of going from a "low risk" to a "moderate risk" number.


I heard this same thing when congress was  trying to kill the F-15 and F-16 as well as cut back on production because the F-4 was  good enough and we have all seen the results of purchasing those aircraft as well as the F=18. This is nothing new in defense spending when it comes to aircraft what is new that if the F-22 is stopped we will for the first time in a very long time  as a nation give up on what is the worlds best air to air fighter. The Navy now  is totally reliant on the the F-18 airframe for it's needs  when it comes to air to air missions  and air to gound mission and with Russian advances in the  SU-37 and its proven ability vs. the F-15C and the F-18 to limit capability of this vital asset seems rather short sighted. However, as stated earlier  if the Govt. wishes to save the taxpayers money here lift the export ban all that takes is the stroke of a pen


----------



## Xenophon

I would rather have F 22s.

This same argument was made about F 15s years ago, that it was not multi role and was a pure air fighter. Eventually they upgraded the Eagle to air to ground missions.


----------



## Dayton3

The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.

But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.

Build them both.   The more the better. 

And in regards to unmanned drones. 

Not a chance. 

No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own. 

And in any kind of major war,  remote control of drones can be jammed.


----------



## Terry

F-22 baby, they rock!  I see them fly around in the sky's over Langley AFB and man are they a sight to watch.


----------



## DiveCon

Dayton3 said:


> The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.
> 
> But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.
> 
> Build them both.   The more the better.
> 
> And in regards to unmanned drones.
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own.
> 
> And in any kind of major war,  remote control of drones can be jammed.


the F-35 has too many missions and doesnt do any of them as well as they could if they built two other planes
they are trying to replace too many airframes/missions with one


----------



## Toome

Until I saw the F-22 at an air show recently, I thought the F-16 was a highly maneuverable aircraft.  One of the F-16 Viper's most impressive features was its capability turn around 180 degrees in a very tight circle.  

The F-22 made the F-16 look like a crop duster.

The problem with fighter-bombers is that they sacrifice maneuverability for delivery.  They can carry bombs, but they're slow to turn compared to modern fighters.  When it comes to dog fights, US pilots deserve aircraft that can outmaneuver opponents.  We have plenty of bombers and other capabilities to deliver munitions to ground targets.  They need to be escorted by highly maneuverable and highly combat-effective fighters.

Even though obsolete by modern standards, my favorite will always be the F-14 Tomcat.


----------



## Navy1960

In regards to the  assertion of unmanned UCAV's i invite you to look at the following;

The Boeing joint unmanned combat air system X-45 is an unmanned combat air vehicle being developed for strike missions such as Suppression of Enemy Air Defence (SEAD), electronic warfare and associated operations.

The Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) programme began being managed by DARPA, but was handed over to a joint US Navy and Air Force office in October 2005. The two principle systems being developed under the first phase of the programme, the Spiral 0 phase, are the Boeing X-45 and the Northrop Grumman X-47. The J-UCAS program combines the programmes previously conducted under the DARPA, USAF and Boeing X-45 UCAV program and the DARPA, USN and Northrop Grumman X-47 UCAV-N program.

"The Boeing
joint unmanned combat air system X-45 is an unmanned combat air vehicle."In March 2004, the X-45A completed a ten-day schedule of test flights including dropping a 250lb inert Small Smart Bomb (SSB) at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, California. The X-45A air vehicle released the unguided weapon from its internal weapon bay at an altitude of 35,000ft and speed Mach 0.67 (about 442mph). In August 2004, the first test of multi-vehicle operations took place. Two X-45A demonstrators were controlled by a single operator / pilot. X-45A flight tests were successfully concluded in August 2005.

X-45 J-UCAV Joint Unmanned Combat Air System - Air Force Technology






I'm afriad with  the advent of systems like the Predator and many others that now carry weapons systems, unmanned  UAV's especially  UCAV's are the order of the day. However the assertion on the F-35 and F-22  is  very correct  and the original intent of these systems was to have them built together as they both have roles to fill.  While it is true that the F-15A eventually led to the F-15E Strike Eagle there is a massive  difference between the two ariframes, the F-15  had the capability to carry weapon(s) stores on wing pods whereas  the F-22 cannot and will never, because once done it will destroy the basic premise of the airframe and that is it's stealth properties.  There is however an upgrade at this moment for the F-22 that is enhancing it's ground attack capabilities  through a series  weapons upgrades that fit in it's internal weapons bay.  The one variant of the F-35 that I personally see as the most  promising is the  Marine Corps variant  because it will not only replace  the AV8B but also the F-18 which and do so by not giving up any performance.  The Navy with the advent of the F-18 Super Hornet  only need  to enhance it's ground attack capabilities and mission penetration capabilites and the F-35 is a good aircraft to fill this role.  However when it comes to pure air superiority the Air Force needs to have an aircraft that fills this role and that role is clearly filled by the F-22. So I have suggested  that the DoD listen to the Air Force and NOT a political appointee and purchase what it needs  to fill that role or if they cannot at this time keep the line open by lifting the ban to freindly nations who want to buy the aircraft.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dayton3 said:


> The F-22 would be the superior option for the United States Air Force.
> 
> But, the Navy and Marine Corps not to mention the British and Australians also need the F-35.
> 
> Build them both.   The more the better.
> 
> And in regards to unmanned drones.
> 
> Not a chance.
> 
> No one is going to give drones the power to launch attacks on their own.
> 
> And in any kind of major war,  remote control of drones can be jammed.



not according to what i saw on the military channel....its a very real scenario...and the drones are not on their own....someone is controlling them and see's what they see...and anti-jamming devices have been in the works since the first generation of drones.....according to the guy from Janes mag......


----------



## Harry Dresden

Toome said:


> Until I saw the F-22 at an air show recently, I thought the F-16 was a highly maneuverable aircraft.  One of the F-16 Viper's most impressive features was its capability turn around 180 degrees in a very tight circle.
> 
> The F-22 made the F-16 look like a crop duster.
> 
> The problem with fighter-bombers is that they sacrifice maneuverability for delivery.  They can carry bombs, but they're slow to turn compared to modern fighters.  When it comes to dog fights, US pilots deserve aircraft that can outmaneuver opponents.  We have plenty of bombers and other capabilities to deliver munitions to ground targets.  They need to be escorted by highly maneuverable and highly combat-effective fighters.
> 
> Even though obsolete by modern standards, my favorite will always be the F-14 Tomcat.



according to the guy from Janes,the Raptor in his and he said many others opinion,this machine is maybe 10-15 years ahead of what anyone has out there.... this jet will already do its damage before the other jets have time to react....but its just two expensive for say Russia to try and top...so they say advanced drones will be the future of fighters.....


----------



## Navy1960

FORT WORTH, Texas, March 19th, 2009 --  
 High Resolution Photo

U.S. Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph T. Bachmann became the first Marine to fly the F-35 Lightning II, on March 19, 2009. (Photo by Tom Harvey, Lockheed Martin) 

 High Resolution Photo

With U.S. Marine Corps pilot Maj. Joseph T. Bachmann at the controls, the F-35 Lightning II lifts off from the runway at Lockheed Martin in Fort Worth, Texas, on March 19. Bachmann became the first Marine to fly the F-35, which will enter operational service with the Corps in 2012.

Bachmann departed the runway at Lockheed Martin's Fort Worth plant at 11:29 a.m. CDT and flew the aircraft to 15,000 feet, checking handling qualities and engine response before landing one hour and 15 minutes later.

"The plane performed wonderfully," said Bachmann, a member of the F-35 Integrated Test Force and one of the team test pilots who will fly the F-35B Lightning II at the Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Md., test site, beginning this summer. "The U.S. Marine Corps will be getting an aircraft with extraordinary capabilities that is very easy to fly. Today is another step toward delivery of the first jets to Marines on the front line."
First U.S. Marine Pilots Lockheed Martin F-35 | Lockheed Martin

The most senior retired military officer to back President Obama's run for the White House says the president is making a "real mistake" in terminating F-22 production. 

Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who was the Air Force chief of staff during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm and who credited air power with winning the war, was the first four-star officer to endorse the one-term senator in his presidential campaign. McPeak traveled with Obama to bolster the candidate's commander-in-chief credentials, much to the chagrin of the general's fighter pilot colleagues. 

But now McPeak is breaking with Obama on the president's most contentious defense budget decision: ending production of the Air Force's top-line fighter at 187 aircraft. 

"I think it's a real mistake," McPeak told FOXNews.com. "The airplane is a game-changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951 or something like that. It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of guys. So we've gotten use to this idea that we never have to breathe hostile air." 
Top Obama Backer Warns Ending F-22 Production Is 'Real Mistake' - Political News - FOXNews.com

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ploXJ56Uyvk&NR=1]YouTube - Sukhoi Su-35/37 vs F-22 Raptor[/ame]

And they want to cut this aircraft .. watch this video it says a lot about the F-22's capabilites vs. the SU-37

Bachmann&#8217;s first flight was in F-35 AA-1, a conventional takeoff and landing variant with controls and flying qualities essentially identical to the short takeoff/vertical landing (STOVL) F-35B. The F-35B will replace Marine Corps AV-8B STOVL fighters and F/A-18 strike fighters. It will be the Marines&#8217; primary fighter, and will provide a unique combination of capabilities: stealth, supersonic speed, STOVL basing flexibility and network-enabled mission systems.


----------



## publicprotector

How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.


----------



## Navy1960

publicprotector said:


> How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.



First of all public, while  your  sentiments are noble none of the things you mentioned are things that the constitution empowers the Federal Govt. to do. However defending this nation is one of the things that is within it's scope of Federal Powers. One more thing to consider here, those  very same aircraft you wish to  cast aside in favor of all that social engineering also provide over 100,000 people and their familes  exactly what you mentioned. Further, those same people then take that money and spend it in the local communites and provide all you mentioned to still more people. So as you can see, when you give someone a job and in this case a job providing for something that the constitution of our nation clearly calls for, you provide those things not only for the people building it but for many many Americans around it. In fact the defense industry as a whole  employs literally millions of people  in active and  subcontracting roles, so how many homes, schools, and healthcare  programs do you think this impacts? I would venture to say a lot.  The bottom line here public is this, your Govt. is not the place to look for those things.


----------



## Xenophon

publicprotector said:


> How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.


Things like this have been done in the past.

The end result was US service people being killed because they had old fashioned and inferior military equipment when an enemy appeared.

You are asking those who fight for you to die in higher numbers to save some beans back home.

Do you believe that is a fair or smart thing to do?


----------



## publicprotector

Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.

Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.

With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.


----------



## Xenophon

publicprotector said:


> Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. *Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.*


The falicity of your thinking is inherent in the highlighted part.

It is NOT the job of the federal government to provide 'teachers, doctors & builders'.

It IS to provide *FOR THE COMMON DEFENSE*.


----------



## Navy1960

publicprotector said:


> Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.
> 
> Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.
> 
> With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.



Those mindless bots as you call them have given you everything from the microwave oven, to the ability to ride safely in an Airplane when you travel. So sometimes it might not be such sound logic to just beat those swords into plowshares.  The economy is not a result of  military overspending , while I agree the DoD can use a little house cleaning when it comes to waste and abuse.   You fail to see the  point being made here, and that is that all the things you wish for our federal govt. is not empowered to give you. If you wish these things,  then my suggestion is that you go and work hard and aquire them. That is a concept that is lost on most Americans these day's  and frankly it does not surprise me much that many would believe as you do that the Federal Govt. is there to provide all the things in life you yourself should be able to provide for yourself.  These fine people that work in the defense industry do so to provide those very things you wish someone to provide you and other for for free and also make things that not only defend this nation which is a constitutional duty of the Govt.  but also benefit  each and every person in this nation even if it is to proivde you with the ability to express your opinion in a Free Manner.


----------



## Navy1960

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OuAc4AISWw&NR=1]YouTube - F-22 Canceled or Dead Japan start the Mitsubishi ATD X ShinShin 2009[/ame]

I thought this rather interesting , Japan has expressed an interest in purchasing the F-22  which would have led  to keeping that line open for some time to come.  Further it would have avoided a 167 Million doallr per unit shut down cost that the DoD has agreed to in order to close the line which makes no sense at all.  If you take a close look at this aircraft it looks almost  exactly like the F-22 right down to the thrust vectoring nozzles.


----------



## publicprotector

Well for a start thank Odin I'm not American, but America was doing very well before it was stired from being insular to its current foreign policy. And whilst many Americans work very hard many do not but that has nothing to do with the fact that the country and its people have been highjacked by the TPTB to achieve a certain goal.

The US right now exhibits all the signs of the cold war Soviet Union, masses spent on the military while the infastructure of the country stands still. There is a very large void indeed in the aspirations of the people and what the perps have planned. No amount of hard work or even laziness is goingh to change the destination that the US is now on.

To all intents and purposes the life of the average American has no value other than dying for the perps or working for them. It is a process that has happened many times before and if its anyones fault its the people who are to blame but Americans are not unique in this process. While the waters are muddied to such an extent no one can see who is really to blame for the mess that the US is now in but it is those who have done this many times before.

But events will take their course as they always do and when the US has been thrown on the scrap heap the peprs will move on to aniother nation to start the process all over again.


----------



## Harry Dresden

publicprotector said:


> How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.



yea will keep that in mind....


----------



## geauxtohell

The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game.  Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield. 

In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight. 

The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.  

The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.


----------



## Navy1960

publicprotector said:


> Well for a start thank Odin I'm not American, but America was doing very well before it was stired from being insular to its current foreign policy. And whilst many Americans work very hard many do not but that has nothing to do with the fact that the country and its people have been highjacked by the TPTB to achieve a certain goal.
> 
> The US right now exhibits all the signs of the cold war Soviet Union, masses spent on the military while the infastructure of the country stands still. There is a very large void indeed in the aspirations of the people and what the perps have planned. No amount of hard work or even laziness is goingh to change the destination that the US is now on.
> 
> To all intents and purposes the life of the average American has no value other than dying for the perps or working for them. It is a process that has happened many times before and if its anyones fault its the people who are to blame but Americans are not unique in this process. While the waters are muddied to such an extent no one can see who is really to blame for the mess that the US is now in but it is those who have done this many times before.
> 
> But events will take their course as they always do and when the US has been thrown on the scrap heap the peprs will move on to aniother nation to start the process all over again.



interesting observation  but not a correct one, while the United States is many things  our path and that of the Soviet Unions  are no where close.  What you have proposed this nation do is  is more akin to that style of  Govt. where the the central Govt. provide the things in life that the people are better able to provide for themselves.   That basic premise  of thought in Govt. has been rejected by the United States for over 200 years and up until recently it always has been.  While  all of the worlds powers  daily wish for our demise in one way or another, what I find  interesting most of all they are never short of opnions in pointing out our  problems when their own are always  significantly worse than our's. I would call that deflection  and good way to make one feel better about  one's own nations ill's.  However, I can see why someone in another nation might see the United States especially lately as  a nation that has little to be admired, especially when most of the world  beats it's doors down to emultate the U.S. culture in one form or another.  As for the US Military, I would suggest you take the time to read the constitution of this nation and get a basic understanding of the role our form of Govt. has and what they are empowered to do under it before you suggest a form of Govt. that has demonstrated  with the fall of  the Berlin Wall what providing all those things results in.


----------



## Navy1960

geauxtohell said:


> The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game.  Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.
> 
> In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.
> 
> The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.
> 
> The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.



Do you know geau that same  thing was  said over and over again during the  development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for  ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict  many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as  several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was  more maneuverable and often times  outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking  led the military at one time to abandon the practice of  ACM  and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat.  Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself  engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that.  So while CAS, is a vital mission for  air power it is  only one aspect of air power.


----------



## publicprotector

The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.

But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.

The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.

Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.

You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.

The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.


----------



## geauxtohell

Navy1960 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game.  Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.
> 
> In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.
> 
> The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.
> 
> The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know geau that same  thing was  said over and over again during the  development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for  ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict  many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as  several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was  more maneuverable and often times  outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking  led the military at one time to abandon the practice of  ACM  and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat.  Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself  engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that.  So while CAS, is a vital mission for  air power it is  only one aspect of air power.
Click to expand...


It still boils down to CAS.  If you are in uniform, you are ultimately some form of infantry support whether you like it or not.

And our platforms are still a couple of decades ahead of our closest rivals.


----------



## publicprotector

No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.

The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.

Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.


----------



## Navy1960

publicprotector said:


> The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.
> 
> But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.
> 
> The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.
> 
> Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.
> 
> You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.
> 
> The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.



I take it from your comments  that your from the UK? That would be just a guess on my part based on your  incorrect assumptions as to what this nation was founded upon.  I take much solice  in having served with a number of  your countrymen that I call friends to this day that do not share your sense of hatred for this nation. I do however find it interesting that for someone so terribly disappointed in America and  would blame the worlds ill's upon it would use an american invention to express thoughs views. Tell me, when you start that computer up does it say Microsoft or perhaps Apple or  some sort of copy?  I suppose though one can pick and choose what they hate or don't hate about the United States.  I will attempt one last time to give you a clue about this nation.  This nation is not founded on the principles that a central Govt. is responsible for the basic needs of it's people i.e. housing, healthcare, etc.  However it was founded on the principles that one is Free to worship, work, and  choose their own destiny here.  You see  public , those two things are very different, the latter  assumes that a person is better able to decide for themselves what is best for them and their family and the former assumes the people know no better, thus the reasons why most of Europe constantly suffer though chronic economic  problems and have since the end of WW2.  Think I'm wrong then take a little visit to Spain or Perhaps even closer to you France and ask the young men and women there about 30% of them that cannot find jobs what they think of the socialistic nirvana you love so much. While it's noble for a society to take care of those that cannot take care of themselves, the elderly, and disabled. Those that can and are able to are not served when a Govt. does not allow them seek their own destiny. That is where you and I differ, I believe that a person who has  a desire in life should be able to seek their own destiny and enjoy the fruits of their labor whereas you believe that those fruits should be shared with those that were to lazy to go out and  do for themselves.  As for your other assertions, that's been debated many times and you will find in me someone who recognizes the contributions of EVERY nation to mankinds progress not just someone who would sit here and tell you America is responsible for all the worlds good.  It's too bad you cannot do the same.  In fact, we learned a great deal from our mother country some good and some not so good, but in the end, both our nations were the better for it.  I also recognize that winning as you say invloves the  desires of many nations with a single goal and not just one.  In fact the contributions of  every nation for example WW2 is what won that war not just a single nations  contributions. I find it rather disappointing I suppose when I see someone on here that is part of the blame America first crowd it sort of saddens me a little because those same people enjoy the Freedoms that many Americans and many of your countryman paid for with their lives  but yet don't have the  honor to actually  recognize that.  I may suggest  if you have time to take a ride over the Channel to Normandy and see the  American cemetary there it might help add some perspective and hopefully give you an appreciation that the United States has given much for your  openions.  As for the the military issues  I will point you to this,,,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, *provide for the common defense*, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.. 

Notice it does not say provide for the General Welfare but rather promote!! and  well while the  constitution to you may be just an old  paper to our nation it is the law we live by. So sadly when you look into the Air  in the UK and you see an  RAF-35 flyover try not to think to badly of us as we simply  are providing for your common defense as well.


----------



## Darkwind

DiveCon said:


> i've always felt that they made too many compromises on the F-35 to make it fit so many mission roles
> while the F-22 fully does the role it was designed for



The f-22 has significant operational problems in that it takes (and this is a quote from memory and not an actual number) 35 hours of maintainance for every 10 hours of operations.

I've not looked into the F-35 program...so I can't comment.

But from some of the(admittedly limited) research I've done on the raptor, it isn't worth the cost.


----------



## DiveCon

publicprotector said:


> No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.
> 
> The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.
> 
> Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.


care to actually point out all those "loses" you are claiming?


----------



## Navy1960

geauxtohell said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The emergence of nuclear weaponry makes conventional war between nations a zero sum game.  Thus, the emergence of the asymmetric battlefield.
> 
> In that context, it makes little sense to dump money into an interdiction fighter or the newest and greatest artillery piece that will have little utility in an insurgency fight.
> 
> The money would be better utilized going to current platforms that can provide CAS.
> 
> The Air Force and Navy aviation are having a hard time accepting that their roles have changed, but it's it doesn't change the facts of the matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know geau that same  thing was  said over and over again during the  development of the F-4 Phantom and that resulted in an aircraft that was brought into service with no capability at all for  ACM-Air Combat Maneuvering and no Cannon. With the advent of the Vietnam conflict  many lives were lost as a result of that sort of thinking as  several F-4 Phantoms had to cut and run because they had no cabability to defend themselves against an enemy that was  more maneuverable and often times  outgunned the F-4. In fact that thinking  led the military at one time to abandon the practice of  ACM  and a whole generation of pilots went to war without knowing how to engage in air-to-air combat.  Many lives were lost, and during that War once this thinking was found to be flawed because, the US was more likely to find itself  engaged in all types of combat schools like Top Gun were formed to teach just that.  So while CAS, is a vital mission for  air power it is  only one aspect of air power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It still boils down to CAS.  If you are in uniform, you are ultimately some form of infantry support whether you like it or not.
> 
> And our platforms are still a couple of decades ahead of our closest rivals.
Click to expand...


If I left you with the impression that geau that I as  simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression.  As a former  A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is.  I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter  for many reasons.  The  biggest of which would be  Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio.  While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made  aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's.  However when matched  against  newer offerings  such as the SU-35/37 or the  Euro-Fighter  they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters.  However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22  and in CAS none matches the  F-35's ability.  While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but  will post it here for all to see anyway..

Recent war games conducted for Australia resulted in JSF aircraft being clubbed like baby seals, according to a news report. As you reported, experts have found that the JSF cant turn, cant climb and cant run even versus existing fighters. Russian and Chinese jets are trouncing JSF in simulated war games.

TheHill.com - Joint Strike Fighter program is trillion-dollar boondoggle

Concerns about the F-35's performance have resulted partially from reports of RAND simulations where numerous Russian Sukhoi fighters defeat a handful of F-35s by denying tanker refueling.[47] As a result of these issues the then-Australian defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, requested a formal briefing from the Department of Defence (Australia) on the computer simulation. This briefing stated that the reports of the simulation were inaccurate, and that it did not compare the F-35's performance against that of other aircraft.[48]

The criticism of the F-35 has been dismissed by the Pentagon and manufacturer.[47][49] The USAF has conducted an analysis of the F-35's air-to-air performance against all 4th generation fighter aircraft currently available, and has found the F-35 to be at least four times more effective. Maj Gen Charles R. Davis, USAF, the F-35 program executive officer, has stated that the "F-35 enjoys a significant Combat Loss Exchange Ratio advantage over the current and future air-to-air threats, to include Sukhois".[49] The Russian, Indian, Chinese, and other air forces operate Sukhoi Su-27/30 fighters.

The F-35 will have a helmet mounted cueing system similar to the system already in service with the F-15s, F-16s and F/A-18s,[50] the AN/AAQ-37 Electro Optical Distributed Aperture System that "renders maneuverability irrelevant",[51] and improved data processors.[52] Lockheed Martin claims the F-35 will have turning agility/ability of up to 9 g's and provide close-in or long-range air-to-air combat capability second only to the F-22 Raptor, and superior to all other fighters.[53]
F-35 Lightning II - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Navy1960

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It&#8217;s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22&#8217;s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.

Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html


----------



## Xenophon

Something else to mention in passing, the performance of Russian equipment has been oversated since 1950, when used in actual war it never comes close to the 'projections.'

You mentioned the F 4 earlier Navy, when a gun pod was added (F-4D) the Migs began to lose their edge, and when the fighter schools were opened and turning out pilots, the F-4 was winning by 10-1.

I also remmeber that the F-18 was considered a failure and would always lose to the Russians in the early 80s, and it has been a huge sucess story.


----------



## Navy1960

Xenophon said:


> Something else to mention in passing, the performance of Russian equipment has been oversated since 1950, when used in actual war it never comes close to the 'projections.'
> 
> You mentioned the F 4 earlier Navy, when a gun pod was added (F-4D) the Migs began to lose their edge, and when the fighter schools were opened and turning out pilots, the F-4 was winning by 10-1.
> 
> I also remmeber that the F-18 was considered a failure and would always lose to the Russians in the early 80s, and it has been a huge sucess story.



Good Point Xeno, I recall all the hype surrounding the Mig-25 and how our nation was  way behind which eventually led to the development of the F-15. However after the defection as I recall by a Soviet pilot in the mid 70's and as it turned out the performace was not all it was cracked up to be. This tactic of over stating Russian aircraft abilities  in order  to use that as an excuse to make the US aircraft look obsolete or not needed is not a new tactic and has been used for years. As I recall the F-18 was  thought of as inferior to the Mig-29 and the  SU-27 which as we have seen in the last several years is not the case.  Interesting story about the F-4 ..

The first "Linebacker" aerial bombardment campaign had just started. On 8 May, Navy A-6 Intruders mined Haiphong Harbor. Duke Cunningham and Willie Driscoll were flying escort, when a MiG-17 leapt out of the clouds, firing at Lt. Brian Grant, Cunningham's wingman. Grant broke away, and the MiG fired a heat seeking ATOL missile. As Cunningham and Grant twisted and banked and shook the missile, two more MiGs zoomed past, briefly out of the action. Cunningham turned on the first MiG and took a long-range shot at him with a Sidewinder. It turned hard to elude the missile, but put himself in front of Duke's Phantom. As the other two MiGs returned and began firing, Cunningham stayed focused on his target. He fired a Sidewinder, which locked in and destroyed the MiG. Cunningham and Driscoll didn't have much time to enjoy this victory, since the other two MiG's were right on them. Cunningham sharply turned to escape, damaging his aircraft in the process, only to look up and see the MiG-17 just above. There was no out-turning a MiG-17, but he could out-run it. He ducked into a cloud and fired up his afterburner to give the MiG the slip.
Randy 'Duke' Cunningham: Navy Phantom Pilot, Vietnam Ace, Congressman, Prison Inmate


However my point with the F-4 was to show that not using all oyur resources can lead to thinking that will result  in poor initial design and  loss of life.  That should be a lesson we should keep in mind when it comes to aircraft like the F-22 and the F-35


----------



## EriktheRed

Navy1960 said:


> Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?
> 
> Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.
> 
> Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It&#8217;s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.
> 
> Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.
> 
> Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22&#8217;s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.
> 
> Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.
> 
> 
> Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.
> 
> Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.
> 
> Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
> http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html




Crap, I was going with the F-22 'til I read this.


Edit: I admit myself to be a dumbass. I didn't read this post properly....shit.


----------



## Navy1960

EriktheRed said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?
> 
> Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.
> 
> Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. Its important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.
> 
> Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.
> 
> Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.
> 
> 
> Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.
> 
> Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.
> 
> 
> Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.
> 
> Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.
> 
> Theres a lot more but will leave it to your reading ..
> http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crap, I was going with the F-22 'til I read this.
Click to expand...


Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would  encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes  about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and  all new aircraft go through some sort of  operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews  for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it  turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years.  I would though read the article again as  it's a very positive review of the F-22


----------



## EriktheRed

Navy1960 said:


> Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would  encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes  about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and  all new aircraft go through some sort of  operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews  for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it  turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years.  I would though read the article again as  it's a very positive review of the F-22



Nevermind, I didn't read this properly anyway.


_(this place oughtta have a redface smiley)_


----------



## DiveCon

EriktheRed said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erik overall it's a very positive review of the F-22 and a sound rebuke of the critics including the Washington Post article. I would encourage you to read it once more. The main thrust of the article was to present the assertions made against the F-22 and dispute them which in my opinion was done well. What seems to get lost sometimes about the F-22 is that it is a new aircraft and all new aircraft go through some sort of operational adjustment period. It was not different for the F-15, F-16, F-14, ,, on down in fact the reviews for the Tomcat were so bad when it was first introduced there were howls to have it cancelled and it turned into a a solid performing aircraft for over 25 years. I would though read the article again as it's a very positive review of the F-22
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nevermind, I didn't read this properly anyway.
> 
> 
> _(*this place oughtta have a redface smiley*)_
Click to expand...

  it does


----------



## geauxtohell

Navy1960 said:
			
		

> If I left you with the impression that geau that I as  simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression.  As a former  A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is.  I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter  for many reasons.  The  biggest of which would be  Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio.  While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made  aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's.  However when matched  against  newer offerings  such as the SU-35/37 or the  Euro-Fighter  they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters.  However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22  and in CAS none matches the  F-35's ability.  While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but  will post it here for all to see anyway..



I just don't see the point in dumping a ton of money into the latest and greatest fighter when we already have plenty of platforms that are adequate for the mission at hand.

A decade ago everyone thought the A-10 was going to be scrapped.  Now that aircraft has flies more missions than it can handle.  

It's the same logic with scrapping the Crusader.  It looks cool on paper, but what can it really do that the Palidin can't?


----------



## Navy1960

geauxtohell said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I left you with the impression that geau that I as  simply advocating for the F-22 at the expense of the F-35 that would be the wrong impression.  As a former  A-6 Driver I know full well what CAS is.  I was simply trying to point out that it's not a wise thing to do to eliminate an air to air fighter  for many reasons.  The  biggest of which would be  Air superiority to dominate the other sides air power to the point where it becomes useless in a battle scenerio.  While we have many great airframe currently and when matched against their current rivals they stack up well. The F-15 in fact has never been lost in air combat against any russian made  aircraft from SU-27's to Mig-29's.  However when matched  against  newer offerings  such as the SU-35/37 or the  Euro-Fighter  they tend to show their age a little, especially the F-16 which is outmatched by both of those fighters.  However, none of those comes close in performance to the F-22  and in CAS none matches the  F-35's ability.  While some will point to a recent mock combat sim. by the USAF as an example of the F-35's weakness against the SU-35/37 this has been disputed but  will post it here for all to see anyway..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just don't see the point in dumping a ton of money into the latest and greatest fighter when we already have plenty of platforms that are adequate for the mission at hand.
> 
> A decade ago everyone thought the A-10 was going to be scrapped.  Now that aircraft has flies more missions than it can handle.
> 
> It's the same logic with scrapping the Crusader.  It looks cool on paper, but what can it really do that the Palidin can't?
Click to expand...


While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.


----------



## geauxtohell

Navy1960 said:


> While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.



But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.

The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.  

Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.

The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.  

I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?


----------



## DiveCon

geauxtohell said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.
> 
> The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.
> 
> The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.
> 
> I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?
Click to expand...

the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
look it up, this thing is phenomenal


----------



## Navy1960

geauxtohell said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.
> 
> The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.
> 
> The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.
> 
> I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?
Click to expand...


I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire  DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche"  a lot of money spent on that light scout  helicopter and in the end nothing in the field.  The  A-10 has been around a long time  and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard  with nice  powerful punch for  CAS  i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are  vital for force projection world wide.  Without  a superior  air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete  most of the missions assigned  to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is  homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled  from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away.  In fact  the mission for these types of aircraft is  even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of  aircraft and missles.


----------



## DiveCon

Navy1960 said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.
> 
> The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.
> 
> The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.
> 
> I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire  DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche"  a lot of money spent on that light scout  helicopter and in the end nothing in the field.  The  A-10 has been around a long time  and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard  with nice  powerful punch for  CAS  i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are  vital for force projection world wide.  Without  a superior  air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete  most of the missions assigned  to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is  homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled  from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away.  In fact  the mission for these types of aircraft is  even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of  aircraft and missles.
Click to expand...

but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
too many missions for one airframe


----------



## geauxtohell

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> While I agree to a point that on some weapons systems it's rather pointless to scrap them or retire them before their useful life has expired. Case in point the F-117 , all of them have been retired a full 15 years ahead of their useful lifespan. As for  the F-22 however, it will be replacing aircraft that have been in some cases flying for over 20 years and  who's designs date back over 30.  With the advent of ever more sophisticated EWO capabilities  and SAM's as well as  an increasing number of  nations able to get their hands on 4th generation fighters such as the SU/35. The era of US control of the sky will be a distant memory. While I am not advocating  purchasing  900 F-22's what I am advocating is this nation,  listen to the Air Force  and it's  requirements for  60 more of the aircraft to meet force requirements and even with an additional 60 aircraft that will only be enough to meet moderate  threats.  While the F-35 is a promising aircraft it will not reach it's full potential for  many more years and by that time you will have several new players on the block rendering even that aircraft just one in the crowd.  As I mentioned earlier  several nations would  like to purchase the F-22 from the United States among the RAAF and IDF as well as  Japan. This would  simply mean lifting the ban on exports on the aircraft for those nations. In fact the Australians are less than happy with the F-35 and have even hinted of purchasing the Russian SU-35 if they cannot purchase  the F-22.  They have an old fleet of F-111's  and  to keep the F-22 line open it's a win win all around for this nation to export this aircraft to those friendly nations.  While its simple to say, keep what we have that will work, what people don't understand especially with high performance aircraft is they have a life span window and once that window is reached they become  less effective in their mission.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.
> 
> The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.
> 
> The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.
> 
> I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
> look it up, this thing is phenomenal
Click to expand...


That's a valid reason to not fund it, but I think that is only part of the story.  

The Army was all hot and bothered over this issue, and it is one of the reasons that Shinseki was fired (wrongly I believe).  

At the heart of it was the fact that the Artillery branch wanted the latest and greatest without any real good reason.

On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance.  Mortars are as effective, man portable, and more mission efficient.  

I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

publicprotector said:


> Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.
> 
> Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.
> 
> With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.



ROFLMNAO... Oh GOD!  That's precious...

So the US Military is a 'social program?'  When did that happen?  

The country is on it's knees due PURELY to the same policies for which you're presently advocating.  

A sound defense is not a cost to the culture, as such profits the system by providing a secure environment in which to do business; to raise our families and to be free to spout addleminded socialist BS on message boards.


----------



## DiveCon

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> But the mission you are talking about is essentially non-existant on the modern battlefield.
> 
> The A-10 is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyy past it's prime, and it's the workhorse of the GWOT.
> 
> Meanwhile, the USMC is still buzzing around in AH-1s and the basic rifleman just got the M-4.  I realize we are talking about different branches and funding, but it's relevant to the larger issue.
> 
> The problem with the "listen to the Air Force or Army" line, is that the branches have a poor track record of dumping money into the coolest toys that aren't useful.
> 
> I think Rumsfeld was a bone head, but he was right about the Crusader.  What is the point in having the newest artillery piece when the howitzer crews aren't even firing?
> 
> 
> 
> the crusader was shelved because the N-LOS cannon is due to come out that would make it obsolete
> look it up, this thing is phenomenal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a valid reason to not fund it, but I think that is only part of the story.
> 
> The Army was all hot and bothered over this issue, and it is one of the reasons that Shinseki was fired (wrongly I believe).
> 
> At the heart of it was the fact that the Artillery branch wanted the latest and greatest without any real good reason.
> 
> On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance.  Mortars are as effective, man portable, and more mission efficient.
> 
> I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.
Click to expand...

well, the N-LOS is a remotely controled tracked artillery
and has a remotely control resupply as well
puts fewer men in harms way
also it can fire multiple rounds and have them all hit at the same time
it can adust and fire that quickly


----------



## geauxtohell

Navy1960 said:


> I can't tell you how much I agree with some of your assertions when it comes to purchasing decisions made by the Army recently or the Air Force and the entire  DoD for that matter. Does anyone here remember the "Comanche"  a lot of money spent on that light scout  helicopter and in the end nothing in the field.  The  A-10 has been around a long time  and the F-35 I suspect will finally lead to its retirement because the F-35 comes standard  with nice  powerful punch for  CAS  i.e. 25mm GAU/22A 4 barrel cannon. However I could not disagree with you more on the need for the F-22, in fact air superiorty missions are  vital for force projection world wide.  Without  a superior  air ro air capability for the future we run the risk of being unable to complete  most of the missions assigned  to our various air services. One other vital role these aircraft play is  homeland air defense, a role that has been fillled  from the F100 all the way to the F-15. So yes there is a vital need for these and the mission has not gone away.  In fact  the mission for these types of aircraft is  even more critical with the sheer number of counties able to aquire ever more sophisticated types of  aircraft and missles.



I agree that air to air is always going to be essential, but the fact it makes little sense to drop a bunch of money into the latest and greatest air to air platform when we are already decades ahead of our rivals.  

When is the last time an aircraft was shot down? We are clearly not suffering for lack of projection.  In the meantime, three guys with RPGs, AK-47s, and left over soviet mines can stymie an entire battalion.   

At the root of all this lies frivelous spending by those in the military who aren't in touch with reality.  Why do the Marines get 3% of the Navy dollar when they are shouldering 97% of mission requirements?


----------



## PubliusInfinitum

geauxtohell said:


> ...
> On the modern battlefield, the entire artillery branch is trying to find relevance.  Mortars are as effective, man portable, and *more mission efficient*.
> 
> I think at the root of a lot of this are old dogs that can't admit they need to learn new tricks.



ROFL... Well that depends on the mission...   Mortars are fine where one has a weapons unit within range of the target.  Artillery simply provides for a broader IDF AO...  and by no small margin.

I was an 81mm gunner and while it's been 30 years since I fired one, if memory serves the 81 had an ER of +/-5 km...  It's my understanding they're running a 120mm mortar now, but it comes, as was argued in my day when it was being discussed THEN, with mobility issues...   

But if you're 5 or 6 klicks down wind of a mortar battery, you're GTG...  however, you can roam 6 times that if you've a 155 battery in the neighborhood and get excellent IDF support.  

This notion that IDF systems are antiquated is pretty much the same crap that was being touted in the early 90s  just before the first gulf war.  

At the time they were arguing about the Abrams tank... and I heard countless 'experts' tell us how 'the days of the MBT were long gone...' that the 'M1 was designed to combat the Soviets in the fields of eastern Europe and now tha tthe Soviets were our friends, there's just no need for such a platform; that the new systems would be lighter, faster and so on...

Well, we know how long that nonsense lasted.  The MBT was a rock star and as a result it's foreseeable future cemented...  Arty guys are the unsung heros... they bust their ASSES drilling day in and out and no one sees it...  its a deafening job, where everything weighs on the "TONS" scale, it's hot, dusty, muddy, rainy, cold, wet and miserable... and they are nearly always there to rain down the death when ya need it most.  

I also think the F35 is a series of absurd compromises... The AF should recognize that the A10 platform is PERFECT for what it does... they don't need to build hundred million dollar jets to do its job...  It's a subsonic, low and slow anchor with a massive punch...  

They could build DOZENS of new A10s or A10 type platforms for what one of the F35s cost; which, given a more powerful, fuel efficient  powerplant, electronics and perhaps some airframe tweaks, would out perform the state of the art; because you don't NEED STATE OF THE ART FOR THAT MISSION.  What ya need is RELIABLE AIRCRAFT, ROLLING ON and STAYING ON TARGET for as long as needed.

I'm sure they're going to buy it and I'm sure its going to cost a freakin' FORTUNE to UN-COMMITTEE the thing and make it worth havin'...


----------



## geauxtohell

DiveCon said:


> but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
> and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
> too many missions for one airframe



That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.

The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform.  It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.  

In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?


----------



## DiveCon

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
> and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
> too many missions for one airframe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.
> 
> The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform.  It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.
> 
> In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?
Click to expand...

the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky


----------



## geauxtohell

DiveCon said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> but i have heard that the F-35 doesnt even come close to doing the A-10's mission
> and that was due to the compromises they made to make the F-35 also do some of the missions of the AV8B and the F-16
> too many missions for one airframe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.
> 
> The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform.  It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.
> 
> In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
> without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky
Click to expand...


So does the F-35.

Again, at the root of this are a bunch of fighther jocks struggling to find their relevance on the modern battlefield and going in the complete opposite direction.


----------



## asaratis

publicprotector said:


> How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.





publicprotector said:


> Yes and those 100000 could be put to work doing far more worthwhile things than weapons of war. More money is spent on the military than any other social program. Right now the US need teachers, doctors, builders etc. not idiots making more weapons and more idiots to us them.
> 
> Given that the country is practically on its knees just what is the logic of producing more and more weaspons especially as it dose nothing to protcet the US or its people. America and its people have been led ibto a trap that it cannot get out of.
> 
> With all the social plans being cut, tens of thousands losing their homes, crime rampant, health and education going down the pan and yet we have people slavering over weapons of war like mindless bots.





publicprotector said:


> The Constitution or that goddam bit of paper is just that a bit of paper. The founding fathers wishing to be free of the mother country never achieved same, it was a trick an illusion by the power brokers who led the simple folk to believe that they had won and were therefore free of the controls of the Uk.
> 
> But in reality that never happened, the US was up for sale and the Uk bought it lock stock and barrel. Like a play that was written it has been acted out with the cast and the audience believeing that they are free of any interuptions or influence. but that is not the case.
> 
> The Constitution was pure theatre, an illusionists set of props to beguile the people and this has been so since it was written. And where is the Constitution now? its called the Patriot Act but the one and the other are the same, rules set down in which to control the people, nothing changes, the perps control all and have done so for so long.
> 
> Its all nonsense, politics this party that party, its all irrelevant as these things are merely the stage sets that the perps use to hoodwink us all. So while you slaver over some new jet fighter and believe your country needs it people are starving for want of the basic things in life. But you don't care because it dose not affect you at this moment in time. Its an American sickness, better to have guns and bullets rather than food, better to die defending the indefensible than to live.
> 
> You would think with all the American failures in war that the truth would start to hit home but it has not, you must ask yourself why. Why is it that a nation that claims to be the strongest on the planet keeps losing, can you understand that concept? I have heard all the excuses under the sun from Americans yet it still does not provide the answer as to why you fail.
> 
> The simple answer is that you are not designed to win just as the perps who set up ww1 and ww2 knew who would be the winners and who would be the losers well before the first shot was fired. Its not rocket science and all the clues and answers are there you just have to look. Nothing is random and all things are connected.





publicprotector said:


> No they are not, ahead of what, Iraq, Iran? When are Americans going to realise that their military is not as good or advanced as they think it is. And that aside such technology does not help you win wars does it. For all your alleged technology your failure rate in open conflict is quite astounding. I cannot think of any other nation that has lost as many times as the US has. You talk the talk but you cannot walk the walk to use one of your lines.
> 
> The belief in ones superiority compared to reality are miles apart proof of which is in the aforementioned. The constant failure of your forces in the field must come as a shock compared to the drooling over weapons systems that you cannot even afford.
> 
> Time to bring what you call those troops home and live on the farm, you have neither the will or capacity to win so quit while your ahead.



Spoken like a true pacifist.  Blessed  are the meek,  for they shall inherit slavery.

This thread was started to compare two aircraft as candidates for use in defending our freedoms against other countries that would use weapons to take them away.  Why shouldn't we pay for the best we can manufacture?

Your proposal to substitute social giveaways to those that would be satisfied with not having to work for a living for the common defense of their right to sit on their asses is inexplicably flawed by lack of reason.  If taken over by the right country, such people may be executed for not volunteering to work in the rice fields for the common good of the government.  All we need do is provide our military with less than the best.

I vote for the F-22 Raptor.  I have long admired birds of prey.


----------



## DiveCon

geauxtohell said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because the A-10 is flying for it's primary mission, air to ground support.
> 
> The F-35 is primarily an air to air platform. It had to be retrofitted to even be useful in the GWOT.
> 
> In that light, what sense does it make to upgrade our air to air capabilities?
> 
> 
> 
> the F-22 gives you the ability to fly ANY other aircraft to do the close in support
> without the worry someone else would shoot the better ground support aircraft out of the sky
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does the F-35.
> 
> Again, at the root of this are a bunch of fighther jocks struggling to find their relevance on the modern battlefield and going in the complete opposite direction.
Click to expand...

the F-35 does not do the air superiority as well
quite frankly, it doesn't do ANY of its missions as well as the aircraft it is replacing


----------



## Navy1960

Well a lot's been said , so rather than address each one and clog up the thread, I will try say a few things here. One is the F-35 is a design more along the lines of the F-18 when it comes to mission capabilites with the noted exception of the F-35B which is the Marine Corps variant which is set to not only replace the FA-18 but also the AV-8B. So it is a mult-role aricraft Dive so by it's very nature  it will not  have all the capabilities of the A-10 when it comes to the CAS roles but what it lacks in lead on the ground it makes up for in speed to target, and the ability to fill other roles.  This is not a lack of capabilites it is an enhancement. While not an advocate of using the F-35 as an all around solution for every role because it is not a match for the F-22 in the air to air envelope , I am an advocate for the F-35 as part of an overall solution in conjunction with the F-22.  As I have stated earlier  the F-22 pattern for which ALL 5th generation fighters are based on.  So it makes no sense to simply ride ourselves or the worlds premier fighter and the DoD should listen to the warfighters for a change as to what they want in the field rather than some  appointee who's interests do not reflect the wishes of the  warfighter. Perhaps, that is the main reason the Marine Corps, Navy, Army, Air Force, etc are always begging congress for  new  systems and billions are being spent with no results because DoD never actually listens to the needs of the actual warfighter.  Want an example, for years now  all services  have been literally begging on bended knee's for a replacement for the KC-135 and for years  the contract has been rewarded and then cancelled at the cost of billions while the  warfighters still limp along with a 50 year old airframe.  So yes, the F-22 is a vital asset if only because the Air Force as  said that it requires an additional 60 to meet its  requirements for a MEDIUM THREAT and that assesment is taking into account a full inventory of  1200 F-35's.  In fact the Air Force told congress 3 years ago it does NOT need any additional C-130's and  congress forced the Air Force to purchase  an additional 18 of them to keep the line open. See what I mean? The same goes for the C-17, our global air lift capacity while  used  is very much under utilized. So while we continue to purchase  airlifters we ignore  force projection vehicles like the F-22 and the F-35. 

As for ther assertion of air to air kills... 

A total of 6 MiG-29s were shot down of which 4 MiG-29s were shot down by USAF F-15C, 1 by USAF F-16CJ or friendly fire MANPADS and one by Dutch F-16AM.[29][30] Others were destroyed on the ground and one crash landed and was later destroyed as it was placed as a decoy

May 3, 1999 (by Lieven Dewitte) - A U.S. Air Force F-16 fighter shot down a Yugoslav MiG-29 jet Mondaynight after the MiG rose to challenge the American warplane during NATO bombing raids The Russian-built fighter jet was downed near the border between Serbia and Bosnia
http://www.f-16.net/news_article213.html

The USAF deployed F-15C, D and E models to the Persian Gulf in 1991 in support of Operation Desert Storm where they accounted for 36 of the 39 Air Force air-to-air victories. F-15Es were operated mainly at night, hunting modified SCUD missile launchers and artillery sites using the LANTIRN system.[33] According to the USAF, its F-15Cs had 34 confirmed kills of Iraqi aircraft during the 1991 Gulf War, mostly by missile fire: five MiG-29 "Fulcrums", two MiG-25 "Foxbats", eight MiG-23 "Floggers", two MiG-21 "Fishbeds", two Su-25 "Frogfoots", four Su-22 "Fitters", one Su-7, six Mirage F1s, one Il-76 cargo plane, one Pilatus PC-9 trainer, and two Mi-8 helicopters. After air superiority was achieved in the first three days of the conflict, many of the later kills were reportedly of Iraqi aircraft fleeing to Iran, rather than actively trying to engage U.S. aircraft. The single-seat F-15C was used for air superiority, and the F-15E was heavily used in air-to-ground attacks. An F-15E achieved an aerial kill of another Iraqi Mi-8 helicopter using a laser-guided bomb during the air war. The F-15E sustained two losses to ground fire in the Gulf War in 1991.[34] Another one was damaged on the ground by a SCUD strike on Dhahran air base.[35]



USAF F-15 Eagle videoThey have since been deployed to support Operation Southern Watch, the patrolling of the No-Fly Zone in Southern Iraq; Operation Provide Comfort in Turkey; in support of NATO operations in Bosnia, and recent air expeditionary force deployments. In 1994, two U.S. Army UH-60 Black Hawks were downed by USAF F-15Cs who thought they were Iraq Hinds in the Northern no-fly zone of Iraq in a friendly fire incident.[36] USAF F-15Cs shot down four Yugoslav MiG-29s using AIM-120 missiles during NATO's 1999 intervention in Kosovo, Operation Allied Force.[34]

The F-15 in all air forces had an air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat as of February 2008.[37] To date, no air superiority versions of the F-15 (A/B/C/D models) have ever been shot down by enemy forces. Over half of the F-15's kills were made by Israeli Air Force pilots.
F-15 Eagle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I think to simply dismiss the idea that air to air combat is this myth of the past is to not know the actual situation. While  there are several things that can be done to reduce the amount of waste at the DoD not listening to the Air Force when it comes to defense needs is not one of them.  Further  as I have suggested, if the Administration and others are so intent at not permitting our military to have the finest air superiority fighter ever built in the numbers needed then lift the export ban on nations that have shown an interest in it so that the line will remain open to fill Air Force  needs should the arise.


----------



## Navy1960

Compared to the JSF, the F-22 Raptor is indeed larger in size and internal volume. Nevertheless, the F-22 suffers from one key limitation. Its center bays were designed around the AIM-120 AMRAAM that is only about 12 ft (3.65 m) in length and has a maximum fin span of about 1.5 ft (0.45 m). These dimensions are quite sufficient for the aircraft's primary role as an air superiority fighter. However, the end of the Cold War forced the Air Force to change priorities and give the F-22 a stronger ground attack capability. Unfortunately, most air-to-ground weapons are significantly longer, wider, taller, and heavier than the AIM-120, making it difficult to integrate such weapons into the F-22 bays. The only weapon that has been integrated so far is the GBU-32 JDAM, a GPS-guided bomb that is about 10 ft (3.05 m) in length and is based on the 1,000 lb (455 kg) Mk-83 general purpose bomb.

Most air-to-surface weapons are in the 2,000-lb (910 kg) class, however, but these weapons are usually around 12.5 to 14 ft (3.80 to 4.25 m) long and too large to fit within the F-22. Bearing these limitations in mind, JSF designers purposefully sized the two internal bays around these larger 2,000-lb class weapons. The two weapons that have predominantly dictated the overall length and depth of the bays are the AGM-154 JSOW and the GBU-31 2,000 lb (910 kg) version of JDAM.



F-35 weapons bay
Each bay contains two weapons stations, as shown above. Air-to-ground stores like JSOW and JDAM are carried on the outboard station. Air-to-air weapons can also be carried in this position but are carried primarily on the inboard station that is specifically dedicated to that purpose. One of the unique features of the design is that the air-to-air station swings out on a hinged rail as the inboard bay door opens.

The list of weapons that the JSF will carry when it enters service has not yet been finalized. However, it has been decided that all variants will be cleared to carry the same selection of weapons regardless of whether or not each user actually intends to arm its planes with that weapon. For example, the Navy CV variant will be cleared to carry the Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD) even though only the Air Force has that weapon in its inventory. Similarly, all US aircraft will be compatible with the ASRAAM air-to-air missile that only the United Kingdom plans to carry on its planes. The decision to clear all variants with the same weapon loads was made in order to simplify integration requirements, maintain commonality, and lower overall development costs. Note that the above statements are no longer entirely true since the bays of the F-35B STOVL version have been reduced in size as mentioned earlier. As a result, the F-35B is no longer compatible with JSOW and 2,000 lb JDAM weapons. The largest weapon this F-35 variant can carry internally is the GBU-32 1,000 lb version of JDAM. A list of the weapons that are currently planned for internal carriage on the F-35 is shown below.



F-35 internal weapons
Not included in this diagram are weapons in source selection as of this writing that are to be added to the internal carriage list. These weapons include the American GBU-39 Small Diameter Bomb, of which four can be carried on the air-to-ground station in each bay, and a new 500 lb laser guided bomb for the British (ultimately won by the Paveway IV). Another possible addition is a new variant of JDAM being considered by the US that will add a digital scene matching capability for improved accuracy.

The F-35 also has six external pylons, three under each wing. The inboard station is designed for up to 5,000 lb (2,265 kg) loads and will most likely be used to carry external fuel tanks. The pylon can carry 2000-lb class air-to-ground weapons as well. The midboard pylon is also primarily intended for air-to-ground weapons and can carry up to 2,500 lb (1,135 kg). The surface attack weapons compatible with these two pylons include many of the same ones carried internally as well as additional stores that are too large to fit in the bays. The outboard station on each wing, however, is a dedicated air-to-air station carrying up to 300 lb (135 kg) and designed specifically for short-range infrared guided missiles like AIM-9X Sidewinder. A list of weapons currently planned for external carriage is illustrated below. Note that training bombs have not been included in this list.
Aerospaceweb.org | Ask Us - F-35 JSF Weapon Carriage Capacity

While I find myself in the position of having to defend both these airframes, so be it. The A-10 is a robust CAS airframe that has filled and continues to fill it's mission well. However the F-35  was not intended to fill the A-10 mission alone and was designed to fill a  number of rolls.  When you look at the weapons stores list, the F-35 is NO whimp when it comes to the ability to deliver lead on target.  While  I do agree that if the  call was  for a pure CAS aircraft  it would make sense  to take a look at a  A-10 follow-on and  this idea is a a good one if you want my opinion. However, given the current purchasing environment , I would urge  you all who dismiss the F-35 to take a look at it again. Especially the F-35B which in my opinion represents  the best in aviation innovation. 
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKp4S5jvDLg&feature=related]YouTube - F 35B Vertical Take Off and Landing[/ame]


----------



## geauxtohell

Navy1960 said:


> I think to simply dismiss the idea that air to air combat is this myth of the past is to not know the actual situation. While  there are several things that can be done to reduce the amount of waste at the DoD not listening to the Air Force when it comes to defense needs is not one of them.  Further  as I have suggested, if the Administration and others are so intent at not permitting our military to have the finest air superiority fighter ever built in the numbers needed then lift the export ban on nations that have shown an interest in it so that the line will remain open to fill Air Force  needs should the arise.



Again, I've never advocated abandoning air to air.  My point is that it has taken a major back seat to CAS and we have sufficient air to air capabilities right now.  

In that light, it makes little sense to upgrade our air to air platforms.  

What makes sense is to configure ourselves to a disposition that matches the sitation we are in.  In that light, A10s, spectres, and drones are where the money should go.  Even tactical lift and logitistics are in much higher demand than air to air.

The  root of this is that figher pilots are the cream of the crop in the air force, and they are having a hard time admitting that they are quickly losing their relevance on the modern battlefield.  Of course the Air Force wants the F-22, what is it going to do with itself if it admits that air to air is no longer high priority.

As for lockheed, I am not sympathetic to their financial loss.  They know their business and they know they aren't 100% in control of their business.  That's just the way it goes.


----------



## Navy1960

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tSTB7U_qlTM]YouTube - Long Burst[/ame]

I thought you all might like to take a look at the GAU-12 which is currently deployed in the AV-8B and is similar  to the weapon that will be in the F-35. The only difference is the F-35 version will contain a system that puts more lead on target than the GAU-12.

As for your assertion geau, while I respect your opinion, I could not disagree with you more on the need for upgrading our air to air capability.  This same kind of thinking has led to the Air Force stuck with the KC-135  for all these years " it's good enough"  or  "we can use what we have now" kind of thinking has led to airframes that have flown long past their useful lives. Further, I have illustrated that air to air engagements have not simply disappeared in recent times.  In fact if you look at the life cycle of the F-15 it has been a very busy air superiority fighter. It makes no sense what so ever to just abandon the principles of air to air engagements and concentrate on this one size fits all mentality. While I advocate both platforms, I would be a strong supporter of a follow-on for the A-10 which has been a  very successful aircraft.


----------



## Navy1960

The debate is now heating up on this issue in congress and it's been interesting to watch the number of Sen. that are on one side or the other of killing the F-22. I cannot believe I actually find myself in agreement with Chris Dodd on this issue and his claims on the Senate floor tend to reflect  my own when it comes to the F-22. The Air Force wants it, it's good for employment, and good for the nation, and the only people that don't want it are the Administration and it's appointee's.  He makes a really good case that to use the F-35 as a substitute for the F-22 is a complete mistake and I agree with him.


----------



## DiveCon

Navy1960 said:


> The debate is now heating up on this issue in congress and it's been interesting to watch the number of Sen. that are on one side or the other of killing the F-22. I cannot believe I actually find myself in agreement with Chris Dodd on this issue and his claims on the Senate floor tend to reflect  my own when it comes to the F-22. The Air Force wants it, it's good for employment, and good for the nation, and the only people that don't want it are the Administration and it's appointee's.  He makes a really good case that to use the F-35 as a substitute for the F-22 is a complete mistake and I agree with him.


chalk it up to broken clock syndrome


----------



## DiveCon

washingtonpost.com

oh well


----------



## Navy1960

Dive my firm is in the process of writing an article for  the one of our Aviation trade publications  that hopefully will encourage  congress to lift the  ban on exports on this aircraft so that at least they can export it to Australia or Israel or perhaps Japan in order to keep this vital asset alive. If the DoD and the administration are intent on killing it for the Air Force and not listening to the warfighters and  purchase more C-17's to add to an already over capacity of airlift capability and yet deny  air to air capability at the expense of almost 95,000 jobs then they should  listen to voices that insist that the export ban be lifted to take away the excuse that it will impact the deficit.


----------



## DiveCon

Navy1960 said:


> Dive my firm is in the process of writing an article for  the one of our Aviation trade publications  that hopefully will encourage  congress to lift the  ban on exports on this aircraft so that at least they can export it to Australia or Israel or perhaps Japan in order to keep this vital asset alive. If the DoD and the administration are intent on killing it for the Air Force and not listening to the warfighters and  purchase more C-17's to add to an already over capacity of airlift capability and yet deny  air to air capability at the expense of almost 95,000 jobs then they should  listen to voices that insist that the export ban be lifted to take away the excuse that it will impact the deficit.


actually, i'm more pissed that we have a congress that is unfriendly to our military more than i'm worried about the manufacturers


----------



## Navy1960

DiveCon said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dive my firm is in the process of writing an article for  the one of our Aviation trade publications  that hopefully will encourage  congress to lift the  ban on exports on this aircraft so that at least they can export it to Australia or Israel or perhaps Japan in order to keep this vital asset alive. If the DoD and the administration are intent on killing it for the Air Force and not listening to the warfighters and  purchase more C-17's to add to an already over capacity of airlift capability and yet deny  air to air capability at the expense of almost 95,000 jobs then they should  listen to voices that insist that the export ban be lifted to take away the excuse that it will impact the deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, i'm more pissed that we have a congress that is unfriendly to our military more than i'm worried about the manufacturers
Click to expand...


Dive, this is nothing new for congress  and DoD who have shown little ability in the last 20 years to deliver  weapons systems to the warfighter. They have shown a great abililty to spend money with no results, the landscape is littered with programs like the comanche, crusader cannon, Presidential helicopter, Air Force Tanker, A-12, etc etc. the list is endless of billions of dollars spent  for nothing and a congress that NEVER listens to the actual warfighters  that express the needs  but would rather listen to appointees  and run with it.  In fact look at the US Navy and the debacle  that the Litoral Combat Ship has turned into, and the recent penchant on the Navy's part for taking ships like the Spruance Class and sinking them all when the life cycle of half the ships was no where close to an end or selling off the Oliver Hazard Perry Class Frigates to nations like Pakistan and others  because the Navy has  said those are not needed as well. This is just a small illustration of a congress that has  no clue how to give the warfighter the tools needed to perform the job and a DoD thats more interested in kissing the current Administrations backside than listening to the needs of the warfighters.  So as another suggestion what I believe the DoD should do is bring the F-117 out of mothballs that they retired 10 years to early in favor of the F-22 and use those to fill in the gaps  that will be in place  until the F-35 comes online.  At least that will keep employee's on the line and provide defense needs for the time being.


----------



## mightypeon

Well, once Germany became relativly lax in its "who do we export our weapons to" regulations, quality of new developments significantly increased.
The Leopard 2 for example was, until the 2A6 version, slightly inferior (duel situation, this tanks never faced of in battles) to both the M1A2 and the T-90, however the continuing demands from the quite numerous countries using Leopards enabled the relativly small KMW arms company to catch up and even surpass current Russian or US technology on the ground.
Leopard 2 based advancements were also used in the construction of the PzH2000, the most modern SP Artillery Howitzer today. 
As the only competitor coming close to it comes from Russia (bear in mind that the current state of the art Russian artillery system is also a generation or 2 ahead of the American M109, the Russians have a good system, but beeing Russian rules them out for most Nato countries), the PzH will propably become an other significant success like the Leopard 2.
I was an Artillery jock so I am propably biased, but in the case of a limited conventional conflict like in Georgia, Americas inferiority in Artillery may cost them a lot (well, a single PZH2000 has the firepower of 4 M109, moves faster, has to be hit directly to be destroyed, has MRSI and excellent shoot and scoot capacity... Well, it also weighs about as much as an MBT but you cant have everything), especially if modern and competently used ground based air defense systems hamper their aerial superiority.


----------



## ekrem

mightypeon said:


> Well, once Germany became relativly lax in its "who do we export our weapons to" regulations, quality of new developments significantly increased.
> The Leopard 2 for example was, until the 2A6 version, slightly inferior (duel situation, this tanks never faced of in battles) to both the M1A2 and the T-90, however the continuing demands from the quite numerous countries using Leopards enabled the relativly small KMW arms company to catch up and even surpass current Russian or US technology on the ground.
> Leopard 2 based advancements were also used in the construction of the PzH2000, the most modern SP Artillery Howitzer today.
> As the only competitor coming close to it comes from Russia (bear in mind that the current state of the art Russian artillery system is also a generation or 2 ahead of the American M109, the Russians have a good system, but beeing Russian rules them out for most Nato countries), the PzH will propably become an other significant success like the Leopard 2.
> I was an Artillery jock so I am propably biased, but in the case of a limited conventional conflict like in Georgia, Americas inferiority in Artillery may cost them a lot (well, a single PZH2000 has the firepower of 4 M109, moves faster, has to be hit directly to be destroyed, has MRSI and excellent shoot and scoot capacity... Well, it also weighs about as much as an MBT but you cant have everything), especially if modern and competently used ground based air defense systems hamper their aerial superiority.



Turkey did order 116 F-35, with currently workshare of Turkish firms being somewhere at 6 Billion $. Very likely Turkey will order even more replaceing the F-4's in the inventory, they where modernized in the last years together with workshare by Israelian Aerospace Industries, but at 2020 this old airframe will be out of service.

The Turkish Armed Forces has initiated a $160 billion (excluding the yearly military budget) modernization program in 1997. $45 billion is earmarked to go to the overhaul of the Turkish Air Force.
Turkish Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the next decade, as orders currently stand:
116 F-35
240 F-16 CCIP
52 F-4E 2020 Terminator
104 	F-4E Phantom II
39 	RF-4E Phantom II
43 	F-5 2000

The Turkish Airforce will not order any Eurofighter or any other aircraft except F-35. 
Eurofighter offered Turkey 9 Billion $ workshare for Turkish Industry, if Turkey orders 120 Eurofighter.
Turkey Receives Final Offer for Eurofighter Typhoon
Economically, participating in Eurofighter project is better. So if Turkey does reject Eurofighter and goes for F-35 instead, it means F-35 is the best option available from view of Turkey, haveing the expertise of being one of the largest Airforces in the world. F-35 will be the workhrse of Turkish Airforce in the next decades.

Off course F-22 is better, but it is not available for export. F-35 is anyway good.


----------



## DiveCon

ekrem said:


> mightypeon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, once Germany became relativly lax in its "who do we export our weapons to" regulations, quality of new developments significantly increased.
> The Leopard 2 for example was, until the 2A6 version, slightly inferior (duel situation, this tanks never faced of in battles) to both the M1A2 and the T-90, however the continuing demands from the quite numerous countries using Leopards enabled the relativly small KMW arms company to catch up and even surpass current Russian or US technology on the ground.
> Leopard 2 based advancements were also used in the construction of the PzH2000, the most modern SP Artillery Howitzer today.
> As the only competitor coming close to it comes from Russia (bear in mind that the current state of the art Russian artillery system is also a generation or 2 ahead of the American M109, the Russians have a good system, but beeing Russian rules them out for most Nato countries), the PzH will propably become an other significant success like the Leopard 2.
> I was an Artillery jock so I am propably biased, but in the case of a limited conventional conflict like in Georgia, Americas inferiority in Artillery may cost them a lot (well, a single PZH2000 has the firepower of 4 M109, moves faster, has to be hit directly to be destroyed, has MRSI and excellent shoot and scoot capacity... Well, it also weighs about as much as an MBT but you cant have everything), especially if modern and competently used ground based air defense systems hamper their aerial superiority.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Turkey did order 116 F-35, with currently workshare of Turkish firms being somewhere at 6 Billion $. Very likely Turkey will order even more replaceing the F-4's in the inventory, they where modernized in the last years together with workshare by Israelian Aerospace Industries, but at 2020 this old airframe will be out of service.
> 
> The Turkish Armed Forces has initiated a $160 billion (excluding the yearly military budget) modernization program in 1997. $45 billion is earmarked to go to the overhaul of the Turkish Air Force.
> Turkish Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> In the next decade, as orders currently stand:
> 116 F-35
> 240 F-16 CCIP
> 52 F-4E 2020 Terminator
> 104 	F-4E Phantom II
> 39 	RF-4E Phantom II
> 43 	F-5 2000
> 
> The Turkish Airforce will not order any Eurofighter or any other aircraft except F-35.
> Eurofighter offered Turkey 9 Billion $ workshare for Turkish Industry, if Turkey orders 120 Eurofighter.
> Turkey Receives Final Offer for Eurofighter Typhoon
> Economically, participating in Eurofighter project is better. So if Turkey does reject Eurofighter and goes for F-35 instead, it means F-35 is the best option available from view of Turkey, haveing the expertise of being one of the largest Airforces in the world. F-35 will be the workhrse of Turkish Airforce in the next decades.
> 
> Off course F-22 is better, but it is not available for export. F-35 is anyway good.
Click to expand...

or Turkey wants better relations with the USA after stabbing us in the back over Iraq
it could be purely political


----------



## ekrem

DiveCon said:


> or Turkey wants better relations with the USA after stabbing us in the back over Iraq
> it could be purely political



The end-user is the Airforce. Who orders the aircrafts is the government. The government does not order something which the airforce does not want. You can be sure, that the Airforce makes decisions up on technical questions.

Turkish Airforce did already test 3 Eurofighter in Italy:
Turkey May Buy Eurofighters

The airforce prefers F-35. So F-35 must be good.


----------



## DiveCon

ekrem said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> 
> or Turkey wants better relations with the USA after stabbing us in the back over Iraq
> it could be purely political
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The end-user is the Airforce. Who orders the aircrafts is the government. The government does not order something which the airforce does not want. You can be sure, that the Airforce makes decisions up on technical questions.
> 
> Turkish Airforce did already test 3 Eurofighter in Italy:
> Turkey May Buy Eurofighters
> 
> The airforce prefers F-35. So F-35 must be good.
Click to expand...

that doesnt mean that politics had no part in it


----------



## The T

DiveCon said:


> Navy1960 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dive my firm is in the process of writing an article for the one of our Aviation trade publications that hopefully will encourage congress to lift the ban on exports on this aircraft so that at least they can export it to Australia or Israel or perhaps Japan in order to keep this vital asset alive. If the DoD and the administration are intent on killing it for the Air Force and not listening to the warfighters and purchase more C-17's to add to an already over capacity of airlift capability and yet deny air to air capability at the expense of almost 95,000 jobs then they should listen to voices that insist that the export ban be lifted to take away the excuse that it will impact the deficit.
> 
> 
> 
> actually, i'm more pissed that we have a congress that is unfriendly to our military more than i'm worried about the manufacturers
Click to expand...

 
(And A POTUS, I might add?)?


----------



## BolshevikHunter

publicprotector said:


> How about scrapping both of them and use the money to provide homes, education and health for those that need it. Would that not be the logical thing to do in a bankrupt nation.



How about you remove your head from your behind you idiot. After Red China defeated us I am sure they would provide a home, education and health care for all you lazy bums. You people are clearly mentally ill. You have been standing on the shoulders of better Men since the beginning of time you gutless weak coward. Get off your lazy ass and provide for your families yourself. We will make sure that we have the means to defend ourselves because everything else comes after that you stoned idiot. Smoke up Johnny!







~BH


----------



## BolshevikHunter

This administration is lawless and out of control. This put's us all in danger. We need the F-22 for the future conflict with Red China. ~BH


----------



## Luissa

F 22, I think I had one buzz my tower while on my brother's ranch in Wyomning. They have war games or whatever around where he lived and would fly below radar as they say. Just say I could read the number on the bottom of the aircraft. I almost pissed my pants when he broke the sound barrier.


----------



## DiveCon

Luissa said:


> F 22, I think I had one buzz my tower while on my brother's ranch in Wyomning. They have war games or whatever around where he lived and would fly below radar as they say. Just say I could read the number on the bottom of the aircraft. I almost pissed my pants when he broke the sound barrier.


how long ago was this?


----------



## Luissa

DiveCon said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> F 22, I think I had one buzz my tower while on my brother's ranch in Wyomning. They have war games or whatever around where he lived and would fly below radar as they say. Just say I could read the number on the bottom of the aircraft. I almost pissed my pants when he broke the sound barrier.
> 
> 
> 
> how long ago was this?
Click to expand...

about eight years ago. they still do it in wyomning where my brother lives because there is no one out there. I think they fly out of Rapid or something. It might not have been F 22's but I thought that was what they were.


----------



## cunclusion

I think we need to focus more on F35's the fact it can be used by various departments within our military. We need to use history as a basis for our possible future engagement with China:

In WWII the Germans had a more advance tanks than the Allies especially the Western allies but they were beat by sheer number of tanks on the battlefield. While on the Eastern front it was a combination of both technology and number. Now based on that we have  to change the way we would approach any future engagments especially with China.


----------



## namvet

the 22 is scraped. its being sold to other countries


----------



## Andrew2382

i didn't hear anything about the 22 being sold... got a source for that?


----------



## namvet

Andrew2382 said:


> i didn't hear anything about the 22 being sold... got a source for that?



archive U.S. considers sale of F-22 to Israel. minus the software of course. and Japan is also putting in bids. hell everybody wants it. 

[URL="http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/06/06/US-considers-sale-of-F-22-to-Israel/UPI-80111212797128/"]link[/URL]

Gates Defense cuts include F-22, CSAR-X
[URL="http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/04/airforce_defense_budget_040609w/"]link[/URL]

Lockheed Martin has to get their money back some how. so sell it


----------



## Andrew2382

considers sales...but they didn't do it....The US is still bitter from giving Israel patriot misslie tech and them selling it off to the Chinese...I knew they made the cuts...but they aren't selling it off


----------



## namvet

Andrew2382 said:


> considers sales...but they didn't do it....The US is still bitter from giving Israel patriot misslie tech and them selling it off to the Chinese...I knew they made the cuts...but they aren't selling it off



they will. what's the alternative??? let em rot or sell em for billions????


----------



## Andrew2382

i think you got it wrong...from my udnerstanding the cuts just means we aren't going to build anymore.  We are still going to service and maintain the ones we have  I believe we only have like 180 of them the air force originally wanted 500 or so.


----------



## namvet

Andrew2382 said:


> i think you got it wrong...from my udnerstanding the cuts just means we aren't going to build anymore.  We are still going to service and maintain the ones we have  I believe we only have like 180 of them the air force originally wanted 500 or so.



the AF get the F-35 to

F-35 Lightning II - Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) - Air Force Technology



> The F-35 Lightning II joint strike fighter (JSF), is being developed by Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company for the US Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps and the UK Royal Navy.


----------



## Navy1960

First of all there is a  Federal Law that prohibts the sale of the F-22  to foreign nations and smiply put until such time as that laws is lifted to even suggest that a nation will be able to purchase a stripped down version of the F-22 is a little premature. The other issue you have to deal with is there is no export version of the F-22  that has been developed  as of yet so then you have development costs to contend with that raise the  overall cost per aircraft that most of these nations do not want to contend  with when your looking at an aircraft that is perhaps 200 million dollars a copy.  Japan has already seen this to be a big hurdle and has started to develop it's own version of the F-22  and will most likely  purchase the F-15X or the  F-35 which will most likely be the F-15 as it is more  a pure air  superiority fighter and the F-35 has many issues to contend with in that envelope when it cannot even defeat current generation Russian fighters in computer sims. In fact one sim by the USAF went so poorly that the RAAF observers  claimed the F-35's were clubbed like baby seal's by the Russian fighters. While the F-35 is a fine aricraft for it's intended role it is not an aircraft  to fill every role that is required in the air envelope and to assume as much is treading on dangerous ground. In fact the USAF has called for an additional 60 F-22's to fulfill the mission requirements and Gates has decided to end production. This is nothing new for  DoD as they tend to not listen to the warfighter when it comes to what they need and more to congressional winds. Want an example. just look at the C-17, the USAF has for the last 5 years said thank you but we have enough C-17's , however in the same  Defense bill that cut F-22 production they added an addintional 8 C-17's and more C130J which the Air Force has also said they do not need.  What you see now is the same kind of  thinking that brought about  the early version of the F-4 Phantom that cost so many aviators their lives , you need only look at the thinking that brought about that aircraft to understand the  F-35.  Again while the F-35 is a good aricraft for it's intended role, it is the  result of  DoD mentality of "fighting wars on the cheap" when good planning, and good poilcy would  go a long way in saving money rather than limiting the warfighters  capability.  Anyone who thinks for a moment this  actually saved any money by cutting this aircraft is sadly mistaken and should do a little more research, because what they will find is the 95,000 people that work on the F-22 in 45 states will have a big negative impact on the economy and they do NOT easily tranistion into the F-35. Further, money saved on the F-22  was eaten up almost  instantly  on purchases for aircraft the USAF said  point blank it does not want or need and it will be further eroded with the cost to shut down production on the F-22. Next up the  17 year long purchase of the Air Force Tanker. ...

*A U.S. air-warfare simulation pitting F-35 Joint Strike Fighters versus the latest Russian Su-35 heavy fighters resulted in a clear victory &#8230; for the Russians. "The JSF had been clubbed like baby seals by the simulated Sukhois,"* one Australian opposition politician said, quoting a source close to the simulation.
Joint Strike Fighters &#8216;Clubbed&#8217; in Computer War Game | Danger Room | Wired.com

The F-22 Raptor is an American air superiority fighter that uses stealth technology. It is considered by the United States Air Force as a critical component of the United States Strike Force. In addition, the F-22 has multiple capabilities that include ground atack, electronics warfare, and signal intelligence roles.


It is claimed by many to be the world's most effective air superiority fighter and it cannot be matched by any known or projected fighter aircraft.* It is also said to be "most outstanding fighter plane ever built", as claimed by Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of the Australian Defence Force in 2004.*

*Unlike many other tactical fighters, the opportunity for export is currently non-existent because the export sale of the F-22 is barred by federal law.* There was a time in the 1970s when the then-new F-16 was similarly restricted. However, regardless of restrictions, very few allies would even be considered for export sale because the F-22 is such a sensitive and expensive system. 
Aviation: Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor

Lockheed Martin's chief financial officer Bruce Tanner, when asked by analysts about the prospects for overseas sales, was pessimistic. "I'm not particularly positive on the ability for us to make [an F-22 export deal] happen in the next few years," he said. Given that the Senate has voted to end funding for the Raptor, it appears as though it is literally the end of the line.

It should not be a surprise. Given the amount of opposition to exports and the fact that it would have cost up to $250 million to develop an exportable version of the stealth fighter, Japan would have had to move mountains to get the aircraft and received better value elsewhere.

The 30 August general elections in Japan look like they may result in a new government. Let's just hope that they will be able to move beyond the F-22 and get on with the much-needed F-X competition as soon as they can.

Japan nears the end of its F-22 courtship - Asian Skies


----------



## namvet

im curious then where did Chavez get his F-16's from???? 

Venezuela Threatens to Sell F-16 Fleet to Iran archive



> Even before the United States announced the ban on arms sales Monday, Washington had stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F-16s.


FOXNews.com - Venezuela Threatens to Sell F-16 Fleet to Iran - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News


----------



## Andrew2382

that deal was done in the early 80's...also what you fail to realize is those f 16's are not the ones we use in our military. 

We sold them the F 16 A's and B's

Ours obviously over time have been extremly modified and severely outperform those that venezuela has.


----------



## GRX Dragon

My uncle, who was a key figure, scientist and engineer, behind the development of the F-22 and F-35, would easily side with the F-22. Unless you have an ape flying an F-22, there is no way an F-35 is going to win against an F-22.

In every real-action simulated test done between the F-22 and any other aircraft, only ONCE was there a lock ever performed on the F-22 and that was by an F-18 model. It was an illegal maneuver, because where had the shots been fired, the shrapnel from an F-22 exploding would've brought down the F-18.

Likewise, the F-35 has nothing near the BVR capability that the F-22, EF-2000, Su-35, and several other of the latest Sukhoi/MiG models can provide. Not even mentioning that the F-35 is incapable of supercruise (ability to fly at supersonic speeds without use of the afterburners), as well only ploys a dummie stealth akin to the earliest generation of Stealth aircrafts.


----------



## woodjack

yeah yeah but the F-23 was by far the better aircraft they scraped due to political pressure on where the f-22's would be built.  Airforce has a different story but the meat of the truth is money played a factor as with politics and who would get a piece of the pie.

The F-35 is supposed to fill airforce slots next year, very very funny they dumped the f-15's they had on that hope now there is all this anticipation on this aircraft I won't hold my breath but I know it won't be up and running next year, look at the F-22 for example push back, push back supposed to be at Tyndall in 98 oops did not get em till the end of 02 and into 03.  on top of that the F-35 pilots need training to even be combat worthy, sims only do so much.   2.5 years till they start getting em,  5 years maybe six till they are combat capable.  if they pass all the tests they are still running on em.

this new administration had better look at history of such things before they cut too much.  I do not have faith though, Politicians looking at historic content to avoid blunders thats too much to ask for.  democrat/ republican hell I would vote for a historian anyday someone with a brain and no special interests.


----------



## woodjack

namvet said:


> im curious then where did Chavez get his F-16's from????
> 
> Venezuela Threatens to Sell F-16 Fleet to Iran archive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even before the United States announced the ban on arms sales Monday, Washington had stopped selling Venezuela sensitive upgrades for the F-16s.
> 
> 
> 
> FOXNews.com - Venezuela Threatens to Sell F-16 Fleet to Iran - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News
Click to expand...


Good with an aging weapons system at least we will know their capabilites and therefore able to defeat them.  If we know what they have we can defeat it, especially if it is one of our airframes. I would rather they have them then a airframe we do not know the capabilites of.  As if we couldn't defeat them anyway at least it will make it easier.  we sold Saudi F-15's and pakistan F-16's along with India.  Maybe they will buy parts from us to fix em when they break.  I am not worried.  not to mention Isreal both F-15's and F-16's


----------

