Comments on: AF Leaders vs. Bob Gates on F-22

By: melissa

melissa — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:59:08 +0000

Interesting facts, I learned new something today

By: llflllfl

llflllfl — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:43:20 +0000

Just a little reminder as to how numbers do matter: The USAF and US Navy outnumbered the Vietnamese MiG force over Vietnam. That is how the expensive F-4 Phantom managed to get a superior kill ratio over the MiG-17 and MiG-21. Pierre Sprey was right about strength of numbers making a difference. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the F-22 is not stealthy and it’s not the only airplane that can supercruise (Rafale, Flanker and Typhoon can all do that AND detect the Raptor via IRST). US taxpayers are getting ripped off. Prove me wrong.

By: llflllfl

llflllfl — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:08:38 +0000

The USAF should pit the F-22 against the RAF Eurofighter and the French Rafale in the next Red Flag exercise. Then we’ll know the truth as to how good the Raptor really is.

By: name@company.com

name@company.com — Tue, 27 May 2008 11:02:49 +0000

The only way to know for sure if the Raptor really is the best fighter money can buy is to send it up against a real opponent like the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Perhaps we’ll know the truth in a Red Flag exercise when the RAF and the French air force bring their Typhoons and Rafales respectively for a showdown with the USAF.
Only then will we know for sure if the Raptor is all that it is hyped up to be.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 18 Mar 2008 23:53:35 +0000

DarthAmerica,
Your lack of understanding of the real world is truly astonishing…

By: pfcem

pfcem — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 20:31:53 +0000

DarthAmerica,
Did I say anything about how realistic it was (it IS realistic by the way, not neccessaryily highly propable but possible)?
Did you even read what I posted. My scenario SAYS that the F-35 knocks the Typhoon & Rafale “out of the market” so they go to another market (a market not all that friendly to the US). You think that Europe is going to just give up & let the US & Russia become the ONLY suppliers of fighter to the ENTIRE world…
You are dreaming if you think that Russia could not or would not increase Flanker production if the market supported/required it.
F-15Es, F-35s & F-16 are not air superiority fighters — not the the USAF anyway. Good luck pulling enough of them away from what that WILL be doing to use them as air superiority fighters…All those F-35s are replacing A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18C/Ds, AV-8B — NOT F-15C/Ds.
We can’t even get ONE full squadron of F-22s for each AEF with 187 and you want pull some BS that we will be able to somehow get all (half is not even realistic) F-22’s in inventory to any specific conflict. Join the real world man!
Sorry, but I have friends & family in the USAF — I have a pretty fair idea how bad the F-15C/D maintenance is (& what the trends over the past decade make it clear how much worse it will get over the next decade)…Like I said, even IF it is physically possible to keep a useful number of F-15C/D combat worthy until 2020 (much less any time beyond that) it will likely become economically unrealistic (politically incorrect) to do so.
Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22’s would “overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries”. Beside, if you don’t prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 23:52:35 +0000

DarthAmerica,
NOBODY (at least nobody I know of) IS SAYING WE NEED 381 F-22s NOW!!!
But someday we will. And unless you are willing to pay MORE for F-22s later, the only way we are going to ever get the 381 F-22s we WILL eventually need is to keep the production line open.
THAT is the problem, there are far to many people like you who are only looking at today & not the future.
The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan (AFTFP), doesn’t do anything to indicate that the USAF will be able to meet its worldwide oblications in the decades to come with fewer than 381 F-22s…

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 22:05:52 +0000

DarthAmerica,
Don’t confuse the number the DOD has/had agreed to fund with the number the USAF needs. The number prior to 381 was 442, the 339 number is the what DOD agreed to fund (at the time) based on projected budgets & had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Same for the 183 number — it is based SOLELY on the number that could/would be funded through the current administration & has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Unfortunately there are enough ignorant people out there who don’t realize the difference & mistakenly think that the number funded is in any way relavant to how many are actually needed.
It is true that the 381 number is based on the previous 2MRC (2 Nearly Simultaneous Major Regional Conflict) model (no “Soviet” like threat levels) which has now been replaced by the “1–4-2–1″ model which could in fact require MORE F-22s…
And stop with the BS that there has to be (or is or ever was) any specific threat or threat level as THE FACTOR in how many F-22s are needed because it simply is not true. It IS (& has been) based on how many are needed for the USAF to to fulfill its obligations.
Who said anything about new numbers would were out our airforce too much? If anything the current numbers have not yet taken into account the higher ops levels in recent years.
Keep in mind that you have to commit to procurement at least 2 years in advance in order for all of the parts/pieces et cetera to be ordered in time for final assmebly…

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 07:21:44 +0000

DarthAmerica,
True, F-15C/Ds are not in as bad a shape as some think &/or would have you believe BUT it is what shape they will be in from 2015–2025 that matters.
While the F-15C/Ds are more than likely OK for another half-full decade, after that you run into SERIUS problems. And reduced numbers of F-15C/Ds doesn’t help anything unless those F-15C/Ds are replaced by something (otherwise it is actually worse since having fewer airframes means that the airframes you have run up flight hours faster).
Sorry but the F-35s will be replacing F-16s & A-10’s for the USAF (plus F/A-18A-D for the USN & USMC plus AV-8B for the USMC plus several foreign partners). There is NO WAY we will procure enough of them fast enough to replace F-15s as well…Besides, as good as the F-35 will be in air-to-air combat it is a poor substitute for the F-22 (which the USAF can afford) for air dominance. Saying we should procure more F-35s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have stopped procuring F-15s when we started procuring F-16s.
The USAF has already justified its need for a MINIMUM of 381 F-22s. It is those who claim a smaller number will do who have yet to justify their number.
Saying that we don’t need more F-22s beyond those already funded is akin to saying that we should have stopped procuring F-15s in 1980 (about half way though its eventual production run — not including the F-15E & later varients). Just imagine how bad a shape we would be in now if that had happened…That is how bad a shape we WILL be in ~2030 if we don’t continue procuring more F-22’s!
And saying that we should procure “advanced” F-15s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have procured “advanced” F-4 Phantons in 1980 instead of continuing to procure F-15s. Not as bad as not procuring anything at all but just think if the USAF’s primary air-superiority fighter (F-22’s being a rarity & all F-15A/Bs being long gone) today & for the next decade or two were “advanced” (as in F-15C/D avionics but not flight performance) F-4 Phantons…
The requirement for 381 F-22’s is not 381 F-22’s TODAY but by ~2025 (when even the “Golden Eagles” will no longer be combat worthy).

By: pfcem

pfcem — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:53:05 +0000

DC2,
Are you incapable of reading what is posted by others?
I said:
“
The true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote because they were purchased as part of a foreign arms deal but by taking the amount paid divided by the mumber paid for…“
F-16I: ~$70 million
F-16E/F: ~$80 million
“
I guarantee you those numbers are MUCH more accurate than your BS $27 million. Personally, based on all the information I have seen the true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E/F are PROBABLY around ~80% of the numbers above but as I said the true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote.