Comments on: BREAKING: 60 More F-22s for the USAF

By: http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk

http://www.linksoflondons.co.uk — Thu, 21 May 2009 02:46:08 +0000

Links of London
Links of London Jewelry
Links of London Charm
Links of London Necklace
Links of London Bracelets
Links of London Earrings
Links of London Rings
Designer from UK
Diamond
Gold&Silver
Links Jewelry
Links Necklace
Links Charm
Links Earrings
Links Rings

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:56:19 +0000

you love life ?100 — — class happy line ?-007 ?

By: ???

??? — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:56:19 +0000

???you love life?????????????100?????????????? -????????-??????????????????????????????????????????class??????????????happy line??????????????????????-007?????????????????????? ??????????????????????????????

By: Valcan

Valcan — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 12:24:26 +0000

Accualy the idf would have very little use for a f22 99% of the time since there country is rathe tiny. f35 would probbly be better.
The only real reason i can see for a f22 would be an attack on iran or to just get the weapons tech

By: Curtis

Curtis — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 07:10:44 +0000

I doubt the Aussies would buy the F-22 even if we offered it. Sure they admire the plane; I admire corvettes’, but I’m not about to spend all my money on one and go broke.
Same is probably true for the IDF. If I were the IDF, I’d consider pursuing Gripen, if the F-35 is delayed, and if an immediate replacement is needed for early model F-15s and –16s. The Gripen would suite their needs admirably (short take-off and rapid sorty rate.)
If I were the JDF, I’d buy up some new F-16s or super hornets to replace the phantoms.I’d also admit that the F-2 is garbage, and replace those as well. Next I’d buy F-35s for top line use, and SLEP/radically upgrade the F-15 fleet over time.
Make these plans public, and see what falls out, see how the US gov reacts. Especially if you threaten to run EF-2000, and Rafale in the competition; might be a good way to see who’s willing to make the better deal.
60–70% is pretty darn good for a brand spanking new plane. No telling how much of that is real genuine maintenance, and how much is exploratory inspections,Dog and pony show time, and “We have a question not covered in Tech Data” lag time. I’m sure that 70% could be bumped up if there was a genuine need to get planes up pronto.

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 18:41:24 +0000

“it simply doesn’t have enough missiles. But Russian aircraft can’t act as forward spotters like the F-22 can, guiding missiles in from less advanced aircraft“
I disagree.
A datalink cooperation with very similar characteristics (but SARH missiles at that time) was actually published for MiG-31 and Su-27 as early as in the early 90’s.

By: Brian

Brian — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 15:58:55 +0000

Interesting conversation here. There always is with F-22 posts. First of all, is the F-22 as good as 30 Russian planes? Depends what you want them to do. One F-22 can't shoot down 30 Russian jets in one mission -- it simply doesn't have enough missiles. But Russian aircraft can't act as forward spotters like the F-22 can, guiding missiles in from less advanced aircraft. Russian jets can't penetrate heavily defended airspace in the same way as the F-22. The F-22 can't win a dogfight against a dozen enemy aircraft at once -- a Raptor in that situation is screwed. Hopefully our pilots will be good enough to not get into a situation like that. It really just depends on how you try to use them. You can't just say "well, Russia has 500 of these, and one of ours is as good as five of theirs, so we need 100." It doesn't work that way. We might be able to shoot down the entire Russian air force with a dozen jets, but if ours are sitting in South Korea, and Russia is bombing France, we're sort of out of the picture. So you need to have enough forces to spread around to different locations, and still be useful. What about Japan and Australia. For once, I agree with FFB. We can't exactly sell the F-22 to Australia and NOT sell it to Japan. The political ramifications are too great. While the Australians have been great allies, we've had a continued base presence in Japan since WWII. Japan plays a more critical role in our East Asian plans, even if we don't trust them as well as we trust Australia. There are other cost questions to consider beyond the purchase price (in regards to simply flooding the sky with inexpensive jets). Pilot training, fuel costs, maintenance costs, logistics support -- all of those go up dramatically when you start buying 10 less advanced jets instead of one advanced jet. Not that those choices are necessarily bad -- I think most countries will do just fine without the F-22 -- it's just that it isn't as simple as "this is the sticker price."

By: Sven Ortmann

Sven Ortmann — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:39:32 +0000

“some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export“
That’s not a nature’s law or military necessity, but legal understanding since two U.S. senators successfully sponsored a bill that prevents the export (IIRC).
It’s a political decision to define the F-22 as too technologically sensitive. They could turn around in two weeks.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 06:49:18 +0000

freefallingbomb,
Are you even CAPABLE of getting your facts straight?
Japan is more likely to try & develope its own 5th generation fighter or at least opt for the F-35 before it SERIOUSLY considers the Typhoon. The Typhoon is a great 4th generation fighter BUT IT IS STILL A 4th GENERATION FIGHTER & with China rumered to be working on its own 5th generation fighter, I doubt Japan is willing to risk its security to ‘obsolete’ 4th generation fighters.
The last 60 F-22 cost an average of ~$145 million each & LM has indicated that if production were to continue that the price could drop to ~$120 million. With the exchange rates of late, the Typhoon costs over $100 million.
What is SO difficult to understand about “some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export” even to the most trusted allies? Asking the US to export the F-22 now is akin to asking it to have exported the SR-71 in the 1970s or the F-117 in the 1990’s.

By: citanon

citanon — Wed, 18 Feb 2009 05:28:40 +0000

Readiness rate of 60%, ouch! Hope that number gets better and is better for F-35.