backtop


Print 81 comment(s) - last by Nfarce.. on Apr 21 at 2:14 PM


  (Source: U.S. Navy/Mass Communication Specialist Seaman David Danals)
The Navy has less fighter jets scheduled for production next year

Defense Secretary Robert Gates' new budget, including cutting the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program, could cause a growing fighter gap with less F/A-18s being produced in the future.

The Navy is expected to purchase 31 F/A-18 fighter jets next year including the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet and EA-18G Growlers -- both have Boeing-made airframes, but the Growler has additional electronic warfare measures included.  In last year's budget, the Navy planned to purchase 40 F/A-18s in 2010, but won't be able to do so due to budget issues.

The main problem is that the aging F/A-18 Hornets are being decommissioned at a faster rate than private contractors can build the F-35C Lighting II fighter jets.  It's possible Gates and the Pentagon will try to accelerate the F-35's development, as it's not scheduled to be ready until 2015.

"If anything, things have gotten worse," according to Robert Dun, retired vice admiral and Association of Naval Aviation president.  The "aircraft are being over-utilized" in the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there are "ongoing attacks in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill."

"At the current rate, given no further procurement, the Navy will be as many as 150, perhaps as many as 200, strike fighters short of what's needed within five years, and that's with the most optimistic projection  of JSF production," Dunn said before Gates' original announcement.

The US Air Force recently defended the decision to eliminate the F-22 program, with a stronger emphasis put on the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets.  The Air Force will still receive up to 187 F-22 fighter jets, but the Pentagon won't make another order, Gates recently announced.

As the military begins to transition from traditional warfare to modified warfare in Iraq and Afghanistan, it'll be interesting to see how the current fleet of fighter jets adjusts.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Institutional Lag
By dreddly on 4/17/2009 9:07:39 AM , Rating: 2
What would you expect from a division that is necessarily trying to maximize its forces and capabilities.

Would it be so hard for one of these military official to recognize that security is bottomless pit in which military official always want more with no respect for the taxpayers that support them.

If they were really looking out for us, they would look for ways to do their jobs more cheaply and efficiently and not expect us to foot the bill for unlimited expenditures.

This mentality has to go...




RE: Institutional Lag
By ninus3d on 4/17/2009 9:22:45 AM , Rating: 4
http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/5927/wallstatsd...

Studied that for a while, pretty interesting.

Made me want to play Civ 4 again as well!


RE: Institutional Lag
By lukasbradley on 4/17/2009 12:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
RE: Institutional Lag
By invidious on 4/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Institutional Lag
By Calin on 4/17/2009 9:40:39 AM , Rating: 5
http://www.cobbledstones.com/2008_06_01_archive.ht...

So, the money are taken out of taxes (or maybe out of thin air), military spending takes place, then the planes ends here, some of them after contributing nothing to the world.

Wouldn't be better to build something that is not a drain on society? Railways, light rails, subways in cities? Things that are not a drain on economy?


RE: Institutional Lag
By HaB1971 on 4/17/2009 9:54:13 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Wouldn't be better to build something that is not a drain on society? Railways, light rails, subways in cities? Things that are not a drain on economy?


Right, so the maintenance costs only get carried by the private company running them from tax payers buying tickets until, oh no the company focuses on profits and not safety and then big government muscles in and takes over and oh I can't bare to watch.... the tax payer has to foot the bill and this utopian pipe dream becomes a drain on society.

While we are at it lets build a monorail to Aruba.

I'll let other rip apart your comment.
quote:
then the planes ends here, some of them after contributing nothing to the world


It is only fair to share the blood letting


RE: Institutional Lag
By Kougar on 4/17/2009 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 1
You left off part of the sentence, it should read, "Military spending to fight WW2" helped pull the country out of the Great Depression, by gearing up idle factories and putting people in jobs. It also led to high inflation throughout the 1950's.

Military spending by itself won't pull us out of an economic recession OR depression, not unless we start converting all those idle and underutilized car manufacturing plants to manufacturing military hardware, along with many other US factories as well.


RE: Institutional Lag
By BansheeX on 4/17/2009 1:24:07 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You left off part of the sentence, it should read, "Military spending to fight WW2" helped pull the country out of the Great Depression, by gearing up idle factories and putting people in jobs. It also led to high inflation throughout the 1950's.


Socialists love to point to WWII as an example of how government transferring money to itself can get you out of a problem. But it's a perverse example that is neither desirable nor reproduceable. It didn't work in a peacetime economy. That the war was a necessary war caused people to voluntarily ration their lives and sacrifice for government in a way that would not have occurred had we been the initiator of force. More importantly, the government was forced to spend the money on factories and productive capacity to win the war. Borrowing to increase productive capacity is WORLDS APART from borrowing to consume foreign production. Current stimulus programs only borrow towards consumptive ends, it is adding to the problem and deferring the consequence.

Wealth is also a relative concept. By the end of the war, Europe had been decimated and we got rich extending credit and loaning products to a desolated world trying to rebuild. We became the worlds largest creditor nation, a manufacturing powerhouse with a high savings rate, the government had no entitlement obligations to pay out. We are completely the opposite today.


RE: Institutional Lag
By sinful on 4/17/2009 8:40:00 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Socialists love to point to WWII as an example of how government transferring money to itself can get you out of a problem. But it's a perverse example that is neither desirable nor reproduceable. It didn't work in a peacetime economy.


Hoover's massive tax cuts for the wealthy and slashing of government spending didn't fix the economy either - in fact, it made it worse. The rich just hoarded the money, and spending completely halted - consumers weren't buying, and the rich weren't spending (even though they had extra money).

People often say that the "the wealthy create jobs". What they really mean is "the wealthy have the CAPACITY to create jobs", but it's CONSUMERS that push that capacity to be UTILIZED. The WWII era showed that tax cuts for the wealthy don't stimulate the economy - all the rich do is hoard the money like everyone else is doing, and the economy stagnates anyway.

FDR's "New Deal" promised government spending, which started the road to recovery.
(Although you are correct, it was the absolutely MASSIVE government spending that ultimately fixed the economy).

However, it'd be hard to argue that Hoover's policies were even in the same realm of effectiveness as FDR's.

It was only until it was super-obvious that the Republicans were going to lose, and lose badly -- due to the economy, that Hoover attempted some social programs. (But most people consider it "Too Little, Too late").

In other words, you're criticizing something for not being very effective... but what else is there?
It's like saying throwing water on a fire doesn't put it out very well... Ok,, fine,,,, the only other "option" is to throw gasoline on it - proven not to work, and only makes it worse.

quote:
Borrowing to increase productive capacity is WORLDS APART from borrowing to consume foreign production.


Most of the "liberal" spending in Washington stays in the US - Infrastructure projects, healthcare, etc. That all benefits the US - better infrastructure/transportation/energy/etc all leads to lower costs, and more competitive businesses.
It's not like Washington is giving out vouchers for big screen TV's made in China...


RE: Institutional Lag
By deeznuts on 4/18/2009 12:06:59 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
FDR's "New Deal" promised government spending, which started the road to recovery. (Although you are correct, it was the absolutely MASSIVE government spending that ultimately fixed the economy).


I'm sorry what? It is not settled FDR's new deal helped anything. A survey of economists was split 50/50 of whether the new deal extended and strengthened the downturn! It is not decided one way or the other, but there were definite parts that were destructive (price controls of the NRA for one). he tried new deal 1 and it was rejected for being unconstitutional, then he got new deal part II passed and things got worse rigt after.

Then WWII happened but it is debateable whether WWII helped or not. Some scientists looked at local economies of counties involved in war time production and their per capita increase in economic activity did not show any increase.
http://www.econ.barnard.columbia.edu/~econhist/pap...
That's an NBER working paper, you know, the non-govt. entity that officially declares recessions in the US (contrary to popular belief fed govt. does not declare recessions). They conclude from their research that WWII spending had no effect on growth of consumption rates for local economies involved in the war.

So what ended WWII? Who knows eh? Another theory I read was just normal mean reversion. You know, the economy trends upwards. It was starting to revert until Mr. FDR tried New Deal which made things worse. I think WWII distracted Mr. FDR for the economy to do its thing. Like it always does.


RE: Institutional Lag
By menace on 4/17/2009 3:19:14 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It also led to high inflation throughout the 1950's.


High inflation in the 50's? Check your data sources. Other than a moderate 6% to 7% spike in 1951, the 50's were a time of very low inflation. In fact looks to me like it is the decade with the LOWEST inflation rate post-depression.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Historical_In...


RE: Institutional Lag
By Hieyeck on 4/17/2009 3:32:37 PM , Rating: 1
Except the military wouldn't stand for the shoddy manufacturing that comes out of those factories.


RE: Institutional Lag
By 16nm on 4/17/2009 10:48:31 PM , Rating: 2
You mean WWII is what pulled us out of the Great Depression. Are you suggesting that WWIII is the answer to our problems?


RE: Institutional Lag
By g3pro on 4/17/2009 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 1
I don't know about you, but I prefer to pay for a national defense which is worth a damn in a fight against Russia or China instead of giving out bonuses to AIG executives as part of a bailout.

Obama really needs to get his priorities straight. Defense is a constitutional MUST for the U.S. government, not bailouts.


RE: Institutional Lag
By callmeroy on 4/17/2009 9:31:46 AM , Rating: 3
National Defense is the only true and valid NEED for the federal government.....everything else is just BS, the state governments should manage their own economies and programs.


RE: Institutional Lag
By menace on 4/17/2009 3:36:57 PM , Rating: 3
Not exactly true. Another important purpose is to provide for a central authority to deal with affairs of state with regards to dealing with other nations (treaties, trade, etc.) and also interstate affairs.

Pretty much everything else was supposed to be left to the states (you know, that neglected 10th amendment that has withered on the end of the vine that is the Bill of Rights).


RE: Institutional Lag
By JediJeb on 4/17/2009 5:36:32 PM , Rating: 2
Seems Texas is taking the 10 Ammendment seriously lately. I wonder what would happen if they really did try to succeed?


RE: Institutional Lag
By JediJeb on 4/17/2009 5:40:22 PM , Rating: 1
secessed not succeed bah!


RE: Institutional Lag
By sinful on 4/17/2009 8:15:08 PM , Rating: 2
SECEDED, not secessed. Bah!


RE: Institutional Lag
By Aloonatic on 4/17/2009 9:31:33 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't there a bit of overlap here.

At the risk of sounding like one of Michael Moore's acolytes isn't there a fair amount of money wasted in the good old "military industrial complex" that is little more than another form of bail out money, keeping people employed and businesses going that perhaps shouldn't be, which has been going on for years?

If it came down to using public money to keep industries and businesses going you'd have to go with funding a defence program though, as you say. I mean, at least they are useful, sometimes things spin off that can be implemented in the civilian world, whereas insurance companies don't even do what they are supposed to do half the time.


RE: Institutional Lag
By Globemaster on 4/17/2009 10:51:54 AM , Rating: 5
I can tell you that the majority of "waste" in military spending is government mandated. There are tens of thousands of individuals involved in contracting for the military and Sec Gates just announced he's increasing that force by 20,000. The reason is the ridiculously complicated regulations thrust upon us by Congress. If you streamlined the process, got rid of onerous over-regulation, and just held commanders accountable for their performance, you could probably reduce procurement costs 40%.

Do you know we are congressionally mandated to procure from "preferred sources" and that social engineering through military spending is specifically taught to us? I recently bought $80 chairs for my unit. They cost $140. Why? Because I couldn't buy them from staples for $80 because it's a large business and my spending there doesn't help any disadvantaged group.

I had to buy them through the GSA Advantage website (approved source). It identified a disadvantaged small business in Illinois who I ordered through. The website is kind enough to let me know if the person I'm ordering from is a veteran, disabled, in a HUD 8 development zone, small business, etc. Price is secondary. The nice lady there took my extra $60 per chair plus whatever wholesale discount Staples gave her - ordered them on the staples website and had them drop shipped to me. We received nice new chairs for only 75% more than they should have cost because social engineering is more important to congress than saving you money. The nice lady made quite a profit for a few clicks of her mouse.

That's why spending is out of control. It's not the generals or the troops - it's Congress and their insane over-regulation of us because they don't trust us one bit, no matter what they say.


RE: Institutional Lag
By MadMan007 on 4/17/2009 11:34:32 AM , Rating: 2
So in a way that spending is another form of social welfare? Interesting twist.


RE: Institutional Lag
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/17/2009 11:54:17 AM , Rating: 1
That it is. That it is.


RE: Institutional Lag
By BansheeX on 4/17/2009 12:35:27 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
I don't know about you, but I prefer to pay for a national defense which is worth a damn in a fight against Russia or China instead of giving out bonuses to AIG executives as part of a bailout.

They're both massive sources of waste, but SOME defense is a legitimate function of federal government. That doesn't mean we need bases around the world or to invade third world countries. Just don't go around saying we need to spend like drunken sailors on foreign bases and airplanes because we are threatened. We aren't threatened, we've been immune to foreign invasion since we acquired intercontinental nuclear warheads at the end of WWII. A conventional war against Russia or China can't be initiated in the nuclear era as nukes would be launched upon imminent defeat to achieve mutual annihilation.


RE: Institutional Lag
By TomZ on 4/17/2009 9:32:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This mentality has to go...
The thing you fail to recognize is, what is the VALUE of national security to taxpayers/citizens? It is priceless, really, because without security, everything else goes down the tubes.

I'm all for efficiency and cutting waste, but I think that spending for national defense is one of our top priorities. It would be very short-sighted to put ourselves at jeopardy in order to save a few bucks.


RE: Institutional Lag
By AEvangel on 4/17/2009 10:17:07 AM , Rating: 2
I would agree with you Military spending on my DEFENSE is priceless...I just wish they would stop attacking nations for the sake of other people's profit and stick to defending me and my country something our military hasn't been doing for some time.


RE: Institutional Lag
By rdeegvainl on 4/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Institutional Lag
By BansheeX on 4/17/2009 12:59:18 PM , Rating: 5
We haven't been attacked by a nation since WWII. A nation didn't attack us on Sept 11, individuals did. Sept 11 was a poor man's attack, and the terrorists were Saudis, not Afghans. They hijacked an aircraft with razor blades and flew it into a building. The real solutions were to look at defense errors from within and correct them. Namely (a) barricading cockpits (b) giving the pilots guns and (c) replacing the intelligence officials who ignored intel that people were learning to fly planes but not land them and (d) stop giving terrorist propaganda so much influence by being so involved in the middle east. Our CIA radicalized Iran in the 50s by deposing their leader, we gave Saddam Hussein bio weapons to use against the Iranians in their war with each other, we recently propped up a military dictator in Pakistan. Look up what blowback is, all this "enemy of your enemy is your friend" crap always comes back to bite you.

Instead, what did we do? We invaded a third world country with borrowed money whose compounding interest obligations will contribute to sky high inflation taxes and interest rates. The country cannot be reformed no matter how many sons and daughters we expend on it because the people are too proud to do what we want them to. We didn't find the guy who did it, we stuck around to police the area and rebuild their infrastructure while ours crumbles. I mean, this is absurd.


RE: Institutional Lag
By Grast on 4/17/2009 5:25:50 PM , Rating: 3
Banshee,

you have some very good points about how to prevent another 9/11. however have you thought that all of those ideas are a reaction rather than proactive. IRAQ is a tough subject and rightfully so. We were so happy (well some of us) to show the world the US does not have sit back and take hits from any country. once the war started and the causulties started coming back, I had to start looking a the bigger picture.

A dictator in a country with loads of oil resources was bad for the US due to the support of terrorism. IRAQ was sponsoring terrorism and basically a thorn in our side. Here we are 8 years later, an IRAQ which has free elections and a working decomcratic government. Is it perfect? NO but neither were the states when we started.

The way I see it. a democratic country is more worried about growing its economy, the next election, feeding their people, and providing for the well being of the country then sponsoring terrorism. the alternative is a dictator free to support as many terrorist as possible with the full resources of his country.

as we have it now, Iraq is a thorn in IRAN and no longer a terrorist breading ground. well maybe still makeing some terrorist but they are not supported by a large country with large oil resources. we are no longer worries about nukes in IRAQ or someone making one.

that is something to be proud of.

as to your comments about Pakistan, I agree something needs to change. I have no desire for every country to love the US. But I would settle for not desiring to kill us and burn our flag.

Later....


RE: Institutional Lag
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2009 5:57:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We haven't been attacked by a nation since WWII.


BECAUSE of our military buildup, our nuclear arsenal and MAD, and the men and women who would rise up and defend this nation themselves if all else failed.

You have it all wrong. Strength does not invite attack, quite the opposite.


RE: Institutional Lag
By RagingDragon on 4/19/2009 1:54:28 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
(c) replacing the intelligence officials who ignored intel that people were learning to fly planes but not land them


Why worry about people guanteed to die during flight training? Anybody who learns to fly an airplane will be taught how to land it.


RE: Institutional Lag
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2009 5:54:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I would agree with you Military spending on my DEFENSE is priceless...I just wish they would stop attacking nations for the sake of other people's profit and stick to defending me and my country something our military hasn't been doing for some time.


Sorry but we simply can't build up a defending military and then turtle ourselves within our own borders and not participate in world politics and defense. That will lead to you being LESS safe.


RE: Institutional Lag
By hiscross on 4/17/2009 9:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the military could pull a John Galt. Then you would be free to defend your self.


RE: Institutional Lag
By TomZ on 4/17/2009 12:52:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's a bizarre analogy. I assume you've read the book - do you really think the military is anything like John Galt?


RE: Institutional Lag
By menace on 4/17/2009 3:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
From the stand point of the role of the military not being well appreciated by the majority of the population and demonized by leftists (vs. in Atlas Shrugged with the importance of the people who turn the wheels of industry being unrecognized by the people and demonized by leftists) I'd say it's not a bad analogy.


RE: Institutional Lag
By KCjoker on 4/17/2009 5:34:50 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds a lot like our school system.


RE: Institutional Lag
By Reclaimer77 on 4/17/2009 5:38:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This mentality has to go...


Sure, can it go in ALL levels of government ? Why just the military ?


RE: Institutional Lag
By KGBird on 4/17/2009 8:16:48 PM , Rating: 1
Close-minded comments like yours have to go. The military and civil servants I know bust their buns to give the taxpayers their money's worth and to save a penny when they can. The US faces many military challenges. A big one is that our fleets of <name it... tankers, fighters, ships> are ridiculously old and are failing. Either we decide to spend some money now, or become powerless to protect our interests.


F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Calin on 4/17/2009 9:34:14 AM , Rating: 3
The Air Force will still receive up to 187 F-22 fighter jets, but the Pentagon won't make another order for the aging jet technology

F-22 is in the same generation as the F-35, the difference is that F-22 development was rushed forward, and many of those lessons were transferred to F-35.




RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2009 9:37:27 AM , Rating: 3
Well, it has been nearly 20 years since the prototype first flew and the program was first commissioned in the mid-80s IIRC.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Bateluer on 4/17/2009 9:40:42 AM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is not aging technology, despite being designed 20 years ago. Military technologies and system take years to design, develop and deploy. If you consider the F-22 aging, then the F-15s, F-16s, and F/A-18s would be considered archaic junk.

Incidentally, there is no aircraft in the world that can do what the F-22 does. Heck, a single F-22 could mop up the entire US fleet of F-16s without breaking a sweat, provided it was able to carry enough munitions. The 16s wouldn't even see the F-22 coming.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2009 9:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
The lag time for the F-22 is quite great compared to previous generation fighters. I understand that there is a lag time involved with all military aircraft from the time of development to actual deployment, but the F-22 seems to be somewhat of an anomaly.

There were no more than 4-5 years separating program institution, prototype phase, and actual production of fighters like the F-14, F-15, F-16, and F-18 IIRC.

However, it's not been the case with the F-22 -- blame budget cuts, blame the military, blame whoever, but I just don't understand the holdup.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Calin on 4/17/2009 9:55:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not gonna get any better.
The military wants bleeding-edge performance with rock-solid reliability. These new designs might get to the performance, but only after extensive research and design, and the reliability part is (usually) even more painful.
The days of the World War 2 are over: the revolutionary planes built in 1935-1936 were obsolete at the start of the war (let's say 1940), and those 5 years of war saw two different generations of planes, not to mention the rocket and jet planes. And the US Air Force was willing to buy planes even if their prototype crashed in one of the first flights.
Some World War 2 planes went from design to production in less than 1 year, now the R&D for a new generation plane takes a decade. The tilt-rotor craft (V-22 Osprey?) is still not in production, I think


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2009 10:00:23 AM , Rating: 3
The Osprey has actually been in Iraq for quite some time I believe.

http://www.dailytech.com/US+Marine+Corps+to+Send+T...


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By TA152H on 4/17/2009 10:40:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, what you're saying isn't accurate.

For one, the Me109 (or Bf109) was designed in the early 1930s, and was the dominant aircraft well into 1940. It fought to the end of the war. It took several years to develop.

The Mustang first appeared in 1942, and fought until the end of the war.

Spitfire, same. FW 190A came out in 1941, and fought until the end of the war, and one variant was arguably the best piston fighter ever produced.

How about the Zero? That's an aircraft that is often used as an example that was just used too long, with essentially no upgrading. It made it the whole war too.

So, sorry, aircraft did not become obsolete so quickly, and they often times took some time to develop. There were variations and updates to the aircraft though, which gave them better performance (or sometimes even worse), but the basic aircraft lasted much longer than you indicated.

Mustangs were even used in the Korean War.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Nfarce on 4/17/2009 3:03:23 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, what he saying is more accurate than not. In the mid 1930s, we still had fabric coated biplanes as the front line fighters in both the Navy and Army Air Corps.

Nobody took the threat of the Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan military build up seriously until Germany began its European invasion. Nobody took Japan seriously until Pearl Harbor. In fact, if you look at the history of WWII on both fronts, we were losing the battles in the first two years because of inferior hardware and a lack of strong firepower.

You mentioned the Mustang not being phased out quickly. That is true. Yeah, we were using both the Mustang and Corsair in Korea (Marines used them for land attacks). We used prop planes like the A-1E Skyraider in Vietnam too.

But back to who had what technology, the fact that the P-51 was designed from scratch in 1939, first prototype flew in 1940, and first put on the front lines by the British in 1942 is remarkable. Today it takes decades to design an aircraft and put it on the front line, and that has only increased over the years. Here's an example from the F-4, F-15, and F-22:

F-4: final design concept - 1954; first prototype flew in 1958; first deployed - 1960 (USN).

Total time period from paper to tarmac: 6 years.

F-15: final design concept - 1968; first prototype flew in 1972; first deployed - 1976 (USAF).

Total time period from paper (computer screen?) to tarmac: 8 years.

F-22: final design concept - 1988; first prototype flew in 1990; first deployed - 2005.

Total time period from computer screen to tarmac: 17 years.

So yeah, we were able to build weapons fast in WWII to catch up. Today, we just do not have that capability in the event of a major international crisis (read: WWIII) that apparently a lot of people out there believe is just fantasy role playing because the only valid threat is a few thousand "razor blade carrying" terrorists hiding in caves.

Those who don't learn from history...


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By rcc on 4/20/2009 2:18:51 PM , Rating: 2
That and each generation of fighters has more complex software.

Anyone know any software engineers that can keep a schedule?


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By smackababy on 4/17/2009 10:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
If my sources are correct, there was massive testing done on the F-22 because it had to be artifically limited in its capabilities due to humans not being able to withstand the Gs. This would explain for a good bit of lag.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By stromgald30 on 4/17/2009 11:34:19 AM , Rating: 2
Um . . . don't all the F-14 to F-18 fighters have that problem? They have to maneuver with quite a bit of ordnance. Take that ordnance out and any fighter should be able to exceed human survival limits for g-forces. In addition, I'm pretty sure all those jets can exceed human survival G's even when fully loaded.

No, the F-22 took longer because of it's increased complexity and lack of good systems engineering to limit scope creep. Then again, there's only so much you can do against Congress and changes in the political environment.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Fritzr on 4/17/2009 6:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
That problem first surfaced with the German Stuka. They had to train pilots not to fly their plane at it's limits after they figured out why so many were not completing their pull out.


By AEvangel on 4/17/2009 10:31:36 AM , Rating: 2
Great...you just saved us billions....all we need for air superiority is one f22 the rest are useless.

Of course since they are still being piloted by humans anything is possible

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2007/07/first-f-22-r...


By SpaceJumper on 4/17/2009 11:36:06 AM , Rating: 1
Have you see the Chinese J-XX stealth aircraft yet? It is an improved version of the F-22 Raptor. US will be facing a more advanced aircraft in the near future.
Don't be so optimistic, their technology scale is also way up there.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Belard on 4/19/2009 6:13:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Incidentally, there is no aircraft in the world that can do what the F-22 does


The F35 can hold more ordinance than the F35. The F35 will do VSTOL.

quote:
eck, a single F-22 could mop up the entire US fleet of F-16s without breaking a sweat, provided it was able to carry enough munitions.


That's what H.A.W.X is for... bloody thing holds like 120 or so missles. :) Fun game.

Hey guys, remember the FA22 & FA23 were considered for the NAVY as well... :)


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Calin on 4/17/2009 9:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
Inquisitive minds wants to know:
What F-35 has but F-22 doesn't? Price comes to mind, and maybe ground attack roles? Carrier launch capabilities?


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Bateluer on 4/17/2009 10:25:42 AM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter compared to the F-35 role as a multi-role aircraft. Think F-15 vs F-16. The 16 can be outfitted for a more variety of missions than the F-15 can, but the F-15 will easily outperform the F-16 in a dogfight and other air to air missions.

The F-22 was a development platform was well, and many of its advanced features are also in the F-35, such as its stealth technology.

The 22 has far greater mission range than the F-35 as well. The 35 is more versatile, with 'spins' for standard takeoff, VTOL, and carrier launching. But it'll still lose to a 22 in a dogfight.

With the F-15s experiencing serious problems with metal fatigue and being based off antiquated hydraulic systems, in a few cases, breaking up in flight, how much longer do we want to rely on aircraft that have been flying for 3 decades?

Its not just fighter aircraft either, most aircraft in the Air Force inventory are old, from fighters to cargo planes to tankers. Part of the reason the USAF did its force shaping program (cutting personnel) was to save money to purchase new aircraft. Unfortunately, most of the money that the USAF was able to save was re appropriated by Congress for other projects. So now the US Air Force is undermanned, under funded, and flying antique junk.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By erple2 on 4/17/2009 2:37:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Think F-15 vs F-16. The 16 can be outfitted for a more variety of missions than the F-15 can, but the F-15 will easily outperform the F-16 in a dogfight and other air to air missions.


The F-15 will outperform the F16, but probably not as trivially easily as you might think. The F-16 is more maneuverable than the F-15, and has other solid numbers that make it a difficult fight for the F-15, particularly if you consider any rules for visual identification.

The F-22 outperforms the F-15, though (at least, the trials the Air Force ran with the F22 vs. the F15 showed that) in all respects (other than cost...). The F15 was designed to counter what was perceived to be the best tech that Soviet Russia was able to muster at the time - The Mig 25. It turned out that the intelligence that the US had about the Mig 25 was greatly overestimated it's actual capabilities, which were discovered when that Mig 25 pilot defected in the mid '70s.

As a result, the F15 was a stunningly expensive (for the time) and stunningly capable machine. Which is another reason why it's survived for so long - its capabilities have only recently started to be matched or exceeded.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Nfarce on 4/17/2009 3:07:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-22 outperforms the F-15, though (at least, the trials the Air Force ran with the F22 vs. the F15 showed that)


The brother of a friend of mine was making the transition from the F-16 to the F-22 several years ago. FoxNews did a report on the Raptor, and Greta Van Sustren (before she had her own news show) did the reporting. He took her up in an F-16D and had one of his buddies fly the F-22. They simulated dog fights and even Greta said "it's as if he's just toying with us like a cat does with a mouse."

Look around on Youtube for it. It may be there. It's great stuff and has some excellent aerial photography.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By psychmike on 4/21/2009 12:52:28 PM , Rating: 2
Right.... I'm sure the F-16 pilot was yanking and banking as hard as he could with a journalist in the back seat. Instantaneous 6g turns, max roll rates, etc.

I have no doubt that the F-22 can kick the F-16's butt. An F-16 pilot himself said so on an aviation forum. But I'm sure as hell not going to take a staged event with a journalist's commentary as proof of anything.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By Nfarce on 4/21/2009 2:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
Any high school kid knows that she wasn't going to get a 9G turn. If you look at the video he does about a 6G turn as a solid rate turn 90 degrees, and the Raptor follows that 6G turn while rocking the nose up and down and sideways pointing at the F-16 from the hose to the tail - something the F-16 couldn't dream of doing.

And if you don't think reporters ever get kicked around up there at 9Gs, I'd suggest you search Youtube for some Blue Angels "media ride video." Some handle it, others don't. And personally, I'm not interested in what you think or need as proof anyway.


By Exedore on 4/20/2009 11:51:53 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, Viktor Belenko was that pilot, and his book is some excellent reading for anyone who cares to see what it is like to live under a Soviet style communist government. In fact, I encourage everyone to read it. A strong national defense is what keeps us free from such nonsense. This whole "aging fleet" problem with the Air Force, and the naivete of the politicians (and the people who elect them), really worries me.
I was fortunate enough to go to college with another pilot who defected from a communist country with a MiG, this one from Romania. He left his wife and family there, bringing only a picture of them with him. He hoped to eventually bring them out as well, through political channels, but I don't know how that all turned out. There is a reason why people will go to such great lengths to escape those type of governments. It always sounds attractive at first, at least to the masses at the bottom (and especially to the ruling class), but it has always become hell.


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By 91TTZ on 4/17/2009 10:30:14 AM , Rating: 2
Bateleur summed it up nicely. It's part of a high/low mix. Expensive air superiority fighter/cheaper multirole aircraft.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0216....


RE: F-22 is not aging jet technology
By 91TTZ on 4/17/2009 10:16:37 AM , Rating: 2
The reason that it has been in development for so long is that the program began shortly after the previous air superiority fighter entered service. The military knew that the ATF program didn't need to produce a final product for quite some time, so it underwent a prolonged development.

I remember reading about the Advanced Tactical Fighter program when I was a kid in grade school, and I'm 33 now. The shape of the fighter changed dramatically during that period.

The program began in 1981, the prototypes first flew in 1990, the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 in 1991, the finalized shape didn't appear until 1997, and the fighter was commissioned into service in 2005.


By MrBungle123 on 4/17/2009 11:04:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
F-22 is in the same generation as the F-35


according to the military channel the F22 is a generation 5 fighter, the F35 is generation 4.


And another misleading Dailytech article
By 91TTZ on 4/17/2009 10:03:15 AM , Rating: 3
Do the editors of Dailytech do any research before they write articles?

Consider this passage:

quote:
The US Air Force recently defended the decision to eliminate the F-22 program, with a stronger emphasis put on the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter jets. The Air Force will still receive up to 187 F-22 fighter jets, but the Pentagon won't make another order for the aging jet technology, Gates recently announced.


That passage suggests that the "aging" F-22 is being cut to put emphasis on the "next-generation" F-35 JSF. It makes it sound like the F-35 is the next step beyond the F-22.

But that's wrong.

The F-22 is the more advanced fighter. The JSF is a cheaper multirole aircraft. The F-35 was never meant to replace the F-22, it was designed to complement it. The F-35 is to the F-22 what the F-16 was to the F-15. It will be the cheaper, more numerous, "jack of all trades" aircraft that isn't meant to fill the role of the front-line air superiority fighter.

Check your facts, Dailytech.




By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2009 10:10:50 AM , Rating: 2
The statement wasn't made as a disparaging comment against the F-22's performance, but was rather referencing its 20+ year old design.

The comment has been removed.


RE: And another misleading Dailytech article
By 91TTZ on 4/17/2009 10:25:38 AM , Rating: 3
That's the thing: The design isn't 20+ years old.

The program began 20+ years ago, but most of that time was spent doing R&D. The finalized shape of the aircraft didn't appear until 1997. The weapons systems are even newer.

This page is a good place to start:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0021a...


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/17/2009 10:38:47 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for the references, I'll be sure to read up on it because I've always been a big fan of the F-22 program. I can even remember going to the library to read books on it in those HUGE Janes reference books :)

But my point was still to the fact that the F-22 still looks very much like the YF-22 prototype that preceded it. It had its flight surfaces and configuration slightly changed for production as do ALL U.S. military aircraft during their prototype to production.

The YF-16 didn't look exactly like the production F-16A and the YF-17 didn't look exactly like the production F/A-18. Changes are always made during the prototype to production phase (usually heftier airframe, larger wings to accommodate more fuel, etc.) -- that's a given.

But I will concede your point on the weapons systems. That's something that gets upgraded over time with aircraft.


RE: And another misleading Dailytech article
By rippleyaliens on 4/17/2009 7:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
People who are armchair warriors still amaze me. F22, With its cost, still is a devastating aircraft.AND it is on REV 1. Meaning, that updates are still not put into play yet. F15, was made like, a poster stated, it was made to combat a aircraft, that wasnt made, the mig25. So the F15 was 2 gen's ahead of the next avaliable fighter jet. The F22, is and will be, a fighter, that will carry us for >25 years. So it is indeed needed. the F35, maybe 25 years, maybe. Pound for pound, 2 totally different aircraft. many different combat roles.
People are talking about aircraft, pre 1960, IDIOTS, IE pre a computer, lol.. There is a SERIOUS reason on why this country has not been attacked... WE SPEND MORE to keep it safe. Terror war, will has been going on PRE- JESUS, and will go on POST everyone who posts lives.. DUH.. BUT we have had 2 world wars, within last 100 years, and many skirimishes. WE will indeed have more. Technology advances, communication, etc.. BUT people still desire power, and will do whatever it takes to obtain power. Korea, is comming, China, will soon flex its muscles on someone.. USSR, will (like they did, last few months) FLEX its muscles. India-Pakistan, is a boiling point. And Israel vs the rest of its neighbors, is a possibility.

There is no such thing as over kill, especially when you need it, and dont have it.


By Belard on 4/19/2009 7:25:09 AM , Rating: 2
Check out the other upcoming Stealth fighters (who knows how much has been stolen from USA Research) Russia, China, Japan and Korea have prototype or testing future designs.


Competing with ourselves?
By WinstonSmith on 4/17/2009 10:09:46 AM , Rating: 1
"could cause a growing fighter gap"

A gap between what we would have had and what we will now have, not a gap between us and any other nation on earth. So what? Who is the enemy, technologically sophisticated or otherwise who justifies even 1/4 of what we already have?




RE: Competing with ourselves?
By sc3252 on 4/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Competing with ourselves?
By HotFoot on 4/17/2009 12:52:05 PM , Rating: 2
The gap they're referring to, I believe, has more to do with operational tempo than with out-gunning any potential adversary. Old planes aren't being de-listed from active duty because they're reaching some chronological age - they're actually reaching their service life in terms of flight hours and critical parts are wearing out.

Right now, planes are wearing out faster than they're being replaced. Plain and simple, that means that in a few years, the Navy will have to scale back operations in comparison to what it's doing today.

From one point of view, this means that whether or not the goverment thinks it's a good idea to wage wars overseas, the ability will cease to be there in sufficient capacity to give them the option of doing so.


RE: Competing with ourselves?
By erple2 on 4/17/2009 2:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"could cause a growing fighter gap"


Lemme correct that for ya:

Mr. President! We must not allow ... a growing fighter gap!


New Program
By nbourbaki on 4/17/2009 9:29:32 AM , Rating: 4
I think the problem is that we're between programs. The F-35 program hasn't delivered any planes yet and there's a reluctance to spend what budget you have buying the older technology in the form of F-18's.

Flip side to this, building military aircraft creates highly skilled jobs that are not outsourced.




mine shaft gap
By nafhan on 4/17/2009 10:46:15 AM , Rating: 2
Did the title of this article make anyone else think of Dr. Strangelove?

Great cold war military comedy. If you've never seen it do yourself a favor and watch it when you get a chance.




RE: mine shaft gap
By Bubbacub on 4/17/2009 4:27:34 PM , Rating: 2
gentlemen gentlemen, we can't have fighting in the war room.....

kubrick was awesome


What a Crock
By FPP on 4/17/2009 6:54:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is plain old crap, from the folks in Congress who first funded these gems and then ran out on the promise to carry through on them. You paid for the development, logistical support and training for the F22, B2, B1B, etc. and now we are supposed to believe it is better to short the program.

The Navy is worse, overusing the strained fighter assets they have in order to facilitate a plane not yet in production, that still falls short of the F18E/F's twin engine reliablity, range, payload and a host of other features.

No folks, we got screwed this week and I'm watching for the day when anough people get tired of it.




RE: What a Crock
By rippleyaliens on 4/17/2009 7:15:28 PM , Rating: 2
Here is more Crock for the armchair mega warriors.
OUR navy, has more ships over 30 years old, than new ones younger than 30.
Our ARMY's Attack HELO's and supoprt hello's are over 20 years old.
Blackhawk >20 years old
OUR M1 Tank, is 25 years old.
OUR Airforce main attack jet f15>25 years old
f16 >20 years old
MAIN BOMBER> 50 years old. b52, ya know..
F117 Stealth >30 years old
B2 >20 years old
A10- 37 years old
Marines.. WELL as a marine, this pisses me off to high heavens..
Marines CH43, (twin roter ) is >40 years old
CH 53, >30 years old
COBRA helo, the marine attack copter, is >40 years old
Got the M1 tank 20 years ago, (was there when delivered 2hrs before ground war in desert storm)
M16 >30 years old
M2 machine gun 60 years old.

There comes a time to like, UPGRADE.. It is easy to criticize, if you never served.. and never needed those support options...
Yah we have nukes, BUT THEN AGAIN, we havent used 1 in warfare, in over 60 years.. Not like we can use them on anyone, lol.. So if no nukes, that means conventional which = F22's F35's, Ospreys, New armored vehicles..

You can only keep modifying a piece of hardware before it comes to a point, of not being worth it. Because there is no super power other than the USA, AT THIS MOMENT< doesnt mean that there wont be one, in 10 years, who will threaten us, or our allies,


All I know is...
By Raidin on 4/17/2009 2:55:33 PM , Rating: 1
If the military wants more planes, but can't get the approval, they should probably try to hang on to what they have on hand, instead of running them off the sides of carriers as pictured above.




RE: All I know is...
By Fritzr on 4/17/2009 6:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
Tossing them off the carrier as shown in the pic at the top is the whole point of having them on a carrier. That plane is not being tossed into the water ... it is being tossed into the sky & the pilot on board is supposed to return it later so they can throw it off the carrier again :P


By LoweredExpectations on 4/17/2009 3:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
The US which spends more than the next ten largest defence spending countries combined, and which has bases in 63 countries, needs to spend more on weapons. More propaganda from the military industriual complex. LOL. Let's ask the Chinese for a loan.




"DailyTech is the best kept secret on the Internet." -- Larry Barber














botimage
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki