Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
Sea Skimmer
Yankee Capitalist Air Pirate
Posts: 37390
Joined: 2002-07-03 11:49pm
Location: Passchendaele City, HAB

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Sea Skimmer »

Starglider wrote: Do you have a source for that figure? I'd be interested to see how it breaks down. That's $250K per infantryman per year, which is about a factor of two above what my uneducated guess would be even if you include training, basing (on US soil) and support staff. Are you including the cost of unavoidable equipment replacements, or indirect costs such as having to maintain a larger airlift/sealift capacity?
I do have a source, be Gates announced this last year and all and I haven't found it again yet.

The simple costs of active duty manpower are indeed around 120,000 dollars a head. But manpower does not give you a motorized military unit ready for combat or useful for anything at all. Each dollar spend on manpower is easily matched by one dollars for every dollar in operations, maintenance, depending housing and healthcare and construction. This isn’t counting procurement of major items like trucks and helicopters either, just the soldier’s personal kit and the cost of operating equipment you already have for training.

You’re easily looking at 5 billion dollars a year to upkeep a modern mechanized division, which is perfectly in line with 80,000 men, about four divisions worth, costing 20 billion a year. The Army already spends over 100 billion in its regular budget for unit upkeep, and that figure would actually be much higher (by as much as 50%) except that huge amounts of additional money are spent in the War Supplemental Spending Bills. That buys many things soldiers would not have needed without war, but also many things they would need anyway but which are being supplied to the combat zone and thus counted separately. War supplemental funding has also paid for some of the equipment these extra soldiers will operate, but much of that equipment like the MRAP swarm has no peacetime purpose and will be taken out of service anyway.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16451
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Batman »

The US are NOT continually cutting Raptor production. That would require continued Raptor production to be actually HAPPENING. It's NOT.
They absolutely DID, and I happen to agree it was a bad idea, but it's a done deal, and another 7 birds ISN'T going to make any worthwhile difference.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by SirNitram »

I absolutely cannot grasp how seven planes in one appropriation is some kind of huge symbolic fight. This isn't going to end huge R&D for threats besides insurgency(I'm given to understand at least one company is already working on concepts for a replacement of the F-22, even more superior, so it's not as if that's being forgotten). There is a huge institution for such things, dug in after decades of growth. There is momentum, and it's not going to stop, because the industrial giants who do these jobs understand how to keep the momentum.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 29312
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Vympel »

Batman wrote:The US are NOT continually cutting Raptor production. That would require continued Raptor production to be actually HAPPENING. It's NOT.
They absolutely DID, and I happen to agree it was a bad idea, but it's a done deal, and another 7 birds ISN'T going to make any worthwhile difference.
Not for national security, no. But it does put off all those jobs being lost! Important stuff!

Help us, Sukhoi at MAKS 09, you're our only hope ...
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16451
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Batman »

I doubt there's all that many jobs that will be saved by building another 7 Raptors. And nice ANH reference, Vympel :D
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

The thing is; if you need to fight an insurgency; you can cheaply within a year or two produce a huge hoard of armored MRAPs that defeat roadside bombs and IEDs using existing light industrial facilities -- in fact, the DOD has like five manufacturers cranking them out (used to be seven). The only real limitation to our ability to produce them is supplies of hardened armor plate.

If you need to fight a conventional war; you can't cheaply mass produce tanks or fighter jets within a year.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

SirNitram wrote:Not surprisingly it's laborous for you to comprehend, this being someone with rather more real-world experience with the military than you and their not agreeing mindlessly with you.
You mean like Robert S McNamara, who insisted that a F-111 modified for air defense duties was more effective than the F-12B Blackbird?

You mean like Robert S McNamara, who insisted that a CV was just as effective as a CVN?
In April 1963, the “First Navy” study was given to McNamara. It concluded that “nuclear propulsion does permit a significant increase in the beneficial military results for a given expenditure,” and that CVA-67 and all other future major warships should be nuclear powered.

Of course, Strange took that report and shoved it into his desk and ordered another study to be done.

The “Second Navy” study arrived on his desk in September 1963 and was quite detailed and focused on the lifecycle cost differential between oil and nuclear powered task forces. It concluded that there was only a 3% cost differential in favor of the oil burning task force; but the advantages of a nuclear task force were so great as to outweigh the slightly increased cost.

Advantages? Well…in the words of the Navy in 1964:

“a nuclear CVAN-67 is designed to carry ammunition, aircraft fuel, and propulsion fuel for conventional escorts sufficient to deliver at least 60% more airstrikes than a conventional CVA-67 before replenishing.”

So what does Strange do?

Why of course he rejects it totally, gins up some supporting data of his own from OSD, and asserts:

“I am absolutely certain of one thing, that the six conventional task forces are superior to five nuclear task forces.”

He then continued to reject any further analysis of the CVA(N)-67 issue by the Navy and ordered it to be constructed as a oil-burner in a memo to SecNav Korth on October 9, 1963.

One of the key scenarios OSD ginned up to discredit the nuclear powered carrier was that of a High Speed Run across the Atlantic.

The Director of Defense Research and Engineering in OSD, Harold Brown assumed that the conventionally powered carrier had 100% availability and absolutely perfect positioning of underway replenishment ships.

These assumptions kept the oil-burning CV only 4 hours astern of the CVN after five days of high speed running.

Unfortunately, Admiral Hayward, who did do high speed runs on both CVNs and CVs, reported that during his transit of the Atlantic on a conventional carrier, the sea was so rough that underway replenishment wasn’t possible, nor could he bring his escorts alongside for refuelling from the carrier.

This led to the carrier burning aviation fuel in its boilers to make its destination.
You Mean like Robert S McNamara who insisted that calculations of the effectiveness of Small Nuclear Power Plants for the DEW line and Antartica; no longer take into account the cost of shipping fuel up there each season?

You Mean like Donald Rumsfeld, who mismanaged the first half of our COIN strategy in Iraq?

You Mean like Dick Cheney who killed off Naval Aviation by killing the F-14D and A-12? (of course, he did try to kill the V-22; but then again, McNamara also gave us one good thing -- unified missile designations).
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

I think guys like Shep and Skim actually have a point. For all those R&D things Nit has talked about, there is still the (maintenance of) current US military strength to consider. If the F-22 gets shafted and the F-35 doesn't turn out to be such hot shit, the USAF will be left with rusting F-15s and F-16s while it might end up getting left behind when the goddamn Russkies and ChiComs start building their own 5th gen planes or generally just upping their capabilities and selling stuff to other nations.

What'll happen is that the US military will have dropped the ball. It'll fail to maintain its capacity while the rest of the world catches up with it.

Then, when the next big war comes up and it's NOT a counter-insurgency "cakewalk", the US will get bitten in its ass. Because no matter how much R&D the US spends, if it fails to maintain its current capacity by replacing its old-ass planes with new ones, when the time comes it will still have to replace them - and rather really rapidly, too. But when it finally does so, it will be painful, it will be tiresome and it will be even more expensive because it's failed to maintain its capabilities then it will have to spend more time hurrying to haul its slack-ass back into shape again in order to catch up.

With the F-22 production ceased, the US will lose its 5th generation air superiority fighter. When the time comes and the F-22 is needed, even if the US continues its R&D like what Nit says, it still can't magic a whole bunch of 5th gen fighters out of nowhere. And turning R&D stuff into actual-factual working system costs time and money and is just a bitch. So when the time comes and the US actually needs many 5th-gen fighters, it's screwed.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Samuel
Sith Marauder
Posts: 4750
Joined: 2008-10-23 11:36am

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Samuel »

So when the time comes and the US actually needs many 5th-gen fighters, it's screwed.
That is putting it to harshly. We will probably still win, but more lives and money will be wasted than is necesary.
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

Then the very same people who are going on about new weapons systems being so costly will then, later, be the same ones who'll be going on about the US military not sufficiently protecting its own personnel.
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Then the very same people who are going on about new weapons systems being so costly will then, later, be the same ones who'll be going on about the US military not sufficiently protecting its own personnel.
Now, only at the end, do you understand. :D

BTW, did some rough searching for F-22A cost spirals; and here they are:

1987 - $45 Billion for 750 F-22A (Flight International, 9 May 1987)

1997 - $48-$64 billion for F-22 Program. (339~ aircraft)

2006 - $65.2 billion for 184 F-22A.


Right now, Gates wants a $1 trillion F-35 program to get 2,443 aircraft; which breaks down to a overall cost of $400 million per F-35; if you include all development costs, etc.

If we assume the following happens:

1987-1997 growth in costs for F-22A happens to F-35: 1,100 units costing $905 million per unit total dev cost.

1987-2006 growth in costs for F-22A happens to F-35: 599 units costing $1.6 billion per unit total dev cost.

By Contrast, the F-22A's total per unit development cost is: $353 million.

So; which plane would you buy? The one that's suffered all it's cost overruns, or the one that's about to balloon in cost and complexity.

The F-22 has about 1.7 million lines of code; and it took a damn long time to develop that code; as you can see by the cost increases. Meanwhile F-35 has 5.7 million lines of code. Yeah, see where this is going?
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
Uraniun235
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13772
Joined: 2002-09-12 12:47am
Location: OREGON
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Uraniun235 »

BTW, did some rough searching for F-22A cost spirals; and here they are:

1987 - $45 Billion for 750 F-22A (Flight International, 9 May 1987)

1997 - $48-$64 billion for F-22 Program. (339~ aircraft)

2006 - $65.2 billion for 184 F-22A.
Are those figures inflation-adjusted to 2006-equivalent?
"There is no "taboo" on using nuclear weapons." -Julhelm
Image
What is Project Zohar?
"On a serious note (well not really) I did sometimes jump in and rate nBSG episodes a '5' before the episode even aired or I saw it." - RogueIce explaining that episode ratings on SDN tv show threads are bunk
User avatar
Shroom Man 777
FUCKING DICK-STABBER!
Posts: 21222
Joined: 2003-05-11 08:39am
Location: Bleeding breasts and stabbing dicks since 2003
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Shroom Man 777 »

MKSheppard wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Then the very same people who are going on about new weapons systems being so costly will then, later, be the same ones who'll be going on about the US military not sufficiently protecting its own personnel.
Now, only at the end, do you understand. :D
Oh, I've always liked the F-22 and I do think some of your milder misanthropic militaristic machismo-meanderings do make (some) sense. But the keyword there is 'some'. And 'misanthropic militaristic machismo-meanderings', because alliterations are awesome. Sheppy-poo! :)
Image "DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source)
shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN!
Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people :D - PeZook
Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic
Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
User avatar
That NOS Guy
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1867
Joined: 2004-12-30 03:14am
Location: Back in Chinatown, hung over

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by That NOS Guy »

I don't have a ton of confidence in Gates predictive capability or even proper insight into our opponents present and future. After all, this is the same guy who thought the Soviet withdraw from Central Europe was at best "theatrics". The man has an agenda and sticks to it, regardless of facts. He's really a standard issue Bush appointee, and we all know how well that worked out.
Image
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Simon_Jester »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:With the F-22 production ceased, the US will lose its 5th generation air superiority fighter.
Does this take into account the part where we already have almost 200 of them? Or are we planning to scrap those and nobody told me about it?

I mean, we haven't manufactured any heavy bombers in ten years or so, and have no plans to make more any time soon, but we haven't "lost our heavy bombers." They're aging, but they haven't dissolved.

There's a difference between "lose production capacity" and "lose the aircraft." The US Air Force has been learning about this difference for the past fifty years, because jets have become expensive enough that maintaining production of every type you want to be using in perpetuity isn't such a smart plan.
_______

You're right that we're in trouble if for some reason our nearly 200 Raptors aren't enough and we need more in a hurry, but that's a very different scenario than "losing" the fighter outright.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
SirNitram
Rest in Peace, Black Mage
Posts: 28367
Joined: 2002-07-03 04:48pm
Location: Somewhere between nowhere and everywhere

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by SirNitram »

Shroom Man 777 wrote:Then the very same people who are going on about new weapons systems being so costly will then, later, be the same ones who'll be going on about the US military not sufficiently protecting its own personnel.
Then get some proper numbers going. Seven is stupid grandstanding and bravado, and political moneygrubbing. If you're getting decent numbers of these supremely expensive things, fine. But this is not the case. They are getting seven F-22s. That should not be lost in this.
Manic Progressive: A liberal who violently swings from anger at politicos to despondency over them.

Out Of Context theatre: Ron Paul has repeatedly said he's not a racist. - Destructinator XIII on why Ron Paul isn't racist.

Shadowy Overlord - BMs/Black Mage Monkey - BOTM/Jetfire - Cybertron's Finest/General Miscreant/ASVS/Supermoderator Emeritus

Debator Classification: Trollhunter
User avatar
Batman
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 16451
Joined: 2002-07-09 04:51am
Location: Seriously thinking about moving to Marvel because so much of the DCEU stinks

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Batman »

Actually when the aircraft in question is supposed to serve for several decades AND you produced only a relatively tiny number of them, yes, discontinuing Raptor production DOES mean the US will lose the ability to field 5th generation fighters for the time being. At least in worthwhile numbers. Just as it will lose the ability to field B-1s or B-2s eventually, due to airframe age and operational losses if nothing else. Those 200 Raptors aren't going to stay in pristine factory-delivered shape forever (especially if the troubles pointed out with their RAM coating are true). They'll be worked. HARD. And UNTIL a replacement shows up (from what I can tell the F-35, which so far seems to still be mostly a paper tiger),the Raptor is the only 5th generation fighter the US HAVE.
'Next time I let Superman take charge, just hit me. Real hard.'
'You're a princess from a society of immortal warriors. I'm a rich kid with issues. Lots of issues.'
'No. No dating for the Batman. It might cut into your brooding time.'
'Tactically we have multiple objectives. So we need to split into teams.'-'Dibs on the Amazon!'
'Hey, we both have a Martian's phone number on our speed dial. I think I deserve the benefit of the doubt.'
'You know, for a guy with like 50 different kinds of vision, you sure are blind.'
User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10713
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Elfdart »

Simon_Jester wrote:
Shroom Man 777 wrote:With the F-22 production ceased, the US will lose its 5th generation air superiority fighter.
Does this take into account the part where we already have almost 200 of them? Or are we planning to scrap those and nobody told me about it?

I mean, we haven't manufactured any heavy bombers in ten years or so, and have no plans to make more any time soon, but we haven't "lost our heavy bombers." They're aging, but they haven't dissolved.

There's a difference between "lose production capacity" and "lose the aircraft." The US Air Force has been learning about this difference for the past fifty years, because jets have become expensive enough that maintaining production of every type you want to be using in perpetuity isn't such a smart plan.
_______

You're right that we're in trouble if for some reason our nearly 200 Raptors aren't enough and we need more in a hurry, but that's a very different scenario than "losing" the fighter outright.
And here you have the real issue: War whores regard the taxpayers the way spoiled brats regard overindulgent parents. A brat isn't a kid who whines and bitches and throws shit-fits when he or she doesn't get what they want but rather, a kid who gets almost all he or she wanted and throws a shit-fit anyway. Awwww, the poor babies have to make do with fewer fighters than their one-handed fantasies desired...
:cry:

Let them cry. Fuck 'em.
User avatar
Steve
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9781
Joined: 2002-07-03 01:09pm
Location: Florida USA
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Steve »

I believe the stated issue is that because the F-22 order kept getting slashed we won't get enough to replace our fleet of F-15s when they are inevitably retired from wear and tear on the airframe and that counting on the F-35 to make up for that when it's costs are still to be determined is foolish.

You can disagree on whether the F-35 will end up too expensive as well or not or you can ponder whether the Air Force should shrink in size anyway instead of replacing all, most, or even much of their 4th Gen fighters as they are deactivated due to fatigue, but the argument is not some simple "oh war whores want more toys".
”A Radical is a man with both feet planted firmly in the air.” – Franklin Delano Roosevelt

"No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism." - Sir Winston L. S. Churchill, Princips Britannia

American Conservatism is about the exercise of personal responsibility without state interference in the lives of the citizenry..... unless, of course, it involves using the bludgeon of state power to suppress things Conservatives do not like.

DONALD J. TRUMP IS A SEDITIOUS TRAITOR AND MUST BE IMPEACHED
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Simon_Jester »

Batman wrote:Actually when the aircraft in question is supposed to serve for several decades AND you produced only a relatively tiny number of them, yes, discontinuing Raptor production DOES mean the US will lose the ability to field 5th generation fighters for the time being. At least in worthwhile numbers. Just as it will lose the ability to field B-1s or B-2s eventually, due to airframe age and operational losses if nothing else. Those 200 Raptors aren't going to stay in pristine factory-delivered shape forever (especially if the troubles pointed out with their RAM coating are true). They'll be worked. HARD. And UNTIL a replacement shows up (from what I can tell the F-35, which so far seems to still be mostly a paper tiger),the Raptor is the only 5th generation fighter the US HAVE.
Which, incidentally, we haven't used much yet. Also, there are a lot of airframes we stopped manufacturing that remain in service for decades; maintenance is possible.

Now, if this is presented as a syllogism, it's true:
"We build no F-22s. We will eventually have no F-22s."

The key word there is eventually. If "eventually" were "some time next week," then I would be as much in favor of building more F-22s as anyone. But when "eventually" is "thirty years from now," I'm not sure building more F-22s now is such a hot idea. Thirty years is actually enough time for us to design and debug the next generation of fighter, something to replace the F-22 with, in which case the F-22 has done its duty. And churning out an indefinite number of them in the interim without a clear purpose for doing so other than "so we will be able to churn out an indefinite number of them" doesn't seem all that obvious.
_______
Steve wrote:I believe the stated issue is that because the F-22 order kept getting slashed we won't get enough to replace our fleet of F-15s when they are inevitably retired from wear and tear on the airframe and that counting on the F-35 to make up for that when it's costs are still to be determined is foolish.

You can disagree on whether the F-35 will end up too expensive as well or not or you can ponder whether the Air Force should shrink in size anyway instead of replacing all, most, or even much of their 4th Gen fighters as they are deactivated due to fatigue, but the argument is not some simple "oh war whores want more toys".
I think the Air Force's air superiority arm could stand to shrink. Its "bomb delivery" arm (the multirole fighters and heavy bombers) needs to be maintained... which is something the F-35 is nominally intended to help with. But the need for dedicated air superiority fighters that are twice as good in a dogfight and half as good on a bombing run is low for the foreseeable future.

Counting on the F-35s is problematic. I can see the complaint with stopping F-22 production permanently and irrevocably before we get the chance to field test significant F-35 units.

So I guess that keeping the production line open for another year makes sense- but I very much doubt we need to keep it open for another five years.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

Elfdart wrote:Let them cry. Fuck 'em.
So what is your fucking brilliant plan to replace our F-15 and F-16 fleet as it ages? F-35 is going to start suffering huge cost overruns in it's development cycle; making it less affordable.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

Simon_Jester wrote:Also, there are a lot of airframes we stopped manufacturing that remain in service for decades; maintenance is possible.
You mean like the B-52? Guess what happens if we find a wing spar problem? The entire fleet is gone; forbidding a very expensive re-winging program.

And besides; there are restrictions on the B-52's bombload; because all of the remaining ones are H models; which have weaker wings than the earlier B-52s; and thus less capable of carrying the bombloads that earlier ones did.

Lets not mention the F-15; ever since that F-15 came apart in Midair over CONUS; the F-15A/B/C/D fleet has had a speed restriction on it; limiting it's performance.
Thirty years is actually enough time for us to design and debug the next generation of fighter, something to replace the F-22 with, in which case the F-22 has done its duty.
Then you better start designing it NOW; considering the F-22A has taken 20~ years to go from initial ATF concept to squadron service.
And churning out an indefinite number of them in the interim without a clear purpose for doing so other than "so we will be able to churn out an indefinite number of them" doesn't seem all that obvious.
Once the production line is closed; it's closed for good. No more F-22As will be available in the future, if we need more; or to replace attrition losses.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Void
Redshirt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2009-06-06 09:50pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Void »

I think the Air Force's air superiority arm could stand to shrink. Its "bomb delivery" arm (the multirole fighters and heavy bombers) needs to be maintained... which is something the F-35 is nominally intended to help with. But the need for dedicated air superiority fighters that are twice as good in a dogfight and half as good on a bombing run is low for the foreseeable future.
Then one wonders why the Next Generation Bomber was also killed as it would have offered far more (and more useful) bomb delivery capability than the F-35.
User avatar
Darth Wong
Sith Lord
Sith Lord
Posts: 70028
Joined: 2002-07-03 12:25am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by Darth Wong »

MKSheppard wrote:
Simon Jester wrote:Thirty years is actually enough time for us to design and debug the next generation of fighter, something to replace the F-22 with, in which case the F-22 has done its duty.
Then you better start designing it NOW; considering the F-22A has taken 20~ years to go from initial ATF concept to squadron service.
What the US needs to do is redesign its foreign policy goals now, and then redesign its procurement system and weapon system goals to suit. I agree that the two are obviously intimately related, but I reach a different conclusion because I'm not treating those goals as sacrosanct, unlike you.
Image
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing

"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC

"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness

"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Mike/RantMode/Blurbs.html
User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 29842
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Gates: Future Jet Supporters are Risking Today’s Troops

Post by MKSheppard »

Hmm. So apparently China has inked contracts with 611 Institute for the J-14 (formerly J-XX), to begin development of it, with an IOC set for 2015/2020.

Tentatively, it will have stealth comparable to, or better than EF2000 or Rafale; but less than F-22.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944
Post Reply