"Clashing Military Cultures"

[A4sForever]

World Fighter Market Impacted By F/A-22 Program Cuts ??

Thu, 14 Apr '05

US Cuts Could Be Felt Worldwide, Says Study

Proposed cutbacks in the US Air Force's prized F/A-22 fighter program could have a major impact on both the scope and composition of the world market for fighter/attack/jet trainer aircraft over the next 10 years, according to a new Forecast International market analysis. USAF's planned inventory objective, already peeled back from 700+ to 277 units, will be further cut to 179 aircraft if the reductions stand. The service is expected to put up a spirited defense of its favorite program, and it may be that a compromise figure will be agreed upon.


"Two-hundred to 220 F/A-22s may be a realistic target, but in light of the administration's determination to implement major budget cuts, we are basing our forecasts on 179 aircraft," said Aviation analyst Bill Dane.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter may also be impacted by future defense cuts, although Dane believes it is too early for a credible forecast of any such reductions. Only two years ago the US Navy/Marine Corps reduced its planned F-35 buys from 1,089 to 680, but about a dozen other nations are participating in this program's development and a fair number are likely to order the F-35. "Assuming the program moves ahead fairly smoothly, any additional cutbacks may undermine both its credibility and the US government's perceived commitment to it," Dane added.

 

[Super18Ordie]

Bottom line I think this article is a cheap shot and every sevice has acquisition skeletons in their closet, the V-22 comes to mind.

Can we say A-12 Avenger?

 

[Broadsword2004]

Isn't the F/A-22 also designed to be able to handle new anti-aircraft threats that are becoming less expensive to smaller nations (i.e. future conflicts may be a lot tougehr to send current aircraft into, whereas an F/A-22 is designed to handle these)?

 

[A4sForever]

Isn't the F/A-22 also designed to be able to handle new anti-aircraft threats that are becoming less expensive to smaller nations (i.e. future conflicts may be a lot tougehr to send current aircraft into, whereas an F/A-22 is designed to handle these)?

Maybe .... but/and "handling" AAA threats is always a good thing (with appologies to Martha Stewart). But isn't the idea these days to "handle" them by standing off and drilling the "AAA-holes" with a PGM or cruise something-or-other ??? [I wish we had them B-I-T-D (back-in-th-day) ... would have got the job done years earlier and saved a lot of good men.]

Even the A-4 could do "stand-off" if given the chance .....

 

[Cyclic]

Of course the USAF need the Raptor and the Osprey, of course the Marines need it too, they bring capabilities that we just don't have now. Unlike the Super Hornet, big spending and no significant new capabilities to the Strike Group, other than savings in maintenence costs, neither would US101 or S-92's for '46's, although I think the US101 should replace all 60's...now there the performance improvements justify it.
The Osprey will bring umprecedented capabilities to the USAF and USMC, replacing 40 year old '53's and '46's. The world will probably be drifferent in 25 years, whoever the bad guys are then and what they fly is anybody's guess, I know that they would be a little more worried if we had Raptors instead of F-15's buzzing around their borders.

 

[Fly Navy]

my opinion, we have sunken so much money into the program (like the Osprey & JSF), we can't just drop it, so we stick to 150 or so, and we retain the ability to produce them just in case WW3 breaks out and we really do need them, and the AF continues to buy the F-16 & F-15 (which are both still in production today and are still some of the best fighter/attack on the planet and will continue to be for awhile), and start developing a A-A UAV that will replace all of those aircraft.

I've heard a lot of talk about how other nations are catching up to our fighter aircraft, which is a BAD THING in my opinion. We should never ever have equal technology with anyone, we should always be ahead if possible. I don't know the validity of the argument though, I'm not out there yet and don't know enough yet. What say you Fleet guys... obviously without violating any kind of OPSEC.

 

[Brett327]

Maybe .... but/and "handling" AAA threats is always a good thing (with appologies to Martha Stewart). But isn't the idea these days to "handle" them by standing off and drilling the "AAA-holes" with a PGM or cruise something-or-other ??? [I wish we had them B-I-T-D (back-in-th-day) ... would have got the job done years earlier and saved a lot of good men.]

Even the A-4 could do "stand-off" if given the chance .....

SAFIRE? We don't need no stinking standoff! We got SEAD! I got your back, good buddy.

Brett

 

[Brett327]

I've heard a lot of talk about how other nations are catching up to our fighter aircraft, which is a BAD THING in my opinion. We should never ever have equal technology with anyone, we should always be ahead if possible. I don't know the validity of the argument though, I'm not out there yet and don't know enough yet. What say you Fleet guys... obviously without violating any kind of OPSEC.

Yeah, there has been alot of borderline BEAD WINDOW stuff on this thread. Use caution.

Brett

 

[Flash]

i need a vehicle to haul around my family, i want a Lexus SUV, i can afford Ford Explorer, so i can have money for other things.

If my life depended on winning a race between the two, I would get the Lexus (your Ford Explorer would roll over a few times before the finish line anyways).

Of course the USAF need the Raptor and the Osprey, of course the Marines need it too, they bring capabilities that we just don't have now.

I would argue that neither of them need the V-22. Sure it brings great capabilities but if you sink enough money into something hopefully you will get a return sooner or later. I think the better strategy would have been to buy the V-22 in smaller numbers, similar numbers to the CH-53E, and replace those 40 year old helos now flying with the 101 and 92. The estimated cost for a single V-22 is now $80-90 million dollars. Plus, need is relative. The Navy needs 15 carriers to do its job, according to the Navy. We will soon be down to 11.

if you have access it, do a search for Cope India 04, there is an after action from a Hickem .smil website

I have read several reports on Cope India. They suprised the hell out of everyone, especially the F-15 drivers . Whatever the reason for the losses the Indians were good, damn good. To paraphrase Sean Connery, why the hell bring a knife to a gunfight?

 

[Cyclic]

I would argue that neither of them need the V-22. Sure it brings great capabilities but if you sink enough money into something hopefully you will get a return sooner or later. I think the better strategy would have been to buy the V-22 in smaller numbers, similar numbers to the CH-53E, and replace those 40 year old helos now flying with the 101 and 92. The estimated cost for a single V-22 is now $80-90 million dollars. Plus, need is relative.

The '53's I was talking about are the USAF's, the USMC's are half old, besides you cannot replace Marine '53's with 101's and '92's, they can't do the job. Let me show you how important the V-22 is, only one of many different mission profiles.....your Prowler gets banged up in a hot zone 250NM from the nearest friendly and you and your crew have to punch out, two helos launch to get you but, if a C-130 is not available to plug......hmm, then there's the ground fire...at 140kts....low altitude, almost four hours hoping that golden BB doesn't hit you (pucker up!).
A pair of V-22 would climb to altitude to avoid ground fire, go with the A-10's, no plugs, have a badass crew of PJ's or Marines in the back... within an hour your flying back, within two your crew is havin a nice hospital meal, instead of finding shelter, hiding and all that other SERE stuff...

I don't know...but I prefer the latter thinking that I have to go get you and you're the one to have to bunk in the night out in the unfriendly woods.....yes I absolutely think we need it.

 

[Geese]

Yes, we need fighters like the F22 and bombers like the B2. The reason is that in conflicts, we can wipe out an enemy's air defenses and air force without exposing our own to enemy missle fire and needless danger. Sure, you might be able to get the job done with an overwhelming force, and take "acceptable" losses, but with as far as technology has advanced, we are past sending in 100 airplanes and expecting "x" number to never even have a chance. The information technology and systems are what are making the aircraft these days, the F22 has some highly advanced systems, computer designed low-radar signature while still providing good aerodynamics. In vietnam it seemed like we were fooling ourselves in our ability to take out point targets, at least with any kind of effectiveness, but those days are past. The aircraft that has more integrated electronics and information systems, has a low signature so it won't be detectable untill it's too late, and still retains decent manuverability will be far superior to an "older" F14 or F18.

We also need the F22 because of other countries developing and buying newer fighters.

This seriously sounds like sour grapes. I've experienced many aspects of the air force, and I don't consider them to be as professional or disciplined as other services on the whole, but that doesn't mean they are inneffective or do not "need" to have the latest and greatest.

I can tell you that in my experience working on military equipment, there comes a time when you simply need to JUNK it, it's been rebiult so many times, it's been worked on, it's made the rounds, etc. The military runs many systems into the ground, but many times it's a lot better to just call it a day and get something new (or send it to reserve units as we did in the army!). The amount of maint. and labor that it takes to keep said peice of equipment working(when it craps out every few months) exceedes the cost of getting something new, and even if it doesn't, from an operational readieness point of view it still makes sense to get "all new" equipment every once and a while. That marine colonel sounds like an idiot...sorry.

 

[Ryoukai]

The '53's I was talking about are the USAF's, the USMC's are half old, besides you cannot replace Marine '53's with 101's and '92's, they can't do the job. Let me show you how important the V-22 is, only one of many different mission profiles.....your Prowler gets banged up in a hot zone 250NM from the nearest friendly and you and your crew have to punch out, two helos launch to get you but, if a C-130 is not available to plug......hmm, then there's the ground fire...at 140kts....low altitude, almost four hours hoping that golden BB doesn't hit you (pucker up!).
A pair of V-22 would climb to altitude to avoid ground fire, go with the A-10's, no plugs, have a badass crew of PJ's or Marines in the back... within an hour your flying back, within two your crew is havin a nice hospital meal, instead of finding shelter, hiding and all that other SERE stuff...

I don't know...but I prefer the latter thinking that I have to go get you and you're the one to have to bunk in the night out in the unfriendly woods.....yes I absolutely think we need it.

I feel awkward responding to this as I have yet to begin to process of becoming a Naval officer, but I have discussed this with my boss (former Marine -46 driver) who seems to have a very different opinion, one which I've also seen from others here. What happens to our dear pal Flash if those A-10's you spoke of, for whatever reason, aren't available? My understanding is that the Osprey does what it was designed to do, move more quickly than a traditional helo, yet has trouble working with others as part of a larger whole. It seems as if it would outrun the Cobras and then be faced with the problem of not having any guns sticking out its sides. This presents itself as an awkward situation in my, and my boss', estimation. If we're wrong, please, let us know.

Geese: Have you done any in depth research on the B-2? Is the stealth aspect of it what makes you think it's so great? Here's an interesting memo, Australia can see our B-2s and there's no amount of fancy paint or voodoo we can put in 'em to change that. I'm not trying to say that Australia is trying to shoot us down, but the fact that $11 billion dollars went into something that is now obsolete makes one question whether or not it's worth having. The B-2 is also incapable of deploying anywhere outside of its home base due to its very sensitive skin and paint, both of which require the stealth to be kept in prissy air conditioned hangers...and nowhere else in the world. It has trouble flying in the rain. I'm just saying, it's a pity that people might be making a similar yet tardy case against the Raptor in the near future.

 

[vegita1220]

Geese: Have you done any in depth research on the B-2? Is the stealth aspect of it what makes you think it's so great? Here's an interesting memo, Australia can see our B-2s and there's no amount of fancy paint or voodoo we can put in 'em to change that. I'm not trying to say that Australia is trying to shoot us down, but the fact that $11 billion dollars went into something that is now obsolete makes one question whether or not it's worth having. The B-2 is also incapable of deploying anywhere outside of its home base due to its very sensitive skin and paint, both of which require the stealth to be kept in prissy air conditioned hangers...and nowhere else in the world. It has trouble flying in the rain. I'm just saying, it's a pity that people might be making a similar yet tardy case against the Raptor in the near future.

The JORN radar set right? Old physics prof used to be loosely affiliated with the project or something. That was an interesting discussion...

But the thing is freaking HUGE, and there's only that and the French version in the entire world, for now...
And I'm pretty sure LMT jumped on with the Aussies on JORN.

 

[Ryoukai]

^ Indeed. And yeah, LMT is one of the major partners that took over the facility. JORN's size and exclusive nature aside, I still think the B-2 is a money pit and I hope the Raptor doesn't turn into the same thing...and the same goes for the Osprey.

 

[Brett327]

Have you done any in depth research on the B-2? Is the stealth aspect of it what makes you think it's so great? Here's an interesting memo, Australia can see our B-2s and there's no amount of fancy paint or voodoo we can put in 'em to change that. I'm not trying to say that Australia is trying to shoot us down, but the fact that $11 billion dollars went into something that is now obsolete makes one question whether or not it's worth having. The B-2 is also incapable of deploying anywhere outside of its home base due to its very sensitive skin and paint, both of which require the stealth to be kept in prissy air conditioned hangers...and nowhere else in the world. It has trouble flying in the rain. I'm just saying, it's a pity that people might be making a similar yet tardy case against the Raptor in the near future.

Anyone who thinks they know something about stealth and isn't actually read into those programs doesn't know squat about stealth. So, when I read blanket statements about who can and can not see stealth, I know that they're talking out their ass.

Keeping it real,

Brett