OK. An afterthought on the F-22.

My problem with Government and Pentagon thinking.

Pentagon planners discontinued production and procurement of the F-22 based on a 'lack of relevant adversaries'......specifically China and Russia reportedly (yeah......I'll believe that when I see it) suspending furtherance of the advancement of their own fighter platforms.

OK. So that means if we fully ramp up production of the F-22 for the long haul (the next few decades) where it's quite possible that no enemies would be able to match the F-22.....that is a bad thing? (confused)

Yeah. The cost (approximately $150-million/fighter). Versus $85-million/fighter for the F-35. As a long-term investment in air superiority? I think it's money well-spent.

Also, the F-22 is banned from export by federal law. I like that personally. But I guess the money weenies in Government drooling over the prospect of cranking out fighters for sale-export and crying that they can't sell that expensive platform. So they have to mass produce a different platform (the F-35).

I don't like that reasoning.

 

The F-22 SHOULD go back into production, the tooling is all there, the plane WORKS, and finishing the contract IS a investment in long term supremacy.
The F-35 is seen as a long term $$$ cow.

 

You're right, Junk. I'm still more friendly to the concept of the F-35 replacing the Navy and Marine birds, though.....

 

Okay - lemmee see if I have this straight:

The F22 is SO superior, that the Government has imposed a "NOFORN" on it's distribution.

The F35 is out of the box intended to be up for sale to any foreign interest who wants that thing...


The F35 is definitely crap, and the government knows it. The only thing that is driving them is how to get their money back out of that pig.


Single engines are also a real big fault flag, the reason we have F18's now, and the Corsair II went away, is because the Vought Corsair II was a single engine bird - even though it was clearly superior to the 18 and the next edition was planned to have A/B.

F18's at the time they came out had to tap A/B to keep up with non-A/B Corsairs, and the Corsairs could carry nearly twice the weapon load


These are some serious fault condition indicators on the main annunciator panel, Gentlemen


If they are so sold on a single engine bird, what I'd like to see is an updated Corsair III on the table. They wouldn't even have to look far to engine it - go to any DRMO and re-route a few GE-110 A/B units to the nice folks at Chance Vought.

We even have an engine test cell at Miramar built just FOR those engines, and the assembly lines at AIMD were running 5.0 all the way back in the nineties.

*The GE 110 was the prime engine for the F-14 A+ and DELTA version


It gives me chills just thinking about it - an A-7 with advanced Tomcat powerplants and afterburner...

~But I was always a junkyard kind of a guy.

 

The Desert Aircraft Boneyard was stunning in the '70s. I can just imagine how it is now with A-10 and C5-A resting quietly on that hallowed ground.

BEHOLD.....

http://www.airplaneboneyards.com/davis-monthan-afb-amarg-airplane-boneyard.htm


#ad

 

Until you cram a 2nd engine in it, the F-35 seems wholly unsuited to Naval carrier operated aviation.

 

That's assuming that one of those engines BY ITSELF can carry the weapon platform home or to bingo by itself.

I still think it's a red herring...


But maybe I ought to shut up about that. The whole thing stinks when you consider it on the basis of what has gone before. A7 cancelled, because of single engine. - why would they reverse themselves now?

I don't for a millisecond believe that what is on the frontline burner is any of these well publicized boondoggles.

My gut tells me that what we are hearing about is a load of crap.

For one thing, anything you want to know about them is on the frontpage of the Washington Post - fer krissakezzz. If an effective weapon platform was out there, they damned sure wouldn't advertise it. And something truly impressive is necessary in order to equal the efforts of Mikoyan Gureyevitch; or the Chinese, who routinely steal technology in a way that puts Japan to shame...

On that note, GOD BLESS GROOM LAKE

 

Why the hostility to a single-engine bird? The F-8 worked quite well for years as a carrier aircraft. The F-16 Fighting Falcon is still out there going strong. The A-4.......Et al.

 

Yeah - but the Air Force is still flying versions of the F-4 Phantom II aren't they?

And why is that? It has no glide capability, but is the most survivable platform you could possibly ask for...
F-4's have come home with over 180 bullet holes in them, for the Wild Weasel project they were ideal

 

Only as target drones...........

 

Well looks like it's now certified combat ready.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ear-old-F-16-lacks-software-fire-cannons.html

Too bad about the little software "glitch" that means it can't fire it's cannons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-not-be-able-to-fire-its-guns-until-2019.html

Perhaps air superiority is over rated. Looks like we're about to find out.

 

How is it that this info is coming from the UK?
If I may be so bold as to ask - that seems kind of second hand.

 

Our "in house" media tends to gloss over the parts about the current administration supplying those in harms way with inferior equipment. The UK places do have US sections and dedicated reporters covering US news. It's just that their boss is overseas so while they are very anti-gun, then do tend to share a little more info sometimes than their counterparts here in the States.

Of course on the flip side, the local media does a bang up job covering PTSD. Almost makes it sound like all vets have it and shouldn't be trusted.

But here is a story that is from within our borders. It paints an even less flattering picture. http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2015/05/f35-wont-be-going-war-against-isis-just-yet/113188/

It says things like

and

and

 

We only use them as target drones. Iran apparently still uses them, though.

Damn, they have been around since 1958.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II

 

Military procurement gets worse and worse so airframes go longer and longer without replacement. All the services have severe internal rivalry, political and clique issues resulting in failure after failure. Meanwhile we have to rent Antonovs from Russia to support Afghan ops because we don't build enough airlifters and wore out fleets without replacement. The prolonged tanker replacement mess is more USAF incompetence.

The aircraft we view as classics were built in a different procurement era where it was considered urgent to field functioning equipment.

BTW Turkey still flies Phantoms. They carry quite a ground attack load.

As for single engine vs twins, the safety center folks long ago proved we lose more single-engined birds. Their only advantage is cost which is why we have F-16. Money for an all F-15 fleet would be impractical and even for DoD money is real.