11bee Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Man its been awhile since we've had one of these. The old heads around ARC probably remember those "I'm outta here" posts from a decade or more ago. Ahhh, good times... :rolleyes:/>... :cheers:/> Sorry all... carry on. :)/> Check Six, we hardly knew ye! The only ARC'er I really was sad to see leave was the jerk that took down all of his threads upon departure, including the F-16 thread in the Research Forum that had hundreds of really nice pictures (99% of which were contributed by others). Life will go on. Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 E.G.O. - "Everybody's Got Opinions" -Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 The DOD is now realizing that, just as the Air Force said, they didn't buy enough Raptors. Regards, Murph I just don't appreciate the people who actively campaign against something then complain when they get it, and don't learn their lesson. I was amazed that we were spending 800+ billion on shovel ready projects while shutting down and ending Raptor production as well. Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 I was amazed that we were spending 800+ billion on shovel ready projects while shutting down and ending Raptor production as well. The guy in charge stated that he didn't need additional aircraft, so they terminated production. What's so amazing? Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) The guy in charge stated that he didn't need additional aircraft, so they terminated production. What's so amazing? Lots of "guys in charge" had different opinions. They are keeping the Super Hornet line going and the primary reason of jobs jobs jobs. They are keeping the A-10 going for the same reasons. besides I am told all the times the Evil MIC is going strong, so I guess this was the exception to the rule? Edited December 19, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) The guy in charge stated that he didn't need additional aircraft, so they terminated production. What's so amazing? Not to inject politics; but the decision to cut Raptors was made right around the same time the Raptors were entering IOC. Thus two presidents; two Defense Secretaries and their deputies pretty much had the same sentiment regarding the fate of F-22 productions. Edited December 19, 2015 by Fellow Hobbyist Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 19, 2015 Share Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) Lots of "guys in charge" had different opinions. Well apparently the only guy who mattered felt additional Raptors were not needed. Case closed. They are keeping the Super Hornet line going and the primary reason of jobs jobs jobs. They are keeping the A-10 going for the same reasons. besides I am told all the times the Evil MIC is going strong, so I guess this was the exception to the rule? Lockmart didn't need a taxpayer funded welfare package. As it turns out, this was the right decision, they are doing quite well churning out F-35's. Boeing on the other hand could use a boost. I personally would like to see them continue in the fast jet business. If the SH program dies before anything else gets funded, St. Louis closes and the US is left with a single tactical jet producer. Not a good situation. To some extent, it is about the industrial base. I personally think the country is better served with two manufactures. Edited December 19, 2015 by 11bee Link to post Share on other sites
Alternative 4 Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 From a pure show point of view, I find it hard to beat the F-22. F-15 (as much as I love it), Typhoon, Mig-29...nothing comes close to the F-22's display. My favorite memory is standing on the Arizona Memorial and watching a 4 ship break over Hickam field before landing. Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 20, 2015 Share Posted December 20, 2015 (edited) Lockmart didn't need a taxpayer funded welfare package. As it turns out, this was the right decision, they are doing quite well churning out F-35's. Boeing on the other hand could use a boost. Boeing is the number 1 aerospace company in the world, and was also building parts in the F-22: I personally would like to see them continue in the fast jet business. If the SH program dies before anything else gets funded, St. Louis closes and the US is left with a single tactical jet producer. Not a good situation. For some reason this is always a huge point of contention even though we often have not only a "single company" but in some cases a single factory producing arms. This is only an issue with airplanes for some reason. and Boeing continuing to hawk its McD products is now essential to national security, while its doing just fine. Moreover there isn't much "competition" when both sides are funded by and produce for the same single customer in the US government. To some extent, it is about the industrial base. I personally think the country is better served with two manufactures. Its a fine line between "options" and "redundant use of taxpayers funds" and everyone is going to have their own opinion on it, I think its funny on my many travels around the interwebz where people come out of the wood work to lament the loss of defense contractors while simultaneously painting them as greedy and untrustworthy. Even more funny are the international folks who come from nations that are single producers of fighter aircraft for decades (Saab and Dassault come to mind) complain that we are "putting all our eggs in one basket" etc. The Rafale is even replacing 6 aircraft in french service (but we wouldn't want to put all our eggs in a single basket!!) Edited December 20, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 Not to mention the fact that every single line of code for the avionics, mission software, sensors, datalink, weapons employment, comm, nav, and identification on the f-22 is produced by Boeing. Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 "Lockheed, BAAAD! Boeing, GOOOOD!!!" "Why is that?" "Lockheed, BAAAD! Boeing, GOOOOD!!!" - Break - Pretty interesting book on the subject of the F-22's termination. Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 (edited) Pretty interesting book on the subject of the F-22's termination. Oh no, the USAF has a problem... They've only got 180 or so F-22's? At the same time that the F-35 is finally starting come on line in some decent numbers? That's a problem that the Chief of any other air force on the planet would kill to have. Interesting how the military goes from self-invented crisis to self-invented crisis. It's amazing but somehow we managed to survive the "missile gap" of the 60's, I'm sure we'll do fine and get through today's "Raptor gap" intact. If this was truly such a big deal and the "nation has been harmed", why is the USAF spending billions on a new bomber? Simply take all that money and get going on building a new generation air dominance fighter. Edited December 21, 2015 by 11bee Link to post Share on other sites
Waco Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Oh no, the USAF has a problem... They've only got 180 or so F-22's? At the same time that the F-35 is finally starting come on line in some decent numbers? That's a problem that the Chief of any other air force on the planet would kill to have. Interesting how the military goes from self-invented crisis to self-invented crisis. It's amazing but somehow we managed to survive the "missile gap" of the 60's, I'm sure we'll do fine and get through today's "Raptor gap" intact. If this was truly such a big deal and the "nation has been harmed", why is the USAF spending billions on a new bomber? Simply take all that money and get going on building a new generation air dominance fighter. Haters gonna hate. Link to post Share on other sites
11bee Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Haters gonna hate. wEasy Waco, I actually think the F-22 is a great piece of kit and is badly needed. I'm pretty sure I've posted those thoughts before. However, I agree with that guy well above both of our pay grades who felt that the nation could be safe even though we "only" have 180 or so aircraft. You obviously feel differently, so I'm genuinely curious - how many more F-22's do you feel we should have produced? Another squadron's worth? The full planned production run? A few thousand? Link to post Share on other sites
Fellow Hobbyist Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) w Easy Waco, I actually think the F-22 is a great piece of kit and is badly needed. I'm pretty sure I've posted those thoughts before. However, I agree with that guy well above both of our pay grades who felt that the nation could be safe even though we "only" have 180 or so aircraft. You obviously feel differently, so I'm genuinely curious - how many more F-22's do you feel we should have produced? Another squadron's worth? The full planned production run? A few thousand? Prior to the shut down the minimum number of F-22 air frames the Air Force felt it would be comfortable with was around 300. This would have allow equipping more air expeditionary forces; have plenty of Raptors available for training and testing and some extra air frames in reserve. Edited December 23, 2015 by Fellow Hobbyist Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The USAF never wanted 187; they wanted 780 to replace the F-15A/C fleet. The first cut came in 1994 when then SecDef Cheney rolled back the number of aircraft. The USAF has long maintained that the minimum requirement was for 381 F-22s. That’s to equip 10 rotational expeditionary forces, each with one squadron of 24 Raptors. Those 240 Raptors would be supported by 60 training aircraft, 15 test and evaluation aircraft, 32 for backup, and 34 for attrition during the aircraft’s service life (roughly 10% of the fleet). Link to post Share on other sites
Murph Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 The USAF never wanted 187; they wanted 780 to replace the F-15A/C fleet. The first cut came in 1994 when then SecDef Cheney rolled back the number of aircraft. The USAF has long maintained that the minimum requirement was for 381 F-22s. That’s to equip 10 rotational expeditionary forces, each with one squadron of 24 Raptors. Those 240 Raptors would be supported by 60 training aircraft, 15 test and evaluation aircraft, 32 for backup, and 34 for attrition during the aircraft’s service life (roughly 10% of the fleet). And the Air Force leaders felt so strongly about 180 being insufficient that a Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff were fired primarily over their continuing support of the F-22. The nuclear surety issue was just window dressing that Gates and Gordon England used to cover their tracks and try and sweep the issue under the rug. Regards, Murph Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 And yet the aircraft it was designed to replace is still in production... -Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) And the Air Force leaders felt so strongly about 180 being insufficient that a Secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force Chief of Staff were fired primarily over their continuing support of the F-22. The nuclear surety issue was just window dressing that Gates and Gordon England used to cover their tracks and try and sweep the issue under the rug. Yup, that book I mentioned earlier in the thread lays out that whole event. Gates couldn't fire them because they opposed him, but the safety issue provided Gates with the excuse he wanted. And yet the aircraft it was designed to replace is still in production... In production for foreign users, yeah. The F-4 remained in production for foreign users well after the F-15 and F-16 were introduced. So what of it? Edited December 23, 2015 by Trigger Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 In production for foreign users, yeah. The F-4 remained in production for foreign users well after the F-15 and F-16 were introduced. So what of it? Sure but the F-4's production run didn't outlast the F-15's or F-16's... I'm only pointing it out for the irony, nothing more ... -Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Trigger Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 Sure but the F-4's production run didn't outlast the F-15's or F-16's... If some political leaders and insiders in the mid-late 1970s had had their way, it very well could have. Link to post Share on other sites
habu2 Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 However, I agree with that guy well above both of our pay grades who felt that the nation could be safe even though we "only" have 180 or so aircraft. Nine Raptors for every B-2 Spirit in the inventory... Link to post Share on other sites
TaiidanTomcat Posted December 24, 2015 Share Posted December 24, 2015 (edited) Sure but the F-4's production run didn't outlast the F-15's or F-16's... I'm only pointing it out for the irony, nothing more ... -Gregg More like highlighting the inadequate procurement system. I must have missed the irony in that C-130 still being produced, c-17 shut down. IS irony? Edited December 24, 2015 by TaiidanTomcat Link to post Share on other sites
Alan in Yorktown Posted December 26, 2015 Share Posted December 26, 2015 (edited) Lots of "guys in charge" had different opinions. re the USAF 'Guy(s) in Charge (SECAF Wynne & CSAF Gen Moseley (a GREAT guy who I had the honor to brief 3x, and sit around & talk with for 45 min another time)) - the reason they were sacked was not the B-52 nuke issue, but they wouldn't stop advocating for 339 tails, vs. 187 that SECDEFs (Rumsfeld & Gates) wanted. Gen Corley (COMACC, also great guy) was also caught-up in it as well (another military member whose career stagnated at the 4-star level) Edited December 26, 2015 by Alan in Yorktown Link to post Share on other sites
GreyGhost Posted December 27, 2015 Share Posted December 27, 2015 More like highlighting the inadequate procurement system. I must have missed the irony in that C-130 still being produced, c-17 shut down. IS irony? Was the C-17 designed to replace the C-130? Two different jobs really... C'mon TT ... You know that... : -Gregg Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts