We Must Start Production Of The F-22

C

casey jones

Charter Member
There has been alot of news coverage on the Chinese J-20, I just hope Mr Gates will reconsider and re-open the F-22 production line.

Cheers

Casey
 
what needs to be done is get rid of Mr Gates.....he is going to be our down fall...he is ruining the US military....i read every month in Air International and other publications of new programs he is shutting down..i personally dont think its out of money savings as he is on a machine like mission to distroy the military power of the USA


oops was that a polotical rant???
 
Daveroo said:
what needs to be done is get rid of Mr Gates.....he is going to be our down fall...he is ruining the US military....i read every month in Air International and other publications of new programs he is shutting down..i personally dont think its out of money savings as he is on a machine like mission to distroy the military power of the USA


oops was that a polotical rant???
Click to expand...
Have you seen the state of the British armed forces lately? Trust me, you're situation could be a hell of a lot worse.
 
Clarke123 said:
Have you seen the state of the British armed forces lately? Trust me, you're situation could be a hell of a lot worse.
Click to expand...

yeah... at least they have carriers.... and Harriers....

our Con-Lib alliance are just cutting left right and centre. maybe they'll make some nice paper snowflakes by doing it, y'kno like we all surely must have done in Junior/Primary school :icon_lol:
 
Bjoern said:
Inbeforethelock.
Click to expand...

with more style here for you Bjoern...
Star_Trek_-_In_Before_the_Lock.gif
 
Swap ya US. You take them F-35's and we get F-22's. As for the UK, yes I agree the US is so far fortunate not to face the drastic cuts in defense like our friends in the UK are enduring.
 
think of this .. the US was chinas biggest export desdination, with $220 Billion .. why would china kill its biggest money source??
 
Just saw an article slamming the F-35. Typical semi-veiled political slant of the writers who with the repetition of an atomic clock dig deep to paint high profile Military projects as a waste of money with the hope the political pressure from pointing out overruns and problems will get the projects canceled. Funny thing is, 99.9% of these writers haven't the first clue of how aircraft like the F-35 and F-22 are designed, built, or maintained. In some minds, if an aircraft costs that much, it should be 100% flawless and never need a wrench to touch it for 20 years! LMAO! I have seen this kind of attack(of the article I read today) all the way back to the 70's when the M-1 Abrams was attacked, the ALCM & Tomahawk cruise missiles, the B-1A/B, the F-15 and F-16 as well. I remember the ABC 20/20 report about the AH-64 Apache being that the Helicopter was nearly useless and cost so much. The report of course was heavily tainted/colored. When the AH-64 performed so well in combat in 1991, it was awfully hard to find these people to rub fact in their faces. There's still a lot of people around who believe the Patriot AD system is junk all based on a few biased and extremely flawed press reports. Those of us who have worked in the Military or Aviation Industry understand the truth and the actually technical end of what it takes to build and maintain high performance machines that meet the needs of defending and maintaining a Super Power. It isn't cheap and it never will be. If the public wants to see lower Defense costs, the current bidding system and sole source procurement laws should be changed at least enough to reflect more realistic costs and time frames. It is a well known fact that when the Govt keeps moving the goal post and forcing delays and reduces numbers, the costs go up sky high.

Gates is a "Yes" man. Second stringer. I wasn't impressed with him during his tenure in the CIA or as the Deputy NSA. Here's a clue, he wants to quit this year. Don't rule out an additional 100 to 200 F-22's in the future. It may come at the cost of some F-35's but so be it.
 
LMAO!! replace the A-10. "Ah ah ha ha"
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's a stretch. The A-10C work continues as we speak. Very proven design. The 35's advanced systems and standoff CAS capability will actually exceed the A-10's capability in that regard. But it is obvious that the 35 won't have the loiter time, payload, or the GUN(LOL) of the Hog. On the other hand, the Hog hasn't gone up against the TOR M1 or 9K22(2S6) Tunguska yet but it is a forgone conclusion that it is likely that the Hog wouldn't survive a direct encounter with either of them, this being based on the fact that an A-10 was shot down with a single hit of a Roland. Being as such, the 35's stealth and advanced sensor/targeting capability at standoff ranges would certainly give it better odds at dealing with such threats beyond any legacy system currently flying(except the F-22 which wouldn't normally encounter close in threats). The 35 could in fact pave a path in the SEAD/DEAD role to help aircraft like the A-10C(and other legacy aircraft) have an easier day.
 
I agree with Allen's post, Gates and crew will do what they can to ensure the F-35 program is dead on arrival and Lockheed will take it in the shorts. :frown:
Gates, like JCS Chairman Mullen, is just a bobble-head doll for the Obama administration. If he'd act more like the Secretary of Defense rather than Secretary against Defense, we'd be a lot better off. :mad:
 
@deathfromafar

Some how I see the A-10 being around for along time I thing the A-10D will be the a UAV. It will be the A-10 airframe minus the pilot.


@TARPSBird

If I were the USAF, The next plane I want will be a top secret "black project" no mater if it is a new fighter to a farking cessna. If it is a top secret "black project" Most of the Gov oversight is gone. No congress man or woman can say that a $.50 swich has to be made in there district or they will vote to hold the whole program up over it.

While I'm being the USAF I would make the contracts a fix price per plane. If the run over it cost them not the tax payer and I would start by geting my hands on the YF-23 and YF-32. Maybe Boeing or Northrop would sigh a contracts a fix price per plane.
 
Some how I see the A-10 being around for along time I thing the A-10D will be the a UAV. It will be the A-10 airframe minus the pilot.
Click to expand...

The first part of that I agree with. The Hog will be here a while longer which I am in favor of. It has obvious adantages over other systems. As I pointed out before and as I openly advocate, it is both practical and cost effective at this point to utilize the advantages of newer stealth, sensor, and weapon technologies through good strategy and tactics to augment overlapping legacy systems thus getting more out of their usefulness & lifespan of the older systems. We've already done this to great effectiveness.

The part about the A-10D UCAV, I am steadfastly against UCAV's for the simple reason that datalinks are not nor ever will be safe from jamming and I am very leery of autonomous systems as well. The best adaptive computer in the world is the Mk1 Human Brain. I have a lot of trust in that system based on proven past performance history of successes when it comes to the operation of deadly war machines!
 
I too don't like UAV or autonomous systems for planes but I think it will be a UAV.
 
TARPSBird said:
Gates, like JCS Chairman Mullen, is just a bobble-head doll for the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

1. Gates and Mullen were both appointed to their present jobs under George W. Bush.

2. I don't have an opinion about the F-22 or F-35. I've read some about both, but not enough to form a conviction. I am concerned about the unchecked growth of (a) medical and (b) military spending in our budget. Obviously, I'm not against medicine (I go to the doctor); and I hope it's clear (from my participation here) that I'm not against the military. But we need to be smart about how we spend our money. I think the Secretary is trying to do that. He might be wrong -- again, I don't have an opinion on these two programs -- but there needs to be oversight.

3. I understand that we need to keep Lockheed and the rest in business for national security. Not arguing with that. Do we need, though, to spend as much on our military forces as the rest of the world combined? We have recently, but we didn't in the Cold War.

4. When I think about these subjects, I keep coming back to two things:

a. The demise of the Soviet Union in my lifetime, hastened if not actually caused by the arms race of the previous four decades. You could say that Reagan spent the Soviets into the ground. But what is to prevent us from becoming the next Soviet Union, if our military is financed with money borrowed from China?

b. President Eisenhower's farewell address, which you can read for yourself in a couple of minutes: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Military-Industrial_Complex_Speech. I'm sure most of you have heard snippets, and some of you probably remember the original broadcast. I wasn't born yet, but the president's working drafts were recently discovered in a boathouse: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2010/12/20/101220ta_talk_newton?currentPage=all. They show, among other things, that he revised the speech almost thirty times. Ike was no bobblehead.
 
I am sure the Boeing 299A is well remmenbered as a example of how a great plane is built. Boeing used all their own money to design and build the sole B-299A. The Army did not spend a dime. When it crashed in Oct 1935 at Wright Field the The accident Board chaired by Col Frank Lackland found the B-299A not at fault...but boeing told the Army it would close its doors because it was now bankrupt, the Army stepped in and bought 13 YB-17s saving a great airplane.


Cheers

Casey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top