F-22 Raptor Cut today?

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

You might have to explain what METT-T is to some of our lesser informed people.

 

Oops..

 

You know what is funny, I had to think for a minute about what it actually stood for, I mean I knew what it meant, but I have so many acronyms in my head I always used..after a while what they stood for went away.

[Vampyre 24]

Perhaps an updated version of the Sikorsky S-80 would be a better idea. Its fast, carries a large payload, has long range and is relatively quiet compared to the H-47. I also understand the Marines will be buying about 150-200 of them if this isn't one of the programs that gets cut. Although they are a bit large, they would make pretty good presidential helo's too...

[JediMaster 451]

I was reading about the new CH-47F and each of its engines are 7500 shp! I forget what the Blackhawk's are, but they're less than 1/3 that, certainly.

[+Dave 2,322]

M=Mission

E=Enemy

T=Terrain

T=Troops

 

T=Time

 

And of all those my young Marine friend....which is the most important? JW no help from you!

[censored 0]

Nope.In my view,production can be rebuilded while new F-22 is needed.So,this won't be a loss of US air power.

Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion. The difference is that mine is informed by direct experience.

 

To provide some sense for how long it takes to manufacture a weapons system as complex as the Raptor, consider that if the US Congress decides to continue production of the F-22 for another year - into 2012 - the long lead time items that would go into those airplanes would need to be purchased this year - within the next 9 months. In other words, Congress would have to force the Pentagon to release the balance of funding that was reserved late last year, to extend the F-22 production line by another 20 aircraft. To date, the Pentagon has released sufficient funds for only another 4 aircraft (bringing the total production run from 183 to 187), withholding the balance:

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/...-unsettled.html

 

Shut down the production line and scrap the tooling for those long lead time items, and you can multiply that lead time by a factor of two or more. The same can be said for the unit cost. Once the production line is terminated for the F-22, it will be closed for good.

 

With regard to China, the two major issues that the US military faces in contingency planning for that region of the world are:

 

• The availability and security of forward bases of operation (such as Kadena); and
  
• The overwhelming numerical superiority that China is evolving towards.
  

If you want to understand what this means in practical terms, I would recommend reviewing slides 10 and 42-50 of the Rand study that was broadcast over the internet last year:

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewl...nd-air-pow.html

[Jeremiah Weed 0]

I was reading about the new CH-47F and each of its engines are 7500 shp! I forget what the Blackhawk's are, but they're less than 1/3 that, certainly.

 

I'm not sure if the models are any different, but that same engine in the M1 series tank (AGT 1500) is in the Blackhawk, in the M1 it is 1500 HP.

[JediMaster 451]

Well, if that's true than the UH-60 has a combined 3000 shp and the CH-47 has 15,000 shp.

 

That's a big difference, even granting the CH-47 weighs more.

[eraser_tr 29]

What I fear is that we're repeating history, getting fixated on the fight we're in now, rather than the fight we could be in in the future.

 

In today's war, and against the current enemy, yes, UCAVs are very useful. The F-22 and F-35 probably aren't necessary to even bring in-country against the threats we're currently facing; the 4th gen fighters and heavy bombers we've been using have worked out fine. But, in the event that a new threat arrises, one which has the technology to bag our 4th-gen aircraft, like the SA-10 (which Jedi Master has pointed out) or better, we can expect to see parts of Bugs, Vipers and Eagles raining down from the skies. That "Toy" F-22 and F-35 may well be the only things keeping us from getting caught with our pants down, hitting high priority targets in SAM rich environments, or blasting the SAMs safely so our other bomb-trucks without the tech get on target.

 

Not happy about this news, but money makes the world go 'round, and cuts happen to the best of 'em.

 

I agree 100% we need the capability for future threats, not just what we're fighting now. If a real threat comes our way, drones just aren't going to do the job. History tells us that whenever we think the era of something in warfare is over, the next war teaches us otherwise. Even with super BVR missiles and all aspect, off boresight short range missiles, dogfights will happen and we will eventually face a serious A2A threat. Just as defense "experts" thought dive bombing was no longer feasable with the "high" speed of early and pre-WW2 planes and that guns were obsolete in the late 50s/early 60s, we're going to need our conventional forces. History repeats itself, economic downturns tend to result in instability and war. and with the money situation in chaos, the 2007 paradigm that a war with a nation powerful enough to put up a real fight wouldn't happen because of the economic relations doesn't hold up as much. Let alone human nature. But by the logic of the wars we're fighting now, the decisions make a great deal of sense.

 

I want to see more planes in the air, but the defense industry has needed a kick in the pants to get cost under control. Perhaps it will be enough of a wakeup call to get people to start keeping costs down (and keep R&D costs out of the airframe cost!) But the production lines should keep going (or the tooling preserved for quick restarting) simply to drive down that unit cost over time and to have the parts to repair the airframes even if there are fewer.