F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[Naked Gents Rut]

Right Sherlock, Su-47 and F-22 are twin brothers.

I was talking about the PAK FA, moron. The Su-47 was just a technology demonstrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

[Serb]

Right Sherlock, Su-47 and F-22 are twin brothers.

I was talking about the PAK FA, moron. The Su-47 was just a technology demonstrator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

You didn't even know the name of it unil I mentioned it in the other thread.

[Naked Gents Rut]

I hadn't even read the other thread yet.

[Serb]

Yeah, right. And I have a bridge for sale.

[Naked Gents Rut]

It's probably a copy of an American bridge. That's the Russian way.

[Lonestar]

Su-34 is a CAS. And a world's best and most advanced CAS, I must add.
F-16 is just a different class (but still a load of obsolete crap, of course). And your comparison of F-16 and Su-34 just shows how... welll... let it be "limited" your knowledge of world's best close air support aircrafts is.
Stick with the navy, Sir - the field where you are an expert (at least for me).

Bull****.

Sorry, but the Su-34 is meant to replace the Su-24, it's essentially a bomb truck. It isn't a low altitude CAS aircraft; it doesn't have the tools or armor for the job of a CAS aircraft. Hell, by the wiki link that YOU used, it says it's a "fighter-bomber", not a CAS aircraft. And since it's basically a bomb truck then, an F-16 is just as good, better, even, as it has a higher ceiling.

Go look up the characteristics of a proper CAS plane before you start spooging all over a bomb truck that took 19 years to build 10 of them.

Oh great, we've lost a recon modification of Tu-22 (you call a heavy bomber) by Russian (ok, Soviet) SAM fire, but we've crushed that piece of stinking nazi sh!tty "army" within five days.

You also lost 4 Su-25s(true CAS aircraft, although it lacks the full spectrum of tools the A-10 does), and 2 Su-24s to a joke of a IADS.

You've lost F-117 in Serbia (by nowhere near advanced S-75 SAM fire (a half-sentury old Soviet design), so ****ing what?

Hmm, one light bomber to some dudes who you KNOW are going to be on the ball compared the Russians losing a heavy bomber, 4 CAS aircraft, and 2 bomb trucks. Yessir. I shiver in me boots for the mighty Russian air force.

You've kept butchering Serbia for several weeks and had no balls to engage into actual ground combat.

I believe the appropriate response here is..."So?"

You are still in "tiny desert nation" of Iraq and a "tiny mountanious nation" of Afghanistan. Are you a winning side there?

Neither one of those took down a heavy bomber and six smaller airplanes during the main stage of fighting. You're kinda making my point as to what a joke the Russian Air Force is when it comes to being able to established complete air dominance.

Something tells me that your aircraft casualties there are nowhere near to ours in Georgia. And mind ya - we won that war within 5 days. And you are still eating sh!t there. And honestly speaking, you have no chance to actually win either of these wars. At the end of the day you'll be running from Iraq and Afghanistan with tails between your legs like you already did in Vietnam (so yeah the moronic Zylca's "OMG it's gonna be another Vietnam!!!" was a prophecy (as I suggested when it started in 2003).
So, have a nice day and keep taking American supriority for granted - it is the best way to lose wars. Keep up that way of thinkingb:b

Yeah, we've really hit the casualty levels suffered in Vietnam...or for that matter what the Russkis suffered in Afghanistan. Woo-hoo.

[Serb]

Sorry, buddy but you are grave wrong here. Do some basic research about the plane. SU-34 can do terrain following and avoidance for high speed at low altutude in fully automatic mode. Thus its radar signature is lesser then of cruise missile. And its crew protection is UNPRECEDENTED GODDAMNIT. Both pilots located in the armored (titanium) capsule. No other existing aircraft has such level of protection. And so on and so on and so on.

Saying that Su-34 is not a CAS is just a sign of blatant ignorance. Keep doing that. It's fun. Laughable, actually.

[Naked Gents Rut]

As worthless as most Russians are, their weapons designers can still produce a quality weapons system every now and again. Russian weapons + non-Russian operators could spell real trouble for the U.S.

[Asher]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202268.html?sub=AR

Moving Beyond the F-22

By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz
Monday, April 13, 2009; Page A15

The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.

The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability.

We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives -- all balanced within the context of available resources.

We are often asked: How many F-22s does the Air Force need? The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.

These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.
ad_icon

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force.

[KrazyHorse]

Dude, we really are on the path toward the "one fighter AF".

The US has ~700 F15 (premier air superiority system of last gen Western planes)
Now it's cutting production of F22 to 180. And the marginal cost per unit is 200 million (inferring from above article) whereas that of F15 is 20 million.

As for F35 it looks like the marginal cost per unit is being estimated at 100 million or so. You have to wonder about the wisdom of developing two planes every generation when the per unit marginal costs are NOT that dissimilar and their capabilities are not that different.

[Patroklos]

What airframes and how many to buy aside, the suggestion that the capabilities of the F-35 and F-22 "are not that different" is absurd. The F-22 is in no way capable of fullfilling the role of primary strike fighter and the F35 is in no way a viable replacement for the F-22s air superiority role. They are complementary, not unlike the F-15 and F16 have been up until now.

I have no doubt that the F-22 could be modified to searve as a stike fighter, not unlike what was done to the F-15B to turn it into the F-15E. That was not an upgrade, however, and was rather a substantial redesign form the bottom up requiring a new production line.

I have no confidence in the F-35 being able to be modified to achieve anything approaching the capabilities of the F-22.

[KrazyHorse]

the suggestion that the capabilities of the F-35 and F-22 "are not that different" is absurd

No, it isn't. Not when the development cost per unit ends up being the same as the marginal cost per unit.

[Patroklos]

No, it isn't. Not when the development cost per unit ends up being the same as the marginal cost per unit.

What does the cost have to do with the capabilities? The F22 can not perform most strike missions regardless of the upgrades. You could put five F-35s up against an F22 and they would probably still lose.

They were designed to do different things, and there capabilities bare that out.

[KrazyHorse]

They are complementary, not unlike the F15 and F16 have been up until now.

I understand the theory, thank you. And I just don't see it as making sense on a cost basis. The total cost per plane is going to end up being 400 million dollars, with sunk costs being half (!!!) of that. The idea that 180 is the efficient number of these planes to build when the marginal cost is only half the average cost is ridiculous. I've seen estimates for the marginal cost even lower, which means that the marginal cost is 1/3 or LESS of the average cost. Meanwhile, they're talking about building 2400 (!!!) F35s.

One of those two numbers is out of whack. Either they're ****ing up by not building more than 180 F22s or they're ****ing up by having started the F22 program at all.

[Jon Miller]

Couldn't they have just not predicted the future right?

They were originally planning to build 740 of them. We no longer need that many, so they are building less.

I would actually agree that we probably could just produce more F-35s (we can build 2 for every 1 F-22 at the cost they are talking about) rather than have built any F-22s. However, since we have them we should use them.

JM