|
Godholio posted:The "full" fleet of F-22s was about half as many F-15s as it was supposed to replace. For perspective, the final number of combat-capable F-22s is just north of 1/3 of that. Also because the F-35 was going to be able to be a capable A2A asset. Baloogan posted:Building 800+ F-22s would have cemented US doctrine for a half century. No one seriously wanted 800, at least not since a decade ago. 381 was the bare minimum that was required to support the Joint Staff's overall defense concept, and that number got tossed out the window by Gates based on literally absolutely nothing. Which, incidentally, is also what his magical 65 Pred/Reaper CAP number was based on. And I feel like "maintain dominance of the skies" is something that is going to be a part of US doctrine for quite a while, regardless of whatever the other details consist of. You don't get that with 184 Raptors (of which only 100 and change are actually combat coded).
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
800 was ever going to happen. The 381 request was actually based on things like how many squadrons were needed to meet the Pentagon's contingency requirements, depot-level maintenance schedules, attrition, testing and training, etc. Fun fact: Gates also cut the number of major theaters the DOD has to plan for from 2 to 1 so he could gut the AF and Navy. Nothing like changing the terms of success to avoid failure. It works for Capt Kirk in the sim, maybe not so well with national defense strategic planning.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 07:51
|
|
|
Mr. Showtime posted:You've worded this like it's an advantage for the Super Hornet, when to me it reads like +1 for the F-35 -- if you want a low RCS, there's nothing the Super Hornet can do, but if it doesn't matter for whatever they're tasked for then you can load either one up with whatever external stores you please. Good point. If you're the USA and have a much more robust, but still lacking, tanker fleet than the average nation, a shitload of overseas airbases, and the luxury of a ground, naval, and lol version of the F-35, the option to be stealthy outweighs any thoughts of range. If you're a nation that needs local defensive and offensive abilities, but doesn't need long range to defend itself and doesn't project a ton of power, the F-35's LO abilities are decidedly appealing. If you're coming from the distinct perspective of worrying about range, then the F-35 solution of "throw on some gas tanks" starts to really discredit the bonus and cost of LO.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:06
|
|
|
Is it totally implausible that we could just build more f22s later? I know some tooling and poo poo has to be rebuilt but cone on. If we need more we can start making more again. For the record I agree gates was wrong and stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:21
|
|
|
OK well chalk me up as having learned something new. I still think the Rafale is a better idea than the F-35 though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
The Rafale is a Super Hornet equivalent that is literally more expensive per unit than the F-35A managed to be. Isn't stealthy, isn't supermaneuverable, can't supercruise with an air to ground loadout. 100% external stores, which removes any pretension of being LO. Its first flight was in the 80s. So far only India has started the process of buying them.  Rafale's carrier variant doesn't fold its wings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Also the French have proven to be unreliable suppliers with the Mistral affair.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:14
|
|
|
Still hoping that there could be some deal swung to grab one of the Mistrals for Canada.. I know there will be an utter poo poo show with the locally built ships going massively over budget though, so there'd be no money for this anyway.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
gfanikf posted:Quick question since Bush Sr unilaterally withdrew all non strategic nuclear weaponry how hard is it for an aircraft carrier and it's to be nuke certified, say to store nukes for dual use planes or is it just accepted that if a B61 is getting used it's coming from an airfield? Of course if you can't answer cause OPSEC don't worry. Just wondering how naval non strategic nuclear warfare could still work or if it's essentially been written off. It's not like there aren't a *lot* of W80s still sitting around in the stockpile and tons of Tomahawks (both UGM and RGM) they could be shoehorned into given moderate notice. If anything, they'd be even more accurate now than the TLAM-N ever was originally. I'd imagine if the ~New Cold War~ really starts, they'll just throw money at Raytheon to make that hypersonic version of Tomahawk they claim to be sitting on to get the government to commit to keep the production line open. There's also this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/rattlrs.htm The B61 dual-key arrangements with Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Turkey through NATO aren't so much a strategic partnership anymore as much as it's a "Super Friends" club, as Russia can't utilize a unified Warsaw Pact landmass to move large amounts of armor and men without a lot of scrutiny. The nations which have the arrangements are made 'de-facto' nuclear powers without having to spend a dime other than to keep their aircrews trained and airframes maintained to drop a bomb they'll likely never be able to take out of the extremely elaborate secure housing unit. And last but not least, even though carriers don't put to sea carrying nukes anymore doesn't mean they can't pick them up along the way. BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 10:35
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:The Rafale is a Super Hornet equivalent that is literally more expensive per unit than the F-35A managed to be. Isn't stealthy, isn't supermaneuverable, can't supercruise with an air to ground loadout. 100% external stores, which removes any pretension of being LO. Its first flight was in the 80s. I wonder how much of those costs are pure graft
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 13:37
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Also the French have proven to be unreliable suppliers with the Mistral affair. What do you mean exactly? You mean they are actually considering selling weapons to their enemy? I agree, that's complete bollocks and the French should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
priznat posted:Still hoping that there could be some deal swung to grab one of the Mistrals for Canada.. I don't think the current political climate is conducive to he navy buying anything built overseas. Are jerbs and all that. Plus the NSPS is going to get exponentially more entertaining as time advances.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Also the French have proven to be unreliable suppliers with the Mistral affair. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, huh?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 15:32
|
|
|
Hunterhr posted:Lets send a bajillion dollar warship to investigate a colony transmitter malfunction with a single understrength platoon that can't even man both of the dropships provided... Weyland-Yutani actually pays for the USCM so its a case of lovely military contractors. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
priznat posted:Still hoping that there could be some deal swung to grab one of the Mistrals for Canada.. We're a nation that could actually replace our search and rescue fixed wing asset from inside our own country and with a design we know would get the job done - but have refused to for the last 14 years because the DnD wants to wheedle out favors on the international scene, and can't because they are too slow and incompetent to actually accomplish this.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Fun fact: Gates also cut the number of major theaters the DOD has to plan for from 2 to 1 so he could gut the AF and Navy. Nothing like changing the terms of success to avoid failure. It works for Capt Kirk in the sim, maybe not so well with national defense strategic planning. I think Gates made that decision because we're probably not going to need to fight 2 major theaters, we're probably going to need to fight 2.5. If our experience from the end of the Cold War to today has taught me anything, it's that there will always be something that'll count as ".5", so we need to plan around that. Since we can't do 2 major theaters plus a .5 theater, we need to plan for 1. The money just isn't going to be there. This fiscal year, we paid military retirees more than we paid currently serving military. It's not even close, it's like 65/35. All told, a full half of the DoD budget goes to compensation. Add to that the absurd operating expenses of the wars, the services in general, and then you're left with actual procurement dollars, which totals about 31% of the budget. Which has to be split between all four services. This not even starting on the looming budgetary leviathan of social security/medicare. Baloogan posted:The Rafale is a Super Hornet equivalent that is literally more expensive per unit than the F-35A managed to be. Isn't stealthy, isn't supermaneuverable, can't supercruise with an air to ground loadout. 100% external stores, which removes any pretension of being LO. Its first flight was in the 80s. Counterpoint: it's beautiful 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Baloogan posted:The Rafale is a Super Hornet equivalent that is literally more expensive per unit than the F-35A managed to be. Isn't stealthy, isn't supermaneuverable, can't supercruise with an air to ground loadout. 100% external stores, which removes any pretension of being LO. Its first flight was in the 80s. Well the -35 is only stealthy from front aspect, isn't supermaneuverable, barely super cruises, has a massively compromised design with zero growth margin thanks to the usmc. It's also a hell of a lot more survivable and is a proven airframe. In WVR the Rafale will kill and eat the -35 and the French are looking at IRST/electro optics to beat LO. Also part of the costs from the -35A are being thrown at the b/c so they can make it attractive to export. I really, really doubt that the Rafale is honest to god more expensive than buy and keeping the -35 in the long and short term. Edit: Gates was dumb as gently caress for cutting down the raptor buy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Chiwie posted:In WVR the Rafale will kill and eat the -35 I LOVE statements like this. Such authority behind it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:You can't occupy planets with orbiting ships, smartass. And what else are you gonna call soldiers carried around in ships? I mean besides seasick. National Guardsmen
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:33
|
|
|
Chiwie posted:Well the -35 is only stealthy from front aspect, isn't supermaneuverable, barely super cruises, has a massively compromised design with zero growth margin thanks to the usmc. It's also a hell of a lot more survivable and is a proven airframe. In WVR the Rafale will kill and eat the -35 and the French are looking at IRST/electro optics to beat LO. I seriously doubt that the 35's side/rear aspect RCS is anywhere near comparable to a Rafale's. It's also for-sure not supermaneuverable, but from looking at it, it's clearly intended to be capable of pretty ridiculous AoA (like the Hornet) and is known to have excellent acceleration when subsonic. Killing and eating an F-35 in WVR: I definitely wouldn't want to be in the F-35 here, but HOBS missiles like AIM-9X make this less of a concern. If you get stuck in a circle fight with someone else you're probably dead anyway; their wingman will just kill the poo poo out of you while you're bumbling around with no energy and no SA because you have to be focused on exactly what your opponent is doing to not die. The 35 definitely isn't cheap compared to most 4th gens and the 35B should never have existed because it's an abomination, but talking price specifics vs. other fighters is hard because unit prices for fighters are monumental pains in the dick to figure out. Are you talking unit recurring flyaway, flyaway cost, procurement cost, lifecycle cost, or any of the other eleventy squintillion ways of reporting prices to make yourself look good/your competitors look bad? If the plan to produce 183,438,548,101 F-35s pans out then there's just no way that they won't get significantly cheaper as time goes on -- the more aircraft you build, the less the unit cost by pretty much any metric. IRST/EO defeating LO is really complicated. You need to know the range to your target to fire on them unless they're so close that it doesn't matter; if you don't, your missile has to fly pure pursuit which is really inefficient and drastically limits its range. Russians have laser rangefinders hooked up to theirs, but you still need to be fairly close before Igor Sukhoi can lase you and fire his R-27ET passively. Detection range also relies on target aspect (rear = better, frontal = worse), the presence of clouds, and the background you're trying to detect them against. Uh basically this pile of  is me trying to say that the F-35 is a great example of hilariously bad defense procurement and would have been much better if the F-35B's V/STOL requirement was never a thing but that it's by no means a bad plane -- just not as good as it could have been. Should've built more F-22s.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Is it totally implausible that we could just build more f22s later? I know some tooling and poo poo has to be rebuilt but cone on. If we need more we can start making more again. It would probably take a year to actually get poo poo set up and get subcontracts cranking out the individual parts again. Lockmart says $200M up front to do it, so I'd plan on 400M. Red Crown posted:I think Gates made that decision because we're probably not going to need to fight 2 major theaters, we're probably going to need to fight 2.5. If our experience from the end of the Cold War to today has taught me anything, it's that there will always be something that'll count as ".5", so we need to plan around that. Since we can't do 2 major theaters plus a .5 theater, we need to plan for 1. If it was a decision based on the idea that "We don't need to plan for this much simultaneous warfare," I wouldn't necessarily mind (I would disagree, but I wouldn't be able to say "THIS IS loving STUPID" like I can now). But in this case, there was a clear A to B to C progression. It was a conscious decision based on a thought process that said "If we cut the number of assets we can't meet the current requirement so we'll change the requirement." It's the same thing as cutting flight hours then cutting the requirement to be be Combat Mission Ready qualified. Which I can neither confirm nor deny has actually loving happened.  2.5 was actually the requirement through the Cold War. If you recall, the US went from 0 to 2 really loving fast in 1942. Arguably more than two, just based on how the Pacific/Asian war was spread out. If you further recall, just fighting in CENTCOM stretched a lot of the military to the breaking point, and in some cases beyond. That was barely ONE major theater. And now we've got a resurgent rear end in a top hat Russia and a rapidly advancing China that's actively pursuing regional parity with the combined forces of the US and allies as well as loving blue water power projection. This is a dangerous time to be making half-century deep cuts in the only Western military left that's worth a poo poo. Godholio fucked around with this message at 18:30 on Nov 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
Igor Strelkov posted:I wonder how much of those costs are pure graft OhYeah posted:What do you mean exactly? You mean they are actually considering selling weapons to their enemy? I agree, that's complete bollocks and the French should be ashamed of themselves. Chiwie posted:In WVR the Rafale will kill and eat the -35 and the French are looking at IRST/electro optics to beat LO. Dead Reckoning posted:I think they're retarded and often descend into Deadliest Warrior level theorycrafting that is great when you're trying to assemble a listicle of the Top Five Dogfighters of All Time but utterly useless for any sort of acquisition or strategic planning. Even if you're trying to map out something as simple as a 4 vs 4 fight, (and that's not a simple thing even with all quantities known,) factors like each side's ROE, fuel state, sortie duration, training program, ELINT support, GCI/AWACS, hell even the weather, are going to play as much or greater role in determining the outcome of a fight than the actual iron involved.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It would probably take a year to actually get poo poo set up and get subcontracts cranking out the individual parts again. Lockmart says $200M up front to do it, so I'd plan on 400M. The point is that if push comes to shove we can do it. Yes it'll be more expensive, but $400 million when our government spends more than $1 trillion a year and the F-22 is already about 150 million per plane is kinda chump change when we'd be buying several hundred of them. I also am ready to believe their $200 million number. They've probably mothballed most of the tooling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:23
|
|
|
It's not that simple.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:24
|
|
|
It really is. You pay them to make more. Maybe you pay more than you otherwise would have. It isn't harder to restart than getting the things built in the first place. EDIT: unless you meant mothballing the tooling. Yeah I don't know anything about manufacturing. My point is just that if we need more F-22s, we can get more F-22s, it might take longer and it might be more expensive, but we aren't screwed or anything.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:26
|
|
|
He's talking more about the institutional knowledge stuck in the heads of the workers and engineers who worked on the assembly line for the first 187 + YF-22 that isn't documented anywhere. This problem exists across any corporation and any manufacturing sector, there is always a human factor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
movax posted:He's talking more about the institutional knowledge stuck in the heads of the workers and engineers who worked on the assembly line for the first 187 + YF-22 that isn't documented anywhere. This problem exists across any corporation and any manufacturing sector, there is always a human factor. That makes sense. But that still doesn't mean we can't restart it and make more. There would be hiccups but less hiccups than if it were an entirely new program.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:37
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:It's not like there aren't a *lot* of W80s still sitting around in the stockpile and tons of Tomahawks (both UGM and RGM) they could be shoehorned into given moderate notice. If anything, they'd be even more accurate now than the TLAM-N ever was originally. I'd imagine if the ~New Cold War~ really starts, they'll just throw money at Raytheon to make that hypersonic version of Tomahawk they claim to be sitting on to get the government to commit to keep the production line open. All very good points. I guess I was also wondering whether it's something like restarting the F22 where you have a lot of institutional knowledge and training that no longer exists for most personal outside a few select areas of the Air Force and Navy that retain it. I mean yeah there is a manual, but are the people reading it any better then those they're trying to teach. I mean has the Army even trained any on nuclear artillery shells since 1991 (not that I think you'd ever see them coming back)? How hard is it to train people in it when the trainers have all left and so. Then again we keep the Chemical Corp around so perhaps there is a nuclear equivalent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 19:56
|
|
|
So let's say the production line kicks off. Who's gonna fly them? Pilots? Oh yea they need about a year or so of training to get sped up. What about other airframes? They need pilots too. New ones take even longer to train. Same for maintenance, tooling, space availability on existing airfields, gas, personnel to support the new Raptor personnel, etc. 200-400 million is just hilarious. The costs would be nearly billions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:00
|
|
|
It'd be funny-sad if the processors in the F-22 computer systems have been end of life'd and even the software would need significant tweaks. End up running on more modern CPUs that emulate the old stuff, world's most expensive MAME box  There are so many unforeseens with restarting the production..
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Like parts contractors who are out of business or don't have the manufacturing space available. This is a stealth fighter we're talking about.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
movax posted:He's talking more about the institutional knowledge stuck in the heads of the workers and engineers who worked on the assembly line for the first 187 + YF-22 that isn't documented anywhere. This problem exists across any corporation and any manufacturing sector, there is always a human factor. LockMart went to great effort to document as much of this as possible, including talking to line workers and recording their individual processes as part of the line shutdown process. Having said that, I imagine that it would be so expensive to restart F-22 production that it would probably make more sense to just build a new aircraft.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:21
|
|
|
priznat posted:It'd be funny-sad if the processors in the F-22 computer systems have been end of life'd and even the software would need significant tweaks. I'm pretty sure I read the processors are completely out of production by this point , so yeah the avionics and electrical might be a fun ride if they did decide pro build another 200. I'm sure it can get done, but that cost is going to skyrocket for basically every piece and person they need to scrounge up from 1999.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Does anyone else here get sexually excited about the thought of a SR-71 based fighter or bomber? I'm sorry if it's just me... carry on.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
You mean the YF-12?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:09
|
|
|
Godholio posted:It would probably take a year to actually get poo poo set up and get subcontracts cranking out the individual parts again. Lockmart says $200M up front to do it, so I'd plan on 400M. I guess I view the change in requirements as an expression of strategy, an admission that we don't have the political will to prosecute a fight against Russia over Ukraine, a fight against China over Taiwan, AND continue (permanent) contingency operations in CENTCOM. The money is just...not there. Gates had to look at the wars we were fighting at the time and determine what war we could fight. If Iraq and Afghanistan broke the Army, then can't we look at ourselves in the mirror and say "Yeah, no, we can still do 2." I mean, I agree, Gates fundamentally did move the goalposts. And it is a really bad time to be making these cuts. But especially after the rise of the "Hell No" Congress, he was right to have forced us to radically re-examine how we're going to wage war this century. I mean for gently caress's sake, there's no interest at all in fixing sequestration, what interest is there in actually producing the force senior military leaders want?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
MrChips posted:Having said that, I imagine that it would be so expensive to restart F-22 production that it would probably make more sense to just build a new aircraft. There is just no loving way that's true. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:So let's say the production line kicks off. Who's gonna fly them? Pilots? Oh yea they need about a year or so of training to get sped up. That's all true for any aircraft. We're talking the costs to restart the raptor run. If we need more planes, and the choice is a new airframe or more raptors, do you seriously think the raptor would be more expensive than a clean sheet design?
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:That's all true for any aircraft. We're talking the costs to restart the raptor run. If we need more planes, and the choice is a new airframe or more raptors, do you seriously think the raptor would be more expensive than a clean sheet design? Couldn't you do something like the Super Hornet, where you make an F-22 "B" that's mostly new? I'm sure there's a whole list of minor (and maybe not so minor) changes the engineers would like to go back and make with the help of hindsight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 01:31 |
|
|
Digital computers _surely_ must mean there's a possibility of doing this somehow less painfully. I don't expect poo poo like /usr/lib/aim9x.so.1 or /etc/oxygensupply.conf to be in the exact same place or of the same format as 15 years ago, but with a bit of tinkering at least the code should be portable to newer silicon? poo poo like that is done all the time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 22, 2014 21:31
|
|