Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Reasons 1 through 9) $500B annual budget deficit
10) Who are we going to fight for air superiority . . . North Korea?
Originally posted by: SuperTool
I think we should scrap the JSF, not the F-22.
The arguement against F-22 would be that we haven't faced any serious air-air combat in a long time, and F-15 combined with our tactics is more than enough. But given age of F-15, I think we should build a new air superiority fighter. But given that F-18 is a relatively modern aircraft, I really fail to see the need for JSF.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
The problem is our air force has too many air frames. IF we reduced down to jsf and f-22 that would be a huge improvement.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
well, if it's a single airframe across the military, then why need the F22?
We either build one plane that is jack of all trades, or we build specialized planes for each application. We shouldn't pay for both.
The problem is our air force has too many air frames. IF we reduced down to jsf and f-22 that would be a huge improvement.
Yes, but that would make Lockheed Martin a monopoly supplier of fighters for US military, and at the end hurt the consumer.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
That is a draw back of a single airframe. However training and parts for 10 different airframes is not a good solution either.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Instead of the blanket assertions that "we don't need it" which seem to abound whenever the topic emerges. I am curious what the basis for a cancellation of the program would be.
It isn't economical. It was under the original purchase structure, but we are purchasing too few units (around 330) now to ensure cost effectiveness and availability of spares in the future at a reasonable price. Current estimates per unit run at around $180 million dollars a copy. That is ridiculous. Why should we purchase a boutique aircraft at incredible prices when we could be pruchasing the newest block F-16s and F-15s for far lower unit costs.
Meanwhile FA-18E/F will continue to be produced and the JSF program is coming along nicely and that will have a much more economical unit cost, far higher production numbers, and foriegn sales unlike the F-22.
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
Originally posted by: SuperTool
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What happens if there is a problem, and you have to ground the planes. It's bad to put all your eggs in one basket. If you are designing a system without an alternate supplier, you are playing with fire.
That is a draw back of a single airframe. However training and parts for 10 different airframes is not a good solution either.
The Marine STOVL JSF is going to be a very different animal from the non-STOVL airforce one, so I don't see where the savings will come from over having them as two entirely separate planes. After B2B, I find government claims of saving money on these projects very suspect.
Originally posted by: Zorba
Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet
Not to get too far off topic but what is the plan for Close Air Support. I read the A-10 is going away. Again.
I think that a better question than the one about the F-22 is "can anyone give me a rational argument against the A-10? Besides that it is slow, cheap and ugly and kicks serious ass."
Originally posted by: SuperTool
What if we have problems with JSF like we are having with the Osprey? It could be a fiasco. There are no alternatives in development, Boeing is effectively out of the fighter business, and we could be stuck in a vulnerable position with aging aircraft waiting for kinks to be worked out in JSF. As of now, JSF is mediocre in everything, but not particularly good at anything. Again, it's a risky proposition, and I don't think the reward justifies the risk.
Originally posted by: charrison
The carrier version, stovl and normal version are supposed have over 80% common parts and training.