Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?.:D

No one has answered the core question

Is stealth free?

No & NOBODY EVER SAID IT WAS!

Of course the REAL problem is people EXAGGERATING what strealth costs.

You know the difference between a typographical error and a spelling mistake?

Yes I do.

Seriously, pasting the wrong picture of a ship in a Powerpoint presentation hardly seems like it’s going to invalidate an opinion about the systemic position of fighter jets in war efforts (or, even funnier, a whole journalistic career).

I didn’t say anything about the incorrect picture FOR THAT VERY REASON.

Read my post again & see what I commented on…

Growler Power: EA-18G boasts F-22 kill (PHOTOS)?

The TRUE story is how it is such a big deal that ONE F-22 was ‘shot down’…

i’m not saying the C-17 is overpriced for what it is

Then why complain about its cost?

it would be short-sighted to just look at acquisition cost, you also have to look at through-life cost and capability

Yet you do with the KC-X (or at least stress acquisition cost over through-life cost).

no, following 9/11 Boeing was in shambles financially with all the airlines cutting/canceling/deferring orders

so . . . they lobbied hard to move forward the tanker replacement program (even though the USAF’s OWN STUDIES SHOWED IT WASN’T NEEDED TILL 2015) and sole-source it to them

CONGRESS wrote a bill directing the USAF to work with Boeing on a new tanker, so the USAF complied

McCain objected, got Congress to change it so the AF would conduct a competition

again the USAF complied, but then Boeing realized THEY COULDN’T WIN a competition, so they bribed Druyan to ensure they won

Stop rewriting history. If an effor to stay on the C-17 topic I won’t go though & prove how every one of those statements is either misleading (half-truth) or our right false (besides I have already done so in previous threads).

twice as many pallets farther without refuelling

Sorry, but that just means that fewer C-5s can carry the same number of pallets the same distance as C-17s can BUT C-17 can STILL (by using more aircraft) the same number of pallets the same distance…

if you need 30 tankers at a base to support a mission, there is no need for all 30 tankers to be on the ground at the same time

they can arrive, load-up and take-off

Wrong, there ARE times when all tankers will be on the ground…

Why do you even bother to make comments like this?

If you have helpful information, by all means post it

But snide little comments like that do nothing to further the discussion

I know the truth hurts but you appearantly NEED to hear it. It is not like we have not been though this before…

we can play your silly word games all day or we can get back to the topic

I am not playing word games.

would the money for those extra C-17s be better used on something else like airliners or moving EAGL along?

I think so.

but before we get back on topic, a quick little aside 🙂

the ‘booms on the ground’ argument always struck me as amusing

either their services will be required (in which they will be, you know, IN THE AIR) or they won’t be required (in which case it doesn’t matter where you park them)

in either case, ‘booms on the ground’ doesn’t matter

You can’t get booms in the air unless there is room for them on the ground. And WHERE said booms are on the ground makes a BIG difference as to what it takes to get said booms in the air WHERE & WHEN they need to be.

booms in the air is what matters and with its longer range and longer endurance, the KC-30 gives you more time in the air for the same time on the ground

You clearly do not understand tanker operations.

3/ The biggest and still growing problem with the U.S Military is they do not no the
meaning of, or how to implement these simple words – ‘keep it simple stupid’

Sorry but sometimes simple simply doesn’t get the job done.

4/ The U.S defence industry is way to powerful and influential on the political
system and government, which it is supposed to be subordinate to.

BS.

One only needs to read the rubbish about the USAF’s KC-X Aerial Tanker
replacement program!
At the end of the day the Northrop/EADS proposal is a cheaper and more effective
Platform, than its older Boeing competitor.

I really wish idoits like you would stop repeating such lies. Even the KC-X- source selection team admitted (coincidentally just days before the GAO was to rule on the selection) that the KC-767AT was in fact less expensive but that a ‘mathemetical error’ incorrectly showed the KC-30 to be. Not to mention the GAO ruling pointing out that the cost determination was flawed…

But what has happened?

To keep a LONG story short….

The USAF began seriously looking at a KC-135 replacement in 1996 (prompted by questions of the long-term viability of the KC-135 by the GOA). By 2000/2001 it had determined that the KC-767 was the right tanker BUT in its haste to get it skipped a number of required steps & got caught (via an investigation prompted by inappropriate/criminal actions by the lead USAF & Boeing negotiators).

Congress in its infinite wisdon thought it could fix the problem by demanding another more thorough competition. BUT the only competitor said it would not compete for a contract it knew it could not win (after all its proposal had already been rejected for, among other things, not meeting the criteria) so the criteria were changed to accomodate it. It only got worse from there eventually leading to a GAO ruling that the KC-X source selection team did not assess the relative merits of the proposals in accordance with the evaluation criteria identified in the solicitation.

How much money has been wasted?

We may never know…

How long do U.S service personal have to wait to have this equipment in
their
inventory?

Too long most likely. The 130+ KC-135E that some questioned needed to be replaced so soon have already been removed from active service & are unlikely to ever return.

No – regardless of its so-called capability, the C-17 is way too expensive
for what it is!

BS.

Its cost and the USAF’s insistence and demand for it, comes at the
expense of the true
number that the U.S Military both wants and needs!

It is not the USAF demanding more C-17s…

And again NO MONEY FOR ANY OTHER AIRLIFT PROGRAM IS BEING OR HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM ANY OTHER AIRLIFT PROGRAM TO PAY FOR MORE C-17s.

It’s technically way overboard for a transporter.
At the end of the day it’s a transport aircraft – A trash hauler!
Not a strategic bomber!
Not a Concorde!
It’s a transporter aircraft for Christ sake!!!!!!!!

Appearantly you don’t know what it takes to be a transport aircraft.

At the end of the day I do not care what people say, but the C-17 can not carry what the C-5A/B Galaxy can and does!

What exactly does the C-5 carry that the C-17 can’t?

I also do not care what people say about cargo variants of civilian airliners – they are next to scrap metel if they can not STOL on rough surfaces and turn themselves around!

LOL

I have always wondered why the Soviets were able to develop and field the likes of the An-22 (when the U.S failed with its C-132?), the IL-76 (which was more effective and workman like than that of the C-141!), and the An-124 (which is built like a tank, has no structural problems and limitations, better rough field performance, and greater payload than the C-5A/B.

Why do you have such low reguard for the Soviets & their ability to develop & field airlifters?

No what I think is truly needed is a brand new ‘conventional’ Strategic Heavy Lift Transport aircraft design to be studied and built, as both a C-5 Galaxy and C-17 Globemaster III replacement with the basic knowledge of what has and what does work in the forms of –
-STOL performance (high lift aerodynamics)
-flight aerodynamics, which matches efficient cruising speed and STOL
performance.
-The use of modern powerful and fuel efficient commercial derived high
bypass turbofans, (with greater thrust than need!)
-A large (overly large if need be!!) and volumes fuselage/cargo compartment,
with no wing-box penetration or intrusion
-A high capacity full-cargo hull length overhead fuselage crane to support
self loading and unloading of cargos.
-A simple and very efficient multi landing wheeled landing gear, which will
give excellent STOL capability and performance.
-A wing and fuselage construction which is going to handle the riggers of
being one of the biggest workhorses in the U.S Military inventory.
-Work to the imperative golden rule of cost, cost and
cost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
With any cost or development blow outs meaning the end of the project! (This will instill the fact that if the aviation companies do not do their research and development (R&D), cost estimates and management system and structures correctly, they would be the one who are penalized more than anyone else.

Know whether these can be built in two variants (not unlike the F-35 concept!) using a modular approach to give a C-5 Galaxy size aircraft, while a shorter fuselage (less fuselage plugs = shorter fuselage length) version would meet the C-17 size aircraft

There is no need for a C-17 replacement any time soon. The C-5 OTOH…

As for the Tactical / STOL transport requirement of the USAF, I think that the United States should really consider brushing the dust off the project titled AMST (Advanced Medium STOL Transport) and consider revamping the Boeing YC-14 or Boeing YC-15 (as you can see a win/win for Boeing!)
After all most of the R&D has already been done and paid for!
And either design has greater cargo hold dimensions!
For at the end of the day the venerable Lockheed C-130 Hercules has done more than what was ever planned or asked of her.
The times and payload requirements and expectations have changed greatly.
The Hercules overall cargo hold dimensions no longer meet the needs of many modern AFV (although saying this it is the masters of these programs, that issue and allow these modern AFV’s to get larger and heavier!)

No argument there but what does that have to do with the C-17?

That lack of accuracy or analytical prowess must explain why titles such as ‘Aviation Week’ and the various Jane’s publications enjoy such a large circulation in the defence industry and intelligence world.

Mr Sweetman is a *technical* journalist, a community that works to a much higher standard than the pressmen who ‘doorstep’ celebrities. I’ve known a number of current and past technical journalists, but have yet to meet one who claimed papal-style infallibility.

Which is exactly why such ‘accuracies’ come across to many as purposeful as part of an agenda to degrade the F-35…After all is someone with the credentials & reputation of Sweetman says/writes something more people (who don’t know any better) are more inclined to believe it. Note that it is not just THIS one peice of work but several others where Mr. Sweetman has put the F-35 in a negative light (through INACCURACIES).

I’m not sure that instances where the collective knowledge of a forum can detect errors made by a single individual prove very much. Few of us can boast of producing an endless flow of mistake-free work. As I’m only too aware, few student essays are error-free, and neither are my own publications. But at seminars, where a number of students are gathered, individual errors are often swiftly identified and corrected. But I don’t suppose that the AvWeek staff have much time for academic-style seminars.

Having to face weekly deadlines the way the staff of magazines such as ‘Aviation Week’ must would be my idea of employment hell – a bit like being a perpetual undergraduate, endlessly researching and writing to endless deadlines to satisfy a curmudgeon like old Mercurius. Dividing the number of words that a magazine such as AvWeek publishes per week (including related blogs) with the number of journalists on its payroll is enough to cause anyone (for example from industry or research establishments) whose job involves regular report writing to break out in a cold sweat.

Inevitably, errors will be made. But those who would dismiss Bill Sweetman as an error-prone journalistic ‘hack’ with an agenda of promoting specific aircraft should try a google search for international defence conferences in which Sweetman is a speaker.

It is NOT that errors are made but WHAT the errors are that casues suspicion…

Having attended more than a few such conferences over the years, I’m aware of how much admission to these events costs. Inevitably, some speakers will be second or even third rate, but the delegates who have paid to attend will not be slow to make their feelings known to the conference organisers, helping to ensure that such unsatisfactory speakers are never invited to speak at future events.

I’ve never heard Mr Sweetman speak at a conference, but the number of conferences he is invited to address suggests that large numbers of aerospace managers, engineers, technicians, and service personnel are happy with the standard of his presentations.

Same response as above but to add that either Mr. Sweetman himself is being dupped by inaccurate ‘facts’ that he has not taken the effort to veify/understand OR he (like Kopp or Boyd et cetera) has an aggenda that is being put AHEAD of intellectual honesty.

The ridiculously expensive, compromised beast is now the norm for U.S. military procurement. Witness:

:rolleyes:

The F-22: Stealth Superfighter/Stealth bomber/mini-AWACS/emerging EW. Gun and missiles. Internal carriage. State of the art avionics. Summary: Too much capability, too much cost, not enough airplanes.

BS.

As good as the F-15 is, it is no longer the best & is in a number of ways inferior to TODAY’S likely opposition much less that of 10 years from now.

IF we procured enough F-22s they would likely cost ‘just’ $120 million each vs NEW upgraded F-15Xs with half the capability for $100+ million each. AND 20 F-22 per year at $150 million each (the last 60 cost an average of ~$145 million) is ‘only’ $3 billion = 0.097% of the 09 government budget; 0.58% of the 09 defense budget; 2.1% of the 09 USAF budget.

The Super Hornet. Fighter/Interceptor/Attack/Tanker/EW. Does them all fairly well, and a few very well, but it is a compromise. At least they are getting a sufficient number of frames.

No argument there…

The Burke Destroyer. Traditional destroyer duties/AEGIS/ASW. We cram so much capability into each hull, that we have fewer and fewer hulls to fill out the fleet. There just aren’t enough ships. A billion dollar ship ends up almost sunk by a suicidal maniac in a rowboat.

Excuse me. There are currently 62 Arleigh Burke class built, building or ordered (with the possibility of even more).

You have it backwards, we ‘can only have so many hulls’ so we HAVE to get as much capability out of each hull as we can.

The Virginia class SSN. Lets see now…we spend 3 billion dollars per platform for a super sub that will do everything: put up a winning fight against other SSN’s, prosecute hostile SSBN’s, conduct secret intelligence operations, combat modern AIP boats in the littorals, and insert/extract SEALS. 3 billion to deliver SEALS? It is built to do everything. See Burke and Raptor, ie., too much cost, too few units.

Err the cost of the Virginia class SSNs (like most everything in the military) is highly dependent on how many are procured & at what rate. For the Virginia class SSNs, a production rate of 1 per year resuts in a cost of ~2.5 billion per boat but at 2 per year the cost per boat drops to ~2.0 billion.

AND pocuring separate specialized boats to do all that each Virginia class SSN can & does do would cost MORE than the Virginia class SSNs.