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.

um, wake up, that is what the whole debate about C-5M is about

do we continue it or do we drop it and buy a boatload more C-17s

maybe you missed when the gao released a whole (seriously flawed) report on this entire subject?

how about Gen. Arthur Lichte, the commander of USAF Air Mobility Command?

there’s also the upcoming air mobility study that will address this

not to mention all the people on here (Distiller) who would be perfectly happy to either kill it or severely truncated it so we could buy more C-17s

You are confusing cause & effect. They are not saying kill the C-5M so that we can buy more C-17s (or we need more C-17s so kill the C-5M). They are saying that the C-5M is a waist of money & that said money is better spent buying NEW aircraft. If just happens to be that the C-17 is the ‘new’ aircraft currently in production.

YET

not YET

but they are trying their hardest to get their grubby little paws on it

Again, cause & effect.

as does practically all money the government spends, thank you mr genius

now, moving on to what matters, the government brings in a certain amount of tax revenue and then has to decide where it goes

if they send so many billion here, they cannot spend that over there

by funding the C-17, they’re taking it from some other program

alternatively, if they didn’t fund the C-17, where would the money go? (certainly not back to the taxpayers)

what’s easiest and what they’re doing for now is taking it from KC-X

NO money is being taken away from any other program to pay for more C-17s.

last i checked the 777 and A330 are both in production

Not for the US military. And don’t fool yourself into thinking that they could be procured “off the shelf” without significant militarization, type certification et cetera.

the C-5M program is running, and if we don’t do that, those frames will have to be retired, leading to a massive deficit in airlift capability which can only be solved by . . . buying more C-17s of course :rolleyes:

Again, cause & effect…

just like the copyright on mickey mouse MIGHT be allowed to expire instead of retroactively extending copyrights yet another 15 years :rolleyes:

the latest ‘rumor’ is that they want to get ANOTHER 60

then they’ll be satisfied

yeah right

Right. 🙂

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2008/09/afa-08-boeing-gets-c17-bounce.html

care to reconsider your position?

Not at all. That in no way contradicts my statements. In FACT it more says that money WILL be taken away from further C-17 procurement for KC-X procurement if & when the DOD can pull its head out of its rear & the USAF AMC can begin procurement of KC-X.

you can play all the semantic games you want, the point is, we cannot afford both the C-17 and KC-X at the same time, so while C-17 continues, KC-X cannot happen

I never said any differently. BUT again, you are confusing cause & effect. The KC-X is not not currently being procured because money is being taken from it to pay for more C-17s. Quite the opposite in fact – once KC-X procurement DOES begin, C-17 procurement is likely to end.

Problem with KC-X is that it’s not based on sound requirements, and that the aerial CS element of the forces is not seen as one complex, but as Navy, StratMobility, TacMobility, TacAAR, StratAAR, AuxLift, PaxHauler, &c, meaning KC-X is hanging in the air without connenction to the overall forces concept. Wrong focus at the wrong time.

No, the KC-X IS based on sound requirements BUT the KC-X selection team ignored said requirements.

I say the TacAAR requirement is probably better satisfied with a pure tanker version of the P-8 that is on the production line right now. And all the other KC-X requirements (AuxLift, PaxHauler) are best satisfied with, so be it, an A330 or A350, which then can also be KC-Y to replace the KC-10 AND the various theatre airborne sensor platforms, like AWACS.

You don’t understand US tanker operations. The 737 (which is the platform the P-8 is built on) is too small. It would work for a small niche but not as a large portion of the total tanker fleet. The A330 or A350 are too big (more importantly have INSUFFICIENT capacity for their size – the A340 & 777 are MUCH better choices for a LARGE tanker). They too work for a small niche but not as a large portion of the total tanker fleet.

then pray tell why they keep trying to justify killing C-5M so they can order another huge batch of C-17s?

Who keeps trying to justify killing C-5M so they can order another huge batch of C-17s?

last i checked, C-5M is an airlift program

Yes it is but ZERO money FROM the C-5M has gone TO the C-17.

and yes, the money is coming from somewhere. it’s not coming out of thin air

It is coming from taxes. :rolleyes:

right now the plan appears to be to put the KC-X on hold and use the money allocated for that for C-17

What planet are you on?

and then if we end up with 300+ C-17, people will say there is no justification for EAGLS

Good God we MIGHT somehow reach 220 C-17s (‘current’ oder is for 205). Just because CONGRESS has added C-17s to the budget (that the USAF did nor request) in the last budget (due in no small part to continued airlift shortfall for which the C-17 is the ONLY aircraft currently in production for the US military that fills the need) DOES NOT mean it will continue to do so indefinitely.

um ok, poor phrasing

OF COURSE Boeing isn’t intentionally lobbying to extend C-17 at the expense of KC-X, HOWEVER, that IS the net effect. As long as the USAF keep ordering C-17s, they will NOT order KC-X. They simply can’t afford it

(of course maybe they realize they have no shot at KC-X so they ARE intentionally trying to kill off that program 😉 )

BS.

ZERO money FROM the KC-X has gone TO the C-17.

wellll, that is what i said in my first post

But only at the end after MUCH more trying to make the C-17 look like a worthless POS.

that money has to come from somewhere, and the easiest is to just keep deferring KC-X

NO money going to the C-17 is coming from ANY other airlift program.

Boeing is possibly being penny-wise pound-foolish here. If they keep lobbying to extend C-17 production at the expense of KC-X, they may be forced to eventually close the 767 line 😀

Boeing is NOT lobbying to extend C-17 production at the expense of KC-X. Boeing has spent MORE money lobbying for KC-X than to extend C-17 production.

The C-17 is most definitely competing with the C-5. If I had confidence EAGLS was coming, this wouldn’t be a problem. But I have seen ZERO movement on EAGLS which makes the C-5/C-5M program all the more important

That has MORE to due with Congress refusing to provide the military sufficient funds than anything else.

i’ve seen a lot of comments that indicate differently

there’s a lot of love for the C-17 “we need 500 C-17s!!!1′ and the like

there’s also been a lot of hostility to getting dedicated pallet haulers (‘they can’t land in small dirt strip and unload while under fire’) and anything larger than a C-17 (“C-17 is all we need”, “C-5 is useless outside moving 2 pieces of equipment that don’t fit in a C-17”, “EAGL can’t do the same tactical-type landings a C-17 can do thus it’s worthless”)

Whatever. NOBODY is saying we need an all C-17 airlift force.

um, ok, i’m sorry i confused everyone and failed to properly communicate my message

Applology accepted.

Typical case of ignorance &/or intellectual dishonesty.

page 5

For the USN, warships have a PLANNED life of 35 years. It is VERY rare for any particular fighter airframe to last that long. The 1st 5 Ticonderoga class cruisers were retired early NOT because they were old but simply in order to save the USN some money for other things (& the remaining 22 Ticonderogas are planned for a 45 year life – depending of course on when their eventual replacement materializes).

*

page 13

Simplistic BUT accurate within its simplicity.

*

page 14

Appears to be jumping ahead considering 6th generation aircraft (still a couple decades away) as VLO but ‘current’ 5th generation (B-2, F-22 & F-35) as ‘only’ LO.

*

Similar fuel load when the Typhoon carries THREE external fuel tanks…

The OEW of the EF Typhoon is ~24,500 lbs (sources vary from ~24,240 to ~24,581 lbs).
The OEW of the F-35A (as per weight reduction) is 26,664 lbs.
Differense ~2,083-2,424 lbs.
1 tonne is 2,240 lbs…

F-35 has PLENTY of carriage of flexibility in ‘LO’ mode & EVEN MORE in ‘reduced RCS’ mode with external stores.
EF Typhoon has NO ‘LO’ mode AND requires 2-3 external tanks to match the range/radius of the F-35 carrying just internal fuel…

*

page 16

External tanks are WORSE than internal fuel capacity.
External tanks LIMITS performance MUCH more than internal fuel.
When fighters start carrying 10 times their own empty weight in external fuel THEN it will be like stagging in on rocket…

*

page 17

Thats right. A F-16 requires two 600 gal external tanks AND 450 gal CFT to match the range of the F-35A carrying just internal fuel.

*

page 21

The F-35’s ‘targetting pod’ is INTEGRATED – no need for external pods.

*

page 24

MMI

i’ll be sure to keep your comments on section ordering in mind for next time :rolleyes:

Being is how I am not the only one to have taken issue with you reguarding it…

?
most of what i’m proposing is using airframes the USAF either ALREADY HAS or is ALREADY PLANNING TO GET

C-27J – well on it’s way
C-130 – check
C-130XL/A400M – only saw a niche role for this anyways
C-17 – check
KC-X – in competition
additional airliner freighters – probably the only somewhat significant change
EAGL – in planning stages

see, the USAF is basically already getting the right mix of aircraft

the problem is proportions

THAT is not how your initial post presents it though.

the C-17 is hogging so much money it’s choking off KC-X and putting EAGL well on the back burner (possibly permanently)

this is a mistake, the sooner KC-X and EAGL can be brought forward, the better

if EAGL gets killed so we can buy 150 more C-17s it would be a travesty

The C-17 is doing no such thing.

The US can’t afford NOT to get a mixed fleet

NOBODY is saying any differently. Again the ISSUE is how you presented your argument which rather than comming off as a HONEST attempt at explaining (what I THINK you are trying to) that MORE C-17s is not the best solution to our airlift needs. INSTEAD it comes off as you think the C-17 is a POS because it can not do the C-130’s job as well as the C-130 or do the C-5’s job as well as the C-5 or do CRAF’s job as well as CRAF does.

the C-17 is a very expensive plane

You get what you pay for though.

airliner freighters are much cheaper to buy and much cheaper to run and much cheaper on tanker assets (especially since they can’t be tanked unless they decide to do extensive militarization 😉 )

But simply can not do what the C-17 does. Like I said, airliner freighters are great for comparatively small/light bulk/pallet cargo BUT the US military has a need to airlift a lot more than just comparatively small/light bulk/pallet cargo…

The EAGL may cost more than the C-17 to buy, but it will be cheaper to run in terms of $/ton-mile

But EAGL isn’t a C-17 type airlifter, it is a C-5+ type airlifter…

and if the balloon ever goes up, the C-17 simply CAN’T move enough material far enough fast enough

that is what we truly CAN’T AFFORD

That is why we have OTHER airlift assests AS WELL AS the C-17.

i’m not complaining that it’s not all those other systems, it simply not possible

If you had put your “In defense of the C-17” section FIRST, I would believe that but with it being at the end it sounds like a bunch of complaining about a the C-17 not being what it was never intended to be & only at the end TRYING to redeem oneself for an obviously flawed argument.

my complaint is against those who are intent on misusing it for all those purposes

The PROBLEM is not even the US can afford a bunch of specialized airlifters for each & every specific range/payload mission [like airlines operate specific airliners/cargo aircraft]. A compromise MUST therefor be made. It is fairly obvious however that a mix of some airliner freighters for the comparatively small/light bulk/pallet cargo (obviously utilizing the same airframes as future tankers but NOT being the tankers themselves – while it is a good idea to use the tanker cargo capacity for such when not needed for their PRIMARY roles as tankers, they are quite expensive for such duties considering that an airliner freighter could be produred for MUCH less than a tanker & the LAST thing you want is to have insufficient tanker capacity because too many tankers are tied up hauling cargo or vise versa).