Source?

yeah, that’s what I thought . . .

http://classic.eads.net/1024/en/pressdb/pressdb/20100308_eads_tanker.html

A simple google (or other such search engine) would find several news items not only of the NG/EADS no bid announcement but also later announcements by EADS that it would no solo bid – but as well are all aware EADS has since reversed that decision & is now pursuing a bid without NG.

***

Non the less, a non competative platform won original tender… perhaps because it was competing against NON EXISTENT platform.

Try reading the GAO ruling.

There were more KC-767s flying in 2008 than there are KC-30’s flying today.

PS: Just Being blowing off some steam because they wont be a “sole bidder”… which in defense terms means screwing tax payer to the maximum.

No it doesn’t. There would be absolutely zero differnece in Boeing’s bid (as well as the DOD’s commitment to get the most cost-effective tanker) whether Boeing is the sole bidder or not. On Boeing’s end it has to bid assuming there is a competing bid since until the dealine passes & the DOD announces that it has received all bids that it will be considering there very well could be & quite the the contrary of what EADS/KC-30 Kool-Aid drinkers would have you believe Boeing is NOT out the screw the government &/or the taxpayers.

Who’s being dis-ingenous now pfcem…

You are.

We have statements from both sides in at least one exercise that make clear that the full facility of the sensor suites (on either side) were not used.

Which unfortunately for you does not mean that is the case in every exercise.

Secondly if a “friendly” force has found and exploited a “weakness” then the friendly thing to do is have a quiet word with your chum so that he can go and fix it before an “unfriendly” force can exploit it for real. Or maybe you just keep it to yourself, who knows when it may come in handy…

When it comes to arms sales (& gaining/exploiting any/all advantage you can) there are no “friends”.

Can you construct a reason that explains why the USAF, which may have fought the F22 with full systems up and running, or may not…, would wish to publicise any “victory” of a legacy platform? Or do you think that your average USAF jet jockey gets to go out to the meejaa (media) and say what he likes…

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating your ignorance.

***

On the contrary, much money was taken away. F-22 was one of the high priority programs, and its funding even after the cold war has cost many other programs their lives.

No, NO money was taken away from any program & given to the F-22 program. Budgets were cut & many programs were cut &/or cancelled. Even the F-22 program was cut.

I’d like you to explain me a single role where a dedicated air-superiority aircraft like F-22 could prove itself over Afghanistan or Iraq.. Exactly what would USAF want to do with them there?

The F-22 can drop JDAMs as well or better than any other…and don’t underestimate the ALR-94.

To prove Gates wrong so he could no longer get away with the BS of saying the F-22 is useless in the current conflict.

I say it’s you who has no clue, unless you can answer the previous point..

What point?

Given the nature of present conflicts, I’d say that you have invested funds in a totally wrong direction. Stealth fighters would be very useful in a large scale conflict with China, for example, but a conflict like that is not very likely given the fact that you are two largest trade partners on this planet, like it or not. China has economic tools that enable to inflict MUCH greater damage to your economy with MUCH less effort than striving hard to shoot down few meaningless F-22s or sink a CVN or two.

Sacrificing future capability to do just a little better in a conflict in which were are doing extremely well is a recipe for disaster.

It’s only you who doesn’t have a clue what I am talking about, I know it precisely…

No you don’t. What matters most in air combat today is NOT the same as it was almost a century ago.

***

The pfcem’s claim about *big deal* being made when ONE F-22 gets ‘shot down’ during an exercise is a load of BS. Quite on the contrary, if there was not a kill mark applied on the EA-18G, we would probably never learn about the incident. All media attention to this kill appeared only AFTER someone has posted the picture and journos started to wonder what it meant.

LOL

A big deal WAS made of that event!

***

No F-22 painted on other fighters doesn’t mean that no more kills were achived.

Just LM sales people didn’t allow kills to be painted

On the contrary. With ‘killing’ a F-22 being such a big/rare event you can be sure there are no ‘missing marks’.

LM has absolutely ZERO influence on such things.

***

I say it clearly once more: in present from, the Raptor lacks vital systems required to exploit the design to what it was intended for. That would be:
1. IRST
2. AMRAAM coupled with AIM-9X seeker
3. HMD

The F-22 has done MORE than well without any of those.

***

Unfortunately, the F-22 isn’t by far the fastest aircraft USAF has. If you already have a situation where you REALLY NEED to take out some very important target very fast, then launching an F-15 roaring at full speed with AB on brings you comparable/better results than doing the same with F-22. I really don’t think you would regret the higher fuel consumption or increased IR signature

For the second role, I think that besides all the specialized ISR system US Armed forces already field (AngelFire, Constant Hawk AWAPSS, E/A-18G, ScanEagle, P-3C BMUP/LSRS, EP-3E, S-70B LR-100, RC-135U/V/W, RC-12P, RQ-4A/B or MQ-1C) using the F-22 in this role would be the most exclusive money-throwing operation I can think of and a total waste of those relatively few aircraft you got available.

But if you insist, feel free to send a bunch of Raptors there. Just be aware of the harsh environment taking its toll on service life of the equipment in use.

NOBODY is saying the F-22 is the best platform to use. But contrary to what some ARE saying it is not a useless platform.

***

During exercises, virtually hundreds of F-15/F-16/F-18s were *shot down*. I don’t remember having seen many silhouettes of painted (with the exception of a French Mirage F1CT). No F-15/F-16/F-18 painted on other fighters doesn’t mean that no kills against them were achieved.

It is possible that shooting down an F-22 is a common thing on exercises, we simply don’t have enough information..

“Shooting down” a F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 is nowhere near as big/rare as a F-22…

***

I’d just like to comment that part: Why would the USAF would want to send the F-22 to Afghanistan?

Just as I posted, to prove that it is not useless so that Gates can no longer get away with that BS as an argument for cutting the program.

To be fair its not really needed there & theres nothing it can’t do better than the like of F15’s, F16’s, Harriers, Tornados, Rafales, A-10’s, Mirages etc, well maybe apart from speed but whoopy-doo. And to be honest its far from the greatest close air support asset there is at the moment and not to mention maintaining it etc and keeping a few in the US for its role that it was designed to do in the first place.

NOBODY is saying the F-22 is the best platform to use. But contrary to what some ARE saying it is not a useless platform.

And I really don’t believe that Gates would not want to send it to Afghanistan just because it’d prove him wrong…I mean…C’mon, its more likely to prove him right if you think reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally hard about it…

Quite the opposite.

***

He didn’t get fired for wanting 60 more. He wanted 381, not 243.

Just as (if not more) important is/was how adamant he was about it.

***

Again, I asked for a source for this capability with the F-22. I did check it up myself, but what I found did not support your claim, rather the opposite.

Sorry nothing there contradicts the fact that F-22’s can recieve targeting information for other sources &/or provide mid-course updates to weapons which have already been launched.

***

The F-15 doesn’t need to go to full A/B trying to match the F-22;s top speed. In the end, the resulting difference would hardly make the risks and cost of deployment of the F-22 feasible.

Yeah, big difference between stage 5 afterburner & stage 6 (full) afterburner. :rolleyes:

Not to mention that if the F-15 is carrying any sort of useful load (which it would have to or what would be the point – unless the intent is to ‘buzz the badguys’ with a low altitude high speed pass) it isn’t going to go as fast as it can clean…

If even you wouldn’t deploy them like that, then why wonder that Gates thinks the same? 😎

Gates does not want them to be deployed in any way because he KNOWS that they would then prove him wrong about their usefulness.

Admit it, finding useful roles for the F-22 is pretty hard even if you are a fan of the plane.

Quite the opposite.

Article title says it all. Looks “better and better” for the Lightning II.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/114882/congress-wakes-up-to-jsf-realities-as-hasc-subcommittees-wield-axe.html

A LOT of incorrect information there.

Just a few examples…

The DOD request for FY2011 is $11 billion and 42 F-35s and one additional F-35A in the supplemental request but budget negotiators are asking LM to provide the F-35s at 20-25% BELOW this cost.

As of May 14, 2010 SEVEN F-35 flight test aircraft have flown (AA-1, AF-1, AF-2, BF-1, BF-2, BF-3 & BF-4) as well as a number on non-flight test airframes.

The F-35 program has NOT experienced a Nunn-McCurdy cost breach. The ACTUAL costs of the program have need, are & continue to track well below the latest Pentagon projections.

***

The F-35C empty weight is higher than 29,996, at least according to Lockheed Martin, the aircraft manufacturer.

Wrong.

30 Oct 2007 program briefing by Maj “Digger” Davis.

link to PDF
http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007targets/Day1/Davisday1.pdf

image exact page from PDF (uploaded by SpudmanWP)

I have also seen said numbers in at least one other program document but I have SO many links/files/documents of/from the JSF that I have yet to find it(them) – I have not saved every single one I have read so it is possible that the above is the only one I have archived.

The numbers on the ‘LM websit’ complete nonsense (the weights are not the only data to have been demonstrated to be incorrect via official program documents) as it would mean that despite the WEIGHT LOSS from SWAT the F-35 need be HEAVIER than it was prior to said weight loss…

PRE-WEIGHT REDUCTION (2006 program documents)
F-35A
empty weight: 29,036 lbs
fuel capcity: 18,480 lbs
combat radius: 590+nm (KPP THRESHOLD)
F-35B
empty weight: 32,161 lbs
fuel capcity: 14,003 lbs
combat radius: 450+nm (KPP THRESHOLD)
F-35C
empty weight: 32,072 lbs
fuel capcity: 20,085 lbs
combat radius: 600+nm (KPP THRESHOLD)

POST WEIGHT REDUCTION (2007 program documents)
[quite a lot of more detailed information can be found in 2007 documents which were not seen in publicly released documents in earlier years & have also since not been include in later documents]
F-35A
empty weight: 26,664 lbs
fuel capcity: 18,307 lbs
combat radius: 625nm
F-35B
empty weight: 29,695 lbs
fuel capcity: 13,400 lbs
combat radius: 498nm
F-35C
empty weight: 29,996 lbs
fuel capcity: 19,145 lbs
combat radius: 642nm

Wrong. During the development of the F-22, many other programs were canceled. Since they are all fed from the same cash flow (defense budget), the saved money was used on the progressing programs – including the F-22.

No I am not wrong. Yes there are programs which were cancelled during the F-22’s developement, it was the end of the cold war & LOTS of programs got cut (including the F-22) or cancelled. There was no money taken away from any other program & given to the F-22 program but rather the F-22 program being one of THE highest priority programs continued to recieve funding.

I agree. But F-22 clearly is a tool which only fulfills its intended roles in symmetrical conflicts.

On the contrary, the F-22 would be a very useful tool in asymmetrical conflicts as well. The USAF has WANTED to use it in Iraq & Afghanistan but Gates continues to deny its request to do so (for the very simple reason that he knows full well that it WOULD prove itself & he could no longer get away with faulting it for not be useful in the current conflict).

… in a symmetrical conflict. In asymmetrical war the F-22 is useless. Even F-35’s usefulness is very limited..

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about.

Maybe they, too are being just intellectually dishonest 🙂

No those who make the ignorant/disengenous/intellectually dishonest comments that our current (mostly 1980s generation) forces are more than good enough to defeat any perceivable threat for the foreseeable future.

***

F-35 will never be better able to set up an engagement on its own terms because every present and future fighter will have superior flying characteristics.

Thank you for so clearly demonstrating that you have no clue what you are talking about. Here is a hint, this in the early 21st century, not the early 20th century…

***

It’s also not all that credible given that the USAF desperately wanted as many F22 at this time as it could possibly get.

The USAF desperately wanted 500 F-22s as that is how many it determined it needed (as good as the F-22 is you still NEED a minimum number of them to get the job done). But realizing how that was not likely to happen the ‘low risk’ alternative was 386 F-22s + of 186 F-15C “Golden Eagle” somehow remaining combat worthy beyond 2025 [long term projections were & still are for a 6th generation air dominace fighter to enter service ~2030]. When that looked unlikely to happen the ‘moderate risk’ alternative was ~250 F-22s + of 186 F-15C “Golden Eagle”. But now we are left with the ‘high risk’ alternative was 186 F-22s + of 186 F-15C “Golden Eagle”.

It was hardly likely to be bigging up the ecm / rwr capabilities of legacy platfroms v it.

The F-22 has flown against more than gust US legacy platforms & you can be sure that if ANY system was shown to be at all effective against it they would ‘shout it from the highest mountain’ (just look as how big a deal has been made when ONE F-22 gets ‘shot down’ during an exersise).

***

it is my understanding that the pentagon/usaf wanted the f-22 stopped as it wasnt what they needed and it was senators that wanted to keep the jobs in their state and senator paper bags with some of LM profits that wanted it to go on

No it was John Young (for purely personal reasons which have previously been discussed) that wanted the F-22 stopped & Gates in his ignorance listend to what Young said & ignored what every other USAF official said about the F-22.

Blaim can also be placed on President Bush for ‘punting’ the decision on whether to procure additional F-22s (after the 60 Lot 7-9) to the next administration – which as it turns out is a VERY anti-military administration which delights in cutting defense as much as it thinks it can get away with.

Kid by that measure your beloved F-35 is a POS in AA.

No, just not the F-22’s equal.

in a real fight, there would be no restrictions placed upon radar and ECM use…

Which plays to the F-22’s advantage.

so, today, nobody can say what would really happen (one can speculate though).

On the contrary…

Everybody agreed not to use its long range stuff (both sides) and no missiles, that’s what dogfight is all about – guns only.

Exactly. So while French pilots regret not being able to use Mica (since Mica vs AM-9M is an advantage for them) at the same time they are thankful the US was not able to use AMRAMM (since AMRAAM vs Mica is a disadvantage for them).

***

As for what “would be if…” it’s speculation. just as “raptor will wipe the floor with rafales in any engagement” was speculation too… the one we heard a lot in recent years

While I am sure there are some who have said something to the effect of “raptor will wipe the floor with rafales in any engagement”, my position is much more realistic that the F-22 would have a very positive kill-loss ratio vs the Rafale.

***

btw about the F16’s, despite a more detailed article now :D, it seems you’re still missing the point … when doing SEAD: basic Rafale > F16CJ ; basic Rafale = F16CJ with HTS pod…(at least ?)

No it is YOU who are missing the point. As other have pointed out, F-16C without the dedicated SEAD equipment is no F-16CJ but rather ‘just a regular C’. You have no clue how the Rafale compares to a F-16CJ.

***

Passive stealth gives one the advantage of surprise by flying undetected for longer and the capability to close in safer . But that ‘s it ! .

No, the current generation of stealth works best vs targeting systems…

some new stuff to fuel the debate;)

Especially since the six F-22 Raptor deployed there by the 27th FW Langley FS/1st proved incapable of giving the beating promised to the Rafale. Of the six dofights – gun limited – which pitted the two types of aircraft in the Emirians skies in late 2009, only two saw the virtual destruction of a Rafale. Other meetings were concluded without a winner. A “performance” for the Rafale against the most modern [and most expensive] fighter in the world, presented as particularly agile thanks to its steering nozzles and moreover stealthy. Because the Rafale was, according to the lieutenant-colonel Grandclaudon, “a serious challenger in matter of maneuverability ” And the french pilot to regret that his USAF colleagues had not allowed the simulated employment of MICA missiles during these confrontations.

Which says nothing except what every modern fighter pilot knows…that scoring a gun kill vs a highly maneuverable opponent (even when your aircraft is more maneuverable) is no easy task.

And I bet the French pilots where thankful that their USAF colleagues were not allowed the simulated employment of AMRAAM. After all, in a real fight a F-22 would defeat Rafale BEFORE the Rafale could even get a MICA shot vs the F-22.