Boeing to shut down C-17 production

[SIG600]

The USAF requirement for large numbers of F-22s is ego driven entirely.

Take a look at the numbers being proliferated by countries like China and NK. China is building something like 50 Flankers a year, their F-10 is gonna start ramping up, and their building on top of already eye watering capabilities. Even middle eastern countries are buying SU-27 and 30's. Their capability is very well evenly matched, and the numbers are scarey. There's a silent cold war mindset arms race about to take off, I think anyway.

#1. Do not believe that it's all about "capability". With the amount of money involved in the F-22 and it's technologies, there are a lot of politics involved, and folks do not want to lose out.
#2. The F-22 program works out to somewhere around $250M per jet. What if the cost was $500M? How about $1B? At what point do we decide "it's too much; too expensive"? For me, we've exceeded that point. Obviously, many of you disagree and think the cost is justified.

Ya... but when you put a price tag on the program for X number of jets... then reduce the number of jets the program cost remains the same, and the value of each unit goes up. It's the reason the B-2 is so expensive. The USAF was supposed to get what like 180 of those? Reduce the number to 27 and we can see what the cost per unit does.

Let me digress and prempt this whole thing with a "of course what do I know?"

 

[Mongoose69]

How many slick F-15s are fighting the war right now? How many Heavies?

The AEF only works for ACC type aircraft and the support troops. I would wager 99% of AMC pilots couldn't even tell you what AEF they are assigned to, because they never go out on the cycle.

The point is the AF needs some of everything. We needed the C-17 becuase we flew the Sh!t out of the 141s in Nam and the first gulf war. We are now doing the same thing with the -135s, -130s and yes even the C-17s.

So what should the priority be

CobraKai, I think you missed the point of my post. I agree wholeheartedly that we need more C-17s to replace an aging fleet of transport aircraft. All I was trying to say is that every budget problem the AF is faced with shouldn't be laid on the altar of the almighty F-22 buy.

Sig600 and Scrapdog are right on the mark with their comments on capability, missions, and future threats, so I won't expound on what they've already said.

-Mongoose

 

[GCD]

Hey, a little thread jerk, here for a question. I've watched a lot of C-17 landings over here.

Question: Why do you guys in the C-17 fly the same pitch angle all the way to ground impact? Why don't you flare it? These look like some pretty solid landings.

 

[CobraKai]

that would be the autopilot.

 

[C-5 MEM]

Budda,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

[JimNtexas]

Concerning F-22 requirements:

NK : Pleeeeze
India: Get a grip
China: If we're going to invade China we need a LOT bigger Air Force, period.

F-22 air to ground: The F-22 was designed with 'not a pound for air-to-ground'. Sure they can scab on the ability to drop some mini-bombs, but do they really bring more air-to-mud capability than an F-15E/F-15E+? I think not. And of course a pylon on an F-22 turns it into an F-15E.

Gap filling F-15s : I understand that the F-22 is to the F-15 as the F-15 is to the F-4 in terms of dog fighting. But of course dog fighting is pretty much going out of style. The thing updated F-15s bring to the party is the ability to fully utilize advanced BVR missiles. Along with 200 F-22s that will tide us over just fine until the F-35 comes along.

The f-35 is a more sensible airplane in every way. It's internet enabled, multi-role, UAV capable out of the box, and wasn't designed with a 'cost is no object' philosophy. And if we did lose an F-35 it wouldn't be a national disaster as opposed the F-22.

The single seat generals are just out of control on this subject, we really need to keep some sense of balance. There is a lot of non-glamours hard work that this country needs its Air Force to do. Most of it is close the ground.

The mission of the Air Force is not just to field some Sky Gods cursing majestically over the battle at FL60, ignored by friend and foe alike.

We are not facing a Soviet Horde over Fulda anymore.

There is just no way the future requirement for F-22's exceeds the number of F-15Es in the current inventory. If we got by with around 200 F-15E's , we can get buy with 200 F-22s.

If we let these single seat PE major golf generals shape the Air Force we'll wind up with one airplane for the generals and their sons to fly.

 

[Mooseflyer]

Hey, a little thread jerk, here for a question. I've watched a lot of C-17 landings over here.

Question: Why do you guys in the C-17 fly the same pitch angle all the way to ground impact? Why don't you flare it? These look like some pretty solid landings.

The flare is done by adding power, not changing pitch, due to the blown flap design. There is no autoland feature of the AP.

 

[DaveGriffin]

Concerning F-22 requirements:

Sure they can scab on the ability to drop some mini-bombs, but do they really bring more air-to-mud capability than an F-15E/F-15E+? I think not. And of course a pylon on an F-22 turns it into an F-15E.

Jim;

Right you are. I have never understood the attraction for the GBU-29. If you are going to blow something up, blow it up good. The only guys that like a 250 lbs bomb are the pilots. Leave the real close-in work to the AC-130s.

 

[SIG600]

Jim;

Right you are. I have never understood the attraction for the GBU-29. If you are going to blow something up, blow it up good. The only guys that like a 250 lbs bomb are the pilots. Leave the real close-in work to the AC-130s.

Dude... just stop talking. 250 lbs jdams are not just a pilots toy, but widely expand the capabilities of all the air-mud platforms. Imagine an F-15E loaded out with about a dozen of them... the CAS capability. Never mind, you never know what you're talking about. Ya sure, lets leave all the work to AC-130's. Ask those guys how they feel about operating in an IR MANPAD rich enviroment.

Jim... no disrespect but it sounds like your opinions on BVR capabilities and long range missle trucks are a little dated. Anyone that thinks BFM is no longer a skill set we need has no clue what kind of EW capabilites are out there. Maybe you do, I don't know you personally. Sure an F-15 can carry like 8 AIM-120's, and launch them all on timeline against an enemy thats just gonna grape along like a moron. But when you look at the capabilities the Indian's demonstrated, we can no longer assume that just because we don't have proof of capability dosen't mean they don't have it. When you take that same F-15, blind him, and bring him to the merge with an SU-27 or SU-30, he's gonna get savaged against a BFM proficient pilot. We NEED the F-22. But we also need C-17's, a new Tanker platform, etc. etc. etc.

 

[JimNtexas]

But when you look at the capabilities the Indian's demonstrated, we can no longer assume that just because we don't have proof of capability doesn't mean they don't have it. When you take that same F-15, blind him, and bring him to the merge with an SU-27 or SU-30, he's gonna get savaged against a BFM proficient pilot. We NEED the F-22. But we also need C-17's, a new Tanker platform, etc. etc. etc.

We're not going to fight India. But if we did then 200 F-22's will be plenty. When did defeating India become the prime mission of the Air Force? How much capability to fight the actual real war in which were are presently engaged must be sacrificed for this imaginary 'war with India' wet dream?

Anyone that thinks BFM is no longer a skill set we need...

Who said that? Given that there have been what, about a dozen real BFM engagements since 1974, I think that 200 F-22s would be enough to handle the dozen or so BFM engagements that are likely to occur in the next 32 years.

dude... just stop talking. 250 lbs jdams are not just a pilots toy, but widely expand the capabilities of all the air-mud platforms.

Dude, the ONLY reason for 250 pound smart farts is because of the F-22. Imagine a 500 pound bomb. Imagine an F-15 loaded out with a dozen of them. Or better yet, imagine an A-10 with them if you are really interested in both saving money and increasing combat effectiveness. It's not hard, you can do it if you try.

Imagine MANPADS. Then imagine an F-22, with its super hot motors , descending below 25,000 feet in any area in which a MANPAD might exist. Then imagine the courts martial of the General who ordered a $500,000,000 airplane into an area where it was shot down by a $25,000 missile.

Let me say it one more time. For air-to-air the F-22 is a terrific airplane. It costs 5x what it should, and its technology (especially the avionics) is actually fairly dated since its ten years behind schedule, but its still the best air-to-air machine out there. It's an unbeatable air show machine, easily justifying many huge jumbotrons. We certainly should buy them (the F-22 I mean, but the jumbotrons would be fun toys to have also). But there is absolutely no justification for buying more F-22s than we bought F-15E's.