The Fighter Mafia may win again

a reply to: Zaphod58


THAT RESPONSE DIDN'T TAKE LONG....LMAO.


In this instance, re restarting the F-22 line, wouldn't a good chunk of that coin be saved from the sixth Gen delay? Close to off-setting.

Also, there's the 'competition factor'. No one can touch our tanker system nor our training in regards to potential adversaries.

Fighter are getting a bit close for comfort? Especially the numerical side of it?


(I'm just messing with you....)

a reply to: Donkey09

No sir... manning is absolutely a problem, a small percentage of people want to work maintenance, and the USAF shoved a large number of them out the door in the latest cutbacks without bothering to look at AFSC's until number hit so low squadrons were saying I cant fill my deployment commitment and keep flying at home.

Yea they can force a bunch of 3 levels in woopee... they will have squat in the way of experienced people that will have to chose between training the newbie, or getting planes airborne. Which means leaning even more on the Reserve side... you know those guys and gals have day jobs, many dont want to be on orders for 6-8 months out of the year.

ETA: also leaning on the Guard, I liked most of the guys I worked with in the Guard ( I was at a joint Guard/reserve sq) but they have a very very different view on maintenance... like its ok to let planes fly with broken parts as long as they are not flight safety type of parts..

a reply to: Irishhaf

I was being a bit facetious when I posted that but it's a similar problem across most of the UK armed forces. the RN is moving people from ship to ship while it's still out on post. The army is struggling to keep its senior NCOs and the RAF has a terrible moral problem. There's talk of two of the RN ships being laid up early or used just for harbourside training because they can't be manned while deployed. To often the shiny shiny toys are bought to the detriment of the people who use, move and maintain them.

In the mean time:
thediplomat.com...

Russia’s military has received more than 1,200 new and modernized aircraft over the past three years, the Russian Deputy Defense Minister Yuri Borisov said at a Russian aviation industry conference last week, according to TASS.

“Undoubtedly, the domestic aviation industry has achieved strong performance at present, and the involvement of the Russian Defense Ministry has played a significant role in this. Over the past three years, in 2013-2015, we have received from you 250 new planes, 300 helicopters, 700 aircraft that underwent serious modernization with repairs,” Borisov elaborated during his speech.

New and modernized aircraft include the Sukhoi Su-34 bombers, multipurpose Su-30SM and Su-35S fighter jets, MiG-29 SMT, MiG-35, Yakovlev Yak-130 advanced trainers/light fighters and Ilyushin Il-76MD-90 transport planes. New and upgraded helicopters encompass the Kamov Ka-52 and Mil Mi-28N attack helicopters, Mi-8AMTSh assault-transport helicopters, Mi-35 combat helicopters, and Ka-226 utility aircraft.

And I think most of us are aware China has not been sitting on their hands either.

a reply to: nwtrucker

You'd fit right in at the Pentagon.

What money saved? The F-X wasn't going to see an RFI until at least 2018, and wouldn't see money spent until after 2020. You think they're going to wait until then to restart the F-22 line? If they delay the other programs then they won't see IOC until the mid 2030s or later. And that pushes the KC-Y program back another 20 years.

The KC-135 is as old as the B-52. The T-38 is pushing 40. The E-8C airframes are on their second life. They were all retired commercial aircraft that were bought and modified.

You really think we can wait another 10-15 years or more to replace them?

a reply to: Irishhaf

It works for the B-1. Heh.

a reply to: Zaphod58

No but I think we will, and a big part of me says that just because I want to see those gals flying out of Dobbins again.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Don't laugh....at least right away. Exporting the F-22. The current 186, or so, are basically 20+ years out of date. Except one or two goodies.


If a new line/variant is created-despite your vent- we could export those original 186 sans a few goodies. Replace those with the new variant, Advent engines, reskinned, so on. Then we spread the cost per unit around with more units off the line, bolster selected allies-and ourselves via those allies- and have a much more balanced package options.

Better numerical balance and hopefully , with a new President, a bigger budget to fix the other, equally pressing issues.


Perhaps a naïve thought, but it's not one that doesn't deserve considering......

a reply to: Zaphod58


An amendment to my last post. To dispel Lockmart critics that would argue that selling the Raptors might detract from F-35 sales, I'd add in that those exports of F-22s would be restricted to nations that already have purchased/ordered F-35s..


That secures the current orders, enhances the value of both to each nation that chooses to do so...

a reply to: nwtrucker

Can't see that working. To many countries have already cut back on their F35 numbers due to budget cuts. Doubt there'd be room for anyone to want/need both jets plus their associated supply/maintenance costs other than the US.

a reply to: Donkey09

Ahhh apologies... I was in a bit of a mood last night and missed it.



Oh and Zaphod, the 135's I worked on at Tinker were all older than every currently flying B-52, by about 6 years..

a reply to: Irishhaf

There used to be one flying that entered service the year the B-52 first flew. I think it was 1518.

And now HASC wants to look at doubling the bomber buy. So much for pretty much everything. Heh.

a reply to: Zaphod58

That because the F-22 wasn't an F-15 revision 1, and it wasn't a KC-X boondoggle but it was a giant leap forward in capability and re-starting it makes perfect sense.

Should never have been cut short in the first place.

Maybe if your beloved B-21 wasn't a total let-down when they unveiled it, well, half-baked unveiled it, then maybe fighter mafia wouldn't keep controlling everything.

If Boeing knew how to put a fuel tank in their existing commercial airliner, maybe fighters mafia wouldn't win again.

a reply to: BigTrain

Do you even realize that every time you post, you prove again and again that you don't know crap?

You know that bomber that you said congress was so anxious to kill because it sucks so bad? Well Congress just ordered the Air Force to look at doubling their order and getting as many as 205. So where is that proof they want to kill it again?

As for the KC-46, yet again your ignorance is showing. It's a lot more than "sticking another fuel tank" in a 767 to bring it up to AF standards.

Hell, you don't even understand what the Fighter Mafia is. It has nothing to do with the F-22 or that you think anything that isn't a 30th century design sucks.

This is partly what Zaphod means by fighter mafia Chiefs of Staff Air Force

Notice that in the history of the Air Force only 3 CSAF were not fighter/bomber pilots and one of those was only an "Acting" CSAF for a month. 2008- 2012 is the only time since 1982 that a Fighter Pilot was in charge of the Air Force and if we go back farther the last time a non-fighter/bomber pilot was in charge was 1961.

a reply to: Pyle

The 14th name on the list is the one that really sticks in my craw. I don't know what they were thinking putting that SOB in office. I won't even say his name if I don't have to.

a reply to: Zaphod58

He was before my time but I wouldn't have liked him had I been in around that time. Any CSAF that changes the uniform, not to mention the other things, is on my # list.

a reply to: Pyle

He was wing commander at Hickam before moving to the Pentagon. Let's just say that the base was really really clean and everything had a fresh coat of paint.

A lot of fresh paint.

I really hated that damn uniform change. It looked horrible.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Don't laugh....at least right away. Exporting the F-22. The current 186, or so, are basically 20+ years out of date. Except one or two goodies.

The F-22 reached FOC in late 2007. That would make them 9 years "out of date".

we could export those original 186 sans a few goodies

Why would countries who are currently buying the F-35, who are after multirole fighters, want to buy an ultra-expensive to buy and maintain, single role aircraft, like the F-22? Worse yet, used F-22s. Maybe Japan want some. Nobody else.



a reply to: BigTrain

That because the F-22 wasn't an F-15 revision 1, and it wasn't a KC-X boondoggle but it was a giant leap forward in capability and re-starting it makes perfect sense.

F-22 had a huge amount of teething issues.

Maybe if your beloved B-21 wasn't a total let-down when they unveiled it, well, half-baked unveiled it, then maybe fighter mafia wouldn't keep controlling everything.

It's only a total let-down in your eyes. Why should we care what you think when you haven't presented any argument? (And the ones you have presented, have been shot down).