I am a faithful player of RF, in a few years ago, the old version of the RF out soon, after friends introduce, I take the heart out of curiosity and excitement into the feelings of the magic charm to the inside of the New World began my journey. At first I entered into the game, opening a map and figures in my heart. During the long period of upgrade and earn RF online gold, I know a lot of friends. Later, the president of RF hero, LATE entered me to this association.

Posted by: rf online gold at August 13, 2008 09:10 PM

You upgrade and earn rohan gold the side of the said chat with me. When you said that you are intend to find a girlfriend in real time. I was disappointing cry, and then I was down the online. I think my decision was a mistake, if I do not go beck, I will not met you, I will be able to evade. I think you acre about me; you know that I care about how you told me my wife. Every time I saw you called me wife, I was very happy. Perhaps you do not care, perhaps you as this is only a game.

Posted by: rohan gold at August 13, 2008 09:06 PM

I recognized her is an occasional, When I was just upgrade and earn rappelz gold. She also just through, and she is a new player, she saw me my number is high. So she asked me how to play. And I said I was a bad people, I asked if did you not heard in this game. She said she heard, but she did not believe. I smiled. So I took her to play, I told her how to play, how to upgrade.

Posted by: rappelz gold at August 13, 2008 08:58 PM

I gave up RO for a number of years, I am in the middle of the game more than N migration, and finally, I still come back. I applied a new number. Because it is the first I play online games. Here, I have to much emotional investment, Originally thought, N years, I forgot enough, I never thought I would once again echocardiography, I have been took to play this game again by my friend. She is the RO friend ago, and that she has married, now she had baby. Opening number, M4 has been a favorite role, although I was playing ID, because the blood and the Ragnarok zeny were less often, but I did not regret it.

Posted by: ragnarok zeny at August 13, 2008 08:53 PM

Goodbye, my love Maple Story, I really could not bear to leave. Today, in the Rainbow Support I find for a day, account is not back, and my mesos is also not back.

Posted by: mesos at August 13, 2008 08:50 PM

Our island adventure, hope for a better, as if the joy of childhood when the growth to continue in pursuit of that future~ can step by step, the development of advanced, it, of our time, the motherland Time, the world’s time, gradually the past, our childhood memory of ~~~ happy time! We have to remember that to purchase maple mesos, to facilitate our task to do!

Posted by: maple mesos at August 8, 2008 10:14 PM

Cheap metin2 gold can also be used at the appropriate time! 4-5 in class when the Timberwolves should be killed, but I think the Timberwolves seemed to brush less, like a fault, this time there's two ways upgrading, 1 Slowly killing small wolf, 2 for technical operation of fixing the wolf, snow wolf, I kill four wolves linked to the two 1-2 can kill, can not be lucky to see (experience not out) 4 killing snow wolf 1 Only 19 percent in the experience of fixing the wolf probably about 12 percent bar, did not remember. So you have to Buy metin2 gold timely added!

Posted by: metin2 gold at August 8, 2008 10:13 PM

You can also buy potbs Doubloon to solve the problem! But we are all intelligent people; know the history of Spain with treasures Fleet.

Posted by: buy potbs Doubloon at August 8, 2008 10:12 PM

This would serve to bring in, but too tough to agents, can not apply. In any case you can be adopted to achieve Xiah Online Gold!

Posted by: Xiah Online Gold at August 8, 2008 10:11 PM

No longer, I met a boy, he help me earn goonzu gold and teach me use them to change for goonzu money. We get a good relation each other, we became good friends, at the last days, we build team to kill enemy and buy goonzu gold. I forgot my boy friend. I think he forgot me, too. I hadn’t pull out in it when he came back to find me.

Posted by: goonzu gold at August 5, 2008 10:09 PM

I thought my husband who married in game was very kind, he always sent the goonzu online gold to the new that started to played the game. Perhaps the reason I like him. However our reins last long time, I was so sad at beginning. But the game is only the game, like the cheap goonzu gold. It had no worthiness.

Posted by: cheap goonzu gold at August 5, 2008 10:05 PM

At beginning , you are a poor, but don’t worried, the style of game give you a little habbo credits, it is very cheap, you can use them to buy equipment, you can use this equipment to exercise the rank, when you get to a certain rank valid, you don’t need the equipment, you should buy the better equipment. This time, you need the habbo gold.

Posted by: habbo credits at August 5, 2008 10:01 PM

. I guess even the U.S.A.F. have to abey the laws of metalurgy.

Posted by: Quality Wine at April 25, 2008 04:22 AM

Can anyone tell me what the Navy and Marines are going to do without the JSF? The funny thing is, the AF will be just fine without it, its the other two services that will get the short end.

Posted by: Quality Wine at April 25, 2008 04:21 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: wowpowerleveling at April 15, 2008 02:54 AM

runescape money runescape gold runescape gold runescape money buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft Power Leveling Warcraft PowerLeveling buy runescape gold buy runescape money runescape itemsrunescape accounts runescape gp dofus kamas buy dofus kamas Guild Wars Gold buy Guild Wars Gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold lotro gold buy lotro gold runescape money runescape power leveling runescape money runescape gold dofus kamas cheap runescape money cheap runescape gold Hellgate Palladium Hellgate London Palladium Hellgate money Tabula Rasa gold tabula rasa money Tabula Rasa Credit Tabula Rasa Credits Hellgate gold Hellgate London gold wow power leveling wow powerleveling Warcraft PowerLeveling Warcraft Power Leveling World of Warcraft PowerLeveling World of Warcraft Power Leveling runescape power leveling runescape powerleveling eve isk eve online isk eve isk eve online isk tibia gold Fiesta Silver Fiesta Gold

runescape money runescape gold wow power leveling

棕榈树
VI设计
画册设计
血管瘤
肝血管瘤
音乐剧
福卡
防静电地板
美国留学
留学美国
电阻器
不锈钢电阻器
频敏电阻器

睡眠呼吸机
伟康呼吸机
呼吸机
无创呼吸机
家用呼吸机
呼吸机的使用

北京消化系统疾病
北京心脑血管疾病
北京肾病
北京中医儿科
北京针灸减肥
针灸减肥
北京糖尿病
北京疼痛病
北京类风湿
北京人文大学

Posted by: runescape gold at April 13, 2008 07:20 PM

Hey all, I'm writing a story (Readers Digest?) about how crazy good it feels when the jets from Fairchild Air Force Base fly over my Farm. Who can I contact to find out what kind of Jets they are? Also, I would like to locate the American Flag on the plane body, but they fly over so fast that I don't have time/ chance to see where it is. How fast might they be going? When they break past my tree line a half mile away, they are gone in like 6 seconds or less. Also, who can I call to make sure they are appreciated. Thanx Laredo Tom

Posted by: Laredo tom at January 31, 2008 01:15 AM

Woow.
Odszkodowania.

Posted by: Odszkodowania at January 30, 2008 10:17 AM

Good blog
Wypadki komunikacyjne

Posted by: Wypadki komunikacyjne at January 30, 2008 10:13 AM

NTV and Tom,

I realize what an ASROC does, that is why I say it has no detection capabilities. This is where we are proving inadequate. If our H-60s were not multirole, they could drop a torpedo down on the sub.

I know for a fact that VLS equipped ships have been fitted with a full Tomahawk load in the past against Iraq. Not that it would really matter given that you could have 5 ships fitted with 45 TLAMs and still have a sizeable punch. That would be for just one CBG and does not include mulitple BGs in one area.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 2, 2007 11:07 AM

Important to note: Russia doesnt have the same pilot qualification standards that the US has, and so fly less. Second, they don't have the openness of the US, and if they did ground their Air Force, or any aircraft in that Air Force, they would keep it secret.

Posted by: Don Meaker at December 1, 2007 03:48 PM

DC2

I doubt more than 30-40% of a CBG's VL tubes would be allocated to TLAM's. In a high threat enviroment, I doubt that would be enough to compensate for no 5th gen AC. I realize the ASROC does not have any detection capability, but they will be needed to attack any subs.

Posted by: NTV at December 1, 2007 02:41 PM

An ASROC kills subs, not detects them, DC2. It's a stand off rocket-launched ASW torpedo. And range in ASW is good.

In a VLS it's called VLA, Vertically-Launched ASROC.

I sincerely doubt any VLS ship would load nothing but Tomahawks. You spread your weapons out so that if one ship is sunk, you don't lose everything.

Posted by: Tom Meyer at December 1, 2007 11:06 AM

An ASROC kills subs, not detects them, DC2. It's a stand off rocket-launched ASW torpedo. And range in ASW is good.

In a VLS it's called VLA, Vertically-Launched ASROC.

I sincerely doubt any VLS ship would load nothing but Tomahawks. You spread your weapons out so that if one ship is sunk, you don't lose everything.

Posted by: Tom Meyer at December 1, 2007 11:05 AM

NTV,

I am not suggesting all of the VLS cells contain Tomahawks. However, it has happened in past conflicts where some of these ships in a CBG were fully loaded with them.

I did some research as well and determined you are correct in the Tomahawk not having the capability to be reloaded at sea. But it still is not an issue in my mind when one ship can carry as many as 90.

ASROCS are garbage and provide no ASW detection capability whatsoever.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at December 1, 2007 08:52 AM

DC2-

Are you really suggesting that the Tico's and Burkes are going to devote all their VLS's to TLAM???? Good luck with that!!!! The PLAN wont need to sneak a sub close to take out the carrier a few old aircraft should be able to do the job if there arent any SM2's for air defense.

> When those run out they perfrom an UNREP with
> an ammunition ship or pull into port overnight
> and get some more.
The thing is, everything I see and ead indicates that the Tomahawks cant be reloaded at sea. apparently, the cranes cant left them. Maybe my info is outdated.

The AF has been dumping folks on their own for years, they know its a good way to free up extra monney. The poin t being is that the percentage of money that the services is has been relatively constant, and I dont see that changing. Speaking of MRAP's it appears that we wont be buying as many of those as previously thought.

Yes the B-2 can do a lot, but their are only 21 of them and missions from the CONUS take 30+ hours not to mention the 30+ hours it takes to get it ready for action again. Dont forget, that if we go against a nuclear capable country a number of the B-2's will be held in reserve for nuclear missions.

As for the Navy's ASW issues, I am aware of China's sub and our lack capability in that area, OTOH maybe the Navy could use some of those VLS tubes for ASROCs.

As for the Isreali raid, I think we all need to take a deep breath and wait to see what really happened.

Posted by: NTV at November 30, 2007 10:32 PM

NTV,

You might want to reasses your buckets. Other branches of the military are sacrificing their dollars for the Army and Marines. That's not a bad thing, it is what it is. The Air Force is currently dumping people left and right due to budget constraints. Any addtional funds that may be available are going to MRAPS and other equipment needed in country.

You are correct, there are certain things the Tomahawk cannot do. However, the limited things it cannot do are complemented by the capabilities of the B-2 which can go anywhere in any threat environment. Look at it this way: if we are facing an enemy greater than the Taliban and the Navy is the only airpower available (as was the case for the most part in Afghanistan), then it is a fight Naval aviation was never designed to do.

With regards to running out of Tomahawks: the Ticonderoga class cruiser can carry a maximum of 127 Tomahawks each and the Arleigh Burke can carry 90. Each CBG has at least 5 of these ships and they can rearm (albeit slowly) at sea. When those run out they perfrom an UNREP with an ammunition ship or pull into port overnight and get some more. Your thought on this is like asking what happens when a ship gets low on gas. The answer: it doesn't, it refuels at sea while underway.

You are correct, the Navy does not have an ASW platform on the drawing board. And that is a very sad commentary since the carriers have already lost their existing platform (S-3). The Navy got rid of them because they did not have any value in today's GWOT and were too specific in their role. And the end of their service they were relegated to tanker duty. Read the articles on this site regarding a Chinese sub popping up next to the USS Kitty Hawk and just think about who our most threatening enemy right now is militarily.

And BTW, Isreal seemed to do pretty well with legacy aircraft during the attack on the Syrian nuclear research facility recently. Sometimes tactics and combined assets can overcome the slight disadvantedges any aircraft has.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 30, 2007 07:13 PM

DC2-
Yes, there where shortages of the CALCM, but they have built the stocks back up, and are adding more. Yes tomahwaks have been on ships for a while, but that doesnt make them replacements for manned aircraft. They cant be retasked after launch, they effectivness against hardened targets is limited, not to mention deeply buried targets. Also, after all the tomahwaks that a battlegroup carries are expended, and the enemy fixed thier IADS, whats are we going to do?

As far as I know the Navy doesnt have any carrier ASW planes in design. Therefore they arent going to take money away from the JSF to fund a new ASW plane.
The Army money comes from the Army bucket, and the AF money comes from the AF bucket. For some time now all the services have a set chunk of the defense dollar. It appears that this wont change soon.

Posted by: NTV at November 30, 2007 04:16 PM

NTV,

The reason the Navy cut the JSF order was to replace the F-14s right then because of maintainability issues. I understand why the F-18 E/F came about, I understand why we are purchasing the number we need, I understand why we are purchasing the G model. But I also understand the Navy does not need the JSF as much as you think.

During the initial stages of the Afghan war, CALCM were running out. That is why I made that statement. The Tomahawk has been around for 20 years on many Navy ships. I know that cruise missles have limitations, but they can take out the threats posed where stealth would be necessary.

Chinese subs are not a separate issue. The Navy does not have a fixed wing carrier ASW aircraft since the premature retirement of the S-3. Money needs to be spent developing a replacement instead of the JSF.

Where do you think the Army money is coming from right now. The budgets of the Air Force and Navy have shrunk so that the guys on the ground can get what they need. And you're right we don't need an infinite budget. But we do need to prioritize in a fiscally responsible way.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 30, 2007 01:24 PM

DC2

The navy may have cut orders, but they still need a large number of them for strike missions, there is no getting around this fact. The navy needs an EW airframe now not 6-8 years from now, it’s hardly and indictment of the F-35. Yes UCAV’s are moving along, but they are still pretty far down the road.

> ALCMs are limited in quantity
Actually they are CALCM’s, and they are converting more of them as we speak, and we might see some C-ACM’s coming along as well. While CM’s are useful weapons, they do have a number of limitations and they are not a substitute for manned aircraft.

>All the JSFs in the world won't matter when a Chinese sub can pop up next to your carrier and get off a couple of torpedoes.
True, but that’s a separate issue.

As for the Army, yes, again, we all know that reconstituting them is going to cost money, however, that money is going to come out of “Army” money, not “AF” or “Navy” money.
The thing is we don’t need and infinite budget to get both the JSF and the F-22.

Posted by: NTV at November 30, 2007 10:15 AM

Mr. Skinner,

I could not agree with you more on your idea. I would love to replace the F-15 fleet with F-22s. So let's replace the JSF fleet with upgraded F-16s. I don't really care how it is done, but the bottom line is that we need to be buying one 5th generation fighter right now because that is all we can afford. Look at the latest entry at Defense Tech. The Airforce is asking for an addtional $20B per year for procurement. We have other priorities that need to be taken care of. The Air Force needs a replacement for the B-52, the KC-135, MH-53/MH-60, MC/AC-130, and the list goes on. All of their aircraft are long in the tooth and need to be replaced.

NTV, the Navy has reduced the original order for JSFs and replaced them with F-18s. I think they have a lot of faith in this aircraft. An EW version of the JSF has been offerred and they decided to go with the EA-18G instead. And the UCAV is really starting to mature. Combine that with the only true force that can launch land attack cruise missles (ALCMs are limited in quantity), and the Navy still has a pretty deadly strike capability. What I would like them to pay more attention to is getting the Zumwalt DD back on track and getting a new carrier based fixed wing ASW platform as we currently do not have one. All the JSFs in the world won't matter when a Chinese sub can pop up next to your carrier and get off a couple of torpedoes.

And let's not forget about the Army and what their needs will be after the wars wind down or even now. Every tank, APC, Humvee, helicopter, and anything else mechanical is going to need to be replaced or overhauled once it gets back stateside. That is going to cost a lot of coin. And there is currently a backlog on this work with the equipment they have sent back.

If there was an infinite budget I would love to have the JSF and the F-22. But with the budget constraints we currently find ourselves in, this simply is not an alternative.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 30, 2007 07:41 AM

"The numbers I would like to see are: F-22A, 450; F-35A, 1100; F-35B, 150; F35C 400: and F-18E/F/G 1600. I know that this is a pipe-dream. But its the best I could come up with. If any one can justify different numbers based on current requirements, please feel free to modify mine."

Good man, that's the spirit! Peace through superior firepower I always say, and we better get at it before the dragon awakes....no one really believes we'll avoid major conflict of some sort for another 50 years, do they?

Posted by: Sam Adams at November 29, 2007 11:26 PM

DC2-
I recognize the economics of it, but your proposal leaves the Navy in a rather poor situation. The Navy needs a 5th generation LO aircraft to do its job against future foes. Leaving it with a restricted range, restricted payload, non-LO aircraft will restrict its capability to carry out its mission. Mathematicaly it looks like this
Modern IADS + F-18 = dead aircrew + non-completed mission.

Posted by: NTV at November 29, 2007 08:13 PM

Oh no,a Black Hawk helicopter crashed.We need to ground ALL BLACKHAWKS immediately!!!!! I'm sure the airframes on the Blackhawks are just too old.We need to ground all Blackhawks,Jayhawks,Seahawks,& Knighthawks now.I'm sure they passed all of their maximum flying hours,well hours ago.We need to buy more of my handy dandy whiz bang stealth helicopters to replace these "antiques" that are obviously past their prime.I mean,they were good for the 80s,but this is 2007.

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 29, 2007 06:49 PM

Some random thoughts:

1. At present, for some braindead reason, we won't sell the F22 to even one our -closest allies-, who is banned by -their own parliament- from exporting weapons to anybody. (Japan, for the record) And they've been begging for F22s. If Air Force wants the plane, the least they could do is sell it to our closest partners -when said partners ask-. And heck, drive down your costs more: Don't sell them monkey models. (Can anyone explain -why- we won't sell the F22 to anybody? I know Congress banned said sale, but -why-?)

2. Similarly, with F35: We specifically build the thing for foreign air forces to also develop and buy with us. Now we want to...Sell foreign buyers not the same stuff we'll have (in which case, we might just get an economy of scale working), but stripped-down export models (AKA monkey models).

The way I see it, we -know- we're going to be selling whatever aircraft we produce to foreign governments; there are very few aircraft we have not sold internationally in the last 60 years. So why don't we: A. Design knowing that; B. Not sell our allies stripped-down models (Because why buy the stripped-down US plane when you can buy a fully-featured EU or Russian plane at the same price); C. Tell the Air Force to start figuring out foreign sales from the beginning?

It's increasingly getting too expensive to be the only customer for the defense manufacturers.

Posted by: John Penta at November 29, 2007 03:13 PM

OK DC2, now factor in the life cycle costs alluded to by SSgt Mac. The F-22 is supposed to be 25-35% cheaper to operate per flying hour than an F-15. The DoD reimbursable rate for F-15C cost per flying hour in 2001 was $10,843.42 (it's gotten higher since then as the airframe ages, but let's use this for now.) The F-15 has an 8000 h lifetime, suggesting operating cost over life of $86,747,000. If the F-22 achieves a 25% reduction in operating cost, that translates to a saving of $21,686,000 per airframe. That still doesn't explain the full price differential between the aircraft, but it makes a sizeable dent. Other factors are the development costs for the F-22 (F-15 costs were amortized decades ago) and the extra capability obtained with the F-22 compared to the F-15. This is not to try for the USAF brass handwaving argument that operating costs justify the price difference ("Heck, it costs us money to just NOT buy the things!"), but it's an important consideration. Some of that cost reflects the number of people required to support operations - fewer people makes the plane easier to deploy, and fewer maintenance hours per flying hour also increases sortie rate.

Posted by: George Skinner at November 29, 2007 02:48 PM

I will put this in simple mathematical terms. Let's assume we are going to buy 1,763 F-35s at $154M each for the Air Force. Now take the difference between the F-15 at $108M and the F-35. You get a difference of $46M. Mulitply by 1,763 for a total difference of $81B. Now divide that number by the $170M unit price of the F-22. We could buy an additional 477 F-22s for the savings in cost.

I agree the F-22 is all that and a bag of chips, that is why I want more of them.

And as a footnote, the JSF is only suppsed to replace the F-16 and A-10 in the Air Force inventory, the now defunct A-12 for the Navy, and the AV-8 for the USMC. So 180 F-22s are to replace the 600+ F-15s in service.

The unit cost of the JSF has risen 37% in the since 2001. It even made the Nunn-McCurdy list in 12/2005.

My only concerns for removing the JSF is the effect on the Navy, USMC, and our allied nations participating in this program. The Navy can make do with the F-18, perhaps even expanding their capabilities. The USMC as I said before will have to rely on the carrier for CAS. Our allies can be offerred a stripped down F-22 as an offset, or some other option.

DC2

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 29, 2007 01:48 PM

1. F-35 and F-22 are complimentary not redundant.
2. The Navy needs the F-35 bad because they, like the AF's long range strike aircraft are most likely the first to have to face an IADS on the opening day. The F-18E/F is a kluge that was sold to Congress as a stop-gap measure in ase the F-35 didn't materialize.
3. Anyone who would buy a 30 year weapon system based upon only the threats we face today understands zilch about Risk Managment.
4. Stealth isn't that expensive or hard to maintain compared to keepng ancient aircraft systems runnning. Most horror stories about maintaining LO airplanes has to do with learning curves, system maturation, and operations and maintenance philosophies - not to mention creative bookkeeping. F-117 is a poor example because they were 'boutique' and not modern production aircraft. Heck the LO designs weren't even standardized until fairly recently.
5. "Can't afford "is a relative and as usually employed, meaningless, term. We are no where spending near enough on defense, having the Clintonian 'Peace Dividend' permanently allocated to other things it seems.

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 29, 2007 01:20 PM

DC2

I understand that the Navy could purchase more F-18’s, and who cares about the marines anyway? But my question was more than that. In doing as you plan we doom the Navy to another 10 - 20 years with the range limited, payload limited, non-LO F-18. That restricts the Navy’s strike capability, since there are a lot places in this world that the AF will have trouble getting numbers of LO capable aircraft to. IMO cutting of LO aircraft to the Navy does nothing but cut naval capability and put pilots at unnecessary risk.

Yes F-15’s and 16 are being produced for export, but how much cost savings is there compared to a newer more capable jet?

As for the Marine helo’s, that’s not part of this discussion.

>My point is this: what plane is performing CAS right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they getting shot down?
In 2-3 years the CAS mission over Iran and Afghanistan will be over, while CAS is an important element to consider it certainly should not be driving the boat on future aircraft buys. The aircraft that we buy need to be able to conduct a full range of missions in a wide spectrum of threats.

>I'm glad you brought up the F-18E/F too. This is a progression of the shortcomings from >the original F-18C/D because the Navy realized it was the most economical and >practical way of replacing their aging F-14 and early F-18 airframes.

Wasn’t the Super Hornet an end around congress to get an attack plane after the A-12 was cancelled, and the A-6 was retired due to its airframe and wing issues?

If you don’t think maintenance costs are an issue, you need to look into it a little further. It and the associated down time are a severe drag on many of our older airframes.

Posted by: NTV at November 29, 2007 01:17 PM

DC2, you're right that the airframes in use doing CAS over a completely occupied country that wasn't very heavily defended to begin with aren't getting shot down. But remember, the Maginot Line was a great idea for fighting the last war the French were involved in. It just happened to be completely incompetent for the next one.

Same thing with the F-16. It would really do a number MIG-21bis, and perform excellently against irregulars with small arms. And may God have mercy on your soul if you'd actually want to send US airmen into harm's way against defended targets using forty-year old weapons.

I never said people didn't want to buy F-15s. Of course they do. I never even said that no one wanted to buy F-16s. My point was that FMS sales of the -16 have plummeted because it doesn't hold up to the competition. You pointed to a sale almost 8 years ago. Well, since then we've sold some to the Hellenic Air Force and Turkey. What airframes have we lost -16 bids to? The F-18E/F, the Rafaele, the Eurofighter, the Grippen, and the SU-35. That's part of the threat we'll be up against in twenty years, in thirty. The other part will be S-300VM and S-400 ground threats.

Right now, we could handle air power over Iraq and Afghanistan with the same force structure we brought to bear over Korea. That doesn't mean we should buy Skyraiders and Sabres either. We should buy what will work now, and what will work thirty years from now against adversaries unknown.

Posted by: AhzeeDahak at November 29, 2007 01:11 PM

EM2(SS) was only partially correct in his assessment of re-starting production of current air frames. In the case of NASA, they didn't bother to keep the plans. But even if they would have, the real problem is reproducing the manufacturing equipment. When the production of a piece of equipment is through the government generally requires that all of the jigs and speciality equipment required for its production are destroyed.

That said, new models of the F-15 and F-16 are still semi-viable options. Increasing the numbers of the latest EASA equiped F-18s would be a better option and would immediately increase the capabilities of the air fleet. As things currently stand, airframe vs airframe, its a much better air-to-air fighter than the F-15 A-D models. Having looked at the expense the Navy went through attempting to keep its A-6 fleet in the air, I would guess that we could replace half of the F-15 A-D's with new airframes for the cost of keeping them flying. These new aircraft should be able to fly off land bases for many more years than they could possibly keep flying the Air Forces current stable of legacy fighters as well, simply because of their stronger construction. And that does not even take into consideration the effect of the F-18s better avionics. Granted it isn't an Air Force bird. But isn't the benefit to the country more important than which service developed the bird more important?

Now to address the issue of affordablity. One thing most people do not realize is that, as a percentage of GNP, government spending has remained at a constant 20% since the 1960's. What has happened is that spending has shifted from defense to social programs in the meantime. Defense spending is currently, as a percentage of government spending, less than 40% of 1960 levels. Yet they are required to do 168% more with that budget. No wonder there are funding problems. Another problem lays in how we pay for product R&D. Defense contractors bid a contract for X number of units. In this bid they include the R&D costs. Those costs are fixed at the beginning of production. In order to recoup those costs, when the number of units is cut, the price of the remaining units must increase. Congress knows this, even if they won't acknowledge it. (They used this tactic to drive the unit price of the F-14 up to the point where they could kill it without political risk.) Thus if they where to increase the number of F-18s, the unit cost should drop.

Onto the F-35. I cannot say much about the justification for the A model, I simply do not know enough about how the Air Force plans to use it. I only know how the Aircraft it is to replace are used. The Marines need the B model as the Harrier air frame has reached the end of its useful life. They require its capability for Close Air Support, period. The Navy needs the F-35C for the same reasons that the Air Force needs the F-22. To modify the F-22 design to be able to work off carriers would cost as much as a completely new aircraft. The F-35C gives the Navy a fifth generation fighter that will be able to hold its own against land based fifth generation fighters. The ability of carriers to project power ashore means that, even though there no sea-borne threats, they will face those fighters. Therefore, I submit, that it is in the best interest of the Country to build, at least, the B and C models of the F-35. to build stores of replacement parts, I would like the A to be built in large numbers as well.

The numbers I would like to see are: F-22A, 450; F-35A, 1100; F-35B, 150; F35C 400: and F-18E/F/G 1600. I know that this is a pipe-dream. But its the best I could come up with. If any one can justify different numbers based on current requirements, please feel free to modify mine.

Exnuke65

Posted by: Ex-nuke at November 29, 2007 12:55 PM

We have lost more F-15's to fatigue than we ever lost to Migs. The F-15 is an old bird and its time is passing.
I enjoy reading about which is better, the 1970's Dodge Challenger or the Pontiac TransAm. But that was then and today we either build more F-22 & 35's or watch more fighters fall from the sky.
Its not just about CAS or F-15 era missions. Look at the intelligence, surveillance and electronic abilities of the F-22, its a game changer. Read about recent Red Flag exercises with the F-22. If the US is smart, they won't stop building F-22 at 243, if we're smart they will continue on to 300+.

Posted by: whatmeworry at November 29, 2007 12:31 PM

Overheard in General Corley's Langley Office:

Staff Pogue: "Uh, General Corley, sir?"

General Corley: "Yes, what is it? I'm busy!"

SP: "Uh, sir, those damned mechanics have gone and found more cracks on the F-15Es!"

GC: "Doh!"

--------------

This would never have happened if Bush had not zeroed out DARPA's funding for Unobtainium development!

Cheers,
Chief B.

Posted by: Crusty Old Chief at November 29, 2007 12:10 PM

NTV and Ahzee,

The Navy would purchase addtional F-18E/Fs at $94M each. The Marines would be SOL. They have the very expensive V-22 and AAV which they need far more that a VSTOL bomber. They are currently augmenting Navy squadrons on aircraft carriers, so these would have to figured in (as they always were in the past) in our surge doctrine.

And "third world countries" are continuing the purchase the F-15 and F-16 today. The F-15 is currently being produced for Israel (F-15I), Korea (F-15K), and most recently Singapore (F-15SG). All based on the F-15E. In 2000 a total of 220 F-16s were purchased by Israel, Greece, UAE, Korea, and Singapore (more than our total buy of F-22s currently). Israel ordered an additional 52 F-16s in 2001 that will keep the production line open through 2008.

And speaking of the Marines, why don't you ask them why they are continuing to update the antiquated AH/UH-1 fleet far after the Army ditched it. And they are now entering into a contract with Sikorsky for the CH-53K to replace their old and failing 53Es.

My point is this: what plane is performing CAS right now in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are they getting shot down?

The tip of the spear when it comes to dealing with these emerging threats should be and is the F-22. We don't have enough of these to meet the Air Forces needs, especially with the two war doctrine. We don't have the airframe time on our current F-15/F-16 fleet to wait on F-35s being bought, especially while they use up hours in the skies of Iraq and Afghanistan. And I am willing to bet my paycheck that we will not be purchasing 2,000 F-35s like we say we will be doing right now. Especially at the current projected unit price.

I'm glad you brought up the F-18E/F too. This is a progression of the shortcomings from the original F-18C/D because the Navy realized it was the most economical and practical way of replacing their aging F-14 and early F-18 airframes. Now they are coming off the assembly line with AESA radar, JHMCS, and will very soon have IRIS.

And an experimental F-15 called F-15 ACTIVE was developed for NASA with canards and thrust vectoring. So the technology and capabilites are there for this aircraft. Sturctural failures are starting to occur on these planes because of fatigue, not design issues.

You guys can harp on the maintenance costs of these legacy aircraft, even with new build airfames, all you want. But I fail to see how a stealth aircraft, and all of the maintenance headaches included, can cost less to operate than an F-15/F-16. Especially the single engined F-16.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 29, 2007 11:50 AM

DC2, hello.

Well, the F-16XL was intended to do the work now assigned to the F-15E, which is one of the newest planes in the fleet, and so would make the least sense to replace/augment. Also, third world nations don't even want to buy F-16s anymore; they're loosing bids in droves to every damn aircraft currently under construction. Yeah, I want to spend more money on that. 'Cause that's an aircraft that would be capable of performing CAS/SEAD/DEAD/CAP/Escort/Attack against triple-digit SAM and the 4.5 generation fighters now being bought on every continent in the world.

Please remember that one of the F-35's other huge advantages is the incredible reduction in maintenance / downtime, augmented by it being a new airframe. SMSgt Mac hit the nail on the head that acquisition costs are only a small part of the TCO of an air fleet. And thrust vectoring is really nice... for knife-fighting. And we're talking about development costs to implement a vectored thrust engine on a -15 frame, which would add cost and add stress the the same part of the airframe that we have a longevity issue with now, and which would get us a 1960s fighter with maneuverability almost but not quite as good as a new-build Sukhoi, for a grand saving of somewhere between $10 and $50 million per airframe. This is not a great deal, this is a terrible waste to even propose. In the event we as a nation decide to reduce our readiness for war, cut military budgets, and drop the two wars doctrine (good luck on that, by the way) a better buy would be the F/A-18E/F at $60 million flyaway. It's very new, still in primary production, can be fitted with AESA radar, and slots in somewhere between a -16 and a -15 in capabilities. All you have to do is get the Air Force to fly a Navy aircraft they already rejected and accept that our air power will continue to decline until we have system parity with regional powers like India, and you're good to go.

Heck, another way to save even more money would be to scrap the most expensive and least common version of the F-35; the USN carrier version. Tell them to use the STOVL version like everyone else, and we'll save about as much money in procurement as we would rustling up F-15s. And we'd save money on maintenance and ops. Heck, if we could convince the DoD and Navy to accept Zumwalt's SCS as a replacement for some percentage of our CVNs, we'd save a freakishly large amount of money in procurement, operations, payroll, you name it.

Posted by: AhzeeDahak at November 29, 2007 11:11 AM

Can anyone tell me what the Navy and Marines are going to do without the JSF? The funny thing is, the AF will be just fine without it, its the other two services that will get the short end.

Posted by: NTV at November 29, 2007 10:45 AM

Roy,

Yes that is all the variants, as it now stands. Wait until the coast $154M each and we will see how many we get. What happens when we realize we can only pay for 600 planes. Are we going to have colocated active duty and reserve squadrons flying the same planes as we currently do with the F-22?

I just don't get it I guess. Like you said, the legacy aircraft just aren't sexy enough. Everybody wants the newest gadget and when you don't see a real out of pocket expense then it doesn't really matter. Oh, and the manufacturers don't make as much money either. Gotta consider that lobbying aspect.

There are so many variants and test aircraft for the F-15 and F-16 that I am sure we can come up with a solution to complement the fleet of F-22s. Whether it be thrust vectoring F-15s or F-16XLs, that is the avenue we should be exploring.

A stealthy F-35 that will be doing yeomans work just does not make since to me. Just to maintain the stealth capaiblities of these aircraft is increadibly expensive, that is one of the main reasons we got rid of the F-117. That and the fact that parts could not be bought anymore (same as the B-2) because we did not produce enough planes for the vendors to create an inventory. The same will happen with the F-22. It will be impossible for the vendors to support 180 aircraft with spares and still be able to make money, unless they charge an arm and a leg.

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 29, 2007 10:26 AM

In regards to the purchasing of 2000+ JSFs,is that the combined total for Air Force,Navy,& Marine variants?

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 29, 2007 08:10 AM

Mac,

I agree with you on the need for stealth. I also agree with you on the need for technology. But in this world everything comes down to the bottom dollar. And the Air Force cannot afford to have two 5th generation fighters, sorry. Especially when we are fighting two wars in which your stealthy aircraft have no bearing. Insurgents don't have SAM sites to bring down F-15s or F-16s (unless they are taking off). So what is your point?

And with regards to numbers of aircraft. We are "planning" to purchase 2,000+ JSFs. That is not a reduction in force due to increased capability. And at some point you have to think of attrition reserves, because no matter how good the aircraft they still get shot down or crash all on their own.

So do you want 180 F-22s with no allowance for attrition, or do you want the minimum number the Air Force wants at the expense of the JSF? And the current issues with structural fatigue still are not addressed for the forseeable future with the JSF.

And again, I am all for air superiority. We have a magnificent aircraft that, if purchased in correct numberts, can totally dominate. But if we do not have enough, what difference does it make?

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 29, 2007 07:35 AM

Don't you guys get it,F-15s,F-16s,& A-10s AREN'T SEXY!!!! They just don't get me aroused like a good.....stealthy.....sleek........F-22A Raptor & F-35A/B/C Lightning II does.Even the "OLD" F-117 Nighthawk has caused me to lose that lovin' feeling. If its not the F-22 &/or F-35,then I'm just not in the mood!!!!! Sorry,I've run out of further sexual innuendos,that won't get me banned from this site,when describing the sleek.....stealthy......hard........F-22A Raptor & F-35A/B/C Lightning II.

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 29, 2007 07:18 AM

Mr. Skinner,
You get extra points towards Heaven for persistence in trying to keep things real.
If someone wants to actually learn a little bit about what it takes to keep ANY aircraft flying it might be a revelation for them to rummage around the FAA’s Airworthiness Directives listing (http://rgl.faa.gov/). Spend enough time in those lists, and even the least sentient among us can come to realize that even new planes (especially if there are more than a handful of them in operation) are grounded for various inspections and actions on average a couple of times a year. Older planes get grounded even more -- and not just for structural wear and tear. Civilian airliner models of the F-15’s age are grounded far more than the military planes because military aircraft are built stronger and maintained better, but no plane is immune because the laws of physics still apply: what goes up must come down. If you doubt that aging is a problem, you probably don’t know it is a HUGE problem and why. Hint: not just safety – think operating costs. Just Google “Aging Aircraft” and discover whole organizations and programs dedicated to the problem. You can just lightly scan through the public data, discussions and papers on the problem for days.
Now add the ‘survivability’ factor for military planes. Systems HAVE to work, and low observability IS the price of admission on the modern battlefield, especially if you don’t own the real estate below. I know some people don’t think so, but NONE of them are responsible for having to notify the next of kin in event of a shoot-down or are responsible for making the capability meet the need within the dollars allowed.
It is both incredibly humorous AND sad to see unit cost of airplanes cited as rationales for keeping older designs. With obsolescence and reliability issues you need more airplanes ($) to perform the same mission as fewer new ones. You also need more parts ($) and consumables such as fuel ($) and maintainers ($), equipment ($), more infrastructure like bases ($) and depots ($) and industrial capacity ($) to keep them flying. With lower survivability, you need to allow for the higher attrition rates ($ lost) which means maintaining even more of the older aircraft designs ($) during peacetime so you will have enough aircraft to get through the conflicts over the expected service life. With more older aircraft, you need more pilots and aircrew ($!), and support aircraft such as tankers ($) and transports ($) with their overhead ($) to haul the extra support crews and equipment to where they are needed. There will also even be more disposal costs ($) involved with more older systems.
Talk Life Cycle Cost to get true cost. Acquisition costs are chump change in the scheme of things.
Oh, and the article would have had a lot more credibility and zing if the return to flight hadn’t been ignored in the first place. (Yes I checked-in to see if any mention was made).

Posted by: SMSgt Mac at November 28, 2007 11:25 PM

Andy,

I would have to agree with EM2, and not just because he is a Navy man.

The F-22 costs $170M per aircraft. An attrition reserve F-15E was just purchased by the Air Force for $108M. And I think EM2 is asking for a single seat aircraft instead of a two seater.

And the JSF.....the estimated unit cost has risen in 1 year from $105M to $115M. And they aren't putting the planes in service yet. There is speculation the unit cost could get to $154M or more. As a comparison, the F-22 was estimated to have a unit cost of $125M in 1992 (FY 2006 dollars).

Also, the unit costs given for the F-22 and JSF do not include R&D costs that are sometimes figured into the unit cost of the aircraft.

And since I am a Navy man, the F-18E has a unit cost of $95M.

I have said this 100 times on this site, we do not need the JSF. It will follow the same path as the F-22. In 1992 we estimated having a purchase of 624 aircraft and we are down to around 180+ now. Give the Air Force the minimum number they are looking for, dump the JSF, and purchase upgraded F-15s and F-16s. They can do the yeomans work while the F-22 takes care of the air superiority role.

With the A-10 I feel we are left with the airframes we currently have. This was a Fairchild produced aircraft and the dies have been destroyed a long time ago.

But either way, or fleet of aircaft today and desintigrating and the only new viable aircarft we have on line is the F-22 for the forseeable future. Even when the JSF comes on line in sufficient numbers, I feel it may be too late.

We are going to find ourselves in the same predicament as the British very soon.

And Mr. Skinner, you reference the C-141. I believe they were retired early in part because of structural failures. I have a feeling we may be doing the same with the F-15.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 28, 2007 09:04 PM

Andy,

I would have to agree with EM2, and not just because he is a Navy man.

The F-22 costs $170M per aircraft. An attrition reserve F-15E was just purchased by the Air Force for $108M. And I think EM2 is asking for a single seat aircraft instead of a two seater.

And the JSF.....the estimated unit cost has risen in 1 year from $105M to $115M. And they aren't putting the planes in service yet. There is speculation the unit cost could get to $154M or more. As a comparison, the F-22 was estimated to have a unit cost of $125M in 1992 (FY 2006 dollars).

Also, the unit costs given for the F-22 and JSF do not include R&D costs that are sometimes figured into the unit cost of the aircraft.

And since I am a Navy man, the F-18E has a unit cost of $95M.

I have said this 100 times on this site, we do not need the JSF. It will follow the same path as the F-22. In 1992 we estimated having a purchase of 624 aircraft and we are down to around 180+ now. Give the Air Force the minimum number they are looking for, dump the JSF, and purchase upgraded F-15s and F-16s. They can do the yeomans work while the F-22 takes care of the air superiority role.

With the A-10 I feel we are left with the airframes we currently have. This was a Fairchild produced aircraft and the dies have been destroyed a long time ago.

But either way, or fleet of aircaft today and desintigrating and the only new viable aircarft we have on line is the F-22 for the forseeable future. Even when the JSF comes on line in sufficient numbers, I feel it may be too late.

We are going to find ourselves in the same predicament as the British very soon.

And Mr. Skinner, you reference the C-141. I believe they were retired early in part because of structural failures. I have a feeling we may be doing the same with the F-15.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at November 28, 2007 09:02 PM

EM2(SS),

A version of the F-15 is still in production, called the F-15K. It's an export model for Korea that's similar to an E model but with better avionics. The flyaway cost for these is about $100 million each. Currently, the F-22A has a flyaway cost of about $140 million. So for an extra $40 million you get a generational leap in capability, at least in the air-to-air arena.

Posted by: Andy at November 28, 2007 08:09 PM

Funny, the Russians started off ripping off the F-14 and eventually ended up with the SU-27 series. I wonder what America could have achieved with a similar approach with the F-15? The USN seems to be following a similar-ish path with the F-18.

Why not: do the F-22 (but with a proper combat radius) and supplement that with a super-F-15/16/10 and bin the JSF. Latterly the US could leapfrog the F-22 with next gen lightweights....and so on.

Posted by: Liam Hemmings at November 28, 2007 06:30 PM

Funny, the Russians started off ripping off the F-14 and eventually ended up with the SU-27 series. I wonder what America could have achieved with a similar approach with the F-15? The USN seems to be following a similar-ish path with the F-18.

Why not: do the F-22 (but with a proper combat radius) and supplement that with a super-F-15/16/10 and bin the JSF. Latterly the US could leapfrog the F-22 with next gen lightweights....and so on.

Posted by: Liam Hemmings at November 28, 2007 06:30 PM

@ EM2(SS):

Yeah, you could try to put old designs back into production, but in a lot of instances it'd probably be simpler to just design a new aircraft. Subcomponents become discontinued, suppliers disappear or move on, materials change, and the critical practical knowledge needed to build the product evaporates as people move on to new programs, retire, or die. A couple of case studies to consider: restart of B-1 production in the 1980s only 4-5 years after the program had been shelved by the Carter administration was brutal because of the turnover in the workforce. Building the space shuttle Endeavour as a replacement for Challenger in the early 1990s from structural spares presented a similar challenge. One final example is NASA's decision to revive the Apollo-era J-2 rocket engine for use in Project Constellation: the engine has been substantially redesigned because of all of the changes in materials & manufacturing processes since the original production run ended in the '60s. Also, the first phase of the program involved pulling engines out of museums and disassembling them to figure out how they were put together! Plans just aren't enough.

Posted by: George Skinner at November 28, 2007 06:13 PM

I guess thats what I meant when I was comparing the Su-27/30 structural problems with the F-15s & being blessed on our part to have a ready replacement for our F-15s,while the operators of the Su-27/30 has no choice but to make what they have work.As far as the flying hours go for the Su-27/30,I thought that the fact that their engines being inferior to our's was the main reason they didn't fly much compared to our F-15s.

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 28, 2007 06:08 PM

You know with the F-15 & its structural problems,at least we have an alternative in the F-22A Raptor.What about other countries like Israel who depend on F-15A/Cs for their air defense? They have to work harder to make their F-15s operate.
It reminds me of when I had a Yugo back in the 80s.It was a piece of crap & I got rid of it after it broke down on me for good,but I think of worse off people like the Former East Germans & their Trabis(which was a hell of a lot worse than the Yugo).They couldn't just trade in their Trabi,they had to do everything they could to keep it running.The Israelis don't have the F-22 to fall back on,what are they & other foreign countries who operate F-15A/B/C/Ds supposed to do?

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 28, 2007 06:00 PM

Completely ignorant thought and question here: I'd assume that our aerospace companies are intimately familiar with our aircraft like the F-15, B-52 and the A-10. Even though they may not be currently in production, couldn't they just start producing new ones again?

Yes, it's a simple, ignorant question, but I'm a strict follower of the KISS principle.

There may have been changes in the US aerospace industry, but the technology is there, we have the knowledge and once upon a time had the tools and the dies, and respooling up known designs has to (in my ignorant and simple point of view) be quite a bit cheaper on a per-airframe cost than the F-22 or the JSF, or a new B-2. (I seem to recall that we used to be able to reverse engineer German WWII stuff and put it to good use for us...)

Yes, the Generals want their shiny new high tech toys, but if a freshly made airflame of an older design cost --what ?? half ?? or a ?? third ?? of what the F-22 or JSF does, then they could have a lot more birds in the air... insead of 442 older planes sitting idle with their million dollar pilots sitting on their thumbs rotating, and only a trickle flow of new high tech birds in production...

This makes me think of Russia and other countries that still mass produce AK-47s, even though the designs are 60-odd years old. They work, they are reliable, and they are cheap.

Yes, we need to keep the technological edge in R&D, but we also don't need 10 gazillion dollar fighters as much as we could use 500-1000 cheaper fighters.

Personally, we could learn that lesson across the board: Ships, aircraft, tanks, guns, etc... Keep up the R&D edge, but if a design works and is effective, then keep on producing it. Never hurts to have more. More is definitely better, IMHO.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at November 28, 2007 05:38 PM

Roy,

That comment displays a nearly complete ignorance of engineering. Even though the planes look superficially similar, they were designed by completely different design organizations, use different materials, and apply different load factors. Even if the Flanker had exactly the same internal structural layout as the F-15, the use of a slightly different material grade could make the difference between cracking or not cracking.

What this should be telling us is that we've still got a long way to go in predicting lifetime of engineering materials. The F-15 is mainly aluminum, which has been a primary structural material since about, oh, 1933. It's also a relatively simple isotropic material, and a metal at that. It's also not the first time that an aircraft has had problems due to unexpected cracking. The C-141 fleet had the same sort of problem because of issues with its 7075-T4 alloy, and the F-18 had well-documented tail flutter problems that were eventually fixed with structural reinforcement and essentially a titanium t-section bolted to the LEX. The fun part about lifetime structural analysis is that by the time you've verified your failure theories on one type of construction, it's been superseded by a completely different design. It's going to be interesting to see how all of the composite materials start to fail as they wear out. Luckily we've got much better materials science now than was available in the 1960s when the F-15 was designed...

Posted by: George Skinner at November 28, 2007 05:11 PM

Roy, I would suspect that the Flankers would have considerably less flight hours.

Posted by: NTV at November 28, 2007 04:37 PM

The Su-27 & Su-30 Flankers are supposed to have the same structural flaws as the F-15A/B/C/D(but not the E Strike Eagle,how convenient),but the operators of those planes aren't mass grounding them.Could all of this grounding have less to do with structural integrity & more to do with.....say......wanting more F-22A Raptors?

Posted by: Roy Smith at November 28, 2007 03:59 PM

Good Afternoon Folks,

Oops. I guess even the U.S.A.F. have to abey the laws of metalurgy.

I though that the announcment by AF Gen. John Corley last week giving the F-15's the go to fly again with out testing the air frame was just a wee bit premature.

"Risk assessment", the term General Corley uses is ok for Ford Explorers and Firestone tires, in the perdictable rollovers it is expected that only a couple of people will be killed.

With the majority of F-15's A-D flying with the ANG over the United States an F-15 flying a CAP over a major city and breaks up and goes down the price will be much higher.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Posted by: Byron Skinner at November 28, 2007 03:24 PM