Just wanted to know can any creditors take any of my Disablity if I get behind on an auto.

Posted by: james at November 5, 2008 10:42 PM

I was very happy, so I send my all knight gold to you, because I want you could happy.

Posted by: knight gold at August 18, 2008 01:02 AM

And I had never we play the game, you sent me a lot of knight noah, I was very happy.

Posted by: knight noah at August 18, 2008 01:01 AM

The life was not like cheap knight gold, it was not easy.

Posted by: cheap knight gold at August 18, 2008 12:59 AM

We can remember we buy the knight online gold, I really thought you told me the same effort, I really thought that your words and everything are heartfelt.

Posted by: knight online gold at August 18, 2008 12:57 AM

All of them told me that you din not deserve a life of the people entrusted to him, but I still chose you. We had even cost some knight online noah to play the game.

Posted by: knight online noah at August 18, 2008 12:55 AM

rolex replica watches - $98 swiss , we don't sale replica watches.The Art of E-commerce

Posted by: replica watches at August 5, 2008 08:47 PM

That time I suggest you to buy gaia online gold. Because I think only you have more money, you can use it to buy the better equipments. Because of this better equipment, you can kill more and more golliwogs.

Posted by: gaia online gold at August 5, 2008 07:58 PM

I want to discuss my attainment shallowly about this game. Earned money, exercising rank and doing best quality equipment, these were very important part of this game. Let me say the gaia gold, I used the buy gaia gold usually, of course the cheap gaia gold is the lowest price in this game, because only you have the more money and best quality equipment, you can exercise rank easy.

Posted by: gaia gold at August 5, 2008 07:53 PM

I had only a little lunia gold and the remedy was not enough, but I still to add the blood to our cavalier which were battling, we saw the enemy became more and more fearfulness, at last my best friend dead. At this time I needed the more lunia war gold to buy blood to save my best friend. I couldn’t go to save my friend, because the enemy was coming and carrying off his lunia online gold.

Posted by: lunia gold at August 5, 2008 07:48 PM

DC2: "Stop whining about how the Army is underfunded. It makes no sense."
--------------------------------------------------
It makes perfect sense. Let me whine some more. ; )
A CBO report just suggested lower cost alternatives to upgrading Army aircraft. The study's impetus appeared to be concern that current plans had an average cost of $3.3 billion a year to reset/modernize Army aviation instead of the $2.2 billion annual average of the past 20 years. Yet the differential between historical and planned costs to upgrade/buy 3,353 Army aircraft amounts to just $25 billion spread out over 23 years. That corresponds closely to the cost of 200 additional F-22s over a far shorter 10 years of additional production.
No comparable capability matches Army Aviation, proven over years of enduring conflict. In contrast, the brief weeks required to achieve air dominance hardly justify excessive F-22s quantities because non-stealthy aircraft can carry on for the long haul once air supremacy is achieved. You do the math: 3,353 Army aircraft essential for the long war vs. 200 too many F-22s for the threat, given the existing 183 F-22s, host of ground/sea air defense and air systems, and the coming F-35.
---------------------------------------------------
DC2: "China is much more of a threat to wipe the US off the face of the Earth than an Islamic radical with a suicide vest."
---------------------------------------------------
Mutually-assured destruction (MAD) prevents China/Russia from nuking us. Yet, that concept is foreign to Islamic radicals with nuclear suicide vests in the form of a 40' containers hosting a nuclear device sailed into and detonated in U.S. harbors. Mad (angry/crazy) terrorists, don't care about MAD.
They may have a point. How do we respond to such an attack. If we determine from the radiation signature that the nuclear fuel came from Iran, we could return the nuclear favor. But what if it is Pakistan and a device was stolen by disenchanted military officers. What if the device is from the Ukraine, bought on the black market and delivered via Al Qaeda. Who do we retaliate against? What if it is a Chemical attack? A nationstate would never attack due to known consequences. Terrorists would, and unlike 9/11, our retaliatory response might be limited targetwise. Do we nuke Pashtun sections of Pakistan where Al Qaeda is hiding and radiate the whole of Pakistan and India? Don't think so.
------------------------------------------------------
DC2: "I would say the war on terror is more of a phantom threat than war against a threatening nation. You look at how much we have spent in Iraq and tell me what is driving us bankrupt."
-------------------------------------------------------
This vital region requires rigorous defense of shipping lanes where the world's oil transits. As a former Navy guy who witnessed the incident of a week ago, you understand that. Iran remains a state-sponsor of terror even as Iran/Afghanistan state threats subside. Our presence deters and provides options. Military technology for conventional warfare, proves just as valuable in insurgency. Look at Chechnya, our current threats, and Israeli actions against Gaza and Lebanon to ascertain the value of conventional ground/air forces against terror/insurgent targets and states….hardly a phantom threat to life, limb, and essential oil resources.
--------------------------------------------------------
DC2: "We would have a balanced budget right now if it weren't for the addtional dicretionary spending to fund this war."
---------------------------------------------------------
Given the potential WMD threat, do you still suggest we pack up and leave before the job is done in either Iraq or Afghanistan? Wouldn't you prefer terrorist suicidal focus on armed/armored forces instead of undefended U.S. citizens/cities?
You imply that these wars are helping the Army/Marines through increased funding, yet that ignores the strain on our ground forces that has hurt far more than it has helped $-wise. Repeated deployments not only damage equipment but destroy troop morale leading to the best/brightest leaving the service never to return. The small size of the Army/Marines makes USAF 4-6 month combat tours impossible, and monies required to expand needed ground force levels are threatened by excessive purple aircraft purchases.
Still believe the USAF could double F-22 pilot numbers in a Squadron (or employ cooperating active/reserve squadrons) to effectively double the sortie rate during the brief air dominance surge. If it costs $4 million to produce a pilot and the aircraft is a $20 million F-16, a 1:1.25 plane-to-pilot ratio makes economic sense. A $160 million dollar F-22 tilts the cost-benefit ratio toward more pilots than aircraft. The current 12-14 hours per month for F-22 pilots and added simulation time could provide required training for two pilots per aircraft without overextend the F-22s useful airframe life. Because the F-22 would be used briefly in wartime to establish air dominance, even wartime deployments would not severely shorten useful life.
A buy of 183 F-22s makes future fleet upgrades/SLEPs less costly. It leaves justification for future monies to be spent on less costly stealth counterair/counter-AMD/bomber UAS, perhaps employed with the F-22 in a manned-unmanned team. Such teaming would compensate for the lack of internal payload on the F-22 (half of a F-117) while still retaining the flexibility of a human in the loop.

Posted by: Cole at January 16, 2008 06:13 PM

Cole,

Stop whining about how the Army is underfunded. It makes no sense.

And I would say the war on terrorism is more of a phantom threat than war against a threatening nation. You look at how much we have spent in Iraq and tell me what is driving us bankrupt. China is much more of a threat to wipe the US off the face of the Earth than an Islamic radical with a suicide vest.

We would have a balanced budget right now if it weren't for the addtional dicretionary spending to fund this war.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 15, 2008 11:30 AM

Roy: "I wonder if,when their military equipment was turning to crap all around them,the Soviets said,"Its okay,we have the Su-30 coming on line",& "everybody knows that the T-90 tank is the best in the world",& "its ok,we have no credible threat right now & we have plenty of time to rebuild & build up our military." We also know that they were "winning" the war in Chechnya & had terrorism on the run,blah,blah,blah,yadda,yadda,yadda,etc. Sound familiar to anybody?"

Reply: Those Chechnya insurgents did a pretty darn good job with their anti-armor hunter-killer teams.

Wikipedia:

The end results of the New Year's Eve battle were devastating for the Russian side, which lost est. 105 of 120 tanks sent into the city. The entire first battalion of the Maikop Brigade, more than 50% of the 81st Regiment, and hundreds of men from the remaining units had been killed. A high-ranking Russian General Staff officer later said "On January 2nd, we lost contact with our forward units." According to Maskadov, some 400 Russian tanks and APCs in all were destroyed.

Somehow I suspect the Soviet Union was NOT looking at us and saying there is no credible threat out there.;)

The difference is they spent their way into bankrupty chasing a true threat, while too many stealth aircraft would commence our nation's turn in that direction chasing a phantom threat...while the real one on the ground goes underfunded.

Posted by: Cole at January 14, 2008 07:13 PM

Evangeline: "I hope I don’t need to remind you that it is impossible to fight a ground war without control of the air. I think we agree that we need an air force equipped to control the air in all possible future wars."

Reply: The first sentence is not necessarily true (Russian WWII eastern front, Yom Kippur War 1973). Nor is the corresponding argument that complete control of the air guarantees victory. (Viet Nam, Korea stalemate, Russian Afghanistan/Chechnya)

We agree on the second sentence, but that is somewhat irrelevant to the number of F-22/F-35 required to achieve air dominance. Israel has proven repeatedly that its outnumbered aircraft can prevail with better equipment and training. We have plenty of both AND more numbers.

Evangeline: From this response am I correct in my understanding that you intend to use pilots as ablative meat as a cost cutting measure? Or are you suggesting that we fire at anything in the air sight unseen including civilian and allied aircraft?

Nonsense. No evidence exists that the USAF or any other allied nation with our technology has ever suffered high casualties in recent years in non-stealthy aircraft despite enemy air/air defense threats. AWACs, ECM, pilot training, and TTP have overcome the enemy every time.

Add the stealth factor and even more pilots survive. The sole difference between a USAF with 183 F-22s/800 F-35s and more fiscally responsible 381 F-22s/1763 F-35s lies in the time required to achieve air dominance and suppress/kill air defenses. Suspect our nation would survive if the air dominance endeavor took 2 weeks instead of the current standard of 2 days.

If the USAF hasn't figure out TTP and technologies beyond current IFF to allow BVR engagement on a routine basis, that is a lick on them. Somehow I suspect AESA and other high tech radars and AMRAAM missiles could be programmed to detect the signature of friendly stealth aircraft and to query other interrogation technologies. AWACS can cue AMRAAM targets followed all the way from takeoff in China/Iran/etc.

Also mentioned use of established air corridors, easily flown using GPS/INS at the prescribed altitude and coordinates...that remain undetected due to stealth aircraft flying them.

Suspect airline service will cease and most of the Taiwan Air Force would be downed by the time we arrive. They might also be flying on the same east side of the mountain range with our carrier-based non-stealthy aircraft trying to shoot down thousands of inbound Chinese rockets/TBM/cruise missiles.

Evangeline: Either way, you still haven’t solved the issue at hand. These planes are falling apart. You can fix it now for 500K but new problems will begin to arise shortly. You can either replace the airframe in one swoop or piece by piece. This leaves the airforce three options: F15s, F35s, or F22s. F22s are the only airframes that can handle future air superiority missions.

Reply: The extra week + a few days required to achieve air dominance by having fewer stealth aircraft would spare funds for non-stealthy aircraft like the FA-18/F-16 Block 52/60+ to save lives of ground servicemen in the long ground/air war that followed. During the long war, stealth aircraft billions add little additional value and new/SLEPed non-stealthy aircraft would be just as effective.

All those boneyarded F-15s become a source of parts for the 178 Golden Eagles, piece by piece.

A mix of F-22/F-35 are completely up to the task of air dominance, and non-stealthy Joint aircraft complete the task.

Posted by: Cole at January 14, 2008 07:02 PM

I wonder if,when their military equipment was turning to crap all around them,the Soviets said,"Its okay,we have the Su-30 coming on line",& "everybody knows that the T-90 tank is the best in the world",& "its ok,we have no credible threat right now & we have plenty of time to rebuild & build up our military." We also know that they were "winning" the war in Chechnya & had terrorism on the run,blah,blah,blah,yadda,yadda,yadda,etc. Sound familiar to anybody?

Posted by: Roy Smith at January 14, 2008 04:27 AM

Cole:

"Check out this link that compares the cost of past fighter aircraft to today's F-22 in TODAY'S DOLLARS.

http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/

Look at the right hand column midway down. The WWII P-51 Mustang cost only $600,000 in today's dollars. Fighter costs were reasonable all the way up to AND INCLUDING the F-15. The F-22 costs at least one hundred million dollars more in today's dollars than an F-15...an exponential increase in price...with an exponential DECREASE in threat, because that aircraft was begun prior to the Soviet Union's demise."

This comparison is nonsense for many reasons, but you need only one to illustrate why: The income of the American worker has risen far faster than inflation, and when somebody becomes wealthier, you have to pay him more to do the same work. Therefore, unless we are proposing to outsource production of F22's to China, comparisons of this sort are a bit quaint without the proper economic context.

Posted by: citanon at January 13, 2008 12:34 PM

Cole:

"Check out this link that compares the cost of past fighter aircraft to today's F-22 in TODAY'S DOLLARS.

http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/

Look at the right hand column midway down. The WWII P-51 Mustang cost only $600,000 in today's dollars. Fighter costs were reasonable all the way up to AND INCLUDING the F-15. The F-22 costs at least one hundred million dollars more in today's dollars than an F-15...an exponential increase in price...with an exponential DECREASE in threat, because that aircraft was begun prior to the Soviet Union's demise."

This comparison is nonsense for many reasons, but you need only one to illustrate why: The income of the American worker has risen far faster than inflation, and when somebody becomes wealthier, you have to pay him more to do the same work. Therefore, unless we are proposing to outsource production of F22's to China, comparisons of this sort are a bit quaint without the proper economic context.

Posted by: citanon at January 13, 2008 12:33 PM

Cole:

“Reply: I hate to play the casualty card again, but a lot of Marine/USAF commanders had to write letters to families of nearly 4,000 dead Servicemen...versus 75 valiant airmen that were mostly ground guys.�

Well if all we plan to do in the future is fight insurgencies we really should eliminate the airforce entirely.

I hope I don’t need to remind you that it is impossible to fight a ground war without control of the air. I think we agree that we need an air force equipped to control the air in all possible future wars. From this response am I correct in my understanding that you intend to use pilots as ablative meat as a cost cutting measure? Or are you suggesting that we fire at anything in the air sight unseen including civilian and allied aircraft?

Either way, you still haven’t solved the issue at hand. These planes are falling apart. You can fix it now for 500K but new problems will begin to arise shortly. You can either replace the airframe in one swoop or piece by piece. This leaves the airforce three options: F15s, F35s, or F22s. F22s are the only airframes that can handle future air superiority missions.

Evangeline

Posted by: Evangeline at January 12, 2008 06:25 PM

Evangeline:Also implied in what I was saying is that this applies to all aluminum structures on supersonic aircraft. Over the next five (possibly two or three) years you will need to replace every aluminum part on the F15s. when you consider the fact that, as Doc elaborated, replacing a lonegeron involves removing and replacing the avionics, engines, and wings incremental replacement will quickly exceed the cost of a new aircraft. Fairly soon this will begin to happen to the F16s and F18s too. In other words, at this rate you will need to replace every airframe in the inventory (except the super hornets) in the next ten years.
.....................
Reply: Nobody has been saying that Evangeline. We keep hearing $500K and I read that the F-15 is large enough with sufficient voids to add bracing without removal of lots of items.

In addition, the USAF planned on keeping those 178 Golden Eagles and newer F-15E, anyway.

Evangeline:Lets suppose for a moment that the AAMRAM is the silver standoff bullet you seem to believe it is. Why use fighters at all when you can strap a whole lot of AAMRAMs and a spectacular radar to a B52 or a B1.

The problem with BVR missiles is that you cant see your target ex hypothesi. Thus, you cannot verify that your target is in fact an enemy. As a result standard engagement procedure is now for pilots to verify the target visually. All engagements are de facto within visual range where the deciding factor is maneuverability.
....................
Reply: I can envision our non-stealthy fighter aircraft flying parallel to the mountains of Taiwan and launching missile after missile at inbound Chinese...and ducking down behind the east face of mountains if the Chinese get a shot off prior to their destruction.

You can employ a combination of TTP and technology to ensure positive ID. If hundreds of Chinese aircraft are inbound, you don't wait for positive ID. AWACS can follow the enemy from takeoff. And if nothing but our stealthy aircraft are out in enemy territory initially, we shouldn't be getting too many errant AMRAAM lockups anyway. Choose an established return route for our aircraft that the Chinese could not find due to our stealth.;)

Evangeline: It's true that our potential enemies may have only about two dozen high tech fighters each. We do have enough F15s to overwhelm them even if they have a 2:1 kill ratio. But I leave you with one question: do you intend to be the one to call the families of the 48 pilots shot down?

Reply: I hate to play the casualty card again, but a lot of Marine/USAF commanders had to write letters to families of nearly 4,000 dead Servicemen...versus 75 valiant airmen that were mostly ground guys.

And while I admire the USAF Major involved in the F-15 incident, and recognize his courage and the severity of his injuries...upwards of 30,000 ground component Soldiers have mental/physical injuries that will be with them the rest of their lives.

Given the extraordinary figher capabilities of our USAF, Navy, Marines and Allies, we can afford to take more risk in the air component than we currently plan/want to finance advances in ground component services that may prevent such deaths/injuries.

Posted by: Cole at January 12, 2008 05:33 PM

RE:1st you have NO IDEA what threats the US may face in 10 or 20 years. THAT is the threat you have to procure for NOW. You fight wars with what you HAVE, not what you wish you had. Don't fall for the BS that we will never face a threat other than the current one and don't fall for the BS that we are not spending money on "real threats killing ground Soldiers/Marines" or that procuring more F-22 will IN ANY WAY reduce the amount that we are.

Reply: In 10 years we will have 183 to 223 F-22s, 224 F-15E, 178 Golden Eagle F-15Cs with AESA radars, who knows how many thousands of F-16s/F-18s, the first of F-35 fighters @ 48 built per year....please tell me what other nation on this earth can match that in the next 50 years let alone 10.

With 260 F-15A-D now flying again, and others fixable at $500K each, I suspect they can identify 178 Golden Eagles they originally planned to retain and upgrade with the AESA radars. But the USAF didn't mention that fact or the fact that 90 F-22s already exist to replace grounded F-15s.

By earlier leader admissions, the F-22 can replace up to 4 F-15s capability-wise. Considering that the IAF in 1982 downed 90 Syrian MIGs without a single lost F-15, I suspect one F-22 is the equivalent of more like 6 F-15s...and 100+ enemy fighters and air defense systems.

Our nation will not lose air dominance with fewer 5th gen aircraft because the quality is so high...and other associated bells/whistles are equally superlative to include training and ground/sea air and missile defense systems.

I mentioned doubling the number of fighter pilots per aircraft. That is similar to what the Israelis do to maximize aircraft numbers. Assimilate reserve pilots into active units in wartime to accomplish the doubling and share F-22 aircraft stateside.

More F-22s would strain budgets, potentially leading to Army/Marine cuts. Not buying 200 more F-22s would save upwards of $24 Billion. Couple that with JSF cuts (not elimination) and you could retain key priorities of the groud component that historically have been shortchanged...leading to 40:1 casualty rates of Army/Marines vs. USAF servicemembers.

RE:Sorry Cole but you are wrong & the numbers on originmedia.mgnetwork.com are wrong.

2nd you are flat out dreaming if you think you could possibly procure ANY of the earlier generation fighters TODAY for the amount listed on the originmedia.mgnetwork.com page. There are factors that effect the cost of a fighter procured today that simply are not accounted for by simply making a inflation adjustment on how much it cost SEVERAL DECADES ago. What they cost to procure way back when is irrelevant, what they would cost to procure TODAY is. Also note that the per unit cost tends to go down SIGNIFICANTLY the more you procure. For example, the 1st three years of F/A-18E/F procurement was an average of ~$160 million each, the latest three years of F/A-18E/F procurement was an average of ~$80 million each.

Reply: First, locations (California and New York) of some of our defense industry drives expenses because labor costs are high there. Instead of relocating, like other industries have, prices continue to rise because defense incomes must be higher to afford local housing.

Second, considering the gist of the cited article was positive, I doubt they went out of their way to distort costs now vs then. Admittedly, tanks were much cheaper in WWII as well. When you insist on nothing but the best capabilities, you sacrifice sheer numbers to stay within a reasonable budget. The F-16 was/is an excellent example that you can buy a premium fighter at a cheaper cost through compromise.

Despite a clearly reduced threat, compromise seems to be an alien concept to the USAF. You can either buy lots of F-22s to knock out air defenses and establish air superiority early...and then you don't need stealth for other fighters. Or you can say that a combination of F-22 and less costly F-35 can achieve air superiority and wipe out air defense early..and you find the RIGHT BALANCE of both. An AMRAAM or Advanced HARM doesn't know if it was fired from an F-22 or F-35, and the enemy is just as dead.

What you don't do is insist that you need stealth in extraordinary numbers of both aircraft, to eliminate threats that are far more limited than the USAF is realistically postulating. It is ludicrous to expect we will truly be involved in two major theater wars simultaneously. I might buy that you could have a mix of one major war and a smaller one, but two big wars at once will not be won by the USAF alone. The Army/Marines would need to grow substantially as well, which is planned...and endangered if the USAF insists that its needs come first.

3rd our F-15s are simply old & have been worked hard over much of their lives & while you can spend money repairing/refirbishing them & keep them flying for perhaps another 5-10 years they WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED EVENTUALLY & I guarante that the cost of replacing them in 10 years will be MUCH more than the cost of replacing them with F-22s. Remember, most of our F-15 were supposed to have been replaced by F-22s ALREADY.

Go back to my Golden Eagle comment. A March 2007 USAF article stated they planned on retaining 178 F-15C with upgraded AESA radars through 2025. That was never mentioned by anyone when this F-15 problem arose. Between the combination of $500K repairs and 265 inspected/ungrounded F-15s the USAF should be able to identify 178 new Golden Eagles.

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2007/0307force.asp

Posted by: Cole at January 12, 2008 05:02 PM

Doc:

first find a new aluminum supplier, you are being ripped off. Otherwise I very much agree but I assumed that was implied in what I said.

Cole:

Also implied in what I was saying is that this applies to all aluminum structures on supersonic aircraft. Over the next five (possibly two or three) years you will need to replace every aluminum part on the F15s. when you consider the fact that, as Doc elaborated, replacing a lonegeron involves removing and replacing the avionics, engines, and wings incremental replacement will quickly exceed the cost of a new aircraft. Fairly soon this will begin to happen to the F16s and F18s too. In other words, at this rate you will need to replace every airframe in the inventory (except the super hornets) in the next ten years.

Lets suppose for a moment that the AAMRAM is the silver standoff bullet you seem to believe it is. Why use fighters at all when you can strap a whole lot of AAMRAMs and a spectacular radar to a B52 or a B1.

The problem with BVR missiles is that you cant see your target ex hypothesi. Thus, you cannot verify that your target is in fact an enemy. As a result standard engagement procedure is now for pilots to verify the target visually. All engagements are de facto within visual range where the deciding factor is maneuverability.

“A few nations with small numbers of high tech aircraft does not make them competitive with the U.S. and its allies, our sheer fighter numbers,…�

its true that our potential enemies may have only about two dozen high tech fighters each. We do have enough F15s to overwhelm them even if they have a 2:1 kill ratio. But I leave you with one question: do you intend to be the one to call the families of the 48 pilots shot down?

Evangeline

Posted by: Evangeline at January 12, 2008 01:58 PM

Sorry Cole but you are wrong & the numbers on originmedia.mgnetwork.com are wrong.

1st you have NO IDEA what threats the US may face in 10 or 20 years. THAT is the threat you have to procure for NOW. You fight wars with what you HAVE, not what you wish you had. Don't fall for the BS that we will never face a threat other than the current one and don't fall for the BS that we are not spending money on "real threats killing ground Soldiers/Marines" or that procuring more F-22 will IN ANY WAY reduce the amount that we are.

2nd you are flat out dreaming if you think you could possibly procure ANY of the earlier generation fighters TODAY for the amount listed on the originmedia.mgnetwork.com page. There are factors that effect the cost of a fighter procured today that simply are not accounted for by simply making a inflation adjustment on how much it cost SEVERAL DECADES ago. What they cost to procure way back when is irrelevant, what they would cost to procure TODAY is. Also note that the per unit cost tends to go down SIGNIFICANTLY the more you procure. For example, the 1st three years of F/A-18E/F procurement was an average of ~$160 million each, the latest three years of F/A-18E/F procurement was an average of ~$80 million each.

3rd our F-15s are simply old & have been worked hard over much of their lives & while you can spend money repairing/refirbishing them & keep them flying for perhaps another 5-10 years they WILL HAVE TO BE REPLACED EVENTUALLY & I guarante that the cost of replacing them in 10 years will be MUCH more than the cost of replacing them with F-22s. Remember, most of our F-15 were supposed to have been replaced by F-22s ALREADY.

Posted by: Chad at January 12, 2008 01:40 PM

This is classic interservice rivalry and posturing. There's a limited procurement budget, and the Air Force wants to get as large a piece of the pie as they can.

Given that there are actual shooting wars going on, in which extremely expensive, extremely capable aircraft aren't really required, they need to come up with a justification someplace. Potential, albeit mostly imaginary, threats are always good places to look - "oooh, those Chinese field a copy of a bomber designed in the early '50s! Better look out!"

Posted by: CapnVan at January 12, 2008 11:40 AM

If bombers hitting the U.S. and hijacked airliners is the best the USAF has to justify so many F-22s beyond 183, it is completely lame. If bombers drop anything in our airspace, we have a whole lot more to be worried about than conventional warfare. There is no reason not to have F-15s stateside, and F-22s to support theater warfare. The number of enemy aircraft/air defenses remaining after F-22s/F-35s finish with them will be no match for older F-15s/F-16s/F-18s...and there is great evidence that the threat would be no match even without those advanced aircraft.

Check out this link that compares the cost of past fighter aircraft to today's F-22 in TODAY'S DOLLARS.

http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/

Look at the right hand column midway down. The WWII P-51 Mustang cost only $600,000 in today's dollars. Fighter costs were reasonable all the way up to AND INCLUDING the F-15. The F-22 costs at least one hundred million dollars more in today's dollars than an F-15...an exponential increase in price...with an exponential DECREASE in threat, because that aircraft was begun prior to the Soviet Union's demise.

There is zero reason to discard the $500K option of repairing F-15s for stateside use. The alternative of spending 320 times more for new F-22s for the lame stateside mission is ludicrous, a waste of taxpayer dollars, and hastens OUR COUNTRY'S BANKRUPTCY, not that of any potential foe.

A few nations with small numbers of high tech aircraft does not make them competitive with the U.S. and its allies, our sheer fighter numbers, and our overall technology and training. It is ridiculous to claim thrust vectoring is the foe's great savior/advantage when our AAMRAMs are blowing them up before they even see us.

Did I read correctly that we have only 120 pilots for every 100 fighter aircraft? If so, why not simply create a day and night shift of pilots. Execute night ground attacks with the F-22 to take out air defenses, airfields/grounded planes, and other targets with one set of pilots. Use the same aircraft to destroy any aircraft foolish enough to venture into the daylight with a second set of pilots. We have ground and sea air defense systems more than adequate for that air dominance mission, as well.

183 F-22s, repaired F-15s, a reasonable number of JSF/F-16s, and many F-18s is more than sufficient for any conceivable 21st century aerial opponent. We need to spend money on real threats killing ground Soldiers/Marines.

Posted by: Cole at January 12, 2008 10:32 AM

Evangeline, I have considered the possibility of replacement the longeron. I'm sure the Air Force is doing that right now. I'm guessing you weren't serious with the comment that it would cost $5 to replace it. Forget the labor costs, cost of design and cost of machining, right now aluminum itself is at least $16 per pound. The problem with replacement is that this longeron is a central part of the airframe structure. It's kinda like a hip replacement or replacing one of your vertebrate. This is not a lego piece that can be easily swapped in and out. The process could damage the aged structural components attached to the longeron. We'll see if Boeing and the Air Force can cook up anything to fix this.

Posted by: doc75 at January 12, 2008 08:47 AM

The competitors are also the main creditors, so I don't see them going banrkupt first.

Posted by: So? at January 12, 2008 06:33 AM

Just so everyone is clear, this is what broke: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longeron). The part itself is worth about $5 even to the air force. It is essentially just a piece of metal. The reason it is breaking is metal fatigue. The aluminum is work hardening from the stress of supersonic flight. Over time the stresses eventually form cracks in the now brittle metal. Fortunately the solution is as simple as many of you have been grumbling. Replace the metal. All of it.

The air force is keeping quiet and just requesting new planes because they don’t really want to say what’s happening out loud. Frankly I don’t blame them and I hope they don’t say anything until the replacement is in place. The problem with the F15s is not that there is some latent design flaw. They are just old. The metal is unable to take any more punishment. This is not just limited to the longerons it will affect every piece of aluminum on the aircraft. When I say all of it I mean the entire airframe. You may be able to salvage the engines, radar, and the seat cushions.

If you are going to do a full rebuild you may as well buy an entirely new plane. If you are going to do that with the entire fleet you may as well upgrade. The question is to what and the F22 is the only real answer.

While less than ideal, a spitfire with a JDAM pylon will suffice for the air force’s current needs. But all the most likely candidates for the next war own at least F14s or Su27 or better. Given equal pilot training the 27 has a slight (smaller then it was 10 years ago but still real) advantage. The thrust vectoring models now used by Russia, China, and India have the same advantage over the F15 as an F16 would have over an F4

Lets look at a brief history of post WWII air warfare as told by wikipedia. In order to effectively deliver nuclear weapons to the USSR the US designed the XB70. in order to counter this the USSR designed the Mig25. Believing the Mig25 would be as good as the Russians claimed, the US began the VF and VFX programs which would eventually become the F15 and F14 respectively. Knowing the F14 and F15 would handily take on the Mig25 the USSR made the Mig29 and Su27 projects.

These were designed as F15 killers and the project was very successful. Now any moderately equipped air force has at least a few. What America’s air force needs is a system that will make these aircraft obsolete. Furthermore, this system needs to be so good that our competitors will go bankrupt trying to respond to it in order to slow this cycle down. Once you have this plane you need to build enough of them to pose a threat to any nation.

The F22 does this with stealth. A stealth aircraft is essentially an optical device which means it has unforgiving fabrication tolerances. We are not talking about standard aeronautical tolerances. I wont go into detail about the physics of why but the entire aircraft needs to be fabricated to within at least one half the thickness of the paint. That is why it costs as much as it does. So long as it is better than your competitors can afford it is money well spent.

Evangeline

Posted by: evangeline at January 12, 2008 03:17 AM

Its not just the Tu-95 Bear that we have to worry about.The Bear isn't the only bomber that the Russians have.They still have the Tu-22M Backfire Bomber & the Tu-160 Blackjack Bomber(which resembles the B-1 Bomber).The Chinese also still have their version of the Tu-16 Badger,the Xian H-6.Now on paper & most likely in practice,these all seem like crappy bombers,but Russia & China have been working together & swapping technology(no matter how mediocre people may think their technology is).In case nobody has noticed,we allowed our technology to go down hill also.Concerning American "cutting edge" technology,I see lots of paper(as in paper tiger) but very few nuts & bolts things that I can actually touch with my hands & see with my eyes.Oh yes,there's more to technology than the F-22 or the V-22 Osprey.Currently,there are no more F-35 JSFs today than there were RAH-66 Comanches when it was canceled.

Posted by: Roy Smith at January 12, 2008 12:45 AM

$57 million for a F/A-18E/F? Dream on. F-A/18C/D [in the early 90's] sure but the F/A-18E/F was NEVER even close to being that "inexpensive".

Depending on how many you procure in any given year a F/A-18E/F or F-15E costs ~$75-90 million each. For a F-16E (block 60) ~$60 million each.

Another thing to note is that the relative procurement costs for each new F-15, F-16 or F/A-18 is pretty constant (again depending on how many are procured in any given year) at this point BUT the relative procurement cost for each new F-22 will go DOWN considerably the more of them you procure.

Posted by: Chad at January 12, 2008 12:07 AM

doc75- sorry the f-15's are out of warranty. dont expect anything from Boeing except a repair estimate. military equiptment does seem to come with a certain period between deliver and formal acceptance where equiptment can be returned.
see the story about the coastie boats.

EM2(SS)- also sorry, Im not sure, but I think planes need to be purpose built to supercruise.
frankly I think the answer is SAM's- permanent placements.

Posted by: Aaron at January 11, 2008 10:58 PM

Doc:

Boeing's a good company, in general. I worked closely with them when I was on the V-22 program a couple years back. But at the end of the day the procurement system definitely favors the contractors (while it simultaneously claims to protect taxpayer dollars and warfighting capability). That's how the wheel spins.

Again, stay tuned to see how that subplot unfolds. We'll be watching.

Posted by: Ward at January 11, 2008 09:00 PM

Ward,

I was also thinking of Boeing's responsibility. Of course, when the Eagles were built it was McDonnell Douglas (creator of the Super Hornet, too, folks) and they allowed these flawed parts to be built into the airframe. I do wonder what the Air Force will do. How about some free F-15Es? Buying more of them or even brand new Super Hornets would be rewarding the company, wouldn't it?

Posted by: doc75 at January 11, 2008 07:20 PM

Ohwilleke,

I like your trust that nothing is going to happen. Others thought the same thing about people hijacking airliners and flying them into buildings. What a preposterous idea.

You forget about Iran. You forget about Pakistan. And you forget that the military needs to prepare for every possible scenario with the best equipment they could possibly have.

Nobody thought much about Navy ASW until a Chinese sub popped up next to the Kitty Hawk. Now we have deommed all of our frigates and ASW destroyers.

Oh well, the Chinese are going to do anything anytime soon. Ignorance is bliss after all. I think I'll just stick my head in the sand again.

DC2

Posted by: DC2 Jennings at January 11, 2008 07:07 PM

We can say what we want about the air farce being the weak sister, but if that man climbs back into a cockpit after that incident, I will preface all future comments with "PJ's, and Eagle drivers aside..."

Seems that we might just have to buy a few of those shiny new F-16E's to plug the gap.

Not a pound for air to ground went out the window in 1989.

Someone tell that pilot that the ghost of Yeager tapped him on the shoulder there.

Posted by: Joe at January 11, 2008 06:45 PM

Why am I not sweating bullets that the problems are "most acute in the F-15 Eagles used to protect the United States" forcing us to rely upon anti-aircraft guns, and the horribly impotent F-16, F-18 and F-22 for homeland defense from crop dusters, hijacked commercial aircraft, and the combined Air Forces of Canada, Mexico, Cuba, the United Kingdom and France? [Snark]

Seriously, the people who decided to assign F-15s to the homeland defense billet made a decision that was expensive overkill, in addition to being a maintenance nightmare. Russia may be on its way to turning into a dictatorship, but it isn't rattling its saber and its military is still weak in the weak of the breakup of the USSR. Nobody else even remotely close to any U.S. state is a serious military threat when it comes to air power, and at the moment at least, fighter aircraft in Iraq and Afghanistan are bomb trucks, not air to air combat vehicles, for which there are multiple alternative options given the low volume of activity in each theater.

As long as China and North Korea keep their paws off Taiwan and Japan, respectively, for the next few months (something that appears very likely to happen), it is hard to imagine a much better time for the entire F-15 fleet to go down, something that was almost inevitable at some point or other.

Posted by: ohwilleke at January 11, 2008 06:00 PM

"Also, please keep in mind that there are benefits to ordering more F22s. For one, it keeps the production line open, a line that is scheduled to shut down in less than 3 years. Once that sucker shuts it will be exceedingly impractical to open it again. So, the F22, the best fighter that is likely to be produced by a Western nation for the next 20 or so years will be out of production entirely--in 3 years. "

I never claimed that we should shut down the F-22 line. I just don't believe that it is the ONLY solution to our air defense. I am supportive of the F-22 program, but I don't think it should be the only program going, and at this point in time, I don't see the F-35 doing much, as recent stories on this site have shown.

But when I see the ability to get 2 F/A-18E's for the price of one F-22, and we have old broken F-15s sittling lame on the tarmac, I'd rather get two new birds in the air for the price of one.

Considering that the currently flying F-16s and F-15s aren't getting any younger, and the F-35 program seems slow and overbudget at best, it would make more sense to me to have more birds available.

"For one thing, the F-22 is probably the fastest operational fighter--especially at cruise speed-- that's ever been produced. You don't think faster is better when chasing down radar blips that might be cruise missiles or terrorist-airliners?"

I'd ask the question: Is it possible to fit the F/A-18 E/F with a better, faster engine, similar to the F-22? That may be an ignorant question, but I'm no aerospace engineer. But I don't think that we need an expensive stealthy plan for INCONUS missions when another off the shelf system exists for half the price.

I'm also more in favor of a KISS simple solution over an overly expensive high tech solution. To me, based on training and real world experience, there is a time for high tech, and there is a time for KISS simple. Both are neccessary, and together they are more of a multiplier than just simple addition.

The F-22 is a fine aircraft, but to me it's not the best solution for every mission.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at January 11, 2008 04:55 PM

"Yes we need SOME F-22s for the initial strike and air superiority, but we don't need F-22s to chase airliners or intercept Bears."

Why not? You have far from proven this.

For one thing, the F-22 is probably the fastest operational fighter--especially at cruise speed-- that's ever been produced. You don't think faster is better when chasing down radar blips that might be cruise missiles or terrorist-airliners?

I'm not saying a Super Hornet or a new build F 15 can't get the job done, but the entire thrust of our military philosophy is to have dominance and the best we can produce. The F22 is the best we can produce at the moment. If you want to make an argument that we should change the entire philosophy behind our military procurement, you have some groundwork to lay down. Abandoning it is going to take a lot of argument and consideration.

Also, please keep in mind that there are benefits to ordering more F22s. For one, it keeps the production line open, a line that is scheduled to shut down in less than 3 years. Once that sucker shuts it will be exceedingly impractical to open it again. So, the F22, the best fighter that is likely to be produced by a Western nation for the next 20 or so years will be out of production entirely--in 3 years.

Doesn't that strike you as appallingly shortsighted? If you think you can predict what the strategic threats to America will be in 10 years, let alone 20, then you are flat out disillusion.

Posted by: Nessuno at January 11, 2008 04:34 PM

For air intercept missions, especially INCONUS where stealth isn't necessary, why not have the AF use the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet? It's still in production.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Hornet

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=1100&tid=1200&ct=1

It performs inercept missions for the fleet, why can't it work for the country, as well? Just because it's a navy aircraft??? The Unit Cost is only $57 million for the Super Hornet vs. $117 million for the F-22.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22

I see no justification for more F-22s if there is already a good aircraft being built today that can perform the role that these older F-15s are doing.

Yes we need SOME F-22s for the initial strike and air superiority, but we don't need F-22s to chase airliners or intercept Bears.

Posted by: EM2(SS) at January 11, 2008 03:59 PM

Still think this whole thing is absolute bullshit.
f-15's have been produced for over a generation and now 'all of a sudden' 'we just noticed' that theres a 'major structural flaw' that 'can't be repaired' and that therefore need to buy a whole new generation of very expensive fighters 'right away'. this b.s. stinks so bad I can smell it over the intertubes...
This is an old and proven fighter design. I believe there are some units with cracking. This would indicate either a flaw in the inspection routine or a design flaw in that there is a non inspectable area. either way it can be fixed (fix the inspection routine or add an inspection panel or add a hole for a flexiscope)

This is at best an argument for doing SLEP sooner rather then later and fixing it at the depo.

Posted by: Aaron at January 11, 2008 02:30 PM

"I am still having a hard time coming to grips with what the requirements are for air defense over US and Canadian mainland."

TERRA!, TERRA! NORTH KOREAN NUKES, IRANIAN NUKES, FEAR, TERRA! WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA?

I think your on to something Cranky...

Posted by: Neo Eagle at January 11, 2008 01:52 PM

It's not my field, but I think the CONUS/NORAD defense mission concerns are driven more by estimates of cruise missile/UAV proliferation in the near term, than a few Russian Bear missions.

IIRC, we have a variety of interesting cruise missile/UAV countermeasures in the pipeline, but until they prove out, all we have are manned interceptors.

Some people seem to think that losing 30% of those in one fell swoop is a problem.

Posted by: demophilus at January 11, 2008 01:34 PM

Cranky-

I wouldnt call it cover for another agenda, but CONUS air defense is easily understood and attention-grabbing. IMO the F-22 would be a bad fit for mainland air defnse mission, its LO capabilities are hardly usefull over the CONUS. However, there is a need for a highly capable air to air fighter on strike missions over hostile territory.

Posted by: NTV at January 11, 2008 01:30 PM

The Navy had the sanme issue with F14A's (structural weakness due to age), and they grounded them almost immediatly.
For once the Navy seems to be ahead of the Airforce, they did not wait for one of the craft to shread before downing them.
I find this whole situation to reek of incompetance.
Who would ever imagine a twenty-five year old aircraft, which participates daily in combat training exersises, would be having issues.....

Posted by: Dennis at January 11, 2008 01:28 PM

I am still having a hard time coming to grips with what the requirements are for air defense over US and Canadian mainland. For this we need F-22s or new-build F-15s? I realize that F-15s can be configured for very long range and loiter time, but still aren't there alternatives? What is the threat? What are the possible responses?

Or is the continental defense requirement being used as easily understood, attention-grabbing cover for another agenda?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer at January 11, 2008 12:53 PM

Everyone who is someone has seen this video. They all knew before we did.
And no one DOES anything about it because they're scared of making a wrnog choice (read: mistake) - accountability and such. It's much safer to keep pushing an issue away to a later date, so it'll be Someone Else's Problem.

@ Stephen
"Get them flying as Soviet Bears bear down on US."

Eh? These are propellor driven recon bombers we're talking about - Bears make so much noise you can hear 'em coming continents away. Even a 'Staffel' of WWII-era Focke Wulfs could shoot them down. Big deal.

Posted by: Pharsalus at January 11, 2008 10:19 AM

Send this animation video to the White House & Air Defense Command & NORAD & MD.
Fix this plane.
Overhaul the airframe.
Get them flying as Soviet Bears bear down on US.
Send copies to House & Senate Armed Services Comms & the VA.
Does Secty AF have this Video???

Posted by: stephen russell at January 11, 2008 09:24 AM