User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:56:48 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
its not like the army has any real knowledge of fixed wing at all. when it comes to flying fixed wing, navy has us beat. when it comes to strategic lift, navy has us beat. when it comes to getting civilians to do strategic missions, navy has us beat. If its a question of the army owning everything that supports land operations, well, that would be an interesting rabbit hole to run through. Yet you would put the C-130s in the Army and, based on previous threads, do it with a fraction of the people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:58:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yet you would put the C-130s in the Army and, based on previous threads, do it with a fraction of the people. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
its not like the army has any real knowledge of fixed wing at all. when it comes to flying fixed wing, navy has us beat. when it comes to strategic lift, navy has us beat. when it comes to getting civilians to do strategic missions, navy has us beat. If its a question of the army owning everything that supports land operations, well, that would be an interesting rabbit hole to run through. Yet you would put the C-130s in the Army and, based on previous threads, do it with a fraction of the people. sure. no knowledge is better than AF knowledge. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 5:58:56 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably right. It's some place tropical, I doubt there are many palm trees in East Europe. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Pretty sure that's the CONUS take off point, not the field in Europe. Probably right. It's some place tropical, I doubt there are many palm trees in East Europe. Somewhere CONUS. 22"s going to PACAF and USAFE is nothing new. Been doing that since 09. SQ out of Langley came to PACAF somewhere between 4 and 6 times in a 14 month period. Pilots were all, "You enjoy that flight in or what, Dave?" the first time or 2 over. By the 3rd trip they were all, "I'm so fucking sick of going back and forth to come out here." Only difference now is their 'purpose' is labeled as other than training. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:04:26 PM EDT
[#4]
To address both of your points. Its not like the current manning at the squadron and wing level wouldn't go with the airframes.
the keypoint is that the mission of strategic lift would belong to the navy. when the jopesters do whatever the fuck it is that they do, the navy would own the means to conduct inter theater lift. getting a-b. its stupid that transcom is an AF command when 90% of our shit moves by sea. so you gotta move x, y, and z into theater and in a certain order and at a certain speed. whether by sea or ship is irrelevant. Considering how much we spend on contracted air lift AFTER buying 200 C17s obviously something is FUBARd in strat airlift. the c-130 is not longer a strat airlifter. it certainly isn't considered one when it comes to J-planning. Its an intra-theater asset. movement of assets intra-theater is an army mission. whether by truck, fixed or rotary is up to the loggies. only now it isn't. so high priority shit gets moved by rotatry wing (which is more expensive) and leaves less availability for rotary for real missions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:05:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Somewhere CONUS. 22"s going to PACAF and USAFE is nothing new. Been doing that since 09. SQ out of Langley came to PACAF somewhere between 4 and 6 times in a 14 month period. Pilots were all, "You enjoy that flight in or what, Dave?" the first time or 2 over. By the 3rd trip they were all, "I'm so fucking sick of going back and forth to come out here." Only difference now is their 'purpose' is labeled as other than training. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Pretty sure that's the CONUS take off point, not the field in Europe. Probably right. It's some place tropical, I doubt there are many palm trees in East Europe. Somewhere CONUS. 22"s going to PACAF and USAFE is nothing new. Been doing that since 09. SQ out of Langley came to PACAF somewhere between 4 and 6 times in a 14 month period. Pilots were all, "You enjoy that flight in or what, Dave?" the first time or 2 over. By the 3rd trip they were all, "I'm so fucking sick of going back and forth to come out here." Only difference now is their 'purpose' is labeled as other than training. next door neighbor in alaska was a -22 pilot. he regaled me with thrilling tales of flying figure 8s around KC-10s from Anchorage to Japan. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:11:13 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And yet, Sylvan wants to had that airlift mission to the Navy... Makes perfect sense Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The Hump was an air logistics bridge to forces already in theater. It was tremendously resource intensive, designed to flank Chaing politically as it was to fight the Japanese. Additionally, the vast majority of the institutional knowledge to conduct the operation was civilian, not military. And yet, Sylvan wants to had that airlift mission to the Navy... Makes perfect sense Its not exactly like the Navy hasn't run transport category jet aircraft or C-130s, as has the USMC, and the Army's intra-theater airlift was the lift of choice in Iraq. We're not putting the man on the moon. There is scale involved, I grant. I'd personally put the vast majority of it in the ANG, personally, because its a highly useful DSCA asset. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:18:20 PM EDT
[#7]
Or, we could just bring back SAC, TAC, and MAC like it used to be when things worked the way they were supposed to, instead of attempting to reinvent the wheel by eliminating or radically realigning an entire service from DoD (as if
Congress would ever allow such a thing). ETA: As for lack of operational support of the Army for intratheather lift, it would be far easier to fire those up and down the chain of command to fix *that* problem rather than the changes proposed in this thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:22:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because he is not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:30:24 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unlike Pearl Harbor we actually pay attention to what's on the radar now days. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Unlike Pearl Harbor we actually pay attention to what's on the radar now days. Are you sure? (I know they were on radar but there were no planes scrambled and those jets could have easily caused some issues.)oops How about Sonar? Oops again |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:39:38 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: those who neglect their nuclear mission will plow for those who don't. you fail to think strategically. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: But didn't win anything, either. so why are we still spending so much money on them? institutional knowledge? those who neglect their nuclear mission will plow for those who don't. you fail to think strategically. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:47:16 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
next door neighbor in alaska was a -22 pilot. he regaled me with thrilling tales of flying figure 8s around KC-10s from Anchorage to Japan. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Looks like Pearl Harbor, have we learned nothing in 60 years about how to disperse our aircraft ? It's not like we can build more ! Pretty sure that's the CONUS take off point, not the field in Europe. Probably right. It's some place tropical, I doubt there are many palm trees in East Europe. Somewhere CONUS. 22"s going to PACAF and USAFE is nothing new. Been doing that since 09. SQ out of Langley came to PACAF somewhere between 4 and 6 times in a 14 month period. Pilots were all, "You enjoy that flight in or what, Dave?" the first time or 2 over. By the 3rd trip they were all, "I'm so fucking sick of going back and forth to come out here." Only difference now is their 'purpose' is labeled as other than training. next door neighbor in alaska was a -22 pilot. he regaled me with thrilling tales of flying figure 8s around KC-10s from Anchorage to Japan. Yea. Army ran our chow hall on the AB out there. Everyone ate there. Air Wingers, patriot operators, whatever the Navy personnel did, and then obviously AF. All the 22 pilots would sit at a long table yamming all loud and airing out how cool they were. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:53:17 PM EDT
[#12]
It's just token BS anyway. At least compared to what was put in place back in the cold war days to contain them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 6:58:24 PM EDT
[#13]
Why? Just offer up some jobs or a wage a hashtag war
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:04:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:40:44 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". Because it would. Years is plural for year. It = more than 1. So you actually think that if you were president, defsec, whatever, that you could have an all new f22 built within 12 months from now, given that assembly, tooling and long lead parts aren't even on order as of 5 seconds ago? Nevermind the staffing and expertise also is no longer in place and would need to be hired/transferred trained/retrained and onboarded. 24 months would be nothing short of amazing, a year? You're insane. And you say that what I'm saying is nonsensical? You sir, have no idea what you're talking about, if you actually think that's possible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:50:24 PM EDT
[#16]
I'm a bit out of the loop. I completely unplugged from the internet, and from TV, for a few months... What's going on with Russia now?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:55:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm a bit out of the loop. I completely unplugged from the internet, and from TV, for a few months... What's going on with Russia now? www.google.com |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:56:20 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
C17s and tankers go to the navy and become part of military sealift command operated with the same manning model as the USNS fleet. If USNS is your model, there is even less reason to move it to the Navy. All of the operators and maintainers are civilian. Army has a huge logistics branch who could handle operational scheduling. Shoot, you could hook your buddy Screech up with a good J - O - B |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 7:56:55 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". This is like you trying to tell your mechanic that it shouldn't take more than 15 minutes to rebuild the car's engine. You are wrong because it will take longer than you think it will. Without actually spending the $$$ and doing it, I don't know how we prove that to you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:32:21 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If USNS is your model, there is even less reason to move it to the Navy. All of the operators and maintainers are civilian. Army has a huge logistics branch who could handle operational scheduling. Shoot, you could hook your buddy Screech up with a good J - O - B Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
C17s and tankers go to the navy and become part of military sealift command operated with the same manning model as the USNS fleet. If USNS is your model, there is even less reason to move it to the Navy. All of the operators and maintainers are civilian. Army has a huge logistics branch who could handle operational scheduling. Shoot, you could hook your buddy Screech up with a good J - O - B I thought we were buddies too 
Anyway, did someone say job? I actually pitched GO/COing the KC-10 fleet to some folks at a large freight operator. ETA: DOTMLPFing it out, the authorities and policy is already about 70% complete. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:45:51 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Because it would. Years is plural for year. It = more than 1. So you actually think that if you were president, defsec, whatever, that you could have an all new f22 built within 12 months from now, given that assembly, tooling and long lead parts aren't even on order as of 5 seconds ago? Nevermind the staffing and expertise also is no longer in place and would need to be hired/transferred trained/retrained and onboarded. 24 months would be nothing short of amazing, a year? You're insane. And you say that what I'm saying is nonsensical? You sir, have no idea what you're talking about, if you actually think that's possible. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He's correct? What's the face for? Because he is not. I mean how could we argue with you, with all your facts and stuff... The argument that it cannot be done is nonsensical. Explain to me why it would take "years". Because it would. Years is plural for year. It = more than 1. So you actually think that if you were president, defsec, whatever, that you could have an all new f22 built within 12 months from now, given that assembly, tooling and long lead parts aren't even on order as of 5 seconds ago? Nevermind the staffing and expertise also is no longer in place and would need to be hired/transferred trained/retrained and onboarded. 24 months would be nothing short of amazing, a year? You're insane. And you say that what I'm saying is nonsensical? You sir, have no idea what you're talking about, if you actually think that's possible. Other than spout bullshit...you can't If you actually worked in manufacturing or understood the defense industrial base you would realize how it could be done.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:50:39 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thats either Tyndall or Eglin AFB. Maybe, but its not the "normal" parking ramp. Note the 'ad hoc" ECP. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:51:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do they get rid of the drop tanks after they ferry them across the ocean to Europe? Those tanks make them less stealthy, right? Sorry if that's a stupid question. Most of my questions about military operations tend to be  Usually and Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 8:52:22 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
www.google.com Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm a bit out of the loop. I completely unplugged from the internet, and from TV, for a few months... What's going on with Russia now? www.google.com They're invading google? Good to know. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:01:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I thought we were buddies too
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
C17s and tankers go to the navy and become part of military sealift command operated with the same manning model as the USNS fleet. If USNS is your model, there is even less reason to move it to the Navy. All of the operators and maintainers are civilian. Army has a huge logistics branch who could handle operational scheduling. Shoot, you could hook your buddy Screech up with a good J - O - B I thought we were buddies too
I'm not aware of any rule that precludes me from having buddies in common with Sylvan. Do you think that I would give my only set of flight gloves to a non-buddy? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:15:24 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:24:27 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I live nearby the Rocketdyne and Pratt & Whitney plants where they built the F-1 engines to include many other things. All empty parking lots now except for some activity at Rocketdyne. There are still remnants of all of the subcontractors in the area; XYZ aerospace etc. Most of them are empty now. I imagine to restart an entire production of F-22s not only would you have to rebuild the entire assembly line, order all of the raw materials but all of the subcontractors would need to be started as well. They would need to recruit, rehire, relocate and retrain all the engineers, machinists, technicians etc. Sure it could be done but I imagine it would be a huge undertaking. The good news is JOBS!!! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:28:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Point of order. You don't believe in an manless AF. You believe in a manned air force under a different organizational structure. As for the USNS fleet model, to what extent do the civilian operated ships work combat operations? For example the C-17 does combat airdrops. How would that work in your model? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
AF stops flying all manned aircraft. C17s and tankers go to the navy and become part of military sealift command operated with the same manning model as the USNS fleet. Navy gets all manned tacair. Army gets C130s and AFSOC assets. AF controls space, strat cyber and nuclear mission. SLBMs to be manned by sailors but with some AF officers assigned like the gator navy handles marines. AF mission conducted via ships. maintain a small capability of manned inter-continental bombers for bunker busting and occassional shit stirring. I'd say the AF should get that, but it would end with 3000 B3 Bombers doing air sovereignty missions. air sovereignty to be done by naval aviators as a shore tour. I, like Hap Arnold, believe in the manless AF. Point of order. You don't believe in an manless AF. You believe in a manned air force under a different organizational structure. As for the USNS fleet model, to what extent do the civilian operated ships work combat operations? For example the C-17 does combat airdrops. How would that work in your model? USNS conduct underway replenishments and provide a variety of other services in the same areas as US Navy ships do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:38:38 PM EDT
[#29]
On a lighter note:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AF stops flying all manned aircraft. C17s and tankers go to the navy and become part of military sealift command operated with the same manning model as the USNS fleet. Navy gets all manned tacair. Army gets C130s and AFSOC assets. AF controls space, strat cyber and nuclear mission. SLBMs to be manned by sailors but with some AF officers assigned like the gator navy handles marines. AF mission conducted via ships. maintain a small capability of manned inter-continental bombers for bunker busting and occassional shit stirring. I'd say the AF should get that, but it would end with 3000 B3 Bombers doing air sovereignty missions. air sovereignty to be done by naval aviators as a shore tour. I, like Hap Arnold, believe in the manless AF. Kinda hard on the sailors, aren't you? Along the same lines I've wondered what you'd do if given the keys to the Air Defense Artillery branch, in terms of doctrine and equipment and such. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:38:39 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. The long pole in the tent would be the myriad sub-contractors and the more exotic materials (Titanium). A lot of the vendors who made one-of-a-kind things like valves, switches, pumps, etc., have gone out of business or moved on to other things. The more exotic structural members would require materials and tooling that are not readily available. It would take years to get a jet out the door. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:49:50 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. 
It would take a decade and a new development effort to build a new F22. You would be in essence starting from scratch. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:52:36 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It would take a decade and a new development effort to build a new F22. You would be in essence starting from scratch. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation.
It would take a decade and a new development effort to build a new F22. You would be in essence starting from scratch. stick to what you know.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:55:26 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The long pole in the tent would be the myriad sub-contractors and the more exotic materials (Titanium). A lot of the vendors who made one-of-a-kind things like valves, switches, pumps, etc., have gone out of business or moved on to other things. The more exotic structural members would require materials and tooling that are not readily available. It would take years to get a jet out the door. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Write lockmart a blank check with a deadline and I bet they could start punching out new F22s in short order. I've been in the blank check get it done military procurement manufacturing world, when it has to happen, it happens. Going to disagree with you on this one... creating more of the most advanced jet in the world, while all the tooling, assembly shops, supply chain and engineers have all been moved or retired, it's not a flip of a switch. and since when were we in a position to write blank checks? It would not be cheap, but it could be done...in a WW type situation. The long pole in the tent would be the myriad sub-contractors and the more exotic materials (Titanium). A lot of the vendors who made one-of-a-kind things like valves, switches, pumps, etc., have gone out of business or moved on to other things. The more exotic structural members would require materials and tooling that are not readily available. It would take years to get a jet out the door. Agreed. WW3 would be over well before a single new F-22 rolled off the production line. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 9:59:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:01:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
stick to what you know.More than you, obviously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:02:58 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
More than you, obviously. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
stick to what you know.More than you, obviously. Obviously
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:04:40 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Obviously Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
stick to what you know.More than you, obviously. Obviously I don't know about a decade, but it would be pretty well into it before the first one went to a unit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:04:42 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know where they were moved from but hopefully we still can get some in Japan if needed. Scared things about to pop off in the Pacific? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:11:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't know about a decade, but it would be pretty well into it before the first one went to a unit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
stick to what you know.More than you, obviously. Obviously I don't know about a decade, but it would be pretty well into it before the first one went to a unit. Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:17:52 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? If the objective was to get planes flying one would surely have to have a COA decision on whether it was faster/more appropriate to build the existing baseline or get still in production newer models and getting them integrated and tested. So....maybe. ?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:19:30 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Agreed. ....But it still means that you are literally 'World Police' right now. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
America - World Police. America: Inherited the security of the British Empire post WWII, but never asked for, planned for, or anticipated this dynamic. Agreed. ....But it still means that you are literally 'World Police' right now.
Does that make Canada our deputy or side kick or something? I mean we bring you all along for the ride usually. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:24:37 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the objective was to get planes flying one would surely have to have a COA decision on whether it was faster/more appropriate to build the existing baseline or get still in production newer models and getting them integrated and tested. So....maybe. ? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? If the objective was to get planes flying one would surely have to have a COA decision on whether it was faster/more appropriate to build the existing baseline or get still in production newer models and getting them integrated and tested. So....maybe. ? No way you'd get a Joint Interoperability pass on IFDL today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:26:23 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
stick to what you know.More than you, obviously. Obviously I don't know about a decade, but it would be pretty well into it before the first one went to a unit. Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? We all know they wouldn't. There would be massive changes that would be required, because the world the new F22 would fly in would be different than the world that was anticipated in the early 80s. You might build a similar airframe, which probably wouldn't be that hard, but the avionics would be completely different. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:32:49 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We all know they wouldn't. There would be massive changes that would be required, because the world the new F22 would fly in would be different than the world that was anticipated in the early 80s. You might build a similar airframe, which probably wouldn't be that hard, but the avionics would be completely different. You might get away with APG-77v1 which has improvements from the F-35's APG-81 included. IIRC, the Raptor was supposed to also,have flanking PESAs to widen its radar FOV, but the USAF never funded that. Either way, IFDL would be gone and you'd have to integrate MADL (preferably) or MIDS onto the airframe |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:33:15 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No way you'd get a Joint Interoperability pass on IFDL today. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Going to stick with APG-77 and IFDL? If the objective was to get planes flying one would surely have to have a COA decision on whether it was faster/more appropriate to build the existing baseline or get still in production newer models and getting them integrated and tested. So....maybe. ? No way you'd get a Joint Interoperability pass on IFDL today. As an already accredited system as long as they built more of the same baseline they would also be accredited. But as Josh said they would be B models, which would slow down the process and make a decade an aggressive goal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:36:47 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Other than spout bullshit...you can't If you actually worked in manufacturing or understood the defense industrial base you would realize how it could be done.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Because it would. Years is plural for year. It = more than 1. So you actually think that if you were president, defsec, whatever, that you could have an all new f22 built within 12 months from now, given that assembly, tooling and long lead parts aren't even on order as of 5 seconds ago? Nevermind the staffing and expertise also is no longer in place and would need to be hired/transferred trained/retrained and onboarded. 24 months would be nothing short of amazing, a year? You're insane. And you say that what I'm saying is nonsensical? You sir, have no idea what you're talking about, if you actually think that's possible. Other than spout bullshit...you can't If you actually worked in manufacturing or understood the defense industrial base you would realize how it could be done.
You've clearly made some incorrect assumptions on my background, and judging by the things you're saying, you are clearly in no position of experience or knowledge on such matters. But it's late and clearly everyone in this thread disagreeing with you seems to matter not, so I give up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:42:38 PM EDT
[#47]
At least we don't do something stupid like park 5 of our east coast carriers plus a bunch of other ships together at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 10:42:49 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Or the Abrams, or the Bradly, or.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
We could do with fewer F-35s and save a boatload of money. They said the same thing about F-22s Or the Abrams, or the Bradly, or.... Don't we have roughly 5000 =/- Abrams in inventory? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 11:07:38 PM EDT
[#49]
Another thread derailed by Sylvan.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2015 11:12:11 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've clearly made some incorrect assumptions on my background, and judging by the things you're saying, you are clearly in no position of experience or knowledge on such matters. But it's late and clearly everyone in this thread disagreeing with you seems to matter not, so I give up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it would. Years is plural for year. It = more than 1. So you actually think that if you were president, defsec, whatever, that you could have an all new f22 built within 12 months from now, given that assembly, tooling and long lead parts aren't even on order as of 5 seconds ago? Nevermind the staffing and expertise also is no longer in place and would need to be hired/transferred trained/retrained and onboarded. 24 months would be nothing short of amazing, a year? You're insane. And you say that what I'm saying is nonsensical? You sir, have no idea what you're talking about, if you actually think that's possible. LOL ! Other than spout bullshit...you can't If you actually worked in manufacturing or understood the defense industrial base you would realize how it could be done.
You've clearly made some incorrect assumptions on my background, and judging by the things you're saying, you are clearly in no position of experience or knowledge on such matters. But it's late and clearly everyone in this thread disagreeing with you seems to matter not, so I give up. LoL! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
