|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The major problem, THE FUCKING EPA. The paint was non-zinc chromated. Same shit they are forcing down all the military throats. Its fucking garbage. Now with shit paint, without the EPA hated zinc, the aluminum is undergoing galvanic corrosion. Way to go EPA and .mil for listening to them. This, "Environmental and occupational health concerns drove the initial use of a nonchromated primer on the F-22 that did not provide corrosion protection, and the program later switched to a chromated primer. The F-35 has also chosen to use a nonchromated primer that has never been tested on an aircraft in a corrosive operating environment."
This is such kiddie-school shit that it's not even funny. Billions of dollars in a weapons program, and we don't fucking use the best aluminum corrosion-inhibitive paint we know of? http://cache.ohinternet.com/images/thumb/7/73/JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg/618px-JeanLucPicardFacepalm.jpg EDIT: Wait til this shit sits on an LHD deck for a few months. Jesus fucking christ this is embarrassing to even contemplate. If you knew how much money we spent getting away from "bad" substances, you would answer the question "Why does F-35 / F-22 cost so much"? it's as much a criminal farce as Global Warming. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. So you're in debt up to the hilt buying things you might need? I dunno. Last I looked, the Founding Fathers made it clear the #1 priority of any government is the protection of it's citizens freedom and liberties. I could be wrong, but national defense spending is one of those obligatory things. Welfare and that other shit is not part of Government's responsibilities laid out by the Framers. They also provided for elections and Constitutional Amendments, which have led us to where we are today. You can cry about welfare all you want, but the majority of this nation want it, so they'll get it. That leaves the military needing to make sound decisions about procurement, about risk, and about what missions they can and cannot do. We simply can't afford, given the budget that the elected representatives of the people of the United States give us, to buy something that we have and not need. Well, if you want my honest opinion, I believe the most essential military asset is the Navy and way too much money is being given to the Air Force when it should be given to the Navy. 
The Navy hasn't spent the money it has been given well. Neither has the USAF or the USMC. But that is because of the fundamental problem that McCain brings up. The whole process is incestuous. VP of a defense contractor is a retired flag officer. He knows the officer who heads a service's program office. Perhaps, he was even that officer's Commanding Officer and the evaluation he gave that officer was what helped advance his career. The VP says hey program office head, we can build you a whizz bang gadget that meets your requirements and we can do it on time and on budget. The program officer head, knowing the VP funds the project. Now the defense contractor then builds as many components of the whizz bang gadget in as many states and as many Congressional districts as he can. It doesn't matter now if the warfighter will get the whizz bang gadget on time. It doesn't matter if it is on budget. It doesn't matter if the whizz bang gadget is an extravagance filling a requirement that could be met by changing doctrine, all that matters is the whizz bang gadget is bringing money and jobs to Congressional districts. Which in turn means votes for the Congressmen in those districts. The process is sickening. |
|
Quoted: The Navy hasn't spent the money it has been given well. Neither has the USAF or the USMC. But that is because of the fundamental problem that McCain brings up. The whole process is incestuous. I definitely agree. Procurement has been a disgrace over the last 2 decades |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Navy hasn't spent the money it has been given well. Neither has the USAF or the USMC. But that is because of the fundamental problem that McCain brings up. The whole process is incestuous. I definitely agree. Procurement has been a disgrace over the last 2 decades This thread is a strong indicator of why. Whenever anyone with the creds and the clout to call BS, calls BS, the years of Defense Contractor propaganda in influence is clearly revealed, to the point where even discussing reform is spun as akin to treason. |
|
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. And of all people he should know how bad a pilot will have it when they have to bail out over an unfriendly nation... |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. So you're in debt up to the hilt buying things you might need? I dunno. Last I looked, the Founding Fathers made it clear the #1 priority of any government is the protection of it's citizens freedom and liberties. I could be wrong, but national defense spending is one of those obligatory things.
Welfare and that other shit is not part of Government's responsibilities laid out by the Framers. You know after every war they kept cancelling the Sniper program, saying it wasn't needed. Guess what? The next war, we found out that was a huge mistake. We kept making that same mistake over and over and over again until after the Vietnam war. Agreed 100% The only problem is living in a constitutional republic as the founders intended, and the country we actually live in. I would 1000 times rather have a 500 ship navy, 900 F-22 fighters, and everything else the military needs as that spending is constitutional, and let the ghetto rats fucking starve. But now that we are a democracy and our constitution is worth less than the parchment it is written on, it aint gonna happen. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What does McCain propose we do? The F-15 is a nearly a 40 year old design. If 25 years from now we're still relying on them as our primary air superiority fighter, we're quite likely going to find ourselves in a really bad situation. And of all people he should know how bad a pilot will have it when they have to bail out over an unfriendly nation... Which is why it may be worth a pause and a consideration of what he has to say? Nahh... shun, shun the nonbeliever. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Navy hasn't spent the money it has been given well. Neither has the USAF or the USMC. But that is because of the fundamental problem that McCain brings up. The whole process is incestuous. I definitely agree. Procurement has been a disgrace over the last 2 decades This thread is a strong indicator of why. Whenever anyone with the creds and the clout to call BS, calls BS, the years of Defense Contractor propaganda in influence is clearly revealed, to the point where even discussing reform is spun as akin to treason. The ironic thing is it is enabling bad behavior, and will, in the long run, make the military weaker. |
|
Quoted:
The most danergous place on Earth is to be between RINO McCain and a TV camera. McCain was Senator when Clinton cut the F-22 development budget 5 times. The corrosion issue was known in 1994. But because the budget was cut, a decision was made (with USAF consent) to kick the can down the road and fix it later. It is now time to pay the piper. Thanks McCain, you gadfly POS. |
|
Quoted:
Sylvan had it right. If you take a commission with stars attached, you should never be permitted to work in the defense industry again. Stars are too high. I know several 06s who as PMs made decisions affecting hundreds of millions of dollars in work who retired and showed up Monday morning working for the Prime. It's a travesty. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Sylvan had it right. If you take a commission with stars attached, you should never be permitted to work in the defense industry again. Stars are too high. I know several 06s who as PMs made decisions affecting hundreds of millions of dollars in work who retired and showed up Monday morning working for the Prime. It's a travesty. Baby steps. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The most danergous place on Earth is to be between RINO McCain and a TV camera. McCain was Senator when Clinton cut the F-22 development budget 5 times. The corrosion issue was known in 1994. But because the budget was cut, a decision was made (with USAF consent) to kick the can down the road and fix it later. It is now time to pay the piper. Thanks McCain, you gadfly POS. Any corrosion issue "known" in 1994 should have been fixed on the drawings. I hate to wonder whether the F-22's customer failed to require known corrosion control strategies that are standard practice in the products of other companies. There are no secrets, and any current corrosion problems are not caused by something as simple as deleting zinc chromate from primers. The only hard problem to solve is incorporation of functioning drain holes. |
|
I've read summaries of the GAO corrosion report, and don't agree with many of the quoted key assertions.
Galvanic corrosion was always a design consideration. Any time some modification or new equipment was to be installed, corrosion was always a consideration. I can still remember a lot of these discussions and can assure you that best-practices were always followed. To say that the corrosion issue is what it is partly because the full-scale climatic testing was cut in half is not a statement grounded in fact. This leads me to question some of the other assertions and findings. The GAO has a job to do, and they do it to the best of their abilities, but they don't always get it right. I'm oversimplifying things, but I"m going to sum it up as an accountant trying to write a report on complicated, integrated engineering solutions that are greatly debated amongst the very engineers themselves. The GAO personnel will say that this is a gross misrepresentation of what they do, and state that they always follow best-practices, etc. Composite aircraft are not uniformly conductive like 4th gen fighters. This creates issues. I would be very interested to see what measures the 787 program is taking, being that it isn't held to some of the military design specifications that may be at heart of the matter. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The most danergous place on Earth is to be between RINO McCain and a TV camera. McCain was Senator when Clinton cut the F-22 development budget 5 times. The corrosion issue was known in 1994. But because the budget was cut, a decision was made (with USAF consent) to kick the can down the road and fix it later. It is now time to pay the piper. Thanks McCain, you gadfly POS. Any corrosion issue "known" in 1994 should have been fixed on the drawings. I hate to wonder whether the F-22's customer failed to require known corrosion control strategies that are standard practice in the products of other companies. There are no secrets, and any current corrosion problems are not caused by something as simple as deleting zinc chromate from primers. The only hard problem to solve is incorporation of functioning drain holes. Functioning drain holes that will stay that way without tons of attention? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The most danergous place on Earth is to be between RINO McCain and a TV camera. McCain was Senator when Clinton cut the F-22 development budget 5 times. The corrosion issue was known in 1994. But because the budget was cut, a decision was made (with USAF consent) to kick the can down the road and fix it later. It is now time to pay the piper. Thanks McCain, you gadfly POS. Any corrosion issue "known" in 1994 should have been fixed on the drawings. I hate to wonder whether the F-22's customer failed to require known corrosion control strategies that are standard practice in the products of other companies. There are no secrets, and any current corrosion problems are not caused by something as simple as deleting zinc chromate from primers. The only hard problem to solve is incorporation of functioning drain holes. Functioning drain holes that will stay that way without tons of attention? Effective, practical drain holes need to be at least 1/4 of an inch in diameter to drain water reliably. That diameter provides just a little tolerance to allow for blockage from dirt and general airplane crud. LO airplanes don't like drain holes of any size or quantity. |
|
Quoted:
Can you post a link to the report? I wonder if that is Cain's only source of data on the corrosion topic. Here's one link: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d11171r.pdf |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Better to have and not need, than to need and not have. So you're in debt up to the hilt buying things you might need? I dunno. Last I looked, the Founding Fathers made it clear the #1 priority of any government is the protection of it's citizens freedom and liberties. I could be wrong, but national defense spending is one of those obligatory things.
Welfare and that other shit is not part of Government's responsibilities laid out by the Framers. You know after every war they kept cancelling the Sniper program, saying it wasn't needed. Guess what? The next war, we found out that was a huge mistake. We kept making that same mistake over and over and over again until after the Vietnam war. Actually, this is more the equivalent of a fixation in satellite-launched guided missiles for interdiction missions that are more reliably and historically done by keeping teams of trained and proficient snipers. Nobody is saying the US does not need air superiority (except maybe Ron Paul, and only indirectly by reading his subtext). The concern is the fixation on the high tech holy grail is actually HURTING our capability. Whats wrong with going with a handful super-precious porcelain dolls that can't be use because they might be lost and the technology compromised? 
|
|
And yet, the congressmen bitch about the high cost of the F-22 while they're the ones that cut back the number to be procured, when everybody knows that the per unit cost decreases when you buy more of them. Bought in sufficient quantities, the F-22 would have been cheaper to produce than Japan pays per unit for their F-2s. I don't think 187 are enough. Particularly when it's already been determined that the earlier production units are to be relegated to training duties as they're not as advanced as the later ones to come off the line. ( I read it here on arfcom, but don't have the link.) CJ |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. Yep. The look of the plane may be 40yrs old but a newly constructed airframe with modern internals (engines, hydraulic systems, avionics, radar, weapons, etc..) makes all the difference. I'm more concerned with the signature it gives to an enemy targeting it. Compared to Low Observable aircraft, an F-15 looks like a barn door. That is my big problem with endless upgrades; at some point, you encounter the law of diminishing returns. I believe the B-2 has to live in a hangar as well. Oh, and John McCain has apparently decide that his legacy should be Grand Curmudgeon of All Things Military. It's becoming tiresome, although he did the right thing when he hammered the original Tanker program. I missed this earlier. LO airplanes are the very definition of diminishing returns. (He he, I'll be here all week.) The cost of signature reduction rapidly tries to become asymptotic with improvement, especially in all aspects and spectra. That brings us to small numbers of airplanes that tend to converge on the Golden Bullet too valuable to take to war because it's the only weapon available. That's okay, however, because there are no proficient pilots available, either. At the end of the Cold War with the USSR, the Russians had rows and rows of air defense RADAR. I have doubts that an F-22 could fly past those defenses with transmitters abeam, and we had no airplanes assigned and equipped for a Wild Weasel mission (or trivial numbers if any were still being flown by a Guard or Reserve unit somewhere). Deep, dense layers of defense RADAR has to be defeated in conjunction with an attack, especially when small numbers of airplanes are available for a first strike. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. Yep. The look of the plane may be 40yrs old but a newly constructed airframe with modern internals (engines, hydraulic systems, avionics, radar, weapons, etc..) makes all the difference. I'm more concerned with the signature it gives to an enemy targeting it. Compared to Low Observable aircraft, an F-15 looks like a barn door. That is my big problem with endless upgrades; at some point, you encounter the law of diminishing returns. I believe the B-2 has to live in a hangar as well. Oh, and John McCain has apparently decide that his legacy should be Grand Curmudgeon of All Things Military. It's becoming tiresome, although he did the right thing when he hammered the original Tanker program. I missed this earlier. LO airplanes are the very definition of diminishing returns. (He he, I'll be here all week.) The cost of signature reduction rapidly tries to become asymptotic with improvement, especially in all aspects and spectra. That brings us to small numbers of airplanes that tend to converge on the Golden Bullet to valuable to take to war because it's the only weapon available. That's okay, however, because there are no proficient pilots available, either. At the end of the Cold War with the USSR, the Russians had rows and rows of air defense RADAR. I have doubts that an F-22 could fly past those defenses with transmitters abeam, and we had no airplanes assigned and equipped for a Wild Weasel mission (or trivial numbers if any were still being flown by a Guard or Reserve unit somewhere). Deep, dense layers of defense RADAR has to be defeated in conjunction with an attack, especially when small numbers of airplanes are available for a first strike. At the end of the cold war we still had ef-111s, f-4gs, and plenty of ea-6bs in service. We didn't retire the last active duty f-4gs until 1996. I should know, that was my first squadron. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. Yep. The look of the plane may be 40yrs old but a newly constructed airframe with modern internals (engines, hydraulic systems, avionics, radar, weapons, etc..) makes all the difference. I'm more concerned with the signature it gives to an enemy targeting it. Compared to Low Observable aircraft, an F-15 looks like a barn door. That is my big problem with endless upgrades; at some point, you encounter the law of diminishing returns. I believe the B-2 has to live in a hangar as well. Oh, and John McCain has apparently decide that his legacy should be Grand Curmudgeon of All Things Military. It's becoming tiresome, although he did the right thing when he hammered the original Tanker program. I missed this earlier. LO airplanes are the very definition of diminishing returns. (He he, I'll be here all week.) The cost of signature reduction rapidly tries to become asymptotic with improvement, especially in all aspects and spectra. That brings us to small numbers of airplanes that tend to converge on the Golden Bullet to valuable to take to war because it's the only weapon available. That's okay, however, because there are no proficient pilots available, either. At the end of the Cold War with the USSR, the Russians had rows and rows of air defense RADAR. I have doubts that an F-22 could fly past those defenses with transmitters abeam, and we had no airplanes assigned and equipped for a Wild Weasel mission (or trivial numbers if any were still being flown by a Guard or Reserve unit somewhere). Deep, dense layers of defense RADAR has to be defeated in conjunction with an attack, especially when small numbers of airplanes are available for a first strike. At the end of the cold war we still had ef-111s, f-4gs, and plenty of ea-6bs in service. We didn't retire the last active duty f-4gs until 1996. I should know, that was my first squadron. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Retiring is sort of the point. What I remember are the arguments (and even a few studies) about replacement airplanes dedicated to a Wild Weasel mission. The years tend to run together when you're on the side lines of the discussion doing something else. How many F-4's of any type were still in service in the US in 1995? That's after the date the Missouri Guard switched to F-15's. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
These airplanes are less about how you perceive they look and more about the way they compute. Yep. The look of the plane may be 40yrs old but a newly constructed airframe with modern internals (engines, hydraulic systems, avionics, radar, weapons, etc..) makes all the difference. I'm more concerned with the signature it gives to an enemy targeting it. Compared to Low Observable aircraft, an F-15 looks like a barn door. That is my big problem with endless upgrades; at some point, you encounter the law of diminishing returns. I believe the B-2 has to live in a hangar as well. Oh, and John McCain has apparently decide that his legacy should be Grand Curmudgeon of All Things Military. It's becoming tiresome, although he did the right thing when he hammered the original Tanker program. I missed this earlier. LO airplanes are the very definition of diminishing returns. (He he, I'll be here all week.) The cost of signature reduction rapidly tries to become asymptotic with improvement, especially in all aspects and spectra. That brings us to small numbers of airplanes that tend to converge on the Golden Bullet to valuable to take to war because it's the only weapon available. That's okay, however, because there are no proficient pilots available, either. At the end of the Cold War with the USSR, the Russians had rows and rows of air defense RADAR. I have doubts that an F-22 could fly past those defenses with transmitters abeam, and we had no airplanes assigned and equipped for a Wild Weasel mission (or trivial numbers if any were still being flown by a Guard or Reserve unit somewhere). Deep, dense layers of defense RADAR has to be defeated in conjunction with an attack, especially when small numbers of airplanes are available for a first strike. At the end of the cold war we still had ef-111s, f-4gs, and plenty of ea-6bs in service. We didn't retire the last active duty f-4gs until 1996. I should know, that was my first squadron. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Retiring is sort of the point. What I remember are the arguments (and even a few studies) about replacement airplanes dedicated to a Wild Weasel mission. The years tend to run together when you're on the side lines of the discussion doing something else. How many F-4's of any type were still in service in the US in 1995? That's after the date the Missouri Guard switched to F-15's. To my knowledge only our F-4Gs (561fs) and the Boise ANG were still flying F-4Gs and I think Reno still had RF-4Cs at the time. The AF knew we had no replacement for the F-4g or EF-111 and basically ceded the SEAD mission to the USN. The growler is the first real SEAD aircraft in three or four decades. The AF plans to use the F-35 for the role. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |