What to do if the F22 is cancelled?

[Smitty]

Thee best solution IMHO is to get Japan to buy some 50-75 F/A-22s for the JASDF. With Koizumi in power with a recent strong mandate he has enough political pull. Also, Japan is scared of China's rising power in Asia and their assertiveness in disputed gas/oil fields with Japan. North Korea is also another picke for Japan who are not very happy when the DPRK test launched some missiles over Japan. Plus the purchase of the F/A-22 could help reduce the trade deficit with Japan. Even if the U.S. would need to allow some assembly by Mitsubishi or Fuji Heavy in order to get the contract, the increase in orders would lower overall fly-away costs for both the U.S. and Japan, and both nations need this aircraft badly to replace their earlier version F-15s and to stay ahead of the Su-30 and their more modern versions. It is a win-win situation for both and Japan can afford it.

231499[/snapback]

 

 

Umm, I really don't like that idea!

 

Why proliferate stealth and other technologies when you don't have to?

 

Besides, the UK and other top JSF partners are already bitching that we won't share tech with them. And if we won't share inferior JSF tech with the Brits, there's NO WAY we'll share F/A-22 tech with the Japanese.

 

Just can the USAF portion of the JSF. The Block 40 F/A-22 and J-UCAS provides a better hi-lo solution anyway. Plus, we'll have plenty of F-16s to provide manned bulk, if needed.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Smitty

[Ken Estes]

The country is far from broke.

 

I have not scene any details for the last fiscal buget or any for what the 2006 buget may contain but I am unaware of any significant "rampup" in defence spending.  If there were, the Democrats would be SCREAMING about it.

231317[/snapback]

 

Read it again:

 

The country is broke, the rampup in defense spending required to procure the programmed acquisitions of 2000-2015 has been squandered

 

The required to is not happening and will not because the logjam of programs deferred for lack of funds is still with us, plus the new toys like FCS. Only a few have been cancelled and they were small change compared to the fighters, V-22, FCS, AAAV/EFV etc.

 

For all: do not forget the debacle of the USN A-12 program...$12B in development and nothing to show for it. Yet the sky did not fall and no nation can challenge the USN at sea, and so forth. The errors in the A-12 management have no doubt parallels in F-22 and other projects. It was these errors, and not some nefarious bean-counters and tightfisted congressmen that got us into problems in B-2, B-1, and all the rest. DOD spending is out of control, even according to Rummie. You need look no farther for the sources.

[swerve]

Ok guys, focus.

 

The F22 is not cancelled. But there are various reports it is topping up at $150 -250 million per unit.

 

F35 is being quoted with a $50 million price tag.

 

I'm not sure how much the cost is to upgrade an F15, or even possible.

 

Price comparisons I've seen are mostly don't specify the basis, whihc makes it hard to compare them.

Firstly, there's total programme cost. This includes development, & production tooling, so the fewer you buy the more it is per unit.

Second, there's unit production cost.

Third, there's lifetime cost, which has to take account of operating costs. Gripen always looks better on this basis.

Foreign sales always include a fair bit of ancillary equipment & training, & may be priced with or without this, & with or without weapons, depending on contract terms. Some Saudi contracts have looked very expensive indeed, until you realise they include years of support & maintenance as well as all the usual spares & training & full stocks of weapons.

 

A batch of current production F-15, with all extras, is about $100 million per unit (from the sales to Korea & Singapore). Without the extras, it would be significantly less. F-22 development spending is mostly sunk: discussions on how many to buy (it's too late for "whether" - as said, about 50 have now been built & paid for) shouldn't include that in the unit cost. But they should include the expected development cost of any alternative, such as an upgraded F-15, as that money hasn't yet been spent. And they should include the operating costs over the lifetime of the planes.

 

I think the F-35 price is the "flyaway" price, i.e. the planes, without ancillary equipment, or including a share of development cost. I haven't seen a comparable price for the F-22.

[swerve]

Umm, I really don't like that idea!

 

Why proliferate stealth and other technologies when you don't have to? 

 

Besides, the UK and other top JSF partners are already bitching that we won't share tech with them.  And if we won't share inferior JSF tech with the Brits, there's NO WAY we'll share F/A-22 tech with the Japanese.

 

Selling the planes doesn't share all the technology. We're complaining because our agreement was that we pay a big share of development cost, & give the USA lots of UK developed technology, & end up with a plane we can fully, independently, support, i.e. once we have them we need no further US input - but the US bureaucrats who control the release of technology don't quite get the second bit of that. There's been at least one case where they initially said some technology shouldn't be shared with the UK because it was too sensitive, & it was British! (Engine thingies - from Rolls-Royce). Soon sorted out, of course, but illustrative of the reasons for British complaints.

[swerve]

Whether we ought to procure the F/A-22 is another issue. Given that the RDT&E is already paid for, in my opinion it makes more sense to complete the acquisition of a few wings and cancel the F-35, which still has the major portion of RDT&E left to fund.

 

How much money do you have to give us back if you cancel the F-35? Or would you give us (& the Italians, etc) all the stuff we've helped pay for the development of, so we can complete it if we want to? Actually, that would have benefits for the USA, as a fair bit of any money we spent on completing development would be paid to US companies. But I don't see it happening.

[Chris Werb]

The F-22 can carry 8 missles, or 2 missles and 8 SDB's, or 2

1,000pound jdams and 2 missles.  The JSF can do at best 2

missles and two jdams (though the A&C models can carry 2,000

pound Jdams).

 

My understanding for the F-22 would be two 1000lb JDAM and four missiles (including two AIM-9 in the side bays). As you have pointed out, F-22 can't carry 2000lb munitions or the various CBUs, nor JSOW internally. So the F-35 wins there. Although AFAIK SDB hasn't been integrated with JSF yet, the weapon is a certainty for JSF and I can't believe they'll be able to cram less than eight, plus two AIM-120s into an A or C. That's already a lot of aimpoints for one sortie.

 

However, both F-22 and F-35A & C are going to end up with munitions hanging externally, either vs enemies that don't have credible AD (the vast majority) or have had it heavily degraded by standoff weapons (the remainder). Given the almost assured kill capability of modern weapons and the number and variety that can be carried, the JSF A & C look a lot more competitive than might otherwise have been the case.

[Smitty]

How much money do you have to give us back if you cancel the F-35? Or would you give us (& the Italians, etc) all the stuff we've helped pay for the development of, so we can complete it if we want to? Actually, that would have benefits for the USA, as a fair bit of any money we spent on completing development would be paid to US companies. But I don't see it happening.

231589[/snapback]

 

Since the foreign investment in the JSF is, to date, a drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent and to-be-spent by the U.S. on it ($4.5 billion pledged by foreign governments for the entire program vs. $250 billion from the U.S.), i don't see foreign cancellation payments as being that big of a deal.

 

I'm sure LockMart would bitch and moan about lost foreign sales, but IMHO, I could care less. We don't need to be in the business of arming the world.

[pi]

Since the foreign investment in the JSF is, to date, a drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent and to-be-spent by the U.S. on it ($4.5 billion pledged by foreign governments for the entire program vs. $250 billion from the U.S.), i don't see foreign cancellation payments as being that big of a deal.

 

I'm sure LockMart would bitch and moan about lost foreign sales, but IMHO, I could care less.  We don't need to be in the business of arming the world.

231632[/snapback]

 

Apart from the lost foreign sales/cancellation fees the diplomatic fallout would be substansial. For example delivery of the JSF is one of the key planks in the forward planning for the Australian air force. They would be seriously put out if it was cancelled.

[swerve]

Since the foreign investment in the JSF is, to date, a drop in the bucket compared to the amount spent and to-be-spent by the U.S. on it ($4.5 billion pledged by foreign governments for the entire program vs. $250 billion from the U.S.), i don't see foreign cancellation payments as being that big of a deal.

 

I'm sure LockMart would bitch and moan about lost foreign sales, but IMHO, I could care less.  We don't need to be in the business of arming the world.

231632[/snapback]

 

The US money is total projected US spending on F-35, including building a few thousand of them, & IIRC operating them for years. The foreign contribution is a share of development money, & doesn't include any of the projected purchases of planes. That wouldn't even pay for the Italian order, let alone the total. Different basis.

 

You didn't really think it'd cost $250 billion to develop?

[Smitty]

Selling the planes doesn't share all the technology.

 

It doesn't, but it opens the door for more countries to learn about stealth technology. Including those we don't want to learn about it.

 

Do we really want Japanese security leaks sending critical performance data to the Chinese? And to a lesser extent, do we really want the Japanese aviation and electronics industry pouring over & reverse engineering F/A-22 designs?

 

We're complaining because our agreement was that we pay a big share of development cost, & give the USA lots of UK developed technology, & end up with a plane we can fully, independently, support, i.e. once we have them we need no further US input - but the US bureaucrats who control the release of technology don't quite get the second bit of that. There's been at least one case where they initially said some technology shouldn't be shared with the UK because it was too sensitive, & it was British! (Engine thingies - from Rolls-Royce). Soon sorted out, of course, but illustrative of the reasons for British complaints.

 

Well, I have no problems selling sensitive tech to top tier partners like the British, Aussies or Canadians, but that's about it. I was just using them to illustrate the difficulties selling these types of things abroad, even to close partners.

[Smitty]

Apart from the lost foreign sales/cancellation fees the diplomatic fallout would be substansial.  For example delivery of the JSF is one of the key planks in the forward planning for the Australian air force.  They would be seriously put out if it was cancelled.

231636[/snapback]

 

 

Yes, there would be difficulties, but life's tough all over.

 

Forcing the U.S. military to eat $250 billion in JSF costs just so foreign air forces can buy a few hundred stealth fighters is NOT a reasonable program justification, IMHO.

 

I'd rather see the U.S. get its house in order first, and then worry about what it'll do to the defense posture of allied nations.

 

Pitch a cost-reduced F/A-22 to the Aussies. Maybe keep the STOVL and/or Navy JSF variants for the Brits and USMC/USN.

 

Just get out of the huge USAF buy for an aircraft that doesn't meet the future security needs of the country.

 

Use the savings on a full F/A-22 buy (381+ aircraft) through Block 40 and beyond, and to ensure viability of other, higher-priority, higher-bang programs like the E-10, ABL, J-UCAS, Hunter-Killer UAVs, G.Hawk MR-RTIP, future long-ranged strike platforms, transports, tankers, and so on.

[Guest pfcem]

do not forget the debacle of the USN A-12 program...$12B in development and nothing to show for it. Yet the sky did not fall and no nation can challenge the USN at sea, and so forth.  The errors in the A-12 management have no doubt parallels in F-22 and other projects.  It was these errors, and not some nefarious bean-counters and tightfisted congressmen that got us into problems in B-2, B-1, and all the rest.  DOD spending is out of control, even according to Rummie. You need look no farther for the sources.

231575[/snapback]

Wrong!

 

It was the bean counters who cancelled the A-12 program when the projected cost increased beyond what they wanted to spend. It did not matter to them that the projected cost overruns were no greater than what had historically been typical of military aircraft development. They wanted the plane at or below a certain cost & when it went beyond that, they cancelled the project.

 

A decade later, when the A-6 fleet (that was to have been replaced by the A-12) was reaching a point where it had to be replaced, we spent billions more developing the Super Hornet. And because of all they money spent developing the Super Hornet to replace the A-6, the Navy is unable to procure a true fleet defence fighter to replace the F-14 (also reaching the end of its useful life) & the Super Hornet has had to replace both the A-6 & the F-14. We would have been so much better off with the dedicated A-12 strike aircraft & a dedicated fleet defence fighter than with the Super Hornet, a plane that while capable of performing both tasks, is not as capable as what we would have with the two separate aircraft).

[Rod]

Umm, I really don't like that idea!

 

Why proliferate stealth and other technologies when you don't have to? 

 

Besides, the UK and other top JSF partners are already bitching that we won't share tech with them.  And if we won't share inferior JSF tech with the Brits, there's NO WAY we'll share F/A-22 tech with the Japanese.

 

Just can the USAF portion of the JSF.  The Block 40 F/A-22 and J-UCAS provides a better hi-lo solution anyway.  Plus, we'll have plenty of F-16s to provide manned bulk, if needed.

231508[/snapback]

 

 

You could have argued the same thing when the U.S. sold F-15s and the license to build them over 20 years ago. At the time the F-15 was the most advanced (and expensive) fighter available. AFAIK we did not hold much from Japan and I don't recall Japan spilling its secrets to the Russians or Chinese. They have a better chance to steal such data right here in the U.S. from the manufacturer. I don't know how much the F-15C differs from the F-15J but whatever scheme in relations to technology transfer was arranged then, could be arranged today for a "F/A-22J"

[tankerwanabe]

You could have argued the same thing when the U.S. sold F-15s and the license to build them over 20 years ago. At the time the F-15 was the most advanced (and expensive) fighter available. AFAIK we did not hold much from Japan and I don't recall Japan spilling its secrets to the Russians or Chinese. They have a better chance to steal such data right here in the U.S. from the manufacturer. I don't know how much the F-15C differs from the F-15J but whatever scheme in relations to technology transfer was arranged then, could be arranged today for a "F/A-22J"

231746[/snapback]

 

I think the F15J were deleted their nuke delivery capabilities. Other than that, they're identical.

 

I think one would need to more than just sell the aircraft to actually do a technology transfer. The only arguments about Japanese tech transfer was Mitubishi's F-2 where there were some aeronautical engineering transfer in exchange for Japanese semiconductor technology.

[tankerwanabe]

Does anyone have a decent source on the actual manufacturing cost per unit for the F22?

 

This would exclude R&D, and cost to set up a production line. I know that many pundits like to throw in all the cost they can to kill a project like nonrecuperable R&D, cost to set up production, cost to build plant, cost to train skill workers, cost to build bathrooms for workers, daycare, etc.

 

 

And does anyone know if the US is developing any kind of semi-enclosed wing pilons to help keep some stealthiness when carrying external ordinance?

Edited October 6, 2005 by tankerwanabe

[Smitty]

Does anyone have a decent source on the actual manufacturing cost per unit for the F22?

 

"Current airplanes are coming in at a unit cost of $121 million—$10 million more than expected just last summer, but the next batches will carry lower price tags, Roche asserted. “We see that, at about 100 planes, the marginal cost is going to be $75 million to $80 million” per Raptor, Roche said."

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2003/0303FA22.asp

 

'Marginal cost' is just the cost to actually build the aircraft.

 

 

And does anyone know if the US is developing any kind of semi-enclosed wing pilons to help keep some stealthiness when carrying external ordinance?

231768[/snapback]

 

There is some discussion regarding this, but I don't recall seeing any firm plans.

[pluto77189]

Does anyone have a decent source on the actual manufacturing cost per unit for the F22?

 

This would exclude R&D, and cost to set up a production line. I know that many pundits like to throw in all the cost they can to kill a project like nonrecuperable R&D, cost to set up production, cost to build plant, cost to train skill workers, cost to build bathrooms for workers, daycare, etc.

And does anyone know if the US is developing any kind of semi-enclosed wing pilons to help keep some stealthiness when carrying external ordinance?

231768[/snapback]

The F22 can have two pylons under each wing. Each can either

be a fuel tank, a pair of missles (though I believe the outer pylons

are not capable of firing missles, just carrying them for ferry

purposes), or up to a 1,000 pound jdam.

 

The pylons can be dropped, and the plane returned to full "stealth"

mode once they are empty. Nifty, huh?

 

There's a pic online showing an F22 dropping two tanks with

pylons attached to them.

 

The proposed FB22 has a lot of potential, should it ever make it.

the popular science artowork has lead people to believe it'll be a

tailess delta. This is not the case. LM reps have said it will be

"simply" a stretched version - two crew, much longer body, bigger

wing area (though probably thinner wings), and much increased

fuel capacity and much bigger weapons bays. The design was

supposed to carry nearly 30 SDB's plus a pair of AMRAAMs,

and it would be as fast, though not as manuverable as the F22.

 

Would be cool to see.

[Smitty]

I think the F15J were deleted their nuke delivery capabilities. Other than that, they're identical.

 

 

"These differ from the F-15C/D with the deletion of sensitive ECM, radar warning, and nuclear delivery equipment. The AN/ALQ-135 is replaced by indigenous J/ALQ-8 and the AN/ALR-56 RHAWS is replaced by J/APR-4."

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/japan/f-15j.htm

 

Arguably, the basic F-15 airframe is no where near as sensitive as the F/A-22, given the level of stealth and supercruise in the later. Plus, ALR-94 would undoubtably have to be deleted or dumbed down.

Edited October 6, 2005 by Smitty

[Ken Estes]

Wrong!

 

It was the bean counters who cancelled the A-12 program when the projected cost increased beyond what they wanted to spend.  It did not matter to them that the projected cost overruns were no greater than what had historically been typical of military aircraft development.  They wanted the plane at or below a certain cost & when it went beyond that, they cancelled the project.

 

A decade later, when the A-6 fleet (that was to have been replaced by the A-12) was reaching a point where it had to be replaced, we spent billions more developing the Super Hornet.  And because of all they money spent developing the Super Hornet to replace the A-6, the Navy is unable to procure a true fleet defence fighter to replace the F-14 (also reaching the end of its useful life) & the Super Hornet has had to replace both the A-6 & the F-14.  We would have been so much better off with the dedicated A-12 strike aircraft & a dedicated fleet defence fighter than with the Super Hornet, a plane that while capable of performing both tasks, is not as capable as what we would have with the two separate aircraft).

231739[/snapback]

Type the largest <wrong> you want. It does not change the facts that the project was out of control and the SecNav and SecDef lacked any confidence that the USN could get a handle on it. There were disciplianry measures taken as well. As to the consequences, building A-12 [and nothing suggested it would remain within 'historical' growth, as each successive program has increased that record]would have caused massive setbacks in USN programs to include the fighters you say you want as well.

 

Sad but true, no navy is going to sea with separate dedicated attack, air defense and fighterbomber aircraft embarked. The fiscal reality was clear for all to see. The USMC has wanted to 'neck down' airframe procurement to a single V/STOL system since the middle 80s. Carrier air can expect the same and so it is. These are decisions of the flag officers, not the bean counters.

[Ken Estes]

Ask what the cost of upgrading the avionics of the F-22 in midlife will be....oh, you can't do it? I see. Who will the suppliers of parts for the avionics be in 2024? Oh, they may not be in business and we bought the estimated usage in advance??

 

Great program, should be a textbook for future acquisitions.

[swerve]

Yes, there would be difficulties, but life's tough all over.

 

Forcing the U.S. military to eat $250 billion in JSF costs just so foreign air forces can buy a few hundred stealth fighters is NOT a reasonable program justification, IMHO.

 

None of the foreign partners give a damn how many the USA buys, AFAIK, as long as it doesn't affect the price of their planes. So you don't have to buy any to keep your side of the deal. Just pay your share of the development costs, or cough up compensation - and that includes some bloody hefty payments for the technology transfer to the USA that's already taken place, or compensatory technology transfer our way, I'd say.

 

As far as the planes are concerned, everyone has the choice of buying something else (e.g. we could put Rafales on our new carriers, the Aussies could buy Typhoons, etc), except for the Italians, who've built a carrier too small for CTOL jet fighters. The Aussies & Spanish might be put out as well, not being able to put jets on their LHDs, but neither of those is actually in the STOVL F-35 programme, so that's not a contractual problem.

 

BTW, you're missing a significant point: the USA has contracts with all the partners. Do you think the word of your country is worthless? Do you want it to be?

[Smitty]

None of the foreign partners give a damn how many the USA buys, AFAIK, as long as it doesn't affect the price of their planes. So you don't have to buy any to keep your side of the deal. Just pay your share of the development costs, or cough up compensation - and that includes some bloody hefty payments for the technology transfer to the USA that's already taken place, or compensatory technology transfer our way, I'd say

 

The number the US purchases is inversely proportional to the program unit cost. So if the USAF bails on the JSF, the price most certainly will go up for everyone. That's just the way it works.

 

Even if we had to eat the whole $4.3 billion the foreign partners have pledged (not spent), I'd still be ok with it. The dev costs alone for the F-35 are around $50 billion!

 

BTW, you're missing a significant point: the USA has contracts with all the partners. Do you think the word of your country is worthless? Do you want it to be?

231863[/snapback]

 

The 'word' of our country has nothing to do with it.

 

We aren't backing out of a treaty or alliance. If a NATO country is attacked, we'll still show up to help!

 

Major multinational defense programs fail all the time.

 

Priorities change. Funding comes and goes.

 

If breaking our 'word' means saving hundreds of billions that can be better spent elsewhere, then sorry, we HAVE to do it.

Edited October 7, 2005 by Smitty

[JOE BRENNAN]

None of the foreign partners give a damn how many the USA buys, AFAIK, as long as it doesn't affect the price of their planes. So you don't have to buy any to keep your side of the deal. Just pay your share of the development costs, or cough up compensation - and that includes some bloody hefty payments for the technology transfer to the USA that's already taken place, or compensatory technology transfer our way, I'd say.

 

As far as the planes are concerned, everyone has the choice of buying something else (e.g. we could put Rafales on our new carriers, the Aussies could buy Typhoons, etc), except for the Italians, who've built a carrier too small for CTOL jet fighters. The Aussies & Spanish might be put out as well, not being able to put jets on their LHDs, but neither of those is actually in the STOVL F-35 programme, so that's not a contractual problem.

 

BTW, you're missing a significant point: the USA has contracts with all the partners. Do you think the word of your country is worthless? Do you want it to be?

231863[/snapback]

Some of that is valid. But the price of the planes is already being and has been affected by quantity cutbacks, whether that's officially acknowledged or correlated (cost v. units) in print. A big cutback (or to zero) by the US services would raise the price a lot for the partners even if the US footed the same proportion of R&D now envisioned. Fly away cost is affected too.

 

On R&D I'd see it somewhere between your and Smitty's characterizations, not just a few cancellations charges and Lockmart whining (rather, major fallout in the worldwide industry for a long time). However it's quite unrealistic to suppose the US could be forced to pay the total R&D it would otherwise pay, and it wouldn't be a clear matter of violating a contract legally.

 

And portraying JSF as a net tech transfer to the US so far seems a little in the kneejerk to a supposed kneejerk category. Sure there's been transfers, but in the context of a program basically piggybacking on US R&D (and past ones which reflect the state of art starting point for the program, incl the F-22).

 

And sure there are other planes, but if the US cancels or greatly reduces the services' buys of JSF the choice is basically last generation planes* or much more expensive next generation ones. The US is not legally committed to creating a situation of next generation planes at an affordable price, that's the bottom line (it may stick with the program and still fail to produce that outcome).

 

*Whatever the shortcomings of the export plane market it seems to consistently say F-15/16/18, Typhoon and Rafale are all comparable depending on the specific regt, are not of truly different generations technically. Whereas the F-35 would be if it pans out and the F-22 is though not relevant to many compeitions.

 

Re: original question, the F-22 isn't going to be cancelled IMO (a couple of Wall Street analysts happened to both come out with pieces last week on how the assumption this is fairly likely, based on QDR related rumors, is the wrong way to look at Lockmart's stock). The F-35 could be depending on the interaction of its technical path and the general funding situation, but again that's not just going to happen, a la Tanknet, "we're going for UCAV's sorry it's cancelled". If it falls into a technically driven cost spiral that becomes bad enough it could, and that can't be ruled out.

 

Joe

[Guest pfcem]

Type the largest <wrong> you want. It does not change the facts that the project was out of control and the SecNav and SecDef lacked any confidence that the USN could get a handle on it. There were disciplianry measures taken as well. As to the consequences, building A-12 [and nothing suggested it would remain within 'historical' growth, as each successive program has increased that record]would have caused massive setbacks in USN programs to include the fighters you say you want as well.

231834[/snapback]

True there were problems with the A-12 program. They were not problems with the plane itself but with those in charge of the program not spending the allocated money wisely.

 

 

 

Sad but true, no navy is going to sea with separate dedicated attack, air defense and fighterbomber aircraft embarked. The fiscal reality was clear for all to see. The USMC has wanted to 'neck down' airframe procurement to a single V/STOL system since the middle 80s. Carrier air can expect the same and so it is. These are decisions of the flag officers, not the bean counters.

231834[/snapback]

Other navies have to use a single aircraft for both fleet defense & strike missions because their carriers are not big enough to carry enough aircraft to have sufficient numbers of aircraft for both & they do not have the funds needed to develope two separate aircraft.

 

USN carriers are capable of carrying 60 fighters & strike aircraft. During the 70s & that consisted of 20 fleet defence fighters (F-4->F-14), 20 strike aircraft (A-6) & 20 light attack aircraft (A-7). Beginning in the 80's that changed to 24 fleet defence fighters (F-14), 10 strike aircraft (A-6) & 24 multi-role fighter/light attack aircraft (F-18). Throughout the 90's, the number of F-14s & A-6s had steadily decreased (due to increasing numbers of aircraft reaching the end of their useful lives) & the number of F-18s had steadily increased.

 

Flag officers have absolutely no say in USN procurement. If they did, we would have A-12's as a dedicated stike aircraft & probably something along the lines of the Super Tomcat 21 as a dedicated fleet defence fighter.

[gewing]

Wrong!

 

It was the bean counters who cancelled the A-12 program when the projected cost increased beyond what they wanted to spend.  It did not matter to them that the projected cost overruns were no greater than what had historically been typical of military aircraft development.  They wanted the plane at or below a certain cost & when it went beyond that, they cancelled the project.

 

A decade later, when the A-6 fleet (that was to have been replaced by the A-12) was reaching a point where it had to be replaced, we spent billions more developing the Super Hornet.  And because of all they money spent developing the Super Hornet to replace the A-6, the Navy is unable to procure a true fleet defence fighter to replace the F-14 (also reaching the end of its useful life) & the Super Hornet has had to replace both the A-6 & the F-14.  We would have been so much better off with the dedicated A-12 strike aircraft & a dedicated fleet defence fighter than with the Super Hornet, a plane that while capable of performing both tasks, is not as capable as what we would have with the two separate aircraft).

231739[/snapback]

 

I'm NOT the only one who thinks this???