• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Pentagon tests: F-22 has maintenance shortcomings

a replacement is to replace something that does not work. a successor is enduring term to mean an upgrade to something better in that line.
 
Dictionaries aren't always a final arbiter as different ones phrase the definitions differently and list different synonyms.

OTOH, if something that is obsolete or ineffective is replaced by something that is superior, more up-to-date, or more authoritative, the correct verb is neither replace or succeed, but supersede. ;)
 
Not expected, that damn VIP Helo...from what I've been able to gather, it's junk not deserving to fly the President..and at a total cost per unit GREATER than the cost of Air Force 1..it's contract was TERMINATED by the Navy...and Congress re-instated funding?..ok, for what mission if it's been terminated?...


typical..politics over value..

This shit never ends..
 
The VH-71 (referenced helicopter fleet) is being built by a branch of Lockheed that my company worked with on another program recently.

I never actually went up to New York during that project, but those who did weren't exactly glowing with praise for their development and security practices.
 
Lindley said:
The VH-71 (referenced helicopter fleet) is being built by a branch of Lockheed that my company worked with on another program recently.

I never actually went up to New York during that project, but those who did weren't exactly glowing with praise for their development and security practices.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't the ones who caused a bit of a stink recently cos they were found to have allowed the a p2p program to be run on an employees computer?
 
Really wouldn't surprise me. The stories I heard were things like cell phones being taken into classified spaces without comment or censure, minimal protections against unauthorized employees gaining access to said spaces, and the like.
 
goldbug said:
Not expected, that damn VIP Helo...from what I've been able to gather, it's junk not deserving to fly the President..and at a total cost per unit GREATER than the cost of Air Force 1..it's contract was TERMINATED by the Navy...and Congress re-instated funding?..ok, for what mission if it's been terminated?...


typical..politics over value..

This shit never ends..
Click to expand...

Especially when John Murtha is involved... worthless pezzo di merda...
 
msbae said:
newtype_alpha said:
Or we can simply build more F-15s and 16s, which would be perfectly adequate for the task at hand. If you somehow think the F-15 isn't up to the task (though I gaurantee you it is) an upgrade to the Eagle could be accomplished fairly cheaply, adding some canard surfaces and vectored exhausts.
Click to expand...

However, the F-15 will never be stealthy. That's a problem that just can't be fixed with a few refits.
Click to expand...

How is that even a problem? When you have complete air superiority against a vastly inferior enemy whose best pilots keep getting blown out of the sky, "stealth" isn't particularly useful.

Or hell, just ask the Israelis or the Vietnamese how many of their ace pilots were flying stealth fighters during their various wars. Any aircraft is only as good as its pilot, which is why--barring another series of asinine wars of occupation in oil-rich countries--American pilots will always have the upper hand no matter what they are flying.
 
goldbug said:
newtype_alpha said:
goldbug said:
The F-22 doesn't need a successor. It needs a REPLACEMENT.
Click to expand...

Last time I checked, successor WAS a replacement..

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/successor

successor

Replacement
A person or thing that takes the place of another
Click to expand...

looks the same to me..
Click to expand...
Nope. The F-22 is too expensive, too complicated and too few to be a successor to the F-15. Therefore it needs to be replaced--as in RIGHT NOW--with something more effective. Not some time down the road in a line of succession.
Click to expand...
 
^ But it's not THAT useful. I'm skeptical whether Captain O'Grady would have been any safer in an F-22--whose stealth coating is extremely vulnerable to normal environmental wear and is rumored to be vulnerable to simple doppler radar sweeps--let alone the much stealthier F-117s.

I'm not saying conventional aircraft are invincible already. Obviously not, and neither is the F-22. That's actually my whole point: given your weapon system is destined to be defeated eventually, it is better to use a cheaper and more reliable system that can be easily replaced and upgraded than to be stuck with a very troublesome system that has to be upgraded several more times before it even works properly.

Or let me put it this way: a father with five kids can either spend four hundred thousand dollars on a brand new special edition ferrari (whose oil, spare tires, wiper fluid and cleaning supplies have to be shipped from Italy) or he can spend a hundred thousand dollars on a used Honda Civic and a minivan. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of reasons why a family man would want to drive a ferrari, but it's not what he NEEDS to get the job done. That's the problem we're having with the F-22: it's a tool of warfare that doesn't really do the jobs it needs to do, and the few things it IS good at are things we rarely do, and it does those things more expensively than the other tools we already have.

I'm not really sure how I could make this any clearer. I figure it's a little like some NRA members investing in a battery of anti-aircraft missiles. Sure, they'll definitely be useful if America ever gets invaded by the Chinese airforce... but statistically speaking, you're alot more likely to get robbed by crackheads than Chinese tactical bombers, and that SAM battery probably isn't such a smart investment.
 
newtype_alpha said:
^ But it's not THAT useful. I'm skeptical whether Captain O'Grady would have been any safer in an F-22--whose stealth coating is extremely vulnerable to normal environmental wear and is rumored to be vulnerable to simple doppler radar sweeps--let alone the much stealthier F-117s.
Click to expand...

But can stealth over come stupidity though?

For all the vaunted stealth capabilities of the F-117s it was sort negated when the Air Force always flew them out on the same flight path in Yugoslavia - all the Serbs had to do was stick an anti-aircraft battery under the flight path.
 
newtype_alpha said:
^ But it's not THAT useful. I'm skeptical whether Captain O'Grady would have been any safer in an F-22--whose stealth coating is extremely vulnerable to normal environmental wear and is rumored to be vulnerable to simple doppler radar sweeps--let alone the much stealthier F-117s.

I'm not saying conventional aircraft are invincible already. Obviously not, and neither is the F-22. That's actually my whole point: given your weapon system is destined to be defeated eventually, it is better to use a cheaper and more reliable system that can be easily replaced and upgraded than to be stuck with a very troublesome system that has to be upgraded several more times before it even works properly.

Or let me put it this way: a father with five kids can either spend four hundred thousand dollars on a brand new special edition ferrari (whose oil, spare tires, wiper fluid and cleaning supplies have to be shipped from Italy) or he can spend a hundred thousand dollars on a used Honda Civic and a minivan. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of reasons why a family man would want to drive a ferrari, but it's not what he NEEDS to get the job done. That's the problem we're having with the F-22: it's a tool of warfare that doesn't really do the jobs it needs to do, and the few things it IS good at are things we rarely do, and it does those things more expensively than the other tools we already have.

I'm not really sure how I could make this any clearer. I figure it's a little like some NRA members investing in a battery of anti-aircraft missiles. Sure, they'll definitely be useful if America ever gets invaded by the Chinese airforce... but statistically speaking, you're alot more likely to get robbed by crackheads than Chinese tactical bombers, and that SAM battery probably isn't such a smart investment.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know these things. Stealth still has a place but, the cost needs to come down quick. I prefer to keep the advantage over all possible enemies as biased in our favor as possible. The best defense is always an overwhelming offense.

To paraphrase Conan the Barbarian:

The best things in life are: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women. :devil:

Also, what fucking idiot is going to spend $100,000 on a minivan and a used Honda? You could get those things for $25,000 or less if you're a smart enough shopper to look through the local car magazines.
 
msbae said:
Yes, I know these things. Stealth still has a place but, the cost needs to come down quick. I prefer to keep the advantage over all possible enemies as biased in our favor as possible. The best defense is always an overwhelming offense.
Click to expand...

Though the RAM materials aren't dirt cheap I wonder how much of the supposed cost of stealth now really is development cost recovery. Afterall the stealth is a combination of 3 factors - the physical design of the aircraft, the use of composite materials (nothing really knew there) and the coating.

As for the design well if the Germans could come up with design that's recently been shown to be stealthy 60+ years ago, composite materials are wide spread which leaves us with the RAM coating.
 
If the F-22 is too expensive and more than what any current emeny can handle how does the F-35 compare on cost/ and over kill?

Does the F-35 have and stealth paint/materials that is a maintenance nightmare?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top