Air Force faces a "major procurement crisis" (Trees And Things)

PenitenziAgite: Re: c-117 coming right up

Tue, 26 Feb 2008 14:30:31 EST

Yes, but there's no B-117...

skeeter1: Well, this certainly isn't going to help the USAF

Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:40:34 EST

"HAGATNA, Guam -- A B-2 stealth bomber plunged to the ground shortly after taking off from an air base in Guam on Saturday, the first time one crashed, but both pilots ejected safely, Air Force officials said.
The aircraft was taking off with three o

Shy Elf: Re: Outclassed? By who?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 22:42:16 EST
Since we're planning to sell the F-35, yes it is.

Lou: c-117 coming right up

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:13:32 EST
Here you go

PenitenziAgite: Outclassed? By who?

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:12:03 EST
In 2001, the Air Force ordered 10 F-15E's, at about $570m. Is it really outclassed by anything a foreign power can field? Besides, isn't it really about our awesome pilots and aviators (can't forget the Navy!)?

PenitenziAgite: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 18:03:36 EST
There's a C-117, but I couldn't find one here.

Shy Elf: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:59:19 EST
It should be the B-117(which I think is already taken). A bomber like this is designed to be given a target, go hit it, and come back. A ground attack plane is something different. It is designed to hover over ground troops, wait for some

PenitenziAgite: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:10:45 EST
That is a pretty steep price, and it probably should have been called the A-117. They're being retired soon, I understand. Very short active life. I don't feel I got my money's worth.

Shy Elf: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 13:06:33 EST
Principally, I was thinking of the fact that only 59 of them were built, leaving the unit cost at $122M. Obviously the defense department didn't see this as a plane worth investing heavily in.
The "F" in the F-117 name is disinformation, since it

skeptic: low orbit weapons

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 09:28:15 EST
In theory there could be a whole new level of military technology based in low orbit, as you suggest. One impediment to this is that there is a UN treaty on the peaceful uses of outer space, signed by the US, which prohibits any militarization of spa

PenitenziAgite: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Fri, 22 Feb 2008 02:16:14 EST
What makes the F-117 a failed system? Inquiring minds want to know, because the upthread link about it mentions rack upon rack of success for that fugly aircraft. I doesn't even mention that the Serbs figured out how to shoot them down, but eve

thefadd: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:23:58 EST
Air superiority is the one aspect that makes the rest of the military might tick and while specific plane types have had their failures, overall it's a stable sector that we've got figured out so I don't have a problem making sure we're set long term there

Shy Elf: Re: Money well spent...

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:07:28 EST
I would agree that the main-line fighter plane is close to obsolescence due to being overtaken by missile technology. The main caveat would be that the only country which appears to be doing intensive missile research is the US, and that the US seems

Shy Elf: Re: Well, we're going to spend money

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:56:22 EST
The F-111 F-117 and V-22 are failed systems, but they were well known to have problems well before they were actually deployed. Simply by not having this kind of problem reports before now, we can assume that the F-22 and F-35 will do better.
The

skeeter1: Well, we're going to spend money on something...

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:14:25 EST
Problem that I have is that I thought the F-111 and F-117 were supposed to be the panaceas for the

MayorBob: Re: Wow!

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 09:42:54 EST
They're probably the 44% who actually have to get into planes and fly them on missions. If you think about it, it probably makes sense that current planes are reaching geriatric status. Since the first Gulf War, our Air Force fighter planes hav

MC Nally: Wow!

Thu, 21 Feb 2008 02:23:12 EST

But, only 44% of the officers believe the military is currently "broken."
Only 44%?!?

thefadd: Re: Money well spent...

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:27:07 EST
Air preeminence is far and away the most important aspect of US military hegemony. I'll go it one better, though. Screw the F-15 and start building some low orbit shit.

port1080: Money well spent...

Wed, 20 Feb 2008 20:26:31 EST
This is one area where we can't and shouldn't afford to skimp. America's military position is largely maintained by three things - the Navy, the Air Force, & our nuclear weapons. The US is the only world power capable of world-wide force projection a