I expect that, in due time, the conversion of the F-15E fleet to F-15SE is likely to be played around with by a cash-strapped Obama administration, as it’d presumably mean that many fewer pricier F-35 airframes it would have to procure.

The originally announced 360 F-22s would have effectively replaced the F-15SE (Strike Eagle) as well. Currently the Strike Eagles are slated to stay in service for another 15 years.

My guess is that they will eventually be replaced by the F-35, a platform with substantially lower performance and weapons payload than the F-22.

Their argument is that in the new warfare of tomorrow or the next day, a horde of cheap drones will overwhelm smaller numbers of expensive fighters.

I don’t pretend to know if what they are saying is true, but I do know that during the cold war we payed for a whole lot of totally useless equipment (along with the good systems) and that was usually from people planning on fighting the war of the future with the equipment and tactics of the past.

The presence of the F-22 in a theatre of combat makes all other current fighters obsolete. The only limit to the number of targets that it can destroy is the number of missiles that it can carry. Among themselves, the pilots who did the testing referred to the trials against large flights of F-15s as “clubbing baby seals.”

Once production is ended, there is no going back for more. We might extend that time window by sellling a few to Japan (it’s probably a non-starter with this administration to sell any to Israel without also agreeing to replace some of the Royal Saudi Air Force’s 139 aging F-15s).

But most likely the ones we have will have to last for a generation. With that in mind, the Pentagon has already curtailed the training schedule in order to preserve the life of the planes.

Just one more way in wich our short-sighted, strategically retarded C-in-C is making America (and coincidentally the rest of the world) less safe.

The Air Force considers the greatest threats that the F22 must confront are mostly overseas. If the full complement of F22s were purchased, the ANG and Air Force protection throughout the US. Without the larger numbers, only “key” bases will get them. So cutting the number of aircraft really is taking away from the security of the homeland.

But, “Show me a man who will jump from an airplane and I’ll show you a man who will fight for his country!” GEN Gavin

“All the Way, Sir!”

As I said, the F22 is a great aircraft, but what’s the threat and how much of the Defense budget can be allocated to that, without any real growing in spending? I’m not so hot on the jobs argument by the way, but agree with those that point out we could sell the aircraft to Japan and Israel.

#1 The F-22 was being called the F/A 22 for a few years, back when the AF was trying to market it to Congress as an air to mud aircraft. Yes as a matter of fact it can drop bombs, but that does not mean you should use a Ferrari class aircraft to plow the back 40, makes no sense and you loose a lot of aircraft in that mission due to air defenses and other targets. The F16 Falcon does that mission pretty darn well.

#2 The Chinese 5th generation argument falls apart when the odds are 200:1 or 300:1 of the less capable but very numerous 2nd and 3rd generation aircraft that would go up against a F-22.. The F22 may be the best fighter ever built, I think it is actually, but to some extent any form of combat is a numbers game. If the enemy throws enough at you, the numbers catch up, and the Chinese can put up one heck of a lot of aircraft.

One last, Don Rumsfeld actually was in favor of capping F22 production as SecDef, and he’s not exactly a lightweight when it comes to military matters.

You make the Boeing argument from the protest in one posting, and those are legitimate concerns. I never read the actual RFP, so I don’t know if the AF called for forward basing the new tanker fleet forward on smaller and less improved runways. That is one of the critical issues that NOC won the tanker bid on, bigger plane that carried more cargo and fuel.

In the Boeing protest the claim was made that they were “told” that the AF wanted to forward base which is what drove their decision to go with a smaller and less capable aircraft.

Going forward on the tanker bid, hopefully the RFP will be clear, the completion fair, and the best value for us tax payers be made, and a Tanker force that supports our armed forces properly will be procured. Nothing more, nothing less should be expected.

I’ll leave it to others to make the jobs argument, or the buy American argument, which is actually a bit of a canard because large parts of the Boeing aircraft is also built overseas.

Chicago politics does not alllow for “discussion” I am still waiting to see “O” go to his staff and cabinet meetings with “ballbat” in hand.

PC is Thought Control
Lee