BloodEagle wrote:I feel the need to point out that JDAMs (at least the ones used in Operation Iraqi Freedom) don't work very well.

Still, based on what nightm1r said the F22 isn't really capable of ground attack.

The YF-23 would have been slightly larger, had slightly better stealth characteristics anyways, been at least no worse in the breaks-down-like-a-little-b**ch category, had a heavier payload including optional wing hardpoints like the F-35, and been intended for multirole with full integration of guided weapons options instead of trying to shoehorn it in ex post facto.

So why wasn't it selected? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to go with that instead of both the F22 and the F35?

And on that point, would it have been less expensive than the F22 turned out to be?

kosh wrote:So why wasn't it selected? Wouldn't it have been cheaper to go with that instead of both the F22 and the F35?

And on that point, would it have been less expensive than the F22 turned out to be?

Cost. The F-22 was cheaper, and the F-35 was going to come into the force anyways; something has to replace the Viper (F-16) and the Superbug (F-18E/F).

As to cost, it depends. The design could at least be no worse from a maintaince standpoint, it would have had a more expensive per-unit price, but on the other hand the Air Force would almost certainly have bought more of them so economies of scale might have kicked in instead and it would have cost less per unit. There's no way to know now.

Is it fair to say Lockheed were, to some degree, in bed with the US Gov ? They've worked on so many secret projects it seems unlikely they'd be allowed to fail- surely a safe bet if the F22 hadn't been selected.

I think McDonnell Douglas were absorbed into Boeing after the fall of the YF23 ?

Mobius wrote:The whole F-22 deal reminds me of the Concorde, especially at the end. There's some sort of "psychological trap" here.

Not sure exactly what you mean, TBH. But while Concorde might have had safety questions, which I think you're alluding to, the real problem was that it was an unsustainable vanity airliner.

The F-22 was cheaper, and the F-35 was going to come into the force anyways

Ouch. While we're on that topic, what is your take on the F-35? I've heard stuff of it turning out to cost way way more than originally promised, not living up to performance expectations, is any of that true?

kosh wrote:

The F-22 was cheaper, and the F-35 was going to come into the force anyways

Ouch. While we're on that topic, what is your take on the F-35? I've heard stuff of it turning out to cost way way more than originally promised, not living up to performance expectations, is any of that true?

Name one military project the Uk is involved in which isn't a) over-budget and b) under-performing....

aldo wrote:

kosh wrote:

The F-22 was cheaper, and the F-35 was going to come into the force anyways

Ouch. While we're on that topic, what is your take on the F-35? I've heard stuff of it turning out to cost way way more than originally promised, not living up to performance expectations, is any of that true?

Name one military project the Uk is involved in which isn't a) over-budget and b) under-performing....

The new carriers fit part a, but there isn't any evidence of b yet...

ghhyrd wrote:

aldo wrote:

kosh wrote: Ouch. While we're on that topic, what is your take on the F-35? I've heard stuff of it turning out to cost way way more than originally promised, not living up to performance expectations, is any of that true?

Name one military project the Uk is involved in which isn't a) over-budget and b) under-performing....

The new carriers fit part a, but there isn't any evidence of b yet...

Only because they're not complete. Although I think there may be an issue with the runway being too short for loaded F-35s to land on, meaning weapons have to be dumped in the sea when they're not used.

kosh wrote: Ouch. While we're on that topic, what is your take on the F-35? I've heard stuff of it turning out to cost way way more than originally promised, not living up to performance expectations, is any of that true?

I haven't heard much about the F-35, save for the fact that it does, in fact, appear to be a significant improvement in every notable area of performance than the F-16. (The navalized version hasn't started the important part of testing, i.e. how it performs after about 50 deck landings, yet, so any opinion is premature.)

but the F16 looks sooo good.....!

aldo wrote:

ghhyrd wrote:

aldo wrote: Name one military project the Uk is involved in which isn't a) over-budget and b) under-performing....

The new carriers fit part a, but there isn't any evidence of b yet...

Only because they're not complete. Although I think there may be an issue with the runway being too short for loaded F-35s to land on, meaning weapons have to be dumped in the sea when they're not used.

Or we could go for the old "Don't come back until you're a war hero"

"Pensions are for pussies, soldier!"

Are there any real pictures of the Pak Fa yet, or is everything still highly classified?