F-16.net

Dang...

...From 381 to 180 earlier this year...now there saying a proposal is drafted to further cut to 145...

I hope Gen Jumper can do some good at QDR...The politicians are wacked..

F-16.net Sponsor

so we would be looking at like 5 squadrons and a couple extra...

Just remember that there have been lots of programs over the years that have been cut back in the early stages only to have more added in later years.

true, but at the same time, don't forget the Comanche project either...

Yes - but how many did they build?

Last edited by agilefalcon16 on Jun 01, 2005 - 10:19 PM; edited 1 time in total

swanee wrote:

so we would be looking at like 5 squadrons and a couple extra...

That's it

?! How's that going to replace all of the existing USAF Eagles? Even if we will get more, it probably still wouldn't be enough.

FalconFixer--- Touche... they didn't build but 1 prototype...

agilefalcon--- exactly my thoughts as well.
381 airplanes would give us 13 squadrons, with some change. (This is based on the Active Duty 28 airplanes per squadron, not the ANG 16 or 18 per squadron)

Quote:

381 airplanes would give us 13 squadrons, with some change. (This is based on the Active Duty 28 airplanes per squadron, not the ANG 16 or 18 per squadron)

BTW - under the BRAC ANG will go to 24 A/C PAA.....

I never recall my grandfather saying they had this problem. When they needed a new Spad XIII, they just asked and one appeared. Ah, the good old days.

navav2002 wrote:

Dang...

...From 381 to 180 earlier this year...now there saying a proposal is drafted to further cut to 145...

I hope Gen Jumper can do some good at QDR...The politicians are wacked..

What the hell.... Funny thing is that the politicians are short-sighted in not seeing that cutting the number of planes built causes cost per plane to skyrocket.

Quote:

What the hell.... Funny thing is that the politicians are short-sighted in not seeing that cutting the number of planes built causes cost per plane to skyrocket.

Cost per plane doesn't bother them as much as the total budget outlay which is what they are trying to reduce.

falconfixer860261 wrote:

Quote:

381 airplanes would give us 13 squadrons, with some change. (This is based on the Active Duty 28 airplanes per squadron, not the ANG 16 or 18 per squadron)

BTW - under the BRAC ANG will go to 24 A/C PAA.....

ARG, damn BRAC, yeah, I was going by current numbers and hoping that units like Fort Smith and Battle Creek and Bradley and etc... won't send their pilots into early retirement...

But you are right, the new numbers will give each ANG unit 24 A/C...

once again swanee puts his foot in his mouth...

Well, what's really sad is that we will say," BAck in the good ole days we used to have pilots fly combat missions!" Sad

Quote:

Right now, the service plans to buy 180 of the stealthy strike fighters already 201 planes short of what the Air Force says it needs to fulfill its testing, training and combat requirements. But Air Force officials are bracing for deeper cuts because the Pentagon’s budget is tightening amid $5 billion-a-month costs for Iraq and the ballooning federal budget deficit.

Jumper and then-Air Force Secretary James Roche said they would fight to restore the Raptor through the Quadrennial Defense Review, a study that determines Pentagon spending and strategy.

The goal was to get back to buying 381, but Air Force sources said the number could also dip lower. One of the scenarios under study calls for about 145 Raptors, said officials, who have knowledge of the review.

Jumper said the Air Force is presenting the case for the F/A-22, its replacement for the F-15C air-to-air fighter, but it‚s not clear whether the Pentagon leadership is listening.

There is an edited/condensed version of what I read. It is a Defense Daily article. I guess it's not a proposal as of yet. It is a "scenario" to be proposed at QDR...

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Cuts May Further Clip F/A-22's Wings...