Pentagon Defence Budget 2010

[fludblud]

NOT THE LASER PLANE!!!! ANYTHING BUT THE LASER PLANE!!!!

seriously, look at the size of that thing. wouldnt it be better to wait until solid state laser technology is sufficiently miniaturised so it can be stuck on a fighter instead of having a monstrous chemical laser that takes up an entire 747?

[xatu miller]

Originally Posted by fludblud

NOT THE LASER PLANE!!!! ANYTHING BUT THE LASER PLANE!!!!

seriously, look at the size of that thing. wouldnt it be better to wait until solid state laser technology is sufficiently miniaturised so it can be stuck on a fighter instead of having a monstrous chemical laser that takes up an entire 747?

By then it might be too late

[[R-DEV]Dunehunter]

Originally Posted by [R-DEV]Rhino

only 4? that's not even a squadron, unless you guys have extra small ones or something?

That dont make any seance unless there is some limiting factor of how many jets they have can operational over there due the amount of fuel they can get into the area each month or something.

No, that's it. I guess the other ones crashed or something. There was a pretty big ****storm over this too. The heaviest weaponry they carry are like 250lbs laser-guided bombs.

[fludblud]

Originally Posted by P.S.Txatu miller

By then it might be too late

too late for what? an unexpected massed missile attack that should coincidentally be within the patrol route of the single airborne laser in operational use? especially when there are plenty of alternatives to missile defence that have proven to be far less costly?

[Pariel]

You clearly misunderstood the intent of his "rolling eyes" smiley.

He was joking.

[Viper5]

Anyone with a USAF background know how many operational squadrons of F22s a total of 183 would yield?

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

A quick google - Taylor & Company: How to size a fighter fleet

24 aircraft per squadron, with an additional 25% of the number of combat aircraft held for training and an additional 5% of combat-coded for testing, a further 10% for backup, and 10% marked as attrition reserve.

So, break that back down - 10% off (the attritional reserve) 183 is 164 aircraft.
Knock another 10% off (the backup)- 148 aircraft.
Knock another 5% off (the testbeds) - 140 aircraft
Knock another 25% off (the trainers) - 105 aircraft left for combat use.

At 24 airframes per operational squadron, that's about four full combat squadrons - so I suspect that with the downsize, actually a total that's less than 25% of the number combat airframes will be held for training purposes. Either that or the F-22 squadrons will be reduced to 12 or 18-aircraft squadrons, possibly.

No USAF background, just mad google and MS calculator skillz

[[R-DEV]Dunehunter]

That's probably not enough to replace the current air-superiority squadrons the USAF has right?

[[R-DEV]Masaq]

No, it's not a full replacement programme though, remember. The F-22 is so ridiculously expensive that they're buying the F-35 alongside - the F-35 to be the mainstay fighter of the USAF and the F-22 to support, basically.

[[R-MOD]Bob_Marley]

Similar Hi-lo system they used for the F-15 and F-16. Ones a superdooper, not a pound for air to ground with all the fancy kit the other is a lightweight, simpler, multirole design. And the F-15s and F-16s its replacing will be in service for a good few years yet (and to be honest, against the vast majority of potential opponents they're equally if not more capable.)