Emu

It wasn't though. Read the reference I gave. The number was 381 at the end of the Bush administration. The number was never cut to 187 specifically, that was just how many planes they'd made when they killed production in April '09. Gates had to get rid of Wynne and Mosley to get his way. During the Bush years he couldn't find an excuse for this, but he used the mistake with the accidental loading of the nuclear-tipped AGM-129s onto a B-52 as an excuse. After that he was free to get his own way because Schwartz was more pliable. Mosley and Wynne knew that their defiance would eventually cost them their jobs as USAF chiefs. Even Schwartz asked for 272 though. He then reduced that to 240, but they cut it anyway. I can't see any other reason for Obama keeping a Republican Defense Secretary.

His desire to end it was blocked while Bush remained in charge. Why did Obama keep a Republican as Defense Secretary? Shortsightedness. If that vote had been delayed just 2 years they would have. In 2010 the Su-57 and J-20 hadn't flown yet and the F-22 hadn't been used in Syria yet. Very naive decision-making.

Page 44 of AIR International July 2015. Congress authorised purchases for 381 F-22s. Under Obama they asked for 272 but Gates said it was too high, so they reduced it to 240 but Gates wanted to shut down the production and on APril 13th 2009 he succeeded. Gates was a Republican but he never managed to achieve the shutdown under Bush, Obama kept him on and he sacked Wynne and Mosley in order to progress his agenda.

It was supposed to be 381 before Obama's administration. Originally 750, Bush Snr reduced it to 648 as part of a post-Cold War climb down. Then Clinton reduced it to 240 or something daft and then Bush Jnr put it back to 381. Obama reduced it to 200 and then cut it at 187. There was also a sinister plot to make sure it never took part in any combat operations until after it was cancelled so that people could argue that it wasn't useful.

There's a story in a KeyPubs book about it. The USAF was not onboard, I think they had to replace a guy in the end. But when push comes to shove, it's elected politicians who hold the vote.

That's not what I read. The USAF wanted to keep it funded but the top guy at the time was an army man and he wanted more funds to support the army in Iraq. Well one of the upgrades proposed was to give the F-22 a modular avionics architecture to make it easier to upgrade. Additionally I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to re-skin newer models in the easier-to-maintain F-35 material. It's certainly a lot cheaper and quicker than building a new stealth air superiority fighter. One of the main problems was that bits of it were being built in 42 separate states, ironically this was done to make it 'politically bulletproof', but ended up making production more costly, so that's one of the other ills that should be resolved in a hypothetical new F-22 build.

What I find most strange is how the production tooling for a 10 year-old fighter has vanished but the production tooling for a 43 year-old relic was easy enough to find. It's like some saying in 1990 that the production tooling for the F-15 was gone but that they could build some updated F-86s.

So much for accountability and asset management.:huh: Hopefully the same guys aren't in charge of the nuclear stockpile.

I wish I could be sure that was the case. J-20s are multiplying at an alarming rate.

I read that they kept the production tooling.

I would frankly build the other 570 F-22s, and make a note of the extra expense and to never do anything as stupid as cancelling a successful aircraft at 1/4 production numbers ever again.

This is simply a problem that should never have existed. The only reason the F-22 is 'too expensive' is because they never built enough of them. It was designed to replace the F-15 and replace the F-15 is what it should have done. If you spent £Xbn on R&D and then divide that cost by Y/4 instead of Y, you end up with a figure equal to 4X/Y instead of X/Y. It's 25 years of sitting on hands that has caused this farce.

Says there was an intense fire as the aircraft hit the ground, so does that mean it was already on fire? The vertical speed was also unstable after take-off. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-47513508

Missiles use proportional guidance, so the scene was garbage. Missiles just don't track that way. And the missile also had a longer burn duration than Saturn V.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/27/world/asia/kashmir-india-pakistan-aircraft.html

I like to think a few hundred exist in a top secret location with flying aircraft carriers. I know it's not true though.

And a split S does not involve the air brake.

The link says, "actual footage of the aircraft in flight," but also explains that none still fly, so probably old footage.

They actually have footage of it flying in the film too apparently. Without CGI.

... for Top Gun shoot only. Yeah, sorry about that.:lol: http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/26505/an-f-14-tomcat-has-returned-to-the-deck-of-an-operational-carrier-for-top-gun-2-production We have been following the production of the highly anticipated sequel to Top Gun closely, a movie that is now deep in production. Last time we discussed the movie's development was in regards to the revelation that the F-14 Tomcat would make at least a cameo appearance in the film, if not having a starring role. This came as photos leaked of Tom Cruise interacting with an F-14 at a snow-covered aircraft shelter at an airport near Lake Tahoe and also shooting some scenes in the vicinity around it. The jet, which was a real aircraft that was likely pulled from a museum, had special phoenix markings unique to the movie, as well. Now that same jet has appeared aboard an operational U.S. Navy aircraft carrier at Naval Station North Island in San Diego. Images of the jet show Cruise and a production crew working around the Tomcat that is positioned on one of the carrier's two bow catapults. So it, is quite likely that this aircraft will be seen operating from an aircraft carrier in the film and is more than just a single scene plot tool within the script. Apparently, the airframe was also used for scenes shot at NAS North Island, which is colocated with the naval base.

So the antennae double as fishing rods. Just what you need in the South China Sea.:D

Heh, just noticed they now have nozzle petals in this upgrade.

That was my point, the only reason aerial bomb nukes are still in service is to allow for a non-all-out response like ICBMs + SLBMs, and the INF banned ground-launched BMs and CMs with decent range. But now the INF is gone you don't need the planes at all but if you do, then CMs are still the way to go.