<p>I did not think we were selling to China or India? Not 100% sure though. Last I heard was India and China were both seeking to partner with Russia for fighters.</p>
<p>What Nobillity said. ^^^</p>
<p>China and India are currently developing their own 5th generation fighters, currently called the Shenyang J-XX and Medium Combat Aircraft, respectively.</p>
<p>Just because we’re cutting the F-22 short, doesn’t mean that we’re giving up on 5th generation fighters that can deter other large air forces. We’re getting a ton of F-35s, and we are still planning to get a total of 180+ F-22s.</p>
<p>Here’s the problem I foresee. Other counties will use quantity to outnumber the F-22. Can only carry so many missiles. Whether or not they can destroy the F-22s doesn’t matter, but the ability to get other aircraft (bombers) through once the F-22s are out of missiles/bullets seems to be a bigger problem to me in a full scale scenario.</p>
<p>India was offered the chance to buy the 35, not China, however, Singapore will get it.</p>
<p>As far as making a boat load of 35’s, we are mking them for the Navy and the AF, plus many, countries, including, the UK, Canada, Australia, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, Turkey, Singapore and Israel. Last I heard Argentina might get them too. If all of these countries buy on avg 100 of them, there goes 1000 of these jets. Also there will be many different variants, some will need to be 2 seaters to train, those alone could make up 200 jets (figure every FTU will get at least 30-35, the Strike has 2 squadrons that are just trainers, if the AF has 3 FTU’s, and the Navy has 3, that is 200). </p>
<p>So even though there will be a boat load, don’t think that all of them will be for U.S. operational squadrons</p>
<p>Flieger, you make good points.
Unfortunately, that doesn’t change the fact that there are now hundreds of aircraft in foreign hands designed specifically to counter the F-15 and F-16. Does that mean we’re in trouble in a fight? I doubt it. The US still has much better support elements and MUCH better training than the average nation’s pilots. We just need to be a careful about how we do things.</p>
<p>Well don’t worry about the Saudi’s! We have friends who have trained them and say they are the laziest bunch of pilots…they like to work only 3 hours a day! Maybe that’s why when we were in Gulf 1 the Iraqis took off and hid their planes…b/c their day would be longer than 3 hours! Than again with our air supremacy their last day on earth working would have been their shortest work day ever!</p>
<p>The Saudi’s…</p>
<p><<<trying to=“” stop=“” the=“” tears=“” as=“” my=“” laughter=“” echo’s=“” off=“” walls=“”>>></trying></p>
<p>I’ve had the “joy” of working with them MANY times…and Bullet’s description is being overly generous in my opinion.</p>
<p>We’d practice wargames…call a wing-wide alert. We’d show up, **** the jets, assume alert, and see a VERY dark RSAF ramp. You’d call your counterpart and inform them that there was an alert; where were they. The most common answer would be something like this:</p>
<p>“Major Assad…this is Captain me…this is a combat alert exercise warning. I need you and your flight crews to report ASAP to **** the jets and assume a CAP over the capital.”</p>
<p>“Captain…you call me at this hour? Are you not aware I am 1,245th in line of succession? I am royalty and you do NOT disturb me at this hour! I will report this offense to your commander. WHAM/CLICK!” (sound of phone being slammed in the cradle)</p>
<p>I am NOT kidding. They ALL seemed to know precisely where they were in the line of succession in the House of Saud…and while they liked to play with the toys, they did NOT want to work.</p>
<p>I think it was the 1st FW that had to funnel two Iraqi victim’s to the Saudi prince so he could shoot them down in GW#1 for a media show. Pretty hard NOT to hit them, when they’re being herded by about a dozen “C” model Eagles of the 1st FW.</p>
<p>Nope, Bullet’s being polite.</p>
<p>Okay, that’s an OVERLY aggressive “anti nasty word” screening system. What I typed there was a four-letter word for putting an aircraft in a “ready to launch” mode. Begins with a “C”…</p>
<p>Geez…</p>
<p>Well that was Pima…Bullet is in a vault somewhere in the Pentagon working in the 35 (actually right next to the purple water fountain!). However, I remember guys coming back every yr to the club on the 1st night telling stories like that. One of our friends had a very good contract 120K in 98 to teach the Saudis, he quit after 6 months, b/c he couldn’t deal with heir attitude!</p>
<p>What is even funnier is that the US military is rationed alcohol, but you will be invited to some Saudi pilots house and they have every brand of liquor that is known to man!</p>
<p>It’s not over yet: note paragraphs 3, 4 and 5:
[Potential</a> job losses threaten Gates plan - Army News, news from Iraq, - Army Times](<a href=“http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_gates_budget_plan_040809/]Potential”>http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/04/ap_gates_budget_plan_040809/)</p>
<p>“…Congress will add 16 more of the planes to the approved total of 187 into the war budget…”</p>
<p>Here’s an interesting op-Ed piece jointly written by the SECAF and AF Chief of Staff</p>
<p>[Moving</a> beyond the F-22](<a href=“http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123144084]Moving”>http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123144084)</p>
<p>A couple of highlights </p>
<p>“This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs”</p>
<p>“We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.”</p>