Was there something factually incorrect in the article?

You are correct. I was unaware the Gripen (1.2) and Typhoon were able to do this. FWIW, Concorde cruised at M2.01.

I was able to jumpseat on it and the Capt had more than 5000hrs above Mach 1 and of that more than 3000hrs were above Mach 2... per his report.

Not that I aware of but selectively presenting information casts an incomplete picture. You also note that a number of the numbers come from 'unnamed sources'. ???

It is also interesting that these leaks come at a time when the F-22's supporters are trying to keep the production line open beyond the current build of 187. Gates has never been a fan of the Raptor.

Detractors note the Raptor has not flown in Afghanistan or Iraq but then again those theaters lack the mission the Raptor was designed for.

Right now there is ONE air superiority fighter. The Indians did fairly well with the SU-27s and both sides toned down their capabilities to not show all their cards but the reported outcome was still in the Raptor's favor.

And to reflect on aviation history, the "A" model of anything has always had problems. It is usually the "C" model before the airplane reaches the numbers proclaimed for the A. Had we given up production on all the A's it is doubtful we would have ever fielded ANY of the Century Series including the F-110A (re: F-4).

Finally, the big push now is for UAVs and that is playing into the mix also.

Sorry for the long response but it ain't just the simple picture the Post is reporting, IMHO.

I just wonder what John Boyd would say about the F-22 and F-35 programs if he were still around.

How about the MULTIPLE F-15's with nearly all of the offensive capability (just not quite so stealthy) that Boeing offered for the price of one F-22? The fact that those aircraft were combined with datalink/HMS/advanced IRCMD/ESA/etc that already exists made it an even better decision.

I have never trusted the USAF procurement of the F-22 - they quit spending money on the F-15 (outside of software upgrades) in the '90's to make it look like we needed the F-22 all that much. Once the buy was made, they found the resources to add ESA/etc to the F-15.

By the way - if you buy into super-cruise you'll also buy into the Sham-Wow and every other marketing campaign out there. First of all, a clean F-15 (especially with -220's, but also with -100's) will super-cruise. Second, super-cruise means nothing more than Mach at mil - ever care to ask what the FF is at that power setting for the F-22 or how that compares to even min or mid-AB on an F-15 or F-16? It's not about super-cruise, it's about ability to cover the VUL - and F-22's make F-16's feel like Strike Eagles when it comes to endurance. Of course you can add external tanks, but what does that do to RCS even after the tanks are punched? Then, as the article alluded to, more complex equals more Red Balls and more Code-3's - ever hear them talk about the MR rate of this aircraft compared to 30-yr old F-15's?

Quit believing the hype and the invalid kill ratio (108 to 0 or whatever it is now) from supposed flags, etc. Get past the marketing, get past the "it's a cool airplane to fly", and compare the cost (loss of F-117's, loss of F-15's, loss of who knows what in addition to the true dollar cost) of 189 F-22's to what we could have had. you can have the greatest fighter in the world, but when you only have 4 or 6 airborne against 120 Chinese or NK Mig-21's, etc (and the F-22's are still carrying the same AAMRAAM that has always been carried), someone is going to get through. Kind of like this example: YouTube - T-38 vs F-22 . The F-22 may be a great airplane, but it is not magic - just like the AIM-7 wasn't in the '60's. It would better suited to be part of a mix of a larger fleet, even if the per-unit cost would be greater. I would rather have 40 more-expensive F-22's and 260 new-generation F-15's than 187 F-22's - it's all about missiles in the air.

You don't sell the farm to end up with a much smaller fleet that is 100% comprised of aircraft that were designed to counter 5% of the threat - no more than FedEx is going to buy anything other than 100% 777's (to the exclusion of everything else) when only 5% of the routes require it. Even if they told Fred Smith what a great and leading-edge aircraft it was, capable of handling any pallet size likely to show up for the next 30 years - he still wouldn't do it.


III Corps - the F-15A was quite a capable aircraft.

I do believe the Concorde has slighty bigger gas tanks than a fighter.

I agree with you 100%. We've sold the farm for this thing. And as you eluded, it doesn't exactly sip on fuel which only worsens the "new" tanker procurement snafu.

It may have problems, but it is still twice as good as the F-11.

Yep, I was only referencing current, or modern military planes. I thought I read that the the F-104, a certain model of the F4, as well as the D model of the F-14 could as well. Whether or not that was with a full load or not, don't know.

Never really been a secret that the Concorde could. Had the TU-144 flown in operational service it could have as well.

I never has the chance to talk to a Concorde crew, but the BA guys I talked to once said that due to the "sector" utilization on the Concorde, the "rostering" on it didn't provide much flying compared to other types in their fleet. So having that much experience sounds like a buttload to have spent and not having use "re-heated thrust" to do so.

Every new airplane has problems. The C-17 program was nearly scrapped, but I don't think there's anyone who doubt's that jet's capabilities today.

The difference between it and the F-22 is that the AF leadership literally sold the farm to pay for F-22s. Senior leadership openly admitted that programs such as VSP were specifically aimed at reducing the total force end strength to pay for the F-22.

Now, AF leadership is suffering the after affects. I'd like to think that someone in the DoD asked those same leaders why they paid millions to force shape pilots out of the USAF (to pay for F-22s), yet only a few years later they don't have enough pilots (recalls to active duty) and the F-22 is clearly underperforming.

Unfortunately, when they go asking Congress for more money for legitimate programs (KC-X, new SAR helicopter, light cargo aircraft, etc.), they lave absolutely ZERO credibility.

Just my 2 cents.