backtop

Print 334 comment(s) - last by Belard.. on Apr 22 at 2:41 AM

F-22 Raptor  (Source: Lockheed Martin)
The Pentagon is ready to end two major programs that will likely cause job cuts among several private contractors

Defense Secretary Robert Gates shook up the private defense sector at the start of the week by announcing that the Pentagon plans to end F-22 fighter jet production and cancel the Lockheed Martin VH-71 helicopter program in the near future.  The loss of both the fighter jet and helicopter will likely put thousands of Americans out of work while the U.S. military refocuses on a new type of war.

"This is a reform budget, reflecting lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet also addressing the range of other potential threats around the world, now and in the future," Gates said during a media briefing at the Pentagon.

There will be 187 F-22 fighter jets that need to be delivered or are currently being manufactured, but there won't be any more orders placed by the Pentagon, Gates said.  Each F-22 costs $140 million to manufacture.

The announcement on Monday was described as an "unorthodox approach" because Gates' news conference took place before the annual White House budget proposal to Congress.  The announcement initially led to concern over job cuts at Lockheed Martin, Boeing, and smaller partner companies who help fund research and development.

The end of F-22 production will allow the government to shift focus to the smaller, more versatile Lockheed F-35.  There are currently 38,000 people working on the F-35's development, but that number is expected to top 80,000 in 2011.  However, Lockheed said there could be almost 100,000 jobs at risk in California, Georgia, Connecticut, and Texas if the government doesn't order more F-22 jets.  

The U.S. government is looking to transition its military force to be able to fight unconventional battles, such as Afghanistan and Iraq, rather than focus on countries like China or Russia, military analysts said.

Furthermore, there have been several high-profile incidents with the F-22 over the years, with a test pilot dying several weeks ago due to an unspecified problem.

Senators from Connecticut and Georgia are disappointed with Gates' decision, and are attempting to find ways to not lose thousands of manufacturing jobs that are now at risk.  Unless Congress places more orders, however, it’s unlikely layoffs can be avoided.

Companies involved in F-22 development have spent the past several months lobbying against government-led discussions regarding ending the fighter jet's development, though it "was not a close call," according to Gates.  

In addition to the F-22, the Pentagon also decided to eliminate the costly VH-71 helicopter project, which costs more than Air Force One -- a modified Boeing 747 -- to develop.  

Lockheed has the most to lose from this announcement, with military analysts curious to see how the company deals with the loss of two major military programs.  It appears Gates' decision is final, and Lockheed must now try and adapt to the pending loss that will take place after the final 187 F-22s are shipped out.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
F35 vs F22
By RagnarIV on 4/7/2009 2:08:58 AM , Rating: 5
For all those saying "Hey we're going to have a whole bunch of F35s why do we need F22s?"

F22 fighters are long range interceptors and attack fighters. F35s are short range multipurpose fighters. You can't patrol our coastlines in fighters with a range of 900-1,200NMi.
A F22's range is 1,600nmi. (The F35 has to use external fuel tanks to get a range of 1,200nmi.)

Remember when the Air Force grounded the F-15 fighters due to issues with their airframes, and people were concerned as F16 fighters didn't have the range to patrol the coast lines. Especially with Russia resuming their long range bomber flights.

I also think this is blown out of proportions as the F22's technologies are present in the F35, as the F22 was used as the development platform for many of the technologies, hence the higher price.

All in all, I think its a bad move to cut production of the F22 especially where the F15s aren't going to last us much longer.




RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 3:53:35 AM , Rating: 5
But which aircraft has the better (nautical)MPG? That's all that matters these days. :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By Totally on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 5:37:50 AM , Rating: 4
I genuinely worry about some people who comment on this website sometimes.

You are precisely the kind of person that the character Joey was inserted into the show Friends for, so that there was someone to have the jokes explained to in order to let the slightly harder of thinking viewer in on the joke that the majority of the world had worked out for themselves without making them feel bad.

As you seem to need it explaining.

Of course the comparative MPGs do not matter, or at least it isn't the most important thing anyway (tho longer range is obviously a bonus) and frankly most MPG figures that you see matter a lot less than manufacturers make out (you might have seen them in 1 or 2 or 50 articles on here however) in reality but in these enviromenally charged times it might seem that it is the only statistic that people care about.


RE: F35 vs F22
By markitect on 4/7/2009 8:11:14 AM , Rating: 1
Actually the military has recently been investigating fuel saving technology. Particularly the cost of converting some ground vehicles to gas* electric hybrid technology is a hot topic. In this case you get not only less fuel consumption, but a tactical advantage as well as vehicles have the ability to move silently. And you have a smaller logistic requirement cutting down on the number of convoys that are required to supply a unit.

*by gas I mean any fuel, not the unleaded you get at the pump.


RE: F35 vs F22
By tmouse on 4/7/2009 8:13:12 AM , Rating: 2
You even put a smiley up!


RE: F35 vs F22
By bodar on 4/7/2009 5:43:03 AM , Rating: 5
Yep, no room for humor here at DailyTech. Comments are deadly serious. I'm gonna go think about this and frown for like an hour at least, maybe try and work up an ulcer. You keep patrolling the comments for "jokesters".


RE: F35 vs F22
By DeepBlue1975 on 4/7/2009 10:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
Enter the hybrid planes! :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 6:56:39 PM , Rating: 2
What you mean like a turboprop? Mmm hybrid propeller/turbine technology.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Noliving on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 6:39:34 AM , Rating: 5
Yeah right now. What about in 30 years when the F22 would be the F15/F16 of today?

I find it appalling that with the trillions we're spending, we can't even spend a few billion dollars to buy jets that those in charge of our military say we need. I mean gave what, $7 billion f*cking dollars to ACORN? That would've bought 50 F22s. But no, giving money to Obama's crooks was absolutely necessary.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 6:47:54 AM , Rating: 5
Oh and not to mention the fact that in Gates' plan they also plan to retire 250 aircraft. What are they going to replace them with? Nothing. The F35 is at least 5 years away from being combat ready. And thats just the F35A version.

The original plan for the F22 was to build 750 of them to replace around 1300 aircraft. The main reason why its cost per unit is so high is due to them building less than a 1/3 of what they originally planned.

And if you don't think that the F35 program will come on the chopping block you need to think again. Obama has said he wants to end Cold War era weapons programs. Well the F35 is in that category. If you think the F35 will actually see the production numbers they're currently quoting I think you'll be in for a surprise. Especially if the extremely unfortunate happened and Democrats retained control of the House and Senate like they do currently past 2010 and Obama were elected to a second term.


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 10:01:42 AM , Rating: 5
Idiot. What does equality have anything to do here?

And the idea of everyone deserves to be equal is one based on Communism. The Constitution says that all men are created equal. It does not say that the government will make sure that all men STAY equal.

Someone who goes out and gets an education and works as an engineer deserves to have more than someone who drops out of school and works at Walmart as a cashier. Because they've put in the effort to develop a skillset that's desirable and commands a good salary.

And the people in charge of the military have said we need these planes. Politicians decided we didn't.


RE: F35 vs F22
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 11:52:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
And the idea of everyone deserves to be equal is one based on Communism. The Constitution says that all men are created equal. It does not say that the government will make sure that all men STAY equal.


Sam Colt made men equal :P


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By maven81 on 4/7/2009 1:49:19 PM , Rating: 3
YOU are the idiot. Gates IS the military! And if you actually paid attention he is proposing that the military budget be INCREASED. I know that you can't get that through your head, so read that again, Gates is INCREASING overall military spending. What he's doing is shifting the allocation of that money, from programs that are more vital (special forces for example).

This is exactly what some of us have been advocating all along, that funding be given to things we actually need asap.
But to someone who admitted to have a connection with big ticket defense contractors this is clearly hard to grasp.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 2:57:07 PM , Rating: 5
Guys,

Increasing or decreasing is not the point here. The real point is current needs VS. future needs. I completely understand what Gates is talking about, but his decision may be dangerous in the long run.

The question at hand is this:
Do you derive your conventional capabilities from special forces / anti terror capabilities
-OR-
you derive your special forces / anti terror capabilities from your overall conventional ones?

The correct answer is the second one. First & foremost, the most important capability of ANY army is it's conventional forces. Second to that and derived from it are the special operations. The simple fact is that the most important function of the US armed forces is to protect America - PHYSICALLY protect the ACTUAL country that is known as the USA.
The rest - EVERYTHING ELSE - is secondary (at best), including US interests abroad, allies, financial interests, etc.

By stopping production of such a valuable and essential weapons platform as the F22, that is vital to the protection of the US, Gates is ultimately undermining (not purposely) the mission of the US armed forces. Having just 187 F22 is a dangerous gamble. As good as this aircraft is, you still need some mass. 187 planes is nothing in a conventional war.

Israel did the same mistake during 2000 - 2006. We concentrated on special forces / anti terror capabilities and slowly but surely neglected our conventional capabilities. Then, in 2006 we found ourselves in a semi-conventional conflict and the results were not satisfactory. The new IDF chief turned it around and now the Israeli army is back in the saddle. And his primary goal was (and I quote): "We will derive our special forces / anti terror capabilities from our overall conventional capabilities that we prepare for an all out, conventional war". Lessons learned.

Gates must learn from our lessons. No need to make the same mistakes twice.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
The US military is so far beyond
quote:
PHYSICALLY protect the ACTUAL country that is known as the USA
it's not even funny.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 3:35:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh really?

And what do you think their mission is? protecting oil fields in the middle east?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:40:24 PM , Rating: 3
The US military is about projecting power and influencing other countries toward US interests. I wasn't disagreeing with you if you though I was, just saying that if all the US military had to do, or if the primary goal with a secondary goal of mutual defense or offense far behind it, was protect the physical US we'd be way ahead of what's needed.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Expunge on 4/7/2009 10:21:10 AM , Rating: 2
No.. it is a site where people can think and on occasion express an informed opinion not drink the kool-aid as obviously you do.

And if the Dems hold the House and Senate for much longer there won't be a country as we will be bankrupt! How Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd are not executed for the grievous harm that their incompetent and corrupt asses have caused to the free market economy of the United States is beyond me.

When you start paying 40K a year in taxes because you are working 2700+ hours a year busting your ass then you might understand how pissed I am at them and Pelosi and Reid to name a few. When you see your 401K become a 201K then a 101K you might understand. The corruption and idiocy that is "in charge" of our country now is truly epic.

When you truly understand the wealth that these criminals have destroyed then you might be half as enraged as me. Until then, shut the hell up, flip your burgers, watch MTV and think you know what’s going on in the rest of the world when you don’t even have a clue..

You mention equality.. Answer me this, now that Barrack has been elected to the White House will affrimitive action end? If you believe in equality then surely the goal has been reached with electing a black man (non-US citizen) to the White House.

To your last comment about Camaro's. Opinons are like a-holes, and yours stinks. I will take my 2010 Camaro SS on order against your $2000 shit can Honda any day.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Unlike all of the extreme viewpoints here and every where else the answer is in the middle. But that wouldn't make for entertaining interweb arguments, or cable TV shows, or radio talk shows would it? Because yeah, none of the crap we write here really means much of anything as far as having an impact.

And if you're that worried about your investments and savings in the short time you should take a more active role in managing them. If not don't fret the ups and downs and stick to your plan for the long term. p.s. The stock market and economy wasn't doing so hot before Jan 2009.


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/2009 10:56:01 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, and I'm not really worried about the $600k either, since the market goes up and down. not the first time i've lost money, but at the same time, over time my investments have always trended up (think long term and don't get scared by an immediate drop).


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:33:47 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
(more of a travel channel/ CNN junky )


Thats your problem right there.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Reclaimer77 on 4/7/2009 3:20:34 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
And last I checked, Obama is half black/half white (not that it matters) and most definitely a naturally born U.S. citizen (seeing as that is in fact a requirement to hold the position of president).


You didn't check very well. He's been asked to provide a valid birth certificate, but never has. Nobody has called him on it or made it an issue, because he's black and it would be political suicide to force the issue because of political correctness.

You do not know he was natural born, and nobody who voted for him knows either. Nobody knows. Did you know Obama hired a lawyer to force the hospital in Hawaii to seal his records so nobody could request them ? If he had nothing to hide, why do this ? Did you know Hawaii does a Certificate of Live Birth in addition to a birth certificate ? So the certificate you see of his birth is NOT a legally binding birth certificate. Anyone can bring a newborn into a hospital in Hawaii and get a Certificate of Live Birth. It is NOT the same as a Birth Certificate.

His own grandmother said he was born in Kenya, on top of all that.


RE: F35 vs F22
By hiscross on 4/7/2009 10:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
I'm sure our current socialist leadership is getting all of their intelligence knowledge from their friends of the soviet union. Like those clowns got it right. The lefties have no idea what is coming next


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 3:10:27 PM , Rating: 3
It's a shame that some people don't realize that the socialist comment is no joke.

It's also sad that, because of human selfishness and sin, we don't have the luxury of true democracy or a true republic in this life.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/7/2009 4:57:57 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah...

Because bush and team did such a goooooood job.

The guy was and is an idiot. We are in worse shape than 10 years ago, bin laden, never caught. War over lies, Afgan in danger of being lost... not enough intresting targets blow up.

Guess what, we - like many other countries in the world have social systems. Social Security? Your fire and police departments, public schools, the roads you drive on, the drivers licence you pay for. The water system that allows you to take a shower and drink.

Only thing missing is the totally scewed up Health system. Designed to make money and raise the costs of medical care for the sake of investors. So in the end, it COSTS us more money and less people get medical care. In Houson, 9~10 people went into the ER 2,700 times in 5 years. Costing the state/fed about $3million dollars! If there was a proper health system, they'd have a local doctor they could see for far less. People lose their homes because of medical bills.

Gates is from Bush era, he said why he's cutting down the F22. I don't quite see the whole picture, but he does have access to far more military intel than YOU or ME. He's talking about moving our resources around.

Onlike most of the world, the USA has two HUGE oceans that offer "protection". We have radar (above and below water) out the butt... if someone farts in the ocean, we'll hear it... but we can't see an illegal jump the boarder in Texas.
Our navy is top notch, we have bases all over the country.

With that said, the F35 is more important because its a multi-role fighter, its modern and cheaper to build. It will need to replace other aging aircrafts. But we can't afford to sink all of our resources into the military - that is one of the things that sunk the USSR.

Also the roles of UAVs is expanding. They are very cheap, no danger to pilots and more expendable. They can be made faster and more manuverable than a piloted aircraft because of G-forces alone.

Our primary threats are whimpy terrorist (not man enough to actually fight face to face) and N.Korea. Russia and China are problematic... it really shouldn't be, but things aren't all that great. The weapon systems needs to be adjusted for the future.

Look at the P4-Phantom. First versions didn't have a gun because "missles" were the future... they later found out that a gun was needed. An A10 can do things an F22 cannot and will be in service for another 20 years. With all that we have, the USA still has the top tech for warfare.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 6:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
Randal babe, you haven't the slightest understanding of what socialism is. All of the examples given by Belard are perfectly good examples of socialism. The fact is that there are no purely socialist or capitalist societies anywhere. Those who say that Sweden and France are not capitalist societies have obviously never actually been to those countries. All capitalist societies are in fact socialist-capitalist hybrids. The reason that is so is that even the rich who control our lives realize that a purely capitalist society leads ultimately to revolution as fewer and fewer people control more and more of a nation’s wealth (and here in the US the inequality of wealth distribution is again approaching pre-Depression levels). It’s just that a few better-managed European countries are more intelligently socialized that we are.

Talk about drinking the Koolaid! Randal boy you got to stop parroting Rush and start thinking for yourself. You might try to do a little reading for starters. Obama's tragedy is that he inherited all this shit from that draft-dodging, corporate tool Bush who fucked this country up so bad that even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 3
Randal, your insistent use of Hussein to refer to Obama, and this bizarre assertion that Obama is a Marxist shows that your biggotry is only equaled by you total lack of understanding about what socialism and Marxism really are - for one thing you seem to think they are synonyms! And I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt when I say that you haven't an idea in your head that didn't come from Rush and his ilk - if it's that case that you arrived at these ideas on your own, then bro you're in serious need of some remedial education because whatever it is that connects the facts to your conclusions, it’s not logic.

Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?

As for what Socialism is - do some reading.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 7:58:21 PM , Rating: 1
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

So now I'm a bigot for calling President Barack Hussein Obama a socialist? Whenever someone like you is on the absolute losing side of a failed argument, they always resort to calling the other side racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks, etc etc.

quote:
socialistic and Marxist based


That part of the sentence means that a lot of what Obama has been doing is based off of Socialist and Marxist principals.

I did not use them as synonyms you idiot.

quote:
Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?


That is so fundamentally flawed I don't think I can even respond. I am so dumbfounded that I am lost for words.

To appease your demand for me looking up definitions of Socialism and Marxism... here ya go.

Socialism: I want everything that everyone else has worked for, but I want it for free and without all the hard work.

Marxism: There is really no need for me to work, because I can benefit from everyone else. I don't have a need for personal possessions or freedom.

Now that you had me do my 3rd grade school work, lets hear your definitions.

Obama's plan for national health care is a SOCIALIST AGENDA AND IDEA! There are many more examples of his socialist agenda as well...


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 8:24:35 PM , Rating: 3
I called you a biggot because you insist on calling him "Mr Hussein" - in other words he's a Muslim, a Raghead, not one of us. This is rightwing-radio, nutcase stuff.

quote:
I did not use them as synonyms you idiot.


And yet the definitions you give of socialism and Marxism are virtually identical! LOL.

Funny that you should bring up health care. The health care system in the US is one of the most inefficient in the developed world. We spend more money on health care than any other country but consistently rank towards the bottom in terms of care provided. Even Cuba has a lower childhood mortality rate than the US! But then the health care system in this country doesn’t exist to cure the sick, it exists to enrich the health care providers and for-profit insurance companies – companies who spend millions on people whose sole responsibility is to figure out ways to deny coverage to paying members.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 8:39:43 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I called you a biggot because you insist on calling him "Mr Hussein" - in other words he's a Muslim, a Raghead, not one of us. This is rightwing-radio, nutcase stuff.


Hussein is his middle name. Go ahead and tell everyone reading this a lie by saying that you have never spoke the words "dub ya" when referring to George W Bush. Please, in front of God and everybody make that lie. It's funny when someone says "dub ya", but it's racist to say "Hussein". Since we are calling each other names like Bigot and racist, I'll be inclined to call you a hypocrite. :)

quote:
But then the health care system in this country doesn’t exist to cure the sick, it exists to enrich the health care providers and for-profit insurance companies – companies who spend millions on people whose sole responsibility is to figure out ways to deny coverage to paying members.


Direct evidence that you are truly disillusion. I hope you repeat that to the next doctor that you visit, and see how he feels about that. Like I said earlier, the merits of our health care system are sound and just. However, the people that add corruption to the system are not. Do you think we are going to be avoiding that with universal health care?

If you want universal health care so bad then why don't you move to Canada? The reason you wont is because if you do happen to need medical treatment, you will have to jump the boarder to get proper health care LMAO.

Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth. You know why? Because people that care and work hard are at the foundation of it. You give examples of moral corruption. Not pragmatic ideology.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 9:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Opinion is not fact Randall

quote:
Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth.


The World Health Organization's ranking
of the world's health systems.

http://www.photius.com/rankings/healthranks.html

Rank Country

1 France
2 Italy
3 San Marino
4 Andorra
5 Malta
6 Singapore
7 Spain
8 Oman
9 Austria
10 Japan
11 Norway
12 Portugal
13 Monaco
14 Greece
15 Iceland
16 Luxembourg
17 Netherlands
18 United Kingdom
19 Ireland
20 Switzerland
21 Belgium
22 Colombia
23 Sweden
24 Cyprus
25 Germany
26 Saudi Arabia
27 United Arab Emirates
28 Israel
29 Morocco
30 Canada
31 Finland
32 Australia
33 Chile
34 Denmark
35 Dominica
36 Costa Rica
37 United States of America
38 Slovenia
39 Cuba
40 Brunei
41 New Zealand


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 9:34:15 PM , Rating: 2
Solution to your problem with America:

Move to France.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/22/2009 2:23:07 AM , Rating: 2
Hmmm.... move to another country?

How about we IMPROVE the country we are in... hey what an idea!


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Please by all means, move to france and leave us with our 37th place health care. I'm quite happy with it thank you very much.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 11:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Just for your information, this country has the one of the best health care systems that exists on planet earth.


It does if you're rich. If you can't afford an expensive health insurance policy and the wife gets cancer, it's either sell the house, or give your life savings to that altruistic doctor of yours.

And how about those 650,000 people who lost their jobs in March? Now that they haven't any health insurance should we turn them away if they get sick, or give them free health care like in socialist France? What would Jesus do?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 7:02:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
It does if you're rich. If you can't afford an expensive health insurance policy and the wife gets cancer, it's either sell the house, or give your life savings to that altruistic doctor of yours.


Your implied plea is for universal health care... however I'm going to have to side with one of the founding fathers on this one and say:

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin.

You lose the liberty to choose your own doctor for the securtity of the government paying for it, but in the end you get the care they choose for you which invariably will be that which is cheapest for the politician. In short you lose both your freedom to choose and any meaningful care which would have given you any sense of security. There is no such thing as a free lunch, no matter what the obama kool-aid drinkers tell you.

I sincerely do hope for your sake that you wake up and realize that politicans on the other side of the country do not care about you and are only interested in gaining more power. You are nothing more that another vote to them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 7:14:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.


BTW, I don't know what God you worship, but the God of my universe will fix everything in the blink of an eye when the time comes.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 7:32:43 PM , Rating: 1
I assume you're a Christian Randall - seriously, do you think Jesus, if he were among us today, would be a liberal or a fuck-everybody-but-biggots-like-me conservative? It has always amazed me how the conservatives have managed to convince themselves that they speak for Jesus! Just where in the Bible does it say that we should let the poor starve and sick go uncared for?

The liberals gave the women the vote Randall. If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 8:20:59 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The liberals gave the women the vote Randall


No. People that we acting in accordance with the ideas of the constitution and the laws of God are the people who rallied for women to have the right to vote. Same goes for slavery. Name one single thing that is wrong with the definition of conservatism... I bet you can only come up with foul ups of PEOPLE that call themselves such, not the IDEA of conservatism itself. That has the same effect on liberalism. The definition has good merits, but a lot of people screw up the original intent. Liberals nowadays focus on what people deserve without earning.

Example: The majority of people that are on food stamps are a drain to society. How do I know this? I have worked at several different grocery stores in my life. The type of people that come in with $500 worth of free food ride up in a 2009 dodge charger and no ambition to ever get off of a free ride mindset. NOTE: My observation is not skewed or exaggerated. You go ask ANY grocery store cashier and they will repeat what I just said.

quote:
If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.


HAHAHA, show me one shred of evidence that conservatives promote racist ideas?

You know what your problem is? You think that I don't care about the unjust things in this world. Do I care about the starving? Yes. Do I care about the homeless. Yes. Do I share my monetary as well as spiritual wealth with people in need yes.

Lets look at the things that I do NOT do:

-Give hand outs to people that don't deserve them.
-Help people that don't want to help themselves.
-Support ideas and actions that promote bad behavior (which covers a lot of ground).

"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime"

One example of how I live my life. How about you? Can you say the same thing?


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 8:53:15 PM , Rating: 2
You obviously have strong ideas Randall - if only they were based in fact.

It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage - those are historical facts, and it's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal. Virtually all of the progressive legislation in this country was passed by liberals.

If socialism is all about giving away one's wealth to slackers, then why is it that the socialist Danes and Swedes and French and Germans (with also enjoy socialized health care) all have higher standards of living than we do? The Germans export more than any other country - more even than the 1.3 billion Chinese - how could they do that if they lie about all day sucking the state tit? Socialism is about leveling the playing field so that all members of society have a chance at a good life. Did you know that the yearly family income of the average Ivy League student is now approaching $200,000. In our pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps society the poor don't stand a chance competing for a place against kids who can afford private tutors and expensive prep schools. Even employed middle-class people in the US are having to forgo medical treatment because they just can't afford it. Examples like these are endless. The idea that there are no classes in the US is what the rich want you to believe. Wake up brother. Jesus was a socialist.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/7/2009 9:29:53 PM , Rating: 2
You really do amuse me, OK, here we go:

quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage


Again I'll say "No, it was men and women that upheld the constitution and the laws of God." I'll put it in simple form for you since you seem to be unable to understand this. Lets say that, hypothetically a person runs into a bank and robs it, killing everyone inside. This person did a bad thing right? OK. This person happens to be a white man. Does this now mean that all white men are bad? No. OK, now lets flip the scenario. A man rescue's a baby from a burning building. This man happens to be a conservative. Does this make all conservative people good? No. You can not effectively assume that a single action qualifies for a moralistic virtue or vice.

quote:
all have higher standards of living than we do


That whole bit is nothing more than your opinion. Grass is always greener huh? Why don't you move to those places then?

quote:
Socialism is about leveling the playing field


SHEBAM!! You have just hit the nail on the head with what B H Obama is doing to this country. Follow me in this scenario:

Hypothetically, You start out your life in school just like everyone else. After Highschool you go to college and study to your hearts content for a degree. You take that degree and make yourself a good living, and bring up a family to pass on your success and wealth (monetary and moral wealth).

On the other hand, Hypothetically, I get to highschool, and turn 18. I decide that school is for fools and drop out. I now kind work a part time job, maybe sometimes when I feel like it. I am also on welfare and blame society for my problems and lack of motivation and ambition.

Under this scenario, Obama wants me, the degenerate, to benefit from your success. Yes. That is fact. I would reap your hard work in this kind of society.

That my friend, is the basis of Socialism. Your comment about "pull-yourself-up-by-your-own-bootstraps" is what every single man, woman, and child in the world needs to learn. Help your neighbor, but also help yourself.

BTW, my parents are considered in the lower class. You know what I have done? Worked part time jobs to pay for college. Starting with Community college, and working up to a Masters at the university. Don't you DARE say that shear willpower will not bring you to success in this country. People like you want to destroy this nation by giving free handouts to the undeserving. You know what that always yields? BAD RESULTS.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 11:24:13 PM , Rating: 2

quote:
No. People that we acting in accordance with the ideas of the constitution and the laws of God are the people who rallied for women to have the right to vote


That's what all the conservatives say now , but at the time it was the right-wingers who opposed both civil rights and women's suffrage - go back and check the political affiliation of those who voted yes and no - it was a clear liberal/conservative battle. You don't know your history.

quote:
That whole bit is nothing more than your opinion.


The UN Human Development Index (HDI) is a comparative measure of poverty, literacy, education, life expectancy, childbirth, and other factors for countries worldwide. It is a standard means of measuring well-being, especially child welfare. The index was developed in 1990 by the Pakistani economist Mahbub ul Haq, and has been used since 1993 by the United Nations Development Programme in its annual Human Development Report.

The HDI measures the average achievements in a country in three basic dimensions of human development:

A long and healthy life, as measured by life expectancy at birth.

Knowledge, as measured by the adult literacy rate (with two-thirds weight) and the combined primary, secondary, and tertiary gross enrolment ratio (with one-third weight).

A decent standard of living, as measured by gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity (PPP) in USD.

2008 Rankings

1 Iceland 0.968
2 Norway 0.968
3 Canada 0.967
4 Australia 0.965
5 Ireland 0.960
6 Netherlands 0.958
7 Sweden 0.958
8 Japan 0.956
9 Luxembourg 0.956
10 Switzerland 0.955
11 France 0.955
12 Finland 0.954
13 Denmark 0.952
14 Austria 0.951
15 United States 0.950
16 Spain 0.949
17 Belgium 0.948
18 Greece 0.947
19 Italy 0.945
20 New Zealand 0.944
21 United Kingdom 0.942
22 Hong Kong (SAR) 0.942
23 Germany 0.940 (includes East Germany which lowers overall ranking)
24 Israel 0.930
25 South Korea 0.928

quote:
Grass is always greener huh? Why don't you move to those places then?


Why do rightwing blowhards always bring up the "love it or leave it" line. How about "love it and try to make it better."?

quote:
Hypothetically, You start out your life in school just like everyone else.


That's just the problem: in this country, you don't start out your life just like everyone else. Our society is structured to provide huge advantages to the wealthy and huge burdens on the poor. I too grew up in a lower-class family and I was the only one in my neighborhood who went to college. Why was that do you suppose? Were my neighbors all no-good socialist parasites? You should study some sociology Randall, because clearly you know nothing about how society shapes the individual.


RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 2:57:56 AM , Rating: 2
OOOOhhh kay, I finally reached the end of the rants from the extremists.

Let me just say that I am as moderate as I can possibly be, although I'm sure you two will have fun attempting to debate that.

I am going to try to address a few points which you should both keep in mind.

1: This may be the internet, but the unspoken, unwritten rules of common decency still apply... after all, it may actually make you understand the argument a little bit better.

2: Liberal and Conservative beliefs and ideals have changed, just as the people have, since the events such as the womans' voting rights and minority equality. This is what happens as time goes by... people and ideas evolve. I bring this up because both of your points about which side did what are moot, although I would agree with Randall when he says that it was the people who were working in accordance with the constitution, whether it be for the right reasons or not.

3: Your argument doesn't seem to have a point other than to say "conservatives are good, liberals are bad" and "liberals are good, conservatives are bad" depending on who you are.

...

...

So why are you arguing?

4: When it is said "love it and try to make it better." it generally means that you have a solution to a problem that you have actually thought about, and that is new to the situation... so share it. Otherwise, shut up, and take a love it or leave it policy, because you obviously aren't going to take the "pick yourself up by your bootstraps" mentality; you will not even do the work to think of a new way to do something that may or may not be better.

5: Examples such as Randall's college graduate/high school drop out are only going to anger the opposition. Seriously, avoid those "examples" because if you look hard enough, you can find an example of almost anything.

You know what? Im going to stop numbering here...

quote:
Our society is structured to provide huge advantages to the wealthy and huge burdens on the poor.

-the3monkies

Please, give examples.

If you mean that the wealthy pay a higher percentage of their income as taxes, and those who aren't as well off get welfare benefits from the taxes of said wealthy people, then yes you are right, but that makes your wording sound quite misleading.

quote:
Right now, Mr. Hussein IS president.

-RandallMoore

Why, oh why do you not see the blatant ignorance that this comment has (now repeatedly) been showing from you? You deny that this is a comment that shows you to be a "racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks" (quoted from you) but your comment is obviously meant to be degrading. Any time that someone purposely uses a middle name instead of a last name to give a formal title (which you incorrectly used... it should be President, not mr.) than it is obviously meant to draw attention to the middle name in a way that attacks said person's middle name.

..........................

Now, we get to the part where I actually add something to the conversation instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage.)

When it comes to welfare and distribution of wealth, my philosophy is simple. If someone works hard for their money, they should not be punished for having done so. If someone does not work hard for their money, they should not be given anything for having not worked for anything.

That statement is opinion.

Now, for my solution:

Welfare in the US currently gives the impoverished people incentive to not work. Food stamps, welfare money, and many other welfare programs do not require any more work than to sign some papers and say "I need help" to a government worker (yes, this is an exaggeration.) Instead, I propose a system that would not give handouts, but give companies incentives to higher workers who are on a welfare "list."

I propose that the government subsidizes companies who higher these workers by a certain percentage (to be determined by economists) of the wage that the company gives to these workers.

To protect those who are not on this welfare program, only a certain percentage (also, determined by economists) of the company's work force will be eligible to be subsidized for.

For proof of concept, I am setting the percentages at the following:
25% of the worker's starting wage would be subsidized by the government,
20% of each company's work force is eligible to be subsidized.

This means that a business has a potential to offset 5% of it's labor costs (assuming an equal pay rate across the board.)

If that isn't incentive to higher these workers, than I dont know what is...

Anyways, if there are any questions about that proposal, then please do ask, I am sure that I was unclear about something... after all, it is now midnight where I live.

Oh, a reminder; do NOT respond to any of the advice that was in the first section of my post unless it is to add to said advice in a CONSTRUCTIVE manner.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 11:08:12 AM , Rating: 1
First off, I really don't know how in the world I am seen as an extremist... Upholding traditional American values makes me a terrorist of USA? Show some evidence of your accusations.

1. Where was I indecent?

2. I never argued for either side. I believe that both rep. and demo. Parties have fundamental flaws that deem them useless and counterproductive just. Liberal and conservative have the same flaws, re-read my comparison argument that ended with,
quote:
"You cannot effectively assume that a single action qualifies for a moralistic virtue or vice."


3. Point out to me where I insisted that all conservatives are good and liberal are bad. In fact, I made it a point to add that both conservatism and liberalism are based off of good morals and values. Again, go back and read my comparison because you clearly made an assumption about me before reading. And keep in mind that I did not make the comments:
quote:
The liberals gave the women the vote Randall
quote:
If the conservatives had had their way, the Blacks would still be riding in the back of the bus.
quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage
quote:
Of course, I'm a liberal – do you think it a coincidence that most well-educated people are?


5. Why leave out examples that are completely relevant to the argument? In what way are they valid? Do you mean to say that I should not defend my right to uphold American tradition and values?

quote:
Any time that someone purposely uses a middle name instead of a last name to give a formal title (which you incorrectly used... it should be President, not mr.) than it is obviously meant to draw attention to the middle name in a way that attacks said person's middle name.


Exactly! So does that mean that you completely skipped over my "dub ya" comparison? It's different huh? In America, it's acceptable to call George Bush:
quote:
draft-dodging, corporate tool Bush who fucked this country up so bad that even Jesus would throw up his hands in despair.
. WHAT? You mean to tell me that I know how to bow my head down to someone who is destroying my country?! I don’t think so! If you want to tell me that I am disrespecting him by calling him Mr. Hussein? Yes. You will be right for that because i have 0 (Zero) respect for that man. Are you correct for calling me a racist/bigot/whatever, NO.

As for your proposal, I don't see it ever working because of one simple fact. Anything that the government touches ends up in disaster. I believe in Democracy, Republic, and Capitalistic ideas but in an imperfect world these ideas will never be fully carried out. And that’s that. All we can do is hope for the best. I think the best thing our government could do for our economy is make this statement:
quote:
"We are sorry for forcing our role of government into the private sector to the extent where we provide a babysitting service instead of a regulator. We now realize that normal healthy markets go up and down, so we will just stay out of the way and let the people of America solve this problem naturally without us stepping in to turn everything upside down. We will also take back all of the stimulus spending and bailouts because failing companies need to fail. It is completely destructive to keep feeding money to failing businesses (aka handouts to the undeserving).


My solution to our current problems with the economy is simple. Let the free market solve all the problems and make the government keep their hands off! If you want to think about it for a moment, they are very likely to be the biggest reason for this recession. You want proof? How about Bill Clintons “everyone deserves a house act”? The same agenda that FORCED banks BY LAW to give out BAD LOANS that they otherwise would have NEVER – EVER - EVER in a million years have done without the government forcing them to do so.

As for some of your comments like:
quote:
Welfare in the US currently gives the impoverished people incentive to not work.


I agree. And I would also like to remind you and everyone else that there is a difference between people that need help, and people that refuse to help themselves and lack ambition and values.

Don’t chastise me for giving my opinion when I full heartedly believe that Obama (and a lot of others) has a socialist agenda for this nation. I think he is destructive to our duty to uphold the constitution and the laws of God. I will NOT keep my mouth shut and “be respectful” for anyone that doesn’t deserve it. I call it like I see it and I did not go overboard with it, so stop acting like I verbally abused someone.


RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 4:16:05 PM , Rating: 2
The "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality that has been seen throughout this entire thread from you is what makes you indecent. By the way, that is also a very big reason why I am calling you extreme...

Excuse me for making an obvious assumption based off of what you presented in your arguments. Just because you say a few things that "level out the playing field" doesn't mean that you are actually giving a fair and balanced argument yourself. In fact, that reminds me of CNN, Fox news, and really... any other media source these days... they say that they are fair and balanced, but they obviously aren't.

Proof by example is a logical fallacy. The reason for that is, as I already said, an example can be found for anything these days. Now, if you were to have statistics that support said example, and you cite the source, then yes, the example is OK... but you did not show any support for it, which only angers the opposition, and many of the people reading your post.

quote:
Exactly! So does that mean that you completely skipped over my "dub ya" comparison? It's different huh? In America, it's acceptable to call George Bush:


Thank you for proving my point about your argumentative skills... I deliberately left out any mention to your "dub ya" comparison because it had no relevance to the point that I was making. In fact, I will just spell out the point that I was making. You were being blatantly rude, and so I said
quote:
Why, oh why do you not see the blatant ignorance that this comment has (now repeatedly) been showing from you? You deny that this is a comment that shows you to be a "racist, intolerant, bigots, rednecks" (quoted from you) but your comment is obviously meant to be degrading.

That is just before the quote that you took from me.... you took a quote out of context to support your own argument, which is another logical fallacy. Nowhere in there do I call you racist, intolerant, a bigot, or a redneck etc. All I all you is ignorant and purposely degrading.

By the way, if you were to have read my post, I said
quote:
[...] instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage.)

Thank you for going completely against what I said just for the sake of your own happiness in arguing against it. You just proved my points even more.

----------

quote:
I don't see it ever working because of one simple fact. Anything that the government touches ends up in disaster. I believe in Democracy, Republic, and Capitalistic ideas but in an imperfect world these ideas will never be fully carried out.


This is another place where you dig yourself a hole... you deny it credibility because of something unrelated. I was proposing something that I believe would work well if implemented, not something that would be screwed up by government and then implemented.

Please, reread my post and my proposal, and add something to the conversation instead of just arguing with it... especially when it is something that you seem to agree with.

Now here is something that is very ironic... you actually proposed something, but you already killed your argument when responding to what I said... government screws it up. What you don't seem to realize (although I may be wrong, I am making an assumption here,) is that the government is now very institutionalized... Removing government from the economy would be like pulling a house sized prickly weed from clay... its possible, but VERY hard to do. By the way, that was a metaphor, not an example, so don't even dare to attempt to tell me why that metaphor is wrong unless you have solid facts to back yourself up... and cite the sources of those facts.

Anyways, back on to more relevant parts of your post...

quote:
And I would also like to remind you and everyone else that there is a difference between people that need help, and people that refuse to help themselves and lack ambition and values.


Are you implying that I forgot? I can tell you for a fact that I did not, and my proposal actually address that fact. Let me explain:

Yes, a company would be much more likely to keep a worker that is on the welfare list, but if that worker is slacking off, they will be fired into a world that has little to no help for them, thus essentially punishing them for not working hard.

By allowing the free market to decide who is highered and who is fired, just like the regular business world only the best workers would be kept. Those who do not have that will to work will either learn it, or die... After all, that is all up to them.

Now, to address your final paragraph...

Grow up. If you truly believe that I am chastising you for giving an opinion, than you are dead wrong (and once again, prove my points.) I am all for people giving their opinions, but what I am against is when people are too ignorant to realize that they are extreme in either their views, or the way that they present themselves.

My family has a saying: "It isn't enough to be right, you also have to be effective."

You are in no way effective. If you respond to this post in a way that tries to place you as "all right, no wrong" then you are only proving my point again.

By the way, rhetorical advice (which SHOULD NOT BE RESPONDED TO) was meant for both parties in the argument, not just you, so do not take such a "woe was me" approach to it.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:11:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The "I'm right and you're wrong" mentality that has been seen throughout this entire thread from you is what makes you indecent.


Since you demand burden of proof then show me an example... Didn't think so.

quote:
Thank you for proving my point about your argumentative skills... I deliberately left out any mention to your "dub ya" comparison because it had no relevance to the point that I was making.


Pointing out that using someone's middle name because you don't like them or their values isn't relevant? Seriously? I was being called a racist because I called him Mr. Hussein, so I countered with an example of people mocking our previous president. If you don't think that this is relevant then you are a fucking idiot. I think I'll stop arguing with a fool, because it never gets anywhere.

quote:
That is just before the quote that you took from me.... you took a quote out of context to support your own argument, which is another logical fallacy.


I wasn't out of context. You just feel dumb for missing what I pointed out earlier in the conversation.

quote:
instead of just giving you advice (which you should not respond to, as it is merely rhetorical advice, and to respond would be to waste room on an otherwise good webpage


You know what that statement means? it means: "Now that I've given my opinion, it would be wrong for others to respond to it. I guess if no-one can reply to your comments then you have won the arguement before it begins huh? BTW, I'll be sure to mention that this isn't about feeling smart because of "winning an argument" or "being right", its about exposing the corruption of this society that is being accepted as the norm these days. Its making me sick to see what people believe nowadays.

quote:
I am all for people giving their opinions, but what I am against is when people are too ignorant to realize that they are extreme in either their views, or the way that they present themselves.


So what you are saying is... "You should be accepting with anything and everything so that you look like a politically correct individual that is tolerant and well educated" "If not, you are an idiot, and an extremist a don't deserve an opinion"

I have news for you. Everything I have said so far has been the views of traditionalist and conservatives so what is your problem? Are you against keeping this country the way our founding fathers set it up? I'm not

quote:
By the way, rhetorical advice (which SHOULD NOT BE RESPONDED TO) was meant for both parties in the argument, not just you, so do not take such a "woe was me" approach to it.


I didn't. I responded to your "advise" that was aimed towards me. I also commented on other things you gave your opinion on. If you don't like it when people respond to your posts here, then you need to get over it or just don't post.

If I am going to use the same logic as you I might as well say that all of the above is meant to be rhetorical and not responded to. See how that works? It's different of the other end of things huh? I'm done responding here. I have said my peace, you can keep going on if you want. Insults are not going to ruin my day I promise you.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 11:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what all the conservatives say now , but at
the time it was the right-wingers who opposed both civil rights and women's suffrage - go back and check the political affiliation of those who voted yes and no - it was
a clear liberal/conservative battle. You don't know your history.


Ya know, in just about every single one of your replies, you make it a point to say that I am uneducated. What is your deal? Why don't YOU go read some books about it. I damn sure know my history. My family NEVER owned any slaves nor oppressed anyone. Know why? Because we try our best to uphold American values and Christian values. Stop focusing on political parties. With that said, you need to go back and read everything that our best president had to say about it. George Washington. Just because I have the same view of a conservative/republican does not automatically make me the spokesperson for those groups. I am registered as an Independent. I have MANY of the same views of the conservative group. I have some of the same viewpoints of the Liberal group. So what?! That means that I have my own opinions and come to my own conclusions. Stop labeling me.

quote:
That's just the problem: in this country, you don't start out your life just like everyone else.


Yes you do. YES you do, and I will repeat a third time… YES YOU DO . Here are examples:

Everyone is born with:
The choice of ambition.
The choice of freedome.
The choice of equality.
The choice of religion.
The choice of morals and vaules.

Are some people born into money? Hell yeah. I know plenty of people that are rich in money and poor in spirit. Do they have an advantage over others? NO. It’s all in what you think is an advantage. “I know a man that is dirt poor (money), but he is rich beyond any wealth of any nation in the eyes of God. Want to know why? Because he loves his neighbors, helps the needy, and obeys the laws of God and this country”

If you think wealth only applies to money then you are truly lost. EVERYONE is born with the opportunity of wealth. That does NOT give you a guarantee of a monetary amount.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 4:45:56 PM , Rating: 1
My point is that the words socialism and free-market capitalism are always misunderstood when used in the US. There is this ridiculous black-white idea that socialism is the work of the devil and that the

unfettered free-market is always right and always provides a fair and just solution to every problem. The fact is that in both the US and Europe, capitalist economies are tempered by socialist poicies. The

difference only lies in the mixture of the two. As Balard correctly pointed out in his previous post, even the US has chosen to socialize law enforcement, secondary school education, public infrastructure, etc..

Untrammeled free-market economies lead to societies like early industrial England where instead of going to public schools, 12-year-old kids worked in sweat shops for nothing more than food and lodging. It

was because of situations like that that it was realized that governemnt must step in to actively guarantee the rights of the poor and disadvantaged, and they did that by "socializing" certain aspects of society,

and the US has, in its own way, done this as well. So if you will at least admit that not all socialism is evil then perhaps you will be capable of approaching the question from a more informed and balanced

standpoint. Socialism does not equal parasitism!

Health care is a perfect example of a basic right that can only be equitably fullfilled if the government steps in and regulates it. As I mentioned earlier, the health care system in this country exists primarily to

enrich the health care industry - healing the sick is only a secondary concern. We spend much more on health care than any other country, yet only come in 37th on the WHO list. 20 cents of every dollar we

spend in this country goes for administrative costs, in France it's only 2 cents! ( For one thing, in Europe, health insurance companies are not-for-profit and don't need to pay the salaries of thousands of people

whose job it is to find a way to deny claims from paying subscribers.) So not only do the socialist health care systems in Europe provide better care, they are more economically efficient, they waste less

financial resource. When I point this out, instead of honest debate, I'm told to move to France. So what does that mean - that I'm somehow a triator for suggesting we improve things? Does a true American

think the 40 million people in this country with no health insurance are just parasites who should stop whining and just die?

Tax policy in the US overwhelming favors the rich. Warren Buffet is on record as saying that he pays less taxes than his secretary, and that US tax policy is insane. Conservatives like
to rail against high business taxes in the US, but 2/3rds of all US corporations pay no taxes at all. The rich and powerful have structured our tax system so that it is the middle-class that pays a
disproportionate amount of taxes.

The idea that we are all born equal is breathtakingly ignorant. If you are born poor in America you have a shorter life span, are far-more likely to receive an inferior education, work a low-paying job, and

receive inferior health care. These are facts! This situation is inherited, passed down from one generation to another, and explains why the cycle of poverty is so hard to break. Do you think that the poor

choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature? Is it a coincidence that the kids who grow up in Scarsdale, Greenwich, and Newton end up in elite colleges. And

this is in moderately socialist America; in a truly unregulated free-market economy the poor would end up indentured servants in the factories of the rich. You think this is just liberal rant, but it doesn't happen

because America has adopted socialist policies that do not allow such immoral expoiltation of the poor and young.

The choice is a moral one - and economics is a highly moral discipline because it involves regulating human behavior - do we care about other people and structure society to provide for everyone, including the

weak and disadvantaged, or do we write policy whose principal aim is to enable the powerful and the rich to get whatever they think they deserve - because given human nature, you can't have both. Sure

there will be slackers in a socialist economy, but to assume that everyone will choose to lie about is contradicted by the high standard of living in those European countries that the right so loves to sneer at.

I've lived 30 years of my life in foreign countries and have seen firsthand how other people manage their lives. I suggest the socialism-haters try it, you will realize that the America-is-always-right, foreigners-

are-all-assholes, narrow-minded poisonous bullshit you get from Fox and Rush is dumb and not in our best interests. We do a lot of things really well in this country, much better than others, but there are things

that we can learn from others as well. Why is it unpatriotic to think otherwise?

The world has changed. The post-WW2 era we all grew up in where America was the only country not reduced to ashes was abnormal in the unnatural discrepancy between American and foreign wealth and

power. It is now much more a community of equals. Sooner or later even the most blindly jingoistic of Americans ig going to have to come to terms with the new world order.

By the way, the 19th Amendment giving women the right to vote was only passed in 1919. In the case of women's suffrage, the amendment was only ratified by one vote - it was not the case that all citizens of

good conscience supported a woman's right to vote. The conservatives fought tough and nail to prevent what they considered a betrayal of the founding father's intent as stated in the Consitution.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 5:53:01 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Health care is a perfect example of a basic right that can only be equitably fullfilled if the government steps in and regulates it.

How have you got it in your head that health care is “right”. It is not a right, it is a service provided by the fruits of the labor of free people working to make other peoples’ lives better… for a price. A right is something that you have outside of any government system the government is there to defend the rights you have simply by being alive.

The treatments tools and facilities necessary to make health care possible are not free, they are in fact hugely expensive. The research required to develop the health care we have today was not free, without the money going back into the system there is no incentive to develop newer better treatments. It takes many years of hard work and hundreds of thousands of dollars to become a doctor without high pay there would be no doctors because there would be no incentive to put in the time and effort.

As soon as you bring the government in it will set prices, control wages, decide what treatments are available based on cost not effectiveness. In a generation there will be fewer doctors, the pace at which new drugs and treatments are developed will slow, and the whole system will be plagued by the same problems that lessen the effectiveness of every other government bureaucracy politicians trying to micro manage things they really don’t understand. You will have a few truly great private hospitals available only to those that have the cash to pay up front (the super-rich) and the state run hospitals that offer substandard and one size fits all care designed by politicians that will never have to use the system. If you don’t believe me just look at the public school system.

quote:
When I point this out, instead of honest debate, I'm told to move to France. So what does that mean - that I'm somehow a triator for suggesting we improve things? Does a true American think the 40 million people in this country with no health insurance are just parasites who should stop whining and just die?


They feed you this line of 40 million without health insurance to get an emotional response and you have apparently bought it hook line and sinker. How many of these 40 million people are in their 20’s and 30’s? an age group that statistically almost never goes to the doctor. Perhaps they are young and healthy and they would rather have the money to spend on things they need now. Yeah if they get hurt it will be financially devastating, it’s a gamble; a high risk high gain situation and they should be able to make that choice for themselves.

How many of these 40 million people are illegal aliens that should be shipped back to their own countries instead of clogging our emergency rooms and running up costs for paying customers? I would guess a large percentage of them.
Are there lots of people out there that truly need health insurance that can’t afford it? I’m sure there are but instead of trying to make everyone else pay for their problems they should be finding ways to increase their own income so they can buy the insurance they need.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 8:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
I do not believe in Communism - human nature is too corrupt for it ever to work in the real world. But pure laissez-faire liberalism is also impossible to implement in a society anyone with a shred of human decency would consider just. It leads, has led in the past, to too few controlling too many. And when that happens privilege becomes hereditary, which is just the opposite of equal opportunity for all. Wealth and privilege have already become hereditary in America. As I said earlier, American wealth is now concentrated in a smaller percentage of the population than at any other time since the Great Depression. Wealth and power always look after their own interests. They do this by controlling the political process and public dialogue. They pass laws to their own benefit which necessarily acts to limit the advancement of outsiders. The result is tyranny. There eventually then comes a point where either democracy or privilege must give ground.

There are no perfect political solutions that guarantee everything for everyone. But in order for a society to be truly egalitarian, to offer true equal opportunity to all, certain rights must be guaranteed by the government, and it is the weak and poor most in need of protection because they have little effective power to control their own lives. Yes everyone should try to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, but in order to be able to do that they must be given the opportunity, and we are most certainly not all born equal. One example of this is the socialization of secondary education in all advanced countries.

The Founding Fathers (surely the most enlightened group of individuals ever to create a political system) chose democracy as their social means to prevent the concentration of too much power in the hands of a few. Socialism, at least as I understand it, is the application of social policy to do the most good for the most people. This necessarily places limits on the behavior of some. This is done everywhere, even in the US. To say that we are not socialist and the Europeans are is ridiculous. People work to better themselves in Sweden. They are allowed to accumulate wealth. But in some respects, and here I'm most interested in the European approach to health care, a few European societies have also succeeded in creating a system that is far less ruthless than ours. If the French, for instance, get better health care for fewer dollars than we do, isn't it worth emulating? To say that excluding 40 million disadvantaged Americans from access to health care is an acceptable price to pay to guarantee the right of the more affluent to chose their own doctors seems wrong to me.

This is my last post to this thread. I've said all I care to on the subject, and no one ever changes his mind in these forum debates. Randall, in particular, seems impervious to anything that contradicts his knee-jerk hatred of socialism which he considers to be nothing more than living off the honest work of others. Mr Bungles' idea of a perfect world would lead to half the population earning minimum wage in the factories of the ubermenchen. But then there would be no minimum wage in Bungles' world.

And what are you going on about Bungles with this scenario of the apocalyptic destruction of the American health care system should the government try to improve things. Or is it that you don’t consider Americans capable of accomplishing what the Europeans have already demonstrated to be a routine matter?


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:59:10 PM , Rating: 1
There is so much wrong with the words you are putting together to make sentences. I'll start about halfway down:

quote:
If you are born poor in America you have a shorter life span, are far-more likely to receive an inferior education, work a low-paying job


Then why do I personally know sooo many peole that started with nothing, and WORKED HARD AS HELL to get where they wanted to be in life. Do you watch Judge Mathis(not an example of someone I know personally)? He went to jail, grew up poor, and was for the most part uneducated. Guess what, he straitened up his life and got a good education. He is probably very happy and also he is notably very successful. You are just an idiot if you think things should be handed out without the hard work of earning them. That kind of society is unfair and destructive.

quote:
I've lived 30 years of my life in foreign countries and have seen firsthand how other people manage their lives. I suggest the socialism-haters try it, you will realize that the America-is-always-right, foreigners- are-all-assholes, narrow-minded poisonous bullshit you get from Fox and Rush is dumb and not in our best interests. We do a lot of things really well in this country, much better than others, but there are things that we can learn from others as well. Why is it unpatriotic to think otherwise?


You cast A LOT of stereotypes. BTW, that whole paragraph came out of nowhere and is not even relevant. Sounds like to be you are spitting out nonsense that you were indoctrinated in school or through corrupt media.

quote:
Do you think that the poor choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature?


Um, maybe not lazy... but that's the lifestyle that they choose. I bet you are crazy enough to think that girls getting pregnant in highschool should be taken care of for the rest of their lives and not have to work their ass off for 20+ years to support their children because they chose to make an adult decision. Which I will add is the absolute worse time to have a baby.

quote:
The world has changed. The post-WW2 era we all grew up in where America was the only country not reduced to ashes was abnormal in the unnatural discrepancy between American and foreign wealth and power.


Answer this question for me. How many liberal studies did you take in college. How many professors brainwashed you in all of those nonsense radical type classes? Evidently a lot because you are b r a i n w a s h e d.

quote:
The conservatives fought tough and nail to prevent what they considered a betrayal of the founding father's intent as stated in the Consitution.


You are right. I'm sure that there were some conservatives that fought against the change. As well as Liberals that fought against it. And Democrats. And republicans. But do you want to know something about those who fought against it? They were NOT acting according to what the constitution is about. None of the said groups were acting according to common sense and fairness either. Again with your stereotypes.

quote:
Tax policy in the US overwhelming favors the rich. Warren Buffet is on record as saying that he pays less taxes than his secretary, and that US tax policy is insane. Conservatives like to rail against high business taxes in the US, but 2/3rds of all US corporations pay no taxes at all. The rich and powerful have structured our tax system so that it is the middle-class that pays a disproportionate amount of taxes.


I think you may have found the meaning of the words "loop-holes" and "cheating the system". Some people are corrupt and vile. It's a part of life. The bible says what will happen to people that do things like this. Refer to the "camel through the eye of a needle" part of the bible.

You just don't get it, and I don't think you ever will. I've said more than enough here and don't intend to waste any more of my time.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 7:09:38 PM , Rating: 2
I also forgot to add that the whole point of this debate (for those that have completely forgot) is that a lot of people in the US are pushing for things that are undeniably leading up to direct socialism. Socialism DOES NOT WORK. IT D O E S N O T W O R K.

Your only response is that our society is mixed with some capitalism, some socialism, etc etc. Of course it is! Are you taking us for a fool?! There isn't one single system, object, or piece of elemental matter in this universe that fits into a "one and only and very specific category". For example I am white, but I am also male. See how that makes no sense to just throw into a debate?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 7:27:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Untrammeled free-market economies lead to societies like early industrial England where instead of going to public schools, 12-year-old kids worked in sweat shops for nothing more than food and lodging.


Tell me what conservative is advocating the exploitation of children for labor? Where has anyone on this board pushed for the abolition of labor laws? I think its safe to file this under FUD.

quote:
Do you think that the poor choose to work minimum-wage jobs and drop out of school because they are lazy by nature? Is it a coincidence that the kids who grow up in Scarsdale, Greenwich, and Newton end up in elite colleges


There are numerous routes out of this situation if you really want out. Its going to be hard and require a lot of work but very possible. Join the military, they will pay for your college education. Then you can either make a carieer as an officer (pretty good pay and health benefits) or you can take your education after your enlistment is up and get a potentially better paying job in the private sector. Sorry the poor are largely without excuse on this one.


RE: F35 vs F22
By LoweredExpectations on 4/9/2009 4:43:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell me what conservative is advocating the exploitation of children for labor? Where has anyone on this board pushed for the abolition of labor laws? I think its safe to file this under FUD.


The free-market worshipping conservatives want the government to get out of the way. They hate minimum wage, taxes, any sort of government interference. So why, for a true free-marketeer like yourself, should child labour be any different? That even conservatives condemn child labour shows that even they think some government regulation of the market is permissable if it advances the social good. Isn't that monkies' point?

quote:
There are numerous routes out of this situation if you really want out. Its going to be hard and require a lot of work but very possible. Join the military, they will pay for your college education.


In Bunngles' equalitarian world if the poor want an education they must go off to fight our wars! Rather like the Civil War where a rich man could hire someone (invariably poor) to fight in his place. It's a perfect world for the rich - they benefit economically from the wars the poor die in.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Steve1981 on 4/10/2009 1:29:16 PM , Rating: 2
You seem to be confusing conservative/free market ideas with anarchy. They are not one and the same.

The general idea behind a free market is that the government should not be involved with what to produce, how much to produce, how much to sell it for, etc. That is taken care of effectively and efficiently by supply and demand. However, for a "free market" to succeed and flourish, there has to be a framework of laws in place.

And even from a conservative viewpoint, there are areas where "socialism" makes sense. You won't find many conservatives arguing against national defense because everyone benefits from it, and defense is a necessity. Socialized defense may not be strictly speaking the most efficient system but it is the most practical.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Belard on 4/22/2009 2:41:13 AM , Rating: 2
Hey 3monkies...

For some reason, I missed this debate... well, not much of one.

Yeah, as an AMERICAN, I think the USA can be better. Simple as that. A cell phone, a car is a previlge. Health care and clean air is a RIGHT.

In Houston, 9 people went to the ER over 2000 times in 5 years (most of them had mental problems). They cost the state/fed about $3million (TAXES). If we had a REAL system in place where a typical visit doesn't costs $800~2000, but perhaps $20~50, they (A) would have been treated (B) not nearly as many visits (C) Cheaper for everyone.

In Europe, the medical system is designed to keep People healthy, simple as that. In the USA, even those who get hurt with "health Insurance" may not go tot he doctore because of the $250+ deductable or they may get dropped.

The US Medical system (insurance and hospitals) are designed to make money. Insurance make money off the people, the Hospitals charge out the nose so they can rake in money from the insurance companies. People's health is last. I have friends in the medical field... A lot of the work involved is money and insurance. A waste of resources.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 5:12:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It was the liberals in this country who actually fought for civil rights for Blacks and for women's suffrage - those are historical facts, and it's why I'm not ashamed to call myself a liberal.


Today's liberals are not really "liberals" in the classical sense of the term. A true liberal would be fighting for liberty and personal freedom which flies in the face of the "leftists" of today that run the historically liberal democrat party.

quote:
Socialism is about leveling the playing field so that all members of society have a chance at a good life.


You claim to be a liberal but you are not, you are a leftist. Socialism is not compatible with liberalism. The fact that the government controls so much of a socialistic society takes liberty away from the people. Part of being free is that you have the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, socialism makes attempts to stop people from failing but the method by which it does this is to stamp out freedom. In socialism the powers that be assume that the individual is not capable of making the best choice for themselves and instead takes action making the choices for them.

In socialism the government makes your health care choices for you. This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

In socialism the government can make decisions for private companies. (See AIG/GM/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac if you need examples) This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

In socialism the enormous government comes at enormous financial cost necessitating high tax rates. Your money is your liberty; it is what allows you to function in today’s society and also is the determining factor in the choices available to you in virtually any situation. The government taking large portions of your wealth so that it can put constraints on the choices available to you in virtually every aspect of your life is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)

You’ve spent a lot of time arguing against conservatism but a modern conservative is closer to a true liberal than the modern “liberal” or “leftist” as I prefer to call them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 5:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, of course, the classic definition of liberalism equates it with laissez-faire liberalism or even libertarianism - the Ayn Rand "it's-all-about-me" school of thought. I consider myself a liberal in the modern sense of the word - substitute 'progressive' if you want. But my real meaning is to distinguish myself from all the right-wing rant that passes for intelligent analysis on Fox and talk radio which considers socialism to be just another word for Satan. I'm perfectly comfortable with the term 'leftist' by the way. However, I do believe in the free-market, but it must be tempered by compassionate socialist policy.

The society you describe is impossible in a democratic system, it ends up with a few owning everything, and the vast majority of the deliberately disenfranchised (for in a dog-eat-dog world disenfranchisement is always deliberate) turning to crime and ultimately revolution. Our health care system is great if you are rich, and the libertarian system would work just fine in a jungle with neither law nor morality. Personal freedom means nothing if others are in chains, but maybe that's just the lefty in me talking.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 6:04:11 PM , Rating: 2
You must understand that there is no such thing as "equality" everone is not equal, we are all individuals. It is our individuality that makes us great, your philosophy only leads to a place where people are stripped of thier individuality their creativity and any motivation for productivity.

The equality that conservatives fight for is equality in opportunity, you are fighting for equality of outcome. The latter is not possible and history has shown that its persuit only leads to tyranny.

Power corrupts and everything you want to do or see enacted is a stealth power grab. You think a corporation can be corrupt just wait till an even bigger more powerful entity moves in, in the form of the government.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandallMoore on 4/8/2009 6:32:07 PM , Rating: 2
I think I can agree with everything you have said so far.
Especially strong with
quote:
Part of being free is that you have the freedom to succeed and the freedom to fail, socialism makes attempts to stop people from failing but the method by which it does this is to stamp out freedom. In socialism the powers that be assume that the individual is not capable of making the best choice for themselves and instead takes action making the choices for them.


and
quote:
In socialism the government can make decisions for private companies. (See AIG/GM/Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac if you need examples) This is not liberal it is authoritarian. (The exact opposite of liberal)


Both of those are absolute fact. I know that there are a few and very specific group of people reading these posts, but I was beginning to feel like I was alone. Thank you for bringing some common sense to the table.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 12:37:00 PM , Rating: 2
You don't know history that well.
In the south blacks were segregated by southern democrats not republicans.(They were in power after all.)
I am an independent, but what you said is bogus. What party was Abe Lincoln a part of again? They party of the President (Truman) that dropped the atomic bomb was which one? (Not that I thought it was a bad decision, as distasteful as it was nonetheless.)


RE: F35 vs F22
By the3monkies on 4/8/2009 4:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
I have never spoken about Democrats or Republicans, but liberals and conservatives. I agree with your point that the Democrats have been just as guilty of oppressive policies as the Republicans. In fact, Lincoln's party was much more progressive than contemporary Republicans. What does dropping the bomb on Japan have to do with anything?


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 6:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Just pointing out that which you readily said yourself after I made it obvious.

"I agree with your point that the Democrats have been just as guilty of oppressive policies as the Republicans"

Not many people posting on the internet know history all that well, I was just testing you after your comments in the previous post.

I don't have problems with classic historical liberals, which actually more resemble modern conservatives at this point. Most hardcore "liberals" today are very state-ist and today are more interested imposing a common good, versus protecting individual liberties. (What liberals used to care about.) Imposition of a compulsary common good at the expense of individual liberty is the very essense facism, socialism, and communism. The Democratic party of today does not even closely resemble the Democratic party of 40 years ago in the 1960s. Of course nor does the Republican party which really sucks because now we have no one worthwile to vote for.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Regs on 4/7/2009 12:08:00 PM , Rating: 3
The next person who excuses their own ignorance for party politics should be.... shot by an F-22.


RE: F35 vs F22
By teldar on 4/7/2009 7:57:44 PM , Rating: 1
Idiot
And learn what the words you wish to use mean.
Sight is either one of the 5 senses or something unusual

Site is a place or destination, like a web site.

Cite is an action where one writer gives credit to another writer when their material is used.

3 words that sound the same and have NOTHING at all to do with eachother.

If yoo knowed some engrlish maybe yore commitments wood be moor weel recepted.


RE: F35 vs F22
By jimbojimbo on 4/8/2009 3:44:18 PM , Rating: 2
He'll be checking into the Zoolander School for Kids that Can't Read Good soon.


RE: F35 vs F22
By phazers on 4/10/2009 7:28:26 PM , Rating: 1
"Dems"??

That should be DIMS, as in dim-witted :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By marsbound2024 on 4/7/2009 10:47:36 AM , Rating: 2
Although I am disappointed with this decision, I think we need to cut back on a lot of programs. The F-22 is an amazing machine and vital to our national security; however, we do not necessarily need hundreds of them right now. In times of war, we can always ramp up production (such as we did in WWI and WWII) on whatever we need. I don't think we are in danger of losing air superiority to any potential threats anytime soon anyways. Nonetheless, I wish they would keep the F-22s aloft.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Exedore on 4/7/2009 3:10:55 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
In times of war, we can always ramp up production (such as we did in WWI and WWII) on whatever we need.


With sufficient F22s in our arsenal, we may never BE in a time of war. That is a very important aspect of maintaining a strong military, even when there is no war.

The world is a big place, and our ability to put F22s in a theater is limited. They can be overrun by shear numbers, especially because they have to shuttle back and forth between their bases for refueling and rearmament while the conflict typically happens closer to the enemy bases. We need more F22s.


RE: F35 vs F22
By marsbound2024 on 4/7/2009 7:11:18 PM , Rating: 3
If you are concerned about it, then you should present this argument to your congressmen and get your friends that care to do the same.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Exedore on 4/8/2009 9:52:16 AM , Rating: 2
Way ahead of you.


RE: F35 vs F22
By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 11:22:02 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, the F-35 production planes are being sent Eglin later this year/early next. Production, meaning combat ready.


RE: F35 vs F22
By wordsworm on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:38:36 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that simple. The cost to restart the production of the F-22 after production has been stopped is enormously higher than to simply continue production at a slow pace. This issue has been discussed before; it would be good to research it.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:19:44 AM , Rating: 4
If businesses aren't taxed to death they can hire more people. This helps eliminate the poor because people have jobs. And the lower unemployment is, the harder it is to find labor and wages go up. Some jobs though will never allow you to live well. This idea that you should be able to raise a family as a Walmart greeter needs to end. But because of all the government welfare programs people can and there's no incentive to get a better job since they'll be working harder to earn the same money.

There was an article about how if a woman in Arizona with 2 kids got a better job making $30,000 more per year, she'd still have the same money because of the increased taxes she'd pay and $24,000 in government benefits she'd lose. How is that a model for a society?

And I would do nothing with the poor. If they don't want to be poor, they need to improve their own lives. Not count on things like supposed equal opportunity programs and government handouts to make their lives better.


RE: F35 vs F22
By BioRebel on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:15:01 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If you knew anything about economics you'd know what you said just sounds stupid. What typically restricts a companies growth is not taxes, but sales. If you've found yourself a niche, and expanding beyond this niche would not yield any further returns. WHY would you expand? Even if taxes were lower, you'd still be losing money because your supply would most likely exceed demand.


and if you knew anything about economics you would know that if you lower a companies costs by reducing taxes they can increase the demand for thier products by lowering prices which can reverse a situation where supply outstrips demand.


RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 3:06:46 AM , Rating: 2
Or even better yet, with lower taxes, people have more money to spend, thus buying more products.

Unless it is a product that wouldn't survive in the market anyways (i.e. dog poop statues. Actually, I take that back, I live in an area with a lot of the liberal arts, where millions of dollars are spent on seemingly worthless pieces of trash that someone calls "art"...)


RE: F35 vs F22
By sviola on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:31:23 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'm sorry to tell you, but diminishing taxes on businesses do not equal increase in jobs.


Companies do not exist to give people jobs, they are there to make money. Our country competes in a global market for companies to come and do business inside our borders. When we have corporate tax rates at 35% (federal) plus what a state charges (0 - 12%) its no wonder that companies (and the jobs they provide) are packing up and moving to places like hong kong where the tax rate is only 16.5%


RE: F35 vs F22
By Ryanman on 4/7/2009 9:24:46 AM , Rating: 2
What does ANY of this have to do with poor people? Do you honestly think that ACORN is looking out for the little guy?

Most of their agenda is bribing the poor to vote the way they want, and registering children and deceased people to vote. Take a look at ACORN's actual agenda and you'll realize that a fighter jet's a better deal.


RE: F35 vs F22
By wordsworm on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 12:06:50 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Go ACORN. Sounds like a great place for the government to put its money. The fighter is there to kill people. ACORN is there to help people. Helping people is always going to be the better deal.


ACORN is there to push a leftist agenda. They will do so by any means necessary as evidenced in the last election. Registering homeless people to vote mulitple times. Leading people to believe that if they all just vote democrat that all their problems will go away and the government will just give them everything they need. Why do you think the dems gave them so much money in the "stimulus" package? The organization is nothing more than a "3rd party" propaganda arm of the DNC.

quote:
retard some of the predatory practices of bankers. ie.,

"So, I get subprime for my mortgage? Sweet! I can move out of my sh*t hole!"
"Yes, sir, just sign here."
"What does all this small print say down here?"
"Oh, nothing important."

Six months later,
"How come I gotta pay 30% interest? I can't afford that! I'm going to lose everything!"
"It's in the fine print, sir."


4 words: Responsibility for your actions.

IF you can't afford a house don't buy it, if someone is a credit risk don't loan them $300,000, if you can't read don't sign a contract that subjects you to a 30 year long fincancial agreement, and if you participate in any of these activites don't come crying to me when you are foced to declare bankruptcy because I wont feel sorry for you.

quote:
This will help money trickle back up to the wealthy. I prefer this method to the retarded 'trickle down' philosophy of the previous president.


no what is retarded is believing that there is such a thing as "trickle up" economics. The poor do not have any money i.e. they're poor. They do not make jobs, they need jobs. they get these jobs from wealthy people. It takes money to make money.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 1:18:06 PM , Rating: 2
FYI, in case you hadn't actually thought beyond step 1:

registered != can vote

In other words, if Mickey Mouse or Henry Homeless gets registered it doesn't automatically mean they can vote and it certainly means they will not be able to vote multiple times.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 1:27:48 PM , Rating: 3
Nine states have some form of Election Day Registration: Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

This allows them to register and vote at the same time, and in ACORN's case register and vote multiple times.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By Keeir on 4/7/2009 2:56:50 PM , Rating: 3
I am confused...

I know the media has a tendency to gloss over the ACORN issues, but a disturbing number of people working for ACORN have been indicted and convicted of serious Voter Fraud issues...

ACORN is also fairly transparently a "leftist" organization... I am not sure why you find it "okay" that the government is giving fairly large sums of money to a politically motivated non-profit. It would be similar to the government handing the NRA money to promote firearm safety... (Which by the way, the government did provide money to the NRA into the 1970s)


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:23:30 PM , Rating: 1
I don't know how you can be confused if you read the last sentence I wrote. I don't see why they should get money either but the whole voter fraud FUD campaign by the Repubs was a crock.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
wth replied to my own post -.-


RE: F35 vs F22
By Veerappan on 4/7/2009 5:08:47 PM , Rating: 2
Being that I grew up in Wisconsin, and have done same-day registration twice before I moved to MA last year, I can definitely say there's room for exploitation.

All that's required in WI is a state-issued ID, and 2 forms of proof of address (utility bills, bank statements, stuff like that from within the last 60-90 days). The ID's address doesn't have to match the bank statements, which means there's definitely room for people to try to deceive the system. If you owned more than one house, or had mail that has been sent to a prior address that you picked up from a previous roommate, or something like that, you could definitely register in multiple districts for same-day voting... I'm not saying you'd get away with it, but you'd get through the line to vote before they figured it out.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/8/2009 7:10:34 PM , Rating: 2
to add to that they were letting the homeless use park benches and bus stops as "addresses".


RE: F35 vs F22
By Exedore on 4/7/2009 3:19:33 PM , Rating: 2
I walked in to the polling place on election day, and they asked me my name. I could plainly see the registered voter printout in front of the election official. I could have read off any one of the names on there, but I didn't. I just said my name, she looked it up on the list, and gave me a ballot. There was NO verification of who I was. This system is wide open for exploitation.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
And your little story has exactly what to do with ACORN? If you read my post again I said that yeah there's voter fraud and there always has been voter fraud. The false logic of assuming direct connection to ACORN is what I aws discussing.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Exedore on 4/7/2009 3:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps you missed the parent post of my reply.


RE: F35 vs F22
By jimbojimbo on 4/8/2009 3:49:45 PM , Rating: 1
Part of ACORN's tactics was to declare racism on any bank refusing to finance a minoriy's loan, no matter how unqualified it was. Barrack was one of the lawyers that did this and somehow he's president. Amazing. Forcing a bank to take on bad loans is part of what caused this whole mess.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2009 4:11:01 PM , Rating: 1
Didn't you know ? It's racists not to give deadbeat blacks and illegal Mexicans everything they want.

quote:
Forcing a bank to take on bad loans is part of what caused this whole mess.


Hmmm I thought it was *cue liberal talking point* EVIL MASSIVE DEREGULATION !!!!??!!??? Cause you know, every time things start going good in this country, that nasty rampant DEREGULATION rears it's head to ruin things !


RE: F35 vs F22
By Fireshade on 4/7/2009 6:58:57 AM , Rating: 2
How realistic do you deem an invasion by Russia or China, that would require a higher amount of air superiority? I'd say practically zero. We're not living in the Cold War anymore, times have changed. Power comes from those who hold the most money and energy sources.

Those billions of dollars had better go to the economy right now, Obama or not. Millions are jobless, and the homeless numbers are growing. That includes children. Right now, 1 in every 20 children in the US is homeless for some amount of time. That's just dire.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 7:40:35 AM , Rating: 3
Bingo. Economic interdependencies muddle things up a lot. There's no more 'Iron Curtain' in Europe or 'Red Wall of China.' Back then it was simple to look at things as them vs us but now those lines have blurred. There are too many interests that depend upon at least a working business relationship to make a shooting war anything but a far-fetched theory.

A land war versus China would be futile with their numbers. Technological superiority only goes so far when you're outnumbered 10:1 or more. Invasion of the US is unlikely with our naval superiority which doesn't look to be changing in any foreseeable future so such a war would more likely take place in Asia with India as a likely allie. Russia could go either way, Putin and his ilk notwithstanding, they have lots of interdependency with Western Europe. The main reason Russia doesn't worry much about China is because Far Eastern Russia is a whole lot of nothing and provides a massive buffer. China and Russia aren't exactly buddies anyway despite their similar in name Communist party recent background.

I'd rather see military spending go toward information warfare as a goal with hardware to back it up rather than the other way around. As long as it's used against unfriendlies...


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:31:52 AM , Rating: 3
That is why you have to keep nuclear weapons on the table. Something Obama wants to eliminate.

And our naval superiority can easily be wiped out. Especially considering Obama wants to end programs designed to intercept missiles. And modern diesel electric subs can easily get close enough to our ships to destroy them. China is building such subs.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 9:00:30 AM , Rating: 2
Is Obama really talking about total Nuclear disarmament?

In the UK we didn't see much of what he had to say over the last week or so. What his wife was wearing and any sound bite that seemed like he was backing up Gordon Brown was far more important, apparently, such is the state of our media over here.

No nukes and no missile interception systems is just crazy, surly that can't be his plan?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 10:15:39 AM , Rating: 2
RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 10:55:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't have to be. It's just fun sometimes.

Seriously though. I am not an irrational person. I don't just sit around at home with a tin foil hat on, foaming at the mouth about how everyone is out to get us. I use my common sense and my gut to decide how to view the world and then look to back up those decisions based on information I find. I don't just take things at face value. I am skeptical of what any politician tells me, regardless of their beliefs. I believe power corrupts, just some it corrupts more.

I think we should let firemen run the country like in that Sprint/Nextel commercial. Shit would get done.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 11:02:08 AM , Rating: 1
Wrong reply lol, that was for FIT :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By Deschutes on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 3:21:43 AM , Rating: 1
Here is my opinion about FIT.

He presents himself to be right wing... ok, so what? It is obvious that many others present themselves to be left wing, up wing, or down wing, but that presentation does NOT make them wrong.

I think that he does make many good points (although some are obviously BSed) and a considerable amount of those points are at least semi-thought out. That is much better than at least half of DT's readership can say.

My suggestion for the people on DT (and most other internet forums for that matter):
lighten up...
Give the opposition's argument a view or two, and actually attempt to support their point. If in the end you keep the same opinion, you will only have more information to use against your opposition anyways.

It isn't about respect by having those experiences, walking the walk, etc. but it is about showing the initiative and thought to support your argument in a mature manner... that is where FIT can be lacking much of the time.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 12:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Your mistake is believing that wars are rational to begin with. Did you forget that in WWI Germany's biggest trading partner. In WWII hitler attacked Russia which gave him supplies and arms, and of course because of which he lost the war entirely.
The point I am making is that being trading partners has not stopped wars in the past and won't in the future. Also don't forget our worst wars in this century had their roots in economic depression to stir nationalism, and other types of protectionisms, etc.etc.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 6:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
This was supposed to say"

Did you forget that in WWI Germany's biggest trading partner was France.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:21:01 AM , Rating: 1
Yeah so lets add 100,000 people and their families to those unemployment lines. Great plan. And then that equates to less money for other businesses as well.


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By Veerappan on 4/7/2009 5:27:12 PM , Rating: 1
<Feeds the troll>

I definitely roll my eyes at a lot of stuff that FitCamaro says, and agree with less than half of it, but most of what I've read is at least well-reasoned through.

I'd hate it if DailyTech was just a bunch of people jumping on the "me too!" bandwagon for everything that's posted here. A good spirited debate teaches me tons, primarily that there's always more than one way to look at things.

While I may have voted Dem in the last election, I can't say I agree with everything that's going on in this administration.

</Feeding time>

And Fit, good luck with the recruiter. I won't be joining up any time soon (unless we're openly attacked by a sovereign nation, in which case I'll jump in line), but I respect those who do... at least those who choose to do it for the right reasons. *swallows comment about future brother-in-law*.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2009 8:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks. I'm looking forward to it. Just have a few issues I need to work out before I'm able to sign and swear an oath. Course I'm not going to take any joy in swearing an oath to obey the orders of the President right now.

Life hands you bricks sometimes though. So just throw them at people's heads. Psypher would you please stand up?


RE: F35 vs F22
By QuantumPion on 4/7/2009 8:45:22 AM , Rating: 5
Have you stopped to consider the possibility that the reason why Russia and China are so unlikely to start WW3 is precisely BECAUSE our military is so advanced?

If our military was no more advanced and powerful as the rest of Europe, the world would be a far different (and more violent) place. Russia would still be the Soviet Union and would control all of eastern Europe and Eurasia. China would control all of SE Asia including Taiwan. The only thing that prevented those countries from controlling 2/3 of the world was the fact that we had the will and technology to prevent them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By ipay on 4/7/2009 2:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. For decades the Western world has enjoyed peace because Amercian military might has deterred rogue (and not-so-rogue) nations from trying anything foolish. To scale down this military, even in peacetime, is asking for trouble.


RE: F35 vs F22
By cochy on 4/7/2009 9:46:40 AM , Rating: 2
Keep rolling the dice with your own security.

Ever heard the term: Better safe then sorry?


RE: F35 vs F22
By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 11:53:02 AM , Rating: 1
I have never heard it spoken in Engrish.


RE: F35 vs F22
By DrKlahn on 4/7/2009 10:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
How realistic do you see the possibility of China making a land grab for resources? Or finally deciding it needs to reclaim Taiwan? What should the U.S. response be in such a situation? At this rate the U.S. won't be able to mount any kind of serious response. The U.N. would send a terse letter. The notion that no Nations are unwilling to take what they want by force anymore is dangerous and naive.

To use your own statement on power, China holds a lot of money, but it will need resources. Whether they gain such resources by force or through economics remains to be seen. They've shown that they're willing to do either.

Yes people are jobless and children homeless. It will always be a byproduct of a free market economy. When the economy starts to recover those that want to work and will put forth the effort to work will recover. Some will always choose not to work and live off the charity of those that do. We've seen how systems of government that try to solve these issues by elevating these underprivileged at the expense of those who succeed work. Once the incentive to succeed and grow is removed, the society stagnates and dies.

Slowly eliminating America's military capabilities because we somehow think that human nature has changed remarkably in the last 100 years is monumentally naive. But then I guess for their to be a Churchill, there must be a Chamberlain


RE: F35 vs F22
By ipay on 4/7/2009 2:48:34 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately for the free world, there are far more Chamberlains than Churchills walking the corridors of power in the USA.

Anyone who believes that the world is at peace is a fool. The Russian military is beginning to flex its muscles again, while China has had decades to build up its own armies. Separately they are each a major threat; united, they are a force that is potentially unstoppable, especially against the useless UN and a weakened America.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 3:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
The main reason why an invasion to the US is not realistic is the US armed forces. It's those thousands of cutting edge Jet fighters, those thousands of cutting edge tanks, those 10 or more monster aircraft carriers, those nuclear subs, those missiles and anti missile systems, those predator drones, those hard-ass marines and all those other numerous well trained soldiers that the US has. Top notch, massive military machine.

Yeah sure, the US is also pretty far away, It's huge in geographical size, it has an immense industrial backbone and it has 300,000,000 citizens - it helps - a lot. But the the main reason that the US is not being invaded is the US armed forces and their complete superiority on the battle field.

When I think of fighting against the US military - and don't even talk to me about invading the US - my gut turns inside out. Just thinking of it makes me want to run and hide. And contrary to most of you here, I WAS a combat infantry soldier!

This is exactly what you want the world to feel when they even REMOTELY consider war against the US.

187 F22s project a lot of power. 750 F22s projects enormous power - that is a big difference.

You lose this - and you will eventually get invaded.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 7:35:22 AM , Rating: 2
I was thinking the same thing about you guys making more in the future, but I suppose you are always better off making more in one go. I guess it's a trade of between maintaining more planes while having them at your disposal immediately and the cost of starting up manufacture again, keeping the tooling, plants and labour on standby for a large scale production run at some time in the future and having to wait for the hardware to come off the line, be tested and all that jazz when you might need them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:38:51 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that simple. The cost to restart the production of the F-22 after production has been stopped is enormously higher than to simply continue production at a slow pace. This issue has been discussed before; it would be good to research it..


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 7:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
Well I certainly would like to see that information but I wouldn't know where to start searching for facts, DT comments don't count. I suspect there are programs in the planning that will make the F-22 look like a joke in a lot less than 30 years anyway. Likely these guys doing the planning know more than we do.


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:24:27 AM , Rating: 1
As another said, to restart a production line like that would be incredibly expensive. By your logic F18s should be cheaper now so lets just build more of them. But its not feasible.


RE: F35 vs F22
By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 10:02:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh, and what's to stop us from building more in 5 or 10 years?


The fact that we've shut down and disassembled the production lines and canceled the contracts with all the suppliers, who will have shut down their own production lines for the parts they make.

It would be much cheaper to make the extra fighters now while the infrastructure is still there.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:54:35 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, but if they are REALLY needed as in an actual major shooting war with another world power like some fear mongers like to say 'is likely soon' (hmm it's been that way for 50-odd years), more would be made yeah?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:40:18 AM , Rating: 2
So we should sit on our hands, lose our technological edge, and get caught with our pants down like we did with world war II?

We are better off having such a massive and technologically advanced military that no sane country would ever even consider war with us (or our allies) an option. You know like the last 50-odd years.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Ringold on 4/7/2009 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
more would be made yeah?


No, probably not. The days of WW2, where factories could be hammered together in weeks or months, raw ore going in one side and battle-ready bombers roll out the other, are gone. It'd take years to restart production if it was completely stopped, unless the government took a slightly fascist approach and ordered all former employees with relevant skills to return. NASA acknowledges the same sort of problem with the gap between the shuttle and Orion/Ares/Constellation/whatever. They know they have thousands of people with irreplaceable experience, all with families to feed, and that if they're laid off they'll leave the Space Coast and may never return. If I recall, the same skill gap is why a new shuttle was not built after Challenger; they had the tooling sitting around, but had lost all/most relevant skills in how to actually use it all, so instead they assembled Endeavour from pre-existing spare parts (which also happened to be cheaper then refitting Enterprise, I think).

Beyond that, even with production going, I don't know how long it takes from the time the first part is cast and a complete F-22 is finished, but I doubt it's measured in days or weeks like in past wars. Aircraft carriers, and most other large assets, take years to plan and build.

So no, any future hot war will start, run its course, and end with largely whatever war material we start with. I thought that was widely understood.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Tyndel on 4/7/2009 1:31:58 PM , Rating: 2
If we are attacked or WW3 breaks out or whatever the enemies would know that a fast hard attack of the US with most of our military out of reach or in aircraft that are out of date would cripple out ability to retaliate. And we all know how deep our bench errr allies militaries are when it comes to backing us up.

In each of the major wars in the last century we went in against fighters that could stand toe to toe with us and we lost a lot of our best pilots and a lot of machines because of it. If we let our advantages stagnate they won't be advantages for long and if we don't prepare for the numbers likely to be faced in a real war we will never have the chance to prepare. There are too many opportunistic countries out there to stand by if a major conflict broke out. We would be facing not a single external threat but multiple and likely many.

We need to be careful not to get caught up in the war is changing talk. We have had an agenda against a specific type of enemy but that doesn't mean every enemy we face from now on will fight like them. War doesn't change as much as one would think only the people and tools for fighting it change.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Spuke on 4/7/2009 4:04:09 PM , Rating: 2
Downsizing our military puts us in a position to consider the use of nuclear weapons. It's unlikely that we would let ourselves get run over simply because we have a huge nuclear stockpile. So nukes would be on the table in any future conflict. Honestly, I don't see anyone invading the US, we have too many privately owned weapons and too large a land mass to secure. Logistics for an invading army would be staggering. I know some people would disagree but what do we have that would justify an invasion? Coal?


RE: F35 vs F22
By vcolon on 4/7/2009 7:20:40 AM , Rating: 3
Yes. Let's cut defense spending and unsecure our borders but yet give all the octomoms in this country a fair shake. Thanks Obama, Pelosi, Reed and all the spineless Republicans that support our jackass president.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 7:46:14 AM , Rating: 1
Unsecure our borders...with Mexico and Canada? Actually there are plans to increase security personal on the border with Mexico. Canada is not so much of a problem :)


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:23:17 AM , Rating: 4
There's plans to fight drug violence. There is no plan to secure the border from illegal immigrants. In fact the Obama administration is calling for ICE to stop going after illegals entirely because they want them all counted in the census. Since when are these people citizens? The census counts US citizens. Not the total number of people living in the US. This is nothing but a power grab by Democrats.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 8:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, plans are to prevent drug gang violence (War on Drugs!) but it's silly to think that illegals will just be given a pass now. What's your factual reference on that?


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:15:42 AM , Rating: 1
Ya I'm just having fun with him while I rip some CDs :)


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 10:58:21 AM , Rating: 2
You just never bother checking your facts, If you did you would realize that more often than not Fit is running circles around you.


RE: F35 vs F22
By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 11:40:45 AM , Rating: 2
No


RE: F35 vs F22
By psypher on 4/7/09, Rating: 0
RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 10:14:33 AM , Rating: 2
Look at any major news site right now. There's plenty of articles talking about how Obama is calling for an end to immigration raids until "immigration reform" (amnesty) is passed in Congress. And for how our immigration secretary wants the raids to stop "in order to do an accurate census". But the census is only supposed to count citizens. Christ do you live under a rock?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/26/ra...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/06/advocat...


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. But it's a rock from a private military contractor rather than by the gub'ment. That makes it ok, right? :D


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:57:45 AM , Rating: 1
Haha that got downrated? That was outright pure comedy goodness. FIT, does this site's comment section really matter enough to you to make extra accounts to downrate? I'm glad to see you not wasting taxpayer money via your defense contractor employment on such frivilous things. ;)


RE: F35 vs F22
By Yaron on 4/7/2009 3:48:24 PM , Rating: 2
MadMan007, you have no class dude...


RE: F35 vs F22
By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 1:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
He has no brains either. Why doesn't he grace us with his profession since he knows FITs? (I work as an engineer (MSEE) building internet backbones.)


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 10:56:26 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes, plans are to prevent drug gang violence (War on Drugs!) but it's silly to think that illegals will just be given a pass now. What's your factual reference on that?


We live in a country where illeagal aliens are given drivers licences, where they can stay without a green card and are basically immune from deportation if they have an anchor baby, where police are barred from checking someones immigration status, and where the media will not refer to Illegal Aliens as "Illegal Aliens" but instead as "Immigrants" or "Undocumented Immigrants", hell Hairy Reid the Senate Majority leader has called them "Undocumented Americans". They never get anything but a pass, why would I expect this to change now?


RE: F35 vs F22
By tyson766 on 4/7/2009 9:07:29 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, those F22s are needed to patrol the mexican border. How else are we going to protect ourselves from those minivans full of Mexicans.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandomUsername3463 on 4/7/2009 9:47:16 AM , Rating: 5
No, actually the F35 is much better in an anti-minivan ground attack role. The F22 will come in handy once the minivans start to get fighter escorts.


RE: F35 vs F22
By preslove on 4/7/2009 8:55:08 AM , Rating: 3
In 30 years the F22 will have been phased out for a drone fighter. The F35 is probably going to be our last manned fighter.


RE: F35 vs F22
By nugundam93 on 4/7/2009 1:47:22 PM , Rating: 2
The Ghost X-9 would be a great drone fighter for that. :)

http://mahq.net/mecha/macross/plus/x-9.htm


RE: F35 vs F22
By aebiv on 4/7/2009 11:50:37 AM , Rating: 3
I mean gave what, $7 billion f*cking dollars to ACORN? That would've bought 50 F22s.

Just think what cutting back on all the other excess spending would do. We could possibly have HMMVs with far better armor to protect against IEDs and body armor to stop 7.62x54R rounds that didn't weigh 150lbs.

Let's put the defence of this country first.

FIT, as usual, you are quite on track with this. Thank you for pointing out the simple logic.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Mojo the Monkey on 4/7/2009 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
The election is over.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Ringold on 4/7/2009 1:00:31 PM , Rating: 2
It never stopped. I still see continuous streams of political ads from both Republican and Democrat PAC's, but more left-wing and environmentalist ones (at least on CNBC, about the only TV I watch). Politicians were immediately worried at the start of this year about how their votes would look in next years election.

The 2008 election started on election night, 2006. The Economist had an article recently on Obama's "standing army" of volunteers. I wonder if we've entered the era of the eternal campaign..

Anyone for some campaign finance reform? As a libertarian I understand the freedom of speech issues, but this is ridiculous.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 6:48:52 AM , Rating: 2
It's an interesting question.

The USA has a lot of territory to protect with a very large coastline, not to mention it's interest over seas in the Middle East, Europe and Japan. When you take into account that a percentage will be on the ground for maintenance at any one time then it's not hard to see that at least that number of aircraft are required, if they are to make up the back bone of America's air force.

The bigger question is probably just where are or who is flying these 3-4 enemy aircraft that they will be taking out? Assuming that you will always have a technological advantage is also something that you should be wary of. I am guessing a resurgent Russia and China are the biggest threats to the USA and EU (in the air, not on the street and in the mountains) and they are getting richer and catching up technologically pretty quickly. As the working life of these aircraft is s pretty long time then losses may need to be taken into account when making calculations too perhaps?


RE: F35 vs F22
By Tyndel on 4/7/2009 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
The F-22 has internal bays for 4 missiles and 5 seconds of 22 mm canon fire.

To take out 4 enemy aircraft (presumably they would be last gen without the tech to see the F-22) not a single sidewinder would be able to miss or 1 miss and a cannon run.

How likely is that going into a major conflict. Further there are 4 hard points on the wings for external payload however external payload kills the small radar cross section and any F-22 using external ordinance or fuel tanks will show up even on out of date radar systems.


RE: F35 vs F22
By ipay on 4/7/2009 3:03:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's a 20 mm cannon with 480 rounds, giving 5 seconds of sustained fire. That's 96 rounds per second - if an F22 pilot has an enemy in his sights, all he needs to do is tap the trigger and his target will be gone. Oh and by the way, the cannon is undetectable when the aircraft is stealthed.

Also the USAF intends using the AIM-120 (Slammer), which is far superior to the Sidewinder, hence kill probability is much better.

Finally, as stated above, the F-22 has excellent range, which will usually obviate the need for external fuel tanks. That means you have 4 hardpoints for missiles, and once those missilies have been fired, the F-22 is once again in stealth mode.

Oh, and don't forget its thrust-vectoring capabilities.


RE: F35 vs F22
By tynopik on 4/7/2009 4:35:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-22 has internal bays for 4 missiles


you're confusing the F-22 and F-35

the F-22 carries 6 AMRAAM and 2 Sidewinder (8 total) internally

the F-35 carries 4 AMRAAM internally and will be upgraded to 6 internally later on


RE: F35 vs F22
By Chernobyl68 on 4/7/2009 12:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
yes, because it is a big country we have to defend.

between 1972 and 1985 the air force bought over 800 F-15A and -15C fighters, and that doesn't include trainers. Over 200 F-15E Strike Eagles were bought (which will be in service for a while yet)

fewer fighters means each has to cover much more real estate, and they can't be everywhere at once.


RE: F35 vs F22
By lagomorpha on 4/7/2009 7:00:38 PM , Rating: 1
"Isn't 187 of these things good enough?"

For comparison purposes:
Saudi Arabia operates 57 F15Cs, 25 F15Ds, and 71 F15Ss.


RE: F35 vs F22
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:41:22 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention we'll be exporting the F-35 to a number of countries and not having a full force of F-22s would relegate us to parity with other nations. I realize that's the wet dream of some (to lower our status to equal that of other nations so we can no longer exist above the fray and have to get dirty like everyone else), but that's not what made this country great. But then, those who want us to lose our safety and supremacy don't care about making this country great.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 7:44:58 AM , Rating: 5
Damn those non-egomaniacal people >:(


RE: F35 vs F22
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 7:54:48 AM , Rating: 5
How about posting the true numbers?

The F-22's range of 1,600 nm is accomplished with 2 drop tanks. Bang goes your radar profile. Bang goes your high supercruise numbers.

The F-35's range of 1,200 nm is accomplished on internal fuel only.

The F-22 has approximately the same internal fuel capacity of the F-35... but has to feed two engines. Which one will go further? Go figure. Admittedly, the F-22 may get there slightly faster.

If you really want a pure interceptor, capable of covering vast areas at very high speed, go buy a MiG-31 - it pisses all over the F-22 and F-35 if compared on the basis of an interceptor. Oh wait... that wouldn't do would it?

Who was concerned about F-16's having shorter range than F-15s? You are aware that fighters do not patrol the coastlines at all? They vector from GCI or AWACS?

The current F-22 prices does not include R&D. That has already been paid for. The manufacturing cost of an airframe stands at $140 million.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 8:04:43 AM , Rating: 5
Further to the above.

The F-22 was initially drawn up over 30 years ago. IIRC the original ATF request was issued in 1977. Sure, there was an (expensive) EMD phase in the mid-90s - but that was more concerned with adding air-to-ground capabilities that the USAF had originally insisted do not exist.

The F-22 will be hopelessly out of date in 20 years time in dealing with hi-tech threats. That is as sure as night follows day. Anyone, and I do mean ANYONE that argues otherwise is simply not aware of what is happening in current military R&D. To (very) briefly summarise:

1. What use is supercruise against DEWs?
2. What use is a 9g rated fighter against 15g rated UCAVs?
3. What use is -30dB signatures against radars capable of picking that up 100 miles away (there is *speculation* that the S-400 is already capable of this)? Radar front and (especially) back ends are constantly evolving. The back end ahead of Moore's law - the F-22 airframe is essentially fixed. We will shortly be at the point where the radar is capable of detecting the trailing vortex system of any aircraft - and from that point on 'stealth' is gone... forever.
4. What use is directivity design against overhead (satellite) radar or distributed radar systems?

Every single one of the above will be with us within 20 years... probably within 10... some are already at the testing stage. What is the point of burning $140 million per frame then?


RE: F35 vs F22
By callmeroy on 4/7/2009 8:16:53 AM , Rating: 2
Links to the information in both your posts please?

Not on the grounds of I don't believe you, but on the grounds that I'd like to read that information for my own interest. I've always enjoyed reading up on military aircraft (well actually aircraft in general).

thanks.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 2
Well, the first post is pretty basic and general stuff... try aerospaceweb.org or fas.org

The other is more knowledge gathered over time - and not from weblinks. But I'd be quite sure either of the above websites would have some information, or at least allude to what I've said.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Noya on 4/7/2009 8:21:16 AM , Rating: 2
Amen to all the above, right on the money.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:22:42 AM , Rating: 1
How the heck did this get rated down? Are people serisouly so wrapped up in ultimately meaningless DT comments that they make extra accounts to rate comments they can't handle?


RE: F35 vs F22
By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:43:43 AM , Rating: 2
Its all true, but alot can happen in 20 years.


RE: F35 vs F22
By ikkeman on 4/7/2009 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
All this is equally true of the teen series fighters. Drawn up a decade befor IES and designed for a requirement that never materialised (Soviets invading) - Still, they are among the most capable aircraft even today, some 3 decades later.

The same will be true of the F-22. Though it may struggle to keep up with the new developments in 30 years, it'll still be there. it's replacement will be in the works, but like the F-15 and the F-4 before that, it'll have decades of use left.

to respond to your points:
1) why would you use supercruise against DEWs? Supercruise is for getting somewhere far away quickly.
2) what's the use of an 15g rated ucav vs 25g rated missile?
3) What's the use of ghillie suits. it doesn't make you invincable, but they'll have to work harder.
low freq radar systems that can easily pick up the F-22 require huge antennae - better known as immobile targets - and cannot be used for targeting. meanwhile F22 is targeting you.
normal freq radar systems that could pick up F22 will need to put out so much power HARM could target it from US home shores.
camouflage is always a good idea
4)what use are easily predictable (satellites) or huge distributed systems (targets)

The reason that 30 y/o airframes can still be of descisive influence on the modern battlefield is adaptability. Why do you point out the coming developments for the enemies of the F22 without factoring in the future changes to the F22???


RE: F35 vs F22
By Clairvoyance on 4/7/2009 11:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
1. Supercruise is meant to get the aircraft to and from the fight faster, as well as conveying tactical advantages in air to air and air to ground combat; including increasing effective ranges of released weapons.

Mature, ubiquitous DEW technology would render all modern air power obsolete anyway. Ironically the one of the only counters to widespread laser air defenses is low observability. Not that the F-22 would be ideal in such an environment; even with stealth it's too large and far too expensive to risk. In the face of such hypothetical laser air defenses, the only viable alternative I can think of is larger numbers of comparatively cheaper, low observable, networked UCAVs flying very close to the earth. But in any case, how is any of this an indictment against the concept of supercruise?

2. I agree the future of air combat will be unmanned, and that the F22/F35 will likely be the last generation of manned air superiority fighters. But threats like Su-30/35 and MiG-35 exist today, and threaten to erode our conventional superiority with the teen-series. In the next 10 or 20 years, we won't have advanced UCAVs and widespread battlefield lasers; we'll be facing these new Russian aircraft, and F-15/16's won't be enough. Are you willing to cede air supremacy to potential enemies between 2015 and 2030/35? I think the threat from Su-35/SA-20/Mig-35, etc. is too imminent, the current fleet is aging too fast, and your proposed future alternatives too far away for the F-22 to be considered a mere stopgap measure.

3. Ironically, that's an argument against the F-35 - unlike the F-117 or its successor the F-22, the F-35 lacks all-aspect and broad spectrum stealth and cannot perform the "kicking down the door" mission against advanced IADS. A Nebo SVU metric wave radar (an optional, not integral component of SA-20/21) might detect an F-22 or F-35, but in the case of the F-22 can't reliably do anything about it. But cued by early warning radar, acquisition and engagement radars (or datalinked midcourse guidance, terminal active homing missile) might have a better chance against the F-35 which is only primarily stealthy from the frontal cone and against the X and Ku bands.
These systems are not the sole domain of Russia or China, Russia sells these to whoever can pony up the cash for them. Like Iran, who is actively seeking to buy and field SA-20 systems.

4. Overhead satellite radar isn't used against aircraft, and the F-22's stealth will actually hold up better against multistatic radars than the F-35 (or F-117, for that matter).

You think we'll have widespread operationally fielded lasers and air superiority UCAVs in 10 or 20 years? We may solve laser efficiency, beam quality, cooling, and electrical power generation in 10 or 20 years. We may achieve necessary AI and throughput requirements in 10 or 20 years. Now add at least another 10 years for those systems to actually go through the bloated defense acquisition and procurement process (TM).
Meanwhile, Su-30/35 and SA-20/21 exist now, and will be fielded by not just Russia and China, but countries like Iran in as little as 5 years.

Look at it this way: 30 years ago, concepts that originated from the ATF project (stealth, supercruise, advanced electronics) would have threatened to make then-new aircraft (F-15, F-16) obsolete. By this logic, there would be no sense in buying large numbers of F-15s and F-16s in 1979, because F-22s and F-23s existed on the drawing boards. Clearly, history has shown this to be false; we obviously needed the F-teens to replace aging F-4s and combat MiG-29s and Su-27s. Only now, 30 years later, is the aircraft on the drawing board reaching operational deployment. And here we are again...

My beef with the F-35 as the "replacement" for the F-22 is this: Its wing area and shape, radar aperture and power, engine power and armament are insufficient to deal with large scale air combat against advanced Russian air superiority fighters. Its frontal and X/Ku band optimized stealth is insufficient to deeply penetrate networks of advanced Russian SAMs. That's two important missions it cannot perform effectively.
It also costs $83 million (and that number can still rise, as it's still in production) to the F-22's $138 million, so you aren't talking massive savings.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/7/2009 8:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
The 140 million figure is based around 187 aircraft. Buy more and the number would plummet.


RE: F35 vs F22
By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 9:44:43 AM , Rating: 2
It may decrease a little, but it won't plummet. Remember that the $140 million figure is the flyaway cost and not the amortized cost which includes the R&D cost.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 10:31:33 AM , Rating: 2
No.

The initial 20 or 40 aircraft took the R&D hit. All R&D has now been paid for. Any more aircraft ordered are basic construction costs only.

The airframe cost is $140 million.


RE: F35 vs F22
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2009 8:18:33 AM , Rating: 2
That's not how it works either. While the R&D has been paid for, it's not spread out among only the first 20 or 40 aircraft. There are 2 ways to state the program cost: the flyaway cost (specifying the cost of the aircraft themselves) and the amortized cost (the program cost divided by the number of units produced)


RE: F35 vs F22
By Amiga500 on 4/9/2009 6:00:15 AM , Rating: 2
But it is.

When you buy the first 20 or 40 a/c - you are largely paying R&D on top of the flyaway cost (airframe cost).

Now, when the US govt want to buy an F-22 - all they are paying is the flyaway/airframe cost - because R&D has already been paid for.

What you are saying (amortized) is an accounting term, more useful for looking back over the whole program 20 years from now, and isn't actually relevant to what needs to be paid for an aircraft right now, today. Your not far wrong in what you say - its just irrelevant - the total program cost is now only affected by how many more airframes will be acquired.


RE: F35 vs F22
By 91TTZ on 4/9/2009 10:25:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But it is. When you buy the first 20 or 40 a/c - you are largely paying R&D on top of the flyaway cost (airframe cost).


No, that is *most definitely* not how it works. The price for each aircraft in the order is the same. They do not pay more for the first xxx fighters to cover R&D. The R&D cost is NOT covered by the first 20 or 40 aircraft because they're the same price as the rest of the aircraft.

After the R&D is paid for the government buys the airframes (flyaway cost). All of those airframes cost the same amount, the first bunch don't cost any more to cover R&D cost.

My usage of amortized cost IS the correct term for this to be used right now. The term is common when talking about the expected cost of procurement; it's not used just 20 years later. Read up on it instead of arguing with me.


RE: F35 vs F22
By Titanius on 4/7/2009 8:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
You are obviously mixing up numbers and capacity here.

F-22: 1,600 nmi (1,840 mi, 2,960 km) with 2 external fuel tanks

F-35: A: 1,200 nmi; B: 900 nmi; C: >1,200 nmi (A: 2,220 km; B: 1,670 km; C: >2,220 km) on internal fuel

The F-35 will be a great replacement to the F-22. Especially with the F-136 which is still in development (I've heard impressive numbers from that engine, but still just rumors).


RE: F35 vs F22
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/7/2009 9:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You are obviously mixing up numbers and capacity here.


I'm confused. Didn't you just repeat exactly what he said?


RE: F35 vs F22
By Titanius on 4/7/2009 11:44:09 AM , Rating: 2
I replied to the first comment for this topic as you can see if you follow the comment level lines. And then right after I looked up and I see that someone else did their homework by responding the exact numbers that I responded with (probably where you got confused). Cheers!


RE: F35 vs F22
By Major HooHaa on 4/7/2009 9:37:28 AM , Rating: 2
So many thoughts on this one. Where to start?

As I from the UK, I think that F-15's, F-16's and F-18's, combined with the USA's high level of pilot training and integrated air defence systems can comfortably take on anyone in the world in air-to-air combat. Ground defences are probably a little trickier to deal with. Although that's what the F-117 and B2 stealth bombers are for, to dismantle a countries air-defence system prior to the non-stealth aircraft attacking.

I think that the F-22 is a tactically more flexible aircraft than the F-35 and with these, the stealth fighters can come in alongside the stealth bombers. I think the extra range of the F-22 is not to be under estimated, just think about the short range of fighters in World War 2... Until the Merlin engined Mustang came along with its long range combat radius. Remember that a fighter has to keep half of its fuel for the return journey.

I watched a documentary programme where the pilots at the Top Gun school pitted their F-15's and F-16's against the new F-22. They couldn't pick up the F-22's on radar and so had to resort to visual identification. The F-22's could lock-on to multiple F-15's and F-16's at once, from well beyond visual range. The pilots in the older aircraft never saw their mock attackers.

Think of the scenario at the end of the film Top Gun. Two F-14's vs six opponents. A pair of F-22's, in theory, could handle that situation easily.

As for the aging F-15's, a cheaper option might be to build and develop brand new F-15's, if the old ones are wearing out.

I haven't even touched on the ethics or consequences of War. But it must be avoided where ever possible. Just think what could be achieved if the whole human race worked together. We could clean up are planet, help people out of poverty and at the same time achieve amazing things. Go back to the moon, visit Mars and unravel the mysteries of the universe.


RE: F35 vs F22
By RandomUsername3463 on 4/7/2009 9:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
BTW the F-117 is retired, from wikipedia:
quote:
The Air Force retired the F-117 on 22 April 2008,[2] primarily due to the acquisition and eventual deployment of the more effective F-22 Raptor[5][6] and F-35 Lightning II.


RE: F35 vs F22
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:25:06 AM , Rating: 2
They'll be put in to active duty ready storage I'm guessing, although there aren't all that many F-117s so maybe not. tbh there ought to be stealth cruise missles to replace them.


RE: F35 vs F22
By redeem4god on 4/7/2009 1:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
You couldn't be farther from the truth. Do you ever watch the military programs? The F-35 Lightning II A, B, C (three version for the three main branches of the military) is both a short AND long range stealth fighter.

It can hit speeds of Mach 2 or higher WITHOUT inducing any afterburners because of this the F-35 doesn't burn excess fuel as other fighters in afterburner mode allowing it to stay in flight 3 times longer with fewer re-fuel hookups. Incidentally this fighter can be refueled from the air like its predecessor the F-22.

In essence it was intended from the start to replace the F-22.

This fighter is superior in everyway and costs less to produce so why not get rid of the F-22 so the taxpayers don't have to shell out so much or did you think the militaries budget grows on trees?

Look for yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35 or http://www.jsf.mil/


RE: F35 vs F22
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2009 9:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
AND long range stealth fighter.


It is not considered a stealth fighter. It is certainly not as stealthy as the F22.

quote:
It can hit speeds of Mach 2 or higher WITHOUT inducing any afterburners


Don't know where you read this but it is incorrect. It's top speed is listed as Mach 1.5/1.8+. I'm assuming the 1.8+ is with afterburner.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air...


RE: F35 vs F22
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2009 4:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In essence it was intended from the start to replace the F-22. This fighter is superior in everyway and costs less to produce so why not get rid of the F-22 so the taxpayers don't have to shell out so much or did you think the militaries budget grows on trees?


The F-35 was not intended to replace the F-22 in any way whatsoever. The two fighters were designed for different roles and they were intended to complement each other, just as the F-16 complemented the F-15. One (the F-35) is a single engine, multirole, "more bang for your buck" type of fighter while the other (the F-22) is strictly an expensive air dominance fighter. One is not meant to replace the other.

Besides, Lockheed Martin makes them both. You know they're not going to try to replace a fighter that they're currently selling with another one. They had contracts to produce both fighters, they're not going to cannibalize their own sales.


RE: F35 vs F22
By tynopik on 4/7/2009 4:31:13 PM , Rating: 3
this is just flat out false

the F-35 and F-22 have very comparable ranges

in fact the F-35C may even be longer ranged than the F-22


RE: F35 vs F22
By Major HooHaa on 4/8/2009 5:41:00 PM , Rating: 2
Okay I'm sorry for any inaccuracies in my post. The figures I looked at are a good few years old. But where I compared the performance of the two different aircraft (F-22 and F-35B) the differences were described as follows.

Max Speed
F-22: 2335kmh\1450mph
F-35B: Mach 1.4+

Service Ceiling
F-22: 65,000 ft
F-35B: 50,000+ ft

Combat Radius
F-22: 1285km\800 miles
F-35B: 1000km\621 miles

Looking at them, firstly the stated figures for the F-35B look like educated guesses, seeing as the aircraft was so new at the time. Secondly, the F-35B is the Short-Take-Off-Vertical-Landing version, "STOVL" with a big lift fan behind the cockpit. This may reduce space for fuel and the like. So the F-35A without the lift fan and hover technology, may have a different performance and fuel range.


I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By Roffles on 4/7/2009 2:16:25 AM , Rating: 3
Airborn high precision lazer cannons are almost ready for the show. Jet fighting is going to be history very soon.




RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 8:09:02 AM , Rating: 5
HA HA HA HA HA.

Pretty much all that can be said really.

You cannot compare the ability to absorb the energy in light to the ability to absorb energy from a concentrated laser at different wavelengths. Its simply stupid.


By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 1:22:29 PM , Rating: 2
I gotta side with you here. People forget that energy has to go somewhere, and it is going to go into the thing it is aimed at.


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By callmeroy on 4/7/2009 8:23:15 AM , Rating: 2
So scientists much smarter than us (ok at least "me") from around the world have been doing R & D on lasers (and its laSer btw not laZer -- laser is actually an acronym L ight A mplification by S timulated E mission of R adiation)) and invested untold millions at least, perhaps billions...and all you have to do is paint your vehicle black to be immune to it? LOL


By TheSpaniard on 4/7/2009 8:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
black would actually make you more vulnerable! you would be absorbing ALL of the laser's energy witch means you heat up and melt a lot faster. (think about black cars vs white cars in the sun)


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/2009 9:51:03 AM , Rating: 2
Energy witch? Is she related to the wicked witch of the west, or east?

http://www.laserphysics.co.uk/laser_safety_curtain...

Black absorbs and diffuses light energy - this includes lasers. For a rocket, by way of example, it wouldn't be too hard to throw a spin into the missile as it heads towards its target. When it gets hit by the laser, it absorbs the energy and diffuses it rapidly. That's why polar bears are black with white fur. Put that black car in a cold dark place and it will cool faster than a white one. An imperfectly mirrored surface, which is all we know how to make, will quickly be penetrated, and once penetrated, would prevent the vehicle from diffusing the laser's energy.

I don't suppose that there are any laser experts here to confute or support my arguments.


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 10:48:48 AM , Rating: 2
You're delusional if you think that dark paint is going to protect missiles from lasers.

Dark paint will only absorb more of the light, heating the missile body much more quickly. This would cause it to melt.

The curtains that you showed in your link are dark so they absorb relatively low energy lasers. Those lasers aren't going to melt anything but could hurt your eyes if the light is reflected. That's why it's better to absorb it.

For a missile, the priority of the coating wouldn't be for the safety of people on the ground, it will be for the survivability of the missile. They'd use a coating which is the most reflective so the missile body wouldn't absorb that energy. It would be too much energy to dissipate, it would melt if it absorbed it.

This isn't a concept that's only known by a laser expert, this is common sense that most high schoolers should know.


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By Suntan on 4/7/2009 1:20:06 PM , Rating: 2
At the expense of losing all those previous posting where I rated you down, I just have to jump in here (and no you silly tripe of a person, it isn’t FIT that is logging on to constantly downrate you. It is all the rest of us out here that think you are completely off your rocker..)

As a person that has made it through "university" myself (with an advanced degree in thermodynamics and mechanical engineering) I have to say that you sir, are a complete idiot on this topic.

I've no doubt that you will not listen to anything other than what has mistakenly made it into your head, so I won't bother going through the details. Just take a moment as you are laying in bed tonight to reflect back that today you showed people out on the internet how your ignorance is only outdone by your pigheaded desire to never admit you are wrong.

(Walks away shaking head...) "Just paint it black," he says "That will solve all the problems..." …I’ll have to tell the guys at work about the comment I read on the internet today. Jeez…

-Suntan


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/2009 3:26:29 PM , Rating: 2
OK, then why don't you write the folks who make the damn laser shielding and tell them that black is the wrong color since obviously you know better. Here's the website address again: http://www.laserphysics.co.uk/laser_safety_curtain...

Did your education include reading comprehension? If so, then please, fill your boots: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/H000534.html

Notice the mention of sulfates and the color black in the laser attenuation paint. This stuff already exists. I'm not making it up.

http://72.14.235.132/search?q=cache:q5ov4B4Ij9UJ:h...

This paint utilizes both reflective and absorptive materials. Note again that carbon black is amongst the ingredients, though this one lacks the sulfates I mentioned in my original reply.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/3792916.html

This patent outlines another black paint which is used to absorb and reflect the energy from a laser.

Anyways, you email them and tell them how stupid the idea of black paint as shielding is. You can present them with your advanced credentials and I'm sure they'll follow your advice.

It's not a matter of me being right or wrong, it's about my habit of reading. I just happened to know that black is a conductive color that will absorb and diffuse the energy from light, including from a laser. Graphite and sulfates are a few of the ways to go.

Anyways, as the complete idiot in this topic (for having tried to enlighten you), I will now bow out of this pointless discussion. As the saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make 'im drink. Have fun trying to prove to the experts in this field that their choice of colors is wrong.


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By 91TTZ on 4/8/2009 8:31:09 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to lack even the most fundamental understanding of the subject that you're speaking about.

You're confusing the technology used for laser safety curtains (designed to absorb the laser energy to protect people's eyes) with the technology used to protect a missile (designed to reflect the energy away so the missile body doesn't heat up as quickly)

The coating on the safety curtains will absorb the laser energy and turn it to heat, but that's ok since the lasers they're used for are relatively low power. Since the primary objective is to protect people's eyes by preventing the laser from reflecting, the heating is an acceptable side affect.

The missile must be coated with something completely different. The lasers used to shoot them down are extremely high power and will melt the body of the missile if it absorbs too much energy. In this case you'd want to reflect as much energy as possible. Protecting people's eyes is not a consideration.


By Jim28 on 4/8/2009 1:28:58 PM , Rating: 2
He also forgets that absorbing a few MW is a bad day for everyone! I guess he never thought on why the optics for these lasers are so massive, or are super clean?
I wonder what degree he got at university? Whatever it was it did not include math or physics, must have been leisure studies or forestry.


By TheSpaniard on 4/7/2009 1:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
ok so you've shown me something that absorbs the laser... where do you think that energy is going?


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/2009 3:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Well, I'm glad you actually read it. It dissipates throughout the coating. If the missile is the target, then simply having it spin would mean the laser would not be able to target a specific area to heat up and pierce. The black paint would absorb the energy and dissipate it. The exception to this rule is if the laser is actually larger than the shield itself, as was explained in one of the articles I read about the matter. The shielding that I linked to will manage 1.2kw for 3 minutes. The weapons grade lasers that I've looked at are talking about 10~20kw. I don't know how much energy a laser would lose over a 1+km distance, but certainly there would be some loss. Furthermore, keeping the laser on the target long enough for the missile to destruct might prove to be difficult, if not impossible on modern missiles.

In any case, I really don't see laser weapons as effective against real military threats. on the other hand, if they do perfect this, it would be the perfect weapon for terrorists who want to hit civilians.

I don't know, people watch stuff like this http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&client=f... and probably believe what they see.


By TheSpaniard on 4/7/2009 6:29:34 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying, but its a bit more than just black paint... which is what I thought you were refering to.

and yes while the laser efficiently targeting the missile is unlikely... the goal is not to pierce the casing, but to warp it, altering its trajectory


By 91TTZ on 4/8/2009 11:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The shielding that I linked to will manage 1.2kw for 3 minutes. The weapons grade lasers that I've looked at are talking about 10~20kw.


Weapons grade lasers are still a relatively new technology, but their power is already much higher than 10-20kw. The THEL and MTEL (the one Israel was developing) had a power of about 1 megawatt, and that system was built 10 years ago. The ABL that we've been working on has a 3 MW laser.


By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 4:01:02 PM , Rating: 2
To a Scientology energy base on the populated side of Mars.


By Clairvoyance on 4/7/2009 11:42:59 PM , Rating: 2
The technology in this laser curtain is not relevant to military applications.

1. It's not the black color that makes it laser resistant - it's black to prevent laser reflections for eye safety (that's what they mean by diffusion; the rough black surface captures stray reflections). This obviously isn't a concern when dealing with a missile, so any hypothetical anti-laser coating will be as reflective as possible. Black does absorb radiation (which is bad), and is proportionally a better radiator of energy, which doesn't really enhance survivability. Thermal conductivity is what you want, not the color black, which only absorbs more energy.

2. This material is designed to rapidly absorb and distribute the laser's energy within its own structure (to prevent the buildup of energy in a concentrated space). That, among other properties, takes weight (most thermally conductive materials are metals, and you also need mass as a heat sink). This thing is essentially a metal wall; it's most certainly NOT just a "coat of black paint", which would be worse than useless.

3. This curtain is designed for use against low power, continuous wave lasers. 1200 W/cm, and for only 3 minutes, is not a lot; the minimum power for an effective military laser is generally accepted at 100 kW, almost 100 times more powerful. Northrop's new 100 kW solid state laser would deliver this curtain's rated absorption in about 2 seconds - and it would certainly overload the curtain, since you now have 2 seconds instead of 3 minutes to conduct energy away from the impact site. Even worse, any operational military laser will also certainly be pulsed, delivering its energy in less than a tenth of a second.

4. How much does this thing weigh again?

5. While research into anti-laser coatings is indeed ongoing, it doesn't involve technology found in this barrier, which is designed for a very different set of requirements. Countermeasures may include: highly reflective coatings, projectile rotation, extremely high speed projectiles to limit defender reaction and laser dwell time, or stealth.
Fundamental problems they run into are the simple fact that very high energy and power of lasers make things difficult, omnipresent weight and cost issues, and design compromises (such as inherent problems with hypervelocity munitions). Time will tell if anti-laser countermeasures will prove itself a viable science, but IMHO this arms race is weighted in favor of the laser.


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/09, Rating: -1
RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 11:01:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Heavy vehicles with good armor are already off the list of scenarios that the laser weapons would be effective against.


I guess you missed the memo about HERF weapons frying electronics then?


RE: I think everyone is forgetting the "L" word.
By wordsworm on 4/7/2009 11:54:36 AM , Rating: 1
... I wasn't talking about HERF. Why are you bringing it up when the discussion is on lasers? Even HERF isn't all that difficult to guard against if you employ standard (for the military) shielding. If they didn't, a single nuke detonated about 100km over North America would be enough to neutralize the (unshielded) US military.


By Amiga500 on 4/7/2009 1:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
Do you know what a laser beam is "composed" of?

Do you know what HERF stands for?

Or did you skip out the school year where they teach you about the electromagnetic spectrum and EM waves?


By slashbinslashbash on 4/7/2009 8:19:50 AM , Rating: 1
I just read all of the comments in this thread. IMO the people arguing for the F22 are basing their arguments on wrong assumptions. If their assumptions are right -- of course keep the F22. If not, the F22 makes no sense.

If we go to war with China or Russia, it will not be a war fought with infantry, tanks, battleships, or fighter jets. It will be a war fought with ICBM's and cruise missiles (or possibly the same thing but launched from space). End of story. Long-range missiles can carry out a non-defendable first strike against all surface assets, including carrier groups and air bases. When those assets are wiped out, then it won't matter how many or what type of fighter jets we have, as they will not be able to refuel, re-arm, or anything else. In such a scenario, the only thing that matters is hardened missile silos, submarines and other covert mobile launch platforms, and intelligence.

Other war-scenarios include stuff against lesser powers or terrorist groups. In such cases, air superiority is assured with current tech as well as the F35.




By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 8:46:57 AM , Rating: 3
Of course infantry will be needed. Or are you saying that the next war will just be about who can damage the other the most without trying to make any territorial gain? Or in other words, a somewhat pointless conflict.

You will always need infantry on the ground, holding positions. You will always need armour to support that infantry. You will always need some sort of air support to protect that armour and your infantry.

Sure, missiles (ICBM and cruise) can do a lot of damage and can soften up areas but without feet on the ground you achieve nothing except denial of ground, building and equipment, for a while, then you'll have to hit it again, and again, and again.....

It seems that all we hear about is air strike this and cruise missile that but a lot of the work is done by troops, it just isn't recorded on camera and isn't so interesting to watch on the news, all a bit too bloody and personal, unlike those nice TV images of cross hairs on buildings and bridges that destroy them without hurting anyone.


By slashbinslashbash on 4/7/2009 9:32:20 AM , Rating: 2
And are you really saying that China or Russia will invade mainland USA out of a desire for new territory? Or, conversely, that we will invade them? I can see a war between China and Russia, but our natural defenses (big oceans on both sides) and the realities of national conflicts make the question moot for Americans. Or do you really believe that (relatively well-armed) American civilians would submit to Russians or Chinese on the streets? Or vice-versa? The idea is absurd on its face -- there won't be troops on the ground until all the population is wiped out by bombs. This isn't Europe in 1940, when much of the population was illiterate and national, ethnic, and linguistic boundaries had been fluid for as long as anybody could remember. We are talking about strange-looking people from the other side of the world speaking a language you can't understand, invading your country at gunpoint and taking over. The US is having a hard enough time doing this in Iraq; you seriously think China could do it to the US?

Seriously, if this is the best argument you can come up with, my point is already won.

Just to address your argument a bit more: I am fully aware that current wars require infantry doing a lot of dirty jobs. I'm not picking on troops or minimizing their impact. I am talking about a specific scenario: a hot war between major powers. Not a lopsided conflict between a Third World country and a major power where the major power's basic goal is pacification (in which, as I pointed out in my previous post, air superiority can be taken care of quite handily with current tech).


By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 10:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
You came up with the rather unlikely scenario of a war with Russia and China. What is the point in a war where you wipe out everybody anyway? Your whole comment is essentially pointless. If there was a war with china or Russia at some stage troops would be needed, unless you were fighting an utterly pointless war with any sort of point other than total mutual destruction.

Back in the real world (instead of your rather strange mind) wars are normally fought for a reason, that reason is invariably territory. The territory will need to be secured and at the end of the day, you can only do that with feet on the ground. They are also needed for constructing bases and infrastructure to carry on the fight closer to the enemy. If the USA goes to war with Russia or China they probably won't be fighting on Russian, Chinese or US soil, it will probably be in Africa or some other area of Asia for natural resources or such like, who knows?


By slashbinslashbash on 4/7/2009 11:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
First off, I was basing my original argument as a general reply to a lot of the previous commenters who had specific things to say about the F-22 vs. the F-35. Keep that in mind, I am only using my total war scenario (which I acknowledge is very far-fetched) as a hypothetical to illustrate that we don't need the F-22, because the arguments that the other commenters are making for the F-22 only make sense in such a total war context.

Now -- regardless of where the war with China or Russia takes place -- sub-launched cruise missiles and other BM's are *still* capable of taking out our air bases and/or carriers in a first strike. That is what I am talking about. Why would they skirmish with our planes in the air when they could blow them up on the ground and there would be nothing we could do to stop them, absolutely no defense whatsoever? Planes must operate from a base, whether fixed on land or somewhat mobile at sea (but still an easy target for missiles). Given that every square inch of the Earth's surface is under constant surveillance by satellites, carrier groups are sitting ducks. Air bases are sitting ducks. Even if all the planes were scrambled before the missiles hit, they would have a limited amount of time and distance in the air before they would have to land, refuel, re-arm, etc. I wonder if you really read my original post.

I agree with your points about why wars are fought. Of course the point is usually territory or something attached to territory (resources). Of course I am not talking scorched earth with nukes. You are right, at one point troops on the ground are needed for there to be any point at all. My whole point is that given current missile, sub, and satellite tech, jet fighters are pretty much moot.


By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 11:39:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I am only using my total war scenario (which I acknowledge is very far-fetched) as a hypothetical to illustrate that we don't need the F-22
Why even bother saying this? You admit that it is a very unlikely scenario but that is enough to explain why the fighter's are needed? What about all the other much more likely scenarios? Oh yeah, they are null and void in your strange world.

I can make up a scenario that proves my point but if it has no bases in reality then it's not worth posting, is it?

You're examples are just so extreme as to be pointless. You might as well be arguing that North Korea are going to launch rockets into space and attach them to the moon so that they can ram it into Washington.


By slashbinslashbash on 4/7/2009 12:13:14 PM , Rating: 2
This will be my last attempt to explain this concept to you. If you still don't get it after this then I will know you are just a troll.

People are claiming we need the F-22 to maintain superiority against the Chinese and Russians. I am saying that if we get into a war with the Chinese or Russians, it will not make any difference whether we have F-22's, because the Chinese/Russians will use missiles (against which there is currently no defense) to take out our air bases and carriers, so whatever aircraft we have will be useless anyway.


By Tyndel on 4/7/2009 2:18:57 PM , Rating: 2
Actually its rather unlikely that you would see a large volume of ballistic or sub based cruise missiles in a war with Russia or China even if they were attacking mainland US.

They both know that the US can't use Nuclear weapons easily and if you start throwing those types of weapons around you are going to give someone an excuse somewhere to "mistake" it for a mutual annihilation scenario.

Its much more likely that you would see a huge fast invasion by both countries working together Russia from the North and China from the south in a shock and awe pincer move. Eliminate the US' manufacturing capabilities and move the fighting to urban civilian gorilla warfare as quickly as possible while the UN made a series of strongly worded emails to their ambassadors.


By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:26:57 PM , Rating: 2
We'd see a massive ground attack like that on the continental US coming with a huge lead time.


By Spuke on 4/7/2009 4:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
First, the Russians ain't coming from the north through the country of Canada unabated and without SERIOUS lead time. We would ALL see them coming and drop the appropriate amount of bombs. And coming across the ocean? LOL! Even easier to spot and easier to intercept especially with carrier battlegroups AND submarines on 24/7 duty. Coming here would cripple any incoming army and leave either countries homes open to attack from other countries. In order to get the job done right would entail a massive amount of resources, coordination and manpower. All of which we monitor. Any pickup of communication such an invasion would require would give it all away.

Just massing the troops necessary would signal an attack and do you really think we or our allies would let millions of invasion troops amass without attacking them first? China and Russia massing troops at the same time would raise quite a few extremely nervous eyebrows. Hell, nevermind us, there are some other countries that would consider that an act of war and attack accordingly. Lastly, both China and Russia would be cutting off a HUGE source money and resources as both countries would be immediately be placed on the you get nothing list. Ask Cuba how that feels.


By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 2:19:17 PM , Rating: 2
Oh dear. You can try to take some kind of strange hi ground and begin the name calling if you like, that's your prerogative, but it only serves to make your already tenuous argument look more silly and desperate.

I have better things to do with my evening than waste them on you. I'm not the only person to point out how silly your comment was, but I'm sure they were to stupid to understand your genius or something.

Good day *tips hat.


By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 11:03:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If we go to war with China or Russia, it will not be a war fought with infantry, tanks, battleships, or fighter jets. It will be a war fought with ICBM's and cruise missiles (or possibly the same thing but launched from space). End of story.


No, that's not the end of story. Why would two nations opt for a full-scale nuclear war when they could fight a conventional war?

Any engagement between the US, Russia, or China would most likely be a limited skirmish over a territorial dispute rather than an apocalyptic, full scale nuclear war.


By slashbinslashbash on 4/7/2009 11:39:12 AM , Rating: 2
If you care to read my post, I am not talking about an apocalyptic, full scale nuclear war. I made no mention of such a thing. ICBM refers to the missile, not the payload. Maybe I should write this in outline form, so it's easier to follow.

1. Aircraft must operate from a surface base of some sort.
2. Said surface bases are easily seen via satellite imaging.
3. Said bases are therefore easily taken out by long-range missiles, against which there is currently no defense. (e.g. Detonate a small nuke over a carrier group, or use conventional warheads against ground bases)
4. Since all aircraft operational bases will be destroyed in a first strike, said aircraft will be able to fly at most one mission before they become useless in a hot war with an advanced sovereign power.
5. There is no reason to have F-22's, since F-22's would only be used in scenarios against major powers which have access to large numbers of cruise missiles and ICBM's, which can be used in step 3 above. Against weaker powers, the F-35 will be sufficient.


By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 2:59:39 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you care to read my post, I am not talking about an apocalyptic, full scale nuclear war. I made no mention of such a thing. ICBM refers to the missile, not the payload


ICBM's are only used for nukes. There are no conventional ICBMS. It would be too costly to use a giant missile to loft a small conventional warhead across the world. The type of warhead that ICBM's carry are not very heavy.


By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 3:50:00 PM , Rating: 2
Your theory about CBMs and/or cruise missles has been around for a long long time, it's nothing new. MAD is what deters nuclear warfare. As for cruise missiles I don't know, I suppose that's wat intelligence and recon are for, at least for warnings. Maybe there's too much institutionalized belief in the military about what are ultimately tweaked WW2 forces and hardware so they just don't care or are in denial.


Seeing is believing
By droplets on 4/7/2009 1:46:53 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps it's not necessary to see it in action, but if you have seen an F-22 fly upclose at any airshow, you quickly realize what a powerful weapon it is. I got the shivers. But 187 is plenty and money well spent would be to maintain these aircraft and bring pilots on the same level as the awesome power of the F-22.




RE: Seeing is believing
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:47:49 AM , Rating: 2
187 is not "plenty". If it was, the only people who would be trying to get more would be the people building it and its components. But that's not the case. Military analysts and independent research backs up the reality that we need a lot more than 187 in order to maintain supremacy. The phonies who claim 187 are enough care not for the US to maintain its supremacy, only for it to fall to parity with other nations so we can no longer 'do our own thing' but have to submit to the UN and other world bodies.


RE: Seeing is believing
By preslove on 4/7/2009 8:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
"Independent research" paid for by military contractors...


RE: Seeing is believing
By FITCamaro on 4/7/2009 8:28:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah thats why the Defense Department called for 750 originally and only scaled back their numbers because Congress didn't want to spend the money.

But what does the military know?


RE: Seeing is believing
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 8:38:16 AM , Rating: 2
They don't know how to keep things on time and under budget that's for sure.


RE: Seeing is believing
By QuantumPion on 4/7/2009 8:50:44 AM , Rating: 4
And congress does?


RE: Seeing is believing
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 9:29:50 AM , Rating: 2
Look out, it's a strawman! If he only had a brain...


RE: Seeing is believing
By ipay on 4/7/2009 3:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Talking to yourself is one of the first signs of madness, you know.


RE: Seeing is believing
By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 9:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
Assuming procurement works the same way over there as here in the UK the military knows to ask for a crazy sum of money knowing that they will get less than that but hopefully the maximum possible and that when they have a budget they had damn well better spend it else it will be cut next year :)


Come on, people, read a little.
By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 9:19:15 AM , Rating: 2
Why is this even news? And what does this have to do with Obama vs. Bush?

This isn't really "news" at all. It was decided in 2006 under the Bush administration that the final procurement of F-22's would be 183 units, with an option to buy 4 more. Gates recently announced that he will buy the 4 extra units, bringing the total to 187. Once the factories finish producing the 187 aircraft production will end.

The article wasn't about the Obama administration canceling the F-22 program, the article is about the program coming to an end because they will have successfully produced all the units that have been ordered.




RE: Come on, people, read a little.
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 9:28:09 AM , Rating: 2
Stop it with your pesky facts! You'll cause a conniption FIT for some.


RE: Come on, people, read a little.
By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 9:56:56 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not against FIT Camaro. I'm just trying to keep an objective point of view in this conversation, which seems to go against what the people on the far right and far left say.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 4/7/2009 9:36:19 AM , Rating: 2
I think the larger issue here is that this is nothing new. Congress is always crying about military spending, with the intent to axe programs that should be otherwise pushed forward. See: Submarines, Aircraft Carriers, Refueling Tankers, F-22, Osprey, etc....

History has shown us however that many times these "unnecessary" programs would have saved our asses later had we actually followed through with military recommendation. But lets not let the needs of the military get in the weigh of political cost cutting.


We're doomed
By Muskrat Matt on 4/7/2009 12:43:42 AM , Rating: 1
We're going to lose our entire strategic advantage over those shepherds and goat farmers without the Lockheed Martin VH-71. How can they not see this?




RE: We're doomed
By LibertyFace on 4/7/2009 1:16:59 AM , Rating: 1
don't forget, these shepherds, farmers and bearded men living in caves had NORAD stand down on 9/11.


RE: We're doomed
By wordsworm on 4/7/2009 6:28:15 AM , Rating: 2
If you believe the official version of the story, which is riddled with obvious lies. I was hoping that the truth might be investigated once Obama was in, but it appears that such things may be best left unsaid. But, perhaps we can't handle the truth.


Why not supplement with a Eurofighter Typhoon?
By KingConker on 4/7/2009 6:29:15 AM , Rating: 2
You'll get two for the price of one F22 :)

Superior to everything bar the F22 and since the F22 won't be available for export what have you got to lose?

Performance
* Maximum speed:
o At altitude: Mach 2+ (2,495 km/h, 1550 mph)[138][139]
o At sea level: Mach 1.2
o Supercruise: Mach 1.1[137]-1.5[140]
* Range: 2,900 km (1,840 mi)
* Combat radius: 556 km (345 mi[141])
* Ferry range: 3,790 km (2,300 mi)
* Service ceiling: 19,812 m (65,000 ft)
* Rate of climb: >315 m/s[142][143] (62,000 ft/min[144])
* Wing loading: 311 kg/m² (63.7 lb/ft²)
* Thrust/weight: 1.16




By Aloonatic on 4/7/2009 7:04:20 AM , Rating: 2
I'm guessing the USAF and Department for Defence have a policy of only using technology that they have the right to manufacture and improve themselves rather than being simply a client. I think the rights to the harrier, which was a British design, were bought up by the USA so they could manufacture and improve the planes themselves and keep it all internal. This will probably have it's own costs associated with it however, and then you are assuming that the Typhoons creators (whoever they are now, I can't remember who pulled out and built what any more it's changed so often) are willing to sell it on.

Other than that, why not?


Good Riddance To Bad Rubbish
By jpeyton on 4/7/2009 10:32:09 AM , Rating: 2
If anyone wants to point the finger of blame, point it at Lockheed. They did their typical procurement fraud tap dance, running costs for the F22 program WAY over budget. Don't shed a tear for them; they got their money.

It's time we changed the way our military does business with their budget. Warfare of the future will utilize surveillance and intelligence, unmanned drones, more actual feet on the ground, and more special forces. Preparing for WWIII against China and Russia with a fleet of overpriced weaponry is just a redneck wet dream.




By TerranMagistrate on 4/7/2009 9:02:53 PM , Rating: 2
And discarding the possibility of such a war is a foolish mistake.


Always remember....
By Screwballl on 4/7/2009 10:47:41 AM , Rating: 2
Remember what happened the last time we had a liberal President supporting massive defense budget cuts?

Yep, 9/11 and the following battles in sand-land was a direct result of that. Poor intelligence due to reduced funding allowed our previous administration to look dumb (well dumber than he already appeared, WMDs anyone?).

Before that there was Carter that took us to the point of Cuba getting some balls and threatening us... Reagan had to deal with the Cuban Missile Crisis as a direct result.

EVERYTIME we get a liberal president, we end up with some major military based problem either during or just after their administration. Look at history: EVERY MAJOR WAR was started or caused by a Democrat president. That is a cold hard fact.

Look at the dates of the major military events:

* WWI 1914, Woodrow Wilson, Democrat (Taft, Republican refused to join in the battles during his administration)

* WWII 1941, FDR, Democrat (not learning from WWI, FDR stayed out of WWII until the last minute rather than stepping in early and preventing the bloodshed of so many people around the world and effectively stopping the Depression-era effects earlier)

* Korea 1950, Truman, Democrat

* Vietnam 1959, JFK, Democrat (but we had started to send troops as early as 1950)

* Afghanistan and Iraq 2001, events caused by Clinton, Democrat.




RE: Always remember....
By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 12:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
Slept through history class? The only 2 wars that we STARTED on that list would be Iraq (2003) and Afganistan (2001), neither of which were caused by the actions of President Clinton.

We entered WWI when it was in full swing, due to German U-Boats sinking anything and everything they could in the Atlantic.

We entered WWII when it was in full swing because Japan bombed one of our major Naval bases.

We entered Korea after the Communist backed North invaded the American backed South, killing thousands upon thousands.

The Cuban Missle Crisis did'nt happen under Reagan at all, you are thinking JFK. It also had nothing to do with Carter, since it happened in the early 60's.


Critical analysis
By Teh Interwebz on 4/7/2009 11:38:48 AM , Rating: 2
NO TAX MONEY FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY
...except for defence contractors.
(here comes my first -1 rating)

In all seriousness though, he kept all the important stuff like drones, information warfare, and the rest of the technologies that support our war efforts in the future in all possible engagements. The F-22 hasnt even been used in Iraq or Afganistan and we already have 183.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,188...

Gates is simply placing the military in line with the new reality that a war between nation states is not likely in the near future, as well as the fact that most of the FCS programs were way over cost and we dont have the tech to complete them. I might be the tiniest bit worried if we currently had any viable nation-state threats AND we were not in NATO AND our defence budget didnt already rival the rest of the world combined.

All the things he is keeping help us in our insurgency wars as well as any nation-state war so its much more cost effective. We will continue to modernize through DARPA instead of building a new platform technology and all from the ground up. Seems very logical to me. Kudos to Gates (a Republican carryover from the last administration lest we forget).




RE: Critical analysis
By Teh Interwebz on 4/8/2009 10:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
Doesnt mention the F-22's but provides info on other programs not receiving further funding.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/04/gates-why-i-...


Good Riddance on a useless project
By today12345 on 4/7/2009 2:41:48 PM , Rating: 2
Good riddance on an outdated, useless, extremely expensive piece of technology. I have tried to read through almost all posts and although almost every single one of them have been very insightful, only very few of them fails to grasp the current trends in technology and even fewer attempts to and successfully explain why we should be overjoyed on why such a program that sucks up huge amounts of money is being rightly put to rest.

140 million dollars per plane is ALOT of money. Perhaps in the engineering sector where millions are thrown around like pocket change and billion dollar projects are commonplace but 140 million dollars PER PLANE IS ALOT especially for a unit that is unrealistic with future trends, that is the drive for smaller and more efficient machines; essentially biotechnology and nanotechnology.

Unless you have been living under a rock, nanotechnology and biotechnology is the future. Why exactly would you build a 140 million dollar plane when you can design nanobots to infiltrate enemy airbases and perhaps cause mechanical failures in their aircraft. Better yet, why not invade the human host and kill the target? Why worry about missles when you can reinforce the armor plating of you tanks and aircraft with carbon nanotube plates?
Why drop nukes to destroy cities where you can instead release genetically engineered viruses or bacterias to target the specific population. All else fails, release neurotoxins which can destroy cities in the smallest of quantities? Do you think the US will abide by the Geneva convention if Russia or China starts dropping nukes?

I'm a staunch Democratic, no doubt about it, but I support Gates 100% on his intention on killing this overpriced program. Some of you are extremely shortsighted and fail to realize that the MOST IMPORTANT thing in the military is intelligence: it keeps yours soldiers alive and you cities free from terrorism. We are extremely fortunate to have a Defense Secretary who came form the CIA and I am sure understands that preventing attacks is more important than having to outright deal with them.

The 140 million dollars SAVED from deciding not to spend on this outdated piece of technology can be used for nanobot research in universities which are starting to see a decrease in their research budgets because of less and less government assistance. If 10 planes were not created, over a billion would have been saved and could have been utilized in the weaponization of viruses and bacteria or for nanotechnology development.

The only drawback to Gates's decision is the loss of possibly 100,000 jobs which is unfortunate yet necessary. Perhaps they will take comfort in knowing that atleast they have Obama for president who will try to lesson their burden of living and give them time to get back on their feet as opposed to Bush who would have let them rot. In any case, those lost 100,000, means 100,000 new jobs in sectors that the government will redistribute the money towards (hopefully nanotechnology and biology).

Unlike the former Bush Administration, the new administration seems to understand that preventative, whether in the fields of health care or technology, is more important that responding to current crises. Our research budgets SHRANK in the face of Bush, Obama seems to want to reverse this unfortunate trend.




By 91TTZ on 4/8/2009 8:40:47 AM , Rating: 2
You seem to have missed the facts and your entire post was misdirected.

Gates didn't cancel the project. Back in the Bush administration, they ordered 183 fighters. Gates said that he'll go ahead with Bush's plans and build all of the fighters that the Bush administration recommended PLUS 4 additional units. Once they're all built the program will be complete and the assembly line will shut down.

This is COMPLETELY different than what most people in this thread seem to think, which is that the Obama administration wanted to move in a different direction and canceled the project.


By LoweredExpectations on 4/7/2009 4:20:02 PM , Rating: 2
Yep, there's nothing like a profitable war and a US-friendly client-state to make corporate America smile - it's definitely worth a trillion squandered tax dollars (and remember 2/3rds of all American corps. pay no taxes at all!) and sacrificed working-class lives to make the world safe for American big business and our pals the Israelis. You guys need to read more and stop relying on Fox news for info. Do you really think Bush spent all that money and sacrificed all those lives just so some Arab could vote?! LOL! The bone-headed naivety of you people never ceases to astound. What would the ruling class do without all the willing drones to spread the propaganda. Tell Joe Sixpack what he wants to hear about guns, Jesus and gay-marriage and he'll send his kid to die in some stupid war that benefits nobody but the rich who really control this country.




By the3monkies on 4/7/2009 4:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
It is ironic that deception and lies are the inevitable consequences of a democratic system. If told the truth, the guy on the street wouldn't sacrifice his own interests for the benefit of those who really rule this country. That's what Fox and Rush Limbaugh ("may he choke on his own neck fat") are really about.


F-22 not cost worthy
By Captain828 on 4/7/2009 1:03:33 AM , Rating: 1
IMHO, it's a good thing they're ending this program. A F-22 costs a hell lot more than a F-35, yet the F-35 has most of the features of the previous model.




By inperfectdarkness on 4/7/2009 3:11:22 AM , Rating: 2
negative, ghostrider.

i tire of defending the f22 every other week. the idiotic lunacy has firmly established its poisonous hold on america.

the f22 cost is mostly in the r&d--money already spent, even if it is neo-fitted to the f35. bailing out gm & chrysler will have far less lasting effect on our economy than continued production of the c17 & the f22. at least with the jets--you know they're wanted & will be used; can't really say the same thing for your average chevy.

p.s. anyone suggesting that we can sustain a viable air-campaign by using moth-balled fighters from davis-monthan is a raving lunatic. i suggest they attempt to pilot a mig-21 in aerial-combat against a "typical" f15c in order to get the feeling of what they're suggesting our pilots do with f4's (and older) against su-30mkk's.


No Sale
By Jypster on 4/7/2009 4:29:18 AM , Rating: 3
Australia wanted to buy 20 or 30+ as out beloved F111s are getting a bit long in the tooth. The F22s are more suited to our needs than the F35. Defense Secretary Robert Gates gave the go ahead but Laws would have to be changed in your Congress to allow the sale which is pretty unlikely. Hopefull this might be looked at again as it would inject money into your economy plus lower the overall cost of the planes to both of us.




God forbid anyone actually use logic...
By Iaiken on 4/7/2009 11:36:24 AM , Rating: 1
God forbid anyone actually use logic...

First of all, the fighter and its performance characteristics are irrelevant when you look at the big picture.

Let's look at some facts:

1. The United States maintains military superiority through economic superiority.
2. The military is funded by the tax payer.
3. If the economy plummets for an extended period of time, tax revenues drop.
4. If tax revenues drop, military spending must run in a deficit situation.
5. If credit for funding a deficit cannot be secured, people don't get paid.
6. If people don't get paid, the system breaks down.

No nation can run a deficit forever.

The Soviet Union tried... it failed.

Now, the Iraq war has been a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars that could have been better spent on the ACTUAL war on terror. Individuals naysayers can try to justify it till they are blue in the face, but the American public knows they were mislead into spending $600 billion to depose a dictator. A dictator who; evil though he may have been, was actually a useful check on Iran.

Before Bush took office, the national debt was 6.1 trillion and during his presidency he managed to run that up to a nice 10.6 trillion. That works out to approximately $13,000 for each and every American above and beyond the balance portion of the budget. What percentage of your after tax salary does that work out to?

With the economy in a recession and likely on its way to a world-wide depression, I find it odd how the ignorant can claim that the government should not adopt a strategy of spending cuts? The national debt before the recession was approximately 80% of total US GDP and with the national GDP falling, how long will it take before debt surpasses worth? Even in the current situation. How does one suppose the nation pay back its creditors? Perhaps higher taxes will help? Or perhaps through trade wars to bankrupt the creditors? Or maybe everyone can just pray really REALLY hard?

If you believe in free market economics, if you believe that democracy can work, if any of this disturbs you, perhaps you should write your member of congress. Otherwise, feel free to keep on bitching about it on DailyTech instead of doing something useful...




By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 1:31:37 PM , Rating: 2
Spending cuts and small government are great talking points...unless the suggested cut is in military budget or size. ;) The military isn't part of the government didntchaknow?!


By Guttersnipe on 4/7/2009 1:45:07 AM , Rating: 2
we need to keep the f22.
if this goes through the dems will never live it down




Funny
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:45:53 AM , Rating: 2
You can see how clearly the F-22 is a politicized issue, in that no one cares so much to discuss the loss of the new helicopter program that was to replace the aging AH-64 Apache. This cut will impact the Army in the way the F-22 will impact the Air Force - an important replacement aircraft that directly impacts that service branch's ability to maintain supremacy which not only ends wars more quickly, but saves lives in the process.




Money & Time Well Spent...
By Aeonic on 4/7/2009 4:55:17 PM , Rating: 2
The numbers of lost jobs seems a bit irrelevant. Either we need a fighter jet or we don't. If we don't, cancel that baby. Jobs will be lost. But instead of building jets we don't need, those people can get jobs elsewhere making things we do need. Like hamburgers. I kid, I kid...

Seriously though, the other side of keeping people employed for the sake of employment is that it's using taxpayer money, and if we're using it to help people out, why not spend it on education or something constructive. Or bail out GM, but require them to un-wussify the volt first.




You guys talk like we're at war
By Shig on 4/7/2009 9:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
If we really need the production, we can always go back and ramp it back up. Chill out.

Apparently we need to maintain a runaway military budget to even be considered 'safe'.




A Poor value assessment by Gates
By FPP on 4/9/2009 4:07:44 PM , Rating: 2
Gates made a poor assessment:

(1) ALL the R&D is paid for

(2) HALF of the fleet is already paid for

(3) A stealthy F15 is $100 million and the F22, with all of it's additional benefits, which are orders of magnitude better, is only $40 million more.

All of this being the case, he's rubbing his worry stone for about $ 4 to 6 billion dollars, over about four to 6 years.

Tell us all, Mr. Obama, what is $1 billion a year in a $600 billion defense budget, that will buy you total air supremacy?

Someone is trying to fool you and it looks pretty easy to me.




Sure Mr. Secretary
By FPP on 4/8/2009 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 1
The fact is, this is one item we really need. If you're going to end a program, it should be the F-35. This plane is really not needed.

The scenario says tha the first part of a war with a top tier enemy is to sweep their air force aside, a role this plane was esigned for. The second role is to sweep the SAM threat aside, which this plane is best suited to.

Once that is over, F16's are more than adequate, so the F35 is really not needed. The vertical lift is a waste of money, because in this day and age, forward basing is more of a threat than ever, so it's crazy to put them in the front of the battle space.

The F35 is really a gen 4.5 plane, lacking supecruise, 50,000plus feet op ceiling, adequate stealth, range, payload and is not advanced enough to dominate other more capable craft.

Just another uselesss move from the President who bitched about money then passed the biggest deficit budget in history.




Sure Mr. Secretary
By FPP on 4/8/2009 5:55:02 PM , Rating: 1
The fact is, this is one item we really need. If you're going to end a program, it should be the F-35. This plane is really not needed.

The scenario says that the first part of a war with a top tier enemy is to sweep their air force aside, a role this plane was esigned for. The second role is to sweep the SAM threat aside, which this plane is best suited to.

Once that is over, F16's are more than adequate, so the F35 is really not needed. The vertical lift is a waste of money, because in this day and age, forward basing is more of a threat than ever, so it's crazy to put them in the front of the battle space.

The F35 is really a gen 4.5 plane, lacking supecruise, 50,000plus feet op ceiling, adequate stealth, range, payload and is not advanced enough to dominate other more capable craft.

Just another useless move from the President who bitched about money then passed the biggest deficit budget in history.




By Tsuwamono on 4/6/2009 11:38:02 PM , Rating: 5
ya cause having alot of F22 fighters is obviously more important then fixing your economy.


By vcolon on 4/7/2009 7:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
You moron. Obama just nailed your coffin.


By Wierdo on 4/7/2009 7:43:53 AM , Rating: 3
I think we'll be ok...

http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_cont...

"Our military budget is as big as the rest of the world's military budgets combined."


By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 11:51:12 AM , Rating: 2
He has a coffin fetish?


By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 1:26:04 PM , Rating: 2
Only after he got done nailing your mom. *ZING*


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/6/2009 11:38:30 PM , Rating: 2
Do we REALLY need more than 187 F-22s? If we've got complementary F-35s backing them up as our frontline of defense, I'd say we'll be alright.

I don't know how much life the F-16's have in them, but we've got a crapload of those in our arsenal don't we?

Regardless, I'm not a military expert so I'm gonna shut my mouth up now :-)


By lexluthermiester on 4/7/2009 12:00:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Regardless, I'm not a military expert so I'm gonna shut my mouth up now :-)


No, You have a great point!, Plus we have a grunt-load of fighters in storage all over the southwest. It would take months to get a lot of them up and running. So we are not hurting for defensive airborne firepower. And you are right about the F-35. A cheaper very versatile fighter. But you forgot to mention the F-18 fleet....


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/7/2009 12:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
I don't usually think of Navy planes as our front line of defense, but I guess you could count the Super Hornets ;)


By lexluthermiester on 4/7/2009 1:03:09 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, but the Navy is not the exclusive user of F-18 variants. The biggest, but not the only...


By msomeoneelsez on 4/8/2009 4:23:37 PM , Rating: 2
Why was he rated down? He asked a question...

If it was because he forgot an "s" on the end, then dang... people have GOT to let that go... its a frieken letter...


By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 4:33:21 AM , Rating: 2
In a way the Navy carrier fleet could be considered more front line since they can be deployed from any ocean.


By ikkeman on 4/7/2009 12:20:51 AM , Rating: 2
F-16, F-16, F18 are among the best of current combat aircraft. as are Eurofighter, Rafale, flanker, fulcrum. The current US arsenal is losing it's edge. In 10-20 years the F-teen series will be as obsolete as the F-4 and it's contemporaries.

F-35 is cheaper, but of similar value for money. There is nothing out there, not even on the drawing boards, that comes close to competing with the Raptor. The F-35, at something like 1/4 to 1/2 the cost wil have a similar performance drop.


By Goty on 4/7/2009 12:19:48 AM , Rating: 3
Better spent? As in how the government is in the process of spending nearly a trillion dollars on projects that are widely considered to be frivolous at best and harebrained at worst?


By ttucker99 on 4/7/2009 12:50:04 AM , Rating: 3
I think the 80 to 100 thousand people across the country working on the program would argue that the money spent on F-22 is being spent on the economy. All of them use the money to buy food, clothing, houses, cars....


By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/7/2009 12:57:29 AM , Rating: 2
And if we don't need those planes anymore, they should keep working because???????

I understand your point, but there's not much to be done if the product you produce is no longer needed.


By gaakf on 4/7/2009 1:08:13 AM , Rating: 4
The bonuses those corporate executives are getting back are going into the economy too. Who else would buy those gold sinks, marble floors, and Lamborghini sports cars?

You can call any spending 'stimulus', but you can't always call it efficient.


By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 11:58:24 AM , Rating: 2
They are buying those things from Europe, how does that help the US economy?


By Spuke on 4/7/2009 4:18:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They are buying those things from Europe, how does that help the US economy?
Because they're buying them from US dealerships that pay taxes to the local economy. Not to mention the owners and employees of said dealerships live here and pay taxes, buy food, homes, etc here.


By teohhanhui on 4/7/2009 12:54:25 AM , Rating: 2
Is 187 enough to fight the Decepticons? :P


By gaakf on 4/7/2009 1:01:21 AM , Rating: 2
Judging from the movie? Yes.


By LibertyFace on 4/7/2009 1:23:39 AM , Rating: 2
The F-22 has a 144:0 kill ratio


By ClownPuncher on 4/7/2009 12:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
So effectively we have 26928 worth of fighter planes out of the 187 we own.


By MrBungle123 on 4/7/2009 11:11:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
that money being spent on F-22s would be better spent on our economy.


The money the government is spending "on the economy" would be better off just never being taxed out of the private sector or borrowed from China in the first place.


By Nfarce on 4/7/2009 1:07:43 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Bama admin has their priorities all screwed up IMO


Gates is a holdover from the Bush Administration after everyone called for Rumsfeld's head. Gates is behind the F-22 cut. Rummy p!ssed a lot of people off, but at least he was a Naval Aviator (F-9F Panther). Gates was no aviator. Gates was a CIA head, the same position George HW Bush once held.

Point being, there is a lot more behind these cuts than Obama - and I am certainly not defending the Obama Administration here.


By 91TTZ on 4/7/2009 2:30:20 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Gates is a holdover from the Bush Administration after everyone called for Rumsfeld's head. Gates is behind the F-22 cut. Rummy p!ssed a lot of people off, but at least he was a Naval Aviator (F-9F Panther). Gates was no aviator. Gates was a CIA head, the same position George HW Bush once held.


Actually Rumsfeld was behind the F-22 cuts, not Gates. The current limit of 183 aircraft (with 4 optional) was decided during the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review, which was overseen by Rumsfeld. Gates didn't take over until later that year.


Good news
By etriky on 4/6/09, Rating: -1
RE: Good news
By ikkeman on 4/7/2009 12:07:27 AM , Rating: 3
but what about the next decades.
The F22 supercedes the F15 after 30 years of service, the F15 superceded the F4, after 15 years of services.
A very simple trend would indicate the F-22 should last some 45 to 60 years.
are you able to predict what you need in 10 years???


RE: Good news
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 4/7/2009 12:14:00 AM , Rating: 2
Isn't the F-35 our last large-scaled manned fighter platform? I thought we were headed to unmanned platforms for the next generation.


RE: Good news
By ikkeman on 4/7/2009 12:31:10 AM , Rating: 3
nope, it's supposed to become that. THe F-16 is.
Yes, we're probably headed to unmanned platforms. These are now represented by predators, global hawks and many smaller types. These are now all scout platforms, like the planes during WWI. they will bo through a similar development process. scout to bombing (predator with hellfire), bombing to self defence air to air, defensive air to air to offensive air to air and then multirole. Then you're close to current manned platforms.
Unmanned close air support is many decades in the future, so let's make sure we have something to keep our edge till that time...


RE: Good news
By WoWCow on 4/7/2009 1:25:15 AM , Rating: 2
OK, let's be honest with ourselves...

The F-16 is an aging workhorse. It is by no means a terrible aircraft but with nations playing hardball and developing aircraft rivaling the US it will simply not do in this era.

Must you be reminded the the tiny Republic of China in Taiwan operates these same aircraft (F-16)? Mainland China certainly isn't intimidated by them and have superior aircraft in the Su-27.

The proud f-14s that the US has retired? Well, last I checked, the Iranians still have them in service and they still rival much of the aircraft in service.

The f-15, as you well know is going through some major evaluation process and repairs. That leaves the US with the intermittent F/A-18s being ready as the core for the next 10 years or so.

The F-35 is slated to replace all of these previous generation aircraft... in 20 years. Will it provide successful services as its predecessors? Maybe, but I have some doubts.

The thing that pains me the most is that the F-22 could have been the icon of modern air forces for the next 20 years as the F-15 phases out and the US is killing it with the hope that it will have the better jet than its rivals after 20 years with the F-35.


RE: Good news
By static1117 on 4/7/2009 2:28:26 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm...I tend to think of this like a personal budget kinda thing, and its gonna be loosely related so bear with me.

This economic crisis can be compared to a sudden unaccounted for financial expense such as a new motor or tranny for your car, or dental work, or hospital bills. These things must be taken care of, its paramount that they be taken care of. The question is, to what extent should you shift your finances to take care of them? Should you take away from your savings/emergency money? What about a retirement fund.

I know this is very very basic, but the F-22, in terms of an Air Force asset, is our current generations retirement fund of sorts. The F-35 is a nice piece of work, but is still being tested and wont be ready for a few more years. F-16 are nearing their life cycle, and have already had their max hours bumped. The F-15, God Bless the F-15, but it is OLD. Still uses pulleys and cables and isn't very "electric" like the F-16 is. I wont talk about Navy assets because I know nothing about them.

We need the F-22 plain and simple. It gives us worldwide air superiority, and whether you like it or not, Russia and China are still developing next gen fighters to match or exceed the capabilities of the F-22. Now the question that you need to ask yourselves is whether or not its important for us to remain at the head of the pack or not.

I think we need to be the best, and to be the best we have to have the best. The F-22 is the best, and will be for some time. Sure its expensive, and sure we also have to think about our economy (or those hospital bills as it were), but the fact is that the government is spending that money one way or another. Its going to either go to a bank, or GM, or we could have it go to pay American workers, who in turn support local governments and businesses Needless to say, canceling it is a bad idea.

Oh, and before I forget, the F-35 is a sweet little thing, but it can no sooner defeat the F-22 head to head than the F-4 can the F-15. It wont have the same capabilities. The JSF is going to be sold to other countries and used for multi role, which will be awesome for all of the aging F-16's out there.


RE: Good news
By web2dot0 on 4/7/2009 6:01:05 AM , Rating: 3
We have the best .... 187 of them. We're just not going to build more of them.

Let's get back to basics and be more pragmatic rather than living the dream of "Bigger faster stronger". You don't win wars and rein in fiscal responsibility by doing alot of chest bumping and flag waving.

The whole point of this exercise is to start focusing on building things that we need for Afghanistan. You know, the war are committed to continues for many years to come. Those F-22 are no good to us in Afghan.

In the meantime, those 187 F-22s will surely keep us safe from China, Russia.

All in all, a good pragmatic approach to achieve the end goal without spending out of control.


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 7:13:04 AM , Rating: 2
But it won't make our world-peen bigger!!!11


RE: Good news
By jay401 on 4/7/2009 7:43:24 AM , Rating: 1
The "basics" are that 187 F-22s do not suffice. If they did, nobody would have a problem with the production stoppage outside of Lockheed and other defense industry personnel.


RE: Good news
By Teh Interwebz on 4/7/2009 12:26:17 PM , Rating: 2
Personnally I dont put much trust in the uninformed masses, the talking heads looking to rile the public and make a buck, or the congressmen who F-22 production lines in their districts.


RE: Good news
By Calin on 4/7/2009 3:17:54 AM , Rating: 2
I have no idea about the F-14 worth relating with other similar planes, but they were a maintenance nightmare, 5 times as intensive as the planes that replaced them.


RE: Good news
By gemsurf on 4/7/2009 9:11:21 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and they were prone to flame outs!! Just ask Pete Mitchell


RE: Good news
By gemsurf on 4/7/2009 9:19:28 AM , Rating: 2
Sorry! I couldn't resist!

On a more serious note, what hasn't been discussed here is the deterent factor! If you have 500 bad assed F22's in the inventory, you will dominate the skys. Knowing that, adversaries are far less likely to get all fiesty. Look at recent history of warfare. When you dominate the sky, you win the military end of any conflict! Period. You save countless lives of your troops who have to go in, and finish it off.

Ask the Germans and Japanese from WW2. They controlled the skys early and were winning. Once that dominance shifted to the other side, the result was only a matter of time.

We need to have air superiority to the extent that anyone knows we will control the skies. It has and will continue to be our most important deterrent to war.


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 9:29:09 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, really? One word: Vietnam.


RE: Good news
By gemsurf on 4/7/2009 10:05:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for helping to make the point! We didn't have air superiority in vietnam (not because we couldn't have), and look at the result! Any questions?


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 10:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
We had enough air superiority to carpet bomb with B-52s. Air superiority doesn't have to be like Iraq I and II to be militarily useful. I'm also pretty sure we've had your type of air superiority aka unnopposed dominance in Iraq I and II and Afghanistan, the Soviets had it in Afghanistan. There examples both ways I'm sure it's just that it needs to be in context of what kind of war is being fought.


RE: Good news
By jcbond on 4/7/2009 11:01:53 AM , Rating: 2
In the immortal words of Dan Akroyd, "Jane, you ignorant sl--".
What does that one word mean? We had air superiority and used it to good effect (despite artificial and damaging constraints imposed on the US military). The US never lost a single major engagement. The Tet Offensive that Walter Cronkite made his name on? A crushing defeat for the Communists - as they have readily acknowledged. (BTW, they've also acknowledge the huge debt that they owed to American news organizations for giving them the political victory that they could never acheive militarily - but I digress) In fact, North Vietnam (the Communists) didn't defeat the South until years after ALL US forces left. And, in fact, they were turned back at one point by the South... with a big dose of aerial support... from guess who? The US.
I'm an ex-soldier from the first Gulf War era. And like most guys who lived in the mud, I have an edge of annoyance with guys who zoom in, drop a few bombs and head back home for steak and lobster. But aerial superiority is key to modern conflict. The smart thing is to do to continue to hone an advantage that you already have now and into the future rather than wait for rivals to appear.
Additionally, our national interests are world-wide, and this will only increase as our elected leadership curtails domestic oil availability under the cover of (for now) lower fuel prices. I have zero interest in depending on the idea that the interests of Russia and China will coincide with ours. They're players in the production and consumption of oil and gas, and have shown plenty of willingness to throw their weight around in Asia and Africa.


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
Next war: Africa! Well, aside from the near constant state of war and lawlessness that's there now. Tha way none of the big players gets really hurt. sucks for the people that live there but what do we care? :(


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
And btw I respect your military service.


RE: Good news
By gemsurf on 4/7/2009 11:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
jcbond- I too am a vet from the vietnam era and I was in aviation both in the USArmy and USAF. We both know what happened in Vietnam and it had nothing to do with those who wore the boots. Had the restraints been lifted and the politicians hadn't wavered on their original committment, this discussion wouldn't be taking place.

And I'm with you. I still become vocally angry when I hear some NOOB say we lost in Vietnam. They have no idea!


RE: Good news
By MadMan007 on 4/7/2009 1:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
If you're referring to me (I don't think you are but maybe)...no one in their right mind, and that includes me, thinks the soldiers lost Vietnam since that is what it looks like you mean by 'we.' But there's no denying it was a failure militarily - the stated objectives, whatever they were and varying over time, were not met.


RE: Good news
By Teh Interwebz on 4/7/2009 12:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have zero interest in depending on the idea that the interests of Russia and China will coincide with ours. They're players in the production and consumption of oil and gas, and have shown plenty of willingness to throw their weight around in Asia and Africa.


Are you implying that if their interests dont coincide we should have the military capability to force them to do what we want? If so we definately do not need more of these planes. If you are saying we would need them should those two countries try to enforce their will on us I would still say we do not need them.
We have enough of every kind of weapon to keep both of those countries combined from attacking us successfully. What we dont have is the manpower to take on 1 billion chinese, which is why funding will be shifted to drones, robots, and information warfare where we can convert our $$$ into military strength more directly.
By no means should all funding conventional weapons be stopped and it is not. We continue to buy other planes, tanks, and ships. In addition research and development continues through DARPA. And if a nation-state war threatens at some point in the future we also have the plans for the F-22 and can begin producing them again if necessary.


RE: Good news
By jcbond on 4/7/2009 2:13:01 PM , Rating: 2
To your first point - about the ability to militarily impose our will
It's not just a matter of who gets to choose - it also a matter of whom do you trust? The US liberated much of Europe from the Fascists of the WWII era - at great cost to this nation in blood and treasure. And forgave the debts of European nations incurred during that era. The US liberated millions in the Middle East - again at great expense to us, despite the laughable notions of some kooks about Halliburton, and gave a people a chance to form a self-governing society where before there existed tyranny. And the US continues to spend billions fighting the Islamic Fascists of this era across the globe.
The US, as the biggest kid on the block, supports freedom because free people and free markets are in our national interest. It enriches both us and our partners.
We export freedom, much like 19th Century Britain used its naval power to break the slave trade.
Granted, I am an American. But I trust the US with a preponderence of military might before I'd trust an ex-KGB thug or the mass-murderers of Tibet and Tiannemen Square.
As to your second point about what to spend and where -
Air power is key - it simply is. Wars are won on land. You will always need an Army that can take and hold ground, whatever that terrain and style of conflict may require. But having complete control of the air means your supply channels are not subject to sudden unexpected attacks, your radar facilities aren't being constantly blinded, your command and control infrastructure is able to maintain contact with units in field. You have a far greater ability to know, go and do than your enemy. If you have to choose (and we don't. We need to continually improve via Air, Land and Sea), air power gives you more bang.
In WWII, the US fielded an indifferent medium tank against the finest of the era (barring the T-32), gave up an edge in infantry (The Garand is nice, but experience and training are key), and generally enjoyed an advantage in artillery. The Nazi's couldn't move on open roads during the day, couldn't supply their troops in the field, and couldn't rest them in the rear areas. That's what Air does for you.


RE: Good news
By Teh Interwebz on 4/7/2009 4:55:58 PM , Rating: 2
What I meant by the first point was that regardless of who we trust all the F-22's in the world are not going to allow us to impose our will on another nation-state that is close to rivalling us. If we tried to invade Russia or China to impose our will as we have been doing in the Middle East then it would be a disaster no matter what forces we have even if nukes weren't launched. The only two ways to even try to curb another strong nation state's power is through a strong and determined diplomatic coalition or a credible threat that you will invade. The latter option should be a last resort against a nation that is actually truly threatening the survival of the US not simply competing against us because the only way for it to work is if we go in to utterly destroy the nation. Occupying a nation to change their mind will never work. But I'm starting to digress.

Secondly, we can dress up our invasion of Afganistan and Iraq all we want but everyone knows we did not go in there to spread democracy. We wanted blood after 9/11 (and rightfully so in my mind) and in Iraq we either wanted to to stop a terrorist/nuclear threat or Bush just had a bone to pick depending on your point of view. Either way the whole, "we invaded to liberate you", idea is just a spin job after the fact. We continue to be there because from past experience we've learned that if you leave after you topple a gov you open the door for a worse gov to take hold. Just to prove my point why have we not invaded half the countries in Africa to give them the same freedoms if that is our goal?

Finally I wholeheartedly agree that air superiority is of the utmost importance, but until our air force is challenged by another force why should we be dumping money on more F-22's which have lingering reliability questions especially when we have other aircraft that can pick up the slack and no current use for the F-22's exact capabilities. Missles and drones have taken over their air to ground strike duties and there are very few airforces if any that can rival the 183 F-22s we have as well as the 660 F-15's we had as of 2007.


RE: Good news
By joeindian1551 on 4/7/2009 9:39:43 AM , Rating: 3
GOOOOOOSE!!! NOOOO!!!


RE: Good news
By RSutcliffe on 4/8/2009 7:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
America hasn't really won any asymmetric conflicts recently, once it stops getting its ass kicked by guys with AK's then buy some F22's. That lesson should have been learnt in 69, not 09.


RE: Good news
By FPP on 4/11/2009 12:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'd have to point out that:

17 of 18 congressionally mandated goals in Iraq have been accomplished.

Al Qaeda is on the run.

Democratic governments have been set up successfully and are functioning. That being the case, I'd suggest you go inform yourself. As for us in the USA, we'll continue to vest our faith in an Air Force that has improved itself to the point of total invincibility.


"Well, we didn't have anyone in line that got shot waiting for our system." -- Nintendo of America Vice President Perrin Kaplan











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki