backtop


Print 132 comment(s) - last by preslove.. on Jul 24 at 10:50 AM


F-22 taking off  (Source: Reuters)
The Senate stuck a fork in the F-22 Raptor program

The U.S. Senate has voted to stop producing the F-22 Raptor fighter jets currently ordered by the Air Force, in an important victory for Pres. Barack Obama's administration.

A new amendment will help remove $1.75 billion that was originally slated for manufacturing seven more F-22 Raptors.  Despite being a fleet of reliable fighters, the Pentagon has received heavy criticism for already investing $65 billion in the F-22 program already.

President Obama threatened to veto the $679.8 billion bill if additional funds were to be given for further F-22 production.  The President hopes the 58-to-40 vote victory gives him the ability to continue with proposed military spending overhauls.  The Air Force discussed ending the program earlier in the year, so it's no surprise there is again talk about fighter jet issues.

Other military branches are struggling to fill a fighter gap that may only grow, as the Navy is trying to prepare for a larger fighter gap.

Even though the F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the world, many lawmakers said the expensive craft would not be ideal for fighting militant insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Although U.S.-led control in Iraq is scheduled to end, many soldiers are expected to make their way to Afghanistan to continue fighting the Taliban.

The F-22 is seen by many as a "relic" from the Cold War, and the military must evolve and develop new fighters to deal with new battles.

Lockheed Martin warns F-22 development helps provide 25,000 jobs and reportedly has an impact on 70,000 additional jobs.  Boeing and Pratt & Whitney also are contractors working with the U.S. government to develop F-22 technology.  Defense Secretary Robert Gates, however, said focusing on the next-generation F-35 fighter jet will replace many of those lost jobs from Lockheed Martin.

Gates has fought against additional F-22 development for almost four months, and wants the military to move ahead to the F-35.  Once this becomes official, the Air Force will have just 187 F-22 Raptors, which is about half than expected.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

air superiority
By majBUZZ on 7/22/2009 11:27:51 PM , Rating: 3
Air superiority has always been a corner stone of our tactical doctrine, so if gates is against it I would think they already have a more cost effective program to fill the gap maybe unmanned fighters.

But I personal hope not, there's just something awesome about air superiority fighters like the f-22 and f-15. Plus situation awareness in a dogfight would be in a humans pilots favor not a uav even with all its intelligence feeds.




RE: air superiority
By Jaegs on 7/22/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By ilkhan on 7/23/2009 12:40:25 AM , Rating: 5
Painful as it may be to hear, Iraq and Afghanistan are both jokes compared to a genuine war. Our losses during these conflicts are minimal. The loss of a single carrier would would put a bigger dent in our military than the ground casualties of these conflicts have.

The next real war (if Pres. Oabama doesn't drive us into civil war and collapse first) will be Russia and/or China, and air sup against them will not be a joke. Our ground troops will get trounced if we can't control the skies.

Against either of those countries, we are severely outnumbered, and their training isn't the joke some people would tell you it is. I don't think the 187 Raptors we have are enough to guarantee air superiority. The rest of our forces will be roughly handled trying to kill their AAA and tanks so our infantry can sweep. Every unit has a role, and all require the previous unit to do their job in order to fulfill their own role.


RE: air superiority
By lco45 on 7/23/2009 1:39:58 AM , Rating: 5
Not sure why you were voted down, because you are right that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are practically insignificant compared to full-scale war.

The thousands who've died might seem a lot until you think of the millions who died in the world wars, even Vietnam had a far higher death toll.

As for war with China or Russia, the consequence for both sides are so obviously apocalyptic that I would be surprised if it ever came to that.
More likely would be a series of fun little sandbox skirmishes, such as the Korean war, the Vietnam war, possibly Georgia coming up if Russia is up for it.

Iraq, Afghanistan and soon possibly Iran and North Korea fall into a different category, because none of them have the backing a superpower. Everyone just sat around chatting while Iraq was invaded, no-one batted an eyelid at Afghanistan. Attacking Iran might get Russia's back up, but probably not, and attacking North Korea might get China's back up, but they'd probably be slightly relieved as well, maybe making a big show of being affronted but glad to be rid of the loony dictator.

You know you're in a real war when you're being conscripted, your fuel and food is being rationed, and you are putting immigrants from the enemy nation into internment camps.

Luke


RE: air superiority
By WoWCow on 7/23/2009 2:17:32 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, that is true.

I think the regular PRC army has approximately 2 million active soldiers along with 4 million or so "paramilitary" service men/women.

The US forces comprise a total of roughly 3.5 million.

Bear in mind from a military personnel to population ratio perspective, the Americans have a much higher ratio than China. I won't even try to discuss China's military because I don't know how much they're actually spending on researching and equipping their soldiers. But definitely not something like AK-47s; if wikipedia is reliable about it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBZ-95

However, IF an actual war broke out and drafts were instituted, imagine having 50 million Chinese (5% of Chinese population) against 50 million Americans (1/6th of the US population).

The biggest thing holding the Chinese back is the lack of aircraft carriers that can square off against the US in the wide open Pacific ocean; at least in terms of modern conventional warfare.

But I think the Chinese have figured out its far cheaper to work 1000 computer scientists to death using computers instead.


RE: air superiority
By AnnihilatorX on 7/23/2009 6:13:25 AM , Rating: 5
Not sure why you people in US love to talk about possible war with China/Russia.

I for one would not like to see it happen. It's much better if the world leaders are allied with each other.


RE: air superiority
By TSS on 7/23/2009 10:19:58 AM , Rating: 6
http://www.historyofwar.org/periodframe.html

i really doubt that's a comprehensive account (seeing as the last 50 years seem a little light on the timeline), but it shows enough. to think there will never be war again, is plain foolish.

"If you want peace, prepare for war"


RE: air superiority
By Amiga500 on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By inperfectdarkness on 7/23/2009 7:04:08 PM , Rating: 4
(from my graduate studies in air warfare)

history is littered with examples of men who fell victim into planning based on the wars of the past and the wars of the present; showing casual disregard for the wars of the future.

the military isn't there to fight today's conflict. the military is there to handle any and all contingencies that may erupt in armed conflict.

on a personal note, i doubt very much if our elected officials would be willing to be conscripted into the military to bolster shortages in our defense budget they have so willingly and wantonly trounced upon it.


RE: air superiority
By preslove on 7/24/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By itzmec on 7/23/2009 4:50:41 PM , Rating: 2
thats quite an assumption you're making. pretty narrow minded.


RE: air superiority
By jhb116 on 7/23/2009 7:58:33 PM , Rating: 3
Because they are considered to be the only major powers capable of truly challenging US power AND have traditionally opposed US measures.

The other possibility that most discount is war between the US and Europe which becomes more possible with each multi-billion dollar "anti-trust" fine against US companies which does absolutely nothing to help the average EU citizen. In fact - the absurd measures do much more to hurt EU citizens then to help. Have fun with your full Win 7 install - don't blame Microsoft - thank your gov't.


RE: air superiority
By zkln on 7/24/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By Samus on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By MonkeyPaw on 7/23/2009 7:54:50 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
...the Obama Administration's approval ratings trump those of recent previous administrations.


That's too soon to call, as he hasn't had the job for a year yet. The first year is just a popularity contest, where the media praises everything the "new guy" does. Things change though, especially when promises don't come true. Obama has spent loads of money already. Eventually people will expect to see results.


RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 9:04:48 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
...the Obama Administration's approval ratings trump those of recent previous administrations
That's not even close to correct. As of now, Obama's ratings are below Carter, Bush Sr, Reagan, and most other presidents of the past 75 years at the same point in their presidency. Obama is rated 10th among the last 12 presidents in terms of approval ratings now:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidenti...


RE: air superiority
By werepossum on 7/23/2009 9:21:22 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
The reason he was voted down isn't because of his military facts, but because of his ridiculous assertion that we (the United States) are headed toward a 'civil war'

That comment might have played true during the Bush Administration, because it was pretty clear how divided the country was politically. However, even with the economy being bad and things seeming financially hopeless for the next few years, the Obama Administration's approval ratings trump those of recent previous administrations.

In other words, that comment has no place on a tech site.

Um, no. Not even close. Obama's approval ratings are below Bush's at the same point in their presidencies, according to Rasmussen's daily tracking polls, in spite of a press whose warmth and support are unprecedented. I've heard he is actually tenth of the last twelve presidents in approval, although Rasmussen does not include that info in the daily report I get, but in any case he is at a -6 approval rating (29% strongly approve, 35% strongly disapprove) with 51% approving of his performance either strongly or somewhat. While that certainly trumps Bush's end of term figures, it's below Bush's same-point figures.


RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 9:29:39 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Um, no. Not even close. Obama's approval ratings are below Bush's at the same point in their presidencies, according to Rasmussen's daily tracking polls, in spite of a press whose warmth and support are unprecedented. I've heard he is actually tenth of the last twelve presidents in approval...
Its shocking how poorly informed Obama supporters actually are. Obama's six-month drop in popularity has been the steepest in over 100 years. Yet his enablers in the media are too busy trying to help him socialize our medical system to report on this. Or to ask him a tough question like "what happened to your pledge to not raise taxes on middle-income families?" Or, "why did we just have the bloodiest month in Afghanistan we've had since the war began?" Or "why is the economy so much worse than you predicted, even though we passed your stimulus bill?" Or "have you given up entirely on your promise to close Gitmo?"


RE: air superiority
By MrUniq on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By BansheeX on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 9:11:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
You're an idiot. We could have nothing but nuclear missiles and still not fear an invasion
It's pretty clear who the idiot is here. The mere fact of mutual annihilation is what prevents us from using nuclear weapons to counter most attacks. If China or Russia (or both, together) take over a US base overseas will we annihilate ourselves to retaliate? What if they attack an ally? Or blockade a portion of our coast? Who blinks first?

A nation that has nothing but nuclear weapons is forced to either use them, or to not use them. BOTH scenarios are very bad. This is so elementary that I'm aghast you can't grasp the concept.


RE: air superiority
By BansheeX on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 12:16:32 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
I said INVASION you dumb illiterate tard
It's pretty clear who the illiterate is here. There are thousands of incredibly bad things another country can do to us without actually invading the mainland US. A blockade to stop foreign oil from reaching us, for instance, would decimate the country.

When a country has no valid defense except to say "we'll blow each other up", it either has to risk nuclear annihilation on a regular basis, or do nothing whatsoever to any incident less than a full-scale invasion. Are you so ignorant to think that's wise? Did you learn nothing from the lessons of WW2?

In any case, you've missed utterly the point that within 30 years, nuclear missiles are going to be obsolete entirely. Already the US can shoot them down, do you really think China and Russia are that far behind?


RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By JediJeb on 7/23/2009 1:21:40 PM , Rating: 5
But would you be the person willing to explode a nuke over a naval blockade to end it?

Because as soon as you do, that opens the door for them to start sending theirs onto our mainland, and from there it only gets worse. Having a navy of our own to combat a blockade would be much better than only having nukes.


RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By sinful on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 8:46:38 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The only problem with that assesment is that we're outspending all our top 10 enemies COMBINED.
Wrong on several counts. First, China and Russia don't publicly report huge segments of their military budget. Secondly, you can't compare dollar-for-dollar anyway. The US pays a soldier tens of thousands of dollars a year, plus lots of expensive benefits, signing bonuses, etc. China pays a soldier a couple dollars a day. A million bucks a year won't pay for a single platoon in the US. In China, you can fund an entire regiment with it.

quote:
what you've just described is EXACTLY why nuclear weapons are an EXCELLENT deterrent.
If you never know "where the line is" at which point your enemies will start firing nukes, you'd be crazy to try & find it.
Learn some history there Skippy. The USSR and China both spent many decades attacking our interests and allies to find out just where that line was. Was that "crazy"? Maybe...but it sure didn't stop them from doing it.


RE: air superiority
By sinful on 7/24/2009 1:42:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong on several counts. First, China and Russia don't publicly report huge segments of their military budget.


This is a great idea, maybe the US should do that too! But I'm sure you're the first one to think of that! SARCASM.

Hint: It's a lot easier to hide that kind of thing in a 1+ Trillion dollar budget than a $500 Billion budget.

Go look up the term "black budget", you'll see the US is doing the same thing. When you bring up absurdly obvious points like this, it really undermines your credibility that you have any idea of what you're talking about (i.e. as if the Chinse are the only ones doing this... LOL).

quote:
Secondly, you can't compare dollar-for-dollar anyway.


That would be a valid point if the difference in spending wasn't so dramatic (i.e. 500%+ difference).

Also, it doesn't really reflect the reality in terms of equipment.

For example, in quanitative terms:
"As much as the U.S. Navy has shrunk since the end of the Cold War, for example, in terms of tonnage, its battle fleet is still larger than the next 13 navies combined -- and 11 of those 13 navies are U.S. allies or partners."
ROBERT M. GATES, U.S. Secretary of Defense

In other words, even discounting the dollar difference our military is absolutely HUGE.
Let's spell that out just a little more:
US Navy > China Navy + English Navy+French Navy+British Navy.....

The greatest threat the US faces is not from someone else's military, it's from our own military spending (choking our industry - AND TAXPAYERS).


RE: air superiority
By Iaiken on 7/23/2009 2:35:10 PM , Rating: 4
I think you are missing the point or are limited by what you think a naval blockade is or that the intent would be made public.

The wolf packs of early world war two were of the most successful naval blockades in history and they had to contend with a massive quantity of of small/inexpensive cargo ships and tankers.

A T2 had a capacity of only 16,850 long tons, while modern supertankers have a capacity of up to 550,000 long tons. Sinking one would be roughly equivalent to the sinking of 32 liberty ships.

A ship here, and a ship there being lost in the night to an unnamed hostile power would add up very quickly considering the capacity of modern vessels.

Environmental disaster? Of course. But even the loss of a handful of empty tankers would be enough to disrupt the worlds oil supply for years and cost billions of dollars.

Think about it...


RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/2009 3:11:47 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I think you are missing the point or are limited by what you think a naval blockade is or that the intent would be made public.
My point wasn't about the intricacies of naval blockades. See my post.


RE: air superiority
By Iaiken on 7/23/2009 3:41:31 PM , Rating: 1
How can you intervene when you don't know who the culprit is?

Even with technology having made it seem smaller, the ocean is still a really big place. So as long as you can maintain secrecy well enough to retain plausible deniability, it is unlikely the hostile power would face much in the way of retribution.


RE: air superiority
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 10:17:29 AM , Rating: 4
You seem to be a bit out of touch with reality. Once other countries obtained nuclear weapons the utility of nukes moved from the role of practical tactical weapons to that of a deterrent. An all-out nuclear war is not practical, so you wouldn't see a nuclear armed country giving up its conventional forces and relying on nukes for defense.

A larger, more practical factor why the US and China have no intention of going war is that of economics. With increased globalization in the last 20 years, it would be economic suicide to attack the country that produces most of the products your people buy or the country that buys the products that your people produce.

The US and China are in a symbiotic economic relationship, and attacking your economic partner can only do more harm to your nation than good.


RE: air superiority
By ilkhan on 7/24/2009 1:29:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US and China are in a symbiotic economic relationship, and attacking your economic partner can only do more harm to your nation than good.

As I recall, Germany's biggest trading partner in 1939 was...France. Many things trump economics when push comes to shove.


RE: air superiority
By HotFoot on 7/24/2009 8:59:23 AM , Rating: 2
Yes. Never think that being interwoven on economic or political/social terms will avoid international conflicts and war. Pre-WWI, a citizen could go around Europe without a passport, and the economies of those countries were highly cooperative. Economics is just that: economics. It's not a cure for other problems.


RE: air superiority
By bighairycamel on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By Harinezumi on 7/23/2009 2:27:26 PM , Rating: 2
This is just silly. Ground troops and air superiority are irrelevant in a conflict between nuclear powers, because any shooting war between any two of them is bound to go nuclear sooner rather than later.

It's why there has been no direct conflict between the great powers since the end of WW2. All we have to look forward to war-wise are Vietnam/Korea-style proxy fights and Iraq/Georgia-style smackdowns of small nations by big ones. If two great powers were to ever fight directly, it won't matter how well or poorly prepared either of them was for a conventional conflict. Both will be glowing piles of rubble in under 24 hours.

Moreover, the reason that China has no carrier parity with the US is that the carrier is obsolete. Carriers are big expensive targets that can be taken out by sufficiently large volleys of cheap cruise missiles, as has has been demonstrated time and again in US navy wargaming.


RE: air superiority
By npoe1 on 7/23/2009 4:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
The purpose of having nuclear missiles is to prevent a nuclear attack from others that also have them. Obviously any leader that isn’t crazy would never consider its use because that could mean mutual annihilation. It’s better to have an invading army on your soil than not having any soil.


RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/2009 5:32:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Carriers are big expensive targets that can be taken out by sufficiently large volleys of cheap cruise missiles, as has has been demonstrated time and again in US navy wargaming.
You are correct, IMO. The carrier battlegroups only purpose is the projection of power. Can they mess some stuff up? You bet! But against any other superpower, they will eventually be a floating target. Although, you still need significant firepower and resources to cripple one successfully.


RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 8:39:54 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Ground troops and air superiority are irrelevant in a conflict between nuclear powers, because any shooting war between any two of them is bound to go nuclear
Funny, the US and the Soviets fought several proxy wars between each other that never went nuclear.

You need to recheck your math there Toto, you put the decimal point in the wrong place.

quote:
the reason that China has no carrier parity with the US is that the carrier is obsolete
So why is China building new cariers now?


RE: air superiority
By preslove on 7/24/2009 10:50:09 AM , Rating: 2
To project power against small nations, just like us.

You people dumb as rocks.


RE: air superiority
By Jaegs on 7/23/2009 7:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
Hate to break it to you but "the next real war" will never occur. Not even the Americans would dare attack a nuclear armed China/Russia, there is no upside to nuclear war you can't build houses or extract resources in radioactive craters.



RE: air superiority
By Amedean on 7/23/2009 9:44:56 PM , Rating: 3
Ok, I know I am wasting time but Iraq and Afghanistan are not real wars? What!?! Anyone who says that is stupid! Trust me I know. <-- Army Infantry Vet, 2 tours in Iraq, 1 in Afghanistan. I just registered to post this reply.


RE: air superiority
By ilkhan on 7/24/2009 1:33:15 AM , Rating: 1
When the average American can make it through a week without being at all inconvenienced by the conflicts overseas, its not a real war. Conflict, yes. Deadly conflict, yes. But not a full scale war.


RE: air superiority
By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2009 12:42:41 AM , Rating: 3
Iraq didn't bother sending planes in either the first or second war because our air superiority fighters were so much better they would be shot down without accomplishing anything. If the weapon is so powerful the enemy is unwilling to go up against it, does disuse of said weapon really indicate it's not needed?


RE: air superiority
By BansheeX on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/2009 1:22:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You think a country like that is just going to surrender after we pound them into dust with conventional weapons? No, they're going to launch their nukes and achieve a draw over a loss.
The point of war is not necessarily to achieve total supremacy but to achieve a goal. What goal would we have in a war against China or Russia? Militaries don't just charge across a field with their swords drawn anymore. War is planned and strategized. In a war with another superpower, one goal could simply be to get the other side to regain their senses and back away from their current course of action.

Conventional warfare is not part of MAD. And you can best believe that there would be "dog fights" and other conventional methods used. Do you honestly think that Russia, China, or the US are going to ground their respective aircraft during a conflict? LOL! Air conflicts are usually how these things start! See the various close encounters during the cold war between the USSR and the US.


RE: air superiority
By Harinezumi on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: air superiority
By Spuke on 7/23/2009 3:13:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Do you really think that Russia, China, or the US wouldn't launch their nukes if someone was stupid enough to invade them and strong enough to pose a threat?
Wasn't my point. Reread my post.


RE: air superiority
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 9:42:36 AM , Rating: 2
Air superiority is one of the most basic concepts of warfare. When is it needed? Always, since everywhere has the sky above it. You'd always want to have air superiority, there's never a time that you'd want your enemy to bomb you with impunity.

Any time there's a battle going on, you'd want to control the battlefield, whether that's on the ground, in the air, or in the sea. Some areas like Iraq don't have a sea to worry about, but there's still the air.

If the enemy is trying to use their air against your troops you're obviously going to want to stop them, so fighters were developed to shoot enemy aircraft down. Some countries don't have much of an airforce so sophisticated air superiority fighters aren't needed. Others have their own fighters so you'd want to have a more advanced fighter to get them out of the air and take control of the skies yourself.

We've been lucky lately that the countries that have opposed us didn't have a very advanced airforce. But most first-world countries do have airforces that would require air superiority fighters to control the skies.


RE: air superiority
By Scabies on 7/23/2009 2:09:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've been lucky lately that the countries that have opposed us didn't have a very advanced airforce.

Which I believe has contributed most to the F-22's death. The belief that we will always be fighting stone-throwers is willful ignorance. At some point there will be a conflict where our AC-130s, A-10s, Apache's and even the marine-variant F-35 will not have total freedom for close air support, and we'll wish our air-to-air options weren't 30 years old.


RE: air superiority
By sinful on 7/23/2009 8:07:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Which I believe has contributed most to the F-22's death. The belief that we will always be fighting stone-throwers is willful ignorance. At some point there will be a conflict where our AC-130s, A-10s, Apache's and even the marine-variant F-35 will not have total freedom for close air support, and we'll wish our air-to-air options weren't 30 years old.


Well, good thing we bought 187 F22's then.

But you're right, *someday*, we may face an enemy that has F22 level technology, and they may have 187 of them to boot!

Fortunately, that day isn't any time soon.

Also, by saving that money and spending it on 187 F40's / X-wing's / whatever, we will be able to dominate their ancient F22 fighters.

From the looks of this graph, we probably won't have to worry about "not spending enough" on our military EVER:

http://static.globalissues.org/i/military/country-...

In other words, we outpsend China by a factor of 5 to 1.

Wake me up when they have even remotely comparable spending.
(Oh, and keep in mind that even if they match spending, those hordes of Chinese troops won't be well equipped as a US trooper; they may be spending an equal amount but if it's spread among 10x as many people, that means there are a lot of troops that don't even have rifles!)


RE: air superiority
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 8:53:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In other words, we outpsend China by a factor of 5 to 1.
No we don't. See my other post on the subject.

quote:
by saving that money and spending it on 187 F40's / X-wing's / whatever, we will be able to dominate their ancient F22 fighters.
The problem is this mythical 6th-generation fighter isn't even on the drawing board yet-- and Obama sure isn't about to start funding its development. Given the timeframe on these projects That means it can't be in the air till almost 2050. What do we do till then? Close our eyes, stick our heads up our a** and pray real hard?


RE: air superiority
By sinful on 7/24/2009 2:06:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No we don't. See my other post on the subject.


Yes, we do. Your post had to do with price parity, not spending amount.
Additionally, your point was weak - you've accounted for *MAYBE* a difference of 10% in purchasing parity, nothing that's going to radically alter the picture.

quote:
The problem is this mythical 6th-generation fighter isn't even on the drawing board yet


Are you dense? What, you think the defense industry - which makes BILLIONS developing this stuff - just stops once they've come up with something? Of course, I wouldn't expect them to go "HEY PORKPIE, WE'RE WORKING ON OUR 6th GEN FIGHTER, YOU MIGHT WANT TO HOLD OFF ON BUYING OUR 5th GEN MODEL".

quote:
Given the timeframe on these projects That means it can't be in the air till almost 2050. What do we do till then? Close our eyes, stick our heads up our a** and pray real hard?


So let me get this right - the next 6th gen project is going to take the most advanced country in the world 40 years to reach full production??

So, basically, you're concerned that some 2nd rate country with a shoestring budget is going to dominate the US by magically coming up with a superior aircraft in substantially less time *AND* have it be cheap enough where they could mass produce enough to actually matter?
Oh, *AND* they'll be hostile to the US, *AND* those hostilities will go so far as to actually result in those aircraft being used in battle?

Really?
That's your concern?

If you think that's even remotely plausible you're obviously already doing a lot of praying....
"ZOMG teh Taliban might develop $.50 hand held rail cannons that can blow up our destroers!! Oh noes!"

Seriously, color me concerned when China starts outspending us on 5th Gen fighters.
At which point, the obvious solution is to follow your plan and SPEND SPEND SPEND and throws heaps of money down the toliet.

Until then, it's just massively wasteful spending on fear mongering.


RE: air superiority
By delphinus100 on 7/23/2009 12:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
Not many, because F-117 stealth fighters went in first to take out their air defense radars (as is its job, even if it is generally referred to as a 'fighter'). Their air defense people did not then know know where to send their own aircraft. They didn't take off, and many were destroyed on the ground.

Afghanistan's limited fighter capability was likewise eliminated on the ground, early on. Ground fire is now the only threat, remotely piloted vehicles operate pretty freely.

Air Superiority is important, but having a better dogfighter isn't the only way it's achieved. Japan got it above Pearl Harbor pretty damn quickly...


RE: air superiority
By MrPoletski on 7/23/2009 4:21:59 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I personal hope not, there's just something awesome about air superiority fighters like the f-22 and f-15.


They make loud noises and big flashes?


RE: air superiority
By SSDMaster on 7/23/2009 8:34:20 AM , Rating: 3
How about the U.S. starts making space ships?

Who cares about "air" superiority... SPACE SUPERIORITY FTW! Take the moon and plant a giant laser on it. Then if anyone wants to engage the U.S. in "air" combat, just point the laser at them and laugh.


RE: air superiority
By zkln on 7/23/2009 8:59:10 AM , Rating: 3
Long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, that idea was given a shot but it failed miserably.


RE: air superiority
By Spivonious on 7/23/2009 10:14:27 AM , Rating: 2
All you have to do is close off the vent so those pesky rebels can't fire a torpedo into it.


RE: air superiority
By delphinus100 on 7/23/2009 12:26:06 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm.

"The only diplomat I know, is a fully charged phaser bank!"
- Lt. Cmdr Montgomery Scott


RE: air superiority
By JediJeb on 7/23/2009 1:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who cares about "air" superiority... SPACE SUPERIORITY FTW! Take the moon and plant a giant laser on it. Then if anyone wants to engage the U.S. in "air" combat, just point the laser at them and laugh.


Or they wait 12 hours until the moon is on the opposite side of the earth then attack.


Gotta love those relics
By FITCamaro on 7/22/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love those relics
By mcnabney on 7/22/2009 11:52:37 PM , Rating: 1
We don't need these damn things. They have yet to see service in either of our war zones. They cost a fortune just to maintain and train on and are not deployed for fear of losing one of these expensive things. You could litterally buy an entire squadron of F15s for the same money as one of these. They aren't design for suppot, just air superiority - which is something we have locked up without them. The only possible use for these is if we choose to engage in a war against China or Russia.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2009 12:34:07 AM , Rating: 6
quote:
You could litterally buy an entire squadron of F15s for the same money as one of these.
You could literally defeat an entire squadron of F-15s with one. Air superiority is cost-effective.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By nafhan on 7/23/2009 8:42:09 AM , Rating: 3
Plus, if you want to avoid a big war, make fighting one a very unattractive proposition for the other side, and it'll be a lot less likely to happen.
If you look like a pushover, someone will try to push you over...


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Nfarce on 7/23/2009 4:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You could literally defeat an entire squadron of F-15s with one.


If they don't collectively come apart themselves first in a high G maneuvers before a Raptor has a chance to take a shot.....


RE: Gotta love those relics
By RaistlinZ on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love those relics
By FITCamaro on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 7:07:50 AM , Rating: 3
"We don't need these damn things"

We need them a lot more than we need 99% of the crap we're spending $787B in stimulus funds on. Roads to nowhere, "museums" and visitor centers no one will patronize, and even more spending on the $200M Murtha Airport...a facility without passengers.

Hearing Obama -- a man who in his first 6 months in office has run up the deficit more than every president before him combined -- complain about "wasteful spending" is just plain funny. He could care less about the cost. He's cancelling the program because dominant new weapons systems make certain other nations nervous.

"They have yet to see service in either of our war zones"

Of course. Because we already have air superiority there. These planes are just like an insurance policy on your house -- if it never catches fire, you'll never use it.

Oh right, I remember. No one would ever attack us, any of our allies, or any of our overseas interests. The world is much too civilized for war nowadays. Yeah.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By caseyse1 on 7/22/2009 11:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
Obama would rather risk everyone's safety so he can give fatter checks to people who are walking across the boarder or living beyond their means. This is a very volatile world that changes daily. Our F15 fighters are falling apart from too many years of use, and most had been grounded due to structural cracks. Please liberals wake up from your dream worlds before it's too late.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Bonrock on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love those relics
By caseyse1 on 7/23/2009 12:16:02 AM , Rating: 2
The F-15 began flying in 1972 and has been in heavy use since. I don't understand your comment. Are you saying that we will never need to use the F-22? Maybe you're trying to say that if there was a crises, we could quickly produce a modern fighter in short order just in time to save ourselves.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2009 1:02:39 AM , Rating: 4
Because the Raptor has only been in operation capacity for four years, and indeed, we don't need them in Iraq or Afghanistan. It is insane to image we will never need a good (the best) air superiority fighter in the future. There will be other enemies for other times. We've purchased over 1000 different F-15s, if you look at all the variants over the years. That's another "cold-war relic" that has served us very well over decades of service. The F-22 has been in service for less than four years, and it is literally ten times better than the F-15E (ten times more expensive, too, I admit).

We'll see what happens in the future, but we will need more F-22s in the coming decades. The F-35 has its place, but no quantity of F-35s will replace the F-22. If (when) we have a conflict with an enemy using modern planes purchased from Russia or China, we'll wish we had more F-22s.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 10:59:24 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then why has the F-22 never once been used in combat despite the fact that the Air Force already has 187 of them?


Because it's an air superiority fighter and the theaters in which we're currently at war don't require an air superiority fighter. It's not the right tool for the job we're currently doing.

The Army bought a lot of winter coats for its troops during WWII, but they weren't used in Vietnam. Why? Were the coats obsolete? Too expensive? Or just not the right tool for that particular job?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Belard on 7/23/2009 12:28:42 AM , Rating: 1
Ah... the SENATE and Military says that the F22 is NOT needed. Its not good on the resources. Its not the right tool for the job.

And if a military (war) situation comes up that requires something like the F22, its production can kick in at any time.

Military budget has grown.

F15s are falling apart? They're still in production and cost a lot less to built & maintain.

This has NOTHING to do with Obama. Even your GWBush did NOT extend the order beyond 187 F22. Obama didn't cancel the F22. GEEZ!


RE: Gotta love those relics
By rninneman on 7/23/2009 1:37:13 AM , Rating: 3
Since when does the Senate or any other part of the federal government (with the exception of the military) actually know what's needed for the USA?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By threepac3 on 7/23/2009 7:39:13 AM , Rating: 3
You should talk to the Founding Fathers about that one...


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Scabies on 7/23/2009 2:25:39 PM , Rating: 2
add it to the list, sheesh


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Belard on 7/23/09, Rating: -1
RE: Gotta love those relics
By Durrr on 7/23/2009 7:56:25 PM , Rating: 1
After reading that, I don't even know where to start...


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Belard on 7/24/2009 7:16:15 AM , Rating: 2
Unless some terrorist is in a jet-fighter or other high performance air-craft... what use is an F22?

The F22 is not useful when a terrorist goes onto a bus with bombs strapped to his little nuts.

The F22 is a fighter plane, the best in the world and most expensive. Its job is to fight other fighter planes.

The rest... don't take seriously... but unless we're at war, who is our enemies and how does the hardware we have relate to its battlefield performance.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 10:53:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And if a military (war) situation comes up that requires something like the F22, its production can kick in at any time.


No it can't, because part of canceling the program means getting rid of the manufacturing facilities.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By monomer on 7/23/2009 5:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
I think it should be noted that McCain was also a strong detractor for spending more money on the F22's and that he sided with Obama and voted Yes to cut funding.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By lco45 on 7/23/09, Rating: 0
RE: Gotta love those relics
By Titanius on 7/23/2009 7:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
What the hell does Canada have to do with any of this?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By monomer on 7/23/2009 5:14:51 PM , Rating: 2
I think it is just a list of possible future conflicts US might have.

Operation Bringing Home the Bacon


RE: Gotta love those relics
By lco45 on 7/23/2009 11:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
I was joking. Curse the lack of inflection in the written language.

I was being ironic, that whenever some redneck talks about people "streaming across the border" and "taking all our jobs" (or whatever they do) they are always talking about Mexicans.

I was making a feeble attempt at humour by suggestion the unlikely alternative of Canadians.

Luke


RE: Gotta love those relics
By sinful on 7/23/2009 8:24:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Please liberals wake up from your dream worlds before it's too late.


Only if the republicans wake up and realize that spending such an OBSCENE amount of money to protect us from boogeymen that don't exist is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY.

Guess what buddy, the US spending $3 TRILLION on our current wars and spending 10x the amount that every other sane country spends on defense is going to ruin our country a LOT faster than what our enemies can.

But, if it makes you feel better, you can gladly spend $300,000 a year of your own money to make yourself feel safe.
Don't have that much? Just borrow it from your kids - THE REPUBLICANS ARE!

When you wake up and finally realize we don't need sharks with laser beams and we don't need 100,000 jets that 100x better than our nearest enemy's, just to defend ourselves - AND THAT IT'S JUST A MASSIVE PORK PROJECT - THEN, maybe, just maybe the US has a chance of actually *not* becoming a giant cesspool of debt and obsolete military hardware leaking radioactive waste.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 8:58:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Only if the republicans wake up and realize that spending such an OBSCENE amount of money to protect us from boogeymen that don't exist is DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY
This is really funny, given the tab for the extra F-22s was only $1.7B...and Obama is in the middle of asking for ONE THOUSAND TIMES that much to socialize our healthcare system. Oh, and much much more for his cap-and-trade program, various stimulus bills, etc ad nauseum.

quote:
Just borrow it from your kids - THE REPUBLICANS ARE!
In only six short months, Obama has run up the deficit more than every president before him COMBINED. And yet you actually have the gall to say that? I take it back, it's not funny. It's just plain sad.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By sinful on 7/24/2009 2:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In only six short months, Obama has run up the deficit more than every president before him COMBINED. And yet you actually have the gall to say that? I take it back, it's not funny. It's just plain sad.


Are you on crack?
The #1 deficit president prior to Obama was Bush.
The #2 deficit president prior to Obama was Bush.
The #3 deficit president prior to Obama was Bush.

Yes, the republicans win in 3 different years with the largest deficits in the history of the world.

Funny how you leave out the reason Obama's budget is so large is because of the bailout - initiated by BUSH, and then ignore the fact that BUSH led us into the worst depression since the great depression - and then happily ignore that a huge portion of that deficit is going to fund - you guessed it - the war in Iraq/Afghanistan - STARTED BY BUSH.

Oh, but as always, military spending "doesn't count" and comes out of the "magical money pot" but all social spending comes out of the hard working taxpayer pockets!

But yeah, Obama=Evil, him and his "lowest taxes in history".
(Go look it up).

But whatever, you're right, just go ahead and send your money off to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin,, they'll solve all the problems!!!

What's funny is that you pretend to be a budget hawk but you're basically arguing for handing a blank check to the government to spend on obscenely wasteful projects.

But yeah, Obama has magically ruined everything in 6 months. Bush, he's clean as a whistle. DUH!


RE: Gotta love those relics
By sinful on 7/24/2009 2:49:40 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Obama is in the middle of asking for ONE THOUSAND TIMES that much to socialize our healthcare system.


Oh, I know how to make you understand...

"What do you have against the HEALTH DEFENSE budget?!? 100% of all Americans are killed because of insufficient health DEFENSE! We're losing the WAR on cancer!

America ranks 24th in terms of healthcare quality - that's 23 OTHER COUNTRIES WHO HAVE SUPERIOR HEALTH DEFENSE!

Bush hurt our national health DEFENSE spending tremendously, thankfully Obama is going to overhaul it!

Plus, health DEFENSE spending doesn't really count as "spending", I heard Obama was going to separate it out from the main budget, which makes it magically not count.

Meanwhile, Republicans are trying to tax us like crazy for their ill-conceived Military CARE budget.....

Why, our enemies could just cause a massive flu pandemic and our country would not have the DEFENSIVE CAPABILITY to defend ourselves!

Brave Democrats are fighting to keep Americans SAFE.... Why do Republicans HATE AMERICA so much that they'd oppose increases in the health DEFENSE budget?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2009 1:10:59 AM , Rating: 1
I generally hate to agree with FITCamaro, but why is this post at -1? The F-22 is still useful and still necessary. It's very short-sighted to say "it doesn't do what we need it to right now." This is the plane of the future, but Lockheed and Boeing did such a good job that we get to have it now.

I voted for Obama (for shame! How dare I?), but I do not agree with him or with Gates on this. Cutting the F-22 this early is such a waste of R&D, and we will pay for it in the future -- probably with American lives. The jobs lost are substantial, too, in one of the few fields in which, unequivocally, the government definitely creates good jobs and lots of them.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By tmp8000 on 7/23/2009 1:47:50 AM , Rating: 2
Did no one see the maintenance costs for these things? I was a HUGE supporter of these planes but reports recently surfaced that they require 30 hours of maintenance for every hour they fly. From what I've heard that was a significant reason for them getting cut. If you don't believe me you can easily find this sad maintenance record with a simple google search.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By lco45 on 7/23/2009 1:59:58 AM , Rating: 2
It would be shortsighted to say "it doesn't do what we need it to right now.".

But they are saying "it won't be useful for it's effective life", ie for a 20 years to come.

That's called being far-sighted.

Anyway, the money is not unlimited, you'd be better off with 40,000 more trained troops than 7 more fighters, especially given that most of the world's enemies at the moment are fighting from the top balcony of their mother-in-law's house, not from the cockpit of a mig-29.

Luke


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Yawgm0th on 7/23/2009 2:24:34 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
But they are saying "it won't be useful for it's effective life", ie for a 20 years to come
Twenty years? Try forty. Either way, it's just ignorant to think we know what conflicts we'll be in in twenty years. We do know the Russians and Chinese are still developing their planes and that they sell them.

quote:
Anyway, the money is not unlimited, you'd be better off with 40,000 more trained troops than 7 more fighters, especially given that most of the world's enemies at the moment are fighting from the top balcony of their mother-in-law's house, not from the cockpit of a mig-29.
40,000 soldiers cost a lot more than seven F-22s. They want more like 22,000 soldiers, and those also cost a lot more than seven Raptors. Most of the "world's enemies" could be fighting from just about anywhere in ten or twenty years. We can at the very least keep them out of the skies if they know we have a weapon as powerful as the F-22.

I'd rather have the 18,000 aerospace jobs paying more and producing more than another 20,000 troops risking their lives.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By dhalilahma on 7/23/2009 7:08:13 AM , Rating: 2
When the US learns how to beat guys with beards and Kalashnikov's then it should think about buying fancy planes. Watch Rambo 3 to get a decent history of Afghanistan.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By FITCamaro on 7/23/2009 6:34:02 AM , Rating: 2
40,000 troops can be taken out by a single bomb dropped by a single plane.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Harinezumi on 7/23/2009 2:42:37 PM , Rating: 2
Those bombs aren't delivered by planes anymore. Haven't been for decades. Why bother with planes when you have ballistic missiles?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 7:13:27 AM , Rating: 3
Good points Yawg. The idiots of today don't realize the entire reason the U.S. hasn't seen a major war in over half a century is because we have some overpowering air superiority. We haven't lost any troops to enemy air since the early days of the Korean War.

Forcing us to use the aging F-15 platform for the next 20 years means that situation will change. Obama could care less about the cost, he's just caving to the segment of his party that believes "all weapons are evil".


RE: Gotta love those relics
By werepossum on 7/23/2009 10:53:34 AM , Rating: 5
We're moving into a near era of defense where advanced planes, nukes, and armor are all replaced with apologies, community organizers, and sensitivity trainers.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By maven81 on 7/23/2009 11:30:51 AM , Rating: 2
Right, he hates weapons so much that he allowed an increase in the military budget. It's easy to sit on your ass and spread venom when you don't have a single thing to contribute. Where are your suggestions on how to fix things? All I see is this is a bad idea, that's a bad idea, where is your idea?
Here's an idea for you... there's more then one way to achieve air superiority, and drones seem to be doing that job rather well. Just today there's a report that apparently a drone took out bin laden's son. I seem to recall that the Russians and probably other nations as well are working on pilotless fighter aircraft. If that's true, THAT is how the wars of the future are going to be fought. How does the F22 respond to that, when the nature of air warfare could change 20, 30 years from now? Seems to me the military realizes this, and they are looking long term.
In fact every single person defending the F22 seems to assume that the rest of the world is staying still. This is ridiculous. If you want to stay on top you have to adapt.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 11:39:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's more then one way to achieve air superiority, and drones seem to be doing that job rather well...apparently a drone took out bin laden's son.
Rofl, is this a joke? Do you actually not know what air superiority is? Hint: it has nothing whatsoever to do with conducting ground strikes.

quote:
Right, he hates weapons so much that he allowed an increase in the military budget
Now I'm sure you're pretending to be stupid. He allowed more money for expanded operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, but nothing for advanced weapons programs. You can see the difference, can't you? Or do I need to draw a picture?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By maven81 on 7/23/2009 12:02:47 PM , Rating: 1
You just illustrated your short sightedness perfectly. Drones carry out grounds strikes today, but who's to say that you won't be able to put some air to air missiles on them and use them against targets in the sky in the future? You don't even need extreme dogfighting capability if they could carry some BVR radar homing missiles lets say. I specifically talked about pilotless fighter aircraft, but good job skipping that part.

Let me illustrate the point in simpler terms since you obviously don't get it... (note, not completely historically accurate, but will do).

Say it's the middle ages. Knights rule the day. Their armor is the most advanced ever seen in human history up to that point. It's been perfected over decades, and can stand up to anything the other side can throw at it. One knight is also worth 50 villagers armed with knives. And it's also much more expensive to keep one in your army but it's clearly superior to everything else. Your knight is the F22.
but while you spent the decades perfecting your knights, your potential adversary has invented muskets. You never took this into account when creating the armor because no one had such a thing at the time.
Now one villager with a musket can render your knight useless, as that musket ball will pierce that armor no problem.
What have you gained by investing so much time and money into perfecting an asset that's not very flexible?! Who's to say that 30 years from now cheap drones with advanced missiles won't make piloted aircraft obsolete? I don't know if they will or they won't, but the point is, you want the military to be FLEXIBLE. Investing in a single platform just because it's the most amazing thing you can conceive of in the near future is foolish.
But let's not talk about being practical, let's bash Obama and the Pentagon instead right?
Yeah sure there's no money for advanced weapons programs, that's why the NAVY is not about to be testing lasers... Oooops!


RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 12:10:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You just illustrated your short sightedness perfectly. Drones carry out grounds strikes today, but...
Nice attempt to cover up a very embarrassing blunder, but there's several problems with your example.

a) While we will one day have truly autonomous air superiority drones, its not going to be in the next 20-30 years. We can't even come close to putting that much processing power into an aircraft yet..and even when we can, going from concept to production will take at least 20 years (based on the average of past fighter programs).

b) That leaves us with a gap of 2, maybe 3 decades at least in which the US will no longer have air superiority without the F-22. A lot can go wrong in that period.

c) Obama didn't cut F-22 funding in favor of boosting R&D on fighter drones. He just cut F-22 funding, period. Your analogy falls on its face.

quote:
sure there's no money for advanced weapons programs, that's why the NAVY is not about to be testing lasers...
Those programs were instituted under Bush, you clown. Obama hasn't approved a single penny for any new weapons program.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By maven81 on 7/23/2009 12:20:18 PM , Rating: 1
I'll show you Embarrassing... It wasn't Obama who cut the funding. Nice job trying to spread a lie. What he basically did right now was confirm that he will not restart production.
You're also dead wrong when it says right in the friggin article that the money will likely be allocated to the F35 instead, not that nothing will be done at all.

Now moving on...

a)who said they have to be completely autonomous? It's totally possible to create some remote control aircraft today, and manufacture so many of them that you could completely swarm the skies. Not unlike multiple nuclear warheads completely overwhelming a missile defense system I might add.

b)The whole point is that we should take the money spent on the F22 and re-alocate it to something more visionary, TODAY... where did I say that we should do nothing?!

And you're the clown if you can't read a budget proposal. But why read when you can sit and spread bullshit right?


RE: Gotta love those relics
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 12:33:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It wasn't Obama who cut the funding. Nice job trying to spread a lie. What he basically did right now was confirm that he will not restart production.
God, this is sad. Please learn at least the rudiments about an issue before attempting to debate it. The Senate vote REMOVED $1.75B in funding that WAS ALREADY in the 2010 budget for the F-22 fighter. They did so under a direct veto threat from Obama.

Oh and production is not yet halted. Those people building the F-22 are still going to work every day. Thx for playing.

quote:
The whole point is that we should take the money spent on the F22 and re-alocate it to something more visionary, TODAY
But that isn't what Obama is doing. He hasn't allocated one thin dime to any new "visionary" R&D for weapons. So your entire point collapses.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By maven81 on 7/23/2009 12:47:18 PM , Rating: 2
Sad is you continuing to lie.

The program was supposed to be halted at 187. Which was decided quite a while back as I recall. The extra money was an attempt to add more planes on top of that. Obama said he wants to stick to the number that was already decided, and not add any more. Now if he said he wants there to be only 180 of these, then you could say he's cutting the program.

And Obama HAS allocated money to other programs, which you obviously just don't know. Like $1 billion for short-range theater missile defense systems and Aegis anti-missile naval cruisers, and additional funds for drones and their support systems, or are these not advanced enough for you?
Not to mention that the number of F35s is being increased dramatically, but I'll grant you that they aren't as advanced as the F22 is.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By MrUniq on 7/23/2009 1:28:44 PM , Rating: 3
Appreciate the facts Maven81, DailyTech has certainly become more of a sounding board for fabricated societal/political opinion rather than factual TECH based discussion.


RE: Gotta love those relics
By Scabies on 7/23/2009 2:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's more then one way to achieve air superiority, and drones seem to be doing that job rather well.

followed by
quote:
Drones carry out grounds strikes today, but who's to say that you won't be able to put some air to air missiles on them and use them against targets in the sky in the future?

explain this

quote:
You don't even need extreme dogfighting capability if they could carry some BVR radar homing missiles lets say.

Umm, Vietnam much? Relying solely on the fire-and-forget missile method hasn't worked too well in the past. See "F-4 Phantom II"

quote:
Investing in a single platform just because it's the most amazing thing you can conceive of in the near future is foolish.

see "F-35"


Sigh
By limitedtime on 7/22/2009 11:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
So now that the majority of costs have already been spent on on research and development, as well as procuring/building the infrastructure needed to manufacture/assemble the planes, they don't want to build anymore... I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry.




RE: Sigh
By ghost101 on 7/23/2009 12:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
The average cost will keep falling as you produce more and more. Therefore that logic is pointless since you've to stop at some point since the F22 won't be sold to other nations.

Besides $65bn on 187 planes is just under $350mn a plane. The $250mn on each plane which was rejected here is hardly much cheaper.


RE: Sigh
By nafhan on 7/23/2009 8:37:03 AM , Rating: 4
I read somewhere the actual cost to build the plane is $130 million. The higher numbers are just spreading the R&D spending across the number of planes built. So, the cost per plane is always going to be $130 mil + R&D/#planes. Plus the R&D has already been spent whether we build more planes or not.


RE: Sigh
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 10:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
The cost to produce each F-22 is about $138 million, not $350 million.

The R&D and production setup costs have already been spent, and you'd never get that back even if you canceled the program before the first production aircraft was built. Once the R&D and production costs have been spent, it's time to move into the production phase and produce aircraft. At that point, it'll cost around $138 million to make each additional fighter.

Dividing the total program cost by the number of aircraft produced is a flawed way to look at it since it doesn't give you an accurate idea of the value of the actual aircraft compared to the other expenses. For instance, if you spent $20 billion in R&D costs to research how to produce lightweight, inexpensive helicopters and you only produced 2 units before the program was canceled it would make it look like each unit cost $10 billion. In actuality the R&D could have been a success and it may have only cost $5 million per chopper.


RE: Sigh
By ghost101 on 7/23/2009 12:46:12 PM , Rating: 1
If its really $138mn, why would they have to budget $1.75bn for 7 more planes? Clearly the marginal cost is $250mn.


RE: Sigh
By 91TTZ on 7/23/2009 3:08:26 PM , Rating: 2
Often when they order aircraft they don't just order the aircraft itself, but also spare parts and future upgrades. And with a bill as heavily lobbied as this, I'm sure it hand a bunch of handouts in it.


RE: Sigh
By mezman on 7/23/2009 3:05:19 PM , Rating: 1
GET TO THE CHOPPA!!!!!!


RE: Sigh
By lco45 on 7/23/2009 1:49:45 AM , Rating: 3
I guess they thought that since they already had 187 of them that $1,750,000,000 was a lot of money for 7 more.

I can see their point.

"Man, we just lost that damn war. If only we'd had 194 fighters instead of a measly 187 it would have been so different! All it would have cost is another $1,750,000,000!".

I'd rather spend that money on ... hmmm ... just about anything.

Luke


RE: Sigh
By Ringold on 7/23/2009 2:07:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"Man, we just lost that damn war. If only we'd had 194 fighters instead of a measly 187 it would have been so different! All it would have cost is another $1,750,000,000!".


Hey, you never know. Argentina would've sure loved just a few more functioning Exocets during the Falklands War...

You're probably right, I'm just saying, never know what one might need, and if your just a little short of something you need then you might as well not have any at all.


RE: Sigh
By sinful on 7/23/2009 8:31:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're probably right, I'm just saying, never know what one might need, and if your just a little short of something you need then you might as well not have any at all.


You're probably right, I'm just saying, if we're going to buy a few we might as well buy a few million.

Oh, take it too far? Sorry, just doing what you did.


RE: Sigh
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 9:11:09 PM , Rating: 2
No, he was actually being very rational. You never know exactly how many you may need, but just 187 planes to cover what might be two major conflicts at once seems very low...especially considering a large portion of them will be in maintenance or otherwise unavailable at any given time.

You were the one taking the argument to logical absurdity.


Sometimes The Best Just Isn't Good Enough
By Steph on 7/23/2009 2:39:21 PM , Rating: 2
Something can be the best of its kind, but if it's not designed to do the job, what good is it. The F-22 Raptors may be the most advanced fighter jets in the world, but if they are not the best suited to help in our current war on terror why spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them?

http://www.newsy.com/videos/f_22_funding_shot_down




RE: Sometimes The Best Just Isn't Good Enough
By Spuke on 7/23/2009 3:14:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The F-22 Raptors may be the most advanced fighter jets in the world, but if they are not the best suited to help in our current war on terror why spend hundreds of millions of dollars on them?
Damn some of you guys can't read. Look up "air superiority".


RE: Sometimes The Best Just Isn't Good Enough
By Nfarce on 7/23/2009 4:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Damn some of you guys can't read


It happens to most people who are emotion driven and logically challenged (IE: peaceniks and/or those with their heads up their a-s-ses thinking a future mass global conflict will NEVER happen again).


RE: Sometimes The Best Just Isn't Good Enough
By porkpie on 7/23/2009 9:02:12 PM , Rating: 2
They'be seen peace so long they think its a law of nature. They don't realize major wars only stopped because of the US's overpowering military, and its readiness to use it.

They'll learn, though. When our military is crippled to the point that brush wars around the world begin springing up into major conflicts, they'll change their tune fast. Unfortunately, a few tens of millions of people will die to teach them that lesson.


By lco45 on 7/23/2009 11:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
Russia has an overwhelming military and a readiness to use it, but that doesn't stop Chechnya.

World War 2 was the death throws of superpower v superpower conflict, it will never happen again, because it would mean instant annihilation for all involved.

Air superiority is only useful against highly sophisticated enemies, of which there are none.

The enemy now is members of apocalyptic religions that believe God wants the world to end, and hope to drag down the rest of us with it. I'm talking about a religion with three demoninations: Judaism (version 1), Christianity (version 2, Islam (version 3).

Luke

It's


The facts are this...
By Amiga500 on 7/23/2009 2:51:35 AM , Rating: 3
The F-22 is certified to carry four weapons.

The AIM-9X, the AIM-120, the SDB and GBU-32.

It cannot perform SEAD or DEAD missions as the A2G mappings on the radar don't have sufficient functionality.

To enable a full A2G capability on the F-22 will cost approximately as much as the total funds to date, thats the ~ $70 billion. This is why Gates is killing the thing.

The USAF simply cannot afford to spend this kind of money on obtaining basic functionality.

Oh, and the AGM-88 replacement (AGM-88E) apparently has control surfaces too large to fit in either the F-22 or F-35 internal bays...




A little uneasy
By Mclendo06 on 7/23/2009 2:07:49 AM , Rating: 2
I am a big fan of Def. Sec. Dr. Gates, but I must say that this move makes me a little bit uneasy for several reasons:

1 - Insurgents aren't our only enemies. One step up you have countries like Iran, which I will concede isn't much of a threat to our air force. But beyond that you have countries like China and Russia, with whom we have always had somewhat contentious relations. They won't take military action against us for a number of reasons, a big one being that we are always a generation ahead when it comes to aircraft. The F-22 was meant to keep that edge. Without it, we are slipping. The F-35 is not the same plane, and was not meant for the same mission.

2 - It costs a lot of money to design a plane, whether you make 1 of them or 1000 of them. Yes, each plane costs a certain amount in materials and man-hours to put together, but the more planes you build, the higher your return on the initial investment in design.

3 - Aerospace is one of the largest exports of this country. At a time when the economy is already down, it doesn't seem wise to sucker-punch one of the nation's most important industries.

On the other hand, I am glad to see the government not spending money on something, even if the cost savings is just a fraction of what gets spent on social programs.




Use drones....
By crystal clear on 7/23/2009 9:51:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Even though the F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the world, many lawmakers said the expensive craft would not be ideal for fighting militant insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan. Although U.S.-led control in Iraq is scheduled to end, many soldiers are expected to make their way to Afghanistan to continue fighting the Taliban.


There you need drones to search,indentify & destroy...cheap effective & saves precious lives (soldiers).

Lawmakers want the minimum amount of body bags used,their political life depends on that.

Israel has developed some very highly sophisticated,efffective/accurate drones so much so that even the Russians are desperate to buy from them.

So Pentagon place an order with the Israelis, they come cheap & will get a few dozens of them on loan immediately.

Sell those existing F22 fighter that the airforce has to Israel & recover the money.

Israel needs them to hit targets far & wide from Sudan to Syria to Iran.

What are friends for........




By TerranMagistrate on 7/23/2009 12:53:13 PM , Rating: 2
Let's hope that at least these assets aren't disposed of or altered too much to where later purchases of the F-22A will be impossible.

No one knows what the future holds especially with all the volatility in the world but many politicians and their countless blind supporters seem to think they got it all figured out.

Obama is doing a phenomenal job of bringing the U.S. to ruins both economically and militarily.




150 to 1
By RoberTx on 7/23/2009 4:17:20 PM , Rating: 2
The Raptor has scored a 150 to 1 kill ratio in tests against other fighters including ones obtained from Russia through quiet purchases via former soviet block countries. With a kill ratio like that how many do you really need.

For some unbiased and factual info on the F-22 go to Military Photos.Com and search "raptor" or F-22.




Enemies
By Yaos on 7/23/2009 11:49:13 AM , Rating: 1
Because the F-22 was designed to fight an imaginary enemy we need an imaginary plane. How can a real plane hope to destroy a giant dragon with protective plate against airplanes?




The US will collapse anyways
By Mithan on 7/22/09, Rating: -1
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki