backtop


Print 241 comment(s) - last by penumbra1.. on Apr 1 at 11:06 PM

An F-22 Raptor crashed Wednesday near Edwards Air Force Base killing the pilot

When it comes to air superiority, the U.S. Air Force has a complement of aircraft that can take on any role needed in a modern combat situation. One of the newest aircraft in the fleet is the F-22A Raptor, which is widely held to be the most advanced fighter jet in the world.

Bloomberg reports that a U.S. Air Force F-22A stealth fighter crashed Wednesday morning at about 10 a.m. local time in California. The pilot of the Raptor, test pilot David Cooley, was killed in the crash. Cooley was a 21-year Air Force veteran reports Bloomberg.

The cause of the accident remains unknown at this time – all that’s known is that the Raptor took off from Edwards Air Force Base in California and crashed about 35 miles northeast of the base.

The last crash of a Raptor was in December 2004, but the pilot in that accident was able to eject safely. In December of 2007, the F-22 was certified for full operational capability.

DailyTech reported in August of 2007 that the Air Force was developing a new software product called Auto-GCAS that was to be integrated into the F-22. The purpose of the software was to help prevent controlled flight into the ground by taking over controls if the pilot failed to do so.

The Air Force has ordered 183 Raptor fighters and is looking to add more of the fighter to the order. President Obama is set to decide next month if additional aircraft will be ordered reports Bloomberg.

Analyst Richard Aboulafia from the Teal Group told Bloomberg, "The timing isn’t great for the aircraft’s advocates, but I can’t imagine one crash being an effective argument against additional procurement. I can’t think of a modern-generation fighter that hasn’t crashed either in operational use or in testing."

An Air Force spokesman Vince King said, "Aircraft that fly at Edwards Air Force Base fly test missions to evaluate everything from airframe structures to propulsion and avionics and electronic warfare, all with the aim of ensuring weapons systems are suitable for their intended combat missions."



Comments     Threshold


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

No Good Choices
By tech329 on 3/26/2009 1:49:12 PM , Rating: 2
Given the choice, I'm sure most Americans would choose peace. We don't get to make that choice though.

I like the idea of UAV technology taking over more of a deterrent role. UAV's are far more efficient to deploy than manned vehicles.

Air to air combat isn't much of a requirement any more but air to ground delivery of sophisticated guided weaponry is a must. I'm a Vietnam vet and I doubt you can replace a pilot for air support of ground troops.

All this stuff costs a lot of bucks to develop. It's mostly all bleeding edge in every discipline of science and manufacturing. Our nuclear deterrent prevents an all out attack but there will always be a need to deal with situations that require conventional forces. Cost containment is a problem when you are going after the latest and greatest. Everyone here knows that the latest stuff Intel is putting out comes at a premium. It's the same with weaponry.




RE: No Good Choices
By Myg on 3/26/2009 2:39:24 PM , Rating: 5
The price of peace is too high for those who value their lives over others.


RE: No Good Choices
By GlassHouse69 on 3/26/2009 6:59:19 PM , Rating: 4
Well, I duno what to say about this but, to the vietnam vet, thanks.


RE: No Good Choices
By Thrymm on 3/28/2009 11:40:52 PM , Rating: 2
"Peace sells, but who's buying?" - Megadeath


RE: No Good Choices
By jonmcc33 on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: No Good Choices
By imperator3733 on 3/27/2009 2:40:55 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Air to air combat isn't much of a requirement any more but air to ground delivery of sophisticated guided weaponry is a must. I'm a Vietnam vet and I doubt you can replace a pilot for air support of ground troops.

I think he has a really good idea of the cost of his freedoms.


RE: No Good Choices
By Spazmodian on 3/27/2009 8:41:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
The beginning of the oath of enlistment for the US military states that you swear to defend your country against all enemies, foreign and domestic.


Actually, the oath that enlisted members, officers, representatives, senators and the president all state that they will support and defend the Constitution of the United States...not the country, nor the people who inhabit it. Everything else is supposed to be granted by the existence of the Consitution.


RE: No Good Choices
By jonmcc33 on 3/27/2009 11:26:34 PM , Rating: 2
What do you think the Constitution is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constit...

quote:
It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States of America; the Federal Government of the United States; and all the State & local governments and Territorial Administrative bodies contained therein.


Some people take words so literal that they don't even understand the meaning of the words.


RE: No Good Choices
By Spazmodian on 3/29/2009 3:24:56 PM , Rating: 2
And some people don't take the time to comprehend what they are reading.

The Constitution grants the legal authority for the federal, state and local governments to exist and actually do things. As I said all federal military members and those in office within the federal government have sworn( or affirmed) that they will protect and defend the Constitution. All protections granted by the federal, state and local governments to the populace are an extension of the Constitution itself.

The Constitution was written to make the United States a functional state where before under the Articles of Confederation the US was effectively impotent and couldn't do anything.


RE: No Good Choices
By phazers on 3/27/2009 2:33:46 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
You really need to wake up and visit Arlington National Cemetery sometime VERY soon. It will give you a small hint at what the cost of your freedoms were.


I think what the Vietnam Vet was saying, is that it takes both sides to make peace. IOW, Americans may be for peace but if somebody decides to wage war on us (e.g., Al Quaeda), then peace is no longer an option. Get it?


RE: No Good Choices
By Golgatha on 3/27/2009 9:28:56 AM , Rating: 2
Thank you for your service.


Collision with Iron Man?
By stmok on 3/26/2009 11:41:18 AM , Rating: 1
I cannot help that Tony Stark was involved...




RE: Collision with Iron Man?
By philmax on 3/26/2009 12:08:35 PM , Rating: 1
ummm...the pilot died this time...dick


RE: Collision with Iron Man?
By jiteo on 3/26/2009 12:32:58 PM , Rating: 5
You accidentally the verb!


RE: Collision with Iron Man?
By cheetah2k on 3/26/2009 8:11:38 PM , Rating: 1
Personally, I would have said "Fcuk!"


Could Be Power Supplies Failure
By SpaceJumper on 3/26/2009 2:30:52 PM , Rating: 2
This plane is fly-by-wire; the plane may lose the crucial power supplies for the computer to fly the plane. It could be power supplies over heating or high voltage corona.




RE: Could Be Power Supplies Failure
By Smilin on 3/26/2009 5:48:08 PM , Rating: 2
Could be lots of things.

Statistically though it's most likely to be pilot error.


By RagingDragon on 3/27/2009 6:24:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another possibility is sudden death of the pilot (heart attack, anneurism, etc.) causing the crash.


By cjc1103 on 4/1/2009 12:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
The cause of this crash could have been anything, but it is unlikely to be pilot error. The Flight Test Center at Edwards AFB tests all airplanes the Air Force buys very thoroughly. The Navy does similar testing for their airplanes at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Maryland. They might have been testing modifications to the flight control computer at the edge of the flight envelope, and the F-22 departed controlled flight. I can assure you the pilot was very competent, but probably stayed with the airplane too long trying to save it, and did not make a successful ejection. We'll find out more when the accident investigation is completed. Whatever they were testing, they will find out what went wrong and work hard to make sure it does not happen again, either through design changes or operational limits or both. There are lots of warnings in military aircraft manuals "written in blood" - operational limits based on fatal crashes.


Best aircraft?... perhaps...perhaps not
By aatnet on 3/26/2009 5:13:28 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
One of the newest aircraft in the fleet is the F-22A Raptor, which is widely held to be the most advanced fighter jet in the world.


How does one compare flagship aircrafts of different countries? Have the russians, french, chinese etc lent their fighters to the US for a comparison?!! I'm not saying that the F22A-raptor isn't the best aircraft. Quite likely it is. All i'm saying is that there is NO way of knowing




By Fritzr on 3/26/2009 8:30:45 PM , Rating: 5
Rarely lent ... usually stolen, captured or purchased. The US maintains many foreign fighters and has access to many more that are flown by allies.

Other methods of testing are comparing available flight test data and war trials. You can be sure that USAF has a lot more data than they are willing to admit :)


Cost
By elanmike on 3/26/2009 12:30:34 PM , Rating: 5
Though the numbers are huge, cost is relative. One reason the cost per unit is so high is the small production run compared to either previous fighters or civilian aircraft. Even a lowly B737NG costs ~$80 M and that has its R&D amortized over tens of thousands of units. As to the effectiveness of the aircraft, the F-15 and F-16 drivers that I have flown with state that the F-22 totally (accent on the totally) dominates the Airspace that it is in. Their only limitation is the amount of ordnance that they can carry. Plus (as the F-15 has shown) airframes don not last forever.




David Cooley
By mindless1 on 3/27/2009 3:25:23 AM , Rating: 5
David Cooley, thank you for your life's work, we love you for the contribution and sacrifice you made. You're every bit as much a hero as someone who stayed alive in any war we fought, putting your life on the line took guts and we will learn to avoid mistakes and further the cause you worked for.




....
By Iketh on 3/27/2009 1:00:10 AM , Rating: 2
is it not a coincidence that they were testing software programmed to take control to keep the plane from hitting the ground and the pilot not ejecting?




RE: ....
By imperator3733 on 3/27/2009 2:46:13 AM , Rating: 2
If I were to make a guess as to what happened, it would be a bug in the code they were testing.


A quote from Sun-Tzu...
By WoWCow on 3/27/2009 10:06:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
“The art of war teaches us to rely not on the likelihood of the enemy's not coming, but on our own readiness to receive him; not on the chance of his not attacking, but rather on the fact that we have made our position unassailable.”


That sums up pretty much every reason why no nations would outright declare war on America with technologies 10 to 20 years ahead of its closest competitors.

For those of you who argue against preventive or deterrent based defense, I must ask if you have ever been forced to defend yourself at all... or even keep a basic security measure (a lock?) for your home.




Not allowed to fail
By Divide Overflow on 3/26/2009 1:11:53 PM , Rating: 3
In the days of yesteryear, crashes were an acknowledged part of any flight development program. Much is done to minimize them but considering that this is the bleeding edge of military aviation, losses can and will happen. It's a shame that the cost of failure has risen to the point where one accident can have such a huge impact to the program. There's almost no room for failure anymore.




Get a Yardstick
By FPP on 3/26/2009 3:55:06 PM , Rating: 3
Anyone who has doubts about the F22 should take a look at the last Air Superiority fighter the Air Force developed and use it's success as a yardstick. The F15 has never been shot down by another fighter plane. it is in service with a dozen nations, all who benefit from it's capability to secure it's airspace, bringing security to numerous regions in the world. It's existance enhances America's influence in the world. It has lasted long past it's expected life, and will exceed even that number. The cost, when measured like this was very economical. I think I'll bet on the track record of the winners.




Making it a UAV? Pffft....
By TheEinstein on 3/30/2009 9:15:01 AM , Rating: 3
Ok there is a lot of talk about making a UAV out of all our fighters it seems. Very popular topic, a supposed way to solve all piloting deaths and such.

Consider however how do we communicate with these aircraft?

Most modern UAV's are slow moving aircraft, or very high flying aircraft.

Means of communication is either Satellite or Radio controls for the most part. Yes there is talk of laser controls, and higher/lower frequency wave controls, but for the most part these are fantasy idea's for a variety of reasons.

Even pre-programmed flight and fight UAV's suffer issues.

Lets list a few of the issues:

1) Radio's can be jammed, spoofed, suffer from atmospheric conditions, can have static interference, go both ways and can be tracked from source, the source on either end can be directly attacked (even with zip packaged transmissions the location can be triangulated) and so forth.

2) Hacking is coming of age. Heck Fox News just showed a Chinese hacking group hitting about all nations on Earth as it is. Ok maybe an exaggeration, but not to much of one. Hacking can include espionage. If it has software or remote hardware controls it can be hacked. Would you like 100 raptors to suddenly engage friendly targets then land in enemy airfields to re-arm?

3) GPS is not 100% reliable as more spy satellites go up. Imagine a number of them acting as GPS sat's with the goal of providing false coordinates. Or just wiping out a significant part of the 'shell'

4) Satellite communications are deceptively hard to break into. So you break the satellites instead. There is a few ways you could do this, such as the 'accidental hit' way, the laser methods discussed elsewhere in DailyTech, the Surface to Space missiles 4 nations now enjoy, or just wait for a good solar storm to act as a jamming source for you. Plus that delay thingy...

5) Pre-made software programming. How many games have you played where the computer always does X when you do Y, so you kill him with Z when he thinks Y is happening? Any software made can be analyzed, examined, and countered.

UAV's are nice in the right conditions, however as a 'total package' they are not a 'Godsend'. Please cease efforts to say that making everything a UAV is a good idea.




By Ages120 on 4/1/2009 7:44:17 AM , Rating: 2
I remember watching the video of the B2 crash only seconds after take off and both pilots easily ejected to safety.

Been wondering about that since this it showed up and probably won't know exactly why if it was any serious failure on the part of the aircraft. They were doing munitions testing around the time of this crash and they wouldn't want anyone to know there is a defect there.




Ouch!
By Spivonious on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By callmeroy on 3/26/2009 11:56:59 AM , Rating: 5
As of April 2006, $361 million per aircraft as audited by the Government Accountability Office.

And any jokes aside that may develope in this thread, I do feel sorry the pilot died and I feel bad for his family.


RE: Ouch!
By OAKside24 on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By jiteo on 3/26/2009 12:34:00 PM , Rating: 5
Randall Munroe would piss himself...


RE: Ouch!
By callmeroy on 3/26/2009 2:16:27 PM , Rating: 4
That $13 billin is project cost, not per plane.


RE: Ouch!
By Sulphademus on 3/26/2009 12:52:40 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with the costs here is that you have billion$ spent over the last 2 decades on R&D. They are including this number divided by the total number of planes they buy plus the unit manufacturing cost is how they get the 300+ million per plane.
The more planes they buy the lower the cost per plane. So if they double the number they plan to buy the cost per plane will drop as the R&D is spread over more units and the total price only goes up by the manufacturing cost for each unit.


RE: Ouch!
By Zoomer on 3/27/2009 8:32:54 PM , Rating: 2
What's the marginal unit cost of producing more F22s?
What's the marginal unit benefit of producing more F22s?

These are the important questions.


RE: Ouch!
By Motoman on 3/26/2009 11:57:07 AM , Rating: 2
<waves his hand in the air>

These aren't the dollars you're looking for.


RE: Ouch!
By HotFoot on 3/26/2009 11:57:58 AM , Rating: 1
Well, given how few are being built, the price tag per unit, including development costs, is ridiculously high. I'd really like to see that order number at least double. I think the marginal cost of making a new Raptor is something like $80 million but don't quote me on that.


RE: Ouch!
By Guyver on 3/26/2009 12:14:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ridiculously high compared to what?


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 12:15:21 PM , Rating: 5
We were supposed to build 750 to replace over 1500 aircraft I believe. But making sure illegals get free health care, keeping drug addicts on welfare, and paying people's mortgages is far more important.

Technology is expensive. And sorry but the F35 is not equal to the F22. It has a few advantages, but the F22s higher cruise speed without afterburner, stealth ability, and thrust vectoring give it the edge. Not saying we don't need the F35 but it disgusts me that with all the spending going on, that Obama wants to end F22 production before they even complete the < 200 they've already planned to build.

Our Air Force is going to have serious issues maintaining air dominance in 30 years if we don't get these new planes built. The F16/F18 are 30-50 years old. Even the F22 is already based on 20 year old technology(going from when they actually started work on the plane after the government made their selection on which plane they wanted).

But Obama views it as one of those unnecessary Cold War weapons systems.


RE: Ouch!
By VaultDweller on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 1:37:50 PM , Rating: 1
Actually given that the F22 is nearly all fly by wire and the F35 IS completely fly by wire they are already set for unmanned operation.

And don't act like this administration is planning to forge ahead and spend the money towards developing unmanned combat aircraft.


RE: Ouch!
By djc208 on 3/26/2009 1:50:45 PM , Rating: 5
Sorry that plan has been scrapped. They accidentaly sold the remote control systems bandwidth to some company making radio operated sex toys.


RE: Ouch!
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/26/2009 1:53:38 PM , Rating: 3
Dont be ridiculous. A significant cost of building a fighter is designing it around the human pilot sitting in the middle. If you dont need a cockpit and other space requirements, not to mention design specs that are made to NOT CRUSH a human from the G-forces, then you can build a better, faster, cheaper unmanned dedicated fighter than some bolt-on unmanned system thrown into an F-22 or F-35.


RE: Ouch!
By Hieyeck on 3/26/2009 2:05:10 PM , Rating: 5
Sure, works great in theory, but no equipment can yet beat a carbon-based computer with a pair of model 0 mark 1 optical sensors which can recognize patterns near instantaneously. There's still something to be said for putting someONE in the seat.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 2:58:56 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly. We're a long way away from having autonomous combat aircraft. Sure we have armed UAVs but they're still computer controlled and nowhere near capable of the kind of flying that would be required in air combat.

Had a co-worker who flew them when he was in the military.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 7:03:05 PM , Rating: 3
You're confusing unmanned with autonomous. UAVs are normally controlled from the ground. You're not removing the pilot from the picture, you're just removing him from the aircraft.


RE: Ouch!
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/26/2009 3:03:56 PM , Rating: 4
Actually, I was not saying a computer would be better than a human pilot, only that developing a dedicated unmanned craft would be cheaper than developing a human-piloted craft and then retrofitting with unmanned control.

In summary: If you WERE going to use unmanned, its cheaper to go dedicated.


RE: Ouch!
By Fritzr on 3/26/2009 8:44:08 PM , Rating: 2
The UAVs are piloted, but they are a lot cheaper to build and the pilot is not at risk when the aircraft enters a threat zone. The aircraft goes out in the field, the pilot is sitting in a comfortable seat in the squadron control center.

Since the aircraft does not have to protect it's pilot, it is able to execute maneuvers that a pilot woould not survive. There is also a major savings in size and weight when all the equipment needed to install a pilot is removed from the aircraft.

UAVs are the future though they do remain vulverable to radio jamming.

True pilotless aircraft will require an advanced AI, since it implies that the aircraft is operating without a human controller and will need to make decisions without human input.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 3:08:44 PM , Rating: 2
Can I hear an "Amen"?!

Here's the thing, it only takes 1 software bug to crash an unmanned airplane... now, don't start arguing that a real bug, however likely, could make a real pilot crash, because I know someone somewhere was already thinking that.

My point is that the technology contained in these human operated craft are always going to be far superior to that of a UAV. The programmers would have to do a perfect job at coding, which doesn't happen (just look at Microsoft,) and they would have to know the actual feeling of flying a jet at that speed in order to give any AI coding, however good it may be, the intuition to act in the best way as a well trained human pilot would.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 3:20:49 PM , Rating: 3
No one is talking about AI. I'm sure he envisions something like remote control, which makes a lot more sense.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:18:12 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, AI aside, my point still stands; it takes a single programming error to down a UAV.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 4:30:27 PM , Rating: 2
How is that not a factor in a piloted aircraft? If you have a fly by wire system that assumes it's smarter then the pilot no less (say tries to override your actions because it thinks you're going to crash) that puts the pilots life in danger. If a UAV goes down we just lose the UAV.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:45:01 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry for my inherent lack of argumentative skills, but I am not following how your point even relates to what I have said, or any of the posts that I have responded to in this thread... please do explain.


RE: Ouch!
By Fritzr on 3/26/2009 8:51:41 PM , Rating: 2
By the same logic it takes a single software error to down a commercial airliner. Most of the new aircraft now have many critical software systems & critical systems are being added to older aircraft as well.

All it takes is a bug in a critical component that causes the aircraft to do something fatal, with or without pilot assistance.


RE: Ouch!
By William Gaatjes on 3/26/2009 4:53:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Here's the thing, it only takes 1 software bug to crash an unmanned airplane... now, don't start arguing that a real bug, however likely, could make a real pilot crash, because I know someone somewhere was already thinking that.


You forget that these F22 models use fly by wire. In other words the pilot asks the computer to fly the plane. I guess one of the reason this plane is expensive, is the verifaction of the software doing it's work to keep the plane in the air in every circumstance. Unless the pilot is able to fly the plane without fly by wire which if it is even possible very very very difficult. With the f16 it's not possible for as far as i looked up. I doubt the F22 has this capability of flying without fly by wire.

quote:
The technological principles for an unstable design, which is intended to increase agility, were known before the F-16. However, there were probably a few reasons for not having this technology implemented into a program earlier. On the one hand computers were not powerful or small enough to be used as regulators on an aircraft, on the other hand redundancy could not be secured.

While there have been regulators installed in aircraft before, mainly in order to improve dampening which has a positive effect on the aircraft's handling, the demands placed on reliability and speed are much higher with unstable designs. Without a regulator the aircraft cannot be mastered, since the human reaction at the controls are too slow.

The main benefits from this new technological includes a much higher aircraft agility and a considerably lower drag. Since agility is important for fighters, unstable designs have so far only been used for military aircraft applications. Furthermore they were only deemed practical for movements along the pitch axis.


http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRHEFT/FRH9909/FR9...

quote:
The YF-16 was the world’s first aircraft intentionally designed to be slightly aerodynamically unstable. This technique, called "relaxed static stability" (RSS), was incorporated to further enhance the aircraft’s maneuver performance. Most aircraft are designed with positive static stability, which induces an aircraft to return to its original attitude following a disturbance. However, positive static stability hampers maneuverability, as the tendency to remain in its current attitude opposes the pilot’s effort to maneuver; on the other hand, an aircraft with negative static stability will, in the absence of control input, readily depart from level and controlled flight. Therefore, an aircraft with negative static stability will be more maneuverable than one that is positively stable. When supersonic, a negatively stable aircraft actually exhibits a more positive-trending (and in the F-16’s case, a net positive) static stability due to aerodynamic forces shifting aft between subsonic and supersonic flight. At subsonic speeds, however, the fighter is constantly on the verge of going out of control.

To counter this tendency to depart from controlled flight—and avoid the need for constant minute trimming inputs by the pilot—the F-16 has a quadruplex (four-channel) fly-by-wire (FBW) flight control system (FLCS). The flight control computer (FLCC), which is the key component of the FLCS, accepts the pilot’s input from the stick and rudder controls, and manipulates the control surfaces in such a way as to produce the desired result without inducing a loss of control (known as "departing" controlled flight). The FLCC also takes thousands of measurements per second of the aircraft’s attitude, and automatically makes corrections to counter deviations from the flight path that were not input by the pilot, thereby allowing for stable flight. This has led to a common aphorism among F-16 pilots: “You don’t fly an F-16; it flies you.”

Unlike the YF-17 which featured a FBW system with traditional hydromechanical controls serving as a backup, the F-16’s designers took the innovative step of eliminating mechanical linkages between the stick and rudder pedals and the aerodynamic control surfaces. The F-16’s sole reliance on electronics and wires to relay flight commands, instead of the usual cables and mechanical linkage controls, gained the F-16 the early moniker of "the electric jet". The quadruplex design permits “graceful degradation” in flight control response in that the loss of one channel renders the FLCS a “triplex” system.[44] The FLCC began as an analog system on the A/B variants, but has been supplanted by a digital computer system beginning with the F-16C/D Block 40.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon#...


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 5:11:10 PM , Rating: 1
Not forgetting, just making an argument assuming ceteris peribus.

Here is what cannot be forgotten... there is a huge difference between flight correction and flight control.

Yes, FBW systems are essentially the computer being in control, but the computer is being controlled by input from the user/pilot. By proxy, the pilot is still in control.

On the other hand, computers providing the input... well that is totally different. It is an entirely different way of programming.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 8:42:33 PM , Rating: 2
Why not actually read the article?

"The purpose of the software was to help prevent controlled flight into the ground by taking over controls if the pilot failed to do so."

Computer taking control. Get it?


RE: Ouch!
By Fritzr on 3/26/2009 8:54:39 PM , Rating: 2
My first thought was that the ground avoidance feature may have been the item being tested. If the pilot successfully hit the ground then that would have indicated a failure of the ground avoidance function :)


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 9:40:14 PM , Rating: 2
The funny thing? I did read the article. Yes, all of it.

Even funnier? You haven't been reading the posts for the content of our thread. Is this going to be a constant thing with you maven?


RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/26/2009 2:33:08 PM , Rating: 3
I wasn't acting that way, but if unmanned craft are the future why spend more on something that isn't, especially when what we've got is already well ahead of any other nation's aircraft?


RE: Ouch!
By AEvangel on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By Schrag4 on 3/26/2009 1:02:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Yeah, cause all are current engagements have had HUGE air battles. The United States has not fought a major air engagement in the last 50 years.


Maybe that's because nobody's willing to take the US on in a "HUGE air battle." You'd like to see that security go away?


RE: Ouch!
By BansheeX on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By ninjaquick on 3/26/2009 2:44:25 PM , Rating: 4
Ok, list every war since WWII and who started it. I can tell you right now the big three that come to mind. Korea->Russia (north korea), Vietnam->Russia(n. vietnam), Gulf War->Iraq.
All the post Soviet Union wars were civil wars that started independently and unrelated to us, just we went in and stopped it. Imagine what would have happened without us... Oh wait you can see it, pretty much every internal struggle in Post-Soviet Europe and Asia that we didn't stop. All of eastern Europe would be another Africa. Ill take one troubled continent over two any day, and would rather have no troubled continents over any.

Financially crippling? How so? Please, explain how our economy is any worse BECAUSE of war.

I hate to admit it but we have a huge war industry, like how Russia did, except they shut down and see how that worked for them.

I hate the idea of Americans dying, but it is their choice. If you don't want to go to war then don't join the army, pretty simple really.

So really, bring the boys home or not, I will support what they do as long as they are doing it. It is a sad day when people risk their lives doing what many of them believe is right, then to come home and find out no-one even wants them there. Its prolly a huge slap in the face.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 3:16:54 PM , Rating: 2
"Ok, list every war since WWII and who started it. I can tell you right now the big three that come to mind. Korea->Russia (north korea), Vietnam->Russia(n. vietnam), Gulf War->Iraq."

China played a much bigger role in Korea then Russia did, and that war was not won by any side by the way.
Vietnam was originally a colonial war fought against the French. And that war was clearly lost when our military spending was very high... so if that's not an illustration that military spending doesn't equal victory, I don't know what is! Iraq is also dubious... one could argue Saddam attacked because he had no idea his old friends (that's us) would turn on him.

"Financially crippling? How so? Please, explain how our economy is any worse BECAUSE of war."

I'm still deciding if that's a joke or not.

"I hate to admit it but we have a huge war industry, like how Russia did, except they shut down and see how that worked for them."

You're really going to claim that this is not an example of the military bankrupting a country?!


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:41:07 PM , Rating: 2
Usually when one attempts to rebuke an argument, one reads the whole post.

Let me quote myself: "Although military spending is not an investment, it is a protection"

Thank you for reaffirming what I said.

As for your belief that my point is historically inaccurate, you are entirely correct in stating that the economy improved before 1941... the US was profiting off of the war in Europe. Military production had already begun in the form of sending help to Britain.

Also, you are correct in stating that we don't all work for defense contractors... but people who do are the ones who now have more money to spend at Fred Meyers, New Egg, Ford, and Sees Candies, just to name a few. It is called the trickle effect. By the way, this also assumes that you have a relatively low percentage of spending on the military still, thus leaving production resources for these other industries to be bought from... a low percentage such as the 3 or 4% GDP that is being argued upon in another thread in these comments.

When you make an economics point, take a few more steps... it makes it easier not to be shot down.

Do tell me though, is a well supported (with secure and truthful facts) argument constitute as propaganda?


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 7:43:57 PM , Rating: 1
I have a better idea for you. Why make things up when you can look up the numbers...
US national debt in 1930 - 16.2 billion. US national debt in 1940 - 43 billion. US national debt in 1950 - 257.4 billion. I wasn't able to find specific numbers for just the period of the war, but I'm sure they are out there. Add the fact that the war was eating up 40% of the GDP and the picture isn't so rosy anymore now is it!
(hint, that means less money that can be spent on other things). Add the fact that even after the war ended huge amounts were spent on things like the Marshall plan, that's money that was actually taken out of the economy and sent overseas. Clearly the entire economy wasn't profiting from this... All we did was rack up massive amounts of debt.

"but people who do are the ones who now have more money to spend at Fred Meyers, New Egg, Ford, and Sees Candies, just to name a few.

We've heard all of this trickle down economics stuff before. Look around you... it doesn't work!


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 8:19:47 PM , Rating: 1
Government debt and economic health in a country are separate measures, and while they can go hand in hand with inflation etc. they do not mean a thing when compared to the other alone.

By the way, my numbers may be off, but my concepts aren't. You should really take an economics course.

Anyways, I have a question for you: what makes a healthy economy?

No need to answer, because I can tell you! It is the movement of money (through legal means, of course.) When people have the money to buy stuff, and they actually do, that means that money is flowing between businesses and consumers. When the government spends money on that country's goods, whether it be military or industrial, then it is raising demand for said goods, which generally leads to higher employment and/or wages, which leads to more movement of money, etc.

What is hard for people to understand is that with such a large thing as, say, the US economy, even when one thing works, it is very difficult to see the effects. That is why the current spending bills to stop the recession are in the trillions of dollars.

Now, if you would like to continue attacking my knowledge on economics, or how the great depression was ended for the US, please take a look at these videos: http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse

Watch out though, you might actually learn something that is real, not just political crap that you seem to enjoy regurgitating.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 8:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
You are going to educate people on the economy when you don't even mention the obvious economic issues related to war?

Econ 101, how do you pay for the war? You have 3 choices.
1. Increase taxes:
This clearly isn't going to help the economy since you just reduced consumer spending.
2. Decrease spending in the rest of the budget:
This sure as hell does not help the economy either. Arguments over wasteful spending aside, you will have effected industries that employ millions of people.
3. Print money and increase your debt.
Well, you've basically created inflation, and merely sidestepped the issue... Now your children will have to pay for the war in the future, and probably with higher taxes to boot. And let's not forget that the veterans will have to be cared for as well. Unless you ignore them that's no small amount.

Oh sure, there was movement of money, but did the economy grow? Did the GDP increase?
Clearly there's a problem with your theory.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 9:33:00 PM , Rating: 2
Let me just laugh for a minute here... it is obvious that you have very little knowledge about the fundamental principles of economics. [/laugh session]

You are still stuck on government debt, but (once again) government debt has little to no correlation to actual economic health. Yes, it is bad, but it is a much better alternative to letting a recession take its course as is.

Now, 3 choices? Ok, I will bite for a little while here.

quote:
1. Increase taxes:
This clearly isn't going to help the economy since you just reduced consumer spending.


1: Yes, an increase in taxes DOES decrease consumer spending, however, the multiplier effect for government spending is much more powerful than the decrease in consumer spending caused by higher taxes. This is not to say that you can increase taxes however high you want so long as the government spends more (everything in modesty.)

quote:
2. Decrease spending in the rest of the budget:
This sure as hell does not help the economy either. Arguments over wasteful spending aside, you will have effected industries that employ millions of people.


2: You are right on this one... so long as the government spending that is in question for being cut is being spent on industries outside of the US (although that can also help, depending on the global scale of the problem.)

quote:
3. Print money and increase your debt.
Well, you've basically created inflation, and merely sidestepped the issue... Now your children will have to pay for the war in the future, and probably with higher taxes to boot. And let's not forget that the veterans will have to be cared for as well. Unless you ignore them that's no small amount.


3: First off, I will ignore your poor wording and assume that you mean that you could print money, or increase national debt. Or both, of course.

That being said, yes, both are bad, and yes, both ultimately lead to inflation... but here is the catch: once the problem is fixed (as in the recession is truly gone) the debt that is being paid off will help to offset the next recession in the economic cycle. That one is way too complicated to even begin discussing on these forums, so you will just have to take my word for it.

Now, I am not going to be politically correct here at all, but it is the truth. When inflation occurs, the real value of the debt that any borrower owes will decrease, thus the debtor is helped... and inversely, the loaner is hurt. That means that when you incur inflation at the time of a government debt, the debt isn't as bad... which, inversely means that the countries that are borrowed from (china in our current case) are hurt.

How is that for "theory."

Once again, take an economics course... or pay attention to what really happens...

By the way, I am not attempting to educate "people" about the economy, I am attempting to educate you so that others may benefit from the new found space in these comments when your nonfactual "arguments" are gone. Think of it as an investment.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 9:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, an increase in taxes DOES decrease consumer spending, however, the multiplier effect for government spending is much more powerful than the decrease in consumer spending caused by higher taxes
Bzzzt, wrong! If this were true, then the strongest economy would be the one with 100% taxes, and all spending controlled by the government.

War in itself does not improve the economy. If it motivates people to work harder (which something like WW2 usually does) then it can help the economy. But destroying resources in conflict isn't a good thing in itself.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 9:53:58 PM , Rating: 2
Please, read the post next time. Let me quote myself.

quote:
This is not to say that you can increase taxes however high you want so long as the government spends more (everything in modesty.)


Also, read back in the posts a ways... the 2nd paragraph's comment has already been addressed.


RE: Ouch!
By DEFCoNv3 on 3/26/2009 9:49:24 PM , Rating: 2
This makes more sense to me.

maven81's argument I think I can best describe as the government building a tower of military out of legos, but the government ran out of green bricks from its bucket labeled money, and that the only solution without a bad outcome would be to steal other people's bricks and scribble on them with a green sharpie.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 9:57:42 PM , Rating: 2
I realized that in my response to choice 2, I did not fully explain myself.

I said
quote:
so long as the government spending that is in question for being cut is being spent on industries outside of the US (although that can also help, depending on the global scale of the problem.)

and I mean to say that any government spending such as that being spent on industries outside of the US are generally a good thing to cut in the time of a recession.

I apologize for that.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 10:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
"You are still stuck on government debt, but (once again) government debt has little to no correlation to actual economic health."

And where do you think the government gets it's money from? Obviously they get it from the taxpayer. And when they try to pay off their debts using your money I don't think you'll be laughing anymore.

"1: Yes, an increase in taxes DOES decrease consumer spending, however, the multiplier effect for government spending is much more powerful than the decrease in consumer spending caused by higher taxes."

You forgot a tiny little detail... the key is what is the government spending the money on. Not everything will lead to a multiplication. Some things will even be a loss. It will be better then no spending, but they would have to spend it wisely to have any effect.

"You are right on this one... so long as the government spending that is in question for being cut is being spent on industries outside of the US"

Wow... you really can't see how for example diverting money from the department of energy to the department of defense would have massive consequences? Well I guess I can't help you there.

"once the problem is fixed (as in the recession is truly gone) the debt that is being paid off will help to offset the next recession in the economic cycle. That one is way too complicated to even begin discussing on these forums, so you will just have to take my word for it."

No, it's not complicated, it's bogus.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 11:46:25 PM , Rating: 2
Please maven, do read posts before yours prior to responding. That is specifically directed to your statement of "Wow... your really can't see [...]" In case you didn't notice, I clarified that in a direct response to that post.

As for assuming that I forgot about what the government money is spent on, I am assuming that intelligent decisions would be made on what the money is spent on... excuse my lapse in judgment pertaining to your ability to infer what an opposing argument is actually meaning, next time I will try to make it deathly obvious what I mean.

Also, I would be fine with the government paying off debt with my tax money, so long as the debt was incurred due to appropriate measures being taken to improve overall economic health.

As for your final "point," I am beginning to become disgusted by your blatant dismissal of perfectly valid and factual arguments of mine for the mere reason that you don't believe it. I have news for you, my dog believes that the sky is a shade of gray, but it obviously isn't gray, its blue.

I will begin to explain my point, but the big picture takes an understanding of economics that are quite lacking on your end.

Picture (or draw) this in graph form; Y-axis is the "Real GDP" value in whatever unit you would like, X-axis is time, also whatever unit you would like. There is an average growth rate in GDP running with a positive slope. The real time GDP does not always sit on that line though, there is another line that "curves around" that average growth rate, going above and below to what are called peaks and troughs. Between those times are recession and recovery periods which are generally negative and positive slopes, respectively. Now, because of economic laws (that means that historically, these 'laws' always have proven true under the circumstances described by said laws,) the higher the peak, the lower the next trough.

By process of thinking (it isn't illegal yet,) you can see that my argument is completely coinciding with these laws.

Also, to further prove my point, take a look at this: http://www.oswego.edu/~edunne/200ch8_1.html

Wow, is that a .edu I see?

The graph there may be somewhat unprofessional (i.e. shaded in mspaint,) but the data is ultimately correct, and that is what is important. Also, before you point out that the graph looks different than I describe, I am telling you that it only looks different. That is another way to graph it; it is showing the actual slope percentage at that point in time, so to find the average percentage growth of GDP (the straight line,) you would find the average percentage of what is shown in that graph.

Here is the interesting thing though, every single war has been filled with positive GDP growth... not just growth though, I will go so far as to call them spikes. That means that for the duration of each war, growth was higher than before or after.

By the way, am I doing a better job at being painfully clear on my points? If not I can actually work a little bit to find some more sources to list off for you.

Look, if you want to continue your attempts to lower your reputation while simultaneously raising mine, please, be my guest, but I would suggest looking and thinking before commenting again. That being with an emphasis on thought.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 9:31:34 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wow, is that a .edu I see?
Yeah, from the "NY State University at Oswego". VERY impressive. You've totally routed the opposition now.

Ever hear of the logical fallacy known as "appeal to authority"? If you're going to use it, you should at least an authority thats actually impressive.

What's even more amusing is your authority doesn't even support your point. Yes, business cycles exist. That in no way proves (or even implies) that government spending (for war or anything else) increases GDP.

quote:
Here is the interesting thing though, every single war has been filled with positive GDP growth
You mean besides the Vietnam war? Hell, even WW2 caused massive decreases to GDP for Europe and most of the world.

You're also missing a very very important point. GDP translates roughly to standard of living ONLY when most of that GDP isn't being consumed by the government. If our GDP increases 10%, but Gov. usage of products of services goes up 20%, there is actually LESS left over for citizens. That means standard of living goes down, even if on paper GDP rises. IF you actually knew anything about WW2, you'd understand that. Even here in the US, our standard of living went way down during the war, even though we were producing like mad.

So you see, you're three times wrong on this point.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/27/2009 11:20:53 PM , Rating: 2
Did you take a look at the source?

By the way, if you are going to attempt to use sarcasm, be sure that it is exaggerated. Ever hear of the logical fallacy known as "reading the whole post"? Wait, that isn't fallacy, that is both common courtesy and an intelligent process. Yet again, I will quote myself.
quote:
but the data is ultimately correct, and that is what is important.


As for my authority not supporting my point, this is where I refer back to looking at the citation (which has data that is ultimately correct.)
quote:
Wartime increases the demand for goods and services by the military, causing economic expansion. Note the growth in real GDP that occurs in WWII, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War .

Note "and the Vietnam War." that I underlined for you.

You bring up a great point, GDP does not translate directly to standard of living. As for assuming that I know nothing about WW2 because I did not bring up standard of living compared to GDP, you are committing one of these logical fallacies you love so much. I do believe that is called "false analogy," although I am no expert on logical fallacies.

Speaking of logical fallacies, aren't you pulling a red herring into the mix by stating that Europe (an actual location for the war) had decreases in GDP? They obviously will have decreases in GDP because of fear of the war. I forget what another name is for that fallacy as well...

Anyways, here is another fallacy for you; when you point out a logical fallacy and then commit multiple fallacies yourself. Although my stating this would be an example of ad hominem, isn't it.

Do I make my point clear? I think we are done with the logical fallacies here.

As for the economics of standard of living, during the times of war, even when the standard of living is lower at the time, the rise in GDP is somewhat an investment for after the war. After all, when war production ceases, the returning soldiers (and their families) have a lot of spendable money. It really is a "kickstart" to the economy's regular function.

This is actually much of a trend with Americans... We see the short term as much more important than the long term... very depressing when you think about it.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 10:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We've heard all of this trickle down economics stuff before. Look around you... it doesn't work!
Trickle down economics not only worked, it led to the country's longest peacetime economic expansion in history. An expansion that would have still been going strong, had Congress not defaulted on its responsibilities and blown up the housing market by allowing Fannie Mac to make risky subprime mortgages.


RE: Ouch!
By BansheeX on 3/27/2009 3:48:40 AM , Rating: 2
Name one war since WWII in which we attacked another country that attacked us first, rather than preemptively on the basis of infinitely paranoid "would and could" notion.

quote:
Financially crippling? How so? Please, explain how our economy is any worse BECAUSE of war.

You're an idiot. Do you have any idea what we've had to borrow from China and Saudi Arabia to finance our military empire and welfare schemes? The mounting interest obligations cannot be overcome by growth. We WILL cease to be able to borrow further at some point, and then this unproductive economy that mortgaged the farm to buy milk the past 20 years will resort to monetizing its debt (hyperinflation).

quote:
I hate to admit it but we have a huge war industry, like how Russia did, except they shut down and see how that worked for them.

You say that as if the USSR decidedly gave up. "Involuntarily collapsed under the weight of their own debts" is more accurate.

quote:
So really, bring the boys home or not, I will support what they do as long as they are doing it. It is a sad day when people risk their lives doing what many of them believe is right, then to come home and find out no-one even wants them there. Its prolly a huge slap in the face.

I'm not necessarily questioning the people carrying out the orders, I'm questioning the person giving them. Believe it or not, blindly following orders is not a patriotic duty. I refuse to attack countries or blocs that have not attacked us, and I refuse to participate in wars which have not been formally declared as required by the constitution. There should be no question that the United States defends itself from crazed threats and is not perceived as a crazed threat itself.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 9:13:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Name one war since WWII in which we attacked another country that attacked us first
In Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, we attacked only those that first attacked our allies.

The only truly "preemptive" conflicts were those started by Clinton in Bosnia, Yugoslavia, Somalia, and elsewhere.

quote:
Do you have any idea what we've had to borrow from China and Saudi Arabia to finance our military empire and welfare schemes?
We're borrowing much more to finance our welfare schemes than we are to fund the military. How about we give up welfare first, then you can attack the military?


RE: Ouch!
By BansheeX on 3/27/2009 1:00:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq, we attacked only those that first attacked our allies.


It is not the duty of American children to go die in civil conflicts fighting enemies that pose no threat to and did not attack the United States. That is a blood trade, we are not sacrificial lambs or the World Police. Maybe you'll feel differently when your son or daughter gets sent to die in some godforsaken jungle, only to see the military industrial complex make out like bandits while the communist systems collapse themselves 20 years after we pull out.

quote:
We're borrowing much more to finance our welfare schemes than we are to fund the military. How about we give up welfare first, then you can attack the military?


Tall order. It seems neither will happen, the sheeple refuse to face the music and we will collapse like the USSR in the worst possible way. It's as plain as day to any libertarian, to anyone who's done the research.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 2:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is not the duty of American children to go die in civil conflicts fighting enemies that pose no threat
When the Soviet Union allies with China and attempts to take over the entire Asian continent, that's a threat to the US. When Iraq tries to invade Iran, invades Kuwait and maneuvers to invade Saudi Arabia (three of the biggest oil producing states in the world) that's a threat to the US also.

WW2 taught us pretty clearly that stopping a invading regime should be done before it attacks your own soil, rather than after.

quote:
Maybe you'll feel differently when your son or daughter gets sent to die in some godforsaken jungle
Tall words. How many sons and daughters have you lost? Or were you simply using an appeal to emotion to try to score cheap points?


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/27/2009 3:29:44 PM , Rating: 2
"When the Soviet Union allies with China and attempts to take over the entire Asian continent, that's a threat to the US."

This is clearly not true because North Korea did not lose, and Vietnam actually won, but all of Asia did not become communist. Nor were the soviets and chinese friends... They actually fought a minor border skirmish when the Chinese tried to take a piece of land they thought the Russians wouldn't fight over. There was never a threat.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 4:05:53 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
This is clearly not true because North Korea did not lose
They (and their Chinese allies) were prevented from taking over the entire Korean peninsula. That's all we wanted in the first place.

quote:
and Vietnam actually won
Sure. But by showing our resolve to fight and draining resources away from the Russians for 10 years, we prevented them from many other escapades in other places.

If you actually have the gall to sit here ignorantly and say the Soviets were no kind of threat, I can only laugh in amazement. Do you really know so little about world events before 1975?

quote:
Nor were the soviets and chinese friends...
Crack a history book, friend. They were friends, then enemies. Now they're pretty friendly again. Where do you think China got much of its nuclear and missile technology originally from Russia, as well as its first aircraft carrier.


RE: Ouch!
By BansheeX on 3/27/2009 11:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
When the Soviet Union allies with China and attempts to take over the entire Asian continent, that's a threat to the US.

Look at how paranoid you're acting. If your neighbor looks at you funny, does that mean you have the right to go kill him on the supposition that he is plotting to murder your family? Enough with this preemptive war nonsense. We have god damned nuclear weapons and so do many other countries. How exactly do China and Russia intend to take over Pakistan and India, who already have nukes, without getting nuked? Let alone us? As I said before, no nuclear capable country has EVER BEEN INVADED OR NUKED by another nuclear country, the decision amounts to suicide. What is causing you to not figure this out?

quote:
How many sons and daughters have you lost? Or were you simply using an appeal to emotion to try to score cheap points?

None, thankfully, although my father almost got drafted to Vietnam, which could have resulted in me never being born for no effing reason. What kind of stupid rebuttal is this anyway? You deny that other families have not had relatives needlessly killed, potential life denied the chance to exist so you can save strangers or duke it out with commies and religious nutwads in third world countries half a world away that couldn't touch us with a 10ft pole? That is an absurd foreign policy and you know it, American citizens should defend their own sovereign citizens, no entangling alliances, no dependencies and freeloaders. We can't god damned afford the human or financial cost of being everyone's police.


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 3:34:10 PM , Rating: 5
Do not make the assumption that the "policing the world" is a republican notion, although many republicans have fit the bill.

I do believe that it was Clinton who policed Somalia, and it was Clinton who also said "when I say to Saddam Hussein, "You cannot defy the will of the world," and when I say to him, "You have used weapons of mass destruction before; we are determined to deny you the capacity to use them again." ... Sound familiar when thinking of recent events?

Earlier than that, however, Truman policed the Chinese Civil War in '49. Truman was a Democrat.

Kennedy was ultimately responsible for the Bay of Pigs incident with Cuba, as well as starting Vietnam. Kennedy was a Democrat.

LBJ later expanded the war in Vietnam. Johnson was a Democrat.

This is just another example of politicians telling you something that the other guy did so that you will forget how they did it themselves.

And for the record, I am neither Republican, nor Democrat... I am too opinionated against political BS :D


RE: Ouch!
By ThePooBurner on 3/26/2009 4:21:53 PM , Rating: 2
There is no draw when we are 100% protected from their missiles.

The protection from the missiles isn't from the planes. The planes are for when we finish them off after our missiles hit them.


RE: Ouch!
By BansheeX on 3/27/2009 4:02:38 AM , Rating: 2
You're not making any sense. If someone like Russia ever invaded us and won a conventional war, we would launch our nukes and achieve a thermonuclear draw rather than a loss. Which is why no one has ever invaded a nuclear capable country regardless of conventional military might, because you guarantee your own destruction even if you "won".


RE: Ouch!
By ThePooBurner on 3/30/2009 5:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
No, i made complete sense. I'm afraid you just didn't understand what i said. They cannot stop our missiles. We CAN stop theirs. They would have to launch every missile they had at once inorder to get any through.


RE: Ouch!
By akosixiv on 3/26/2009 1:03:41 PM , Rating: 5
one of the main reasons why there are no huge air battles, is that nobody wants to fight and overly powered air force. One which only the U.S. has.

Lose that edge and enemies would start taking potshots.

The key word there is deterrent.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/2009 1:30:39 PM , Rating: 1
The US had much superior air power in the Vietnam war than did the enemy, yet it still lost. The US just killed so many innocent people that eventually everybody was fighting to oust the US, and they won. It looks like Afghanistan is well on its way to winning as well. No surprise there - if the USSR couldn't take them being next door to them, what could the US possibly have hoped for? The way to winning that war was in heavily supervised socialist aid, not blood and guts. Win the hearts of the people and you'll win the war.


RE: Ouch!
By ninjaquick on 3/26/2009 2:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so what do you call an end to a war.. a cease fire? unconditional surrender. What would you chose if you were trying to keep communist A out of capitalist B, while giving both sides freedom.

Pretty sure unconditional surrender was not an option with vietnam so they chose cease fire. Pretty sure that when the cease fire is broken as troops are leaving that really isnt a loss its just foul play.

Afghanistan isnt really a war, is a pseudo occupation. The US already beat the bad guys and are just sweeping the rest out. The war was never against Afghanistan.


RE: Ouch!
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/26/2009 2:58:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The US already beat the bad guys and are just sweeping the rest out.


You really just get your news from info-preview-commercial-snipets from the local news, dont you? Read a book or a paper of substance... whatever the writers' bias.


RE: Ouch!
By LibertyFace on 3/26/2009 3:06:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The US already beat the bad guys and are just sweeping the rest out.


If that's true, why are US commanders requesting an additional 30,000 troops, effectively doubling our presence in afghanistan, smart one?


RE: Ouch!
By just4U on 3/26/2009 5:39:40 PM , Rating: 3
... Because only Britian, The United States, and Canada have taken any really major active role over there??? NATO approved it all and it was expected that every country would be doing their fair share but the unwillingness (or political unpopularity) of many means that America is going to have to take a even greater role in it to get things done. It was expected that they would do the Lion's share but it was also expected that there would be more of a effort by all Nato's forces..

Canada has been pushing buttons for 4 years now trying to get our Nato allies to take on a greater role but it hasn't panned out. I am positive that America and the UK have been doing the same.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 2:56:48 PM , Rating: 4
The US "lost" the war in Vietnam because it wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to win it.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/2009 4:00:02 PM , Rating: 5
Do you mean carpet bomb Vietnam with nuclear warheads?


RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:20:38 PM , Rating: 2
There is a solution to everything, isn't there? haha


RE: Ouch!
By jarman on 3/26/2009 8:08:31 PM , Rating: 3
... or actually resume bombing Hanoi when Northern Vietnamese left the negotiating table and when the Viet Cong and NVA began Tet, and continued to bomb it, until it looked like Dresden on VE day.

"If you do not have the intestinal fortitude to fight a war, then you can have no hope of winning that war."

-- 1st day, Parris Island


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 3:00:24 PM , Rating: 2
no.

the us faltered in vietnam because the presidential administration insisted on micromanaging the fight, out tactics & our methods.

it also didn't help that the USAF leaders of the past believed so passionately that "future war will only be about nukes". vietnam had nothing to do with nuclear weapons--and fighting it with weapons systems designed solely around that premise proved to be a substantial strategic error.

keep that in mind when you espouse ONLY weapons systems for the "global war on terror". narrow-minded-ness will come back & bite us in the ass again if we choose to be so blatently blind to the true need for air-dominance & multi-role platforms.

afghanistan is not winning or losing. we're fighting terrorists--a war which will prove difficult regardless of training & equipment--due to the nature of this type of conflict.

you CANNOT eliminate terrorism with "hugs".


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 3:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
"the us faltered in vietnam because the presidential administration insisted on micromanaging the fight, out tactics & our methods."

So you're saying if only the military could do whatever it wanted, without anyone dictating to them things would be different?
Why is it so damn hard to acknowledge that it's nearly impossible to win a guerrilla war? Particularly when you don't have the support of a population?


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
we DID have the support of the population. we fought with our hands tied. one example of this is NOT being able to pre-emptively strike sams being constructed & having to wait until they engaged us before we returned fire.

america fought to send a message; vietnam fought to win.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 4:07:10 PM , Rating: 2
We most definitely did not have the support of the population.
And I'm going to guess the SAM sites had links to Russia, and getting them involved would have had worse consequences.
And you still seem to think that Guerrilla wars are winnable, when there are extremely few examples of this in history.


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 10:23:01 PM , Rating: 2
oh. you're referring to OUR population--NOT the vietnamese population.

well, yes. in that case you are correct.


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By jRaskell on 3/26/2009 12:59:40 PM , Rating: 5
George Orwell once said "People sleep peacably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf."

Anybody who believes that the American way of life (or any fundamentally free way of life, for that matter) is provided free of charge is just plain naive. Don't believe for one second that our country would not be threatened on multiple sides if we didn't have the military might to deter such threats.

The world isn't nearly as peaceful as a good many people choose to ignorantly believe. The fact that most people don't realize this is an unfortunate testament to the effectiveness of our military might. If that might were to go away, so too will that ignorance, but I have no doubt it will be sorely missed by those who lost it.

We can certainly debate about whether or not that might is being properly and rightfully exerted now and in the past, but any argument as to whether or not it is needed at all is one based purely out of naive ignorance.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By Spuke on 3/26/2009 1:24:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The missions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be noticeably better if one has an F15 or an F22a.
Simply, you have to keep your equipment up to date. Or if you look at it from a military point of view, keep your equipment one or two steps ahead of the competition. Either way, people in this country have become too complacent and isolated. Maybe it's time we get a collective wake up call. Fortunately for me, I've already done my time so I can just stay home and watch it on TV. I guess some of you here will just run away to Canada or Mexico.


RE: Ouch!
By MozeeToby on 3/26/2009 1:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
1984 was a warning, not a guidebook. Please don't use it to paint Orwell as some kind of privacy hating ultra-socialist.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/26/2009 2:21:54 PM , Rating: 5
hmmm...

quote:
before being given the vote.


Careful what you wish for...

quote:
limited to those who have some minimum of intelligence


-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By goinginstyle on 3/26/2009 2:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Although I would like to see democratic expression limited to those who have some minimum of intelligence. ie, people should demonstrate reading comprehension and basic mathematical skills before being given the vote.


If that was the case then I seriously doubt Obama would be in office right now. ;)


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 3:00:15 PM , Rating: 2
Man if that isn't true I don't know what is.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:28:34 PM , Rating: 2
I didn't know that intelligence was based on political opinion...


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 8:22:10 PM , Rating: 2
That's why the man can't open his damn mouth in public without a f*cking teleprompter. Less than 100 days in office and he's already being called the teleprompter President.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 1:31:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The missions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be noticeably better if one has an F15 or an F22a


You're only thinking of today. What about in 20 years when Russia or China has sold terrorists weapons capable of shooting down an F16 but not an F22?


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/26/2009 2:18:49 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Hey, how about educational spending along with free breakfast/lunch programs at elementary~high school? That's the sort of thing that will help America keep its edge more than anything. Education is a primary key in keeping the west ahead.


That is the responsibility of the State and the parents respectively. How about we get priorities back in line? The federal government’s #1 job is to keep Americans safe.

Those fore-fathers intentionally set it up such that the States had authority over education as they saw fit, but new that each individual state could not protect themselves without working together. In short, go rag on your Governor if your school system sucks. Go rag on the parents that live next door if the kids in your area aren’t getting properly fed.

Stop sitting around waiting for the federal government to solve it for you while you bellyache and Monday morning quarterback every action they do take. Changing the, “Whow is me, when is my government going to solve all my problems?” attitude is what will keep the West ahead.

-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By LibertyFace on 3/26/2009 3:00:15 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
When terrorists are able to shoot down F15s, well, then it's time to build the machines that they can't. Until then, save the money for more important things.


You actually think it's a good idea to wait until terrorists can shoot our planes down? Let me guess, you wait to change your engine's oil until your car breaks down.


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 3:06:31 PM , Rating: 4
deeply disturbing opinion--to say the least.

it is indeed a good thing you do not make strategic decisions for the US military--or we'd be overrun within 20 years.

by the time that the lowest of your enemy combatants can easily dispose of the flagship of your airship fleet--the war is already lost.

the development time of the f4, f15 & f22 alone should convince you of the necessity of acquiring air-supremacy weapons-systems well in advance of their "need". if we DON'T plan on acquire new systems 10+ years in advance...we WILL fall short when we require them.

actually....what has historically been proven to boost america economically (from whence all prosperity derives) is a boom in military spending. both wwii & the reagan years demonstrated this with resounding success. military spending increases military jobs, civillian contractor jobs, assembly line jobs, etc, etc, etc. subsequently, these jobs boost tax revenues.


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By msomeoneelsez on 3/26/2009 4:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
Be careful how you say the allies comment, one of these liberal pacifists will start talking about how Bush pushed all of our allies away and now the world hates us... haha


RE: Ouch!
By walk2k on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 5:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
When was the last time US soil was even seriously threatened, Cuban missile crisis??
I guess you forgot about all those Soviet bombers that flew runs to Alaska up almost to the 90s, and all those thousands of Soviet nuclear ICBMS that were pointed at US cities, ready to launch at the touch of a button, up to about the same time?

Funny, Russia didn't destroy all those missiles either, and it reacts VERY badly to us wanting a system that could block them. But you're right, they couldn't possibly EVER think of using them.

quote:
Idiot.
Back at you.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 9:20:30 PM , Rating: 1
What the hell is the airforce going to do about those missiles? And regardless, what kind of scenario are you envisioning here, Red Dawn?! The Russians land infantry in some god foresaken town in Colorado?
If nuclear war did break out scores of F-22s wouldn't be a solution, clearly.


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/27/2009 8:26:19 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
What the hell is the airforce going to do about those missiles? And regardless, what kind of scenario are you envisioning here, Red Dawn?! The Russians land infantry in some god foresaken town in Colorado?


I described no such scenario and brought up no such Russians, sir. I suggest you muffle your passions a tad bit and actually read an opposing opinion instead of paraphrasing it just enough to fit your little warped view.

People like you crack me up. You sit your fat ass on the internet bemoaning defense spending, but the SECOND your safety is threatened you are the first ones to scream 'where was the government/military !!!!'


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 9:21:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
What the hell is the airforce going to do about those missiles? If nuclear war did break out scores of F-22s wouldn't be a solution
You really need to understand the concept of the nuclear triad, and the role air superiority plays in it.

We're not going to go from peace to full-scale nuclear war overnight. Situations build up, nations take aggressive actions, which makes other nations retaliate. Eventually one side decides the other is going to nuke them, and they strike first. Having air superiority breaks that cycle. It doesn't keep Russia from launching ICBMs directly, it keeps them from taking the actions that LEAD to a situation where they might find themselves forced to be.

Finally, if nuclear war DID break out, air superiority prevents one leg of the nuclear triad (bombers) from reaching our shore, and allows our anti-sub ships to survive to potentially knock out a second leg (boomers).


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/26/2009 5:43:11 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
War is different now.


No. War is always the same. Only the way it's fought changes. If man was perfect there would be no war, but we're not. So there you are. Take that as you will.

200 F-22's is hardly what I would call a "massive buildup" of weapons. But hey, it's all opinion I guess.

quote:
When was the last time US soil was attacked?


A long long time. I guess our "massive buildup" of weapons might have something to do with that fact ? I'm tired of playing chicken or the egg with you, kid. You can either accept the fact that a strong military is needed to DISCOURAGE attack as much as it is to defend against one, or you can't. Either way, I could give a damn.

Enjoy sitting at home on your fat ass fighting on the Internet. Other "idiots" like me died so you could do so.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 9:27:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're an idiot because you're not actually disagreeing with him. He didn't say that there would be no war, he said that cold war era weapons are going to be of extremely limited use in future conflicts. The M1 battle tank for example was designed to operate on the vast open planes of Europe, not a crowded city street. And the F-22 will likely never face high tech squadrons, but rather lower tech drones armed with plenty of missiles. A single F-22 could pay for body armor for how many troops?


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/27/2009 8:19:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
A single F-22 could pay for body armor for how many troops?


Without air superiority troops are fodder. We saw this in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam and of course both Gulf/Iraq Wars.

Your line of thinking is wrong. We could argue all day about whether of not we'll actually NEED 'air superiority' now or in the near future. But you cannot argue this simply strategic fact : Without air superiority your ground troop casualty rate will be higher. We could take every dollar spent on the F-22 and tanks and ships, and put that into body armor for troops. Do you honestly think this will be a benefit for them ?

You guys are just terribly short sighted and have an extremely limited, or selective, view about the way things are in the world. Is it youth or stupidity ? Either way, please wake up.


RE: Ouch!
By wordsworm on 3/27/2009 12:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Other "idiots" like me died so you could do so.


If that was true, you wouldn't be replying to his post.

Fighting a war to defend a nation is something a lot of liberals would support. Fighting a war to get another country's oil is usually what we're against, or spending too much on military arms in times of peace at the neglect of social programs.


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/27/2009 8:05:33 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Fighting a war to defend a nation is something a lot of liberals would support. Fighting a war to get another country's oil is usually what we're against, or spending too much on military arms in times of peace at the neglect of social programs.


Social programs in this country FAR eclipse millitary spending. I wouldn't worry too much about your vaunted social programs, especially with Obama signing in another trillion dollars worth of them under the guise of economic "stimulus".

I see you call yourself a liberal AND bring up the lie about going to war for oil in the same sentence. You have a gift, I'll give you that. Are you trying to define how wrong and bitter the typical Liberal is, or just make yourself appear to be a moron ?

We have not taken a single drop of oil from Iraq. It's really sad that, years later, you have not even bothered to educate yourself on this. Instead you choose to be a puppet and regurgitate the same BS your fellow Liberals fill your head with.

I don't know how you people make it through the day to be honest. Angry, bitter, against everything that is good and just about your own country. It's really sad.


RE: Ouch!
By William Gaatjes on 3/27/2009 1:35:11 AM , Rating: 2
Politics is not that simple Reclaimer. Although the US has done great things to assure stability for a century, the US also undermines that same stability to keep the cash flow going. In all honesty , the liberal pacificsts are the ones trying to create that stability (even with the best weapons) while the (neo)conservatives
are more like the fundamentalists in israël or the fundamentalists in islamic countries. They just want to make a profit over corpses.


RE: Ouch!
By Reclaimer77 on 3/27/2009 8:11:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Politics is not that simple Reclaimer. Although the US has done great things to assure stability for a century, the US also undermines that same stability to keep the cash flow going. In all honesty , the liberal pacificsts are the ones trying to create that stability (even with the best weapons) while the (neo)conservatives are more like the fundamentalists in israël or the fundamentalists in islamic countries. They just want to make a profit over corpses.


Our government just spent 3 trillion dollars it does not even have yet. William, do you honestly think we need wars to "keep the cash flow going" ? No, all 'we' need are people stupid enough to keep voting in radical socialists. They figured out long ago there is more the enough wealth in the United States alone, they just needed to figure out a way to steal it err I mean "tax" it.

Calling conservatives kin to "fundamentalists" ( a fancy word for terrorists ? ) is the most blatant slander and character assassination one could even think of.

William you are far too radical for me good sir. It's impossible to have an honest debate with someone THAT far off the deep end.


RE: Ouch!
By William Gaatjes on 3/27/2009 4:36:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Our government just spent 3 trillion dollars it does not even have yet. William, do you honestly think we need wars to "keep the cash flow going" ? No, all 'we' need are people stupid enough to keep voting in radical socialists. They figured out long ago there is more the enough wealth in the United States alone, they just needed to figure out a way to steal it err I mean "tax" it.


Well, i never said i agree with every point on the political agenda of the current administration of the U.S. But you have to understand there is some psychology in it. Being social brings out the best in people. Altruism is very important in a human sociëty something most people instinctively know. I will give you an example of sheer politics not in the best interest of people :

Just search for the aipac (the israel lobby) and look how manipulated the news on the site is.

http://www.aipac.org/

quote:

Calling conservatives kin to "fundamentalists" ( a fancy word for terrorists ? ) is the most blatant slander and character assassination one could even think of.


I am not talking about all conservatives. Just a group with extreme idea's. Like for example the neo conservatives who back israël in every way. What is the case ? When in 1995 Yithzak Rabin was murdered by a right wing radical orthodox jew in israel, the already fragile stability( if you can speak of stability that is) in the middle east began to decline.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yitzhak_Rabin

This caused the oslo accords to fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords

Every year palestina had less and less because all the infrastructure build with western money is every time bombed and destroyed over again. Bombed and destroyed by Israel. And the west always pay the bills because because we are doing nothing to prevent this over and over again and we are feeling guilty. A lot of this money went into israëli pockets by the way.

1999 : A harbor was supposed to be build by a french/dutch consortium. The Netherlands and Israel are supposed to be allies but that does not stop Israel from bombing the harbor under construction in 2001 and destroying everything build so far. Dutch governement as usuall sticks it's head in the sand and call out for Anne Frank.

If you want to go back further, read and search what happened with the uss liberty in 1967.

http://books.google.com/books?id=apBxEQ6-EbgC&dq=u...

Ever since the people in the gaza are suppressed and live years in fear and anger and hate. It's not strange that some of those people develop insane idea's and become terrorists. As it turn out, There is a very rich gas field to be found in the sea in front of gaza.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643848/Gaza-do...

It's obvious. Right winged Israeli want to claim those and any other possible natural resources in the area. The existence of these fields is claimed to be known for seven years. Coincidence ? I bet it is known a bit longer...
That is why the "wars" happen every time. Ever since palestina was to become a seperate state and a normal country they where bombed back every year. Now they have nothing left. The entire economic infrastructure is destroyed. Any infrastructure that ever existed in Gaza is destroyed.

All the infrastructure we pay for to be rebuild every time, are all destroyed again and again. And the west keeps pulling it's wallet to pay for damage and saying sorry to the palestinians. This is one of the reasons the west is hated so much in islamitic countries. Another reason is plain politics and one sided news in those countries, same as in the US is happening but then with an anti semitic, anti western point of view.

Now what is the link : aipac. And the neo conservatives like John Hagee.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee

Richard perle is by the way investing in oil in Iraq. Search the wall street journals if you like. Search about Richard Perle but i am sure that you heard of him already.

And talking about money, how about the iraq war. Read what Israeli General Shlomo Brom had to say about the provided evidence if you did not know that.

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/inde...
fa=view&id=14744&proj=znpp

Look at this documentary if you please.
It's dutch narrated but you will be able to understand since it is in english.

http://video.google.nl/videoplay?docid=-2270175797...

You will see Cheney, Clinton, Bush, Obama and Pelosi for example... Because the aipac arrange that campaign are paid for with donations to influence American politicians. As you see here, it is not just conservatives, it is also democrats. 26:25 in the documentary : your current president. Money will become available but the threat in the middle east will continue and will not stop.

If you speak badly about israel... Well, see for yourself what John Hagee has to say about american politicians who speak in a negative way about Israel. All thos religious people are brainwashed.

Some of these people are as insane and fundamental idiots as those islamic terrorists. But the smarter people are not insane, they just manipulate. And we all pay the bills.

It is all just politics. I may not like and you may not like it, but it is the way it is. Good politics is influencing people that peace will arise by taking out the rotten appels over time. But that is for a very long time not the case anymore.

If you would like some books, here are some links.

http://www.amazon.com/Israel-Lobby-U-S-Foreign-Pol...

Even your former president Jimmy Carter ahs written books about it. You can search for them if you like. This will probably be a monolog from me but at least i am trying to give you a different point of view. Although i am sure this page will be lowered to -1 as soon as possible.

To make one last thing very clear ! It is not just the US, It is all over the world. Weapons development/sales and war generate huge profit's. And when you read all this, where do you think some of that money comes from ?


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 3:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Though I prefer peace by all means necessary


Yes and there were other people like you. They were the leaders of European nations in the 1930s who tried peace through appeasement with Germany. Yeah that turned out real well....

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that giving kids "free" education or "free" lunches is the job of the federal government. It DOES however say that the federal government is responsible for defending the nation and its borders/sovereignty. And like anything else "free", when it is "free" it is taken for granted.


RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/26/2009 1:37:22 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
The missions going on in Iraq and Afghanistan are not going to be noticeably better if one has an F15 or an F22a.


Do you have an appreciation for the fact that a lot of the systems on the aging planes like the F15 are getting harder and harder to repair?

Its one thing to have a company stop making a part and have to find a new company to qualify and make the part. It is another when the entire industry has moved on from that process and nobody makes the parts anymore.

Would you rather spend ¾ of a billion totally redesigning and overhauling an old aircraft avionics system because you can’t get anybody to make you vacuum tubes anymore, or would you rather put that money into developing a new system for a new, better plane? The cost does not end up as a wash, in the end the new plane still costs more, but the cost is significantly less once a negative regression (cost of doing nothing) is factored into it. However, the Huffington’s of the world never bother to take a real look at the real cost analysis. They just like the clean little bottom line sound bites with big numbers in them.

Oh, and another thing, just one of the advancements of the F22 is the supercruise capability. It allows the plane to get more than twice as far from its base as a comparable F15 at supersonic speeds. Maybe that’s not important to you, but if your daddy’s life depends on that plane getting out there in enough time to kill the bad guy, maybe it would start to sound like a nice little increase of capability. That’s just one of many added capabilities that give army decision makers more options to choose from as they try and accomplish missions with minimum casualties.

-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/26/2009 1:15:52 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Go figure that some people would prefer to spend that money on the living rather than on unnecessary machines


My buddy from college got an engineering job at L-M and spent a lot of time working on the missle launching subassembly for that plane.

He's an American citizen and he provides for his family thanks to that job.

Sorry buddy, but defense spending puts food on people's tables just as much or more than paying a whole bunch of deadbeats to walk around filling potholes with asphault.

quote:
whose only purpose is to kill people.


Nope. Quite literally the purpose of an air supiriority fighter is to discourage the enemy from ever even bothering to take off. Therefore minimizing deaths.

You do realize one of the first things Saddam did once he came to the conclusion that the US was going to come in and make some noise was to fly the majority of his airforce out of the country so that his planes wouldn't be distroyed in a pointless encounter?

quote:
but having 200 of these overpriced machines is retarded when much more economical models can be had that can do the same jobs.


I assume you wouldn't be dropping your 18 yr old off at the airforce recruters office when the sign out front reads, "Aim high! We now have a whole bunch of mediocre planes for you to fly. They don't offer the same assurances of a positive outcome, but we've got a lot of them!"

-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By Spuke on 3/26/2009 1:41:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I assume you wouldn't be dropping your 18 yr old off at the airforce recruters office when the sign out front reads,
People like him would rather protest the presence of the military than join it. And these people really feel there's no need for one. Can't see the forest for the trees I guess. It's a personal choice on whether or not to join but at least see the value in having a military and what they do for the rest of us. We REALLY want our military to be ahead of the ball game. Would you rather people get killed first and then have our military react to it?


RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/26/2009 2:10:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People like him would rather protest the presence of the military than join it.


Reminds me of all the Crusties that protested outside of the Shannon airport in Ireland because American solders used that airport as a stop over to refuel on the way to the Middle East. Or the Czechs in Prague complaining about the missile tracking radars that America wanted to put in to listen to the Russians. Fair enough if you want to hide behind the notion that you are a “neutral country” but take a moment to appreciate that your status as “neutral” is being afforded by the efforts of other countries that you are aligned with.

Anyone think Putin cares if the Czech Republic calls itself neutral now? Anyone think the Irish would’ve spent WWII unoccupied if there hadn’t been a big land mass filled with more level headed and deterministic folk in-between them and the mainland?

-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By Manch on 3/26/2009 1:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
having 200 of these overpriced machines is retarded when much more economical models can be had that can do the same jobs.


And that would be the F-22. When this platform was in developement it went up against another model and it won out. Cost was one of those arguements.

You may not see it, many don't. These platforms are built for the living. They act as a detterence, They provide us with Air Superiority. Maintaining this superiority in the Air as well as the Land and Sea is done with the very real purpose of protecting the living. If we didnt send money on these platforms then we would be vulnerable. To think that some of the other nations on this world of ours would hesitate for a sec to take us out or over if they could is naive at best.

By no means is our systems for procurring equipment or our foresight into what exactly we need perfect but we do the best we can. We prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

If 55 billion spent keeps people from harming my countrymen(even the ones that spit on me) then as far as I'm concerned it's money well spent.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
"To think that some of the other nations on this world of ours would hesitate for a sec to take us out or over if they could is naive at best.

This makes no sense. Where are these enemy fighter wings going to come from? Canada? Mexico? Aircraft carriers? (Which are so vulnerable they would never come within range of our shores.)
The F22 is a relatively short range fighter. Great if transported to a specific theater of operations, but the notion that it's protecting our shores is ridiculous.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 5:02:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where are these enemy fighter wings going to come from? Canada? Mexico?
We've fought wars with both those countries in the past. Oh wait-- it can't possibly ever happen again, right? They LIKE us, right?

But its true they're not the real risk. The real risk is some nation halfway around the world cus off the flow of oil to the US. Then we all starve to death when we can't grow crops or ship them into our cities. Air superiority prevents that from happening.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 9:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the Mexican airforce is going to attack us with their 10 F5 fighters. (oh sure they have other planes, 70 of them cessnas).
And how exactly does air superiority stop your scenario?


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 10:09:09 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, the Mexican airforce is going to attack us with their 10 F5 fighters.
Are you intentionally playing the fool? If Mexico got cozy with China and let them use Mexican soil to stage Chinese troops (biggest army in the world by far), the US would be in a world of hurt. If we didn't have air superiority, that is.

Is that a plausible scenario today? Of course not. But no one can predict what relations will be like 25 years from now. And that's how long it takes to build an air superiority fighter program.

Oh, you once again ignored the real threat. Its not that the US will get invaded, but that some other country will try to cut off our essential imports of oil, steel, or some other resource. The US manufacturers very little of its critical heavy industrial supplies any more, a very risky position to be in.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 10:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
Right... China will ship it's 1 million strong army across the ocean and stage it in Mexico, all without being detected or intercepted. This isn't a plausible scenario in any future!


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 10:24:15 PM , Rating: 2
How would we intercept them without air superiority? And if they moved the troops before hostilities started, we likely wouldn't do a thing, even if we could, for the same reason that Russia could land troops in Cuba today and we wouldn't do anything but lodge a protest.

Oh, and you've now for the THIRD time ignored the real threat. Its not an actual invasion of the US, but having our oil or other resources cut off. Why are you afraid to answer this point?


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 10:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone to stage an army half way around the world they most definitely are not going to transport it by air, they would transport it by sea. This allows you to intercept them using the navy, and set up a blockade. I also don't believe that a troop buildup would go unanswered. Just the presence of soviet missiles in cuba led to quite a confrontation, and that was without any troops.

And actually I did respond to your hypothetical about resources with a question, but let me expand upon it. If say Opec decided tomorrow that they will not sell us any oil, how is air superiority going to help? Or do you mean if China decided they want to have all the shipments of oil sent to them rather then us? I think the solution to this problem would not be a military solution.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 10:45:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This allows you to intercept them using the navy
Without air superiority, your navy gets sunk before it arrives. That's why we build aircraft carriers.

quote:
Or do you mean if China decided they want to have all the shipments of oil sent to them rather then us?
No, I mean if China (or someone else) decided to setup a naval blockade, and prevent the US from receiving oil. Read your history, blockades just like this are one of the first steps in major conflicts.

Hell, to stop oil, you'd just have to block a few small choke points, like the Panama Canal, the Straits of Hormuz and Malacca, and it would be damn near impossible for most of the world's oil to get anywhere.


RE: Ouch!
By Manch on 3/26/2009 5:31:53 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps I could have been more clear, but I think you're misunderstanding my point. What you quoted was if you read the whole paragraph to underscore the need for deterrence.

You're cherry picking here when you only mention our shores, but I can think of a few potential conflicts that may arise.

South America has been for sometime leaning farther and farther towards socialism. Venezuela is at the forefront of this and they are being supplied with Russian Tech. Chavez is staunchly Anti-American and has been getting bolder everyday. Venezuela is not that far away.

Russia has been offered a base in Cuba.Venezuela and Cuba are buddies! They sail Chevy's across the damn sea to Florida so I think it's close enough.

Now granted the F-22 has a relatively short range but with our refuelers it's range is almost unlimited. This platform is head and shoulders above the latest and greatest fighter tech out there.

If we dont upgrade our fighters and continue to use aircraft that are 30+ yrs old we will eventually find ourselves just like we did in Vietnam with a very small and uncomfortable advantage. During the Korean War we had a almost 15-1 kill ratio by the time it ended. At the beginning of the Vietnam War are advantage quickly dropped to a 2-1 advantage. Why? Because we were still using late WWII tech. It wasn't until our kill ratio damn near went 1-1 before we finally released the F-4 and the other awesome platforms of those years that we brought it back up to about 7-1. Russia was using Vietnam to fight a proxy war against us and use it to test out there tech. Do you think they wouldn't do that now?

I believe in 2005/6 I can't remember exactly but during one of our exercises with an allied country using Russian Tech our F-15's were out matched unless they had AWACS support. The Mig's simply out ranged them.

Anyways, I know a lot of people seem to think that these aircraft are unneeded. Well I dont want to see the day when they are.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 9:46:31 PM , Rating: 2
Deterrence in your scenario is covered by nuclear weapons, not the airforce. Venezuela could shoot down every fighter we have and it wouldn't matter, there would be a nuclear warhead headed their way if they did. There is absolutely no possibility of them actually invading. And even if they did, how would they maintain ground? They simply don't have enough people!
Now if we're talking regional war instead of all out war I would imagine it would unfold pretty similar to the Falkland campaign of 82, which if anything demonstrated that "cheap" missiles are a much bigger threat then any planes themselves.
Now as for Vietnam, WWII tech? come on... you mean like the A-4, A-8, etc? Also I don't have the figures, but I'm willing to wager that most planes were not lost in air to air combat, but rather due to SAMs and Flack.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 9:54:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
could shoot down every fighter we have and it wouldn't matter, there would be a nuclear warhead headed their way if they did
Can people really be this ignorant? We've had nuclear weapons since 1945, and that didn't stop the countries of Korea, Vietnam or Iraq from shooting down plenty of our aircraft. Hell, even Yugoslavia and Somalia got a couple.

The idea that nuclear weapons are some sort of panacea is pretty childish. They're really only useful to prevent the other side from using its own nuclear weapons, not for day to day warfare.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 10:17:10 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point was to address the idea that somehow without the most advanced aircraft in the world other countries are going to take us over. A couple of people here did imply specifically that. All I'm saying is that we're not in danger of being taken over without top of the line air superiority fighters.
Yes, I'm sure there will be regional conflicts with use of airpower. I'm just not buying the "this is what keeps us safe" hogwash.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 10:27:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, I'm sure there will be regional conflicts with use of airpower.
This is what you don't understand. If that "regional conflict" involves cutting off the flow of oil to the US then it will be just as bad if not worse than an actual invasion on our soil.

No oil = we all starve to death as our agricultural system grinds to a halt.


RE: Ouch!
By Suntan on 3/27/2009 10:29:29 AM , Rating: 2
Just let the kid have his lolly pop. He clearly believes he understands the tactics of how to prepare for, and win, every possible scenario from the smallest troop skirmish to the largest theater campaign.

If he ardently believes that he can win every scenario, with just the threat of having a nuke in his hip pocket, and no need for advanced fighters; even though it goes against the judgment of the people sitting in the 5 sided building in DC, so what? Its not like his opinion matters.

I’m guessing, from the sound of his responses, he’s got a good 3 or 4 years to grow up and figure things out prior to being part of the voting ranks anyway, so its not like he can dilute to decision making process anyway.

-Suntan


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/27/2009 2:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's really funny Suntan.
First you can tell my age right from my handle (19 81 ), I'm 28. Second if you actually paid attention you'd notice that I said there isn't a military solution to every problem. I don't see how we could win a military confrontation with China for example.
Nor is the point of Nukes "winning". They make for a good deterrent. Much more so then having the best airforce in the world. And in situations we're likely to face it's all moot anyway... say a saudi citizen sneaks a suitcase bomb into a big city and blows it up... what are you going to do? start a war with saudi arabia? Clearly we aren't going to war with a whole country due to the actions of a few of it's citizens. Those are the scenarios we should be looking at.

"even though it goes against the judgment of the people sitting in the 5 sided building in DC"

Hate to break it to you, but the people in the pentagon have hardly proven themselves to be great strategists. People on the street could have told you that Iraq would not turn out well, but they still insisted that it would be a short, quick campaign.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 2:56:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nukes make for a good deterrent
If they're such a perfect deterrent, explain why we fought so many conflicts in the past 50 years.

Nukes deter your opponent from using his own nukes...and sometimes not even that. They don't do much more than that.

quote:
say a saudi citizen sneaks a suitcase bomb into a big city and blows it up... what are you going to do?
A "saudi citizen" won't get a suitcase nuke without some help from a world government, or something close to it. That's why we take action now, against nations like Iran (or Iraq, back when it was still trying) who are trying to get the resources to build nuclear bombs. See? It all fits together.

quote:
People on the street could have told you that Iraq would not turn out well, but they still insisted that it would be a short, quick campaign
Funny, I don't recall anyone in the Pentagon saying we could rebuild Iraq form the ground up and protect their fledging government from insurgents around the world in a "short quick campaign". Can you cite your source for this amazing claim?


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/27/2009 3:16:14 PM , Rating: 2
"If they're such a perfect deterrent, explain why we fought so many conflicts in the past 50 years."

But not a single one of these conflicts was with a nation that declared war against us or attacked our soil. And not a single one of these conflicts was with a nation that had nuclear weapons themselves. Proxy wars? Yes, but the only one that actually had an impact on our interests was the first gulf war.

"A "saudi citizen" won't get a suitcase nuke without some help from a world government, or something close to it. That's why we take action now, against nations like Iran"

So it's completely inconceivable that a warhead could go missing somewhere? (our own airforce has displayed rather lax procedures when live weapons were carried on a plane if you remember). And why stress out about Iran which might develop this stuff, when we have countries that already DO have it, like Pakistan?

"Funny, I don't recall anyone in the Pentagon saying we could rebuild Iraq form the ground up and protect their fledging government from insurgents around the world in a "short quick campaign"."

Don't you see? It didn't even occur to them that this could happen. They have such a poor grasp of the region that no one stopped to think whether taking out Saddam could destabilize the region, and weaken the country to the extent that it could be overrun by foreign fighters. This is what planning is all about. Instead we got claptrap about how we'll march in, finish the job in a month or two, install a new government and get out. Their lack of foresight is obvious.


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/27/2009 4:19:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They have such a poor grasp of the region that no one stopped to think whether taking out Saddam could destabilize the region, and weaken the country
But the region isn't "destabilized" and the country isn't weakened. Iraq's GDP is today almost twice as much as it was before we attacked. They have a free and open democracy, they have more schools, factories, and businesses than ever. 20 times as many Iraqis die in traffic accidents as they do from terrorist bombs, and that's 1/100 the amount Saddam and his cronies killed.

quote:
So it's completely inconceivable that a warhead could go missing somewhere?
This is getting stupid. Yeah, its "possible" a lone individual could steal a nuke, get it through our security and intelligence, and blow up a city. Does that mean we should stop worrying about the million-times-more likely scenario of an actual government or major terrorist organization (itself aided by a government) using a nuke on us?

Your logic is like saying "since my house might get hit by a meteor, I shouldn't worry about floor or fire insurance!".


RE: Ouch!
By Manch on 3/27/2009 11:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
So "If' Venezuela were to destroy all of our aircraft we would use nukes? Are you kidding me? Detonate it over Mexico? Nuke Venezuela itself and have that fall out blow over into our allies?

No Nukes aren't the answer for that, Air Superiority platforms such as the F-22 are.

And yes late WWII tech. At the beginning of Veitnam most of our planes were designs that came into play at the very end of WWII, barely any saw action if at all. They were put to use in Korea. F-86's and it's variations for example. A-4 and A-8 are attack craft not fighters, hence there designation. Apples to oranges there.

The F-4 was built on the need to have a superior dog fighter, because the sabers and shooting stars weren't cutting it.


RE: Ouch!
By ninjaquick on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By markitect on 3/26/2009 12:46:04 PM , Rating: 4
Your an idiot, Bush cut the order, not Obama. Obama is reconsidering it to possibly get more as per the Air Force's request.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/09, Rating: 0
RE: Ouch!
By Keeir on 3/26/2009 12:57:11 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Our Air Force is going to have serious issues maintaining air dominance in 30 years if we don't get these new planes built. The F16/F18 are 30-50 years old. Even the F22 is already based on 20 year old technology(going from when they actually started work on the plane after the government made their selection on which plane they wanted).

But Obama views it as one of those unnecessary Cold War weapons systems.


That's because it's kinda what the F-22 is... the F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter for a war against a nation of technological "equality". Right now, there really isn't a country that comes even close to fufilling that role. The testing on the F-22 suggests that even 150 fighters are the equal of ALL the current and disclosed as planned fighters of every other nation with even remotely anti-US policies.

In 40-50 years, US will have difficulty with Air Superiority whether we build the F-22 or not. China (if things continue unchanged) will be able to build a similar plane, for 1/3 the cost, and be able to field 4-5 times the number the US is capable off..

We should focus more on the next generation/type of war fare and stop perparing again for WWII/Cold War. Automated Systems, better information technology, etc will be more important and more effective in the next major conflict


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 3:17:43 PM , Rating: 2
it's a classic pundit blunder to assume our systems are "cold war only".

russia has continually proven itself willing to sell anything to anyone--for a price. that's how saddam got his SAM's. that's how china has 80% of what it currently has. the danger doesn't arise from a large scale force-on-force war; but rather from these "untracked" systems eventually finding their way into the hands of terrorists & other "assymetrical warfare" enemy combatants.

you have to be BETTER than the best potential enemy out there--because THOSE weapons systems can and will end up in the hands of the enemies you face most often.


RE: Ouch!
By maven81 on 3/26/2009 3:33:22 PM , Rating: 2
"russia has continually proven itself willing to sell anything to anyone--for a price."

This is true, but don't act like we're above this. Who armed the Pakistani airforce? Who armed Afghanistan with stinger missiles? Who's to say that our own advanced technology won't wind up in the wrong hands?


RE: Ouch!
By Manch on 3/26/2009 5:43:47 PM , Rating: 2
Good point we have armed people we shouldnt have but also just to point out, the tech we do sell is usually older tech. While the airframes may look the same on the outside they are very different fighters. Ex. F-15J is a Japanese manufactured plane using Japanese avionics etc. It's equivalent to out Block A 15's. The Japanese F-2 looks like an F-16 but only the frame itself(The nose is actually different). I know Japan is a close ally of ours but my point is if we dont sell them the latest and greatest I can assure you that what the Pakistani's get sure as hell aren't the latest block aircraft. As far as stingers well, we used teh Afghanis to test them against the russian helicopters. Of course someone should have kept count. Fortuantely thaty havent been as much of an issue as we thought they would be. Damn RPG's are the worst. Weapons proliferation is a huge problem for both sides.

Oh yeah, just to pick on the French. During the first Gulf War they pretty much had to stay out of the air. They sold so much of there tech to Saddam that we couldnt tell them apart from his aircraft so they had to sit it out. Ahh the French fricken useless.


RE: Ouch!
By penumbra1 on 4/1/2009 11:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
I am from Pakistan, and apart from some F-86 Sabres, Crappy F-104 starfighters and 40 F-16s ( For the soviet war in Afghanistan) USA never gave us anything to equip our Airfroce with. Pakistan Airforce is made of mainly Mig-21 derived F-7s, French Mirage and A-5Cs, while newer ones are also coming in from China, JF-17s and J-10s which even Iran has sought to replace its Mig 29s.
For air defence we have French Crotale, Soviet S-75s (which shot down U2 and F-117) and Swiss sky guard.
We buy weapons from the USA and then get sanctioned. When we don't want weapons, USA forces us to buy them so that some fat ass Bob and Tom could remain employed at Lockheed Martin's production lines.
We have nuclear weapons and cruise missiles.
We fend off an attack by India, which was backed by Obama, after the Mumbai carnage. Don't under estimate Pakistan, neither do test its limits. After all, who were the people who you Americans went to fight off the Soviets in Afghanistan? Don't know? Ask your mommy and daddy.

regards
A Pakistani in USA.


RE: Ouch!
By Keeir on 3/26/2009 6:23:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
it's a classic pundit blunder to assume our systems are "cold war only".


I am not. I am looking at the engagements the US military has contended with in the last 2 decades... essentially since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Has Air Superiority been a question? A -remote- question?

Is there a nation out there building sufficient quality planes to even really be an equal to the F-16? (I mean in some measurable quantity, a few test models don't count)

Are some terrorist organizations arming and supporting a fleet of hundreds of Generation 4 fighter jets?

I feel like in the current and percieved defense area of the next 20 years, the F-22 is like a hammer trying to hit flys. Its damn effective, but its probably better to have 10 fly swatters than 1 hammer.

Cut the program off, and start working plans to destroy other nations Gen 5 fighters, the ones they may get around to building in the next 20-50 years. Or use the money is areas where the US is lacking... like Internet Security, Data Security, Air Tankers, etc


RE: Ouch!
By whiskerwill on 3/26/2009 7:00:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Has Air Superiority been a question?
No, because anytime other nations get close, we build a better fighter. Thats a good policy, that has probably prevented ten times as many conflicts as we've actually had to fight.

Remember that it takes 20 years or more to plan, design, fund, build, and deploy a new fighter. If we cancell the F-22 program, then we'll still be using 1980s-era fighters up until 2030. Not very smart.


RE: Ouch!
By inperfectdarkness on 3/26/2009 10:20:58 PM , Rating: 3
f16? apart from the as-yet-untested block 60's; f16's can be readily engaged by su-30mkk's, jf-17's & j-10's. the wins/losses on both sides are irrelevant; the kill ratios won't deviate much from 1:1 if that.

in fact, indian su-30's have proven a suitable match to f15's so i have no doubts that f16's would find them formidable opponents.

remember that our production lines for f16's 15's & 18's (not including super hornets) have been shut down. putting new models of these legacy airframes into production would cost considerable ADDITIONAL funds as well.


RE: Ouch!
By RagingDragon on 3/27/2009 7:45:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because it's kinda 26what the F-22 is... the F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter for a war against a nation of technological "equality". Right now, there really isn't a country that comes even close to fufilling that role. The testing on the F-22 suggests that even 150 fighters are the equal of ALL the current and disclosed as planned fighters of every other nation with even remotely anti-US policies.


BS.

Current Russian fighters (Mig-29, Su-27, etc.) are equal to or superior than the American F-14, F-15, F-16 and F-18. So at the moment, Russia and anyone they'll sell to have technological equality. And Russian foreign policy has been been becoming more aggressive and anti-western for several years. And the new eurofighter/typhoon certainly outclasses anything short of the F-22 and F-35 (though it seems unlikely these would ever be used against Americans).

So there's at least one country which meets your criteria, and could conceivably become a real threat within the service life of the F-22. Once deployed in significant numbers, the F-22 will re-establish American technological superiority - which is, of course, the entire point of the F-22 program.


RE: Ouch!
By LibertyFace on 3/26/2009 2:52:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But making sure illegals get free health care, keeping drug addicts on welfare, and paying people's mortgages is far more important.


Right along the lines of the previous administration isn't it.

And it is generally agreed upon that the F-22 is capable of achieving 200:1 kill ratio. The military typically pleads to congress much more than they actually really need. Good example: Army's 160 Billion dollar Future Combat Systems


RE: Ouch!
By SublimeSimplicity on 3/26/2009 12:31:20 PM , Rating: 2
Very true. I've worked for a few companies that make high volume, high performance, computer HW.

The first couple platters would have yields in the 15%-30% range. They'd take the dead ones and make us key chains out of them. Depending on how far back in the process a re-spin had to go, you could put the cost of those key chains in the $20k - $30k range.

When the process was complete, the final product cost more like $40 a part.


RE: Ouch!
By KingstonU on 3/26/2009 11:59:12 AM , Rating: 2
I think I remember $100 million each. As some people argue that you can build F-16's for $20 million each so 5 F-16's for each F-22 Raptor.


RE: Ouch!
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/26/2009 12:06:08 PM , Rating: 3
Yeah, but in theory one of these is supposed to be able to take out 5 F-16s without taking loss... well, according to dogfight simulations they release info about.

Still, as much a fan I am of the capabilities of this plane, I think the F-35 is a much better fit for the mini-wars of today and tomorrow. We're not shooting down rogue fighters, but giving close air support for ground skirmishes.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 12:20:12 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah so you want a stealth plane that can slip in and out of enemy territory without being noticed. The F35 is not a stealth aircraft. The F22 is.


RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/26/2009 12:35:06 PM , Rating: 4
'Enemy territory' has relatively little meaning in assymetric warfare. Fast forward from the cold war to today where there aren't layers of radar installations to get to a mission target.


RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/26/2009 12:42:47 PM , Rating: 2
Hmm typo...assymetric warfare is when you fight by measuring relative ass size!


RE: Ouch!
By Mojo the Monkey on 3/26/2009 1:50:03 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, both aircraft use similar "low observability" (stealth) technology in their designs, although the F-22 is arguably more "stealthy".

My point is that we aren't too worried about radar intercept from region-wide enemy warning systems, we need close air support. The F-22 is more like a souped up exotic 2-seater sports car - advanced in air to air, but limited in close-air-support weapons delivery (hitting stuff on the ground). Whereas the F-35 is more like a high end BMW m5, E-63, Audi S8... whatever. Very good, near-top end performance in many areas, but incredibly more versatile and a 5 seater.

Ideally, they would work together with F-35 doing a lot of the work and a few F-22s sent along to play a wild weasel and wing defense. Just saying, in most of the missions they fly today, the F-35 would likely be preferable.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 3:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
But they're not designed for today. They're designed for tomorrow. In the F-35 orientation course I took at work for the project we're on, they blatantly said that today's aviators won't be flying the F35. Kids who are today in middle school will. It will be at least 4 years before the F35 is ready. They only started flight tests about a year ago.

It is designed with tomorrow's generation in mind.


RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/27/2009 1:33:15 AM , Rating: 2
Aha you're invloved in the MIC, at least in an indirect way. Explains a lot.


RE: Ouch!
By MozeeToby on 3/26/2009 12:15:58 PM , Rating: 4
The $100 million number doesn't include R&D, it's only the fly-away cost (the cost to build one additional Raptor). With the current order size, each Raptor comes out to be around $480 million if you include development. If we order more that number goes down since you don't have to pay for research and development.

Honestly though, who cares about the money? My first concern is for the pilot and his family. My second concern is for the aircraft. There's only 134 F22's in the air; if the kind of war breaks out that we need them, we'll need every one of them.

Hopefully they can get the cause nailed down immediately, and hopefully it is something that can be quickly fixed. Keep in mind, this was a test pilot, not some rookie trainee. Normally when a plane crashes my instinct is to say pilot error, but when you have one of the best pilots in the nation flying the plane and it goes down, that is a whole lot scarier.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 12:22:40 PM , Rating: 1
We don't have near enough. With the wear and tear on our F15s, F16s, and F18s from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, our air power is going to be severely diminished in the coming years as those aircraft meet their maximum flight hours and have to be retired because our government has put off securing funding for the equipment our generals have said we need.


RE: Ouch!
By MozeeToby on 3/26/2009 12:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. What people don't realize is that if we lose in Iraq and Afghanistan we let a group of homicidal terrorist go on the loose, not a good thing obviously. But, if we lose the kind of war the F22 is meant to fight, our country will be in shambles or worse. The F22 and other projects are like an insurance plan: maybe you'll never need to make a claim, but the day you miss red light and sideswipe a motorcycle you'll be glad you have it.


RE: Ouch!
By walk2k on 3/26/2009 12:43:55 PM , Rating: 1
What "kind of war" in the future are we going to need 20th century style weapons?

Last time I checked Al Qaeda didn't have very many jet fighter planes (or aircraft carriers or nuclear submarines).

Lot of good all of ours did us on 9/11 huh?


RE: Ouch!
By MozeeToby on 3/26/2009 1:38:29 PM , Rating: 2
You're right, we were (and in many ways still are) horribly illequiped to fight the kind of war that we are currently fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As a result, many people, soldiers and civilians both, have been injured and killed.

That hardly means that we shouldn't be prepared to fight a traditional war. The consequences of being poorly prepaired for the fight we're in now were the deaths of thousands of people. The consequences of being poorly prepared for a traditional war would be much, much worse.


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 1:55:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah funny how 9/11 happened after 8 years of the defense budget being cut. But because you're a moron you'll say "But Bush was in office!!!". Yeah for all of 8 months.

I work with ex-Air Force personnel. They all hated Clinton for what he did to the military.

And if you don't think there isn't a major conflict brewing in the world, you clearly aren't looking around. Russia is getting more hostile. China is building its military. Then there's all the little Communist countries out there who are flexing their muscles. Then there's Iran who's trying to become a nuclear power.

And with the US declining into socialism, you don't think more of these hostile countries are going to try to start something in a resource grab?


RE: Ouch!
By MadMan007 on 3/26/2009 2:07:24 PM , Rating: 2
You think the failure to foresee 9/11 was a result of military and defense systems spending cuts? haha. It was an intelligence failure and buying more planes wouldn't have done anything.


RE: Ouch!
By walk2k on 3/26/2009 3:29:39 PM , Rating: 1
He doesn't think, he only regurgitates what he hears on conservative talk radio. We used to call them Dittoheads (back when they were even remotely relevent, today we simply ignore their shrill bleating).


RE: Ouch!
By FITCamaro on 3/26/2009 8:33:50 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=381gFG4Crr8

And here is the attitude of many Obama supporters.

I'm sure you probably think I listen to and watch Hannity and Rush, but you're wrong.


RE: Ouch!
By Exedore on 3/26/2009 4:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
You are correct. There are already entire Air National Guard squadrons being converted BACK to A-10's from F16's, because their planes have reached the end of their airframe life. The ANG's have nothing else to fly until the next generation planes are ready, except for A-10's, which have a lot of hours left on their airframes, and defense budget left to keep them flying.


RE: Ouch!
By Smilin on 3/26/2009 5:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
Airframe life can be extended. It frequently is and it's not that big of a deal. I would be surprised to hear if airframe life was the reason for such a conversion.

When the b-52s come out of service at 80 years old you can bet that wasn't the original airframe life.


RE: Ouch!
By Fritzr on 3/26/2009 9:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that there was a catastrophic airframe failure not too long ago -- The aircraft broke in half. The stress failure that accident was blamed on is repaired by removing the airframe and installing a new one.

Cheaper in the long run to replace the deadlined F15/16 with a next gen aircraft. B52s flying today have more than 50 years of operational life and are likely to be good for another 50 since their flight profile doesn't normally include violent maneuvers. Their modern mission often involves getting JDAM weapons close enough to the targets to allow the weapons to engage their targets. That is they fly in, cruise at altitude for a few hours and return to base after their shift ends.

A fighter on the other hand is often required to perform high G maneuvers that put extreme stress on the airframe. They have a much shorter operational life due to stress failure.


RE: Ouch!
By Exedore on 3/27/2009 10:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
It is because of airframe life. There are established procedures for extending airframe life, and those have been exhausted for these ANG F16's, along with the budget for doing so. The B52's are a different story. Their budget and airframe maintenance procedures are already planned for many years to come. The ANG squadrons that are being converted from F16's to A-10's don't want to do it, but it is their only option while they wait for either F22's or F35's. I personally know pilots who are quitting precisely because of the A-10's coming back. Imagine starting your career in an A-10, then progressing to the F16, and then being told you will have to take the next step in your career...BACK to an A-10. They would rather retire.
I don't know what is happening with the F15 ANG squadrons, but I do know the F15 is reaching the end of its life as well. We really need the next generation of aircraft.
The F22 is a very capable aircraft, it is true, but I have read some threat assessments from the Air Force on our current capability given possible conflicts in today's world. I will sum it up like this. We do not have nearly enough of them. We also do not have enough bases in the right places.


RE: Ouch!
By static1117 on 3/27/2009 1:22:14 AM , Rating: 2
Actually most ANG bases are converting to F-15's. There are only a few Air superiority ANG bases that fly F-16's and the one I know about just got "new" F-16's and is getting F-15's FY 2010.
Don't get me wrong, the A-10 is one heck of an aircraft, but to infer that bases are going from A-10's to F-16's is slightly off base. To change airframes like that, the mission for the unit would have to change with it. Not to mention the cost of the different equipment it would need and the spool up time required for the unit to be world wide deploy able.
No, it is far more likely that ANG bases get the youngest, replaced by F-22's, F-15's in the future. The F-15 has a more power avionics package, airframe time, and greater role in the Air Force.

Oh and the F-22 is stupid awesome. It can see F-16's before the F-16's can see them. Its not a fair fight to say the least. The F-35 is not going to be able to touch it either.


RE: Ouch!
By static1117 on 3/27/2009 1:26:55 AM , Rating: 2
And I would imagine that the reason he did not survive could come from a handful of reasons.
1. Egress system failed
2. Lost main battery power
3. G-locked and/or was unconscious
4. Had a medical emergency of some sort.

Its sad all around.


"21-year Air Force veteran reports Bloomberg" !?!
By KingConker on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
By KingConker on 3/26/2009 12:41:06 PM , Rating: 1
OK - so I interpreted it loosely :)


By bupkus on 3/26/2009 2:42:20 PM , Rating: 3
In my first scan I apparently read it like you-- I inserted the word "old" after "...was a 21-year [old] Air Force veteran", but then I stopped, reread and saw my error.

It can happen.


Joint Farces
By Iaiken on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Joint Farces
By Iaiken on 3/26/09, Rating: -1
RE: Joint Farces
By just4U on 3/26/2009 5:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
The biggest thing to learn from Iraq is this should have all been dealt with in the early 90s. Not left to hang on for another decade. That was a very big mistake and I am damn near positive that historians will see it that way many years from now.