Lockheed lobbies for F-22 production on job grounds

[Robbien]

Source: LA Times

Reporting from Washington -- Lockheed Martin Corp. is lobbying the Obama administration to buy additional F-22 fighter jets by arguing that continued production of the plane would preserve nearly 100,000 jobs across the country, including 19,500 in California.

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates and other officials have voiced skepticism over the F-22 program in the past, and disagreements over the future of the plane led to a shake-up in Air Force leadership last year.

But Larry Lawson, the F-22 program general manger for Lockheed Martin, said Tuesday that if the administration decided to continue production of the fighter, known as the Raptor, it would have a precise and immediate economic effect.

"Our point is, No. 1, this preserves jobs, and No. 2, it is immediate. You don't have to develop anything," Lawson said. "This is 'shovel ready.' "

The F-22 program is directly responsible for 25,000 jobs at Lockheed and its major suppliers. But Lockheed officials say when jobs from sub-suppliers are added in, the F-22 program maintains 95,000 jobs in 44 states.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-jets11-2009feb11,0,165351.story

---

Keep spending billions on making something the end user doesn't want nor can use. What?

There are gazillions of shovel ready projects which are very much needed but were cut from the stimulus budget. Don't do those, just keep making the Lockheed jets which Gates said he can't use and doesn't want.

[rug]

1. Blackwater is not far behind.

[Fabio]

2. The big issue DoD has to deal with is that

current Block f-22 are costed at about $120 mm per unit (having been much more expensive in earlier lots) whereas the "cheaper" and less capable JSF will start of at $200mm per copy and they wont be operational until 2015.

[bdab1973]

63. R&D costs are often front-loaded...

The cost to develop these aircraft are often included in early block production aircraft, whereas the later blocks, the cost is essentially the straight cost to make one. The early F-22s were expensive because there was no guarantee that the USAF could buy more, so the manufacturers (not just Lockheed, but all the subcontractors) raise the unit cost to recoup the R&D costs. Same for the F-35...once it enters high rate production, the unit costs will come down.

[w4rma]

107. Is the F-35 less capable than the F-22? I thought it was more versitile. (nt)

[Submariner]

3. Well then...that explains the Lockheed Martin F-22

ads all over my TV this past few days. I was wondering what the hell an F-22 ad was doing on the tube. This explains it obviously.

Hey Lockheed....:nopity:

[jmj217]

4. F-22's are frickin cool...

That's why we should spend money on them.

That and even if we don't need them right now. We might one day. If we ever need them they will be there (a the production facilities and experience to build more). We should examine the program and determine where we can make improvements but we should keep pushing the envelope. Many programs like this develop unexpected new technologies that eventually make it to the private sector and benefit everyone.

[Robbien]

5. Sure, make them cause they are KOOL

Meanwhile they sit around rusting in warehouses joining the other overstocked KOOL ones.

The men on the ground are badly in need of other type of aircraft such as helicopters, but no, lets keep making the KOOL ones.

[jmj217]

9. Let's make helicopters too and maybe some A-10's.

I agree.

[Robbien]

10. Too? No. Not too. We do not agree

Lockheed and their useless unwanted F-22 should be put out to pasture.

[jmj217]

13. They're not useless...

They'll ensure American Air Superiority for the next 40 years...Haven't you seen the commercial.

Seriously ---

When it comes to National Defense I think it's best to prepare for the worst case scenario. The F-22 is indeed far ahead of what we currently need to ensure air superiority.

But you are assuming that there will be no future wars against a well prepared enemy. I hope that there is global peace soon and forever.

But since the global population is increasing and resources are decreasing it is inevitable that nations will fight over the resources that are available. Preparing for a possible future conflict not just fighting the current conflict is an important part of any defense strategy.

You might say -- Who would we fight? I don't know. It might be Russia, It might be China, It might be the EU, It might be Canada. Anyone could take a fascist turn for the worst and be a threat. The thing is we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Who knows what the future holds.

You might say -- We should use diplomacy to ensure there is no war. I agree that should always be the first an most important option. War should always be a last resort. But if we have to fight we should carry the biggest stick. Or in this case the fastest, most maneuverable stick.

You might say -- We should spend the money on something else. Maybe.. but it depends what we spend it on and will it really be worth it or will it just sound nice. Like lets spend the money on education. Well that sounds good but how would it be spent. Would we get a good return on investment? Or would school districts mis manage the money? Who knows.

We waste money on many other things everyday that are less useful (and less cool).

I think we should buy for F-22's
You think we should not

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Robbien]

15. You've got to be kidding

A half million people a month are losing their jobs. Every twelve minutes someone in the US is being kicked out of their home.

And you want to keep building jets which Gates has already said he can't use. Jets which he currently has stockpiling in warehouses. Completely useless at this time and place and under this military.

We are at the precipice of a huge Depression (the IMF has said it has already begun) and you want to make wicked cool unwanted unneeded junk to gather dust in some warehouse.

You bet we disagree.

[bdab1973]

56. "Stockpiling in warehouses"???

I know of no front-line aircraft being stockpiled in warehouses. Please tell me where these warehouses are, so we can get those aircraft and replace the 30 year old fighters currently falling apart.

Gates "doesn't want" the fighter because he's a realist. He knows he only has so much money to spend, and there are other priorities. It does NOT mean that the F-22 is useless.

[AntiFascist]

91. This is precisely what got us into the Depression in the first place...

war in Iraq was considered cool.

[Pavulon]

95. Credit default swap, not f22

is the reason we are here.

[AntiFascist]

105. CDS contracts only compounded the problem...

which was begun by subprime lending and the artificial housing market bubble. A severe recession would have been felt by homeowners much earlier during the Bush Adminstration had it not been for the appearance of increased home equity and the spending that resulted from easy home equity credit. F22s were not the only problem, the cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars steadily drove down the value of the dollar bringing about a period of stagflation and increasing energy costs. I'm beginning to wonder if blaming this whole thing on the actions of the banks is just another way for the former Bush Administration to "pass the buck".

[Pavulon]

116. Not to threadjack, but there are multiple "reasons"

for the current economic mess. Part is consumer and commercial lending practice by banks. Part is speculation and "margin" trading on that practice. The wars are expensive but not the root cause. Not even close. That is not justification for the war in iraq. Afghanistan is another story. For another thread.

Defense spending should, like ALL spending, be examined. Some programs may not be needed.

Air superiority fighters are not one of those things. The ability to deny the high ground is critical in conflict. It was important in bosnia and every war since.

[AntiFascist]

119. The current economic mess is entirely due to the Bush Administration...

There are Libertarian-minded Republicans and Independents who want to break the government permanently, and they almost succeeded during the two terms of Bush. Their reasons for doing this should be obvious: with deregulation and an intimidated populace they can literally get away with both murder and robbery of the Treasury. The foreign policy in Iraq under both Bush presidents has attempted to export this mindset. Granted, F-22s may have a use for defense purposes, but that is where it should be limited. The worst possible outcome for our nation is to look back fondly on our aggressions in the Middle East as being just.

[tinrobot]

18. Their only use is killing.

I think that's a huge waste.

[sofa king]

33. I have to disagree.

I'm pretty sure that right now it's possible to replace that stealthy 9G fighter with a stealthier 20G fighter that's half the size and a fraction of the cost.

The trick is to make it unmanned and remote controlled. Life-support systems, ejection seats, canopy glass, onboard radar, system redundancies, and even sophisticated landing gear can be tossed out.

Both manned and unmanned craft rely heavily on communications between themselves and a central command, so the argument that unmanned craft can be jammed out of the sky also applies to manned aircraft. But one is a lot cheaper than the other, can be instantly replaced, and does not cash in any of the Air Force's institutional memory, higher leadership potential, or massively expensive training when one of the planes goes down.

And, perhaps more important, if there is an aircraft such as the F-22 patrolling in large enough numbers, the unmanned countermeasures approach will be the one our potential enemies take, conferring upon them all of the advantages above and leaving us to catch up.

[TheWraith]

35. There's a big difference between manned and unmanned.

A manned fighter relies on its link to the command post for orders and information. If you jam a manned bird, it's still more than capable of operating on its own. An unmanned drone would require all control to come from the ground, unless you built it with a fairly smart computer at the core.

[Regret My New Name]

55. Just do what game programmers do with AI...

make it so it can cheat. :P

[ProudDad]

123. You've been watching

too many re-runs of Mad Max.

"But since the global population is increasing and resources are decreasing it is inevitable that nations will fight over the resources that are available."

Soon, this equation will be radically flipped -- the population will decrease when "guns" make it impossible to produce "butter".

I'd rather spend our treasure preparing to power down instead of global collapse.

[TheWraith]

34. Composite synthetics don't rust.

Frankly, all other things aside we do need a few good squadrons of razor's-edge air superiority birds. We can make do with less advanced birds for everything else, but if we ever got into a really serious scrap--say with China over Taiwan--these things would be the point of contact. A couple hundred of these isn't unreasonable.

If you want to kill something, put a bullet in the Joint Strike Fighter. It's a poorly performing boondoggle at this point, all because they insist on replacing the existing Falcons and Super Hornets, as well as having something new to export.

[bdab1973]

62. You keep mentioning these aircraft are in warehouses...WHERE???

By the way, the helicopter fleet is faring better than the USAF fleet of airplanes. That's because the DoD has actually been buying/upgrading the Army's helicopters, while the USAF hasn't been able to do much to modernize at all.

[razors edge]

7. Yeh right, where is the flying car

they promised us back in the fifties?

If it won't contribute to some rich f***kers pocketbook and serve to catapult the propaganda it won't be built.

Meanwhile we can hold off anyone on the planet and take over 97% of the countries with F-4s, F-15s, and F-16s....

If that don't keep the (insert unlikely threat here) from taking over the US, then I want a refund on the 5 trillion spent on the nuclear deterrent that was obviously ineffective.

[enuegii]

29. The production lines for the F-15, F-16 and F-18, at least...

are still open, and efforts are under way to extend the life of the A-10. F-4s haven't been made since the early '70s, though.
We probably do need keep the F-22 project alive, though. Unless, of course, the Russians and Chinese are going to be our best buddies in the future.
As far as our nuclear arsenal being ineffective as a deterrent, well, if it isn't, I don't think we'll have to worry about a refund.

[razors edge]

36. The F-22 has been obsolete for years.

It's thrust vectoring is in the vertical plane only. Don't remember the Mig model # but they have had a twin engine independent universal thrust vectoring fighter can eat the F-22 for breakfast for some time.

Also the F-22 is not being pursued for carrier service, that limits it's force projection to pre-stationed or in flight refueling.

And I think you missed my point about nuclear deterrence. If we are not safe now, without billions more spent on useless fighter planes that haven't faced any significant air to air threat since the 1960's, then I want my refund now! It is an admission of failure to say we are not safe now.

[Pavulon]

38. Super-cruise and avionics

the airframe and design are far superior to any russian system.

[razors edge]

43. You know whats even more superior to the Russians?

Our national debt.

Couldn't we just air drop all the paper we would otherwise be writing IOUs on and handing to China? That alone would smother them.

Cut out the middle man, I always say.

[Pavulon]

44. Just have China build the F22

and Boeing too.

And russia is quite fucked with oil at 30 a bbl.

[razors edge]

46. Not completely.

They still have the valve that shuts off the gas to Europe.

China is the new super power, let them foot the bill to police the planet.

What did we really get for all our efforts, of any lasting value?

We spend trillions on other country's well being, and ignore the homeless right here.

[Pavulon]

47. Ever been to China?

I have, cities are nice and flush with money from shit morons buy at wal-mart but the country side is 3rd world. I assume many there would prefer to live homeless here.

china has lots of people, thats it. I cant name one technology that sources there, not gets made there because they can pay a human automaton pennies a day.

[razors edge]

68. Better yet

the government isn't wasting money on hi-tech military shit at the rate we are.

That's gotta help free up some cash to fix up the cities, But as far as the country goes, I think Crissy Hynde from The Pretenders put it best, "When you own a big chunk of the bloody third world, the babies just come with the scenery."

[hack89]

85. I wouldn't be so sure

they are trying as hard as they can to field a military that meets western standards - and they are finding out how expensive it is. They are also try to build an entire military industrial complex so they don't have to buy stuff from other countries - again big bucks.

[razors edge]

89. Well that sucks.

Maybe we should tell them how such a thing as this leads to ruin for their people.

Eisenhower pretty much laid that out on his way out the door.

I'm sure Hillary will clue them in.

[Angleae]

49. Just because we haven't been tested since the '60s.

Doesn't mean it can't happen in the future. The F-15 has an equal match in the Su-27/30/33 and it's being exported in numbers.

[razors edge]

66. And the Britts haven't invaded since 1812.

Doesn't mean it can't happen.....

We could not spend a single dollar on new equipment for twenty years and still not be in danger of invasion. We wouldn't be styling quite as much as we race across someone's boarder to steal something from them, but we would still get the job done.

I spent four years fixing F-4 Phantoms, and I know we could have done the same job on Iraq with the old sky pigs that we did with all the newer birds.

But hey, it's just money, and we got plenty apparently.

[bdab1973]

57. Are you sure you know what you're talking about...

The US doesn't operate F-4s anymore, they are all retired. They were designed in the 1950s and the last examples to serve (F-4G with the USAF and F-4S with the USMC) were built in the mid-1960s. The F-15 and F-16 were both designed in the 1970s and most were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s, making many of them about 30 years old, which is very old for a fighter (the airframes absorb a lot of stress).

People take our military ability for granted, based on past performance. In another 10-20 years, when the lack of replacements for the F-15 and F-16 becomes serious, people will take notice because most of the older aircraft will be grounded for airframe cracks, and then we'll really have something useless.

[razors edge]

67. I was an F-4 Hydraulics Mechanic

in the Marines from 81-85, My squadron, VMFA 212, switched over to F-18s after I left. Two West-Pac Tours and stationed at Kaneohe Bay MCAS HI.

Last I head a few were still doing recon, they have an awesome radar and the NavCom packs are nothing to sneeze at. Twin GE J-79s giving Mach 2+ under normal tuning, my friends could get them well past Mach 3 for short periods of time. Set more records than any bird in the sky, held the official speed record for longer than any other aircraft. (The Habu was top secret so even though it was faster, it never had the official record for a long time.)

I've spent more time doing bore scope and dye pen inspections than I care to remember. I was level 1, on aircraft tech, level two is HAMs, (Headquarters and Maintenance) longer downtime inspection on special interest aircraft, Level three is back to the factory for refit and upgrade. We replaced entire wing spars, wings, landing gear, you name it, right in our hanger. Stress is an issue, but it is only one of many.

The Phantom was the longest serving fighter bomber in US service for a reason, McDonnell-Douglas built a damn good plane.

The B-52 is scheduled to serve over 100 years before replacement.

The Phantom could have done every mission for the Navy and Marines that the F-18 did in Iraq, for a whole lot less. Instead of wearing out our brand new shoes in the sand, maybe we should have gotten one last lawn mowing out of the old ones.

I hope that clears up any concern you may have had on my familiarity with the issue.

Edit:sp

[bdab1973]

70. I *AM* a C-130 pilot...not was...

And there are no F-4s in service anywhere, with exception of the QF-4s used as target drones. Last F-4s left the USMC in the mid-1990s.

You tell me about how you rebuilt aircraft from the ground up. That's fine, and I know at our Depot level maintenance they do some major work on the airplanes. However, there are certain structural components you simply can't pull out of the airplane and fix, like the C-130 wing box. I'm speaking from current experience, and I'm telling you that many of those airplanes in the fleet right now have flight restrictions because of known wing cracks, some that you can see with the naked eye (not just using NDI).

How about this...how "useful" is an airplane that normally weighs about 85,000 lbs empty when it's restricted to a 90,000 lb zero fuel weight to limit wing bending stresses? We're allowed to carry 5,000 lbs of crew, cargo and passengers on an airplane that has a normal max gross weight of 155,000 lbs. We're also restricted to how we burn fuel out of the wing tanks, because doing so any way you like can invite increased aerodynamic loads on the wings, versus burning out of the aux and externals first, then burning out of the mains.

Me, personally...I'd rather NOT have the wings fold up on me in flight because Congress and our government thinks it's cute for me to fly around in a 47 year old airplane, that's seen service in Vietnam all the way through Iraq and Afghanistan. The aircraft I fly now were all built when my FATHER was 11-13 years old. And he thought the Huey helicopters he flew in the 1970s and 1980s were old (they were, and they got replaced by the UH-60). My previous assignment, I was "lucky" to get to fly some of the newer airplanes in the active-duty fleet (the ANG and Reserves fly newer C-130s, but that's because of pork politicians that want the newer aircraft in their district, forcing the active duty to fly the ancient airplanes). These much-newer aircraft were all built in 1973-1974. Wow, so finally an airplane that's at least as old as I am, or even a year younger. Nice. Well, not really, they all had the wing cracks too, because even though they were newer, they were still 35 years old.

If you flew on an airline that had 47 year old airplanes in its fleet, you'd be flying on Boeing 707s, or maybe the old British Comets. Never heard of those jets? That's because they were designed and built in the late 1950s to early 1960s and have long been retired.

[razors edge]

71. So would you

call a taxi driver to rebuild the transmission on your car?

I flew to boot camp on a 707, I've also worked on a couple of stranded C-130s and P-3 Orions. So what?

It doesn't really matter what you or I think about the situation, when the money dries up we could end up with Sabre jets back in front line service for all I care.

BTW, if your afraid to fly the damn thing then just move on to your next gig as a commercial pilot, it's what you joined for most likely anyway. But if you decide to keep flying military just remember the old saying, it takes a collage degree to fly it, and a high school drop out to fix it.

[bdab1973]

73. Not the analogy I was thinking about...

You used your experience of having been F-4 maintenance in the past to support your assertion that F-4s still operate, and to also support your argument about other aircraft. I am assuming you worked on F-4s in the mid-1990s or earlier.

I'm a current military pilot, and there are no F-4s in service, that was my point. As for simply "moving on to a commercial gig", it's not that simple. First and foremost, I want to fly for the military, but I think it's outrageous that most people in this country have no idea that their Air Force is worn out. Many people I talk to assume we have all the latest and greatest airplanes and gadgets, and when I explain to them the situation many aircraft types are in, they simply had no idea. Additionally, I can't just leave. When you take the plunge and learn to fly military aircraft on the government's dime, you owe them a period of service, and mine was 10 years. I've still got 2 left before I can make the decision to leave on my own. Finally, the job market for pilots isn't the same for the job market for mechanics, it's an extremely cyclical industry. Right now is not a good time to look for work as a pilot, although in the late 1990s, anyone and everyone was getting hired by the major airlines and other operators.

And not to be smug (I was enlisted before I flew), flying airplanes and fixing them are two worlds apart.

[razors edge]

75. Tell you what my job market was

when I left, 4 years on aircraft got me zip off the course for an A&P license.

The military breaks up mechanics into specialized training so they can't just get out and go to work on planes. The FAA won't even let you take the test. I toured the best A&P school I could find and they would only have given me two weeks off a 13 month course. Well school don't feed the wife and kid so that was out.

I worked as a lawnmower mechanic for 10 years, never making more than $5 an hour, with my own damn tools. I was homeless twice while working full time. But I'm doing OK now, six figure salary with benefits, 401, and defined retirement 100% vested. I wouldn't be where I am if it weren't for the Marines and my tech training. But I don't care at all for what the Marines have become, not the same service anymore. I have no regrets over leaving.

You, on the other hand, could get out after your commitment and take all your tests for multiple engine, carry over your flight hours, and at the very least get a job flying somewhere making more than minimum wage. We most definately are worlds apart.

I'm not worried about you, you'll be fine. Stay safe cloud puncher.

[razors edge]

76. PS.

Not to start this up all over again, you were right about the F-4 no longer serving in the US.

But that isn't for the reasons you have claimed. It was deep sixed because the upgrade would have competed with the F-15 in sales.

http://home.att.net/~jbaugher1/f4_34.html

In early 1984, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney announced that they would engage in a joint Phantom modernization program, targeted primarily at foreign users of the Phantom. McDonnell had already turned down a similar idea, citing the fact that the Phantom was already old technology and fearing that Phantom upgrades would compete with their F-15 Eagle, which they also hoped to sell on the export market.

The "Boeing Super Phantom" (as the project came to be known) was to have been powered by a pair of Pratt & Whitney PW1120 turbofans. This engine was based on the F-100 turbofan which powered both the F-15 and the F-16, and had about 70 percent commonality with the F-100. The PW1120 turbofan was 40 inches shorter than the J79 and 25 percent lighter in weight. However, it had 35 percent greater dry thrust and 30 percent greater afterburner thrust. It was anticipated that the use of the new powerplants would give a marked improvement in Phantom performance, with sustained turn rate being increased from 9 to 10.5 degrees per second and initial climb rate being increased from 42,300 to 51,000 feet per minute.



I suppose that was my original point on the F-4. We have the castings and could build upgraded new ones at will.

[bdab1973]

80. There are other reasons as well...

One of my good friends, her father is a 2-star in the reserves and he flew F-4s and other fighters. While the F-4 carried the day in the 1960s, 1970s and even to some extent in the 1980s, it does not compare to the F-15 or F-16 in a turning fight. F-4 drivers had better hope they got the first shot off if they faced a modern fighter like the Su-27/30/32 series, or it would be over quick.

[razors edge]

88. True, but how would that matter?

It never happened, and it was never about to happen. When was the last time a dog fight between supersonic jets took place where the aircraft involved utilized a new tactic that resulted in an overwhelming defeat that changed the playing field to the point the enemy gave up their aircraft design and started over?

I did two months in Fallon Nevada launching and turning around aircraft for Top Gun. We lowly troubleshooters didn't get a date with Kelly McGillis, but as one of two hydraulics techs sent on the debt with six of our bird I did have the wonderful opportunity to work 20 hours a day, every day, to keep my squadron's versions of Tom Cruise comfortable and capable of poking holes in the sky for what history has proven to be no good fucking reason.

I came out of it with a chemical conjunctivitis in both eyes and was blind for two months, they finally took me in an ambulance to a 74 year old ophthalmologist who injected me with steroids ans sulfur, fun times. Of course they had no problem dragging me out of bed to fix planes at two in the morning with my eyes swollen shut, working from feel alone. Hell they even shut off the lights in the hanger for me to work.

Work six hours fixing a weapon of war with your eyes burning so bad you want to pull them out of their sockets and tell me about how we need better weapons of war.

Who exactly do you think could pose a military threat to the US that requires we fuck our own kids up for no reason?

Who?

[bdab1973]

100. Tom Cruise?

Dude, this isn't Hollywood. Military pilots look at the movie Top Gun and make fun of it, such are the discrepancies between the movie world and the real world. Believe it or not, I don't go strutting around with my Ray-Ban aviator glasses on with my flight suit half zipped, nor do I stand around in a locker room half naked with dozens of other guys competing over who's the best pilot. That's pure Hollywood. I don't think my wife would like me dating a Kelly McGillis look-alike either, nor would my kids like that.

Speaking of twenty hours a day...flying combat missions for OIF and OEF, we typically had 16-18 hour days...with about 8-10 hours of that actually in the air. Now, before you go "oh, that's all", realize that spending 10 hours in a C-130 is NOT like spending 10 hours on the ground in an office or in a hangar. Especially wearing a helmet, gloves, body armor, and 9MM holster with the flight deck temps reaching 140 in some cases (depends if you're in an E or an H-model).

I'm sorry you felt that the pilots lived lives of privilege and didn't have to work, and spent their time chasing women...but I seem to have missed all of that. What squadron do I need to PCS to so I can enjoy those care-free work hours and perks?

Back to the F-4 issue...you'd be surprised that close knife fights have occurred in the recent past. There are tactics and techniques, that if done properly, can negate the long-distance radar advantage of certain fighters. Hell, even with the F-4's radar in the 1970s, NVAF MiGs would often hit the merge with the USAF Phantoms and engage in BFM. Final thing I'm going to say...if you design something thinking it'll never happen, it'll happen.

Case in point...you DO know that the F-4 was originally designed WITHOUT a gun, right? Because in 1950-something, they figured that air-to-air engagements were going to occur at such long distances that a gun was useless. Vietnam proved them wrong, and F-4s were retrofitted with guns. And here you come along, about 40 years later with the same idea..."eh, who cares about maneuverability, no one will ever get into a dogfight again..."

[razors edge]

101. So just exactly where

did you fuck up? There had to be something, you got that gung-ho attitude. You know everything about fighter planes, could probably catch the third wire on the carrier with your C-130 given the chance and a tail hook.

Flying trucks instead of dropping bombs on civilians. You sound like you are pissed that you are missing all the fun. Life sucks sometimes don't it?

You are aware that a center line gun pod was installed for "just such an emergency" and that top gun failed to get the overall kill rate of the F-4 to exceed 300 in it's entire service, proving that dog fighting is over, done, no longer exists, it has left the building, pushing up daisies.

What exactly are you humping in that old bird, 7.62 X 39 to terrorize the populace with a heroin back haul?

How many planes did we loose to Iraq in air to air combat?

Who will we invade that has the ability to dog fight?

Name one dog fight in the last twenty years that justifies billion of dollars to defend against?

Edit: We don't launch the fighters we have to stop planes from crashing into our largest buildings, what good would new ones do?

I was young once, I understand where your coming from.

[bdab1973]

108. What do you mean "where did I fuck up..."?

If you mean I am flying C-130s because I "fucked up", you're very wrong. I was the distinguished graduate (ie, #1 in my class) from Undergraduate Pilot Training, and I chose to fly C-130s. Many others that fly various transport aircraft graduated at or near the top of their class. I'm not the only one. Not everyone is dying to fly a fighter, for various reasons.

I am by no means the subject matter expert in flying fighters. However some of my very good friends fly aircraft like the F-15C and the F-16C, and I base my opinion of the F-22 on their inputs, not just some random desire to fly fighters (which I have no desire to do).

I was speaking exactly about the gun pod on the F-4, and that early F-4s were not produced with a gun of any kind. That comes straight from an old family friend who flew F-4Cs for the USAF.

Additionally, you don't need to add insulting childish comments, such as suggesting that I'm hauling heroin in our aircraft. Your attempt to smear the professionalism of the crews that fly aircraft in our Air Force isn't going to work. For your information (well, primarily for others that read this since you've apparently got your head somewhere else) we primarily flew passengers on the C-130s. In addition, we also flew many AE missions (aeromed evac) and HR missions (human remains...ie flying the dead out of theater). If you want to equate those valid and important missions with flying illicit drugs, just go on ahead.

Also, you might want to look in detail to the 9/11 events. Fighters were launched, there was just a lot of confusion surrounding the event since nothing like that had ever happened.

One last comment...while I may be "young" to you, I'm not some young 20-something kid. I'm nearly 40 and I've been in the service for over 17 years. I know you're itching to paint me as some 22 year old gung-ho frat boy that likes his airplanes fast and his women faster, but really, let go of the Hollywood stereotype.

[Angleae]

77. What makes you think they can't repair/replace the center wing?

Is it availability to parts because there is nothing on that plane that can't be removed.

[bdab1973]

79. The center wing is an integral structural component...involves a major rebuild

It can be replaced, and some of the C-130Hs that have cracks in the center wing box will be repaired, but it was deemed that the rest of the airframe still had enough use in it to warrant the cost. The C-130Es are so old it simply does not make sense to spend millions repairing the wing when other components and structural parts of the airplane are also being worn out (many also have cracks in the tail). It's better in the long run to spend a little extra and get an entirely new airplane that will last another 30+ years, instead of spending millions to make the E models last another 10.

[Angleae]

84. E models are still in service?

Holy crap, I worked on those same planes in the late 80s.

[bdab1973]

96. Yes, they are somehow...

Our airplanes are 61-64 models. Oldest one I think is 61-2358 and 61-2367. They are also the best flying ones we have, mostly because they belonged to the ANG for a long time, and thus have fewer flight hours on them. The plan (unless we lose the budget) is to replace the Es with C-130Js (not one for one, but a substantial number), and then AMP all of the remaining Hs.

[provis99]

8. F-22s are useless white elephants

right up there with stealth bombers and nuclear attack subs. They were designed to fight the Soviet Union in a conventional war. Totally useless for the military of today. Cancel the F-22 project now, as well as the even more worthless JSF project.

[WheelWalker]

12. "Cool" is a hot

LZ in VN.

[pasto76]

27. bullshit

NO F22 has killed a single bad guy yet.

NO F22 ever saved our asses in Iraq

MORE A-10S MORE APACHES!!!!!!!!!!!

[Thothmes]

52. Love the warthog. But the ex- fighter jocks that

run the Airforce do not want anything to do with them. They are ugly and slow, not sleek and fast like the F-22. Think the grunts on the ground have a much higher opinion of the A-10s than the Airforce brass.

[bdab1973]

58. A-10 and F-22 are completely different missions...

The A-10 is optimized for ground attack and CAS (close air support). It is not a very good air-to-air platform. The F-22 is by far the best air-to-air aircraft available now. It is far more capable than the F-15 or the F-16. One of the pillars of modern warfare is to own the air. If you don't, and you allow the enemy to own the air, they will be capable of raining bombs on our guys instead of the other way around. Right now, in 2009, there isn't a serious threat to our air superiority. But then again, we didn't think there was much of a threat in 1928 either, and just a decade later the Nazis were around. I'm not trying to say we WILL have an enemy like that in the near future, but it's possible.

[Thothmes]

65. it was never intended as an air to air platform

GA and CAS are its missions. But these are missions that the Airforce war lords would willingly sacrifice. Warthogs dont go fast.

[Gregorian]

6. I'd rather have something productive for my tax dollars.

Maybe I'm stupid. But maybe I'm brave. I don't feel that I need that much military. Not for defense. Maybe for invasions. But that's not what our military is for.

Get real jobs that produce things that benefit society in a real way. Not fear based. I say let them invade. We'll all be enjoying our lives. But as it stands, we're paying for a military with our taxes. That means we're spending our time on our jobs giving money away for things like bombs. Count me out. I'll die with a good conscience.

[ronnie624]

11. Far from stupid.

What we need is a modern day New Deal with a focus on cleaning up the environment and developing alternative energy sources. To Hell with blowing money and resources on war machines. And to Hell with the military industrial complex. We need to take OUR government back from these criminals. they are dragging us to our destruction. Time is of the essence. Here are some interesting articles:

<http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL204610020080721>

<http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSTRE4B519W20081211>

<http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/11/three-plans-for-transit-stimulus.php>

[napoleon_in_rags]

16. Exactly, what we need is things that stimulate the economy long term.

Which means that they make it easier for people to offer goods and services. Roads do this, IT infrastructure does this, but war machines, not so much. Get the guys at Lockheed to put their engineering skills into this sort of new infrastructure project and then consider it. But not sooner.

[depakid]

14. Clueless

Noy only do you lie like a Republican- but you fail to recognize strategic and economic values to keeping the ling open.

No wonder so many reckon that Democrats are weak and lame.

[tinrobot]

17. Cool airplane with the sole purpose of killing people.

I think it would be much better to put the money into something that doesn't kill people.

[Pavulon]

39. 5 gallon buckets kill people.(nt)

[tinrobot]

81. 5 Gallon buckets are designed to hold 5 gallons - nothing more.

You may be able to kill someone with a 5 gallon bucket, but it's not the reason the bucket was created.

[bdab1973]

82. The rationale behind the "F-22 is designed to kill people" thing is off

Yes, I suppose it's designed to "kill people", but not in the sense that often-said statement is used in. The F-22 isn't designed to simply go around laying waste to civilization. It's designed to defend the skies from enemy aircraft. It has a very limited air-to-ground capability. It's primary mission is air superiority. So yes, if you break it down to very simple terms, it's designed to kill people, but in a more refined and accurate context it's designed to kill those that are trying to kill us and our troops with their own airborne weaponry.

With the very simplistic statement of "it's designed to kill people", then you could also apply that statement to the sidearms the local police department carries, since after all, a gun is designed to kill people. By making that statement you completely ignore the context of purpose the gun holds...for self-defense of the police officer and also to protect the citizens (let's avoid the police brutality argument here...I'm talking in terms of what it's intended for, not for illegal and unauthorized use).

[tinrobot]

83. My original post was more about those who think the F-22 is "frickin cool."

A lot of people get caught up in the tremendous speed, good looks, and performance of fighter jets. People get blinded by the coolness factor and forget the main purpose of these machines is to kill other people more effectively.

While an F-22 may be required for protection, I don't think anything designed to kill people would ever be considered "frickin cool."

If someone you loved was killed by one of these, would it be "frickin cool?"

That's all I'm going to say on this.

[bdab1973]

97. Your "loved one" would only be killed by a F-22 if they were sitting in a SU-27 attacking US troops

The F-22 is for air superiority...again, I repeat, it's for air superiority. The only people that would die from an F-22 are enemy pilots, not innocent people just sitting around minding their own business.

[izquierdista]

19. So is your head, Lawson

And after I smack it with the shovel, we'll see how many of your high-priced, do-nothing engineers can get off their ass and design and build some better wind turbines.

[unhappycamper]

20. The Airbus A-380 costs $330,000,000 a pop.

The F-22 costs $335,000,000 a pop.







Another interesting fact:

a) the F-22 has 4 million lines of computer code
b) the F-35 has 11 million lines of computer code

Do you seriously think that more computer code equals a safer/more capable aircraft? (Oh BTW, the F-35 costs $239,000,000 a pop.)

[Optical.Catalyst]

21. President Obama needs to immediately halt production of the F-22 and mothball the existing units

The money for this program should be redirected to research and development of clean, renewable energy.

The Obama Administration should offer Locheed-Martin the opportunity to bid on the R&D contract.

[Owl]

23. I agree. Let's put our borrowed money and talents to better use.

[Auggie]

26. Same here

Needless defense spending has been killing the nation's progress

[Pavulon]

41. Spend it on AP1000s

and power grid upgrades.

[floridablue]

22. We could provide SAM's to shoot them down.

Then we would need them. War is good for the economy isn't it ?

[bdab1973]

60. I assume you're referring to Afghanistan...

The stories that our pilots are/were facing down our own US-made Stinger missiles is a highly hyped myth. Most of those systems were delivered over 20 years ago, and if they still exist they aren't serviceable. The FIM-92 isn't a big issue in Afghanistan, it's the Russian-made SA-7/14/16 types.

[Marrah_G]

24. These are alot of good paying jobs on the line

My solution would be for President Obama to put that enormous collection of talent together on some new eco-projects or space projects.

Use the talent but direct it in another way.

That way the country gets what it needs and the good paying jobs are not lost.

[blindpig]

25. Obscene blackmail.

Those skilled workers could be making something useful instead.

Ain't never about the workers, they'll be laided off at the drop of a hat. It's all about profits, the Pentagon is the biggest cash cow in history.

Decrease the military budget by 90%.

[jody]

28. Obama should either approve more than DoD approved 183 or change the USAF mission. n/t

[Blue_Tires]

30. once again, whenever some RWer starts blabbing about 'pork' or 'welfare'

I've got the good ol' war machine to be my ironclad counter-example...

[Javaman]

31. Let circle the defence corp vultures. nt

[Locrian]

32. what?

>>You might say -- Who would we fight? I don't know. It might be Russia, It might be China, It might be the EU, It might be Canada. Anyone could take a fascist turn for the worst and be a threat. The thing is we should hope for the best but prepare for the worst. Who knows what the future holds.


You must either write for the onion or you're, like, 12 years old or something....

[Crowman1979]

37. You could probably make a stealth cruise missile for a 1/10 of the cost.

I mean, it's the best way to destroy concrete targets surrounded my SAMs. The only option I see for a stealth aircraft is for Electronic Warfare, in order to destroy radar sites. And with an enemy's radar network destroyed, no stealth bombers/fighters will be needed in the process.

[Angleae]

50. But you can only use a cruise missile once.

and radar sites can be turned off and/or moved, cruise missiles tend not to react to changing conditions.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

40. Ah, the F-22.

The best boondoggle the early 80s could come up with.

[IDFbunny]

42. Kill the projects in development now, but spare the F22.

[bdab1973]

61. What about the new tanker, the replacement for the C-130E, the C-5 re-engine program, etc??

[IDFbunny]

72. That's either maintenance or already far along.

The investment into the F22 has already been made and it has a bright future. Im thinking about axing the new stealth bomber and other far off programs. Somebody in the USAF wants another stealth bomber that looks like the B2 but is smaller, for smaller missions. Axing that will save a bundle.

[bdab1973]

74. Uh, maintenance?

What does maintenance have to do with those programs?

Here are a few programs that are in various stages, and are extremely important to the utility and reliability of the fleet (and they aren't simple maintenance programs):

KC-X: Program to replace the KC-135 Stratotanker. The KC-135 first entered service in the mid-1950s, and the "newest" aircraft were made in the mid-1960s. Many were re-engined as KC-135R versions, but it didn't solve the problem of airframe stress and corrosion, both of which you can't simply solve by "fixing" it. The KC-X program is still in the bidding phase.

C-130J: The C-130J looks similar to the older C-130E and C-130H aircraft, but inside it's a completely different airplane and about 30% more capable. The current plan is to retire all C-130Es (most of which were made from 1961-1964) and replace those aircraft with C-130Js. Additionally, squadrons equipped with the oldest C-130H aircraft (made in 1973-1974) will also get the C-130J, while the early C-130Hs go through the AMP program (below) and get reassigned to the C-130H training squadron (which currently flies C-130Es). It was decided not to AMP any C-130Es because of their age and the cost associated with refurbishing their airframes...it would cost almost as much as buying a new airplane.

C-130 AMP: Avionics Modernization Program. This program will take all C-130H aircraft (most manufactured from 1973 until 1995) and equip the aircraft with a common flight deck with modern avionics and GPS navigation. Currently, there are five different sub-versions of the C-130H...the original C-130H, C-130H1, C-130H2, C-130H2.5 and C-130H3. The differences are primarily on the flight deck, with the H and H1 having flight decks equipped with 1950s and 1960s era avionics like the C-130E, and the H2, H2.5 and H3 having increased electronics and computerized equipment. Currently, the DoD requires training to fly the various sub-types (ie, an H1 crew can't fly an H3 without training, and vice-versa), but the AMP will solve that problem. It will also re-wire the whole aircraft with modern wiring, and equip the airplanes with an 8-bladed propeller that will make it more efficient (fuel-wise). The resulting airplane will be redesignated the C-130M, and some of the older C-130Hs will also receive new center wing boxes to eliminate the cracking present in the oldest versions.

C-5 AMP: Avionics Modernization Program for the C-5. Updates the C-5A and C-5B aircraft with modern GPS navigation equipment (most were built in the late 1960s, and some built in the mid-1980s). The C-5Bs will also get new engines, which will boost thrust and reduce fuel burn, allowing the aircraft to be far more efficient than the aircraft with older engines. A decision was made to only re-engine the C-5Bs, since many of the C-5As will be retired in the next decade due to age and airframe wear.

CSAR-X: New rescue helicopter to replace the HH-60G. The Sikorsky HH-60G has done a good job, and most were delivered from the late 1980s into the early 1990s. Although relatively "new" compared to the other aircraft being replaced, the problem lies in the basic design of the H-60 airframe. The original variant (UH-60A) built for the Army had a maximum weight of 20,500 lbs. With the upgraded UH-60L, this was increased to 22,500. This posed no problem for the Army, since the basic empty weight of the aircraft is around 10,000 lbs, it left over 12,500 for fuel and passengers. The Air Force version was based on the original A model (20,500 weight), but approved to operate at the heavier weight of 22,500. This is because with all the rescue equipment and rescue teams they normally fly with, plus air refueling probes, an Air Force HH-60G will nearly always operate around 20,000 lbs, which leaves little room for extra passengers or equipment. The Army aircraft last longer because they are not routinely flown at such heavy weights (being only "slick" versions, or passenger-only variants). The Air Force helicopters have been experiencing cracking in a forward fuselage bulkhead (a major structural part that holds the cabin and cockpit together). This problem can't be fixed by simple repairs, and would require extensive rebuilding. The Air Force decided to bid for a new helicopter because of the cost associated with rebuilding the older HH-60, and the fact that they HH-60 is already performance limited, with only about 2,000 lbs of room to spare. They are seeking a larger, more robust helicopter for the search-and-rescue role. It is still in the bidding process as well.

F-22: The F-22 is well into it's procurement plan, although the original plan was to purchase nearly 700 of these aircraft, that buy has been whittled down to about 183. This has pushed unit costs up, to allow for R&D expenses. The F-22 is designed to replace the F-15, and the primary mission is air superiority (air-to-air, shooting down other fighters). The F-15s are aging, and most were built in the late 1970s and early 1980s. A couple have broken up in mid-air due to structural failures associated with high-cycle metal fatigue (ie, repeated stresses from flying combat profiles). The F-15 technology is based on 1960s and 1970s technology, although a few radar advancements have helped keep the F-15 relevant in the 21st century. I'm not a fighter pilot, but talking to my friends that are, they say the F-22 is leaps and bounds better than the F-15. I'll believe them over any newspaper article any day. In any case, they are expensive, and they do have a limited role. But owning the air allows the military to operate free from air attack, something the US military hasn't had to deal with since World War II. Why be the first generation of Americans to deal with it since the 1940s? Allowing any future enemy the ability to hit our ground forces and ships hard with air strikes would be far more expensive than buying the F-22 in the first place.

F-35: Smaller than the F-22, it too is fairly far along, but not in production and service like the F-22. It is designed to be a lightweight, agile multi-role fighter (able to do both limited air-to-air, but primarily ground attack). Some say it's not as good as the F-22, which is fair to say about the air-to-air mission, but that's not what the F-35 was optimized for. The F-16, A-10 and F-18 all all primarily ground attack aircraft. While the F-16 and F-18 have significant air-to-air capabilities, they are lacking compared to the F-15. The A-10 has virtually no offensive air-to-air mission at all, and can only respond in defense of itself. The F-35 isn't just a USAF program, since the Navy, Marines and several allied nations plan on buying F-35s. The idea being that a common fighter between all branches will save on logistical issues with parts and supplies.

Future Bomber: This program is still in the conceptual stage. It's a long term program to replace the B-52 (which will likely be out of service by then anyways due to age), B-1 and even the B-2. It likely won't enter service until well past 2020. It used to be called the "2018 bomber", but realists within the DoD understand that it will likely be pushed back to help fund more pressing issues now.

[CRF450]

78. I can vouch for the C-130J's

A Coast Guard guy that gave me a little tour around the CG hanger a few years ago, at the time he was telling me the older C-130's were going to be replaced by the J models cause they were having too many problems with them, most of it was the 30 year old tech guages and instruments. He works on everything on those planes behind the cockpit BTW. The new ones are like whole new modern aircrafts with the same shape. The only thing notably different from outside appearance is like you said, new 8 blade props which do look pretty cool though.

[depakid]

45. How about Congress keeping the line open by changing the law- and sell some to the Aussies

Australia seeks opening for F-22 purchase

Australia's defense minister said Saturday he wanted the option of buying Lockheed's F-22 Raptor — a jet fighter barred by U.S. law from sale overseas. Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon told reporters he wanted to consider buying the state-of-the-art F-22 as part of a review of Australia's air defense capabilities. The review, announced this week, is due to be completed by the end of April.

"The Australian government doesn't have any view about whether the F-22 should be or should not be part of the mix, but we do want the opportunity to consider the F-22," Fitzgibbon said after meeting U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Gates told reporters he had no objection to the sale to Australia, but said the U.S. Congress would have to change the law.

"While we in principle have no objection to it, until the statute is changed, we are not able to sell it to any country," Gates said.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-02-23-australia-jets_N.htm

Here's a win/win

Keep production going- shore up defenses in Asia and the Southern Ocean though a trusted ally that (unlike some others) is very unlikely to pass any of the technology on to competitors or adversaries.

Too easy and effective. The Dems will never go for it.

[Angleae]

51. Not just Aussies.

Several countries have expressed interest such as Japan.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

54. let our allies buy some

Sell the F22 to Australia and Japan--they want it, and the plane is a damn good one. The F-15 is such a good plane, but as I told ana ctive aF pilot on New year's Eve, the airframe is old. You can't keep flying a 35 year old fighter jet froever.

[CRF450]

48. Enough with the "kill the f-22" chanting!

The F-15 its replacing is an aging aircraft and so is most of the other fighter jets out the, its been around for 35 years it needs a replacement. The F-22 has way more capabilities, its a stealth aircraft, it can cruise at supersonic speeds for long periods of time. Plus its just flat out badass!

[Buns_of_Fire]

53. "This is 'shovel ready.' "

Maybe it's just me, but I think I would have used a different phrase...

[bdab1973]

59. "We already have amazing fighters..." - That is OLD news, the USAF is chock full of old airplanes

A-10s- Built in mid-1970s until the early 1980s. Average airplane is over 30 years old.

B-52- Designed in the early 1950s. Latest models built in the early 1960s. Most are over 45 years old.

B-1- Designed in the 1970s, built in the early 1980s, most are about 20 years old

C-5- C-5As were built in the late 1960s. Newer C-5Bs were built in the early 1980s. Some are over 30 years old, while others are just over 20 years old.

C-130- Designed in the 1950s, most were built in the early 1960s and 1970s. Many are 45+ years old.

F-15- Most built between 1977 and 1983. Many are over 30 years old.

F-16- Most built from 1979 until 1985. Production continued at a very low rate into the 1990s, but most are about 20-25 years old.

KC-135- Most built from 1956-1964, some are over 50 years old.


Question: How many of you here would drive a 30, 40 or 50 year old car? Maybe if it was cared for like an antique, right? But what if it wasn't completely rebuilt and maintained in an "as new" condition? Would you still drive it? Imagine flying airplanes that have WWII technology in it, wing cracks, corrosion problems, and other structural issues from age. Imagine engines that were designed in the 1950s and burn twice the fuel of new modern engines. That is the current state of our Air Force, folks. In the 1980s, things were fine...but I think we all began to form an image in our mind the the USAF is the greatest and most powerful, and nothing approaches it with regard to technology advancement. That was very true in the 1980s and even in the 1990s. But decades of deployments, two major wars and simple time have worn these aircraft out.

I fly C-130s, and often we'll schedule a 6-ship formation, and many times we're lucky to get half of them airborne. Sometimes I've taxied out as the sole survivor of 5- or 6-ship formations, the rest of the airplanes shutting down due to hydraulic leaks, engine problems, avionics failures or other issues. Many of the aircraft I fly have restrictions on their use due to WING CRACKS. Would you get on an airliner that had known wing cracks? NO? But you're perfectly fine letting your fellow citizens fly airplanes with wing cracks.

So what's the deal about the F-22? They F-15 and F-16 are good enough, you say? Sure, their technology is still adequate for 2009. But what about 2015? Or 2020? By then, the F-15s will be almost 45 years old. Some of them have broken up in mid-air because of airframe cracks. Bad manufacturing, you say? How about YOU design something that is light enough to fly and be maneuverable to hang with Russian-designed fighters, pull 7-9 times the force of gravity, AND last 20 years, let alone the 30+ that some fighters have been around.

Our fighter fleet is 1970s technology that was mostly made and produced in the mid-1970s to the 1980s. Around the late 1980s, we simply stopped buying airplanes in any large quantity. I'm not worried about TODAY so much as I am worried about TOMORROW's Air Force.

My children will inherit an Air Force that's full of museum pieces (if they aren't already museum pieces) if we don't do something about it today. You can groan all you want about this stuff being "useful" or wanting to put people to work towards sustainable this or that. But the truth is, these things create jobs, and they create jobs in a sector that actually PRODUCES something, not a service. And it produces something in a technology-driven industry...aviation. It's an industry that the US has always dominated (not just military, but civil aviation as well), and we're well on our way to losing the lead in aeronautical manufacturing if we don't stop the trend.

As I said to another poster a while back, if you'd rather put people out of jobs that pay well, make something, and produce technology for our country's economy, and you'd rather put them in a government-sponsored program or digging ditches, that's fine, but you're killing the productivity of this nation. Hmmm, would I rather get a union job making jets of any kind, or go stand in the unemployment line for a minimum wage job that doesn't add squat crap to our national productivity?

[CRF450]

64. ^^^^Best post in the thread, thank you.

Most of these fools in here dont get it.

[AyanEva]

69. iawtc

[Psephos]

102. I hope that all who've posted in this thread read what you wrote n/t

[Political Heretic]

86. Watch the Documentary Why We Flight. MIC is brilliant about speading jobs all over 50 states...

..so that every Congressman in Washington lobbies for it.

[Political Heretic]

87. F-22 is a beautiful plane that costs too much and doesn't do enough

It looks gorgeous though.

[bdab1973]

99. It performs it's intended mission better than anything else...

That's coming from a friend of mine who flies F-15Cs in Idaho. I'll take his word for it.

I don't get why people want airplanes that can "do everything", but do nothing extremely well. The F-22 can drop bombs, but that's not what it's designed to do, or optimized to do. In fact, I think it can carry TWO bombs...not much of a bomber I suppose, but then again, it's primary mission is to ensure no enemy fighter or bomber can threaten US troops or US civilians. We've owned the skies since WWII, and if we hadn't, the toll would be much higher. Imagine what D-Day would have been like had our forces on the beaches of France been bombed and strafed all day....we wouldn't have succeeded.

[Mr. Hyde]

104. The F22 can eliminate an enemy air defense network & pave the way for bombers and close air support.

It's ability to engage multiple targets simultaneously at standoff distances while remaining virtually undetectable by radar and to cruise at supersonic speeds without afterburners makes it, in all probability, the most lethal aircraft in existence. I'm real glad its ours.

[AntiFascist]

90. How does their product stimulate the economy?

By maintaining hegemony?

[Pavulon]

92. shit mcjob or union pay

i would rather work on assembly of aircraft than hamburgers.

[AntiFascist]

93. One solution to failed economy is to start a world war...

just wait, CNN may begin glorifying the WWII assembly lines.

[Pavulon]

94. They replace old airplanes

unless you suggest we have no air force going forwards they are required. I seem to remember the f15E fleet grounding due to cracks last year.

[bdab1973]

98. In addition to replacing military aircraft...

it stimulates and pours money into our overall aerospace industry, which makes products for civilian use as well.

Aerospace is one of the few industries that we still have an edge in, and one of the few where most of the major components and sub-components are made here in the US with US workers.

Sure, let's allow our aerospace industry to shrivel up and die just so we can be morally superior, and we can watch all those UNION and WELL-PAYING aerospace jobs go to the EU (that is nipping at the US aerospace industry's heels, not just in civil aerospace but military as well) and Asia.

If you don't want Americans building high-tech aircraft for either civil use or defense, then the Europeans and Chinese will be more than happy to take over that industry.

[AntiFascist]

106. Defense?, heh...why not just start another offensive war?

The first Gulf War worked wonders in demonstrating (and saving) the new satellite guided bombing technology and programs. Nothing stops us from killing and terrorizing mass populations of people when it comes to reasserting our dominance and ensuring the continuation of the military-industrial complex.

[bdab1973]

109. The Gulf War was a fluke...

Unfortunately the first Gulf War made the US seem invincible, and came on the heels of the end of the Cold War. So obviously when the USSR went away, everyone high-fived each other and said "hey, we're the most powerful, so why spend any more money on our military?". Then came about a decade of steady budget cuts and virtually no major aircraft buys, making old airplanes even older. On top of that came continuous deployments like the military had never seen before...Somalia, Northern and Southern Watch (Iraq), Bosnia, Kosovo, Haiti, then Afghanistan and Iraq. It took a huge toll on our military. All the monetary increases under Bush went into military construction (ie, base improvements), pay increases and obviously operational costs (Iraq/Afghanistan).

Just because I support re-equipping our military does NOT mean I advocate going around the world to start wars and invade countries. Actually it's quite the opposite. Once we're out of Iraq, and get Afghanistan under control, I believe we should go back to our stance of the 1980s, where our forces were primarily in a defensive stance, and the majority of the deployments were for international exercises and not international combat operations. In fact, I think we should pull 75% of our forces from NATO, and let the Europeans fund their own defense from now on. After all, they get to slash their budgets deeply because the US is there to provide 50% of their defense needs.

What we need is a military that's more focused on defending us and our close allies, international aid (not military aid, I mean aid like the tsunami relief) and defending US strategic interests (like the shipping lanes in the Gulf of Aden). In that same breath, I advocate for a force that's still the best equipped and best trained military in the world. Flying around in 30, 40 and 50 year old airplanes does not meet that requirement.

[Mr. Hyde]

103. not necessarily a solution but definitely a possible outcome

I for one support the F22 program. The Alaskan trials of the F22 demonstrated that it does exactly what it's makers claim. In uncertain times like these, one thing is certain, the ability of the F22 to dominate any airspace. Sometimes that kind of certainty is enough to prevent would be belligerents from even contemplating aggression.

[bdab1973]

110. I agree...READ THIS

Having the world's best equipped force and best trained force keeps would-be opponents at arm's reach. Instead of outright aggression, they rattle their sabers occasionally but don't do much because they know they wouldn't get far. If they see a US military that's underfunded, full of old, worn-out equipment, and a populace that doesn't seem to care about military service, it's like throwing a steak into a lion cage.

I find it sad that people in this country think it's just fine that 183 fighters is all we need to defend the United States, when countries like the UK are buying 232 examples of their front-line fighter (Eurofighter Typhoon), and the Germans are buying 180 Eurofighters. Yet the US, many times larger than any of those countries, doesn't want to have more than 200 front-line fighters...everyone says the F-15 can do the job...but people don't realize that in about 5-10 years, they will need to retire many of the F-15s due to airframe fatigue.

[AntiFascist]

114. Why isn't Lockheed lobbying the Obama Administration on those grounds?

You make a much better argument than what is explained in the OP's article. Reading through the article, it sounds like Lockheed is advocating the continuation of a key component of the military-industrial complex simply because it secures a lot of jobs and is "shovel-ready". I'm sure there are plenty of US infrastructure programs that could be equally advocated that are not only shovel-ready, but also have long-term direct advantages for the economy.

[bdab1973]

115. I don't know...

and it may not be the entire story. You know the press...they love to sensationalize everything. Why would the press bother printing a story that had factual information in it, when they can run with a quote from someone saying a defense project is "shovel-ready"?

I'm sure many in the Pentagon are briefing the president on exactly what I posted above. Despite the many preconceptions out there, there are many officers in the military that are very professional, and if their job is to train and equip the best force possible, of course their going to advocate for these programs. Lockheed has stated that jobs are at stake, and I'm sure the press got several sources within the company and ran with the quotes that would likely generate the greatest stir.

I take the press with a grain of salt. Nothing like talking heads with very little knowledge of anything outside print or TV media writing up stories and articles about things they don't understand. For a good example, see the discussions regarding the press and the recent airliner accident. The only press I'm inclined to believe are media sources based on professional experiences. For example, the many aerospace and aviation journals out there generally report fairly accurate stuff...because they are written by people with aviation backgrounds (be it engineers, pilots, etc). But the mainstream media? Pfttt....useless for most reporting, except perhaps to report very basic facts. 9 out of 10 articles by the MSM regarding aviation (I use that as an example because it's my area of expertise) cause me to want to hit my head on a wall.

[bdab1973]

111. Many say 183 F-22s is more than enough...yet somehow

The UK is buying over 230 new Eurofighter Typhoons, and Germany is buying 180 Eurofighters. EADS (EU's aerospace conglomerate) is positioned to take over global dominance in aerospace, not only in defense products, but also civil products, because Americans and the US government is too ignorant to invest in their own industry. Instead we hear things like "invest in sustainable, green technology", etc etc. It's like over here, people are in love with throwing around new catch-phrases to sound politically trendy, while avoiding the anathema that is defense spending, because no one wants to look like the grinch. Yet this country is the only country where people are willing to toss an entire industry in the trash can to appear progressive. Yet the most progressive combination of countries (EU) is not only developing a thriving defense and aerospace industry, they are about to overtake the US.

While we find ways to put people out of well-paying union work making fancy, high-tech fighters so we can find them new jobs "contributing to society", the Europeans are gladly hiring more people for high-tech industrial jobs and laughing at us the whole way. Just so you know, EADS is perhaps the largest aerospace conglomerate, once you factor in all the EADS-run businesses (Airbus, Eurofighter, CASA, Eurocopter, Dassault, Aerospatiale, and many others). Those companies all receive hefty support from the EU governments, and it's paying off because EADS is taking off, while Boeing and Lockheed continue to see markets slip away.

That's fine, if you want to see the US simply relegate itself to mediocrity.

[Tripmann]

112. I'm sure the highly skilled people at lockheed martin could

be retrained to produce solar panels and wind turbines. If job losses are the most important factor in play here, whats the problem?

[bdab1973]

113. It's not just the jobs, it's our aerospace industry...

Look at the Europeans...progressive as all get out, yet they have a thriving aerospace industry that makes civil and military aircraft, often with significant government subsidies. EADS (the EU aerospace giant) is poised to take the worldwide lead in aerospace away from the US.

Why do people on here love the idea of abandoning this industry when our global competitors are not? Can't we train those already out of work to build wind turbines and solar panels, and keep these people building airplanes? What's wrong with that?

If we keep up this trendy "let's sink any industry connected to defense" thinking, we'll be flying on Airbus and Embraer airplanes, driving Toyotas and Volkswagens, typing on Japanese, Korean and Chinese computers, and so on.

But hey, at least the some of the solar panels we install on our homes were made here...

[Tripmann]

117. The F-22 is military hardware...

...and is not a civil aircraft. Its a killing machine and its only connection to 'defence' is defending the profits of the military industrial complex, not defending jobs or your way of life.

[bdab1973]

118. The MIC isn't some walled off compound, separated from everything else..

This is a myth. Sure, there is an industry that caters to the military. But like most things, it's interwoven into many other facets of our industry. The military aerospace industry uses civil technologies, and develops technologies used in civil aerospace. Many components and like materials are used in both military and civilian aircraft.

The F-22 is primarily a defensive fighter. It's not optimized for ground attack, it's mostly used for air superiority. The only "killing" it would perform would entail killing the pilots of enemy bombers or fighters.

If these things are so nasty and terrible to our way of life and economy, then why is the EU buying three times the number of front-line 21st century fighters to replace their 1970s and 1980s era fighters? The EU is roundly seen as a model of progressive government, but at least they understand the role of defense, as well as the role military aerospace plays in the big picture of the entire aerospace industry.

Next time you fly on a 737, you should know that those very same engines power the USAF KC-135R. The airframe is also used as the Navy P-8 maritime recon aircraft. Many of the refinements Boeing made on new aircraft were added to their military designs, and vice versa.

There is perhaps an intangible thing called the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), but it's not some vast compound walled off from the rest of our economy, making and designing things for the sheer pleasure of killing and making a few rich. The MIC is part of nearly every industry our nation still has. Vehicles, electronics, civil engineering even. Nearly every company that has anything to do with the MIC is publicly traded, which means you, me and anyone else that owns any stock or mutual funds owns part of the MIC, along with other parts of our economy.

If you're one of those who feel we need no defense, and the military should just go away, I'm sure I'm writing this in vain. But if you feel we should have some kind of defense, then I ask you why should we be satisfied with equipping those soldiers, sailors and marines with old aircraft that should be in a museum? Why is it just fine for the United Kingdom, barely larger than the state of Alabama, to purchase 230+ fighters that are nearly as sophisticated and costly as the F-22, yet our nation, one of the largest in the world, shouldn't have any? Or Germany, for that matter, is buying 180 European-manufactured next-generation fighters. Germany, for christ's sake...Aside from participating in NATO and sending a few thousand troops to Afghanistan, using your logic they shouldn't be buying any new aircraft either.

Yet Europe has a rapidly growing aerospace industry. One that will easily outstrip the US aerospace industry, both military and civilian, in the near future if we don't realize that we're allowing our industry to fail simply for politics.

Please get beyond the rhetoric of "it's a killing machine". Sure, it's designed to kill, if you really want to get down to basics. But there's a vast difference in making an aircraft designed to lay waste to cities, versus one that's designed to fend of enemy fighter aircraft. Either protecting our own shores, or protecting our troops and allied troops in operations somewhere else, it's a net lifesaver if you shoot down and kill a dozen enemy fighter pilots that are headed to kill thousands of our troops or citizens.

You are truly naive if you feel everyone in this world is just itching to get along and be happy together. It's not that way. Our culture is gradually accepting and growing around the concept of peace and prosperity and mutual understanding. But you are vastly misunderstanding most of the rest of the world if you feel that's the case in many other corners of Earth. Until everyone on this planet is on the same page, defense still matters. Defending our allies still matters. And being able to influence and defend our vital interests matters.

Please take note that I am NOT advocating a world-police attitude, nor am I advocating getting ourselves involved in other conflicts of choice. But as a professional military aviator, I am advocating that we have a well equipped, well trained military ready to handle what might lie ahead. Just look at the past...crazy regimes supported by naive populations erupted quickly in the past...Hitler came to power in a matter of a few years, and within 5-6 years had laid waste to much of Europe. Think it can't happen again? 5,000+ years of human history proves otherwise.

Let's not be like the Polish Air Force, that went into combat in vain against the WWII Luftwaffe with biplanes.

Imagine it's 1980, and our Air Force has fighters that were designed 35 years ago...we'd have a fleet of WWII-era propeller driven fighters, while the rest of the world flew supersonic jets. The F-22 may not LOOK quite so radical and advanced from the F-15, but it's worlds apart, and it's a generational leap in technology from the old F-15/F-16 fleet. The F-22 isn't the only program on the chopping block...airlift, tankers, helicopters...you name it...could all be axed, leaving our guys and gals flying around old, worn out aircraft.

There was a fury when people found out the DoD hadn't kept up with developing armored Humvees and other vehicles. There was anger on this website about the Bush DoD not providing advanced body armor for the troops. But now, you seem content letting those very same troops fly in airplanes that have wing cracks and structural corrosion issues...it's ok for them to fly airplanes that have already broken up in mid-air twice now (2x F-15), and you turn a blind eye as Congress forces the USAF to continue operating KC-135E tankers that the engineers say should be grounded for flight safety reasons.

But hey...this is America. Things like defense and the military are mere political issues, whereas the Europeans see it differently. They aren't about to let their militaries become outdated and irrelevant, and allow their aerospace industry to wither on the vine so political talking heads can throw around hefty cool-sounding catch phrases like "re-train workers for renewable, green industries". Sure, we should be doing that too...but why flush an already existing industry down the toilet so you can pat yourself on the back for being the good progressive?

It makes no sense, and all the political this-and-that is part of the reason why our country is headed for the shitter. We've got our heads so firmly implanted up our asses, things are going to get bad before they get worse. People are spending way more than they earn, buying houses they have no business owning, and talking more than they should be listening and learning.

You know, what's the point of I'm serving this country to train and equip our military to be the best, when most of the people in this country wouldn't dare find themselves in a uniform, and feel more than comfortable telling me I don't know what the hell I'm talking about...I wouldn't sit there and argue with a doctor about health care reform, I'd sit and listen to him, because maybe he's had some experiences and ideas that might make things better.

[AntiFascist]

121. F-18s were used extensively in the first Gulf War...

to bomb the infrastructure of Iraq, and many of its citizens, out of existence. If you wonder why we weren't exactly greeted with flowers and candy in the most recent Iraq War, this is likely the reason. A strong F-22 fleet would likely function to continue this legacy of American air superiority. We need to rethink our foreign policy before blindly continuing to invest in death.

[bdab1973]

127. Air superiority does not equal bombing countries out of existence

And for what it's worth, Iraq wasn't bombed out of existence...I'm here in Iraq now, and the damage to civilian infrastructure from US bombing attacks is light. The military infrastructure, however, was hit hard.

Just to let you know, the F/A-18 and the F-22 have two very different missions. F/A-18s are primarily used for air-to-ground attack missions, whereas the F-22 is primarily air defense.

[AntiFascist]

131. You seem to be more knowledgable about this than I am...

but about 10 years ago I purchased an iF22 raptor interactive flight simulator game with a very detailed map of parts of Europe and Eastern Europe. I would imagine that the potential 'training' and recruitment value of such a game would be just as much a motive for its development (if not more) than the entertainment value. I seem to recall that it comes with extensive bombing missions in addition to air defense.

[bdab1973]

132. It's a video game...

...not the real thing. BTW, the F-22 wasn't even done with initial operational evaluation 10 years ago. The airplane does have a limited air-to-ground mission, but it's not optimized for that. The F-15C can drop bombs too, but it never has in combat (only the F-15E has, which is the air-to-ground variant of the F-15).

The F-22s will likely be used primarily for air defense, and perhaps on rare occasions might wind up performing bombing missions in a pinch.

[Tripmann]

125. You need to examine the definition of the word 'defence'

Whens the last time fighter planes were used in a defensive role for your country? Invading Iraq was not in your countrys defense.

Are additional F-22s going to secure anything more than obscene amounts of money for lockheeds shareholders?

[bdab1973]

128. You can ask the same questions about your country

I'm assuming your British with the spelling of "defence". The UK is buying 232 Eurofighter Typhoons, Europe's answer to the F-22. Germany is buying 180 of them. What threat, exactly, do your nations face? And why is it just fine for the EU to develop a very robust defence aerospace industry through EADS (subsidized by the EU), while America should abandon any efforts to modernize their military and continue their aerospace industry? Why is it ok for Europe to push forward buying dozens (and even hundreds) of Typhoons, Gripens and other modern 21st century fighters, but the US citizens should go to farming carrots for a living?

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

120. read the Time magazine article

The price for just ONE F-22 is currently $350 million per jet :wow: :wow: :wow: And * has over 100 already paid for... no wonder poor Sec of Defense Gates said he can't use the damn things--yes they're good, but $350 million a pop,not to mention their maintenance hasn't been too stellar (60 percent according to Time).

I think the 16o or so would be enough, just on the dam price tag! how about asking Japan and Australia if they like a couple. And the F35?! I'd rather they make new versions of the F16 and build more UAVs, along with the cargo tankers, helicopters and other items the Air Force NEEDS and not what just looks cool.

[depakid]

124. The Air Force originally planned for 381 as the minimum required

for the air superiority and deep interdiction mission. As with most highly advanced things- the fewer that you build, the higher the per unit cost (taking into account the R & D).

[bdab1973]

130. Someone understands the economics behind it all...

The Eurofighter is around $80 million per copy...and they have a planned production of around 750 units so far. The F-22 fly-away cost is actually around $140 million, and so far only 183 are being planned. When you figure the total buys, the Eurofighters cost less because the total R&D costs are spread over 750 airplanes instead of fewer than 200.

[ProudDad]

122. Shut it the f*ck down!!!

Building another stupid f*cking weapon to fight the Soviet Union.

What INSANITY!!!!

Shut the f*cker down!!!

[Mr. Hyde]

126. What makes you think that the F22 is only good for fighting the USSR?

Do you propose that our Air Force make do with what it currently has or do you specifically take issue with the construction of the F22?

[bdab1973]

129. You're wrong

It's not just to fight the Soviet Union...

Russia still makes and exports the most lethal versions of the Sukhoi SU-27/30/32 series, and in fact is developing fighters that will surpass even those examples. China is developing a new-generation fighter capable of taking on the F-22 and other new fighter versions out there. Europe is also selling it's latest fighter, the Typhoon, to customers world wide.

You seem to think that only the US possess any air-to-air capabilities. You are wrong.