F-22 Cuts?

[Beavker]

I hear that Obama is going to cut spending for the F-22? I thought this was best fighter jet at this point. If they are increasing the Military budget why would they cut the "best" figher jet?

Thoughts?

[tabatha]

1. I think Obama has consulted with the military.

He does not make decisions without knowing all the facts.
Watch.

Edit:
Do a little googling:

Gates has already singled out the F-22 Raptor fighters, which cost about 350 million dollars each, for potential cutbacks.

Read the whole article:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5h-ffjDWyHHUKSHKTzpQbd1_m3VxQ

[Beavker]

4. That would be my take

He seems to ask the ones that know these things, so whatever he does I presume would come with the endorsement of the Military Branches affected.

Just asking in response the Repuke in my office who ranted that cutting the jet was the stupidest thing ever. As everything is.

[tabatha]

5. By the way, I see that some of the over-priced weapons are made by General Dynamics.

I once worked with GD on a special project - and they had staff sitting around drinking coffee all day.
Lots of waste there.

[Kolesar]

11. Secretary Gates cut those crap-flies down to about 170, from an initial plan of 700

Military spending is crony capitalism for our representatives.

[n2doc]

2. A contrarian view:

http://www.counterpunch.org/f22.html

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

3. It's a cold war boondoggle.

It's a big hole to dump money into.

[Xithras]

34. I don't know about boondoggle, but it's certainly a Cold War relic.

The F-22 was specced and designed during the 1980's to be an answer to continuing Soviet advances in air combat, and continued after that threat ceased to exist. As a fighter, it's an aircraft without equal...or even a close runner up. The problem is that there is no practical use for it. We have NO enemies with air combat systems that even come close to it.

The F-35 JSF is an incredibly good fighter plane and will do just fine in maintaining our air superiority (we'll still be better than anything else out there), but they can be picked up for HALF the cost of an F-22. Without any practical need for an aircraft like the 22, it makes sense to cut the program and go to F-35's instead.

If an enemy does pop up with an aircraft superior to the F-35, it won't take long to put the F-22 back into production. It's not like the F-22 is lost forever if the program is cut, it can just be mothballed until a need arises for that kind of aircraft.

[backscatter712]

45. Yep, we should be going with the F-35.

Eventually, we will have to replace our fighter jets - their airframes do get metal fatigue, and they won't last forever, but the F-22 is insanely expensive. Get the F-35 working, and try to trim the fat in that program, so we can afford to buy a lot of them, and they'll be well-worth the money we spend on them.

[Greyhound]

6. Because we also have the 2nd and 3rd best, they cost a fraction of what the F-22 does,

and we have them in such quantity that unchallenged air superiority is a forgone conclusion any time we engage anyone.

It is simply unnecessary and wasteful.

[SoCalDem]

13. Especially when our "enemies" are successful with cell-phones, baling wire & C-4, and

boxcutters & pen-knives, and explod-o-vests & car bombs..:(

[Enthusiast]

136. Excellent point, SoCalDem.

Funny, we never consider the obvious. The "war on terrorism" is one in which we can't even realistically fight a specific country. Even the war in Afghanistan is a stretch.

[bdab1973]

24. You are wrong...

The F-15 and F-16 used to be the 2nd and 3rd best...they are aging technologies developed in the early 1970s. Worse, most of the airframes are around 30 years old, and are suffering from fatigue cracks. There are plenty of new fighters out there that can easily hang with an F-15 or F-16.

[Greyhound]

48. Really? Which? n/t

[bdab1973]

134. Here are a few that are on par with the F-15...

Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab JAS39, Chengdu J-10, SU-35/37 are a few. All of those aircraft are considered Generation 4.5 aircraft, versus the F-15C and F-16C that are Generation 4 aircraft. The F-22 and F-35 are 5th generation fighters.

[Tesha]

132. What would be the price to forge new titanium structural members?

Would it exceed $350 million per plane ;) ?

Tesha

[Angleae]

79. Not quite.

We currently have the best fighter (F-22) and one tied for 3rd (F-15), when the F-35 comes online (which is also a hiddeously expensive airplane) it will be 1st (F-22), 2nd (F-35), and tied for 4th (F-15). The 2nd/3rd best plane is the eurofighter and the plane that is tied with the F-15 is the Su-27/30/33 series which is mass produced and exported by russia all over the world. There is no forgone conclusion that we will have air superiority in the future if we just sit around and fail to upgrade which the russians are currently doing.

[Captain Hilts]

7. And I thought the Littoral Combat Ship was history, but, evidently not. Can someonen 'splain?

[Captain Hilts]

8. Newer planes usually have a better flight hours to maintenance ratio. So, ...

it's not just about money. THAT's why they got rid of the Tomcats.

[cboy4]

9. That would be sad if they cut the 22....that is an amazing jet

[Bread and Circus]

10. There are technical issues that prevent the F22 from being used in the battlespaces we are fighting

In other words, it's a machine that doesn't work as intended.

[jody]

12. USAF senior leaders including Secretary want more F-22 but Gates opposes. Why should Gates

worry, he'll never have to put his life on the line to carry out the orders of Commander in Chief Obama or future CICs.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

16. USAF leaders follow their faith based initiatives w/ prayer.

and that's how they brainwash their new pilots in Colorado Springs.

The F-22 has massive problems, not the least of which is that its super delicate electronics are totally fucked up and whacked out by our digital age resources. Therefore, it has to turn them off to function. And that drops the F-22 back into a far more limited ability and limited role. Think of an electronic toy, totally maxed out with crap that you will never use (Hmm like my blackberry) and made worse with stuff that cannot work because of interference.

OH yes, expensive as all hell, while it does 1/10 of what it was originally designed to do.

[cboy4]

19. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Looks like he does.

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Defence-Weekly-97/OBSOLETE-PARTS-PLAGUE-F-22-BEFORE-FIRST-FLIGHT.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

25. let's not forget their minor nav-glitch.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/02/28/f22s_working_again/

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

26. Those 80286s were always a problem.

Good thing they're going back to the more robust 8086s.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

100. sigh. Glitz vs. reality? glitz always wins.

That's why the Russians' heavy lift space craft works, far cheaper and more reliably than our shuttle, and why they keep using it. The shuttle is much like the F-22, too many toys thrown into a situation that never call for the toys. You end up designing missions for the tool (always a bad place to be) rather than use a capable tool for different missions.

[cboy4]

27. That's an article dating all the way back to 1997 for crissakes.

They've already manufactured 100 of the jets and I don't hear a lot about them malfunctioning and crashing, do you?

And I was particularly taking issue with his propaganda about how the air force brainwashes pilots.

That's bullshit.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

28. And the F-22 dates back to 1981.

And it was an obsolete boondoggle even then.

[cboy4]

30. It's a fantastic machine,

:bounce:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

32. It's a fantastic waste of money.

And scam artists resort to fantastic stretches of the imagination to justify it.

Like fantastic sets of cheap knives.



or fantastic tampons.

[cboy4]

37. Read the article below about the F-15's falling apart

What's a waste of money is wrapping duct tape around aging aircraft that have an important role in defending our country.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

39. Read what I wrote about fantastic stretches of the imagination.

[bdab1973]

42. The fighter pilots that know better don't seem to agree with you...read my post below

[cboy4]

43. The F-15's falling apart are fantastic stretches of imagination?

I don't think you even read the information.

You'd prefer to keep your head buried deep within your sand.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

44. One colossal waste of money to justify another...

is a fantastic stretch of the imagination in justifying a scam.

"You'd prefer to keep your head buried deep within your sand."

I'd prefer my tax dollars were used intelligently for something useful.

[cboy4]

49. Why do you refuse to acknowledge the cracking and aging

problems with the 15 Eagle?

What's your solution?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

50. Oh, I acknowledge it.

I just don't care.

[cboy4]

55. Yea, no shit.

Fortunately you have no say in how we spend our defense budget.

Otherwise, we'd be flying model airplanes.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

57. Fortunately, Barack Obama does.

And he knows boondoggle bullshit when he sees it.

[cboy4]

61. His decision to halt production would not be based on any

philosophy that the aircraft is a "boondoggle"

You are wayyyyyyy to the left of anything President Obama thinks.

Believe me.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

63. He's always said he'll cut programs that don't work.

Which is a boondoggle, by definition.

[cboy4]

67. That's ridiculous.

[bdab1973]

76. What makes the F-22 a boondoggle...

If we bought as many of them as the Europeans are buying of their EADS-made Eurofighter (also better than the F-15, but not as good as the F-22), the F-22 would cost much less than the current overall cost. Flyaway costs are currently $145 million...if more were made that would be down to about $120 million. The Eurofighter costs just under $100 million (originally estimated at $78-ish million, it's increased in price too as raw materials have increased).

[Raskolnik]

78. The F-22 is far from a "boondoggle" by any objective measure.

It is fantastically capable, and probably the most awesome fighter jet that will be produced for the foreseeable future.

It's just too expensive to keep around given that other options exist that preserve our air superiority by a fairly wide margin. It is intellectually dishonest to refer to that as a "boondoggle."

[bdab1973]

81. Unit costs would go down if more were made

I cited the EU's Eurofighter...nearly 800 are being developed. Although not as advanced as the F-22, it is on par (and exceeds in some cases) with the F-15. They currently go for around $90 million each, but that's because of the numbers that are being produced. Only 180-some-odd F-22s are being produced, and the development of such an advanced aircraft was more expensive than that for the Eurofighter. Even so, if you produced 800 F-22s, they would cost around $120-$140 million. That's a much more realistic comparison than saying "hey, this F-22 thing costs $400 million and doesn't do much more than the $90 million fighters elsewhere".

[Raskolnik]

85. Point taken, but I don't think we have the money or the need to produce that many.

[bdab1973]

88. Somehow we had the money to produce over 700 F-15A/B/C/D models and over 300 F-15Es....

I'm not suggesting we have a force of 700 F-22s...but the USAF stated it needed 381 F-22s to fill the shoes of the rapidly aging F-15.

[Raskolnik]

90. And I believe that number does not reflect a realistic need.

I think most objective sources agree that we are able to maintain a large degree of air superiority with a much smaller number, combined with upgrades to the existing fleet and the F-35's.

[bdab1973]

92. I didn't say it was...

I did say the 381 airplane number is the realistic USAF goal. They do not want to replace the F-15 one-for-one. I was simply making a point that in the past we have produced very capable and advanced (for their time) aircraft in large numbers.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

75. not as bad as the B-2.

what is that I B per unit? And it is not all weather, cannot be used against any opponent we see currently, and requires special bases for massive maintenance while not being used? ONE BILLION PER, and it is a complete waste. A couple of cruise missiles are not only far cheaper, easier to use, require less maintenance, and can be put on target faster, better, and with mroe immediate results, THEY DON'T NEED THREE SETS OF CREWS TO WORK.

1. Maintenance and launching crew. (these have to be working all the time, just in case.
2. Pilot and flight crew. (training, and availability requires tripling up these guys.
3. Refueling. There are very few places to base the sucker, safely with proper protection from rain (Rain does great damage to its avionics, skin, and radar protective gear. But snow and hail are worse) Ergo, it must be refueled. That requires a whole other plane, possibly with two crews, and a whole bunch of planning re: airspace, detection, and more.

the B-2 is one of the biggest wastes of time since today's CPAC confluence.

[bdab1973]

80. 1B per copy because they only made 20

Same reasoning why a Rolls Royce car costs more than a Mercedes. It's not necessarily that the Rolls is more advanced or has better materials, it's just that the Mercedes is produced in quantities an order of magnitude greater than a Rolls.

It's called economy of scale.

There are certain fixed costs in developing anything. If you produce 10 widgets, you have to spread your overhead and development costs over those 10 units. If you produce a thousand widgets, now you get to spread those fixed costs over a much larger inventory.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

84. very good point. but

I suspect we could build a dirigible that would have stealth capabilities, carry massive amounts of weapons, use helium, carry its own small nuclear reactor for power, be invisible to outsiders, including radar and heat detection, AND cost no more than 2,000,000,000 per unit, just to fight the Nazi dirigible airfarce.

I am surprised we aren't doing it.

[bdab1973]

89. The B-2 was already bought when the USSR fell...

The original 20 were already purchased and well on their way in production. The rest of the production (supposedly well over a hundred) were canceled. The unit costs were supposed to be much lower ($250M or so), but when the other 150 were canceled and the budget-crunchers added the R&D to the production costs, you got a $1B airplane.

Since then, the B-2 has been modified to carry JDAM, which allows it to perform missions like CAS and interdiction as well as strategic strike.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

99. JDAM? and how many have been used in combat?

2? only to show that we could?

INTERDICTION? THE B-2? Oh do tell. I mean, give us examples and facts, rather than read from the manufacturer's bullshit PR campaign. Do you really think that the military would want to use the B-2 in an interdiction role, at 1 BILLION per, regardless of the mission, when so many cheaper, better, and better designed alternatives are in use right now?

Please, I would love to read about it. Seriously.

[bdab1973]

103. They are doing things with bombers that no one envisioned years ago

B-52s are flying CAS missions in Afghanistan...

[ChairmanAgnostic]

106. RIGHT. MY POINT EXACTLY!

They found a platform that could handle multiple uses. They did not change the mission to suit the tool. BIG DIFFERENCE.

[bdab1973]

112. One thing you're not talking about, though...

Yes, they were able to make the B-52 perform multiple missions. Hooray. Except it's a 40+ year old airframe. Metal wears out and fatigues over time. You can fix some of the fatigue, but it's a race against time and you can't predict exactly where stress cracks will show up. The BUFF is a great airplane, but it's very old, and they are very worn out, much like the C-130E.

[jody]

22. Your ignorance re the F-22 is awesome. n/t

[bdab1973]

36. You really have no idea what you're talking about...

Here's a few clips from a fighter pilot message board concerning a photo someone took through an F-18 gunsight camera supposedly claiming a "kill" on a F-22 in simulated combat:

"Having witnessed the Raptors perform at Red Flag, I don't think an F-18 could get close enough for guns in a true combat scenario."

"In the real world - the Hornet never saw the Raptor and he was dead w/o ever knowing what hit him - that's the cold hard truth, like it or not - sorry if you're a Hornet fan but that's how all of our engagements with Hornets, Tomcats, Eagles, Vipers, etc. have gone. You would be amused if I had time to tell you how the hundreds of engagements went I've had with aircraft of all types, the biggest problem we have now is getting anyone to fly with us because they get no training, they never see us and they just die. Unless we promise to do some within visual range manuevering with them where we start and can see each other at the start, no one (Navy or AF) wants to fly vs. the Raptor anymore - that alone ought to tell you what the truth is."

"What the picture does show is a snap shot of an F-18 inside of the 1000 foot bubble (he's at 900 ft) with a closing velocity (Vc) of 210 knots, and greater than a 9 aspect angle (AA). The training stop is 13AA, and he will be there in a second and most likely close to or inside of 500 feet (the non-Raptor bubble). I guarantee that. This shows the BATR on the fuselage for one frame, who knows if it stays there. The hornet is at 183 knots and it out of options if it's not a kill."

"I'd also be interested to hear the actual setup and what occurred. Agreed - good on him for getting at least a snap, but it may not be so impressive if this is 6.9 seconds after the Hornet started from an offensive perch setup (which is very likely since he's 30 degrees nose low at 15,000 feet). 183 KCAS with 210 Vc with about a 9 aspect and nose in lead? The Hornet is going to be defensive in about 5 seconds."
___________________

What the first two posts talk about is the Raptor's ability to engage the enemy without the enemy even seeing them. Yes, the F-15 has tremendous BVR (Beyond Visual Range) capabilities, but so do a number of other fighters these days. The Raptor can get inside the enemy's radar envelope due to its stealth and still shoot down the bad guys before they know what's going on.

The second two posts is talking about a photo posted on the internet that shows an F-22 in the gunsight of an F-18. This has resulted in the claim that the F-18 can beat the F-22, but someone on this board explained that the F-18 basically cheated by going inside the "bubble" (a minimum distance to avoid mid-air collisions), and even despite getting inside the Raptor's training bubble, the F-18 had to do it at such a low energy state that if it missed (and likely did given the high aspect angle), it didn't have enough speed to recover and the F-22 would eat its lunch.

The F-22 is tomorrow's airplane. The F-15 and F-16 are yesterday's airplanes. The Sukhoi Su-35 is today's airplane, along with the Boeing Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab Gripen and Dassault Rafale. If you need new fighters, why not buy something that will still be relevant in 10-20 years? And yes, we need new fighters...we've already had several F-15s break up in flight due to airframe fatigue...the F-16s aren't doing much better.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

53. A fighter pilot message board?

facepalm

[bdab1973]

69. Actually it's a military pilot message board...

but there are a bunch of fighter guys on that site in addition to the other types of military pilots.

Why is this such a terrible thing? After all, there are political boards, medical boards, boards about cars, and even message boards about powerlifting...why is a message board inhabited by military pilots such a bad thing?

[ChairmanAgnostic]

77. the F-18 has rarely used gunsights.

not in combat situations. Almost never. Air to air missiles are the tool of choice. Get real.

Oh, the F-22 would not survive a full blast from mortar shells, or crap falling from damaged aircraft from above. Or so sez my AF (ret) neighbor, who actually slugged it out with the warthog in battle conditions. The scuttlebutt among pilots who have been there, in dire situations, is that the F-22 is a very pretty toy. But hardly useful in today's situations we currently face.

[bdab1973]

86. You're not getting my point...

The F-22 will kill an F/A-18 in a BVR contest every time. The only way an F/A-18 can come close to trying to kill the F-22 is in a close knife-fight, and even then it's not easy.

I'm sure your extensive experience with fighters certainly refutes those statements made by fellow military pilots that actually fly fighters, that I quoted...

And RE: the A-10 comment you made...apples and oranges. The A-10 was never made for air-to-air superiority. If we had to defend our skies with A-10s we'd be doomed. It's only really got a defensive BFM capability. The F-22 was not designed to perform CAS, although it probably could with the advent of JDAM.

"Hardly useful in today's situations"....sure, fighting an insurgency isn't the F-22s mission. But there are other threats out there. Every time, we hear people talk about how there will never be another big war between nations, yet there always is.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

95. I don't fly, never have. No wait, there was that

never mind. She doesn't want me to tell.

But my neighbor has, extensively. In combat. Years, long years of training. Yes, he was assigned to the hog, (he hates that name by the by) but he also taught tactics, and flew the Raptor and some other experiments. I suspect his insights are far more realistic that many voices here.

Let's face it. We (our country) is broke. And our military is broken. Do we waste money on an early 1980's design directed solely against the USSR, or do we explore other stuff that might actually be needed in our future? What pissed me off about IraqNam and Afghanistan was how our AF was forced (out of desparation) to "design" a use for both the F-22 and the B-2 in Iraq and Afghanistan, even though those uses did little or nothing strategically, and could have been handled far more effectively and cheaply, with better results, with far cheaper, easier to use, and more appropriate technologies.

It is as though there was a target across a river, easily hit by a well trained sniper, and in order to hit the target, we brought in a bridging unit (fantastic technologies exist with them), a mortar defense unit, radar guided, a C and C set up, followed by sleeping, eating and shelter divisions, only to bring in a tank to shoot one shot, praying that the target did not decide to leave that post and take a leak.

When the USAF tried to show how well their B-2 weapons worked, the initial reaction was so bad, so uniform, and so troubling, that the USAF took the B-2 offline for Iraq. I am not aware of any F-22 uses currently in Afghanistan. It simply does not work against tunneled opponents who travel on camels and mules, and use no electronic communications. Even that POS Offal-sprey is used sparingly where there is no person ready to kill it with a shotgun or rifle. (the OffalSprey is unarmored, creates vortexes that kill, and has been a total cluster fuck for a decade.

[bdab1973]

105. Ugh....

Your assessment about the V-22 is off as well...

"unarmored"

It's just as armored as any other aircraft out there flying around in the combat zone.

"creates vortexes that kill"

Yes, it's called Vortex Ring State, or VRS. A common aerodynamic condition unique to all rotary-winged aircraft, including helicopters. Yes, even the CH-47 can encounter assymetric VRS, and helicopter pilots are trained from the outset to avoid the VRS envelope. The V-22 crew that crashed in Marana were two fixed-wing guys that never flew helicopters, and the training program hadn't adequately addressed the VRS issue. The V-22 is no more deadly than any other helicopter.

"I don't fly, never have....but my neighbor has, extensively".

So have I. I have nearly 3000 hours of military time, and approximately 500 hours in combat. I have about 200+ hours of NVG time as well. I've flown both military helicopters and fixed-wing airplanes. So please don't talk to me like I don't have a a clue.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

109. just as armored?

riiiight.

that statement alone just proved you wrong.

[bdab1973]

113. Dude, I just got a peek at a USMC V-22 that was out here not long ago...

I used to fly military helicopters and the seats were armored, and the floor was armored, but that's about it. The V-22 has a similar set-up, and they have been doing pretty well out here.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

116. OKay. I do not doubt your experience and knowledge.

But the stuff on top cannot be armored, and is extremely fragile, especially the hydraulics.

[bdab1973]

119. In that case, neither are the C-130s I fly "armored"

We have armored floors, seats and doors just like the other aircraft. But our engines, wings, fuel tanks and other parts are not armored at all. So what's the difference? Why is the V-22 so special it should be clad in Iron?

[Raskolnik]

73. I think that is an unfair assessment. A cost/benefit analysis is part of any military procurement

and given that there is not an unlimited budget (despite what it may appear), the billions of dollars that we would have spent on the F-22's is better spent elsewhere. I do recognize that the F-35 is a step down from the F-22, and that our air dominance will be hypothetically reduced by not having a full fleet of F-22's, but we simply don't live in the same world in which the F-22 was conceived.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

82. and doesn't each F-35 have more moving parts than

Lehman paid to its execs in December 2008 in single dollar bills? .

[jody]

94. The F-22 and F-35 are designed for different missions. Given the current mission the President has

assigned to USAF, then the number of F-22s sought by USAF leaders are the bare minimum required.

If CIC Obama wants to change the USAF mission, then he should present his case to the Senate and House because it's their job to fund the F-22.

[Raskolnik]

101. I disagree that 381 represents a "bare minimum."

I do not think the program should be scrapped, but the world in which we live is not the world in which these fighters were conceived.

[jody]

111. Given the mission Congress has assigned the F-22, I'll take USAF leader's estimate over Gates et al.

[Raskolnik]

123. I don't mean to be snarky, but that is a naive outlook. We don't just give each branch a blank check

and tell them to take whatever they think they need. If we didn't regularly and repeatedly reign in each branch of the military by choosing to not follow their advice on where the "bare minimum" lay, our defense budget would have long ago reached ludicrous levels.* That's not a knock on defense spending in general, but it is a reality.

Programs can outlive their usefulness, and it is a human condition to defend one's own turf, but we just don't have the money to spend on hypothetical threats when realistic solutions exist that cost far less.


*I understand that a good case can be made that we are firmly ensconsed in "ludicrous territory" now


edit clarity

[jody]

135. Perhaps the "naive outlook" is from the anti-F-22 group. Have a great day. n/t

[Raskolnik]

137. Oh, I'm not anti-F-22 at all. I think it the closest thing to an X-Wing that we'll have

in my lifetime, and it is a magnificent piece of engineering.

But realistic tradeoffs do need to be made, and the F-22 was conceived in a world in which we no longer live.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

102. yeah, the f-22 is 20 yrs old design base. The F-35 is but a decade old

and even then, with all those moving parts, somehow "all weather" is no longer part of its mission statement.

[jody]

107. Have you talked with F-22 pilots or commanders of F-22 units? Are you familiar with the mission

assigned to the F-22?

If you answer "yes" to both those questions then you are disingenuous with your criticism.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

114. there is no longer a mission available for the F-22's original design.

it does not exist.

Think of the Maginot line's current replacement, the Alaskan based anti-missile missile system. Unless we convince the Koreans to build a Soviet styled ICBM, give us warning about its flight path, tell us precisely about the launch time (and location) AND give us warning enough to act and react, AND if they are willing to change the ICBM's flight path to go over Alaska in just the perfect path, we are digging a brand new maginot line in Sarah's state that is about as useful as the French version.

[jody]

118. Your statements are void of knowledge and understanding of the USAF mission. Have a good day. n/t

[ChairmanAgnostic]

121. to make money for contractors? to brainwash cadets in Colorado?

or to defend this nation from real, existing, current enemies? WHICH mission are are talking about?

[bdab1973]

108. Both aircraft can operate in any weather...

However, certain missions are degraded by the weather. It's not an airplane issue, rather a mission equipment issue.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

110. any weather, except BAD weather. That's true.

[bdab1973]

115. In that case, most airplanes don't operate in BAD weather...

Try flying an airplane through a thunderstorm...

I guarantee you that the F-22 will operate in any type of weather other aircraft operate in.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

120. ahhh. THE ORIGINAL SPECS called for an all weather stealth fighter.

it is none of the above. Like many other recent boondoggles, it became a "keep the military industrial complex profitable" plan, rather than something useful for us in a fight.

[bdab1973]

127. "All weather" doesn't mean "any weather"

Our C-130s are "all weather" as well, but I assure you there are plenty of weather scenarios that keep us grounded...like visibility less than 1/2 mile, hail, thunderstorms, severe turbulence...there isn't an airplane out there that can fly "through it all".

"All weather" only means it can operate in IMC conditions.

[Occam Bandage]

14. There's little call for them in the foreseeable future.

They're inordinately expensive; there's no reason to purchase a stockpile of them when we already have complete air superiority over the entire globe. A few hundred are really all we could possibly need when China doesn't have more than a handful of planes that could challenge them. I hope they continue to spend money on developing new aircraft, but I do think we should cap our new tech programs at some level; there's no point in building a stockpile of thousands of missiles that can blow holes in the Moon if there's nothing hostile on the Moon.

[Greyhound]

15. It seems there is a consensus.

Cool toy, costs too much, no need.

We simply cannot afford these penile extensions.

[Beavker]

17. Also

There can be common sense involved in budgets. Of course it's taboo to the true Penile extensions, the GOP. If we found out we had grenades that didn't work or blew up randomly, the GOP would hiss at the cutting of those because it's cutting something militarily. Common sense be damned.

[cboy4]

18. You have to look at the big picture.....including the maintenance

cost savings of having to fix the aging F-15's.

Do you keep throwing money into the old car or do you invest in a new vehicle?

It's no different when it comes to airplanes.

There was a worldwide grounding of the F-15 in 2007 due to cracks.

Big picture Greyhound.

And it helps to do your research.

[Greyhound]

46. Have you read up on the F-22?

Not only does it cost waaay too much, the performance is sub-par, it is 5 times the size of the F-15, it is only stealthy from a particular angle (there is a great quote from some Air Force General, "the only way to make this plane stealthy is to rip the eyes out of the enemy pilots"), there are serious problems with the avionics, hydraulics, brakes, software, processors, canopy, ordinance compatibility and reload times, the list goes on and on. This after 25 years of development.

If there is indeed a need for new fighters, a point that is under great debate since our older F-14, F-15, and F-16 platforms are still dominant, there is no rule that prevents us from building more of these proven vehicles, at 1/10th the cost.

Bottom line to the F-22 is that it is a hugely expensive corporate welfare program with no justification for it's existence.

[cboy4]

60. Why no Greyhound, I know nothing about the F-22

:sarcasm:

Do you have any CURRENT links talking about all of those former problems that you list?

You're talking about the past Greyhound. Not 2009.

The criticism is cost, not capability.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/manufacturing/2009-02-25-lockheed-martin-raptor_N.htm


The F-22 program began in the mid-1980s as a replacement for the F-15 Eagle, the Air Force's crown jewel that brought decades of American air dominance. The plan was to marry stealth capability, advanced engines and sophisticated electronics to establish overwhelming superiority in air-to-air combat with the Soviet Union. Originally, the Air Force envisioned 750 F-22s in its Cold War arsenal.

Then the Cold War ended, and development costs for the plane soared. The Air Force reduced the number of F-22s it sought to 381.

But it still argued for the Raptor, especially as Russia and China built more sophisticated planes to better challenge the F-15. The United States, the thinking goes, should never have to worry about owning the skies, wherever its forces are in combat.

By most accounts, the F-22 delivers. Lockheed says one Raptor can take down 30 or more of its best adversaries at once. The ratio for the F-15, the workhorse fighter for the Air Force since the 1970s, is 3-to-1.

"It's an effective deterrent," says Larry Lawson, Lockheed's manager for the F-22. "People don't want to come out and fight it. It tamps aggression."

[Greyhound]

87. Even using your "unbiased" sources, and assuming all you say is factual,

Then we already have enough F-22s to fight the combined Russian and Chinese fleets of their best fighters. If those numbers are accurate, 10 F-22s can take down the entire fleet of all models of the J-8, B, D, and II included. I'd also point out that the military has been telling us, and the Congress, that the Osprey has had all it's problems fixed for over 25 years, so forgive me if I hesitate to just take their word for it.

I'm not going to spend all day debating whether this is a good plane or not, the bottom line is that it is completely unnecessary and the expense is far beyond any conceivable justification, alien invasions aside. Of course the pilots all want to go play in the coolest toys on earth, the problem is that they can't afford to pay for those toys and neither can we.

The military is just going to have accept that smart is better than the latest. The airframes of the F-15s and F-16s are aging and need to be retired, fortunately we have so many more than we could ever use that building replacements is completely feasible, not to mention far less expensive. Do the math, the cost-benefit is just insane.

[bdab1973]

41. Sure, a consensus here among non-pilots that don't know what they are talking about

I have several friends that fly the F-15...lots of cracking problems, lots of aging problems period. Some mods have kept it relevant but it's a matter of time before it's simply outdated. The Su-35, Gripen, Typhoon and others match the abilities of the F-15 and F-16, and even exceed in some capacities.

[Greyhound]

51. How many F-15/F-16 have ever been defeated in combat? n/t

[bdab1973]

71. We lost several in Iraq during Gulf War I...at least one over Yugo, etc

Those were small third world countries with marginal training. Imagine going against a powerhouse like China or even Russia, where the training is much better and their resources greater.

[Greyhound]

93. According to this cited article,

The F-15 in all air forces had an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle">air-to-air combined record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat as of February 2008.
:shrug:

[bdab1973]

117. That's nice, except you originally stated BOTH the F-15 and F-16...

and the F-16 has been shot down in combat.

[Greyhound]

131. OK, but according to Lockheed that isn't true either.

www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/corporate/press-kit/F-16-Brochure.pdf

72 - 0.
Again.:shrug: But even if what you say is true, the evidence proves that there is no conceivable threat in the world today.

I think the point is that there is still no need. Do you seriously believe that Europe is going to attack/invade the US? The Russians? The Chinese? And even if they did, do you believe that we couldn't win with our existing fleets in a matter of hours?

War is won on the ground, period. Air superiority facilitates that, and we have that in spades. 522 F-15s, ~2,000 F-16s, 127 F-22s, plus a bunch of Navy and Marine platforms deployed domestically. We can all sleep safe and secure.

[alcibiades_mystery]

20. Boondoggle

Funny how Saxby Chambliss is all for spending billions for a few hundred jobs when it's all about defense contractors in his state. Socialist!

:rofl:

[tinrobot]

21. Best at what? Shooting down non-existent Soviet MiGs?

The Cold War is over. The plane is now a solution searching for a problem.

When your country is broke, it's best to spend money more wisely.

[depakid]

31. Non existent?

:crazy:

Mig 35:




SU 35:

[bdab1973]

38. Not MiGs, but Sukhois, and Chinese Shenyang J-10s, among others.

There are tons of other fighters that are on par with the current F-15/F-16 aircraft, or better, especially when you factor in the airframe age and fatigue issue. Read my post above about the F-22...the fighter pilots all think the F-22 is amazing, and not just F-22 pilots.

[madrchsod]

29. we have enough to fight any air force that would attack the united states

as far as i know there is`t an airforce in the world that can successfully attack the united states of america. well maybe mexico and canada

[Greyhound]

97. Our aging fighter fleet can still defeat the combined air forces of the rest

of the world combined, this whole argument is being fueled by 2 guys that think the F-22 is just cool.

[bdab1973]

128. Maybe it can today...

But in 10 years, or 20...when we don't have an airplane to replace the F-15 still...do you advocate flying 50 year old fighters? Are you serious?

I don't "think the F-22 is just cool". I think the F-22 is the airplane that will defend our skies for the next 30 years. The F-15s time has come and gone. If you don't replace it today, you've got to replace it sometime.

[Greyhound]

138. Oh come on, you and I both know that the future is going to be unmanned

multi-use craft or missiles. The manned flying weapons platform is on it's last leg and the air battles of the future will be fought with craft that are not constrained by having to schlep a bag of meat and keep it alive.

They will be too fast to catch and too small to fire on if you do. The future of aerial killing is certain to be carried out by inexpensive, incredibly lethal robots. Why spend $100,000,000,000 or more to build 5 planes that a single $1,000,000 missile/fighter can take out with 100% accuracy at a speed no human can even perceive?

That's where we'll be in 10 - 20 years. Moore's law is a law.

[cboy4]

33. F-15 grounding strains U.S. air defenses

Posted 12/26/2007

FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — The grounding of hundreds of F-15s because of dangerous structural defects is straining the nation's air defense network, forcing some states to rely on their neighbors' fighter jets for protection, and Alaska to depend on the Canadian military.

The F-15 is the sole fighter at many of the 16 or so "alert" sites around the country, where planes and pilots stand ready to take off at a moment's notice to intercept hijacked airliners, Cessnas that wander into protected airspace, and other threats.

The Air Force grounded about 450 F-15s after one of the fighters began to break apart in the air and crashed Nov. 2 in Missouri. An Air Force investigation found "possible fleet-wide airworthiness problems" because of defects in the metal rails that hold the fuselage together. It is not clear when the F-15s will be allowed to fly again.

Compounding the problem created by the grounding, another fighter jet used for homeland defense, the F-16, is in high demand for Iraq operations. And the next-generation fighter, the F-22 Raptor, is only slowly replacing the aging F-15.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-12-26-grounded-f15s_N.htm

[NeedleCast]

35. Unneccessary

It's very much a badass fighter, but it's also very expensive and honestly, we don't need them because we're not going to use them in any conventional air-to-air fighter sense. I don't even remember the last time our air force engaged in an ariel battle.

[cboy4]

40. Yea, why don't we have to engage in dog fights?

Could it be because our planes are the best and nobody is going to be dumb enough to challenge us?

That's why we continue to make the best, most advanced aircraft.

Read the article about how our F-15's are falling apart.

[NeedleCast]

54. I don't deny that some of the old aircraft are old

But how many planes have we shot down in air-to-air engagments since Vietnam?

Nobody is going to challenge us in the air because we're not likely to pick a fight with any country in the world that has the capablity to match up with us in the air. You really see a future in which we're going to engage in a conventional war with China or Russia?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

56. Well, there are aliens.

Sure, their energy shields will prevent an attack from fighter jets. But as soon as we disable the shields with a Macintosh based computer virus, then you'll wish we had the latest in dogfighting technology.

[cboy4]

62. And there are also clowns.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

64. Right, right. We need to protect America from the clowns.

We've got to close the cream pie gap.

[cboy4]

66. You, of course, are the clowns I'm referring to, since you

think air combat defense of the United States is a joke.

So when I think of jokes, I think of clowns.

[NeedleCast]

68. Because without the F-22

I'm sure we'd hear the deadly sounds of North Korea's MiG-21s swarming over the west coast at any moment...

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

96. Yeah, I got it.

You, of course, are the people who think reality resembles bad hollywood movies I was referring to.

[NeedleCast]

65. We've got Wil Smith for that shit anyway

If the aliens show up, we just capture one of their fighters and give it to Wil Smith. He'll figure it out from there.

[bdab1973]

47. We haven't engaged in an aerial battle since 2003. However...

it's a matter of time until our current fighters fall apart, and then we'll be playing catch up.

Consider this...the Eurofighter Typhoon is considered the EU's equivalent to the F-15. It's just as good, and even better given they are brand new and don't suffer from fatigue cracks. Tiny little Britain is buying 232 Typhoons, at a cost of about $90 million each. Germany is buying 180. Altogether, the EU is going to produce nearly 800 Typhoons, which brings down the unit costs.

If the US produced nearly 800 F-22s, the unit costs would be closer to $120 million each. More expensive than the Typhoon, but also equally more capable.

So why is it that Britain, slightly larger than the state of Alabama, is going to buy 232 new front-line fighters (to replace the Tornado, which is about as old as the F-15), but the US is "wasteful" for trying to buy the F-22?

[cboy4]

52. That's an excellent point bdab1973

:thumbsup:

[NeedleCast]

59. I can't speak for the British parliment, sorry

So I'll ask you the same question I asked Cboy...do you envision a future in which we will match up in a conventional war with China or Russia, really the only two non-allied countries with the capability to put up any sort of air resistance? How many F-22s are in service now? How many more do you think we need? In the post cold war era, we don't need vast quantities of an aircraft primarily desgined for an air-to-air combat role.

Further, what the heck does the size of Britain have to do with anything? Land mass has nothing at all to do with buying power. Britain my be slightly larger that Alabama but it has a population of 61 million people. Alabama has 4.4 million, so lets not make non-sensical arguments, yeah?

[bdab1973]

72. Who said it's gotta be China or Russia?

Think about it...in early 1930s, Germany wasn't a threat. By 1939, it was a huge threat. The world changes, threats change, sometimes they change rapidly.

Sitting around saying "awww, it'll never happen" got us in trouble many times before. We got our butts handed to us for the first 2 years or WWII because our military was sorely outdated, old and obsolete, and we just let the other countries that "weren't a threat" sail right past us. How many people said "awww, we'll never fight the Japanese...that's ridiculous"?

[NeedleCast]

104. And the only possible deterrent then is the F-22?

Look, I'm ex-military and believe in and support financing of a strong military but that doesn't mean we need to have a huge arsenal of F-22s.

This isn't the 1930s and I'm not worried about Mexico or Columbia (or anyone else other than Russia or China) having the cash to invest in an intense jet figher program that would suddenly rival ours in a decade. Most countries in the world that are not part of the EU, China or Russia buy hand me down fighters from those countries (and us). So do I think it's likely that some coup is going to happen in Cambodia and that they're going to start producing fifth-generation stealth jets a few weeks later? No. Nor is it going to happen anywhere else in the world.

The unit price on the F-22 is insane, even if we ordered a lot of them. No one in this thread or anywhere else has built any sort of scenario in which there would be a need for us to have 300+ F-22s (plus the rest of our air force). Yes, we need to have advanced fightes, but unless you've got a compelling reason to have a whole lot of them, it's just not worth the cost. If something happens in the world that demonstrates a need to up production, then sure, we take another look at the program. Until then, you're just buying a bunch of really expensive toys that are going to sit around getting old.

Reminds me of when I showed up in Afghanistan and the Abrams started popping up...because we really needed main battle tanks to take on all that Taliban armor. This is just another classic case of generals fighting the last war (or, as usual, trying to fight WW-2 again). This is the same bullshit the conservatives push to keep military spending at ridiculous levels. You "never know" when we might need 720 F-22s (which was, I think, the original order) because the dreaded Chinese and Russians have a handful of servicable advanced figthers and they're just waiting for us to let our guard down...

[bdab1973]

126. I would like to address everything in your post, but I'm tired and about to go to sleep...

The unit price of the F-22, when taking account for the number produced, isn't much more than comparable fighters when you factor in lethality. Yes, it's more expensive, but it's also better and will be technologically relevant for years to come, while the currently produced fighters start to become obsolete in 10 years.

You speak of the Chinese and Russians as having only a "handful" of fighters, but once we are forced to retire the F-15s due to fatigue stress as well as reduce our F-16s, the Chinese will be on par with us numerically. They are producing Sukhois by license (it's cheaper for them to do so), and plan on putting several hundred in service. Not old MiG-21s, but front-line Su-27/30/32 aircraft that are equal to or better than the F-15. They are also producing their own fighter, the J-10, which promises to be just as good as the F-15 as well, and the Chinese have the capacity to produce several hundred of them as well.

I think everyone that doubts the F-22 is thinking Iraq or Somalia, where there is no air-to-air threat, or if there is, it's small. But there are countries out there that have a significant air-to-air capability, and even if we engage them on a limited basis (ie, not total war), it would be nice to have aircraft that would make the shooting war short, rather than costing many US pilots their lives because we were too cheap skate to provide them with the best.

Not long ago, DUers were up in arms because the military had trouble fielding the best body armor, the best armored trucks, etc etc. And now, here we are saying that our pilots should be content flying 30+ year old airplanes with 1970s technology against aircraft that are brand new based on 1990s and 2000s technology. It's utterly amazing. Sure, let's protest how Bush and the other administrations of the past 20 years have worn the military out while replacing very little of the hardware, but when the rubber meets the road, we're going to scream the military equivalent of "Let them eat cake!" by saying "yes, you're 30 and 40 year old airplanes will be just FINE to fly for another 20 or 30 years".

Kiddos, at some point we need to wake up and realize that we've got to replace the F-15, F-16, B-52, KC-135, C-130E and other ancient airframes SOME TIME. Unless you want the USAF to become the world's largest flying museum.

[NeedleCast]

133. So build the far less expensive F-35

We currently have approximately 500 F-15s, 1400 F-16s and 127 F-22s in service, and I'm not even including the F-18.

I speak of the Russians and Chinese only having a small number of advanced fighters. Yeah, they've got a lot, but I'd be very interested to see what percentage are serviceable and have been upgraded with the most modern avionics.

As I've said, I think rather clearly, I'm not denying the need for some F-22s. I'm denying the need for LOTS of F-22s. Fine, replace the aging aircraft, I don't think many are or would argue with you there, but I don't see any sort of compelling reason to replace them with 355 million dollar a pop aircraft. I don't think, even in their more advanced models, that the F-15 and F-16 were coming in at more than a millon each.

You keep writing posts like the Chinese and Russians just have gobs of SU-32s, MiG-35s and J-10s rolling off the assembly lines in waves. By your argument, there should be no end to the money pit we should be willing to invest to stave of "just in case" scenarios.

[Jeneral]

58. If America fights large wars

then the F-22 is needed. Right now all the USAF piolts get is mud pounding so much that I don't think they need to arm CENTCOM aircraft with AA missiles.

Maybe a Tupolev intrusion into American airspace will change Obama and Gate's mind

[Raskolnik]

70. There was a pretty good article in Slate this week about this.

I think the strongest point is that with upgrades, the F-15 fleet can be greatly enhanced for relatively little money, and the F-35 has 75% of the capabilities of the F-22 for 50% of the cost.

http://www.slate.com/id/2212034/

[bdab1973]

74. The F-15 fleet has fatigue issues

Metal fatigue...you can put all the high-tech gizmos on the F-15 you want, it won't solve wing and longeron cracks.

[Raskolnik]

83. Correct me if I am wrong, but it is my understanding that maintenance can be performed

that combats those fatigue issues, but the air force has been reluctant adopt it in fear that it would weaken their argument for the F-22.

And, even if the F-15 is taken out of the equation, are we not capable of producing enough F-18 & F-35's to maintain superiority?

[bdab1973]

91. Sure it can...

but it would cost almost as much as buying a new airplane, but only giving you about another 50% on life expectancy. Why not spend the money and actually buy a new airplane?

We are having the same problems with the C-130 fleet. Many are old and have wing cracks. It would cost nearly as much to fix the structural issues as it would to simply buy a new airplane...except for that high cost you'd only get a well-used airframe (that while it's been "fixed" and increased life, doesn't have as much service life as a new one), and old technology to boot.

It's like this...you COULD go out and buy that old sports car from the 1960s and pay $50,000 to restore it to "new" condition, despite the fact that many parts and pieces would still be old, and it would still be based on 1960s technology...or you could just buy a $60,000 BMW M3 and smoke anything out there, and have a car that's brand new and will last.

[Raskolnik]

98. I think you are low-balling the F-22's costs and exaggerating the costs to upgrade existing fighters

I think our real point of contention is whether or not there is a true need for nearly 400 F-22's now or in the foreseeable future. I don't think there is, given the capabilities of the F-18 and F-35.

[bdab1973]

129. I fly C-130s and we have similar problems

The cost to rebuild the wings of the C-130Es are approximately $35 million. That's nearly the cost of a new C-130H, and about half the cost of a new C-130J (which is way more capable than the E). And that doesn't address other fatigue issues, like cracks in the tail, or corrosion. Metal airframes have a service life. No matter how many band aids you use, you can't simply reduce the wear and tear to zero.

So why spend 50% of the cost of a C-130J to simply fix some problems on a 47 year old airplane that still uses WWII radios for navigation? Hell, we can't even fly GPS approaches in the E-model...a Cessna 172 can, but we can't. That's sad.

[old mark]

122. It certainly is the best fighter, but there is no one to use it against.

The current US fighters and most US military aircraft are way ahead of anything else anyone else has or has in design. The F22 is so far ahead of our current fighters there is no real point to having it go operational other than that it's really a neat plane.

Cutting stuff like this will save a lot of money, and there is a lot of stuff like this to cut.

mark

[trthnd4jstc]

124. F-22 is overly complicated, and impossible to fly without computer assistance.

[bdab1973]

130. The F-16 is nearly impossible to fly without computers...

The F-16 is dynamically unstable. Without computers it's a handful.

[margotb822]

125. Increasing the military budget?

Certainly doesn't seem like it from the cuts we're taking...