thats why god invented thte word "upgrades".



 

Not really. Gee whiz super duper jets are all well and good if you are going up against a conventional enemy, but they are expensive paper weights for the most part in guerilla/ 4th Gen combat. Infantry on the ground working like the Rhodesians works well in that paradigm though.

When you say we need new aircraft, I have to ask, why? We aren't going to be going toe to toe with Europe, Russia, or the Chinese, so who do you expect to use them against? I could see a use for a next generation replacement for the A-10, but then we have UCAVs for that role that are much cheaper to buy and operate and safer to employ.

Perhaps Gates and Obama can explain how 630 active F-15's, including 130 in reserve units can be replaced by 187 F-22's without the loss of capability.

Obama is right.  We don't need more F-22's as long as we make sure to stay out of protracted multiple wars or wars with very strong superpower/near-superpower level opponents.  Of course, the United States hasn't had the luxury of making stupid assumptions like that for decades.  We still don't, but Gates and Obama aren't telling us the truth.  I hope they're happy saving a few billion on this one with the other horseshit spending they seem ready to approve.

I guess it's easy to pretend air supremacy makes no difference while preserving our (unused in over 50 years) ability to do marine amphibious landings with the hopelessly useless EFV, a vehicle which is a sitting duck against anyone with a military stronger than the Ivory Coast and requires marines to disembark one at a time!

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force/2

It will be deployable units able to exceed their current MTOE by a certain %.  No new units, admin or otherwise, are going to be stood up.  What it will do is allow units to deploy overstrength even with the lame, sick and lazy dropouts.

OTOH,it doesn't matter what your arsenal consist of if the CIC is a ballless,spineless POS.

Uhh no. The Pentagon has historically planned for the LAST war.

I seem to recall almost the exact same thing being said about the AH-64.

UNLESS I AM MISREADING SOMETHING, THE F-22 IS NOT GONE

The Senate stripped funding for the 7 additional F-22's.  Not for the F-22 program altogether.

The F-35 will have even better electronics, defences and such than the F-22, so they better keep funding and building those.

And the M-2 Bradley (TOW launcher failed 50% of the time, aluminum armor would catch on fire and burn everyone alive, was too heavy, etc).

The F-22 project was not doomed when the vote took place today...


It was doomed when Bush did not make the political decision to buy more during his terms in office.

The project was doomed from its inception... Its mission changed several times, each time driving the costs up more and more to where the cost of the plane became its political liability...

We are fighting war(s) right now... And the F-22 has not participated... There will certainly be a mission for the 187 planes in our inventory now...

We need to be worrying about China right now, and we need to be worring about the wars we are fighting in the desert right now... And we need numbers of capable fighters...

I am sorry folks, but another billion or two for SEVEN more F-22's is kind of pathetic in terms of immediate need... We need 1,000 of them (or more), really. But that was never going to happen... When Bush picked Gates the program was over and done, everyone realises that, right?

Now we need to get some capable fighters that are not as expensive, does not require massive amounts of maintenance per flight hour, and can fight in wars in the desert...

But if you did not see this coming, or are shocked and surprised by it... Then you had your head in the sand...

I wouldn't be surprised if the 35 got chopped in the next year.  Texas didn't go for Barry, either.

BRAC, military contracts, even standing up new or rectivating old units is all a matter of political reward.  Those "big military" states like Georgia and Texas that didn't vote for Barry and send a shitload of "D's" to DC are going to pay for it now.  Martin Marietta is going to lose several thousand jobs over the 22, and Ft Stewart lost one of the three scheduled BCTs that was just axed.  Anyone who doesn't think that isn't connected to the state voting for Obama and reelecting a GOP senator is fooling themselves.  Plus, the SecDef will toe the line Barry tells him to toe.  He isn't a fool looking to fall on his sword, either.  If the boss wants the 22 axed, he wants the 22 axed.  It wouldn't matter of the 22 could fly itself for free and kill an individual terrorist hiding in a crowd of 10 million kitten-huggin children without a single collateral loss...Barry would chop it.

hmmmmm!  I was just going to ask, how is Obamanation Stimulus going to offset the jobs lost in the Atlanta area?  Oh, I see.  Report Monday to the Atlanta ACORN recruiting office.

May I borrow your crystal ball? I would like to get the next few sets of winning Powerball numbers.

The air force doesn't want or need more F-22s. They know they need their funding to go toward other more critical areas of their budget.

the F35 is no match for the F22. the F15 is old and needs to be replaced. also, we are would have been the only country with it, whereas there are 5 or 10 other countries which also own them (the reason they are cheaper) i would be suprised if china dosnt end up owning them as well

Here's the problem:

Boeing, Lockheed, General Dynamics, et al all have vested interest in draaaaaging programs out as long as they can.  "Oh, it's a highly unstable aircraft by nature and we need more testing."  WTF do you think computer models do?  Oh, and we better get that retired General/Admiral Conflict O. Interests on as a program director!

The P-51 was put together from conceptualization to service grade in what.....4 months????  The Pentagon wouldn't allow a pair of &^%0! running shoes to be designed in 4 months, and they would issue a 3,000 page RFQ/RFI to do so.

What are the F-22's total development costs to date, and total variable production costs per unit?

My theory is that with the economy being what it is, and the budgetary restraints that the Pentagon is being forced to choose between preparing for the next war or fighting the one we're currently in.

You sure that wasn't LtCol Peters?

Those will be replaced with F-35s and UAVs. Like it or not, the UAV is going to surpass and replace the manned fighter.

 

   Spot on.  We will slowly see our military getting dismantled again just like the Clinton years.  But this time it would be more.

...

...and the Bradley, the Abrams, the M-16,...

...and hte Mustang required 25 maintenance hours per flight hour,  ANd its prototype crashed.  Several times.  As did service test or prototype B-29s, P-38s, P-80s, B-17s, etc, etc, etc.  New stuff has teething problems.

But that pretty much kills the program. No more planes will be made after 2011. This would have extended that deadline and been a step to buying more in other budget years. If we don't order more by 2011, which we obviously won't, that's it.

There is a law that we can't sell the F22 to other nations, so if we stop buying them, Lockheed stops making them and the capability to make them goes away.

This is not the F-16 that gets ordered for decades and still gets made when we need more. It dies now never to be made again.

Bring back the F-4!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

j/k

vmax84

What do you think happens to a program when the funding is pulled? Obviously the planes that have been built won't just disappear, they will have a limited role in the future becuase there aren't very many of them.

Do the people who build these planes technically have jobs?

If they do how is this not a two birds with one stone situation? Save and create jobs while building the planes we need.


I guess it makes to much sense for it to happen.

How many F-22's could we get with this?

$6 billion to turn federal buildings into “green” buildings
$1.2 billion for “youth activities,” including youth summer job programs. (it is called a paper route Jr.)
160 million for “paid volunteers” at the Corporation for National and Community Service.
$200 million in funding for the lease of alternative energy vehicles for use on military installations.
$1 billion for the 2010 Census, which already has a projected cost overrun of $3 billion.

My guess is you get more jobs building F-22's but whatever,

oh, i wasnt atcking your post, just kinda adding too it w/ my two cents. i kinda thought i came off as specifically addressing you after i wrote it but had to run this morn.

in fact i was making the same point about the F15s which used to be our air superiority fighter. my biggest prob is that we dont know who our next enemy is and it is only beneficial to us to have something up our sleeve that no other country possess.

but these things pay for themselves:

the one billion for the census gives jobs to acorn people who need jobs now that the election is over,
the six billion for green buildings means we can save aprox 11 cents per day on electricity costs,
and why should a kid get a real job when the govt can employ him for a short period of time until they can cook up another govt job to keep him depended.

whereas the F22s would just supply jobs to imperialistic evil americans who only seek to kill innocent people in the middle of the night




(shouldent have to say it, but it is the internet.... yeah im being sarcastic)

This, we are not getting rid of what we have, what we are getting rid of is the ability to make more.

Basically the canceled funding was to keep small shops in business making the one-off parts for the plane.  Companies aren't going to keep around the machines and personnel needed to make what they are not making.  While this is not a terrible move at the moment, if you ever want to build more, it would cost a lot to retool/retrain back to where we are.

In other words, any money we might have saved through production numbers, will be lost.

$350 mill for ONE PLANE.  It was a program gone nuts.

McCain was against it as well so no help there.  This country already has the most advanced Military technology in the world and we still manage to lose every war we start (Korea, Vietnam, now Iraq since no WMDs were found)...I guess we just don't do well at Guerilla warfare, that would explain why some of our commanders were crying about Iraqis not wearing uniforms and taking 'pop shots' back when the war started, these commanders must be stuck in the Civil War era tactics where you wait to see the 'whites in their eyes.'

The 2 largest assembly plants, cobb county ga and ft worth tx voted against socialism. They will only get ham and cheese sammiches, extended unemployment and welfare for life if they are a qualifying race.

Here was a opportunity to claim da mastas saved some real American jobs compared to the 700B that's going to be pissed away on no bid affirmative action road building jobs repaving perfectly good roads.  

Chitcago politics at it's finest.

We sure wouldn't want to start doing that - would we?  






 
 

who rahm "deadfish" emmanuel or tim "tax cheat" geihtner?

oh what a loss it would be.

We need more troops more than we need new airplanes....



That said, the F-35 should be the one on the chopping block, not the 22...





 

They just said 95,000 jobs were just lost too with it's non-funding.

We need multi-role platforms not systems specialized beyond any use.

I don't know the entire story to these, but isn't the F22 really high maintenance. I though I heard that for every hour in the air it requires like 37 hours of maintenance, and it was really inefficient cost wise because of that, so that was why they didn't want anymore. Like I said, I haven't really followed this whole bit, just what I heard.

The P-51 was a prop plane with 6 machine guns & a few bomb racks...



The more complex a design is, the more time it takes to make it work...



 

F-22 Raptor Funding for Dummies
Context:
1.  Obama wanted to completely defund future F-22 procurement and threatened to veto any legislation that included continued production.
2.  Republicans put in a an amendment to add only 7 more planes, to keep production lines open in case situation changed.
3.  Todays News:  Senate Dems kiss their Master's ass.  Funding for those 7 planes have been killed. Production lines will then close.
Result:  The maximum number of F-22s to ever be built (including those already in existence) will be:  187.
_____________________________________
ETA:  Comparing F-22s and F-35s is apples and oranges.  One is a stealth air superiority fighter and the other is a stealth multi-purpose attack bird.  Personally, I always thought the F-22 would serve until obsolete by aggressive-maneuvering fighter UAVs.
The unilateral disarming of Amerika continues.  What's next?  Order the Navy to run our carriers aground?  



 


 

 

Weren't F-15s falling out of the sky last year, due to age?  At some point, shit needs replacing.  What's the plan to replace all of the 30+ year old fighters?

Well they damn well aught to be thinking about a conflict with China or Russia.  Regarding 22,000 more troops, they also just decided to stop growing the Army and cap it at 45 combat brigades instead of the planned 48.  Not only that, but they also cut their recruiting goas twice this year already, so how serious are they even about the 22,000 troop increase?

Of course, if Clinton hadn't axed 8 of our Army divisions and 6 National Guard divisions they wouldn't have to worry about growing the force at all.




-K

That's not quite true.


http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20090721.aspx

Why F-22s Are Losers

July 21, 2009: The current battle in Congress and the Pentagon, over whether to build more F-22s, has depicted the F-22 as a too expensive and too difficult to maintain. Among the allegations were the fact that it currently costs (for maintenance and operating expenses) $44,000 an hour to operate the F-22, versus $30,000 an hour for the F-15 (which the F-22 was originally designed to replace). Two facts that got left out of the debate were that many of the operating expenses for the F-22 are start up costs (buying maintenance equipment and base facilities). Take out those costs, and it's $19,000 per flight hour for the F-22, and $17,000 an hour for the F-15 (which has been around for over a decade, and long since paid for much of the maintenance equipment and basing costs). The other factor is also related to time. As aircraft become more mature, they require fewer hours to maintain. When an aircraft gets very old, the maintenance hours increase again. This also happens if you add more complex equipment to the aircraft.

F-22 advocates also point out that, between 2008 and 2009, direct maintenance man hours per flight hour for the F-22 went from 18.1 to 10.5. The design goal for the F-22 was 12 man hours. Although much is said of the hassles encountered maintaining the radar absorbent skin of the F-22, only a third of the maintenance hours are devoted to stealth features, which includes the skin. The F-22 was accused of having a sub-system failure every 1.7 hours. But the ultimate goal here is 3 hours, and the F-22 is on track to meet that goal once the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours.

The F-22 is still moving down the maturity cost curve (getting more reliable and cheaper to maintain as it accumulates more flight hours), and doing so on schedule. Comparing the F-22 in this phase of its life, to the fully mature F-15, is inaccurate. In fact, the history of fighter development over the last sixty years shows aircraft getting more expensive, but more capable and reliable. The problem with the F-22 is that it is way ahead in performance, and cost. The argument against the F-22 is that it provides more performance than the air force can afford. Now, when it comes to performance, fighter pilots feel "too much ain't enough." But to the air force commanders who must plan and conduct the battles and campaigns, too much performance in too few aircraft can be a losing proposition.




-K

The F-22 is the US Air Force's version of NASA's Space Shuttle. It's just way over budget, with the 300 million price tag. Don't get me wrong, the F-22 is without a DOUBT THE best fighter on the planet, and would remain the best probably for at least another 20+ years. But the F-35 isn't that far behind, is much cheaper, and can kill anything the commies will be able to build within the next 20 years.



Besides, the F-22s alone we have now only would be enough to beat any airforce any other nation can bring against us.