Obama ends F-22 Program
04-08-2009 | 10:30 PM
#61
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
I think it came on board about 3 years ago and I've seen them in action.
04-09-2009 | 10:39 AM
#62
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
From an Army guy I work with and a crew that flew one into CWF that I got to talk to: apparently, the initial purchases did not include air conditioning (had to keep the per unit cost down) and a couple of other things (can't recall what) that pilots would consider required but bureaucrats would consider optional. The result is that they haven't been used much in their intended roles (personnel transport, etc) and the units that got the initial batches have not been too happy to give up their 60's.
04-09-2009 | 01:37 PM
#63
Line Holder
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
The P3 won!
04-14-2009 | 04:36 AM
#65
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 840
Likes: 0
During previous wars the United States was never dedicated to so many new technologies at one time. Yes there was R&D with high cost per project but there was also a definitive path they wanted to follow. Currently we have newer nuclear subs, newer stealth battleships, newer stealth aircraft, new UAVs, armored troop transpots, tank designs, satellite protection programs, tankers, etc. and that's just what we all know about. I don't feel the end of the F-22 means the end of the US dominance. I am glad that we are looking for more "reliable" means to fight insurgents in 3rd world playgrounds.
They are wanting to shut down one aircraft program. I'm not for it I want the F-22 here but the price tag is a little ridiculous for a day to day fighter, that's just my opinion. If you want to invade a foreign country with a sophisticated sam setup that's what the bombers are for. What's the reliability of the F-22? What's the MX cost on one of those things? Durability is a huge part. An aircraft you have to take apart every few flights in desert environments doesn't help much. The United States is broke and simply needs to be more economical with it's money. Take that $120mil jet then tack on the interest the gov't pays on it to take the loan from the people. The compound that loan to the loans it already has and maybe we'll start to understand why we're so far in debt and not looking like we'll be bouncing back anytime soon. I'd personally like to see a cheaper yet capable aircraft that can be more easily produced in large numbers with perhaps a less amount of bells and whistles. Rugged and reliable.
These arguments about needing the latest technology have been used in the past. Look at the F-4 and how it didn't have guns. Look at the A-10 and B-52 and how long they've outlived their "useful" lifespan. I don't think figters have ever been the deterrents of a nation. I don't see them touted by developing countries near as much as their progresses in missiles, nuclear, and naval capabilities. I'm not saying they don't have a place. Not by any means. I just don't think the end of a program is the end of the country and frankly we still can't afford it. It's that new home we want but can't buy. Maybe the F-35 can change that.
Just my opinion don't shoot me down. I like the involvement of the debate on this one. Everyone has good points. Like I said I love reliability and maybe it's just me but it seems like the more faith you put into all the cutting edge technology the more room there is for it to let you down. I'm still in love with the A-10. It's a perfect example. Our last wars have had major opposition from insurgents. Why spend $120mil on an aircraft to drop a bomb on guys when a $25mil aircraft can do it just the same. (i dunno real A10 cost just kinda figured lol)
They are wanting to shut down one aircraft program. I'm not for it I want the F-22 here but the price tag is a little ridiculous for a day to day fighter, that's just my opinion. If you want to invade a foreign country with a sophisticated sam setup that's what the bombers are for. What's the reliability of the F-22? What's the MX cost on one of those things? Durability is a huge part. An aircraft you have to take apart every few flights in desert environments doesn't help much. The United States is broke and simply needs to be more economical with it's money. Take that $120mil jet then tack on the interest the gov't pays on it to take the loan from the people. The compound that loan to the loans it already has and maybe we'll start to understand why we're so far in debt and not looking like we'll be bouncing back anytime soon. I'd personally like to see a cheaper yet capable aircraft that can be more easily produced in large numbers with perhaps a less amount of bells and whistles. Rugged and reliable.
These arguments about needing the latest technology have been used in the past. Look at the F-4 and how it didn't have guns. Look at the A-10 and B-52 and how long they've outlived their "useful" lifespan. I don't think figters have ever been the deterrents of a nation. I don't see them touted by developing countries near as much as their progresses in missiles, nuclear, and naval capabilities. I'm not saying they don't have a place. Not by any means. I just don't think the end of a program is the end of the country and frankly we still can't afford it. It's that new home we want but can't buy. Maybe the F-35 can change that.
Just my opinion don't shoot me down. I like the involvement of the debate on this one. Everyone has good points. Like I said I love reliability and maybe it's just me but it seems like the more faith you put into all the cutting edge technology the more room there is for it to let you down. I'm still in love with the A-10. It's a perfect example. Our last wars have had major opposition from insurgents. Why spend $120mil on an aircraft to drop a bomb on guys when a $25mil aircraft can do it just the same. (i dunno real A10 cost just kinda figured lol)
04-14-2009 | 01:18 PM
#66
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 357
Likes: 0
I find it interesting that the solution to all our national debt problems always seems to be, cut some military program. In 1964 the DOD portion of the federal budget was 60%. Today it is 16%-21% (depending on your source). The current interest payment on the national debt is 9% of the budget. At the rate we are going you could eliminate the entire DOD and not even save enough money to pay the interest on the national debt.
The elimination of the F-22 program is nothing more than a president eliminating a program he knows nothing about because he dislikes the military.
The elimination of the F-22 program is nothing more than a president eliminating a program he knows nothing about because he dislikes the military.
04-14-2009 | 02:33 PM
#67
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Likes: 0
Yes, the current administration scrapped the program. But, we can thank the cumulative USAF leadership for being stuck with so few F-22's and not a lot of anything else in the air superiority business. They bet everything on the 5% odds (reminds me of a child being told no by mom - pentagon, then going to ask dad - Congress) and lost. My bet is that they thought that if they put themselves into enough of a bind (but, we have no other air-air fighter - we need the F-22), Congress and the Pentagon would have no choice other than continue funding the F-22. They should have hedged their bets and started supplementing the F-22's with many more upgraded F-15's (V2 / HMS / improved IRMD / Aim-9X / etc) years ago.
04-18-2009 | 04:13 AM
#68
Line Holder
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
From: VVIP 767
We won that one. The last thing to go through the Chinese F-8II pilot's head was the #1 engine's Hamilton Standard prop off a USN EP-3E. He should have known to avoid spinning props. Last air to air kill in the US Military as far as I know.
04-18-2009 | 07:54 AM
#69
On Reserve
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
From: F-15E IP
Secretary Gates was hired by our previous commander in chief and even though press reports stated he fired SECAF Wynn and General Mosley because of the USAFs nuclear misteps, a big reason both were canned was their refusal to accept lower numbers of F-22s.
I've been a line fighter pilot for 25 years and can tell you it has never been worse with regard to spare parts and experienced maintainers. This was a concious decision by General Mosley to leverage manpower (force shaping) and spare parts to pay for more F-22s. We are feeling the effects in spades as we continue to try to fight the current fight.
In a perfect budgetary world, it would be nice to have 380 F-22s. In our current reality, I'd rather have the number we've got, accept the slight risk to our future security, and get on with the business of winning the wars we are currently engaged in. In my opinion, that's what Secretary Gates is doing with his budget proposal.
I've been a line fighter pilot for 25 years and can tell you it has never been worse with regard to spare parts and experienced maintainers. This was a concious decision by General Mosley to leverage manpower (force shaping) and spare parts to pay for more F-22s. We are feeling the effects in spades as we continue to try to fight the current fight.
In a perfect budgetary world, it would be nice to have 380 F-22s. In our current reality, I'd rather have the number we've got, accept the slight risk to our future security, and get on with the business of winning the wars we are currently engaged in. In my opinion, that's what Secretary Gates is doing with his budget proposal.
04-18-2009 | 09:10 AM
#70
No one's home
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,091
Likes: 0
I would recommend that the participants in this thread read the Candybombers, a story about the Berlin airlift and the confrontation between the US and Russia.
The US had scaled down its military drastically and was nose to nose with the Russians in Berlin. Russia perceived Truman as weak and it had 16 divisions in Germany to the US's 3. Joe was looking for an excuse to march to the Atlantic.
Faulty intel underestimated Russia's resolve and the main newspapers (NYT, WP, etc) were suggesting we leave as we had no real interest in Berlin. BOTH political parties were maneuvering for their own power-struggles. We were actually lucky to have some people in the ranks that could pull the airlift off and the candybombers were a prime factor in the Germans refusing the Soviet offers that would have given the Russians the power they needed.
Point? The CIC/POTUS is perceived to be weak. The country is perceived by our adversaries as being tired and wanting to quit. Our military is being scaled back. Our current forces are being worn down while China is muscling up, Putin is trying to resurrect the old Bear and Iran and North Korea are laughing at the responses. Weakness invites aggression.
Will China come after us? Probably not but if I lived on Taiwan, I would be very worried. Korea? A close eye on that nutbag in the north? You bet. Russia.. it will take some time but Putin is trying.
And a bunch of thug, third-world ragtags pose a problem and our SecState wants to handle them like 'criminals'.
It ain't just about the -22s. We are inviting our adversaries to start the shoving match to see what our response will be.
The US had scaled down its military drastically and was nose to nose with the Russians in Berlin. Russia perceived Truman as weak and it had 16 divisions in Germany to the US's 3. Joe was looking for an excuse to march to the Atlantic.
Faulty intel underestimated Russia's resolve and the main newspapers (NYT, WP, etc) were suggesting we leave as we had no real interest in Berlin. BOTH political parties were maneuvering for their own power-struggles. We were actually lucky to have some people in the ranks that could pull the airlift off and the candybombers were a prime factor in the Germans refusing the Soviet offers that would have given the Russians the power they needed.
Point? The CIC/POTUS is perceived to be weak. The country is perceived by our adversaries as being tired and wanting to quit. Our military is being scaled back. Our current forces are being worn down while China is muscling up, Putin is trying to resurrect the old Bear and Iran and North Korea are laughing at the responses. Weakness invites aggression.
Will China come after us? Probably not but if I lived on Taiwan, I would be very worried. Korea? A close eye on that nutbag in the north? You bet. Russia.. it will take some time but Putin is trying.
And a bunch of thug, third-world ragtags pose a problem and our SecState wants to handle them like 'criminals'.
It ain't just about the -22s. We are inviting our adversaries to start the shoving match to see what our response will be.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
