very sweet jet

air farce Boondoggle.

Not needed and way to expensive. Could be the last of the manned fighters.

Zap,

It is becoming ever more clear that the future of military combat will be very low tech with IED's and other terrorist tactics.

The days of two superpowers squaring off on a battlefield have passed.

Like the aircraft carrier replaced the battleship, a cell phone detonated land mine is replacing tanks and armor.

726

Indeed, this albatross is a donation to the military industrial complex trust fund.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the militaryindustrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

zap

boondoggle or not

it will make a great jet for movies :)

like "live free or die hard"

haha

On the bright side, for $340 million each, they won't get shot down by $3 lob bombs.

haha

LOL $340 each Enjoy it!

On the bright side, for $340 million each, they won't get shot down by $3 lob bombs

Nah, but five years into the contract they will find out that some design flaw makes them unstable, the flaw was swept under the rug by the manufacturer and 25 pilots have died as a result.

Ooops....

That's engineering for ya...

On the bright side, for $340 million each, they won't get shot down by $3 lob bombs.

Posted by northguy3

As long as we keep McCain out of the cockpit.

Would hate to see him lose a 6th jet.

but it is back and about two-thirds of the military's fleet of the planes are suffering from corrosion.

didn't a B-2 crash recently because its wings got wet? I think Chevy Chase was in a movie about that.

didn't a B-2 crash recently because its wings got wet?

I believe it was a software issue.

Wet wing is no problem for flight although it losses it stealthiness. Ain't it grand..

"air farce Boondoggle.

Not needed and way to expensive. Could be the last of the manned fighters."

Posted by Zap

Of course, you're the penultimate expert on the needs of the current and future defense of the United States. Why you should be the SoD, eh wot?

"It is becoming ever more clear that the future of military combat will be very low tech with IED's and other terrorist tactics."

Posted by 726

What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's an IED!! With attached terrorist! Run... Uhm... I mean... Flyyyyy!

I'm so glad we have the Raptor to combat those.......those.....you knoe....those guys with the really cool planes and shit.......you know....cuz hey, ....lots of countries are gonna wanna buy these things....right????
The US military in some ways is just a product testing service.

I say produce enough for 6 or 7 squaderns. Keep and maintain a large fleet of F-16s...

Sure, our fighters don't face an enemy now, but you never know what tomorrow may bring.

What's that in the sky? Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No! It's an IED!! With attached terrorist! Run... Uhm... I mean... Flyyyyy!

Posted by ZOT

Well our existing military arsenal has had such an easy time defeating the insurgents.

Maybe they can send the F-22 into fight the insurgents.

Methods and tactics of warfare are always evolving. Now low tech methods of a garage door opener and a land mine will destroy a million dollar armored vehicle. Just who is winning in that fight? How many of these F-22's will we need to fight an enemy that uses tactics like this?

Of course keep on assuming all wars will be like WWII, Vietnam and Korea. It proves what kind of jackass you are.

How many air superiority battles have been fought in the last 5, 10 or 20 years?

The advent of unmanned aerial drones will make the manned fighter obsolete, but keep on building your battleships.

That's engineering for ya...

Posted by Jomama

Without engineering we would all be living in caves and hunting with sharp sticks.

":I'm so glad we have the Raptor to combat those.......those.....you knoe....those guys with the really cool planes and shit.......you know....cuz hey, ....lots of countries are gonna wanna buy these things....right????
The US military in some ways is just a product testing service."

Posted by danni

"Well our existing military arsenal has had such an easy time defeating the insurgents.

Maybe they can send the F-22 into fight the insurgents.

Methods and tactics of warfare are always evolving. Now low tech methods of a garage door opener and a land mine will destroy a million dollar armored vehicle. Just who is winning in that fight? How many of these F-22's will we need to fight an enemy that uses tactics like this?

Of course keep on assuming all wars will be like WWII, Vietnam and Korea. It proves what kind of jackass you are.

How many air superiority battles have been fought in the last 5, 10 or 20 years?

The advent of unmanned aerial drones will make the manned fighter obsolete, but keep on building your battleships."

Posted by 726

Clueless times 2.

I would assume that y'all do not believe in a strong defense for the United States.

Yeah, yeah, blah, blah, I can hear it now, y'all trotting out the massive failure in the ME. True, but that has little to do with countering real threats and providing a strong defense for our nation.

Perhaps instead of typing incessant put-downs of the US and its military, take some of that time and do just a wee bit of research (the internet is a wonderful place for that, y'a know) and see what other nations are up to beefing up their own defense capabilities, specifically the Chinese and the Russians. They are not our friends.

And if we keep the technological edge with weapons systems such as the F-22, our not-friends will ponder long and hard before screwing with us, our allies, or our assets worldwide.

One F-22 can take on and defeat a couple of dozen of inferior aircraft in air combat operations, that is the prize, that is the edge, that is why the price is so high.

Could be the last of the manned fighters.

Posted by Zap

F-35 Lightning (formerly the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter) is still on its way... Unless Obama pulls the plug on it...

The F-35 Lightning...

Ah, yes, my Father got his wings in '41 and flew the original Lightning, the P-38...99 combat missions, the first 50 as a Photo Joe out of Port Moresby then Nadzab, NG in his "Bayou Baby", the balance out of Okinawa with his four 50s and 20mm cannon!!!

Came back home and just blended in like the rest of The Greatest Generation...

He has since joined the "Angel Flight".

My best friend.

Does it come with blue leather seats?

The Air Force's top leadership sought for three years to spend counterterrorism funds on "comfort capsules" to be installed on military planes that ferry senior officers and civilian leaders around the world, with at least four top generals involved in design details such as the color of the capsules' carpet and leather chairs, according to internal e-mails and budget documents.

Air Force documents spell out how each of the capsules is to be "aesthetically pleasing and furnished to reflect the rank of the senior leaders using the capsule," with beds, a couch, a table, a 37-inch flat-screen monitor with stereo speakers, and a full-length mirror.

The effort has been slowed, however, by congressional resistance to using counterterrorism funds for the project and by lengthy internal deliberations about a series of demands for modifications by Air Force generals. One request was that the color of the leather for the seats and seat belts in the mobile pallets be changed from brown to Air Force blue and that seat pockets be added; another was that the color of the table's wood be darkened.

Changing the seat color and pockets alone was estimated in a March 12 internal document to cost at least $68,240.

In all, for the past three years the service has asked to divert $16.2 million to the effort from what the military calls the GWOT, or global war on terrorism. Congress has twice told the service that it cannot, including an August 2007 letter from Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.) to the Pentagon ordering that the money be spent on a "higher priority" need.

Officials say the Air Force nonetheless decided last year to take $331,000 from counterterrorism funds to cover a cost overrun, partly stemming from the design changes, although a senior officer said yesterday in response to inquiries that it will reverse that decision.

The internal Air Force e-mails, provided to The Washington Post by the Project on Government Oversight (POGO), a nonprofit Washington group, and independently authenticated, make it clear that lower-ranking officers involved in the project have been pressured to create what one described as "world class" accommodations exceeding the standards of a regular business-class flight.

On the bright side, with Bush torpedoing the dollar, the saudis and Chinese soon can buy these to replace thier Cessnas.

but that has little to do with countering real threats and providing a strong defense for our nation.

What real threats require a $340 million fighter with design flaws?

specifically the Chinese and the Russians. They are not our friends.

Really? Jeez I didn't know. But didn't Lil Bush look into Putin's eyes and find a kindred spirit?

Stop being a tool for the military industrial complex.

One F-22 can take on and defeat a couple of dozen of inferior aircraft in air combat operations, that is the prize, that is the edge, that is why the price is so high.

Presuming the design flaws are fixed.

Without engineering we would all be living in caves and hunting with sharp sticks.

Posted by Sniper at 2008-07-18 08:54 AM | Reply |

I think you mean brown socks, bad haircuts, worse suits and pocket protectors.

Now all we need is an enemy to use these against.

Bush administration wanted to change the name to the F22 Rapture.

"Now all we need is an enemy to use these against."

Posted by danni

An enemy is not required. Deterrence is also a powerful arrow to have in one's quiver. Demonstrated capability will cause those who want hostilities to think about what the cost will be to achieve their objective(s).

It would be great if we could all take Rodney's words to heart and get along, hold hands around the fire, sing Kum Ba Yah. But this is Planet Earth and we tend to be a rather covetous and murderous bunch down here. Some are more covetous and murderous than others. We Is What We Is.

So you as a denizen of the People's Republic of California, a member state of the US of A, benefit directly from the defense that has been mounted for you.

So when it comes to defending our shores, our lifestyle, our freedoms (such as they are) from the tyrannies that others would love to place on us, don't squawk too loudly. Imagine what our nation would be without this armor.

Now that I am done waving the flag and gobbling all that apple pie that mom made, I will state that even before the actual boots on the ground, I was against the illegal incursion into Afghanistan and Iraq (though I did applaud the spanking of the Taliban).

But regardless of the miserable actions being taken by the current administration, there are still those who believe that America requires a strong defense structure to protect what we have fought to establish and maintain. I am one of those.

F-35 Lightning (formerly the X-35 Joint Strike Fighter) is still on its way...

Not the same animal. The Raptor is an air supremacy fighter.

This liberal is pretty impressed with that jet and is glad we've got the technology to build such an amazing piece of aircraft.

While some of you say that IED and lob bombs are the wave of the future--remember what got us to that point---an uber-oppressive air campaign that leveled the entire country in days. By the time insurgents are in their garages making IEDs, we've already taken over the country. That is not a very good tactic to rely upon to defend your country.

And yes, i'm sure our military defense contractors are working on ways to protect us against these low-tech threats. Hopefully in the very near future, we'll be able to defend against those threats too.

Theyve had this thing for 10 years. I remember in high school going to the local expo center and they had all the military simulators of the different planes. I got a booklet about this plane and how advanced it was compared to what was used at the time. Surprised it took 10 years to get it in an airshow.

I believe in a strong defense but I have to question if we don't spend way too much on it considering there is no real threat anywhere in the world. It becomes a question of priorities when our economic security is threatened I wonder what good more fighters and other weapons will do us. Seems to me that the biggest threat we face today is one of economics and the money we overspend on the military could be used to help us win in alternative energy, etc.