Even the F-22's biggest detractors, if honest, have to admit that it's an absolutely amazing aircraft.

Check out thess videos:

Warfare evolves, defense programs need to evolve too.

Now cue the chirping about being "weak" on defense.

"have to admit that it's an absolutely amazing aircraft."

Sure, as long as you can afford 30 hours maintenance to every 1 hour flight time. And as long as it isn't raining.

Warfare evolves, defense programs need to evolve too.

I have no problem with that and certainly, some of the criticisms of the excesses of the F-22 are valid.

Regardless of all of that, it is an absolutely incredible airplane.

Gee, congress actually took away one of the generals' expensive toys. It's a start.

And in March 2004, the General Accounting Office, the nonpartisan investigative arm of Congress, said in a report the plane has had problems with its tail fins, canopy and computer software. It also said the Raptor's avionics processors, developed in the 1980s, are obsolete, and replacing them will take years and cost hundreds of millions of dollars.

Yep, absolutely incredible.

Letus,

Sure, as long as you can afford 30 hours maintenance to every 1 hour flight time. And as long as it isn't raining.

Fair criticism. However, to varying degrees this has been a truth for ALL modern military aircraft. This is why B,C,D,E and F versions have evolved - the manufacturers, over time, have addressed the original designs' short-comings and have evolved the aircraft as a result.

A couple of counters to the F-22 critics:

1. Due to its advanced technology, it will enjoy a considerably longer service-life than, say, the F-35.

2. In combat excersizes it's enjoyed absurd kill-ratios against the extremely potent F-15 - 2 F-22's have oftentimes prevailed against 12 F-15's.

My point being that its excessive costs can be offset by a longer service life and a fewer overall quantity being needed (compared with the F-35) given the plane's extreme capabilities.

Yep, absolutely incredible.

#6 | Posted by 726

Please name for me a more capable fighter on this planet.

Yep, absolutely incredible.

" It also said the Raptor's avionics processors, developed in the 1980s, are obsolete,"

The 80s? LOL. Did some contractor bribe enough pentagon officials to get that approved?

And in March 2004,

Check the assessment date and compare it with the date the plane was first cleared as flight-ready; and then get back to me.

The 80s? LOL. Did some contractor bribe enough pentagon officials to get that approved?

Laugh all you want, but until you can address the following question you are doing nothing but suckling up to Joe's nutsack:

Please name for me a more capable fighter on this planet.

Please name for me a more capable fighter on this planet.

Posted by JeffJ at 2009-07-21 02:37 PM

I always thought the A-wing was a superior fighter, but there are those who actually say the B-wing. Those losers.

Please name for me a more capable fighter on this planet.

For what role?

Chuck Norton?

Kanrei,

Actually, the Y-Wing was the best!

For what role?

Dog-fighting - bomber support - precision bombing missions.

Actually, a good question. For our current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the F-22 wasn't even employed. For these endeavors the troops' favorite is the A-10.

Actually, the Y-Wing was the best!

Too much rear drag.

"Laugh all you want, but until you can address the following question you are doing nothing but suckling up to Joe's nutsack:"

Joe? Whose is Joe? I don't give a shit if it the most advanced superduper gold-plated toy the Pentagon has ever produced. We don't need it or half of the other crap coming out of out that corrupt, corporate-controlled piece of shit.

726,

Military capability isn't solely about the present. It's also about attempting to anticipate, and thus prepare for, potential future threats.

N. Korea isn't a bit-player like these rag-tag militaries of the ME. Russia is a bit of a question-mark as well.

As a fiscal conservative, I certainly appreciate and respect the criticisms of the F-22 based upon cost alone. However, we need to stay ahead of the game.

I don't give a shit if it the most advanced superduper gold-plated toy the Pentagon has ever produced. We don't need it or half of the other crap coming out of out that corrupt, corporate-controlled piece of shit.

Would you rather the 3rd Reich rise up and then be met on, at best, equal capability?

The casualty and loss-of-life numbers for WWII are staggering.

I'll stick with the X wing fighter.

and also i kinda like Wonderwoman's invisible jet.

Hve you ever tried to park an X-wing? Forgetaboutit!

"Would you rather the 3rd Reich rise up and then be met on, at best, equal capability?"

Hahahaha. A Godwin award for Jeff. Yeah, we're really in danger of being invaded by a new Reich. Better make more jets! LOL.

Hve you ever tried to park an X-wing?

Apparently, they are very easy to park on the Daguba System.

...As long as Yoda is around to bail out the careless pilot, of course.

Well yeah, on Daguba...parking is a dream. Just remember your wet-vac. Of course, who goes there that often?

Technically, that would be the Fourth Reich.

Hahahaha. A Godwin award for Jeff. Yeah, we're really in danger of being invaded by a new Reich. Better make more jets! LOL.

People laughed too after WWI, and look what happened.

Again, I understand the criticisms against the excesses of the military industrial complex.

Hell, this article alone wanted to make me vomit when proponents of the plane pointed out all of the jobs that would be lost if its contract was cancelled. Are you kidding me??? It's the same beef I had, a few months back, when a contract for a military transport went to Airbus in lieu of Boeing.

I am simply pointing out that it's not necessarily a bad thing to stay ahead of the curve. Can, in the process of doing so, we spend too much on shit we really don't need? Of course. But temper that with the fact that we are not omniscient - we can't divine future capabilities of potential enemies.

Technically, that would be the Fourth Reich

You are correct. Thanks for the correction.

People laughed too after WWI, and look what happened.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

?

After WWI our country developed an extremely isolationaist viewpoint, Rogue.

FDR did everything he could, behind the scenes, to assist Western Europe against the tide of the Nazis.

As an ally, Japan royally fucked-up by attacking Pearl Harbor. She awakened the sleeping giant. Had that not happened, most of Europe might very well be speaking German and the Jews would be few-and-far-between.

Chuck Norton?

#14 | Posted by Bani at

Chuck Norris Dummy.

Chuck Norris will be over to beat you in 5 minutes.

People laughed too after WWI, and look what happened.

Again, I understand the criticisms against the excesses of the military industrial complex.

Hell, this article alone wanted to make me vomit when proponents of the plane pointed out all of the jobs that would be lost if its contract was cancelled. Are you kidding me??? It's the same beef I had, a few months back, when a contract for a military transport went to Airbus in lieu of Boeing.

I am simply pointing out that it's not necessarily a bad thing to stay ahead of the curve. Can, in the process of doing so, we spend too much on shit we really don't need? Of course. But temper that with the fact that we are not omniscient - we can't divine future capabilities of potential enemies.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ

or we could completely reconsider our whole foreign policy strategy, stop relying on guns and weapons and demilitarize our nation, use all that money freed up to educate our populace, secure our borders, modernize our industry, feed the world, and a bunch of other nice things.

After WWI our country developed an extremely isolationaist viewpoint, Rogue.

FDR did everything he could, behind the scenes, to assist Western Europe against the tide of the Nazis.

As an ally, Japan royally fucked-up by attacking Pearl Harbor. She awakened the sleeping giant. Had that not happened, most of Europe might very well be speaking German and the Jews would be few-and-far-between.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ

misreading history as usual. Our nation was isolationist before and after WWI. We were very weak militarily at the start of WWII. yes FDR did all he could to suck us into the war, but we built our military during the war.

You want to speak of building the better technology you need to look at pre WWI for the naval arms race that was on of the primary causes of WWI.

Big Battleships were the biggest technology of their day, kind of like fighters are today, kind of.

Great Britian was SHOCKED by Germanys efforts to build a big navy and Germany only wanted to be respected on the world stage. This bred conflict that lead to the entanglements of treaties that blew up after Sarajevo.

Nowadays we have no competitors, noone even close to our military, yet we spend more and more and more and more, militarizing our economy.

Well that expenditure develops a gravity all its own that breeds the conflicts that it requires to justify itself.

Chuck Norris will be over to beat you in 5 minutes.

#31 | Posted by truthhurts

But then Frank Cotton will be there to beat Chuck Norris, so it's all moot.

or we could completely reconsider our whole foreign policy strategy, stop relying on guns and weapons and demilitarize our nation, use all that money freed up to educate our populace, secure our borders, modernize our industry, feed the world, and a bunch of other nice things.

That sounds great, but human history has shown, time and time again, that weak nations end up being run rough-shod by barbarians.

Demilitarization is not an option.

Having said that, a careful scrutiny of military spending; coupled with a re-assessment of foreign policy; paired with at least a small reduction of funds allocated to the military coupled with a more effective use of funds available - would be a great call.

Bullshit, our nation has no options, no choices, there is very little difference between the R and D on this subject.

Nations survive quite well without having to be the empire of hte world. Empires rise and fall and generally the cause of the fall is the weight of keeping up the empire.

What I briefly stated was an basic outline of what truly would be an alternative to the military nation we have. But noone will even consider it.

Sounds eerily like England in the late 19th century and Spain the 17th Century and Rome in the 3rd century.

There is no option but the policies we have in place today.

Stupid is as Stupid Does.

"Too much rear drag."

Sounds like a "nice" way to say that she's too fat.

Having said that, a careful scrutiny of military spending; coupled with a re-assessment of foreign policy; paired with at least a small reduction of funds allocated to the military coupled with a more effective use of funds available - would be a great call.

lol

what we need is to cut defense spending by 1/2 to 1/3. Get rid of over half our bases world wide, scrap half the fleet.

take all that money invest in alternative fuels to get us out off our dependence on foreign oil, educate our populace and reinvigorate our industy to empower and enrich our working class.

To begin with.

by 1/2 to 2/3 cut I mean, reduce spending by 50 to 66%

That sounds great, but human history has shown, time and time again, that weak nations end up being run rough-shod by barbarians

btw this simply is not true.

There are no barbarians left. There are rogue nations, yes, there are competitors yes.

But with good diplomacy and a powerful and rich economy we could compete just fine.

It could be said that the rogue nations and fridge groups like AQ could be seen as modern day barbarians.

fringe groups, not fridge groups. That makes 4 for me today.

Nations survive quite well without having to be the empire of hte world. Empires rise and fall and generally the cause of the fall is the weight of keeping up the empire.

You, of course, assume that I want the US to be an "empire". That isn't the case. I want the US to remain the strongest nation in the world, militarily, so that we don't get over-run by perverse ideologies, barbarianism, which has a tremendous history of success.

Nowadays we have no competitors, noone even close to our military, yet we spend more and more and more and more, militarizing our economy.

That's a fair point and is one I can respect regarding slowing down our military spending.

Fine.

As long as YOU don't lose sight of the fact that we are under a constant and shadowy attack from Islamic extremists and that certain other hostile countries are attempting to rapidly increase their military capabilities (N. Korea) and are brazen in doing so. If you are truly a student of history, as you proclaim to be, then you shouldn't take these threats lightly.

It could be said that the rogue nations and fridge groups like AQ could be seen as modern day barbarians.

#40 | Posted by kanrei

which our incredibly large military could not stop on 9/11?

Which has been combatted most effectively by small groups of soldiers with good intelligence?

We should just scrap out entire air-fleet and re-commission about 30 F-86 Sabres - that's all we really need-

- Truthhurts

Huh TH?

Barbarians were very successful fighters. Look at the Moors or the Huns. The Barbarians gave Rome a run for their money. In today's terms, we are Rome and AQ are the Huns.

Which has been combatted most effectively by small groups of soldiers with good intelligence?

Good intelligence?

You are openly oppposed to ANY interrogation methods beyond what is prescribed in the Geneva Conventions - which is limited to 3 questions without any compulsion for a true answer.

Fuck it.

Let them bomb the shit out of us without impugnity. Hell, we deserve it anyways. [ / sarcasm ]

Barbarians were very successful fighters. Look at the Moors or the Huns. The Barbarians gave Rome a run for their money. In today's terms, we are Rome and AQ are the Huns.

#45 | Posted by kanrei

Which is precisely why our unofficial policy should be to reserve the right for the use of extreme measures when we are under genuine risk of attack.

Jeffj ~ we all know you think USA has been the good guy since we kicked out the British, but could you play it down abit? You are sounding abit like Pastor on the bible:>)

I never opposed torture so much as I opposed our stupidity of taking photos and bragging about it. Any fool knows their country tortures, but we expect them to be smart about it.

TH,

These fucks aren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they go out of their way to violate almost every provision contained within. Yet, the left wants to afford these sadistic, homophobic bigots right enshrined in a document that they spit on.

You want to hold the US to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions? Who in the fuck hold's Al Queada to these very same provisions?

Any fool knows their country tortures, but we expect them to be smart about it.

#49 | Posted by kanrei

Amen.

Limit its use to extreme circumstances and then look the other way, and, SHUT-THE-HELL-UP, when circumstances warrant its usage.

Nations survive quite well without having to be the empire of hte world. Empires rise and fall and generally the cause of the fall is the weight of keeping up the empire.

You, of course, assume that I want the US to be an "empire". That isn't the case. I want the US to remain the strongest nation in the world, militarily, so that we don't get over-run by perverse ideologies, barbarianism, which has a tremendous history of success.

TH: if you support the foriegn policies of our nation in any general form, then yes I would say that you support the American Empire. They go hand in hand. America did not have a very large military force until our world commitments required it. I too want us to remain the strongest nation in the world. However, there are alternatives, serious alternatives that are not even considered. And continuing on the same path will without doubt lead to our downfall. I too dont want to be over run by etc. First stop even thinking that. It could never happen. could we be attacked? yes. Should we defend against it? yes, but even if we are attacked it will not stop us from being the great nation we are. It comes down to the best way to fight back, intelligently and economically.

Nowadays we have no competitors, noone even close to our military, yet we spend more and more and more and more, militarizing our economy.

That's a fair point and is one I can respect regarding slowing down our military spending.

Fine.

TH: However, this is a time (well actually 20 years ago when the Soviet Union collapsed) was the time to drastically reduce our military to reset our national priorities, we failed to act. We are basically on semi-war footing on a near permanent basis both economically and politically, especially since we have the latest "enemy" terrorists to justify the huge expenditures. But no nation can ever exist that way permanently. That has been proven again and again throughout history. I suspect that the current economic crises will grow to a point to force a major reassessment of our role in the world. Unfortunately we have failed at grasping the opportunity to make ourselves truly safe. By removing our interests from the areas which are most likely to cause conflict with other nations-primarily foriegn oil.

As long as YOU don't lose sight of the fact that we are under a constant and shadowy attack from Islamic extremists and that certain other hostile countries are attempting to rapidly increase their military capabilities (N. Korea) and are brazen in doing so. If you are truly a student of history, as you proclaim to be, then you shouldn't take these threats lightly.

TH: Fair enough, and I do take them seriously, but I will say that the most effective ways at confronting "terrorists" is not militarily and to confront nationstates like NK, who absolutely has to be confronted is through diplomacy backed by a strong military, but this can be achieved with alot less expenditure on defense. and furthermore, by changing our economy we will have distinct possibilities to build new alliances, other relationships and other methods to confront agressors.

We should just scrap out entire air-fleet and re-commission about 30 F-86 Sabres - that's all we really need-

- Truthhurts

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

intentionally misstating what I said.

I never opposed torture so much as I opposed our stupidity of taking photos and bragging about it. Any fool knows their country tortures, but we expect them to be smart about it.

#49 | Posted by kanrei

which is just another reason to believe 911 was an inside job to the core...

that sort of torture was about proving to us as a nation otherwise by its overall stupidity as far as a military operation.

Which has been combatted most effectively by small groups of soldiers with good intelligence?

Good intelligence?

You are openly oppposed to ANY interrogation methods beyond what is prescribed in the Geneva Conventions - which is limited to 3 questions without any compulsion for a true answer.

Fuck it.

Let them bomb the shit out of us without impugnity. Hell, we deserve it anyways. [ / sarcasm ]

#46 | Posted by JeffJ

simply not true. I am all for Elint, HumInt, smart interrogations, the money tracking that was done under Bush (and I believe the NYT was wrong to report on) and similar actions-even spying within the US USING THE FISA COURTS.

Smart Intelligence

But of course you will now start creating strawmen and ignore the debate.

Whatever.

Huh TH?

Barbarians were very successful fighters. Look at the Moors or the Huns. The Barbarians gave Rome a run for their money. In today's terms, we are Rome and AQ are the Huns.

#45 | Posted by kanrei

APples and Oranges, we live in a completely different world.

Where am I say dont fight AQ? Nowhere, but having the strongest military in the world couldnt stop the Roman Empire from falling, now did it? I am for offering an ALTERNATIVE to the military empire we have now.

Who in the fuck hold's Al Queada to these very same provisions?

#50 | Posted by JeffJ

I agree

but who is Al Queada again?

all paths tend to eventually lead back to Washington & Israel unfortunately ~ it seems.

I never opposed torture so much as I opposed our stupidity of taking photos and bragging about it. Any fool knows their country tortures, but we expect them to be smart about it.

#49 | Posted by kanrei

I dont want this to become a torture debate, my opinions on that are well documented.

Interrogation has an important role to play and the most effective interrogation techniques seem to be the least torturous (pun intented).

TH,
I agree, but, if they know torture is off the table, then they know there are limits. I would rather ask tough questions with them thinking it is going to get much worse if they don't answer. By saying "we don't torture," we have placed known limits on how far we will go.

TH,

These fucks aren't signatories to the Geneva Conventions. In fact, they go out of their way to violate almost every provision contained within. Yet, the left wants to afford these sadistic, homophobic bigots right enshrined in a document that they spit on.

You want to hold the US to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions? Who in the fuck hold's Al Queada to these very same provisions?

#50 | Posted by JeffJ at

again, besides the point, of course one shouldnt measure your own actions by the actions of your enemy, but that is a philosophical point.

However, when the battle is framed as it has been between lovers of freedom and the believers of a reactionary vision, shouldnt one demonstrate the values you are supposedly defending, ie freedom? otherwise you are showing that you are not so much good and freedom loving as powerful and that power will cause the populations you are trying to reach to want to work to your downfall to aquire the power you flex.

We should just scrap out entire air-fleet and re-commission about 2 or 3 hundred 1965 Ford Fairline am radio car antennas

- buffalo boobtits

I agree, but, if they know torture is off the table, then they know there are limits. I would rather ask tough questions with them thinking it is going to get much worse if they don't answer. By saying "we don't torture," we have placed known limits on how far we will go.

#59 | Posted by kanrei

K, all the experts I have heard say the most effective interrogation techniques do not involve torture. You get more flies with honey or so the saying goes.

If in a rare instance torture occurs, well as they say its a matter for the jury and if I were serving on the jury, in most cases (for the case officers and not the policy makers) I would vote for aquittal.

But to make torture a policy of a nation? Well you are just screaming HYPOCRITE to the world that you are attempting to spread democracy to.

oh and btw since I assume I will hear about this for years to come. I was refering to our naval fleet, not our airfleet.

Glad to see the Senate wised up. The F-22 was designed to counter a Soviet threat - which no longer exists. China won't have the capabilities to match such a plane for at least twenty years. By then the F-35's will be obsolete. Makes the F-22 a total waste of money - except, of course, to the contractors.

"It's What Eisenhower Warned us About," tweeted McCain before the vote. The F-22s have not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan and military experts agree they're not suited for American campaigns, yet lobbying and regional concerns have kept the program funded year after year. The victory over the military-industrial complex is arguably its most significant setback since World War II. For McCain, it was "probably the most impactful amendment that I have seen in this body on almost any issue."

"Up until the last couple hours, this vote was in doubt," McCain said. "And so I'd like to give credit to the president for being very firm on this issue and to the Secretary of Defense, who gave as strong a speech as I've ever heard in my life.

Obama had threatened to veto any bill that authorized the F-22 funding.

Forty-two Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, joined 15 Republicans to defeat the F-22."

Glad to see the Senate wised up. The F-22 was designed to counter a Soviet threat - which no longer exists. China won't have the capabilities to match such a plane for at least twenty years. By then the F-35's will be obsolete. Makes the F-22 a total waste of money - except, of course, to the contractors.

#64 | Posted by AILtd

You're leaving out that the thing can't operate in the rain for too long and that it costs $50k per hour to run. The 'barbarians' don't need to develop an A-wing fighter to defeat this contractor cash-cow, they just have to wait for it to rain. So to answer JeffJ, in a rainstorm, any modern fighter can defeat his one.

Gates says we don't need them anymore, and that we have other planes that can do the job. I tend to believe him. How many different types of planes do you need? When is the last time we used an F-22 during warfare for something that another plane couldn't have done? I'm honestly asking, I don't know.

"Forty-two Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders, of Vermont, joined 15 Republicans to defeat the F-22."

So the Dems on this vote were almost 3 times smarter than Republicans.

The MI Complex owns 3 times more Repubes than it does Dems... that sounds about right.

But that can't be true! There is no difference between the parties!

Sincerely,
Losertarians

"But that can't be true! There is no military-industrial complex!" - Mao se Whut?

Too bad. We could have sold a Bakers dozen or so to Israel.

Too bad. We could have sold a Bakers dozen or so to Israel.

#72 | Posted by wisgod

We? You work for Lockheed-Martin?

Military capability isn't solely about the present. It's also about attempting to anticipate, and thus prepare for, potential future threats ... we need to stay ahead of the game
The real challenge is making sure we're ahead in the right game. The military we have now could certainly kick some commie butt. Unfortunately there just aren't any good commies to fight these days.

Most of our engagements follow the same script used in the Great War: Drop a fuck ton of artillery from a safe distance.

Air superiority fighters are 0-4 against guys with boxcutters and proved totally ineffective for homeland defense. They didn't fare any better against the anthrax mailings. :)

Had [WWII] not happened, most of Europe might very well be speaking German and the Jews would be few-and-far-between.
Thank you for not making the oft-repeated asinine statement that we Americans might be speaking German. Seriously. That one drives me up the wall.

You want to hold the US to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions?
I think we have an obligation to conduct ourselves in accord with a treaty we signed, don't you? Do you have a habit of writing bad checks or something? If you don't want to abide by Geneva, withdraw from it, don't just flout it.

When the Rooskies and Chicoms attack we can send some propeller planes up to shoot back. Obama is spending money on more important things like paying for the mortgages and health care for scumbags who won't work.

This article is bullshit.

They killed nothing, but rather merely stopped making more. If obama had any REAL fucking balls he would have REALLY killed the fucking plane entirely.

More public relations bullshit.

The 'barbarians' don't need to develop an A-wing fighter to defeat this contractor cash-cow, they just have to wait for it to rain.

That reminds me of a great letter I saw in Aviation Week & Space Technology after a B-1 crash due to the aircraft striking a pelican or something. The letter suggested the Soviets need only to raise large flocks of birds along their borders to be safe from attack. :)

so the politicians say we need stimulus and spend trillions of dollars and no jobs are created. But this programs supports thousands of jobs and they don't want to support it.

Time to for some of these fools in washington to be sacrificed for the common good of the rest of us. I hope someone drops these corrupt fools on the capital steps.

The Raptor is an incredible pile of technology, one can't deny that. I've watched the demo live and never would have believed it possible if I hadn't.

That said, the idea that the F-22 can take on F-15s six to one is a stretch. The only way that happens is when the combat scenario is tailored to match the strengths of the Raptor against the weaknesses of the Eagle.

How about a cannon battle? Pretty hard to hit something that can fly both faster and higher than you can.

How about versatility? F-18 and F-15 can pack a lot of both air-to-air and air-to-ground packages. The F-22 has pretty small (albeit stealthy) weapons bays.

Interesting debate, for sure.

Well yeah, on Daguba...parking is a dream. Just remember your wet-vac.

So you can't take an F-22 there?

good.

Please name for me a more capable fighter on this planet.

Yep, absolutely incredible.

#8 | Posted by JeffJ

The f-22 is cool, but dollar for dollar the f35 is better and this is close third..

Look...mission profiles aside, and speaking as someone who spent many a hot afternoon in my youth safety-wiring a hydraulic pump or two, at 30 hours of hanger maintenance for every hour of flight, I'm thinking we're not getting enough bang for the obscene amount of bucks we're laying out.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, I believe that the airframe currently being tasked more than any other in Iraq and Afghanistan is the "low-tech" A-10. They'd be nuts to retire that little beauty. The F-22 is designed for air-to-air supremacy, a mission profile not currently in high demand in that two-front clusterfuck we're still slogging our way through.

130 or so will suffice, I believe. When the oil runs out, so will the water. These Ferrari weapons systems we keep funding are being tasked for narrow range objectives of perceived future engagements, yet my Nostradamus beanie says the coming world conflict will require an ample number of reliable multi-use weapon platforms capable of being efficiently maintained/re-armed in "less than desirable" circumstances. A scruffy ballet the F-22 is ill-suited for. Any funding for more than 130 F-22s is naked pork.

We produce the f-18 and f-16 in great quantities.

These two planes can continue to perform as our front line fighters and carrier aircap without giving up anything.

We produce the f-18 and f-16 in great quantities.

These two planes can continue to perform as our front line fighters and carrier aircap without giving up anything.

Uh huh.

Try and trot out a half-dozen of each in a dog-fight against a pair of F-22's and then get back to me.

We? You work for Lockheed-Martin?

#73 | Posted by DARTHCHENEY

Who do you think pays for Military Aircraft? The fucking tooth fairy?

I hate to say this, but the F-35 is a shitty aircraft.

What is wrong with a modern-day F-15?

I think this is good.. and I say that as a resident of Georgia that has friends working on the F22 program. Our congressional delegation fought to keep the program alive, and while its understandable at some level.. the fact is, from the preponderance of evidence, the aircraft is overpriced and unnecessary.

#83 | Posted by dutch46

I'm with you on that.

The Ferrari analogy was right on. Little can compete head to head with the Italian Stallions, except the way out there Bugatti Veyron

But though they do what they are designed to do very, very well, they can't do it for long without major failure. Gotta bring them back to the barn for lots of PMCS (Preventive Maintenance Checks and Services).

The F-22 stable is probably right next to the B-2 stable. The B-2 also a marvel of tech. Performs it mission well: cost millions to maintain and billions to buy. How many of them does the US need?

All of this is becoming OBE anyways: SkyNet-esque systems are coming to a battlefield near you soon enough. Man will be taken out of the loop. Or at the very least, the controls will be in an air-conditioned room socked with coffee and donuts a thousand miles away. Scratch that... Man will be taken out of the loop. Man-rated systems will be passe. Manned fighters will not even be competitive.

The F-22 stable is probably right next to the B-2 stable.

And the F-117 and F-111.

So, what do you envision our air-power to be, Oliver?

Re-commission the F-86?

So, what do you envision our air-power to be...?

#91 | Posted by JeffJ

The beginnings of a new era:

X-45 J-UCAV

what we need is to cut defense spending by 1/2 to 1/3. Get rid of over half our bases world wide, scrap half the fleet.

take all that money invest in alternative fuels to get us out off our dependence on foreign oil by TH.

***

Sure, let's cut defense spending (only 21% of the Total Budget) while Pakistan is about as stable as Michale J. Fox after a cup of coffee, Afganistan is in flux and North Korea is tossing missles towards Japan and the US and China then there is China and Russia. Duhhh!

BTW - an alternative fuel NEVER shot down a missle.

BTW - an alternative fuel NEVER shot down a missle.

Hmmm is a LASER an alternative fuel? Regardless... If we reduced our dependency on foreign energy sources then we could redirect our limited resources here at home. No one wants us to be DEFENSELESS but it is way past time to reign in the Military Industrial Complex.

However, we need to stay ahead of the game.

#18 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-07-21 02:44 PM | Reply |

I agree, Jeff, but projecting the future is a matter of odds-making.

Much of the prime technology from the F-22can be re-engineered in next generations of the F-15, F-16 and F-35 -- the B-52H is still in the active inventory, and its just marked its 50th anniversary. UAV's continue to evolve, too, so the R&D is not wasted.

Also, the military has ambitious technology-transfer programs so a lot of the tech will show up in the civilian sector.

Too bad. We could have sold a Bakers dozen or so to Israel.

#72 | Posted by wisgod at 2009-07-21 04:57 PM | Reply

Small countries cannot support multiple systems. That's why so many countries -- like Israel -- stick with the F-16 (built in Turkey) or the F-15.

They have a hodgepodge of older trainers and such, but their front-line fighters are just the two American designs; Israel used their brand new ones in 1981 to take out Saddam's nuke.

Much of the prime technology from the F-22can be re-engineered in next generations of the F-15, F-16 and F-35 -- the B-52H is still in the active inventory, and its just marked its 50th anniversary. UAV's continue to evolve, too, so the R&D is not wasted.

The B-52 is an anomoly, Vern. It's a relatively timeless design that continues to be slowly refined and remains relevant because it has tremendous range, payload and is well-armored. It remains a great second-strike aircraft and probably will for another 50 years, or more.

I don't see the same with the F-15s, 16s and 18s of our fleet. These are completely different planes than bombers and technological advancement is crucial.

Maybe the F-22 is overkill - too expensive to justify itself.

But I would counter that the F-35 is underkill - an extremely unimpressive aircraft.

the B-52H is still in the active inventory, and its just marked its 50th anniversary.

#95 | Posted by vernon

The last B-52 was built in 1962 (!!!!!).

"Today, 94 B-52H's are all that remain of 744 Stratofortresses built in the '50s and '60s."