F-22 Raptor info

[brabus]

F-35 was designed around $$$ being the #1 priority for the airframe

Maybe just my opinion, but it's not a bad thing to keep cost as a high priority, AS LONG AS you get a good product that meets specs. Remember, the F-16 idea was a basic day VFR fighter that would be "cheap" to build. Don't tell me the Viper isn't a very good fighter. That's just an example of how a project started with such a simple/low cost outlook and evolved into something much more. The same can be said for the F-35.

I completely agree that we should be buying both. In no way do I think we should stick to just 187 Raptors...it's retarded. I think we need both and I'm not here for a fighter x is better than fighter y. But it's dumb to think either aircraft is far superior to the other. They're both excellent fighters with mind-blowing technology that will allow us to keep a vast edge on our enemies from some similar standpoints, but also from very different standpoints. Just b/c they differ in some areas does not make one worse than the other. If I took your post the wrong way, my apologies.

[C17Driver]

Maybe just my opinion, but it's not a bad thing to keep cost as a high priority, AS LONG AS you get a good product that meets specs. Remember, the F-16 idea was a basic day VFR fighter that would be "cheap" to build. Don't tell me the Viper isn't a very good fighter. That's just an example of how a project started with such a simple/low cost outlook and evolved into something much more. The same can be said for the F-35.

I completely agree that we should be buying both. In no way do I think we should stick to just 187 Raptors...it's retarded. I think we need both and I'm not here for a fighter x is better than fighter y. But it's dumb to think either aircraft is far superior to the other. They're both excellent fighters with mind-blowing technology that will allow us to keep a vast edge on our enemies from some similar standpoints, but also from very different standpoints. Just b/c they differ in some areas does not make one worse than the other. If I took your post the wrong way, my apologies.

And we recently found out what could happen if you depend completely on one airframe. Fortunately, when the -15C's got grounded for a while, there were other fighters in the inventory (as a stop gap if nothing more). Fast forward 15 years...what happens if a problem develops that causes the grounding of all 2,000+ F-35s across all branches of service?

[EvilEagle]

For the sake of argument and to play devil's advocate: what would be the cost to dump the AF version of the F-35 and leverage the R&D to develop a multi-role version of the F-22? Would it be a net gain having less 5th gen fighters overall but a more robust air dominance fleet, possibly backed with less expensive OA-X type aircraft for the permissive environment?

I would say that would cost much more. Primarily because the Raptor wasn't designed to do the a/g role other than as a secondary role. Could they do it? Yes. Would they consider it? Probably not - primarily because they didn't take anything other than 1k# JDAMs into consideration when building it.

On another side of the argument - it's cheaper to run a 1 engine squadron than a 2 engine. They are having this argument right now at TY. If we really do close the Eagles, will they bring in an F-16 squadron to do the RDS mission or keep the Eagles that they already have? I'd say Vipers are the smart choice. Sure, you may loose 1 or 2 to an engine problem over the life of the squadron, but it's cheaper in the long run to have them vs an Eagle RDS unit.

**edit: spelin'

Edited June 21, 2009 by EvilEagle

[brabus]

Fast forward 15 years...what happens if a problem develops that causes the grounding of all 2,000+ F-35s across all branches of service?

Dude, I agree. Like I said, I'm a big proponent of purchasing F-35s as well as more F-22s (than the current buy number). Also, the A-10s and F-15Es aren't going away right away. So if the Govt decides to pull their nuggets out of their ass and buy some more F-22s in addition to the F-35 buy, I think we'll be in a good position.

Dude. Aren't you in the B-course right now? Hardly the tactical resume to start bowing up about, don't ya think?

You bet. I'm not blowing up about my resume (hence my "I KNOW VERY LITTLE about..."), however I certainly understand and know a lot more about this general subject than a civilian with no classified access and someone who's not even a military pilot. My problem isn't with the F-22, it's with some guy who doesn't know shit about fighters/military flying and yet still thinks he's right when he says things that are flat out wrong. I have no dog in an argument with dudes like EvilEagle, Buddy or Beerman...but I certainly do with a guy like blackstang.

[slacker]

John Soltz is a dumbass.

[Guest boredwith9to5]

Nevertheless, to play it safe, we've got 187 of the obsolete F-22s on-hand or in the pipeline already, just in case the Soviet Union ever comes through with their next-generation fighters.

Everything this guy says is now discredited by the idiotic statement above. If the F-22 is obsolete then so is the F-16 and F-15. I wonder if he's realized that the Soviet Union Russia is still a threat, as well as China or Iran even, with their fighters. Hardly an obsolete fighter.

[OverTQ]

F-22 Raptor Fight Divides Gates, U.S. Lawmakers

By WILLIAM MATTHEWS

The 31-30 vote to keep the F-22 fighter program alive belies stronger support for the stealth fighter, a sen­ior U.S. House Democrat said.

“The politics of it are such that it’s highly likely there’s going to be an F-22 buy,” Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said June 18. “The exact number and where the money’s coming from is a work in progress.” Around 2:30 a.m. June 17, the House Armed Services Committee voted to spend $369 million to begin buying parts for 12 more F-22s. That would push the fleet to 199. The vote was in defiance of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who wants to end production at 187 planes.

Abercrombie said F-22 supporters prevailed by one vote only because he and other committee members had questions about how to pay for 12 more planes, which will cost $2.8 billion. Abercrombie was among those who voted no.

Had the funding question been worked out, 50 or 60 of the com­mittee’s 62 members would have voted to buy more F-22s, he said.

“It’s not a Democrat or Republi­can thing at all, but rather a Con­ gress versus the executive in terms of who’s in charge,” he said.

Last year, Congress included money in the defense budget to be­gin buying parts for 20 more F-22s, but the Defense Department decid­ed instead to end the program.

“The Constitution says very clear­ly that Congress is in charge. The Defense Department is there to ex­ecute” what Congress decides, Abercrombie said.

“I’m committed to get the Defense Department to do what it was sup­posed to do in the first place,” he said. “We cannot allow the execu­tive to run roughshod over con­gressional responsibility. They need to learn who’s in charge. The Con­gress is.” Although the F-22 is the Air Force’s most advanced and most expensive fighter, it has never been flown in combat, a point Gates has stressed in appearances before House and Senate committees.

When he announced April 6 that he wanted to end F-22 production, Gates said, “For me, it was not a close call. … The military advice that I got was that there is no mili­tary requirement for numbers of F­22s beyond the 187.” Gates wants the Air Force to fo­cus more on equipment needed for the wars the U.S. military is fighting today. For the Air Force, that in­cludes UAVs, refueling tankers and special operations aircraft.

In the past, the Air Force has said it needed 381 F-22s. More recently, it lowered the number to 243; then Gates imposed a 187 cap. The changing numbers have irked committee members.

Rep. Rod Bishop, R-Utah, who in­troduced an amendment to fund the 12 F-22s, said, “We on the commit­tee have yet to see any study or analysis in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion the 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats.” Abercrombie cited a June 9 letter from Gen. John Corley, chief of Air Combat Command, who said, “To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.” Corley appears to contradict his bosses, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Nor­ton Schwartz, who wrote in the Washington Post that “we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.” Said Abercrombie, “I don’t have a clue whether 187 is adequate for our national military strategy.” The numbers have changed too often for lawmakers to have any confidence in them, he said.

For many lawmakers, the military need for F-22s is only one factor in deciding how many to buy. Jobs are equally important. Plane-maker Lockheed has told lawmakers that the program employs 25,000 work­ers directly and supports another 90,000 jobs in companies that pro­duce F-22 parts. The jobs are spread among 44 states.

Asked whether President Barack Obama would veto a defense budg­et that included money for F-22s that Gates doesn’t want, Abercrom­bie said it’s unlikely. With troops in two wars and congressional elec­tions looming in 2010, vetoing the defense budget would be politically risky. And “it would be overridden in a nanosecond,” he said.

For now, the $369 million for F­22s comes from money that had been budgeted for Energy Depart­ment cleanups at nuclear weapon sites. In his amendment, Bishop said the money is to be taken from projects that are ahead of schedule or are so far behind that they won’t be able to spend money allocated for 2010.

If 12 planes are built, they would be delivered to the Air Force in 2013 or 2014, and would cost $234 mil­lion apiece, according to calcula­tions by the House Armed Services Committee staff.

F-22s being built today cost about $175 million to $180 million apiece. The price would increase because costs would be divided among 12 planes. If 20 were bought, the cost of each might be less, an aide said.

Just hours before the House Armed Services Committee rescued future F-22s, the full House ap­proved spending $600 million to buy four of the stealth fighters with money in the $106 billion “emer­gency supplemental” bill used to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Those four planes would bring the total F-22 fleet to Gates’ top num­ber, 187.

Through an add-on to the war­funding bill, lawmakers also thwarted Gates’ efforts to end the C-17 cargo plane.

[Chip]

The military doesn't want it. Troops can't use it. Most veterans would say they're not for it.

-Ok, so he's a disgruntled Army dude pushing for more Army centric spending at the cost of AF spending. . . Not exactly the best spokesman to be bad mouthing anyone. Even if he was justified, it would still come off as a tantrum rather than an educated argument.

Gates imposed a 187 cap.

- Gates set the cap, not the AF. Check. Another hole on Soltz's argument.

Rep. Rod Bishop, R-Utah, who in­troduced an amendment to fund the 12 F-22s, said, “We on the commit­tee have yet to see any study or analysis in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion the 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats.” Abercrombie cited a June 9 letter from Gen. John Corley, chief of Air Combat Command, who said, “To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.”

Don't know if Gen Corley is subtely pushing for more Raptors here or if this politician is just putting him in the middle of things. Gates has already proved that he doesn't like any dissension with his grand master plans.

[HiFlyer]

-Ok, so he's a disgruntled Army dude pushing for more Army centric spending at the cost of AF spending. . . Not exactly the best spokesman to be bad mouthing anyone. Even if he was justified, it would still come off as a tantrum rather than an educated argument.

- Gates set the cap, not the AF. Check. Another hole on Soltz's argument.

Don't know if Gen Corley is subtely pushing for more Raptors here or if this politician is just putting him in the middle of things. Gates has already proved that he doesn't like any dissension with his grand master plans.

It may not be all that sinister..it might simply be taken out of context. In fact, I don't know of any such study either. If the committee asked him for a study confirming the 187 number as satisfying the DoD requirements, I think the correct answer would have been "“To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.” There are studies to estimate what the AF might need but not one of them specifically validates the 187 number (which is really a force of 183, because four are replacements for four lost aircraft). Using a perfectly innocent and factually correct statement out of context to support a political arguement is a classic Washington way of doing business. The AF has not been secretive about its belief that 183 (or 187) is not what they'd like to have. As for why its 187? Not because either the AF or Sec Gates chose the number, its because thats the number as of the last Congressional appropriations act. Gates just decided to not ask for more.

Edited June 25, 2009 by HiFlyer

[Guest moostang]

""The Constitution says very clear­ly that Congress is in charge. The Defense Department is there to ex­ecute” what Congress decides"

"If 12 planes are built, they would be delivered to the Air Force in 2013 or 2014, and would cost $234 mil­lion apiece, according to calcula­tions by the House Armed Services Committee staff.

F-22s being built today cost about $175 million to $180 million apiece. The price would increase because costs would be divided among 12 planes. If 20 were bought, the cost of each might be less, an aide said."

"Through an add-on to the war­funding bill, lawmakers also thwarted Gates’ efforts to end the C-17 cargo plane."

It sounds like Congress is laying down the law (constitution) and making the choice to continue producing the F-22, at least so far. It's good to see that congress has some idea of the value of these aircraft. I wonder if they would reduce F-35 numbers if F-22 numbers increase.

Mustang boy or whatever it is your are calling yourself these days...this is an example of speaking out with an uneducated opinion and looking foolish.

Cheers,

BeerMan

I'm just sharing ideas on a message board, this guy is making public statements and posting articles. Man, how does this stuff keep coming back to me?

[Guest moostang]

Did Blackstang delete his posts, or were they deleted for him? It's pretty childish to delete your post Blackstang if that is indeed what you did. You made some good points. Stick by them. Just stay away from topics that you don't have any experience with, i.e. BFM.

Here are my ideas of the systems as of now (after getting flamed):

The F-22 needs to be produced in larger numbers, as most AF officials agree. Therefore, reducing the number of F-22s and replacing those orders with F-35s is a bad decision, especially since they serve different roles. The F-22s are air superiority fighters with attack capability, similar to the F-15A/C. The AF wants to replace aging aircraft before someone else gets killed, so they need F-22s to replace the oldest F-15s. The F-15s that would be replaced later on would be the F-15C, which the F-22 should also replace, because the F-35 is not made for the same air superiority role. This assumes that the AF needs a similar number of air superiority fighters or ratio of air superiority fighters to multi-role fighters.

When attempting the air superiority role, the F-35 seems to be a lower level fighter than the F-22; lower thrust, lack of thrust vectoring, reportedly higher RCS from the front and much higher RCS from the side, larger IR signature, especially at high speed cruise, and a similar fuel capacity, despite needing afterburners at high speed. For air-to-ground operations, the F-35 has the capability to hold a greater number of weapons, although this advantage means that the extra weapons would be carried externally, increasing RCS.

As far as costs are concerned, we shouldn't worry about the cost of R&D that has already been done when comparing the two aircraft. The R&D cost for the F-22 has been used to further the F-35 program. This money has also already been spent, making it a non-issue. The issue is how much more money each of the aircraft will cost to produce from where we are now.

The F-35 is 80-90 million per aircraft at the current production. The F-22 is 141 million per aircraft at the current production. Increasing the number of F-22s will reduce the cost of each new F-22, but increase the cost of all the F-35s for each F-35 that it replaces. This works For the F-35 as well, each F-22 that is replaced by the F-35 increases the cost of additional F-22s. Simply increasing the number of aircraft built costs more overall, but increases AF capability. The point I'm trying to make is that we really don't save money by replacing F-22s with F-35s, because the difference increases the cost of the remaining F-22s produced. If we increase the number of F-22s produced to meet AF needs, we will not spend much if any more money.

Here are my problems with the current idea of deployment:

Air Force - The F-35 should not replace F-22s for an air superiority role. It may have been possible to modify the F-22 to take the weapons/payload that the F-35 will, I have seen that it already has 4 external hardpoints, used for air-to-air missiles and fuel, these and the weapons systems/software could have been changed to allow for an air-to-ground mission. The advantage of a stealth fighter in attack configuration is reduced with external weapons, for many of these missions an F-16 or F-15E could do the job (ie. attacking guys with AK-47s).

Marines - The F-35B is capable of vertical landing and takeoff with less than max gross weight. This means that a carrier or runway is required, or payload must be limited. The role of this aircraft will probably be supporting ground troops 90% of the time, meaning external weapons would be desired. The aircraft will have to operate somewhere that conventional aircraft could have and have a higher RCS, due to the external payload. A higher RCS means that the stealthy angular design and coatings are somewhat wasted, and the cost and performance loss due to these technologies may not be worth it. The salt water and otherwise dirty conditions (even just at low altitude) would decrease the life cycle of the engines, meaning that they would be more likely to fail. A multi-engine aircraft would have the redundancy that could save aircraft and lives. If the V-22 can run two turboprops at the same speed, the shaft to the lift fan can be linked to both as well.

Navy - Much of the same, the aircraft they use should have two engines. They have requested this for decades, with their most sucessful aircraft, such as the F-4, F-14, and F-18 having two engines. The salt water corrodes these aircraft too quickly, which could be an issue for the maintainability of radar absorbant coatings as well.

Basically, the specialization of an aircraft for each service should be 100% of that aircraft.

I am admittedly a civilian with aspirations for AF greatness, meaning that this information is gathered from unclassified sources and my ideas are formulated from such information. Fortunately for me, I don't have to worry about OPSEC yet, because I don't have access to any more information that the Russians and Chinese can get. These are IDEAS, my personal opinion... While I'm sure there are some flaws, this is a discussion that should be had in an F-22 thread, because the decisions being made don't seem to suit the requirements of the Air Force.

Edited June 25, 2009 by moostang

[Steve Davies]

F-22 Stealh Coatings Lawsuit

An engineer formerly employed by Lockheed, maker of the famous F-22 Raptor stealth jet, has mounted a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that Lockheed has supplied the controversial superfighter with "defective" stealth coatings. The claims are sure to add fuel to the fiery debate raging at present in Washington over whether to cease production of the Raptor. In the lawsuit, filed in US District Court in California, Darrol O Olsen states that between 1995 and 1999 he witnessed Lockheed knowingly use on Raptors "coatings that Lockheed knew were defective". Olsen says that he was "one of the top... low observables engineers in the stealth technology industry", having worked on the original F-117 stealth fighter and at Northrop on the B-2 stealth bomber before joining the F-22 team.

Olsen further alleges that low-quality stealth coatings have not only worsened the radar and infrared visibility of the F-22, but that they have been a factor in dangerous and expensive accidents - as when a piece of coating broke off and was sucked into an F-22 engine last year, causing over a million dollars of damage.

Olsen goes on to say that such "third-party reports" indicate that the Raptor's stealth protection "has not been remedied through the present date". He says that Lockheed "continued to misrepresent the problems with the F-22's coatings through at least October 2004 and likely to the present date".

Allegations could strengthen Obama's hand in cancelling further Raptor production

At the moment a hard-fought debate is raging in Washington regarding the future of Raptor production. President Obama and his Defense Secretary Robert Gates want to cease manufacture once the US air force has a total of 187 F-22s; however, politicians from districts where the Raptor is made are resisting them. Furthermore, although Gates has managed to partially bring the US airforce to heel by replacing its two top bosses last year, institutionally the service passionately desires a much larger Raptor fleet.

Gates' desire to save money for combat troops by purchasing drones and "affordably stealthy" F-35s, more useful for strike missions, is backed by the other US services for different reasons. Furthermore, the White House has signalled that President Obama may deploy his veto against attempts to maintain the pricey Raptor in production. Nonetheless, it's plain that Gates has a fight on his hands.

A lot of observers have always questioned the need for the Raptor, designed for a Cold War scenario of high-intensity conventional air combat above Europe against Soviet superfighters which never actually appeared. Now Olsen's lawsuit, in at least some eyes, has further called "the justification for the whole [F-22] program" into question, let alone the matter of continued production.

On the other hand, people knowledgeable about stealth technology have always indicated that shape is more important than coatings when building a stealthy aircraft. Olsen's allegations, even if true, may not mean that the F-22's stealthiness is entirely invalidated: and after all, the plane is in service and has already flown in many air-combat exercises.

If its radar cross-section is in fact unacceptably high, one would expect the US armed services to know already - Lockheed couldn't have kept the fact secret to this point. None of this is to suggest that Lockheed wouldn't be in significant trouble - perhaps to the point of massive fines and jailed executives - if Olsen's allegations are true, but dodgy coatings wouldn't on the face of it make the F-22 completely worthless.

After the Reg contacted Lockheed for comment, the firm supplied us with the following statement:

While we are generally aware of the Olsen lawsuit, the Corporation has not yet been served in this matter. We deny Mr. Olsen's allegations and will vigorously defend this matter if and when it is served.

In summary: Olsen's lawsuit, even if true, wouldn't on its own seem likely to invalidate the whole concept of the Raptor and lead to the plane's withdrawal from service. But it will provide ammunition for critics of the expensive superfighter, strengthening the SecDef's (and the President's) hand in their attempts to shift US defense funding to other areas.

Link to actual lawsuit.

[StoleIt]

So if it's defective RAIM...why is the airplane still invisibile to radar?

[Steve Davies]

So if it's defective RAIM...why is the airplane still invisibile to radar?

Radar Absorbent Structure and shape would be the most likely reasons.

[Stuck]

Popcorn time.

From: https://www.military.com/news/article/wh-co...C=airforce-a.nl

I'm forced to agree with this statement -

"This decision on the F-22 will have profound implications on our nation's strength and air dominance 15 and 20 years from now," he said, warning that other nations, notably Russia and China, will be "fielding advanced fighter aircraft in the next two years."

Cheers!

- Stuck

[nsplayr]

I'm forced to believe that 80% of this is about money and keeping jobs in the states that make the F-22.

"I'm giddy with happiness over that one," Bishop said. "It's a major win for Utah and also the military," He noted that Hill Air Force Base maintains the F-22, and ATK in Utah manufactures the composite material used to make the plane and provide its tough-to-track stealth characteristics."

Source

Defense contractors are smart enough to know that if they employ people in enough states then their projects have a smaller chance of being cut. Not that having more -22s wouldn't help us defeat some far-off Russian or Chinese threat even more quickly than we already would, but I'm in the camp of wanting to ramp up funding to bolster our weaknesses by scaling back on things we already kick a lot of a$$ at. If this were the mid-90s and we had money coming out of our ears then buy all the -22s we can produce...that's not the case right now and you gotta make a choice, and if you buy more F-22s what in the DoD budget do you cut?

An asymmetrical enemy will not go toe-to-toe with even a handful of -22s because he would lose quickly (what's the kill ratio against -15s again?). He's gonna hit us where we're weak and there are plenty of areas where we're much softer targets (heard of the massive cyber attack probably committed by North Korea over the 4th of July weekend?) Yea, cyber is compared to F-22 awesomeness but I for one do not doubt future US air superiority with our stable of -15s, -16s, -22s, and -35s, not to mention superior C2, tactical SAMs, etc. etc.

[brabus]

I for one do not doubt future US air superiority with our stable of -15s, -16s, -22s, and -35s, not to mention superior C2, tactical SAMs, etc. etc.

We're the best military in the world, but there's a reason we need F-22s and F-35s besides just the age of our current fighters. Skill matters, but there's more to the equation. And that "more" should make you very much want the aforementioned aircraft.

[Hacker]

I for one do not doubt future US air superiority with our stable of -15s, -16s, -22s, and -35s, not to mention superior C2, tactical SAMs, etc. etc.

Glad you're so confident, because there are a lot of other people who aren't (including me).

Are you someone who will ever potentially have to go against a rapidly-growing number (and proliferation) of Flankers, PL-12s, double-digit SAMs, etc, in any of those aircraft?

[nsplayr]

Glad you're so confident, because there are a lot of other people who aren't (including me).

Are you someone who will ever potentially have to go against a rapidly-growing number (and proliferation) of Flankers, PL-12s, double-digit SAMs, etc, in any of those aircraft?

If you're asking if I'm a fighter guy then no. Last time I checked though fighter guys aren't the only ones flying against threats...

I understand the threats, but as the article on the Growlers shows, there are simply other priorities that we want to buy and buying fewer F-22s opens up a lot of purchasing power of other capabilities that can have a greater impact on future wars than more dominance in air superiority.

Edited July 10, 2009 by nsplayr

[brabus]

I understand the threats

Clearly you do not if you're so confident in our ability to maintain air superiority with our current fighters. People seem to think just b/c we're the US we have the greatest shit and we'll rock the shit out of any country that opposes us. That's a dangerous viewpoint to have, especially when knowing what is out there.

[nsplayr]

Clearly you do not if you're so confident in our ability to maintain air superiority with our current fighters. People seem to think just b/c we're the US we have the greatest shit and we'll rock the shit out of any country that opposes us. That's a dangerous viewpoint to have, especially when knowing what is out there.

I guess we can agree to disagree. There are plenty of things out there that can shoot our boys down, but A) Who has the motivation to use them against us, and B) Is it a big enough priority to divert significant funds from other military needs. If you can answer those two questions reasonably then maybe you can make a pitch to Sec. Gates, the President, and Congress.

[brabus]

There's several scenarios that could lead to a bad situation for us. Are they going to happen tomorrow? No. Could they happen in a year, 2 yrs, 3 yrs? You bet. Hell, even something going down (sts) 5 yrs from now would still be a bad situation for us if we don't have the F-35s/F-22s that we need by then. None of us can predict what the world situation will be in 3-5 yrs. Can we afford to not be prepared simply b/c we're too stubborn to look further than 6 months into the future and just assume these scenarios won't happen? Preparation starts now, not the first time we get a face full of Flanker.

[Danny Noonin]

There are plenty of things out there that can shoot our boys down, but A) Who has the motivation to use them against us,

Seriously? That's possibly the most ridiculous comment I've ever read.

We don't have stealth to protect our homeland. We have stealth to attack someone else's homeland. What kind of special "motivation" does some other country need to shoot at us over their territory?

[ClearedHot]

I guess we can agree to disagree. There are plenty of things out there that can shoot our boys down, but A) Who has the motivation to use them against us, and B) Is it a big enough priority to divert significant funds from other military needs. If you can answer those two questions reasonably then maybe you can make a pitch to Sec. Gates, the President, and Congress.

Iran...China....North Korea....Syria.

Why do we need to divert funds? The liberals are handing out cash as fast as they can print it, but cut the defense budget. Why not print enough for more F-22's that actually do something AND produce high-tech jobs?

I understand the threats, but as the article on the Growlers shows, there are simply other priorities that we want to buy and buying fewer F-22s opens up a lot of purchasing power of other capabilities that can have a greater impact on future wars than more dominance in air superiority.

WRONG....what the article shows is more of the same old rice bowl syndrome. He is arguing that the F-22 production line serves only the Air Force, yet it is important to keep the F-18 line open so we can still produce front line fighters...FOR WHO?...The Navy and the Marine Corps of course, what crap....notice how he shifts the theme to advanced versions of the F-18 beyong the Growler....I truly thought you were smart enough to see through the Jedi Mind Trick.

Sorry but his comments were oxymoronic and typical service centric bullshit.

I am not hear to argue the F-22 is a wonder weapon, but the article could just as easily be turned on it's nugget and say if we kept making F-22's we might need FEWER Growlers...oh the humanity!

As for trading Air Dominance for purchasing power...I hope you plan on buying body bags with all your savings.

Edited July 10, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Hacker]

As for trading Air Dominance for purchasing power...I hope you plan on buying body bags with all your savings.

The best part is that 20-30 years from now there will probably be Congressional Hearings on how/why/who dropped the ball on making sure we had the equipment required to maintain air superiority. Hopefully those hearings don't follow a massive loss of American lives (or worse).

My bet is that in future times, after all the currently-vogue USAF "hatred of all things fighter" and use of fighter culture as the scapegoat for all of the ills of the AF, TMike will be seen as a martyred visionary for his championing of modernization/recapitalization of USAF aircraft during the '00s. Probably not to the extent of a Billy Mitchell, but in a similar vein.