Good Bye F22

[BD]

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_the_US_F22_Raptor_Pentagon_contract_be_canceled_by_March_31_212

One more step closer to Obama's attempt to surrender our self to the world. Thousands of jobs will be lost as well.

Nuclear disarmament next while Iran and N. Korean working on their program.

Amazing time we live in.

 

[TURBO2GO]

http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Will_the_US_F22_Raptor_Pentagon_contract_be_canceled_by_March_31_212

One more step closer to with Obama's attempt to surrender our self to the world. Thousands of jobs will be lost as well.

Nuclear disarmament next while Iran and N. Korean working on their program.

Amazing time we live in.

Don't worry we still have my silver NSX in a pinch.

 

[BD]

Don't worry we still have my silver NSX in a pinch.

Only if Michigan can built cars like your silver NSX.

 

[CL65 Captain]

Vance, our enemies have changed. They live in caves, communicate via cell phones and travel by horse. We are not fighting the Russians with SU-27s.

The original cost of the F22 was suppose to be $140 million each. So far $65 billion has been spent for 184 aircraft. Uh, that's $350 million each. What a great air superiority aircraft and tremendous dogfighter the plane is. Unfortunately, Al Queda flies B767s. The money can be spent better elsewhere. And this coming from a pilot. :wink:

 

[BD]

You brought up a good point; however, I hope you're not under the illusion that our enemy only hide under the caves.

Keep in mind that according your logic, we shouldn't have retired the F14 (my favorite). F22 may be an over kill but it is also some thing that no other countries can obtain. How many air force bases to we have all over the world? Is 187 F22 enough?

How many F22 do you think we need if Chinese ever decide to wage war on US if they decides to force take over of Taiwan? They don't hide under the the cave.

Don't discount the possibility of WWIII. I much rather have our military force over power others by miles when needed. Think of it as a Knock out fight during the first round.

There is a good reason why countries out there don't like us fear us. Our military might is the biggest reason "don't f..k with us."

 

[KooLaid]

It's ok, the economy will still thrive. They can just sell the raptors to China........

 

[Daedalus]

You brought up a good point; however, I hope you're not under the illusion that our enemy only hide under the caves.

Keep in mind that according your logic, we shouldn't have retired the F14 (my favorite). F22 may be an over kill but it is also some thing that no other countries can obtain. How many air force bases to we have all over the world? Is 187 F22 enough?

How many F22 do you think we need if Chinese ever decide to wage war on US if they decides to force take over of Taiwan? They don't hide under the the cave.

Don't discount the possibility of WWIII. I much rather have our military force over power others by miles when needed. Think of it as a Knock out fight during the first round.

There is a good reason why countries out there don't like us fear us. Our military might is the biggest reason "don't f..k with us."

That is not going to change with the cancellation of 1 program. Our navy is a much larger contributor to our military might and ability to wield foreign policy than the air force. Captain is right. Our enemies might not only hide in caves, but it's unlikely we'll be challenged in the air in the next 50 years. Hopefully by then we'll have used our budgets to develop unmanned air combat technology. They're cheaper to support and performance is not hindered by the physiological limits of human pilots. I agree with the cuts, even though they'll probably lead to lay-offs in my company.

I have strong concerns about both China and Russia, but they don't involve armed conflict anytime soon. The US and China are not going to war over Taiwan. Both have way too much to lose. China will become the richest country in terms of GDP in most of our lifetimes, and they can do it without going to war.

 

[TomCat]

keep in mind that according your logic, we shouldn't have retired the f14 (my favorite). ."

i like your thinking!

 

[steveny]

Don't worry even if they say they will disarm it will only be what they say and not what they do.

 

[H-carWizKid]

Don't discount the possibility of WWIII. I much rather have our military force over power others by miles when needed. Think of it as a Knock out fight during the first round.

I doubt 5000 F22's could beat enemies like the ones we have today.

Based on what we have seen in Iraq, and Afghanistan I am not confident in saying our Military is capable of a "first round knock out" even in it's current state.

Going from my own public school American history education I would say that our enemies have turned our own history against us...

here is my theory- although it is probably a bit naive, and I will likely draw some disagreement-

In the American Revolution, Minute Men profited from using unconventional Guerilla tactics against the conventionally trained forces of the superior British army. The British didn't know how to react, and were lethargic, allowing supply lines to be affected and the military infrastructure to be dismantled until a culminating point was reached, and the Brits finally conceeded the effort.

Our enemies are doing the same to us- "insurgent forces" are just modern day minute men picking their battles without directly engaging the organized force. They are wearing on our nations fortitude for warfare, but rather than cutting off our military supply lines they are leading the media to create an atmosphere of dissention within our public to the point where our democracy is effected in their favor. This was our culminating point, and look what happened...

Americans just elected a guy who said he would withdraw our troops. As a public we just "gave up", and that is exactly what the people we are fighting were hoping for.

The result is that they are "winning", and we look like a bunch of war mongering ass clowns.


Sad really.

 

[ca2822]

Hopefully by then we'll have used our budgets to develop unmanned air combat technology. They're cheaper to support and performance is not hindered by the physiological limits of human pilots.

Very valid points concerning UAVs, especially when development and design into new weapon systems push maneuvarability and speed - both whichare very limited by physiological limits of human beings. However, though UAVs are the big push by some big wigs, there are some very relevant issues with UAVs that will also hinder the use of them in the future. One of those major issues is the capabilities of UAVs in combat situations regarding situational awareness and field of view. Future technologies could of course be developed to heighten the SA of the pilot back in the trailor monitoring the UAV, but that of course will take time and $$. Another issue regarding UAVs is the communication issue. A loss of communication between the human in the system and the UAV can lead to a serious problem and does not have a real fix to it. Systems can and do fail at times, and that communication issue cannot replace a human actually flying the aircraft. Again another issue is putting computer systems in complete control of weapons delivery. Yes, UAVs are delivering weapons as we speak, however, before every one of those missiles or bombs is released, a pilot back in Vegas is confirming the target and making the assesment of weather or not to make the kill. Politics and the American people will not accept a computer making those type of decisions. Which brings me to a final point - costs for maintaining and operating UAVs is less than that of say, operating an F-22. Agreed. But you still have to have a crew, at least one man, monitoring the UAV's operations. This opens up a whole new can of worms and issues. People get bored - they do. Sit at a monitor and wait for something to happen. Issues like job satisfaction, job progression, and skills development come into play. Loss of mode awareness - does the monitoring pilot know what is going on with the system? Pyschological factors - seeing the enemy through the TV screen and watching the missile come closer and closer and kill them. Not only seeing those enemies through a video game-like console, but having to go home to your wife and kids after killing someone 1 hour ago because UAVs can be flown from the US.

Again, UAVs are a big help in TODAY's type of war and that technology will continue to develop to close some of those issue gaps. But is it the right move for the US to focus on UAVs rather than a weapon system that will maintain a tradition of air superiority? I'm not so sure about that.

 

[queenlives]

Very valid points concerning UAVs, especially when development and design into new weapon systems push maneuvarability and speed - both whichare very limited by physiological limits of human beings. However, though UAVs are the big push by some big wigs, there are some very relevant issues with UAVs that will also hinder the use of them in the future. One of those major issues is the capabilities of UAVs in combat situations regarding situational awareness and field of view. Future technologies could of course be developed to heighten the SA of the pilot back in the trailor monitoring the UAV, but that of course will take time and $$. Another issue regarding UAVs is the communication issue. A loss of communication between the human in the system and the UAV can lead to a serious problem and does not have a real fix to it. Systems can and do fail at times, and that communication issue cannot replace a human actually flying the aircraft. Again another issue is putting computer systems in complete control of weapons delivery. Yes, UAVs are delivering weapons as we speak, however, before every one of those missiles or bombs is released, a pilot back in Vegas is confirming the target and making the assesment of weather or not to make the kill. Politics and the American people will not accept a computer making those type of decisions. Which brings me to a final point - costs for maintaining and operating UAVs is less than that of say, operating an F-22. Agreed. But you still have to have a crew, at least one man, monitoring the UAV's operations. This opens up a whole new can of worms and issues. People get bored - they do. Sit at a monitor and wait for something to happen. Issues like job satisfaction, job progression, and skills development come into play. Loss of mode awareness - does the monitoring pilot know what is going on with the system? Pyschological factors - seeing the enemy through the TV screen and watching the missile come closer and closer and kill them. Not only seeing those enemies through a video game-like console, but having to go home to your wife and kids after killing someone 1 hour ago because UAVs can be flown from the US.

Again, UAVs are a big help in TODAY's type of war and that technology will continue to develop to close some of those issue gaps. But is it the right move for the US to focus on UAVs rather than a weapon system that will maintain a tradition of air superiority? I'm not so sure about that.

did i miss the memo that we're stopping all building / deployment on human-piloted aircraft, including f-22's?

what i read in various sources (WSJ, NYT, MercNews) followed pretty much as reported by the AP here http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090406/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/defense_budget.

looks like a shifting of priorities, re-distribution of resources and an attempt to get costs in line with what the current administration believes they should be. doesn't look like the end of the highly desirable human-piloted military aircraft to me.

 

[ca2822]

I never suggested human piloted aicraft were ending. Simply giving some cons to the UAV that a previous post so anxiously credited as the way to go and stopping the F-22 short of what is needed for maintaining future air dominance may or may not be the way to go, only time will tell.

 

[queenlives]

I never suggested human piloted aicraft were ending. Simply giving some cons to the UAV that a previous post so anxiously credited as the way to go and stopping the F-22 short of what is needed for maintaining future air dominance may or may not be the way to go, only time will tell.

corey,

in re-reading your post, i shouldn't have lumped the issues together and stand corrected. at this point in time, who is to say how many of x aircraft are needed over another given the unknowns that lay ahead. i agree with your time will tell perspective... so many unknowns.

hal

 

[BD]

I doubt 5000 F22's could beat enemies like the ones we have today.

Based on what we have seen in Iraq, and Afghanistan I am not confident in saying our Military is capable of a "first round knock out" even in it's current state.

Since you're a historian, you should know that the reason US have won practically every major war is due to our fire power. If there is going to be WWIII, air power will be the key to prevent others to invade continental US.

You can take down what ever air crafts that is man piloted.

Another issue I'm having is the missile defense programs. That to me is actually more important than F22.

I'm all for cleaning out Afghanistan and Iraq, but if I have to balance the budget to decide which to keep, I will make sure that our ass is covered first.

 

[DrVolkl]

Since you're a historian, you should know that the reason US have won practically every major war is due to our fire power. If there is going to be WWIII, air power will be the key to prevent others to invade continental US.

You can take down what ever air crafts that is man piloted.

Another issue I'm having is the missile defense programs. That to me is actually more important than F22.

I'm all for cleaning out Afghanistan and Iraq, but if I have to balance the budget to decide which to keep, I will make sure that our ass is covered first.

Vance... really? The cold war is over...time to bring yourself into the 21st century.

Think of all the body armor and drones that money could buy. Way more useful in our current campaigns.

I wouldn't hold your breathe for WWIII...if theres an arms race at some point, fine, build the thing...but for now, we have F22 attack planes with no one to attack ....

P.S. Vance, they don't make Battleships anymore either...try not to get too upset.

 

[Osiris_x11]

not quite, and here's why...

Before both sides get carried-away, here's the reality: the F-22 program isn't going to just disappear overnight (ie. mothballed/canceled), it'll likely become dormant or on stand-by, so-to-speak. Much like how Reagan reinvigorated the masses for "a 500 ship Navy" after a decade or two of perpetual cuts/down-sizing/etc' in maritime forces by previous administrations.

Why won't the the F-22 program be totally put'down? It goes beyond job-losses & closing/shutdown costs, as such bein' largely tossed around by local/regional politicians & lobbyists for sound-bytes & press-coverage. The real reason is that there are well over ~650 F-15's in the U.S. air-arsenal, of which many will likely succumb to a manufacturing air-frame defect (meaning premature grounding, costly inspections, retrofitting, cost/risk analysis, etc'). The F-15 is slated to be in-action until ~2025, which is reaching at this point (IMHO). The D.O.D. & media have been very conservative & guarded in how/what they've said in the past regarding the F-15 problem'o after xxx hours of flight-time in xxx amount of years of service. But it's a lot more serious & numerous in magnitude than originally assumed/investigated. And that is one of the primary reasons why the F-22 program will have some breaths of life in it, if even on transient life-support for years. Meaning a D.N.R. order won't be issued. . .

Another thing the F-22 has against it is that it can't be a shared/proprietary export. Period. Other advanced weapon systems have been significantly subsidized due to their hardware/equipment sales, maint'/service support, and upgrade/refurb' for years to come. The Pentagon protects us, and it makes a buck or two off it at times. It is what it is. . .

And last, but not least... the J.S.F./F-35 platform will in essence likely achieve about 95% of the tactical goals of the F-22. And for those 5% of instances, enough F-22 squadrons exist.

Yes, I feel the U.S. truly needs an advanced air-supremacy/superiority fighter that is not one but two gen's ahead of what the anyone/anywhere in the world can counter. However, the F-35 variants will bridge the gap tremendously between the roles of the F-16/F-14/F-18 and the maint-stay F-15 (our current air-supremacy/superiority fighter en'masse). Where 600-700+ F-15 type of fighters were needed, now less will be required (meaning less F-22 fighters as they were the default F-15 replacement) due to the progression of the J.S.F./F-35 relative to it's preceding counterparts. All makes sense, don't it?

I won't get into why we even need a single F-22, as I'll save that for another thread if a necessitating topic needs addressed by what I may know (or how little I know, but wish to share)... for those keen for insight, it has to do what happened nearly 50 years ago from a lil' remote spot named Badaber; what transpired was necessary & gave us a reality-check in waking us up. And that's that...

 

[H-carWizKid]

Since you're a historian, you should know that the reason US have won practically every major war is due to our fire power. If there is going to be WWIII, air power will be the key to prevent others to invade continental US.

Where do you concentrate tremendous firepower when your enemy has no country, and there isn't a battlefield to target?

Of what use is an air superiority fighter when the enemy has no airforce other than hijacked airliners?

We deal with fanatics, and extremists today, and the F22 has no place in a war against that sort of enemy.

The funds are better spent on intelligence gathering technologies like spy satellites, or troop body armor to protect our forces on the ground as they perform house to house searches to root out the enemy.

I don't disagree that we need a powerful military, but I do think we could spend our money more wisely.

 

[TC]

As others have pointed out, the F22 isn't being "canceled" or taken out of service, rather the total number of planes to be purchased and put into service will likely be reduced from 203 to 187. Which means that 4 more will be built, rather than 20. In the grand scheme of things, those 16 additional planes - or the lack thereof - probably won't tip the balance of power in any future war scenario.

The F22 has a flawless record in war games like Red Flag. In its first war game, 12 F22's downed 108 enemy planes consisting of F15's and F16's. That's nearly a 10:1 numerical advantage for a plane (F15) that itself has never been shot down in actual combat - yet the F22's prevailed without a single loss. It has been reported that during war games, no enemy plane (like an F15) has ever been able to get a radar lock on an F22.

With a 10x kill rate advantage over the current air superiority fighters, how many F22's do we really need? JMO.

 

[cptnsx]

As an Air Force officer who has worked on the F-22, it really pisses me off for all these arm chair quarterback running their mouth. If you think you know better than us .....then get off your butt and enlist or go to OTS.

It's called asymmetric warfare.......if you can't understand that then you're in the right career field.

Hey idiots.... a war with China and Russia would be nuclear. Plenty of highly ranking officers from all services were against the F-22 (plus other cold war relics). There is only so much money and it means to be allocated properly.

I think Obama and Gates are on the right track. Our Intel budget and assets has been neglected for years. Read the Art of War.

Second the day is coming for UAV period (not for all things). The F-22 already passes the limits of a human being's capabilities.

Vance ......there is something call security classification ......as to what we can tell the public about our capabilities and what we do.....re-read Steveny post.

As someone who also works with and for DOE, I can assure you that you have no clue.

 

[BD]

For those who still think our enemies ONLY comes from caves, think again.

When you have Russia never ending desire to establish them self as a world power control with a czar like figure, China moving closer to financial domination, Iran's desire to have a nuclear bomb, and N. Korea's action to drill us for more money, think again.

F22 will not be taking off the service but the production ends when those in progress units are complete.

This jet is also not for export and it is far more superiors than any jets we have developed. Unman drones, planes will only go so far.

Think again, think very hard.

Remember my original post, F22 is only the beginning.

 

[BD]

It's Your Country Too, Mr. President
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, April 10, 2009

WASHINGTON -- In his major foreign policy address in Prague committing the United States to a world without nuclear weapons, President Obama took note of North Korea's missile launch just hours earlier and then grandiloquently proclaimed:


"Rules must be binding. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something. The world must stand together to prevent the spread of these weapons. Now is the time for a strong international response."

A more fatuous presidential call to arms is hard to conceive. What "strong international response" did Obama muster to North Korea's brazen defiance of a Chapter 7 --"binding," as it were -- U.N. resolution prohibiting such a launch?

The obligatory emergency Security Council session produced nothing. No sanctions. No resolution. Not even a statement. China and Russia professed to find no violation whatsoever. They would not even permit a U.N. statement that dared express "concern," let alone condemnation.

Having thus bravely rallied the international community and summoned the U.N. -- a fiction and a farce, respectively -- what was Obama's further response? The very next day, his defense secretary announced drastic cuts in missile defense, including halting further deployment of Alaska-based interceptors designed precisely to shoot down North Korean ICBMs. Such is the "realism" Obama promised to restore to U.S. foreign policy.

He certainly has a vision. Rather than relying on America's unique technological edge in missile defenses to provide a measure of nuclear safety, Obama will instead boldly deploy the force of example. How? By committing his country to disarmament gestures -- such as, he promised his cheering acolytes in Prague, ratifying the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

Really, now. How does U.S. ratification of that treaty -- which America has, in any case, voluntarily abided by for 17 years -- cause North Korea to cease and desist, and cause Iran to turn nukes into plowshares?

Obama's other great enthusiasm is renewing disarmament talks with Russia. Good grief. Of all the useless sideshows. Cut each of our arsenals in half and both countries could still, in Churchill's immortal phrase, "make the rubble bounce."

There's little harm in engaging in talks about redundant nukes because there is nothing of consequence at stake. But Obama seems not even to understand that these talks are a gift to the Russians for whom a return to anachronistic Reagan-era START talks is a return to the glory of U.S.-Soviet summitry.

I'm not against gift-giving in international relations. But it would be nice to see some reciprocity. Obama was in a giving mood throughout Europe. While Gordon Brown was trying to make his American DVDs work and the queen was rocking to her new iPod, the rest of Europe was enjoying a more fulsome Obama gift.

Our president came bearing a basketful of mea culpas. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own people for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness, for genocide, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantanamo and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

And what did he get for this obsessive denigration of his own country? He wanted more NATO combat troops in Afghanistan to match the surge of 17,000 Americans. He was rudely rebuffed.

He wanted more stimulus spending from Europe. He got nothing.

From Russia, he got no help on Iran. From China, he got the blocking of any action on North Korea.

And what did he get for Guantanamo? France, pop. 64 million, will take one prisoner. One! (Sadly, he'll have to leave his swim buddy behind.) The Austrians said they would take none. As Interior Minister Maria Fekter explained with impeccable Germanic logic, if they're not dangerous, why not just keep them in America?

When Austria is mocking you, you're having a bad week. Yet who can blame Frau Fekter, considering the disdain Obama showed his own country while on foreign soil, acting the philosopher-king who hovers above the fray mediating between his renegade homeland and an otherwise warm and welcoming world?

After all, it was Obama, not some envious anti-American leader, who noted with satisfaction that a new financial order is being created today by 20 countries, rather than by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy." And then added: "But that's not the world we live in, and it shouldn't be the world that we live in."

It is passing strange for a world leader to celebrate his own country's decline. A few more such overseas tours, and Obama will have a lot more decline to celebrate.



Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

[H-carWizKid]

For those who still think our enemies ONLY comes from caves, think again.

When you have Russia never ending desire to establish them self as a world power control with a czar like figure, China moving closer to financial domination, Iran's desire to have a nuclear bomb, and N. Korea's action to drill us for more money, think again.

F22 will not be taking off the service but the production ends when those in progress units are complete.

This jet is also not for export and it is far more superiors than any jets we have developed. Unman drones, planes will only go so far.

Think again, think very hard.

Remember my original post, F22 is only the beginning.

I think you missed the point of many of the earlier posts.

We fight man to man with extremists, and fanatics. Our existing airforce is developing toward that need (things like UAVs for battlefield spotting ect)

For the threat with Russia, and China we have these things called intercontinental ballistic missiles. Amazing things really. Unfortunately the bad guys have them too, and we all sleep at night knowing that the nuclear nations are capable of mutually assured destruction.

The game that is played is called "brinkmanship". Russia already flinched once.

P

 

[john@johnhudakracing]

It's ok, the economy will still thrive. They can just sell the raptors to China........

I'll have to mention it around the halls, who knows- maybe Bill or Paul would be interested in picking one up for the ultimate in ego, or I mean air superiority.

Crap, I hope it is not too late to place my order. I'll take one and paint it spa yellow and have it duck behind enemy lines and drop skittles, or do my own fly-by before pre-grid at the next race.

They aren't that bad, what are they like ten grand an hour to operate?

I got it... I got it... it's here in my wad just give me a moment. :biggrin:

 

[H-carWizKid]

They aren't that bad, what are they like ten grand an hour to operate?

I got it... I got it... it's here in my wad just give me a moment. :biggrin:

LoL

P