# U.S. Senate votes to stop production of F-22 jet.



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jul 21, 2009)

> *U.S. Senate votes to stop production of F-22 jet*
> 
> By Andy Sullivan Andy Sullivan – 47 mins ago
> 
> ...



U.S. Senate votes to stop production of F-22 jet - Yahoo! News


----------



## Amsel (Jul 21, 2009)

Well we saved a billion dollars which is a drop in the bucket to what our weekly spending is. After the Iran war is done with I guess we will be able to see if there is a need for the F-22.


----------



## Glider (Jul 21, 2009)

What I am waiting for is a decision to put the A10 back into production. They are ideal for this type of combat and a cheap to build.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

This is one decision I actually agree with - we're only talking 6 additional aircraft in the current budget. I think in the end we're going to find the F-35 a lot more capable than first advertised.


----------



## lesofprimus (Jul 21, 2009)

> Critics point out that each hour of flight time requires 30 hours of maintenance and say the plane is a relic of Cold War military strategy.


Relic of the Cold War????

Havent any of these people been informed that within the next 10 years we'll be at War in the Pacific???

Interesting little observation on the F-35 Joe.... We wont really know what its true capabilities are until it gets into combat and proves itself against some similarly capable enemy aircraft.... Speaking of which, has the F-22 gotten any confirmed kills yet???


----------



## Amsel (Jul 21, 2009)

I think the odds are very good that a huge air war is going to happen this year in the Middle East. I think the US will have plenty of support from NATO countries as well as Russia though. Some analysts are saying that this could lead to an exchange of Georgia for Iran with the Russians, or even a split of Iran similar to 1945 Germany. Air superiority, I believe continues to be a #1 priority. I am not too sure of the capabilities of the F-22, but we should maintain our superiority at all costs.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

lesofprimus said:


> Interesting little observation on the F-35 Joe.... We wont really know what its true capabilities are until it gets into combat and proves itself against some similarly capable enemy aircraft.... Speaking of which, has the F-22 gotten any confirmed kills yet???


Quite true on both accounts, remember this - the F-22 was actually developed in the mid/ late 1980s. The F-35 took a lot of the base technology and improved upon it in the mid/ late 90s. Not only was more "stuff" stuffed into a smaller airframe, there were a lot of lessons learned during the F-35 development.

"Minnie Me" (as the F-35 was called out at EDW) will have some big shoes to fill. I still think we'll have plenty of F-22s around in the short term, but I wouldn't throw away the tooling, especially if we see China start building aircraft carriers.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 21, 2009)

Spending so many time and money n developing teh most powerful fighter aircraft and then not producing it fully dont seems very wise, however is clear that the today US and Wolrd economy is really bad.

Is any infomation about how many has been manufactured so far ?


----------



## Soundbreaker Welch? (Jul 21, 2009)

It's true the F-22 sounds neat, but I'm not sure we would have an absolute ned for it, unless we were going up against a real powerful country like Russia or China. 

If we did get involved with a war with Iran, hopefully the fighters we have right now, and the upcoming F-35, can take care of the problem.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 21, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Spending so many time and money n developing teh most powerful fighter aircraft and then not producing it fully dont seems very wise, however is clear that the today US and Wolrd economy is really bad.
> 
> Is any infomation about how many has been manufactured so far ?



About 141...

Not to go on a political tangent here but the production of a weapons system like the F-22 induces thousands of high paying jobs from the prime contractor, to subcontractors, to small mom and pop shops, let alone to business benefiting by those working on the F-22. Some say the money could be better spent on social programs but when you look at the employment base of F-22 workers and the affect they have on a community, I think its a close call...

All this fuss is still over 6 additional aircraft.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 21, 2009)

... and don't forget that Japan is still pining for her. Heavily. Even with the congressional ban, I suspect that there are some games afoot that keeping the line open a little longer might allow some political wrangling to ultimately allow Japan (and perhaps Isreal) to purchase the F-22 (or F-22 lite).

With the Chicoms and NKs flexing muscle, we are increasingly likely to make a change in policy. It is interesting to note that Japan is asking for an air superiority fighter replacement that is currently fielded by their F-4EJs and are also one of the few nations that is NOT asking for source code access. I say sell it to them with a US maintenance package to hide stealth technology and keep the line open for potential future war activities that may crop up in the next 10-15 years. The maintenance package is the stalling point. The stealth coating is likely the area that is difficult to sell without giving away trade secrets. 30 years old or not.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

The Aussies also want the F-22.


----------



## river (Jul 21, 2009)

Hi,



Clay_Allison said:


> The Aussies also want the F-22.



Yes... and we could probably only afford 5 or 6 of them. Considering the size of Australia, a handful of F-22s isn't really going to go very far. I think we should keep the Caribous and put cannons on them.

What's this talk about a major war in the Pacific? Who will be fighting who? And why?

If you are going to lock horns with Russia or China then I don't think fighters and bombers are going to do much, nor wold they be needed. I would assume that ICBMs are the bad asses you would use in such a conflict. 

river


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

I think both sides of any engagement between the US and China or Russia would prefer any outcome to nuclear war.


----------



## Torch (Jul 21, 2009)

Everything I've read about the F-35 is that it's capable electronics wise but lacking in a "dogfighting mode", too many different variables in one design. I know stealth, radar,sensors are important but we always seem to forget that when the poop hits the fan and you go to guns you need a plane that can do it and it looks like they are making excuses for it already. I sure hope it's not the case.


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 21, 2009)

Torch said:


> Everything I've read about the F-35 is that it's capable electronics wise but lacking in a "dogfighting mode", too many different variables in one design. I know stealth, radar,sensors are important but we always seem to forget that when the poop hits the fan and you go to guns you need a plane that can do it and it looks like they are making excuses for it already. I sure hope it's not the case.


That's my worry as well.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 22, 2009)

That is a valid worry. Unless you can supplement the F-35 with knife-fight platforms, you do have somewhat of a compromise. However, don't underestimate the force multiplier that the F-35 brings to the battlespace. Tactics will likely evolve over the next 20 years on how to best apply this platforms capabilities.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 22, 2009)

The single biggest issue to me is this. For this moment in time our aviation technology (and technologists) are still the best in the world. It is our ONLY manufacturing edge.

When those engineers (andtooling, and bond specialists, etc) are laid off, Obama's 'shovel ready jobsprograms' are not adequate to park those guys with IRREPLACEABLE experience and knowledge - and you don't just 'relocate' to the F-35 lines.

Our national debt Interest paid to China is 'free money' for the biggest arms and technology build up the world has seen since WWII - in China. At this rate our edge in aerospace will disappear shortly - and we will be FAR behind in manufacturing base as GM, and Lockheed, and Chrysler, etc continue to either wither away or go offshore because labor costs are too high in union shops.

I believe RPV's are the wave of the future but they also introduce hackable controls from either land based cyber tech - or space based control of high ground weapon systems.


----------



## beaupower32 (Jul 22, 2009)

I say we get rid of all this fancy technology and bring back WW2 Warbirds. How great would that be to see warbirds hunting the skys again. No missles, limited radar. Just pilot, plane, and guns.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2009)

drgondog said:


> The single biggest issue to me is this. For this moment in time our aviation technology (and technologists) are still the best in the world. It is our ONLY manufacturing edge.
> 
> When those engineers (andtooling, and bond specialists, etc) are laid off, Obama's 'shovel ready jobsprograms' are not adequate to park those guys with IRREPLACEABLE experience and knowledge - *and you don't just 'relocate' to the F-35 lines*.


Bingo! I think the only salvation the F-22 program will have is the chance of foreign sales, and yes, do not destroy the tooling.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2009)

> About 141...
> 
> Not to go on a political tangent here but the production of a weapons system like the F-22 induces thousands of high paying jobs from the prime contractor, to subcontractors, to small mom and pop shops, let alone to business benefiting by those working on the F-22. Some say the money could be better spent on social programs but when you look at the employment base of F-22 workers and the affect they have on a community, I think its a close call...
> 
> All this fuss is still over 6 additional aircraft.



Thanks, 141 Raptors is not such a bad number after all.



> Bingo! I think the only salvation the F-22 program will have is the chance of foreign sales, and yes, do not destroy the tooling.



Hmmm, honestly I can imagine the US senate giving permition to sell f-22s other than the Uk and I dont see the UK interested on it.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Jul 22, 2009)

CharlesBronson said:


> Thanks, 141 Raptors is not such a bad number after all.


Actually the entire fleet will be 187 aircraft


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 22, 2009)

> Actually the entire fleet will be 187 aircraft



46 more reasons to the foreign countries for not bother the USAF and the USA


----------



## Clay_Allison (Jul 24, 2009)

beaupower32 said:


> I say we get rid of all this fancy technology and bring back WW2 Warbirds. How great would that be to see warbirds hunting the skys again. No missles, limited radar. Just pilot, plane, and guns.


for about half an hour...

on the other hand I still think the Mustang is the perfect COIN aircraft for hunting and strafing terrorists.


----------

