This is bad

Discussion in 'Modern' started by thewritingwriter89, Jan 3, 2009.

  1. thewritingwriter89

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2008
    Messages:
    113
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Occupation:
    Student
    Location:
    In a small space capsule
    This sucks. I saw a news report on FOX that just sickened me. There were several politicians that decided that the F-22 wasn't needed because it hadn't flown any combat missions. These morons completely miss the point. The best weapon is the kind you never have to use. The F-22 is a symbol of American excellence, and a deterent against aggressive action toward the US. I think we should start a petition to save it. :evil:





    Orlando Sentinel February 22, 2008

    Pentagon F-22 cuts may be felt in Orlando area
    Lockheed Martin says production could be halted by the end of this year on the stealth fighter jets.
    In-Depth Coverage By Richard Burnett

    Proposed Pentagon spending cuts on the F-22 stealth fighter jet have stirred questions about the program's long-term future, including some key work being done by contractors in Central Florida, company officials said Thursday.

    The Defense Department's latest budget plan for fiscal 2009 contains a significant shortfall for the F-22, which could trigger a shutdown of production this year, according to prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp.

    Though the final assembly is done in Marietta, Ga., Lockheed Martin's Orlando-based missiles and simulation-training units also produce critical systems for the F-22 Raptor. Melbourne-based Harris Corp. is another big subcontractor, and the F-22 work also involves numerous smaller suppliers in the region.

    Overall, hundreds of high-tech jobs in Central Florida and thousands of jobs in 44 states are tied to the multibillion-dollar F-22 program. Including all contracts, it is the largest single defense program in Florida, according to local economic development agencies.

    But the Pentagon has now axed the number of F-22 stealth fighters it plans to buy and cut back certain "long-lead" supply money for the next several years. The cuts were part of the Bush administration's proposed 2009 budget introduced this month.

    Lockheed Martin officials say the proposal could cripple efforts to complete the work.

    "Among other things, the budget does not include the advance money we need to keep our supply chain in place," said Rob Fuller, spokesman for Lockheed Martin Aeronautics, based in Fort Worth, Texas. "Without that, our production lines would be shut down by the end of 2008. And since there's nothing in the budget for shutdown costs, this program overall is really in limbo right now."

    Until the funding issues are resolved, however, it will be business as usual for the F-22 program, the company said.

    For example, Lockheed was awarded a $183 million Air Force contract this week to provide maintenance, logistics and other support services to the F-22 fleet.

    That could also mean additional work for Lockheed's Missiles Fire Control unit based in south Orlando, officials said. The missiles unit is building the F-22's missile detection system.

    Lockheed's training technology unit in east Orlando produces certain flight-simulator training and courseware for F-22 pilots, who train at Tyndale Air Force Base in the Panhandle.

    Harris Corp.'s Melbourne operation builds the F-22's high-speed fiber-optic cockpit communications system. The company has received hundreds of millions of dollars in F-22 related contracts since the program began in the early 1990s.

    But the F-22 has been a controversial effort from the start. It is the costliest fighter jet in military history, at about $175 million per copy, budget documents show. The Pentagon has cut billions of dollars and hundreds of aircraft in the program in the past 15 years.

    The current budget supports production of 183 F-22s, down from the original request of about 700.

    Air Force officials are still pushing for money that would produce 380 F-22 fighter jets to replace the aging F-15 Eagle fleet, which had to be grounded last year because of technical problems.

    Critics of the F-22 argue that the military should speed up funding and production of the Joint Strike Fighter -- another Lockheed program -- that is a less costly, next-generation aircraft. Critics say it is wasteful to pour billions into two fighter jet programs at the same time.

    But defense expert John Pike said it is not likely that F-22 production will shut down any time soon.

    "I think Lockheed and the F-22 supporters are going to argue that the production line should remain open at least one more year so the next president will be able to make the decision on what will be done," said Pike, president of Globalsecurity.org, a defense research firm in Washington. "And I think they have enough friends on Capitol Hill that will make that argument work for them."



    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    © Copyright 2008, Orlando Sentinel
     
  2. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
    There's a pissing contest going on between Congress and the Pentagon. Congress has OK'd 5 more airframes in this fiscal year, but the Pentagon is playing games with the funding. Until they reach some resolution on the total number needed, this is going to go on for a while.
     
  3. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The AF is selling its soul for the F-22 and F-35. I believe the aircraft will be procured, we might see the B-52 or B-1 go away first. IMO the F-117A still had some life but again I think costs dictated its retirement and the desire for the F-22 and F-35. Time will tell.
     
  4. ratdog

    ratdog Member

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2008
    Messages:
    90
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    gainesville ga
    there are some words being exchanged about the B-2 going away before the B-1 and the reason nobody has truly attacked the mainland US with military craft since WWII is because of our extraordinary air force and carrier fleets to protect us and the F-22 is part of that system
     
  5. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK

    Very true, but the last attack on US soil, and probably the next one too, were made by means that an F-22 could do nothing to stop... why spend the money on weapons that do not fit the war you are fighting? The money spent on a single F-22 airframe would buy an incredible amount of border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again. It wouldn't look as sexy or an intimidating as a Raptor, but it would probably save many more lives.

    The situation is much the same here with our new aircraft carriers - I can't imagine what use they're going to be in the future, but we could have used that money to combat the radicalisation of young Muslims, or even to give our Army in Afghanistan more of the tools they need to do their job. I think many countries, with the terrorist threat on one hand and the economic downturn on the other, will start cutting funds for high-tech, high-unit-cost systems that don't answer the needs of the situation at hand.
     
  6. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    I don't know where you're getting that from but I seriously doubt it. The B-2 fleet still has way more life hours left on it than the B1 fleet. Additionally the cost to operate the B-2 is less than the B-1. If anything the B-52 will go first.
     
  7. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The reason why the USAF wants an aircraft like the F-22 is to maintain a total air superiority fighter force that will actually be smaller and easier to maintain and have longer longevity than the current F-15 fleet. Right now the "big mission" in the US are areas like you stated (border control, CIA time, whatever needs to be done to stop terrorists from striking the US again) but those items could be easily covered with way less sophisticated equipment on the short term. The world is very dynamic, 20 years ago the requirement for the F-22 was priority, 20 years from now that requirement could be back in place. I rather see it paid for now than wished for later.
     
  8. Burmese Bandit

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    One word: the ABL (Airborne Laser).

    Want a system that will prevent sneak attacks by a salvo of cheap homebuilt cruise missiles launched from a ship offshore by terrorists?

    ABL!

    Want a system that can stop tac nukes?

    ABL!

    Want a system that can shoot down low earth orbit satellites?

    ABL!

    Want a system that can self deploy to almost any hot spot in the world?

    ABL!

    Want a system that can patrol the border between two states BOTH of whom the US needs (read: India and Pakistan) but who might just start a nuclear pissing contest with each other, and can tell BOTH of them to "cool it or we'll shoot the toys of BOTH you guys out of the air even as you launch them"?

    ABL!

    Want a system that doesn't need to evade any missiles or planes that come after it, 'cos it can fry them from 100 miles out?

    ABL!

    Yep, the ABL is the way to go. We need to spend more to research and perfect this thing. If we can truly make it work, everyotherthing everyoneelse has will be obsolete.
     
  9. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope

    Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope

    Will it stop insurgents planting IEDs and killing NATO troops in Baghdad/Basra/Helmand? Nope

    Will it stop Iran/N. Korea developing nuclear weapons? Nope

    Will it p*ss Moscow off even more than ABMs already have and re-ignite the Cold War arms race, consuming billions of tax dollars in the process? You betcha

    All ABL will do is create new problems (i.e increasing hostility from Moscow/Beijing), while doing nothing to solve existing ones. And consume vast amounts of money which could be better spent elsewhere, militarily, economically and socially.

    FlyboyJ, I see your point about replacing F-15, and understand the need for the USAF to have air superiority capability. I think the key issue in these most recent cuts is how much capability the USAF needs vs. how much capability the govt. is willing to pay for. As ever, the political paycheck will be smaller than the generals want, although in this case I can see good reason for that course of action
     
  10. Burmese Bandit

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    491
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Will ABL stop guys hijacking airliners? Nope And neither will F-22 or any other airplane.

    Will it stop terrorists detonating nukes hidden in suitcases/trucks/etc? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. Ditto

    Will it stop insurgents planting IEDs and killing NATO troops in Baghdad/Basra/Helmand? Nope B]And neither will F-22 or any other airplane. Ditto

    Will it stop Iran/N. Korea developing nuclear weapons? Nope BUT it can provide cover for Israel and Japan from the delivery systems of those weapons

    Will it p*ss Moscow off even more than ABMs already have and re-ignite the Cold War arms race, consuming billions of tax dollars in the process? You betcha And just how is Moscow going to counter this without spending its own tax dollars...and I recall the last time Moscow went into a money pissing contest with the West...bankruptcy city!
     
  11. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Those in the USAF will always want state of the the art and will settle for nothing less - I hate to say it, they want their cake and eat it too!
     
  12. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    While and ABL is an effective weapons system, in the end there will be a need for advanced fighter and strike aircraft. An effective ABL is still several years off even if its fully funded.
     
  13. Soundbreaker Welch?

    Soundbreaker Welch? Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2006
    Messages:
    1,900
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Occupation:
    Still a student
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    The US is in trouble because of Wall Street. If the crisis gets worse, the US will start to lose it's superpower status.

    Not having enough money to build F-22's is a part of that. This fighter is after all an air superiority fighter, and without it we may find ourselves in trouble down the road.


    Will the F-22 become like the Me 262, too little, too late?
     
  14. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    BB, I'm not supporting additional F-22s, so we agree on the first three points. Much better, IMHO, to spend the money somewhere else altogether.

    As for defending Israel and Japan from 'enemy' nukes, that is a valid point, but do you feel that US interests in those countries justifies expenditure on such a system to defend them? Or would you have them contribute to the development/procurement processes and costs?

    For the final point... do you actually want the Cold War to start again? The failure of Soviet Communism was much more complicated than a simple bankruptcy bought on by arms building, and the Putin regime is an entirely different animal to the Gorbachev administration. Under Putin, Russia is more financially secure than it was twenty years ago, and much more in control of the natural resources which secure it's economy. Russia has felt less relative effect from the global downturn than the US - now is not a sensible time for the US to be picking fights with other major powers, IMHO.

    And, honestly, do folks round here want a new Cold War with Russia? I get that impression sometimes from things I see on these forums, and it almost beggars belief that after decades of waking up every morning wondering if it would be the last, the US seems to want to go back to that. It also strikes me that if the US does want a return to the Cold War, it might well go on it's own - I can't see any European states being up for a return to the days of MAD. Nor, for that matter, can I see Obama taking the US there, but in four years time he might not be in a position to make that decision.
     
  15. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
  16. BombTaxi

    BombTaxi Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2004
    Messages:
    1,907
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Location:
    Barnsley, S. Yorks, UK
    I am always happy to be corrected 8) But the question still stands - what is there to gain from a new Cold War? Even if the Russian economy is broken, it's US counterpart is not in the rudest of health, and neither side would benefit from pouring money into a new arms race. It would increase discontent on both sides - and if you are counting on Russia cracking before the US does, that is a very dangerous game to play with a society.
     
  17. drgondog

    drgondog Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2006
    Messages:
    7,359
    Likes Received:
    561
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Executive, Consulting
    Location:
    Scurry, Texas
    The DoD will be cut by Obama - as every Dem has done in office including Roosevelt until war was upon us.
     
  18. Clay_Allison

    Clay_Allison Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Messages:
    1,203
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Last I heard they wanted to keep the B-52 through 2040.
     
  19. FLYBOYJ

    FLYBOYJ "THE GREAT GAZOO"
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    23,197
    Likes Received:
    779
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Occupation:
    Aircraft Maintenance Manager/ Flight Instructor
    Location:
    Colorado, USA
    Wishful thinking if the AF want to keep the F-22 and F-35 alive.
     
  20. Matt308

    Matt308 Glock Perfection
    Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    Messages:
    20,140
    Likes Received:
    54
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Occupation:
    Engineer
    Location:
    Washington State
    They keep trying to resurrect the BUFF as an AF ECM platform. But that has failed two times in the last 3yrs. And at face value, it does seem kinda silly given the other civil derived platforms that are much cheaper to maintain.

    Besides the AF is pushing for a modernized bomber/ISR platform post B-2. Doesn't make sense to support so many different airframes.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. horseUSA
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    569
  2. Njaco
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    1,278
  3. Njaco
    Replies:
    109
    Views:
    5,658
  4. v2
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,164
  5. vanir
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    3,354

Share This Page