This is bad

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

thewritingwriter89

Airman 1st Class
101
1
Nov 5, 2008
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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


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.
 
there are some words being exchanged about the B-2 going away before the B-1
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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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!
 
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
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!
 
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!
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.
 
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?
 
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!

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.
 
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.
 
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 F-22 is all about China in 2020 - not asymetrical warfare - we need a force multiplier to replace the F-15/F-18/F-16 force at that time.

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.

The DoD will be cut by Obama - as every Dem has done in office including Roosevelt until war was upon us.
 
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.
Last I heard they wanted to keep the B-52 through 2040.
 
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.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back