Pajamas Media

37 Comments

1. Ozzie:

Planes that do constant combat turns in training and in combat have a shorter lifespan than bombers. Although the child of a B-52 pilot could realistically fly the same plane his dad flew, jet fighters are not designed to work that way. The F-22 is meant to primarily replace the F-15 fleet. I remember reading about a F-15 training crash where the center strut broke apart during a turn and the aircraft fell apart. It’s not just trying to stay ahead of emerging threats like China and Russia (again /sigh) but also replacing aircraft that need to be replaced. The Air Force has already made great sacrafices to obtain as many as possible. They cut around thousands of positions to divert the money to aquiring more planes, even though that made the whole Air Force job a lot harder on those that were left.

The F-22 is not the B-2. It is not a waste of money. It’s the best combat jet aircraft in the world, and the world is an incresingly dangerous place. We need it. Forget the jobs aspect.

Feb 5, 2009 - 2:41 am 2. Marc Malone:

Ha! Just think: How many of the guys working in this field voted for Obama? I just bet they are really regretting their vote, now. You guys want a do-over? Ha!

Maybe, they’ll partially fund it, and the bosses can go out to the parking lot and lay off the guys with Obama stickers on their bumpers. Nope. Can’t do it. Unions. Well, it’ll really hurt the country in so many ways, but… screw ‘em. The unions support the Dems. Let them reap the whirlwind. That’ll learn ‘em. Well, no, probably not.

I sure get grumpy this time of night. Time for bed.

Feb 5, 2009 - 2:50 am 3. typos_R_us:

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, designed and built to replace the F-15 and sort of a modern day version of the P-51 of WW2 fame. It is stealthy enough and has the range to escort the B-2 to the target and back.
If it is canceled, it will be the fault of the US Air Force.
The Morons running the Air Farce made the decision to change the role of the F-22 from air superiority to jack of all trades a few years before the prototypes were built. This meant the entire design had to go back almost to the beginning. It doubled the cost and added years to the delivery time. That is why there are only several dozen built today instead of the 400 or so requested.
Not that it matters. Obama the Usurper isn’t going to fight any wars. At least not overseas. Once the Civil War starts, he will fight, but he will be fighting against the people using F-22’s so he really doesn’t want any more built.
ACORN types don’t have the intellect or drive to use hi-tech weapons.
What is dangerous is that the ENTIRE US military machine is built around control of the airspace over the battlefield. The F-22 would give the US military that control for the next 50 years. Without air superiority, the US Army is out numbered and under armed.

Feb 5, 2009 - 3:21 am 4. Brian:

The F-22 is a fine aircraft with capabilities far beyond that of an F-35. If you gave a pilot a choice between taking an F-22 into air combat or an F-35 (also a great plane) the F-35 would stay on the tarmac.
The defense industry is a outstanding way to invigorate the economy and create jobs in the private sector (if the stimulus plan is really about that). Its win-win, it creates jobs and improves national security.
Shipbuilding in this country is in shambles. The fleet is shrinking at an incredible rate, ship yards have closed their doors since Clinton took office due to lack of orders. This infrustructure is lost and would be difficult to regain. Many are probably not aware that many parts on navy vessels are purchased from foriegn countries. Mexican labor is used to create large segments of ships and European countries are fabricating many of the components. While the US industry has laid off there work force and closed doors. I know personally at one US ship yard where the ships are actually being designed by Mexican engineers! Talk about lack of interest and oversight by the government and Navy.
At the present pace of building our fleet would be lucky to keep 200 ships in the water, while the Chinese have expanded production and infrustructure at a huge pace and our leaving us in the dust.

Feb 5, 2009 - 4:41 am 5. Horace Wells:

I am so surptised, NOT. Nothing brings out the love for government spending more in a con than some new weapons systems to salivate over. Toss some more red meat into the cage!

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:12 am 6. Paul:

Skip the F-22, the problem with the Air Force is that it’s run by people who used to fly fighter jets and they’re having a really hard time accepting that UAVs are the future. The air superiority fighter of the future will be unmanned, stealthier, lighter, faster and able to perform high-G maneuvers that would turn a human pilor into jelly. Let’s start working on those now and we’ll have a military advantage for the next 50 years at least.

Feb 5, 2009 - 7:10 am 7. ModerateWarrior:

I have flow/served/fought in action against everything from large enemy Air Forces to killing terrorists to flying cover for peacekeeping as well as the UN, I must applaud Jennifer Rubin of PJ media! F-22s are as necessary as nuke subs, HUMVEEs and bullet-proof vests. SecDef MUST Stop engaging in “THIS WAR” myopia!! We MUST INVEST in modernizing all of the military to defend us against danger in the entire spectrum of potential conflict. The F-22 and its brother the F-35 will deter and if necessary win a conventional conflict and prevent those conflicts from going nuclear. Problem is that 183 is not enough F-22s!! Our nation’s AF needs 60-200 more F-22s and over 30 classified campaign studies validate that requirement. The uniformed leaders of the AF and Navy sacrificed much of their core modernization to help their sister services fight the current 2 wars. Let’s not repeat the huge mistakes of the post-VietNam era. Lets keep the jobs associated for vital equipment that our military needs rather than building dog parks and carbon capture science projects doomed to failure.

@Paul–You know not what you speak of… UAVs/UCAVs are flying targets without protection from F-22s. Look up the story of the armed Predator that lost in air battle to a MiG-25.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:18 am 8. always right:

#5. Horace Wells@Feb 5, 2009 – 6:12 am
Nothing brings out the love for government spending more in a con than some new weapons systems to salivate over.

Didn’t you read the article? The author is talking about one stimulus spending that make sense. Instead of all that nonsense that infested the current Porkfest.

Feb 5, 2009 - 9:54 am 9. mwl:

It would be especially silly to cancel the F-22 now. The only money that would be saved would be the actual cost of building the aircraft, which is dwarfed by the R&D costs of the program. Ending the program would be flushing that R&D investment down the toilet. Defense spending is a great way to save American jobs without blatant protectionist measures that would provoke a trade war.

While UAVs are more nimble and stealthy than piloted jets, they are too vulnerable for air superiority. The communication link can be jammed, and delayed reactions from the lightspeed lag of the link would be fatal.

Feb 5, 2009 - 10:50 am 10. Kevin:

#5 Horace,
That is a well-reasoned, carefully measured retort. I loved how you deftly used the “red-meat in the cage” analogy – to insinuate that red-staters are violent by nature. Your subtle dismissal of the Constitutional duty of our nation to provide for the common defense is a thing of beauty. Simply virtuoso, my liberal friend. Oh, that I could casually scuttle with a flourish of well-crafted words the certainty of the creation of thousands of well-paying (and tax-paying) jobs! The way the words flow off of your keyboard tells me you are perhaps a sociology major? English lit? Ahhh, to be so wise and worldly.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:16 am 11. cedarford:

As typos-r-us mentioned, one big drawback to the F-22 is the horrific cost, which has steadily risen by AF goldplating and efforts to make it a multirole fighter, inc. ground attack function (F-22G was born after 9/11, advertised as the premier “stealthy” ground attack platform – against stone age “Terrahist Evildoers).

The out of control costs, delays to add more bells and whistles – properly do bring into question the large F-22 fleet once planned – given we still have active F-16 and F-18 Superhornet fighter lines also ongoing and the upcoming F-35 fighter line. There is also high promise for unmanned fighters without all the drawbacks of a pilot limiting maneuvers. Many believe the F-22 and Sukhoi will be the 1st and last fighter planes of their generation – the next Gen will be smaller, cheaper, far more nimble unmanned aerial combat vehicles.

ModestWarrior – @Paul–You know not what you speak of… UAVs/UCAVs are flying targets without protection from F-22s. Look up the story of the armed Predator that lost in air battle to a MiG-25.
Actually, Paul is right and you are wrong. He is referring to unmanned fighters now in design. You are referring to unmanned scout/light ground attack vehicles incapable of defending themselves against a pilot in a Piper Cub armed with a shotgun, let alone taking out another aircraft, even a helo.

Gates and others at defense also have to consider needs perhaps far more urgent than the F-22 and coincidentally providing far more jobs to both skilled and modestly skilled workers.

1. Capital ship construction, which has suffered so much under Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II’s obsession with “evildoers” as the only threat that we are not matching China’s construction of subs and missile boats and are in serious danger of losing our qualitative knowledge and worker edge in submarines and other naval design and construction.

Our Coast Guard does a tremendous job, but on vessels long intended to be replaced – (If we considered the Coast Guard a Navy, it would be amongst the oldest average age vessels operating, even in the 3rd World). The replacement deferred or put off in the Bush I, Clinton and Bush II Administrations.

2. In his WOT, with millions of air-hours spent sending US planes on long-range and frequent missions – Bush II happily burned out much of America’s existing airframe life of not just fighters, but also of critical logistic AF tanker life, bomber air hours, and cargo planes. And he did not replace those planes he “burned up” or shortened the lifespans of remaining cert. air hours…..too many tax cuts and supply side IOUs to China to spend on AF and Navy air mission equipment he used up.

3. The Army and Marines also have a critical mission Equipment Replacement Reset estimated to now cost 150 billion to replace all the vehicles, helos, base and soldier equipment destroyed by enemy or ruined by overuse or envirinment damage in the long Iraq and Afghanistan Wars as well as uptempo ops at other bases. As well as replacing equipment given to WOT “allies” like the noble Iraqis, the Afghan “Freedom lovers”, the “courageous” Filipino or Georgian or Pakistani Armed Forces.
Bush II pushed all that – replacing the tanks, Bradleys, Humvees, Apaches, getting rid of heavy armor on many only added for Occupation duty, burned-out radars and patrol craft – to future taxpayers.

4. To get people to enlist during two largely unpopular wars, Bush II really had to lard up the benefits and pay of “the Heroes”, almost to sumptuous levels in war zone duty – which sucked money away from other needs of the Armed Forces for unexpected new volunteer military manpower costs. This is by far the largest Pentagon expense, and explains why so little capital investment happened in the last 8 years as defense budgets welled. Money diverted to manpower and to unique challenges of insurgency – while military resources needed to fight nation-states got relatively litte.

And that is what the 140 million a plane F-22s have to compete against for dollars. It is now up against a lot of other military priorities neglected during Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II, and also up against a large number of non-military priorities and other means of using stimulous money to create jobs.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:42 am 12. AlexinCT:

Kevin @ 10, maybe Horace @5 is an arts major and cant help but feel protecting the country is secondary to providing people like him with cash to support the life style? Horace obviously feels it is a damned waste to spend on our defense, which the constitution actually allows the federal government to collect taxes for, and which also creates high paying jobs that give the government tons of tax money. People that talk like him would prefer the money to be spend on things like fighting poverty. After all, we have only sunk over $15 trillion into that the past 4 decades and created an entire class of people that live of the fruits of other people’s labor. There is room for many more people to live off the government’s largesse (with tax payer money of course). Besides, we all know that defense jobs are evil.

The F-22 is a key component of the US strategy since WWII, which is to dominate the air over any battle field so our troops can be more effective, and a necessary expense if we want to keep China at bay in the coming decade. As someone already pointed out here UAVs will be the future of aerial combat, but the Obama people are not planning to build any of those either. Let us not make the same mistakes of the Carter years please. Carter too canceled some critical programs, claiming that something else would replace the existing weapons platform with better technology in the future or that that weapons platform (strategic bombers for example) were obsolete. Had Reagan not been elected 4 years later to rebuild the military I am certain we would all be planting potatoes for the USSR on whatever soil was left unpolluted by radiation. Instead the money cut during the Carter years went to expand government handouts to people that choose not to work. Obama is planning to do the same. Democrats tend to not believe much in the Constitutional limitations of what the federal government is allowed to collect taxes for – like defense. They prefer big social programs, they claim it is to “help” people, but which they back specifically because they believe that the programs will create big dependant voter blocks that will have to pull the lever for the people with a (D) next to their name into perpetuity.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:04 pm 13. jake_von'MN:

The worlds most advanced technology is developed by the military and military contractors. They employ the brightest people in the entire world.

It is so foolish for democrats to not fund the military. Technological developments made for the military could easily make the dems dream for a “green” America real. Heck we wouldn’t know anywhere near as much about the atmosphere (global warming anyone?) as we know now if the military hadn’t funded testing. The military needed to know about the upper atmosphere so their high-altitude bombers would work properly.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:42 pm 14. Ms. Attitude:

5. Horace Wells….such a ditz…I suppose you would rather the same money be spent on welfare for the same people that would be working and building up our defense. You should realize that Obama’s goal is to make the entire nation fail so that we all become reliant on him.

Feb 5, 2009 - 12:49 pm 15. Blackwater:

The F-22 is an AMAZING aircraft. It will very probably be the best manned fighter jet EVER made. It guarantees air superiority which is extremely important. It’s totally worth the investment. We need tons of them as well as stealth fighter helicopters. We should sell them to our close allies who have strong security records of not passing on military secrets to hostile nations like Australia, Europe, and Japan. The F-35 is also an amazing fighter plane. But it’s nowhere near as good as an F-22. It’s like a Ferrari vs. an F1 car.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:04 pm 16. Rotwang:

The F-22 isn’t all that stealthy, doesn’t carry much of a bomb payload, is mostly worthless for close-in ground support, and was designed for aerial combat with a generation of hostile aircraft that were never produced, and likely never will be. It’s an over-priced, high-performance novelty toy that’s been kept alive almost entirely by the USAF’s fetish for sleek airborne penises and inability to break free of a Third Generation warfighting mindset, coupled with the cunning distribution of contractor, manufacturing and support jobs across a large number of Congressional Districts with a vested interest in DOD money. Ditto for the F-35, which is almost pornographic in its techno-erotic pointlessness and expense.

Don’t even get me started on Navy shipbuilding. Between the Deepwater Program and the Littoral Combat Fleet, that branch is in real competition with the USAF to claim exclusive rights to the word “boondoggle.”

Attention DOD: We aren’t being beaten by the Soviet Firefox and Fu Manchu’s Death Satellite. We’re being beaten by small organized groups with home-made explosives, cell-phones, computer skills and a deep appreciation of how to disrupt systems, manipulate populations, and paralyze a much better-equipped army by, say, blowing up a 100-foot bridge on the Khyber Pass. Maybe we should match our capabilities to the kinds of wars we’ll actually be fighting, rather planning our weapons systems around the threat of Godzilla or transforming robots from outer space.

Feb 5, 2009 - 1:05 pm 17. typos_R_us:

“The air superiority fighter of the future will be unmanned, stealthier, lighter, faster and able to perform high-G maneuvers that would turn a human pilor into jelly.”

Demonstrating ignorance. High-G maneuvers have NOTHING to do with air superiority. Period.
That fact has been Proven many times since Airplanes first went to war. What wins in air-to-air combat is better situational awareness. That and speed. ALL the top aces had exceptional eyesight and the ability to keep track of many things at once.
Most kills were accomplished by seeing the enemy first, using superior speed to get into a position to kill them by shooting them in the back. The furball is for deadmen. Boom and Zoom is what wins.

Wanna see what happens when an unmanned aircraft meets a manned aircraft;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U49n1JuWAmc

It doesn’t matter how many weapons you hang off the UACV. When it doesn’t know or care if the Mig is there it is an easy kill. My Uncle was flying with the first F-15 Squadron when they were testing cruise missiles. As he pointed out, a target drone is a target drone, it matters not how fast it is, how tight it turns, or what is hanging off the wing.

Then there is the political issue. No politician will vote to spend money on a robot that thinks for itself, which is what an UACV will have to do to compete with a manned fighter. If you really think a politician is going to give you billions to build Cylons, you have been at the koolaid to long.
The whole UACV thingie is a way for the MIC to rip off more billions of taxpayer dollars.

The ONLY way to detect a B-2 before it gets to it’s weapons release point is visual. With the Mk1 eyeball from a fighter flying at a greater altitude. The F-22 is the escort fighter that can keep that from happening. Sort of the B-17 & P-51 combo redone.

Feb 5, 2009 - 2:06 pm 18. typos_R_us:

Actually, I have an Obama solution.
Nationalize Lockeed-Martin. That would reduce the cost of the F-22’s down to about 20 mill per or so. Maybe less if we built several thousand of them.

Unmanned Ariel Combat Vehicles will NEVER replace manned fighters.
Even if the technology was there, the public isn’t going to pay someone to build Cylons. Which is exactly what an UACV that could do the job would be. The Army won’t even put machine guns on their combat droids. Yet…..
I still haven’t found out if the troop drawdown from Iraq includes the 40,000 Warbots employed there.

Feb 5, 2009 - 2:16 pm 19. DavidN:

This is one of the debates that’s been going on in military circles for years. On the one hand you get proponents of construction of various weapons platforms that will allow us to fight conventional wars against conventional opponents who (probably) won’t provoke a war with us any time soon. China and Russia have both been mentioned above in other comments. We owe China so much money that if they declared war on us, and we stopped payment, their economy would be in danger of collapse almost immediately. The Soviet Union’s collapse and replacement with Russia has obscured the difference between the two: Russia lacks about half the population of the former U.S.S.R., along with a considerable amount of natural resources like oil and natural gas. Neither Russia or China is a serious threat to our national security. What’s Russia going to do, have its army swim across the Pacific?

So we’re stuck fighting wars against those who actually are dumb enough to try and fight us, instead of those our military would prefer to fight. Most of our opponents, and prospective opponents, are small groups of guys armed with assault rifles, rocket-propelled grenades, and perhaps shoulder-launched surface-to-air missiles, along with IEDs and perhaps some form of land-mines or booby-traps. The U.S. Air Force, in its infinite wisdom, developed a fighter plane to defeat the air cover these guys don’t have. When someone pointed this out, they recalled the plans for the plane and had it redesigned to attack ground targets also. Of course none of this really makes any sense, but remember, this is the thinking from the Pentagon. Over there you get a truly strange set of priorities from otherwise intelligent professionals who are wedded to programs that often don’t really make sense.

If the Air Force were going to engage in a program to design and purchase a new aircraft that would help us in our current war, the Air Force should be working on a successor to the A-10 Thunderbolt II. It’s heavily armored, so that opponents we’re actually fighting can’t shoot at it effectively with their assault rifles. It’s armed with a particularly vicious 30mm. cannon which has a stupendous rate of fire, and is perfect for attacking ground targets. It can also be armed with a variety of air-to-surface bombs, missiles, and rockets. The problem, of course, is that the Air Force is run by fighter pilots, and bomber pilots. Neither type of pilot sees much use for the A-10, which is designed for ground support only. The Air Force usually has to have someone twist its arm to get it to buy planes that *only* support the army while that branch tries to win the war. This time around, of course, there hasn’t even been a hint of anything like this. Instead, our choices are between two different planes that will help us win wars against opponents we’re unlikely to fight.

Feb 5, 2009 - 6:40 pm 20. njcommuter:

The “last war” argument neglects one thing: sooner or later, we are going to get a situation in which someone does find it advantageous to fight us in the old way. When that day comes, we better be ready.

We need new fighters because the old ones are falling apart. If we were to start building F15s again, they would cost almost as much as the F22 (inflation alone makes this so: the F15 cost must be multiplied by three), they would be SERIOUSLY inferior to the Eurofighter and probably inferior to the Su27. They would also be less capable of taking out enemy air defenses (and some WILL be lost in the attempt) and would be nearly as expensive to operate as the old F15s. The F22 will also be cheaper to operate.

We should have a fleet of 450 to 750 F22s, built at an economical rate. (Remember, if you have to take out a large nation’s air defenses, you WILL lose some planes; you have to be able to keep a usable fleet even with the losses.) We should also be working on a next-gen replacement for the A10, production to start around 2022.

Feb 5, 2009 - 11:19 pm 21. Oscar the Grump:

Keeping the F22 in production makes too much sense for this new administration. They’re bound to win wars by talking the enemy to death.

On a more serious note both Russia and China are virtually copying the plane and they will be in production in quantity. Russia is still developing new high performance planes. The Bear is back and even more dangerous.

Feb 6, 2009 - 10:49 am 22. Pat J:

I say we keep the F22 but still slash 25% of the defense budget. Trim the waste that’s only going to end up as piles of scrap mental in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maybe close down DARPA and a couple of foreign military bases as well.

Feb 6, 2009 - 12:15 pm 23. Marc Malone:

Very interesting. Almost everyone here had some valid points, even the Libs. Most of the valid points were about the drawbacks.

I think the biggest thing missing is a lack of geopolitical understanding. We are not likely to get into a shooting war with another major power… unless we are unable to fight that war ourselves. Relying on economic influence to deter China is just plain dumb. If we want to have any clout in that region, we have to be ABLE to go toe-to-toe with China if it came to that. We don’t have to actually do it; just have the ability. “Walk softly, and carry a big stick.” Now, where did I put my stick? It was right here….

As for unmanned fighters, it’s nonsense. Lots of guys are great at video games with all their disposable ammo and equipment. I play board/wargames. We have a saying, “It’s just cardboard.” Nothing makes you more effective than having your own ass on the firing line. Nothing. The other way might be more cost-efficient in the long-run, theoretically, but there are so many vulnerabilities. “Oops, we didn’t think of that” would be the result.

On the same note, why do we even bother to have pilots for our commercial aircraft? Why not have everything on auto-pilot and remote control? Um, because we might have to land the danged thing in the Hudson River? Would you board such a plane, even at half-price? The questions answer themselves.

Feb 6, 2009 - 3:09 pm 24. Oscar the Grump:

Unfortunately our planners are working on just that, unmanned planes that are killing machines. Some with the ability to make their own combat decisions. Their ideal machine would stay up for days, locate its own targets, and attack them. Its in the works. Combined with stealth technology, the aircraft could be boosted to any speed and be as manuverable as any plane can get. By eliminating the man, the craft could withstand many more Gs in turns.

There is one point, when the tank came along, infantry was thought to be obsolete. Even though we’ve mechanized way past the earlier tanks, its still boots on the ground that makes the real difference.

Feb 6, 2009 - 4:50 pm 25. K. Lee:

Despite the immense air dominance advantage that the F-22 gives us and despite the indisputable value of keeping hi-tech jobs and manufacturing going, we should not continue the program at this moment.

News flash to those conservatives, who despite their good intentions for having the foresight to realize that conventional wars might still be fought and are very dangerous, don’t realize this: we are losing in Afghanistan and Iraq while looking good, is not quite over. To compound this, our army is worn down after 5 years of heavy fighting in Iraq, the insurgency is back in full force in Afghanistan, and we have no good plan for winning there (and I am not hopeful for a good plan under Obama and the Democrats who claim to be wise in judgment, but seem to be low in resolve a la Bush). Victory in Iraq has possibly purchased us a new future of reform in the Middle East, but if we lose in Afghanistan, it may all be for nothing.

When this war is still in full swing without victory in sight, looking forward to the next war is what is myopic, especially when winning this war will determine the course of many of our future wars against Islamic Fundamentalism. This is our World War II, the defining war of our times, the one that will matter most in the previous and the next 50 years. If we fail, then medieval Islam will triumph over the flickering small candle of modern Islam and we will face all the increasingly radicalized muslims of the world for the next century and China will watch and laugh at us in our struggle. There is time enough to prepare for the most unlikely war with the Chinese later.

Feb 7, 2009 - 7:25 am 26. Bob W (the new Kowalsky):

THe Air Force needs to decide whether or not its future lies in manned or unmanned aircraft. Many people now believe its the latter.

While they continue their thoughtful manned/unmanned argument, how about a stimulus package that allows everyone to buy a stealthy Dodge Challenger R/T??

Feb 7, 2009 - 12:30 pm 27. Doctor Kokopelli:

At this time of economic crisis, don’t you think it is about time to turn the tiller away from more “defense” spending? It is time to turn the tiller toward more infrastructure spending. The USA is by far the military dominant force in the world, spending half of the world’s military budget (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures). Can’t we demonstrate by example that enough is enough? The pendulum has swung too far in the direction of using military tools to solve political problems. It is time for the USA to act differently, to change. We don’t need more planes. We do need more investment in infrastructure.

Feb 7, 2009 - 10:06 pm 28. Obamanator:

Hey guys. All this bickering over To Raptor or not to Raptor. The simple fact of the matter is the US Air force needs to go back to basics on all these matters. The US is in Dire need of a true dedicated Air Superiority fighter. The last TWO major attacks on US soil could have been foiled by an alert military prepared for a good fight. Air superiority is only achieved with an air superiority fighter. What happens to Major Tom in his trusty F15 when he sees a MiG29 in the rear view and he is slung with tons of ground ordinance? Hopefully he looks further back and sees the f22 his pals in the AWACS have already vectored home. The idea that you will eliminate the pilot from the battle is as old as time and just as foolish. Remember long range missiles eliminating dogfights? Why don’t we stop teaching land nav because of GPS? Technologies aids the man, not replaces him. Even George Lucas knows that clones beat drones.

Drones are the future, but not of air to air combat. I watched a predator in Balad get lost on the fingers because the operator only sees what is right in front of him on the screen. Where drones would shine is CAS roles. Imagine a battle where the LEG’s no longer call in digits and pray for rain, the Combat Controller opens his laptop and takes real time control of the predator wolf packs loitering over his battlefield. Prioritizing targets on the fly cutting out several middle men and opportunities for error.

I know this is not a military tech posting, but this is relevant. It is short sighted ill informed thinking that got Obama into government funded housing, and it is uneducated short sighted reactionism that causes recessions to become depressions. Now more than ever we need to take a breath and think about the future. Just like uncle Ronnie brought us out of the quagmire of post Vietnam, a short 4 years from now someone equally worthy will step up and bring us back to the strong and proud America that we have lost. America came out of the first great depression with infrastructure spending. They came out of the hippie recession with massive defense spending. A combination of both at this time is what is needed. Don’t rescue the car companies. They will rescue themselves. Americans will always buy their cars. Rescue the bomb makers. Last time I checked I wasn’t allowed to buy a JDAM for personal use.

Feb 8, 2009 - 1:40 am 29. Marie Claude:

For attacking targets on the ground, larger bombers with greater payloads are more efficient than smaller fighter aircraft. Furthermore, large land bases in close proximity to any conflict — which are used by fighter aircraft like the F-22 — are becoming vulnerable to attacks from enemy ballistic missiles. Bombers have a much longer range than tactical fighters and can operate from bases in theater farther from the conflict or even from bases in the United States.

…

an upgraded F-15E aircraft fits better with U.S. needs in a post-Cold War world than does the exorbitantly priced F-22. The money saved by terminating this $70 billion prehistoric bird of prey could be put to better uses

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5027

. Il est par ailleurs accusé par ses détracteurs de pas être adapté aux conflits asymétriques dans lesquels les États-Unis sont engagés (guerre d’Afghanistan, guerre d’Irak) et qui nécessitent des appareils adaptés au soutien aérien et non de purs appareils de supériorité aérienne typiques de la Guerre froide. De son côté l’US Air force défend sa commande initiale de 381 F-22 s’appuyant sur la menace que représente la Chine et l’acquisition de chasseurs modernes, notamment russes, par de nombreux états

The F22 is also accused by his critics of not being suited to asymmetrical conflicts where the United States is committed (war in Afghanistan, Iraq war), which require devices adapted to air support and not pure superiority aircraft typical of the Cold War. For its part the U.S. Air Force defends its initial order for 381 F-22 based on the threat posed by China and the acquisition of modern hunters, including Russian, for many states

wasn’t the Raptor ment for a “cold war” ?

Feb 8, 2009 - 12:40 pm 30. Cybergeezer:

The Stimulus Bill, as proposed, is NOT RECOMMENDED by the Congressional Budget Office, whose duty it is to study effects of Congressional legislation. And this group is not made up of a political group.
This Bill should not be passed until it can get approval from the CBO.

Feb 8, 2009 - 2:06 pm 31. Oscar the Grump:

Marie Claude,
The article you cite is dated 1999. Things have changed a lot since it was written. Russia is no longer the US’s buddy. It is selling its Mig29s to anyone who wants to buy them. India is a good example. India bought a bunch of them and they added Israeli technology to the planes. As a result, when the Indian planes and the US Airforce F15 were in mock combat, the Russian Migs outperformed the US planes. Russia has a whole stable full of newer planes to trot out and so does China. Even though a war with China or Russia is very unlikely, a war with somebody using their weapons or weapons systems is very likely. Russia will sell anything to anybody and so will China.

The only plane they really respect is the F22 Raptor. They are doing their best to copy it. If I were a European, I would want the US to manufacture and many of these planes as possible. It just makes sense.

Feb 8, 2009 - 8:23 pm 32. Marie Claude:

Oscar, thanks for updating my link

a french site shows the details of the F22 :

http://www.aviation-fr.info/guide/f22.php

so if Israel is buying some F22, seems that is in forecasting an attack on Iran ???

http://www.leblogdrzz.over-blog.com/article-20263088.html

and she also is very interested by the F35

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/israel-plans-to-buy-over-100-f35s-02381/

see ya, the Chineses have copied the F22 (on an algerian forum):

http://forcesdz.forumactif.com/armes-et-autres-materiels-f5/j-xx-chinese-fighter-t1130.htm

and the russian Su35, in collaboration with India (I believe) :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

and she prefers the F35 :

http://www.domain-b.com/aero/mil_avi/mil_aircraft/20090205_lockheed.html

I don’t think that the Europeans would want to buy the F22, first,cause of its costs (I think, x 5 to x 7 times higher than the Rafale), second it’s not appropriated for the expected conflicts : local guerillas, ie Balkans… or urban guerillas with our inner enemi : muslim integrism, or may-be next, chinese, as it is said that the Chineses will become the most important immigrant labour force… also the UK, Germany, France makes their own fighters ; BTW, the Rafale had a few sale successes last year in Brazil, United Emirates, Lybia, Saudi Arabia had discussions for buying it, but due to the lower oil prices they postponed the decision.

http://www.letelegramme.com/une/exportations-de-defense-bon-cru-2008-pour-la-france-30-01-2009-228512.php

So may-be the F22 will look like a deluxe product, like our former “concorde”, if your administration can affort the charges, though it doesn’t seem so !!!

Feb 9, 2009 - 3:29 am 33. Marie Claude:

Oscar, my post has been swallowed, um, I think because of the too many links
so you can read it here if it doesn’t appears on board later on :

http://bokedou-an-hanv.blogspot.com/

Feb 9, 2009 - 3:34 am 34. SAF:

Obama will do what he has always done, make the non decision.

Feb 9, 2009 - 4:22 am 35. kochevnik:

Increasingly broke Americans won’t be able to afford their war toys or expand their global homogeneity now that others are onto their bait-and-switch banking fraud. Once US fails as reserve currency Americans will be begging Mexicans for assistance.

Feb 9, 2009 - 9:58 am 36. Oscar the Grump:

Thanks for your input. I’ll have somebody help me with the French.

Feb 9, 2009 - 4:16 pm 37. class clown:

In his book “New Glory”, Ralph Peters is highly critical of the F-22 program, making the point that it is now so expensive that the Air Force is afraid to actually use it (and risk it) for its intended purpose. I can’t agree with you on this one, Ms. Rubin, he was more persuasive.

Feb 10, 2009 - 12:04 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: