EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 18, 2009 9:35:07 GMT -5
I am very very happy that Obama is willing to veto the defense reauthorization bill if it includes the F-22. I am sick and tired of the cowardly and unpatriotic branch of service determining our national force posture. If Obama can't win here, then Eisenhower was right and all is lost. F-22 is merely another typical earmark.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jul 18, 2009 9:48:58 GMT -5
I am very very happy that Obama is willing to veto the defense reauthorization bill if it includes the F-22. I am sick and tired of the cowardly and unpatriotic branch of service determining our national force posture. If Obama can't win here, then Eisenhower was right and all is lost. F-22 is merely another typical earmark. Given its price, it's hardly typical.
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jul 19, 2009 10:57:26 GMT -5
And yeah, that's great that Interior only gets $12 billion. Do they really need more than that? Nah, not really --- unless you're interested in energy development and transmission (both traditional and renewable), fresh water conservation and distribution, National Parks, Wilderness, protecting open space, surface and subsurface mining and reclamation and the royalties that come from it, Indian trust and education, science, threatened and endangered species protection, cultural resources, paleontological resources, outdoor recreation, forestry, and some other stuff like that.
|
|
|
Post by hoyawatcher on Jul 20, 2009 16:40:42 GMT -5
question about the F22. I have not read Gate's logic yet but I thought the discussion about the F22 and F35 was not about whether they were a significant upgrade versus the F15/16 but rather a choice between the next generation of manned fighters versus the first (or second I guess) generation of unmanned fighters/missle launchers. What I had read earlier was that the AF was in position to field swarms of drones versus handfuls of next generation manned fighters like the F22.
Personally I probably would have kept a supply of F22s until I did have the swarms of drones but I can see a logic if that is what Gates chose to do. I for sure though would have canceled the next class of carriers and made them go back and make a drone carrier - with major implications for what the rest of the battle group needs to look like.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 20, 2009 17:48:55 GMT -5
question about the F22. I have not read Gate's logic yet but I thought the discussion about the F22 and F35 was not about whether they were a significant upgrade versus the F15/16 but rather a choice between the next generation of manned fighters versus the first (or second I guess) generation of unmanned fighters/missle launchers. What I had read earlier was that the AF was in position to field swarms of drones versus handfuls of next generation manned fighters like the F22. Personally I probably would have kept a supply of F22s until I did have the swarms of drones but I can see a logic if that is what Gates chose to do. I for sure though would have canceled the next class of carriers and made them go back and make a drone carrier - with major implications for what the rest of the battle group needs to look like. The case against the F-22 is basically thus: - we already have 187 of them.
- it's the most expensive fighter jet ever produced
- it has no air-to-ground capability
- it requires $40,000 of maintenance per 1.3 hours of flight time
- it's purpose (defeating the Soviet air force) no longer exists
The bulk of the money saved by ending the F-22 will go into purchasing more F-35s (at least in Gates' proposed budget), but I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a pilot-free air force. Just think about: drones are much cheaper than planes, potentially more maneuverable (you don't have to worry about g forces), and best of all, no one dies when one is blown up.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Jul 20, 2009 18:53:18 GMT -5
The case against the F-22 is basically thus: - we already have 187 of them.
- it's the most expensive fighter jet ever produced
- it has no air-to-ground capability
- it requires $40,000 of maintenance per 1.3 hours of flight time
- it's purpose (defeating the Soviet air force) no longer exists
The bulk of the money saved by ending the F-22 will go into purchasing more F-35s (at least in Gates' proposed budget), but I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a pilot-free air force. Just think about: drones are much cheaper than planes, potentially more maneuverable (you don't have to worry about g forces), and best of all, no one dies when one is blown up. The case for more F22s: -The Air Force has consistently said that they will need more than 187 F22s to meet their requirements (including deterrence and any potential conflicts with China or Russia or anyone with advanced anti air defenses). They continue to say so today. Also, if we stop buying F22s, the production line will be shut down (meaning that we will not be able to replace any of the already too few F22s we already have), since the Obey Amendment prohibits their sale to other countries (such as Japan and Australia, who both would like to buy them). -Military equipment gets more expensive to make the fewer you buy (pretty sure this is true of everything--the fewer made, the higher the cost to make them). Also, the F-35 isn't going to be cheap. It won't be ready to be fielded for a few more years and I can guarantee you the cost is going to go up. They're not cheap, but then again, neither is ham apparently. -The $40k/flight hour stat is a junk stat. The F22 really only costs about $19k/flight hour to the F15s 17K (you can find the AF rebuttal of the Post article here: tinyurl.com/nhnhtc). And most of the cost is in maintaining the stealth capabilities, something the F35 will have the same issue with and WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY VITAL -It's purpose--being able to create air dominance in the 21st century against any potential foe--still exists. Air Dominance (which is complete control of the skies) is absolutely vital for bombers (ask the AF how their bombers did without fighter escorts in WWII), tankers, spy planes, drones (we don't have any that can take on a fighter yet--the Iraqi AF really enjoyed shooting them down until our fighters finished wiping them out), not having American soldiers worried about being attacked from above, etc. The F35 is a pretty important piece being able to maintain that in the 21st century, but so is the F22. Just like the F15 and F16 were BOTH important to doing it in the latter half of the 20th century. Then again, I could just be an unpatriotic coward.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jul 20, 2009 18:56:21 GMT -5
question about the F22. I have not read Gate's logic yet but I thought the discussion about the F22 and F35 was not about whether they were a significant upgrade versus the F15/16 but rather a choice between the next generation of manned fighters versus the first (or second I guess) generation of unmanned fighters/missle launchers. What I had read earlier was that the AF was in position to field swarms of drones versus handfuls of next generation manned fighters like the F22. Personally I probably would have kept a supply of F22s until I did have the swarms of drones but I can see a logic if that is what Gates chose to do. I for sure though would have canceled the next class of carriers and made them go back and make a drone carrier - with major implications for what the rest of the battle group needs to look like. The case against the F-22 is basically thus: - we already have 187 of them.
- it's the most expensive fighter jet ever produced
- it has no air-to-ground capability
- it requires $40,000 of maintenance per 1.3 hours of flight time
- it's purpose (defeating the Soviet air force) no longer exists
The bulk of the money saved by ending the F-22 will go into purchasing more F-35s (at least in Gates' proposed budget), but I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a pilot-free air force. Just think about: drones are much cheaper than planes, potentially more maneuverable (you don't have to worry about g forces), and best of all, no one dies when one is blown up. I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a player-free basketball team, all "drones". And a lawyer-free courtroom, all computers. Makes as much sense as a pilot-free Air Force.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Post by theexorcist on Jul 20, 2009 19:26:32 GMT -5
The case against the F-22 is basically thus: - we already have 187 of them.
- it's the most expensive fighter jet ever produced
- it has no air-to-ground capability
- it requires $40,000 of maintenance per 1.3 hours of flight time
- it's purpose (defeating the Soviet air force) no longer exists
The bulk of the money saved by ending the F-22 will go into purchasing more F-35s (at least in Gates' proposed budget), but I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a pilot-free air force. Just think about: drones are much cheaper than planes, potentially more maneuverable (you don't have to worry about g forces), and best of all, no one dies when one is blown up. I can definitely see a scenario in 20-30 years where we have a player-free basketball team, all "drones". And a lawyer-free courtroom, all computers. Makes as much sense as a pilot-free Air Force. Strawman. There aren't player-free basketball teams or lawyer-free courtrooms. However... The Air Force is almost to the point where they have more UAVs than actual planes. UAVs don't put pilots (who take a fair amount of time and treasure compared to UAV operators to train) in jeopardy. Planes are becoming increasingly more expensive, and part of that expense goes into protecting the pilot. UAVs enable us to escape that expense. It's also worth noting that "pilots" remain in the loop and continue to control UAVs. They're just doing it from somewhere where they wil be as alert as possible. These are all good things.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Jul 21, 2009 12:02:39 GMT -5
The Senate has stripped the F-22 funding from the defense authorization bill ( NY Times).
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jul 21, 2009 12:19:51 GMT -5
"The wars of the future will not be fought on the battlefield or at sea. They will be fought in space, or possibly on top of a very tall mountain. In either case, most of the actual fighting will be done by small robots. And as you go forth today remember always your duty is clear: To build and maintain those robots."
Sorry, I thought this thread had gone on too long without someone saying it.
|
|
hoyainspirit
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
When life puts that voodoo on me, music is my gris-gris.
Posts: 8,392
|
Post by hoyainspirit on Mar 3, 2010 10:53:43 GMT -5
I thought this thread was quite interesting last summer. Washington Post has an article on the rising cost of the F-35. EXCERPTRichard Aboulafia, a vice president and defense industry analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax County, said the cost to build the plane is now expected to be $65 million to $70 million apiece -- not counting the research and development cost. He called the growing price tag "concerning."
"This aircraft was supposed to help the military's three services replace their aging fleets," he said. "This was going to solve everyone's problems and be competitive on export markets. But with a $70 million price, you're jeopardizing both assumptions." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203930.html
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 3, 2010 11:04:42 GMT -5
I thought this thread was quite interesting last summer. Washington Post has an article on the rising cost of the F-35. EXCERPTRichard Aboulafia, a vice president and defense industry analyst at the Teal Group in Fairfax County, said the cost to build the plane is now expected to be $65 million to $70 million apiece -- not counting the research and development cost. He called the growing price tag "concerning."
"This aircraft was supposed to help the military's three services replace their aging fleets," he said. "This was going to solve everyone's problems and be competitive on export markets. But with a $70 million price, you're jeopardizing both assumptions." www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/02/AR2010030203930.htmlYup. Saw that one coming. Russians (and Indians and whoever they decide to share with) are apparently going to have an F-35 killer ready by the time we have the F-35 as well. So that's nice. english.cri.cn/6966/2010/03/02/2321s553615.htm
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Mar 3, 2010 12:31:13 GMT -5
Yup. Saw that one coming. Russians (and Indians and whoever they decide to share with) are apparently going to have an F-35 killer ready by the time we have the F-35 as well. So that's nice. OMG OMG fighter gap fighter gap OMG OMG The only solution is to pour hundreds of billions more into LockMarRayBoeNorGru Inc. to build us an even better fighter to defeat the new threat!!!! Ignore the fact that it's been nearly FORTY years since the U.S. last lost a fighter to an enemy aircraft ... since that's obviously a demonstration of how successful our military-industrial complex has been at maintaining its superiority and not the result of a really good tiger-repelling rock.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Mar 3, 2010 13:24:57 GMT -5
Ignore the fact that it's been nearly FORTY years since the U.S. last lost a fighter to an enemy aircraft ... since that's obviously a demonstration of how successful our military-industrial complex has been at maintaining its superiority and not the result of a really good tiger-repelling rock. That's mostly because our politicians have done a good job of only picking battles that we can win easily. Anyways, the real threat to our fighters in most of the environments we fight in is ground fire. If our current generation fighters tried to operate over well-defended enemy territory they'd be shot out of the sky by SAMs before they even saw an enemy fighter. The F-35 will be safe enough over enemy territory, but it won't be able to do any real damage because of its weak payload. It can hit ground targets, but not very hard. It can defend itself against enemy fighters reasonably well, but it can't win you air superiority. That's what we need the F-22 for - to clear the skies of enemy fighters. The F-35 simply can't do that. That said, if I was in charge right now, the plane I'd request as my first priority would be the A-10. Now THAT is a plane that does its job. Who needs all the fancy stealth stuff too keep you safe from enemy SAMs when you can just take a SAM hit and keep on flying?
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Mar 3, 2010 13:30:49 GMT -5
That's mostly because our politicians have done a good job of only picking battles that we can win easily. Anyways, the real threat to our fighters in most of the environments we fight in is ground fire. If our current generation fighters tried to operate over well-defended enemy territory they'd be shot out of the sky by SAMs before they even saw an enemy fighter. The F-35 will be safe enough over enemy territory, but it won't be able to do any real damage because of its weak payload. It can hit ground targets, but not very hard. It can defend itself against enemy fighters reasonably well, but it can't win you air superiority. That's what we need the F-22 for - to clear the skies of enemy fighters. The F-35 simply can't do that. That said, if I was in charge right now, the plane I'd request as my first priority would be the A-10. Now THAT is a plane that does its job. Who needs all the fancy stealth stuff too keep you safe from enemy SAMs when you can just take a SAM hit and keep on flying? This is just not true. Also, when we decide to invade Russia, we're going to have slightly more problems than SAM batteries. "Air superiority"-what is that? I think that term lost its meaning circa 1945.
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 3, 2010 13:33:32 GMT -5
Ignore the fact that it's been nearly FORTY years since the U.S. last lost a fighter to an enemy aircraft ... since that's obviously a demonstration of how successful our military-industrial complex has been at maintaining its superiority and not the result of a really good tiger-repelling rock. That's mostly because our politicians have done a good job of only picking battles that we can win easily. Anyways, the real threat to our fighters in most of the environments we fight in is ground fire. If our current generation fighters tried to operate over well-defended enemy territory they'd be shot out of the sky by SAMs before they even saw an enemy fighter. The F-35 will be safe enough over enemy territory, but it won't be able to do any real damage because of its weak payload. It can hit ground targets, but not very hard. It can defend itself against enemy fighters reasonably well, but it can't win you air superiority. That's what we need the F-22 for - to clear the skies of enemy fighters. The F-35 simply can't do that. That said, if I was in charge right now, the plane I'd request as my first priority would be the A-10. Now THAT is a plane that does its job. Who needs all the fancy stealth stuff too keep you safe from enemy SAMs when you can just take a SAM hit and keep on flying? Agreed. The A-10 is awesome. And the best example of how our procurement should work (anyone interested in fighters or military tactics or military logistics should read Boyd, which is the biography of the AF colonel that designed the A-10 and came up with the military theory that the Marines have used in Grenada, and both Iraq wars and the Army sometimes uses).
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Mar 3, 2010 13:35:31 GMT -5
This is just not true. Also, when we decide to invade Russia, we're going to have slightly more problems than SAM batteries. "Air superiority"-what is that? I think that term lost its meaning circa 1945. The UAVs, AWACs and Tankers that can't defend themselves against fighters and are critical to our infantry's tactics disagree with you.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Mar 3, 2010 13:40:14 GMT -5
The UAVs can defend themselves in that they are cheap, don't cost a human life and are small and thus difficult to hit. If we are building fighter planes to protect UAVs, we're in trouble.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Post by Bando on Mar 3, 2010 13:53:45 GMT -5
I also want to chime in and salute the awesomeness that is the A-10, and note that if the Air Force had its way, we would have killed it a long time ago.
Back to the F-22, it's worth pondering if it's cost-effective it to spend billions on fighters at all when we're probably very close to the era of air superiority drones.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Mar 3, 2010 13:57:20 GMT -5
We are developing crazy sophisticated drones. As in ones that are lethal and are no bigger than a wasp. Hard to use a SAM on one of those
|
|