Why We Need the F-22

[Nalo Boy]

Do any of you know what youre talking about? (That is a rhetorical question)

 

[Rez O. Lewshun]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ivmFlotMyTRA3KyuWWaN9joQjHfAD9A4R7U00

Obama criticizes a Cold War approach to defense
By LIZ SIDOTI (AP) – 3 hours ago
PHOENIX — President Barack Obama chastised the defense industry and a freespending Congress on Monday for wasting tax dollars "with doctrine and weapons better suited to fight the Soviets on the plains of Europe than insurgents in the rugged terrain of Afghanistan."
"Twenty years after the Cold War ended, this is simply not acceptable. It's irresponsible. Our troops and our taxpayers deserve better," he told a national convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. "If Congress sends me a defense bill loaded with a bunch of pork, I will veto it."
Turning to the two foreign wars engaging the United States, Obama spoke of fierce fighting against Taliban and other insurgents leading up to Thursday's national elections in Afghanistan. He said U.S. troops are working to secure polling places so the elections can go forward and Afghans can choose their own future.
Attaining that peaceful future "will not be quick, nor easy," Obama said.
He said the new U.S. strategy recognizes that al-Qaida has moved its bases into remote areas of Pakistan and that military power alone will not win that war. At the same time, confronting insurgents in Afghanistan "is fundamental to the defense of our people."
As to Iraq, Obama reiterated his commitment to remove all combat brigades by the end of next August and to remove remaining troops from the country by the end of 2011. U.S. troops withdrew from cities and other urban areas in June.
Obama, in his third appearance before the VFW but his first as president, got hearty applause and standing ovations as he spoke at the Phoenix Convention Center to several thousand veterans, though only about two-thirds of the seats were filled.
That may have been partly because he started his speech nearly an hour before it was scheduled. Aides say he was anxious to get back to Washington after a four-day trip out West that was part family vacation and part business, including the VFW speech and town hall meetings in Montana and Colorado to push his health care agenda.
Obama told the veterans that overhaul would not change how they get their medical services — and that nobody in Washington is talking about taking away or trimming their benefits.
Instead, he said he's instructed senior aides to work with the secretary of veterans affairs to come up with better ways to serve veterans.
Obama said he wants each of the 57 regional VA offices "to come up with the best ways of doing business, harnessing the best information technologies, breaking through the bureaucracy."
He said the government would then pay to put the best ideas into action "all with a simple mission — cut these backlogs, slash those wait times and deliver your benefits sooner."
Even at a time when Obama needs as much congressional support as he can summon for his health care priorities, he spared no party from his harsh critique of business-as-usual by some in the military establishment, some defense contractors and some lawmakers who write defense budgets.
He assailed "indefensible no-bid contracts that cost taxpayers billions and make contractors rich" and lashed out at "the special interests and their exotic projects that are years behind schedule and billions over budget."
He took on "the entrenched lobbyists pushing weapons that even our military says it doesn't want" and blistered lawmakers in Washington whose impulse he said was "to protect jobs back home building things we don't need (with) a cost that we can't afford."
He said such waste was unacceptable as the country fights two wars while mired in a deep recession.
"It's inexcusable. It's an affront to the American people and to our troops. And it's time for it to stop," Obama said.
As a candidate and as president, Obama has held up the weapons-buying process as the perfect example of what's wrong with Washington and why the public doesn't trust its leaders. He essentially picked a political fight with a large part of the congressional-military-industrial alliance.
He sounded much like his campaign rival of a year ago, Arizona Sen. John McCain. And, while in Arizona, Obama praised McCain for seeking to rein in costs and reform the weapons-buying process.
In seeking to overhaul the weapons-buying process, Obama hopes to make good on a campaign promise to change the way Washington does business. But it certainly won't be easy to do; lawmakers protecting jobs at home are certain to put up enormous fights over Obama's efforts to stop production on weapons like the F-22 fighter jet.
Despite objections and veto threats from the White House, a $636 billion Pentagon spending bill was approved by a 400-30 vote in the House late last month. It contains money for a much-criticized new presidential helicopter fleet, cargo jets that the Pentagon says aren't needed and an alternative engine for the next-generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that military leaders say is a waste of money.
The Senate will deal with the spending measure in September.
The president laid out a vision of a nimble, well-armed and multilingual fighting force of the future, not one that was built to fight land battles against the Soviets in Europe.
"Because in the 21st century, military strength will be measured not only by the weapons our troops carry, but by the languages they speak and the cultures they understand," he said.
He praised McCain for joining him and Defense Secretary Robert Gates in opposing unneeded defense spending.
Shortly after Obama won the White House, McCain had pointedly suggested there was no need for the Marine Corps to bring on newer helicopters to ferry the president at a cost of billions of dollars.
On the subject of the helicopters, Obama told the veterans: "Now, maybe you've heard about this. Among its other capabilities, it would let me cook a meal while under nuclear attack. Now, let me tell you something. If the United States of America is under nuclear attack, the last thing on my mind will be whipping up a snack."
Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

 

[Mamma]

Do any of you know what youre talking about? (That is a rhetorical question)[/QUOTE. Until Rez posted I would have said probably.

 

[Huggyu2]

OK fellas, Lets not forget that we still have 187 of these planes!!!

185, actually.
At least they only cost $328M each.

 

[CFI2766]

Do any of you know what youre talking about? (That is a rhetorical question)

Based off of these posts, I would say no.

The title of this thread should be: "ATTENTION, ATTENTION, all left wingers report to a non-scheduled military bashing thread...ATTENTION..."

Using the logic of all of the posters here, we would have never developed ANY of the technology that our warfighters are currently using.

Think about it: Why did we develop the F4? The F100 and F105 did everything necessary. Why did we develop the F15? The F4 did everything necessary. And so on...

 

[pilotyip]

Bad example

Think about it: Why did we develop the F4? The F100 and F105 did everything necessary. Why did we develop the F15? The F4 did everything necessary. And so on...

Those airplanes did not bust the budget. They were designed for a real world cold war adversary. The F-22 was braking the back of the USAF budget; the USAF has to shed missions in order to fly the Rolls Royce Fighter. BTW at 187 it is still a very capable weapon system.

 

[satpak77]

Those airplanes did not bust the budget. They were designed for a real world cold war adversary. The F-22 was braking the back of the USAF budget; the USAF has to shed missions in order to fly the Rolls Royce Fighter. BTW at 187 it is still a very capable weapon system.

How 'bout some more $1B each bombers

 

[AirCobra]

Based off of these posts, I would say no.

The title of this thread should be: "ATTENTION, ATTENTION, all left wingers report to a non-scheduled military bashing thread...ATTENTION..."

Using the logic of all of the posters here, we would have never developed ANY of the technology that our warfighters are currently using.

Think about it: Why did we develop the F4? The F100 and F105 did everything necessary. Why did we develop the F15? The F4 did everything necessary. And so on...

None of what you said is true. Go back and look at the development of the aircraft you mentioned. For example the F-15 was never develpoed as an F-4 replacement, it was designed to meet the threat of the MiG-25. The F-4 continued in service for another 15 years after the first F-15 squadron became operational.

 

[AirCobra]

Those airplanes did not bust the budget. They were designed for a real world cold war adversary. The F-22 was braking the back of the USAF budget; the USAF has to shed missions in order to fly the Rolls Royce Fighter. BTW at 187 it is still a very capable weapon system.

Braking the back of the ARH and the MRAP too. Anyone in the Air Force request MRAP's for their security forces?

 

[Huggyu2]

btw at 187 it is still a very capable weapon system.

185.

How 'bout some more $1B each bombers

More like $2.2B.

 

[JungleJett]

Officers of course, they have not an E offically near the controls of something that flies in the USAF since 1945

Not exactly true...I flew as a pilot on airplane owned by the USAF...sort of.

I was put on active duty (state) orders to fly Civil Air Patrol airplanes in counter drug missions. I was an E-5 at the time..

Like I said...sort of.

But no E's will fly the UAV's because the officers would moan about it.

 

[JungleJett]

Braking the back of the ARH and the MRAP too. Anyone in the Air Force request MRAP's for their security forces?

The MiG-25 was designed to counter the XB-70. Seems we are always leap frogging with the russians. Now, with the demise of the -22, we may have allowed ourselves to be really out jumped.

How much has the US Army spent on AC-130's, A-10's, F-16's, slick C-130's, C-17's, B-52's , F-15's, AWACS, JSTARS, C-5's, MC-12's, KC-10's, and KC-135's..ect.

We know you want more money spent on the ground troops and protecting them. War is a multi-tiered operation and robbing Peter to pay Paul is not the answer. The programs you want killed are ultimately there to provide support to ground combatants.

 

[pilotyip]

Future UAV aerial combat? Some day in the future another country may be flying UAV's over a battlefield with the capability to shoot down other UAV's. If you shoot down five UAV's do you get to be an ace? Do you get the DFC or Silver Star? How about an Air Metal for every five UAV flights. Has anyone taught about this part of the UAV equation?

 

[bagasticks]

it doesnt help the situation when defense contractors always come in over budget behind schedule and with a flawed product. Vendors run slobbering to government contracts because they know its a blank check guarded by bulldogs with rubber teeth. .

The world's best combat aircraft were created, funded, employed effectively, when asses were to the fire. They were NOT brought on by agendas of politicians seeking jobs for their states or shoe-clerk colonels trying to get a star and a 7 figure job upon retirement (think KC767). . .

The solution. . . . unfortunately, im afraid, like the first half of the 20th century, will be reactive, not proactive.

 

[Pirate]

Future UAV aerial combat? Some day in the future another country may be flying UAV's over a battlefield with the capability to shoot down other UAV's. If you shoot down five UAV's do you get to be an ace? Do you get the DFC or Silver Star? How about an Air Metal for every five UAV flights. Has anyone taught about this part of the UAV equation?

I think what other nations will do is figure out how to jam or disrupt our control of these UAVs. I am sure that the signals controling our UAVs are complex but it is only a matter of time before some 15 year old Chinese kid with a box of parts from Radio Shack finds a way to make the pilot lose control. Maybe through hacking the network that controls them, meaconing the operational area with so many signals that it confuses the UAV or some sort of directed EMP. These things will be obsolete and we will be back to piloted aircraft.

 

[f9driver]

Why We Need the F-22
It’s been more than half a century since American soldiers were killed by hostile aircraft. Let's keep it that way.
By MERRILL A. MCPEAK

The United States relies on the Air Force, and the Air Force has never been the decisive factor in the history of war.

—Saddam Hussein,
before Desert Storm

High-end conventional war is characterized by the clash of industrial forces. It’s armored, mechanized and increasingly air-power centric. Few are equipped by training or temperament to understand the phenomenon, especially as it concerns air warfare, a relatively recent aspect of the human experience. (In this regard, Saddam Hussein had plenty of company.) But the bottom line is that in high-end conventional war, neither our Army nor Navy can be defeated unless someone first defeats our Air Force.

For high-end conventional war we’ve built an Air Force that, for now, is virtually unbeatable. Anyone looking at our air-power capabilities knows there is little hope they can concentrate conventional forces for decisive engagement of our Army or Navy. We will track them and pick them to pieces. When Saddam Hussein tried us on for size in the early-1990s, the ground war was a four-day walkover that followed the initial 39 days of aerial combat.

So today, no one in his right mind wants to fight us in a conventional war. Many are saying this another way: that we have no “peer competitor,” that there is no threat of high-end conventional war. I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that, but, if it is so, it is a desirable condition and one that didn’t happen by accident.

We have forced anyone with a bone to pick with us to find an alternative to high-end, conventional war. We’ve had to invent a vocabulary for this low end: “asymmetrical” conflict, it being another poorly understood activity. But it seems clear that in this sort of war our existence is not threatened, that we can regulate the resource input. It can be expensive in men and material, but we cannot be defeated militarily.

When the enemy succeeds, it is because we do not defeat him and then weary of the fight. This is not a good outcome, but it is better—and much cheaper for us in lives and treasure—than losing a high-end, conventional conflict.

The future air combat capabilities we should build are based on the F-22, a stealthy, fast, maneuverable fighter that is unmatched by any known or projected combat aircraft. But the F-22’s production run may soon come to an end at just 187 planes, well short of establishing the fleet size we need. After all, it’s expensive, and getting more so as the number contemplated has been repeatedly reduced. In an argument they seem to think makes sense, critics say the aircraft has no worthy opponent—as if we want to create forces that do have peer competitors.

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft, a period roughly coincident with the existence of the Air Force as a separate service. Even during the Korean War—the Air Force’s first engagement wearing new, blue uniforms—enemy air attack was primitive and rare. The main air battle was fought along the Yalu River, just as in Vietnam it was fought over Hanoi, and in Desert Storm, over Baghdad. Our guys on the ground had hard work to do, but when they looked up, they saw only friendly skies.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why we should wish to change this.

Gen. McPeak (ret.), Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, was a national co-chair of Obama for President.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574332870284931470.html

We don't need ANY aircraft that costs $300 million.
McPeak has blue tatooed on his rear!.

 

[Ill Mitch]

Future UAV aerial combat? Some day in the future another country may be flying UAV's over a battlefield with the capability to shoot down other UAV's. If you shoot down five UAV's do you get to be an ace? Do you get the DFC or Silver Star? How about an Air Metal for every five UAV flights. Has anyone taught about this part of the UAV equation?

A USAF friend of mine operated UAV's in Iraq a couple of years ago. He wondered if he spilled coffee on his lap and got burned if he would eligible for the purple heart. As it stood, he got some combat ribbons for it.

 

[climbhappy]

if you take the logic of a one fleet type and its inherent cost advantages, why wouldn't the F35 JSF be the low cost alternative? i was just at an airshow. saw 4 types, fighter/bomber. the A10 is begin retired. it's looks the predator spots them, then you call in the strike. does it have to be an F22 for that new role of a fighter/bomber? lastly, unless we fight a real adversary, current types do the job can't they? I'm ignorant on this so enlighten me. thanks for your service to the country.

 

[atpcliff]

Hi!

The A-10 is NOT being retired anytime soon.

It should be transferred to the Army. In fact, the whole AF should be transferred to the Army and Navy.

cliff
NBO

 

[Hobit]

Hi!

The A-10 is NOT being retired anytime soon.

It should be transferred to the Army. In fact, the whole AF should be transferred to the Army and Navy.

cliff
NBO

Incoming!:bomb: