Senate votes to halt funding of F-22

Discussion in 'Academy/Military News' started by Perpetual Motion, Jul 22, 2009.

  1. Perpetual Motion

    Perpetual Motion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    Per the Presidents agenda, the senate has voted 50-48 to scrap 7 of the jets, meaning no more will be built after the order of 187.
    This supposedly "saves" 1.75 billion dollars but there's more than meets the eye...

    Sources:
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25246.html
    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25210.html
    http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/07/22/2004073.aspx
    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25821007-26397,00.html
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/07/obama-f-22-defense-budget-green.php
     
    Last edited: Jul 22, 2009
  2. indexer

    indexer Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2009
    Messages:
    25
    Likes Received:
    0
    5 sources, and you couldn't even get the vote right.

    It was 58-40.


    And it was a jet that the US had enough according to the DoD. The only reason it was difficult to get the votes was because of the military-industrial complex.
     
  3. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    moderators, seriously, why do you allow him to stay?
     
  4. Pima

    Pima Parent

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2007
    Messages:
    12,795
    Likes Received:
    930
    Because he sneaks back in...ignore the troll, they go away when nobody feeds them
     
  5. Perpetual Motion

    Perpetual Motion Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    11
    Likes Received:
    0
    My mistake on the typo.

    And the location, sorry mods.
     
  6. Just_A_Mom

    Just_A_Mom Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2006
    Messages:
    4,826
    Likes Received:
    2
    Interesting article in the Washington Post on the effort to scrap the F-22:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/25/AR2009072502370.html

    Read on.....
     
  7. justawife

    justawife Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    It is a dog. Has not met any real bench marks. You can't triple turn it. It needs 40 hours of maintainers work for every 1.4 hours flown. You can't fly it in the rain. That damages the skin and there are other issues that are not public. It is the same reason the F-117 has been shelved. They are high cost planes to stay in the air.

    A F-16A was a plane that could be triple turned for a week before it needed anything done. The more crap, they hang on these planes the more stuff that can break. A block 10/15 F-16s were sweet jets, by the time the block 30/40/50s each got heavier and more of a pig and less Air to Air fun.
     
  8. Zaphod

    Zaphod Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,952
    Likes Received:
    4
    Sorry. Black-shoe here.

    "Triple-turned"? :confused:
     
  9. justawife

    justawife Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    Triple turning is sending a jet out, having it land /taxi/refuel in the hot pits and take back off. Doing this 3 times with the same pilots is triple turning. The pilots can only have a 12 hour duty day. So no 4x times for pilots.

    Done when flying, CAP and CSAR mainly. Nothing more cool to watch F-16s elephant walk at Incirlik.

    http://www.amc.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123022838
     
  10. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    While I'm not 100% against scrapping the F-22; (Mostly yes); I find it quite ironic that they save a measly 1.75 Billion dollars; risk the jobs of 25,000 workers; in a time where unemployment has gone up 3% since Obama took office. Went from 6.5 to 9.5%. Yet, he speaks of SAVING jobs. This is not a political bump, but what the hell is $1.75 billion when you're talking about 25,000 direct jobs; that also affects the jobs of support services in the local economies of the 46 affected states. Here's some facts that make such a decision quite ironic. Sorry, but the EMPHASIS on scrapping the F-22 is the wrong emphasis.

    * President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
    * President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
    * President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
    * President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
    * President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
    * President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

    * President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.
     
  11. justawife

    justawife Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    First the f-35 production is being ramped up and the first Sq is being stood up on Oct. 1st at Eglin AFB. The many of same people who are making parts/planes for the F-22 will switch over to the F-35. We are still making F-16 block 60s and selling them to our "Friends". There are lots of jobs that crossover ie engine builders, turbines for those engines, and the cockpit windscreens.

    Seriously, we might as well burn the money, then build more of those jets. It is an dinosaur, I wouldn't be surpised if it isn't mothballed early. The Fighter Mafia is out of power in the AF, they were the ones who jammed this plane it down our throats. They knew the plane had problems, but build it anyway. They felt Lockheed would fix it. It is another black eye for the AF.

    Plus this money would be taking from the AF's hide less flying hours and personnel to do the work.
     
  12. hornetguy

    hornetguy USAFA Cadet

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2006
    Messages:
    2,295
    Likes Received:
    129
    Please explain what you mean by the F-22 being a "dinosaur?"
     
  13. Bullet

    Bullet Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2008
    Messages:
    994
    Likes Received:
    99
    OK, I've been hesitant to join this and any other discussion on the F-22, mostly because of what I know -- levels of information on this program and the F-35 that make me nervous I might slip on OPSEC protected information. But, JustaWife, you're just plain wrong. Allow me a few minutes to dispel some bad information, provide some insight into the decisions made at the highest levels on the cancellation, and shed my opinions on the matter. Trust me, before I it the "Reply" button, I'm checking what I'm posting 3 or 4 times to make sure nothing I post can get me in trouble....

    And what makes me qualified to pass his info? Well, you see, I work in the AF HQ's office at the Pentagon in charge of fighter requirements. The big bosses want to know something about the F-35, then my phone is the one ringing.The guy working the F-22? He sits next to me. Trust me, we've spent the last year answering these exact questions for the highest levels of the DoD and Congress. You'll have to forgive us if we're a little down now, we just lost a rather big fight, usually for the same reasons that are posted here; bad publicity and information that either fit an agenda or led to bad decisions.

    So, why was the F-22 cancelled? For the same reason EVERYTHING is judged in the halls of the Pentagon: Money. The F-22 IS, HANDS DOWN, teh BEST air-to-air fighter out there for the foreseable future, bar none. Some of our friends are designing and building their own next generation aircraft to challenge them; they will lose. Did the program have some developmental challenges whicch delayed the program, drove up costs, and led to some bad publicity? Certainly. But any aircraft like this, with pushed the envelope on next-generation avionic and technology to levels unprecedented, will have some initial challenges. The program is overcoming them. In fact, other fighter programs also experienced high operating and maintenance costs when they first come off the line (and the F-22 is still coming off the line). It takes YEARS to establish and train a core of maintenance personnel who are familiar with the idiosyncrasies of a new airplane. Even more so when the jet is this advanced. The rain issue? Identified and overcome. The maintenance hours per flight hour? Steadily coming down to levels close to our current inventory of 4th Generation fighters.

    But the F-22 is still a very EXPENSIVE piece of military equipment. This is when those in charge have to make the tough decision -- is it worth the cost? We're fighting two wars right now, that cost a lot of money as well. As a Nation, we can't afford to purchase every toy for every contingency. We have to look at what is out there, what we expect to be out there, and decide if and where we can take the risks that we just can't defeat he potential enemy as easily as we experienced these past few conflicts. The AF is a victim of it's own success. America now EXPECTS us to easily establish air dominance in any future conflict like we have done these past 20+ years. Again, in some potential areas of the world, this will not be the case with the numbers of F-22s we will now buy. Can the F-35 do the job? Yes, but not as well. Losses will be greater. And if, heaven forbid, that nightmare scenario does occur, military men and women WILL die. And not just AF and Navy pilots. Our ground troops have had the luxury of fighting under airspace we OWNED and CONTROLLED, free from attack from the enemy's air forces. This will not be the case, our ground forces will die in large numbers. Bravely, heroically, and with honor -- but they will die.

    Our leadership made a choice. Fund the current fight, prepare for future fights just like them, and pray that the nightmare scenarios won't happen. They prove prophetic, and America will cheer their foresight and intelligence. They prove worng, and there will be a lot of questioning on the Hill, just like on Dec 8th, 1941. I pray they are right.

    I think the whole "job creation and protection" side of this arguement is a shame and a joke, and I really think Lockheed made a huge mistake going down that route. We're the US military; our job is not to make and ensure a job market, our job is to protect and defend this country. The F-22 helped us in that area. I really couldn't care less about Lockheed profit margin, I worry about my friends and neighbors instead.

    Where do I stand? Well, I think we should have bought a few more than what we're planning now. We just aren't getting enough to adequately meet the risks I foresee. But I do realize the fiscal constraints we as a Nation have to face. We can't be invincible by buying a huge number of F-22s, we just aren't even going to be the biggest kid on the block anymore; we're going to have to be the smartest instead.

    But this is all water under the bridge. The deed is done, and we'll move on and live with the decision. Again, I hope they're right... Bullet
     
  14. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Bullet; WELL SAID!!!!! mike...
    :groupwave:

    Oh, and justawife; to clarify; I never said 25,000 jobs would be lost. I simply said it was IRONIC that Obama said the 6.5% unemployment he inherited wouldn't go past 8%; now it's at something like 9.6%; and that he is willing to affect 25,000 jobs. And that he is feeling a VICTORY over not spending $1.75 Billion dollars; when he's willing to increase the national debt 3 fold to over $6 TRILLION dollars. IRONIC isn't it.
     
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2009
  15. justawife

    justawife Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    204
    Likes Received:
    0
    This is correct, but who do we have to fight? It was built for a cold war fight. China is too dependent on us to buy the crap they make and they carry too much of our debt. The Russians are in decline the average Russian life expectance is now only 57. It is dinosaur because it was built with the cold war fight in mind.

    Rouge Nation states are our biggest threat, along with terrorist groups. Also bored teens in China, the seem to enjoy trying to hacking into our .gov sites. The next time IF we are attacked, will be something we never have thought of most likely chem/bio.

    The flying hour cost of F-22 are going to dog it. I truely believe that is going to hang out to the bone yard early. It's like owning a Ferrari and driving it on the 495 beltway in DC. You have a great car, but really is worth the cost of maintaining when you only drive it 55 if your lucky. Looks really cool, but really....

    The B-52 is older than dirt. The A-10 needs a replacement (F-35?). We need a new tanker and we always could use more airlift. All of these have been used in our current conflicts.

    I read aviation week, most of this has been in the magazine. I have been against this plane from day one. Mainly because of its cost.
     
  16. Christcorp

    Christcorp Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2008
    Messages:
    4,963
    Likes Received:
    872
    Wow; if you're against the F-22 mainly because of the cost, at least I know that you're on the phone and emailing your congressman and Obama each and every day for the $5 TRILLION DOLLARS in additional debt he wants to spend us into. The F-22 is a drop in the bucket compared to that. I don't think you even realize how much money $7 TRILLION DOLLARS is. I'm not saying that a $150 million dollar plan is cheap. it's not. And I'm not saying that we should have 500 of them either. But even 500 raptors would have only been $75 BILLION DOLLARS. Put that into perspective with the $5 TRILLION DOLLAR additional debt. Lets look at it graphically.

    500 F-22 Raptors:
    $75,000,000,000

    ADDITIONAL Debt expected by the CBO of Obama:
    $7,000,000,000,000

    Basically; even 500 additional F-22's would be 1/100 ; 1% ; 1 Percent; 0.01 of the money Obama and the democratic congress WANTS to spend. Now; the REALITY!!!!! They weren't looking for 500 F-22 Raptors. They wanted 7. SEVEN. SIETE. Obama is willing to put my great grand children into debt; double a debt in 1 year that took President Bush even 8 years to accumulate; and then turn around and say that 7 F-22's are too expensive. Ironic is an understatement.

    You call yourself "Justawife". Well tell me this. You tell your darling husband that you'd really like a new dining room set. And you found one that's a little more than you wanted to spend, but it's the perfect dining room set. You say it costs $1,750. (ONE THOUSAND, SEVEN HUNDRED and FIFTY DOLLARS). He says to you; "Sorry Honey. I love you. But we can't afford it. We don't have enough people coming over to dinner to impress them to make such an investment worth while". And of course, because you are the loving wife you are, you agree with him and respect him for it. But then your darling husband turns around to you a little while later and has this laundry list of things he wants to spend money on. Including just giving a lot of it away to people for the hell of it. And of course you ask how much is he talking about. He sheepishly says: $7,000,000. (SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS). Now; that same percentage is the EXACT same difference with the spending requirements of the 7 additional raptors. Believe what you want. The F-22 wasn't canceled because those in Washington care about you or the country. It's politics and it's that simple. And yes, the SOD is also a political figure. Yes, there's a lot of politics even in the military. But I still trust in our military to put the safety and security of it's citizens as it's highest priority. I can not say I feel the same way with the rest of washington.
     

Share This Page