“Misdirection” Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 One of my parents friends came over today and he works for the Air Force and is the highest enlisted rank (E-9 i think?). Anyways, we were going over the list of jobs available at Andrews Airforce Base and what they entail and he starts to tell us about how congress has decided to retire the F-22 for the F-35. In every military branch I believe. He said that they're going to be retired by 2014 or 15 i believe. They said to the air force basically that they're not paying for the F-22's anymore or something and that they're going to buy F-35s for everything. They said that you can put anything you want on them by yourself, but your getting F-35s. We were like WTF? This airplane is the pinnacle of technology right now and they only started putting them into service recently. Usually they get 30+ years out of an airframe. Why would they lose the cutting edge advantage of the F-22 which is superior to any other plane, for a ******* F-35. Yes, they are a lot cheaper, but i thought we wanted the best for our troops, not settle for wal-mart type ****. The F-22 is superior in EVERY WAY with the exception of price. Even our friend had no idea why they would do this. We obviously didn't know about this, and I'm not sure about any of you guys, either, but I just thought i'd share this info i learned today. Maybe I heard him wrong or he used the wrong word "retired". :doh: My bad guys. Thread Title better? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 ??? We've already built 141 of them, they are surely going to be used. This is old news, they aren't retiring them, they just are stopping orders for them, there were supposed to be like 187 built but they stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Actually we originally ordered 750. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
“Misdirection” Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 ???We've already built 141 of them, they are surely going to be used. This is old news, they aren't retiring them, they just are stopping orders for them, there were supposed to be like 187 built but they stopped. I'm going by ear so i might have some facts off, but this probably is old news. I just learned about it so I wasn't sure. Thought someone here would know for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLongshot Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 From Wikipedia: On 6 April 2009, as part of the 2010 Pentagon budget announcement, Secretary of Defense Gates called for production of the F-22 to be phased out by fiscal year 2011, leaving the USAF with 187 fighters.[6] Spending on F-35 acquisition would be increased. Gates noted that although the US was currently engaged in two wars, the Raptor had yet to fly a single mission supporting either one. Said Gates, "It was not a close call. There is no military requirement for numbers beyond 187."[40][41] In an editorial in the Washington Post on April 13, 2009 USAF Secretary Michael Donley and his Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz stated that they supported Gates' decision, saying "The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on."[42][43]In June 2009, Gen. John D.W. Corley wrote to Senator Saxby Chambliss that a limit of 187 F-22 "puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid term"[44] While the House Armed Services Committee inserted $368.8 million in the budget markup as a down payment for a further 12 F-22s in FY 2011.[45] In response Gates called the move a "big problem" and supported the transition to the F-35 which he called "a fifth generation fighter that has some capabilities the F-22 does not".[46] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
“Misdirection” Posted June 21, 2009 Author Share Posted June 21, 2009 The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. Ever since I saw that one movie with the smart unmanned airplane that learned I gotta admit i'm at tad bit scared of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Ever since I saw that one movie with the smart unmanned airplane that learned I gotta admit i'm at tad bit scared of that. Yeah, but it is fast approaching anyway,and the best way to maintain our air superiority w/o breaking the bank. Hopefully with better safeguards though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sticksboi05 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 You might wanna change the thread title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Brave Little Toaster Oven Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 What about the big waste of money building the new MarineOne and that extra special hangar? The idiots kept adding more and more stuff to it, eventually the copter couldnt get off the ground. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HA1LV1CT0RY Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. I don't agree with this at all, there will always be manned aircraft, fighter or commercial. Just how we thought the dogfight would be obsolete, but to this day it is essential to know how to dogfight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
killerbee99 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Ever since I saw that one movie with the smart unmanned airplane that learned I gotta admit i'm at tad bit scared of that. The movie with Jamie Foxx.... "Stealth"....freaking plane was showboating too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I don't agree with this at all, there will always be manned aircraft, fighter or commercial. Just how we thought the dogfight would be obsolete, but to this day it is essential to know how to dogfight. Yes there will be manned fighters...that lack the capabilities of the unmanned ones. Technology has gone beyond human capabilities or endurance in that field Variety is good. Other airframes are a different matter altogether Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonard Washington Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I still miss this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Yes there will be manned fighters...that lack the capabilities of the unmanned ones.Technology has gone beyond human capabilities or endurance in that field Variety is good. Other airframes are a different matter altogether more importantly, pilots are very expensive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I still miss this one. I echo that sentiment. Probably the fact that the Navy replaced their Toms with Super Hornets is giving some impetus to the idea that F-35 can take the place of the F-22. I think we need both, with the ratio between them up for debate. The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. REALLY bad idea. Please see: Terminator, The Matrix, Dune, et al. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 They're not "retiring" the F-22. They're halting production, which is a much different - and very good - thing. We spend way, way too much on the military right now. If a threat ever grows large enough (like China, for example), we can always build more. As for this.... The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. I can give you one good reason why manned fighters will always make up a significant portion of the Air Force - you need to be able to communicate with those fighters. If we ever have a Cold War-esque rival of equal strength, their electronic warfare capabilities will be good enough to make it very, very doubtful that we'll have uninterrupted communication with our unmanned aircraft. Without that communication, they're worthless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 They're not "retiring" the F-22. They're halting production, which is a much different - and very good - thing. We spend way, way too much on the military right now. If a threat ever grows large enough (like China, for example), we can always build more. I'm doubtful that it's quite that easy. Considering that over 1,000 companies are involved in the development and production of the aircraft and that even with that level of commitment of resources only 20 are delivered per year, it seems a stretch to suggest such a program could be stopped and restarted so flippantly. Also, what is the guarantee that 20 of these per year after the threat "grows large enough" are going to do any good at that point? Seems to me that the best part of having this type of hardware is deterrence. Saying "hold on while we build more" strangely doesn't seem to have the same effect as having them in hand. OTOH, we do have 180 of them, so it's not like brandishing an unloaded gun. If they want to spend money on roads and bridges instead of Raptors, fine. But if they build bike paths and bird sanctuaries with it, I'll throw a fit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 more importantly, pilots are very expensive As someone that works with UAV's, I can tell you we are WAY far from replacing pilots. This idea of having the same aircraft as the Euro's, or even replacing portions of our fleet that can be matched with their's, is a mistake. The F22 might not have been the answer, but a mass-produced aircraft that lowers the budget is a dumb idea. But, the pred C is a phenomenal aircraft. However, to put UAV's against fighters is laughable and a mistake. We have air and sea dominance over every nation in the world. To give that up would be silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herrmag Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 They're not "retiring" the F-22. They're halting production, which is a much different - and very good - thing. We spend way, way too much on the military right now. If a threat ever grows large enough (like China, for example), we can always build more. I respectfully disagree. If we are not 3 steps ahead of China, we are in trouble. Our military strength, and more importantly, by air and sea, is the one thing that keeps us ahead of China. We start cutting budgets on military and RnD, we have to compete with a nation that destroys our population, and is willing to work for 1/10th ours is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 more importantly, pilots are very expensive There's also the fact that the F22 can do more then the pilot. It's the greatest "modern" plane that can ever be created due to the stresses it can put on the pilot. Why make a plane that can do more then will ever be used? Until we create that inertia canceler, the F22 is a bit of overkill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I'm doubtful that it's quite that easy. Considering that over 1,000 companies are involved in the development and production of the aircraft and that even with that level of commitment of resources only 20 are delivered per year, it seems a stretch to suggest such a program could be stopped and restarted so flippantly. Also, what is the guarantee that 20 of these per year after the threat "grows large enough" are going to do any good at that point? Seems to me that the best part of having this type of hardware is deterrence. Saying "hold on while we build more" strangely doesn't seem to have the same effect as having them in hand. OTOH, we do have 180 of them, so it's not like brandishing an unloaded gun. If they want to spend money on roads and bridges instead of Raptors, fine. But if they build bike paths and bird sanctuaries with it, I'll throw a fit. $350 billion says the contractors will build them when we want them to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I respectfully disagree. If we are not 3 steps ahead of China, we are in trouble. Our military strength, and more importantly, by air and sea, is the one thing that keeps us ahead of China. We start cutting budgets on military and RnD, we have to compete with a nation that destroys our population, and is willing to work for 1/10th ours is. I think if you take this philosophy too far it could be a fool's errand. China doesn't have imperialist tendencies, and their military spending increases by roughly 15% a year. They spend primarily on defensive systems. So we build a $4.5 billion aircraft carrier, and they can allegedly take it out with one missile. We build a $100 billion missile defense system, and they defeat it with dozens or hundreds of missiles at a fraction of the price. Of course all this ignores that both countries have nuclear weapons and multiple ways of delivering the device. So war with China is hardly an option unless we all want to die. The F-22 doesn't make China fear us nor does it defend us from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I dont have a problem putting further production of the Raptor on hold for the F35. We have what we need for now. But Retiring the Raptor for the F35 would be monumentally stupid. A) The Raptor is VASTLY superior to the F35 as an air superiority fighter. It's not even close. Gates is an Moron if he thinks the current conflicts are the only type we may ever face again. C) Last I checked, the Russians were getting more aggressive, building up their military and once again flying Bear bombers at us, the Chinese continue to be a threat and we don't know who the French with their history of supplying our enemies will be selling their next generation fighters to. Personally I think (and pray) the OPs source was expressing an opinion and he's wrong. The F22 will continue to fly for decades as the nations defender and be held in reserve should we ever have to face an advanced foe or be forced into a larger conflict. Anything else would be foolish and short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I can give you one good reason why manned fighters will always make up a significant portion of the Air Force - you need to be able to communicate with those fighters. If we ever have a Cold War-esque rival of equal strength, their electronic warfare capabilities will be good enough to make it very, very doubtful that we'll have uninterrupted communication with our unmanned aircraft. Without that communication, they're worthless. Not so, if you replace manned fighters with missile systems of extended reach and capabilities. The classic fighter pilot is going the way of the cannon.imo,of course If their EW capabilities reach that level what are the fighter pilots gonna do...ram them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.