Mad Mike Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 $350 billion says the contractors will build them when we want them to. You really don't know what you are talking about. They may want to build them but it cant happen quickly if the plants are shut down. The companies cant afford to keep the lines ready to go. You are dead wrong and the only debate is in your mind. The F-22 doesn't make China fear us nor does it defend us from them. Silly statement. What happens if North Korea continues its aggression and we are forced to act? You don't think the Chinese are going to want to step in? You don't think a fighter that could tear them up like the Raptor could would make them think twice? The F35 cant do the same mission. It simply is NOT an air superiority fighter. The Raptor is our big stick when it comes to controlling the sky. To toss it aside in such a dangerous world would be moronic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I still miss this one. Me too, time to go watch Top Gun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai 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. lol. yeah. but are the next gen unmanned just flown by a dude in an easyboy somewhere or flown by AI? im not really sure which is worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kuraitengai Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 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. they are called inertial dampeners. dont you watch scifi? they are already out there in some super secret warehouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Originally Posted by GibbsFactor Until we create that inertia canceler, the F22 is a bit of overkill. In war, overkill is a good thing. It means more of the other people die, and less of yours. The F22 gives us an edge that we would not have without them. Why would you throw that away in this dangerous world? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 You really don't know what you are talking about. They may want to build them but it cant happen quickly if the plants are shut down. The companies cant afford to keep the lines ready to go.You are dead wrong and the only debate is in your mind. I am more than happy to be called wrong by a guy who says Secretary Gates is a moron. I didn't say it would happen quickly. But China and Russia aren't going to be able to expand their capabilities and more quickly than we can turn on a program to build F-22s when the specs are all ready to go. Again, for the right price, the contractors wil do whatever we want them to. Silly statement. What happens if North Korea continues its aggression and we are forced to act? You don't think the Chinese are going to want to step in? You don't think a fighter that could tear them up like the Raptor could would make them think twice? The F35 cant do the same mission. It simply is NOT an air superiority fighter. The Raptor is our big stick when it comes to controlling the sky. To toss it aside in such a dangerous world would be moronic Nobody is talking about tossing the raptor aside. And the OP heard wrong. They are not being retired. They just aren't going to order the full 381. We're going to "only" have 187. If I'm China I don't even try to match the US in air superiority. I just build ground based missile systems at a fraction of the price. You send in your carrier, I put it into the bottom of the ocean for 1/1000th of what you paid to build it. You send in a $353 million F-22, I shoot it down with ground to air, again, at a fraction of the price. Moronic is thinking China is going to engage us in dogfights top gun style. They're not stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maxito 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: They might halt production on the New Marine One also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Madison Redskin 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. Because the Taliban air force presented such a big threat to us? In all seriousness, while I agree that there will always be manned aircraft, I believe that most military aircraft will at some point in the not so distant future be unmanned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs 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. It takes China time to build aircraft, too. And we know when they're doing it. 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 didn't mean RnD, I meant size. It's too damn big. There are many parts of the military we just don't really need anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tut77 Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 The F35 cant do the same mission. It simply is NOT an air superiority fighter. The F-35 COULD do the same mission, it's just that in the USAF, which (up until now) had the budget to afford F-22s, it didn't have to perform the air superiority mission. The F-35 is now considered the 2nd most capable air to air platform for the foreseeable future. Second only to the F-22. It's like having both the Ace and the King. Put another way, if there were no F-22s, the F-35 would be the baddest thing around. And it costs about half of what the F-22 costs. Technology moves fast though. Just because the F-22 is stealth now doesn't mean someone won't find a way to detect them in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 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. Overkill, I think not. I'm in Alaska right now supporting two AMU's (aircraft maintenance units) that are supporting F15 aircraft that fill the role as agressors and an F22 AMU that is here fighting along side F18's and other F15 aircraft from other bases around the the globe. Less than 10 years ago the F15 was the jewel in the AF's crown and there wasn't a plane that could touch it. The F22 comes along and destroy's our agressors on a routine basis. Not just any agressors but pilots who train to fight like our enemies using their tactics but doing so in much better aircraft. The F22 is bar none the most manuverable and deadly fighter aircraft we've ever had in our arsenal. What the gov't has realized is that it's such an elite aircraft that we don't need the numbers we originally requested. Not to mention the fact maintaing them isn't an easy task as well. Do to their stealth technology and specialized coating they're extremely labor intensive to maintain. Our F22's are an amazing bird to watch fly with the exhaust vectoring capability and the stealth technology it uses. However, the Chinese supposedly are developing an aircraft to rival the F22 to so let's not rest on our laurels just yet. It's extremely important to keep developing technology and staying well ahead of our enemies of today and our potential enemies of tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 I didn't mean RnD, I meant size. It's too damn big. There are many parts of the military we just don't really need anymore. Name one part of the military that is no longer needed. In the 80's they decreased the size of the Army using the rationale that if the **** hit's the fan the Guard can fill the void. In the 90's they decreased the size of the Air Force using the same rationale. Here we are in 2009, the Army don't have enough troops and can't keep the ones that are in to stay in because they're over worked from the back to back, to back deployments. The Guard is the same way. The Army is so maxed out the Air Force is filling ILO (in lieu of) or JET (joint expeditionary taskings) to help ease the pain of the Army. We have thousands of Air Force engineers taking on the responsibilty of building infastructure, MP duties and convoy's in the AOR right now because the Army doesn't have the manpower to do it. The Air Force, the same one that was supposed to be cut almost in half is now plusing up it's numbers to help fill the void. It's all fine and dandy when a bunch of bean counters and armchair military advisor's who sit at home and watch CNN think they know but the harsh reality is they don't know ****. Yes the cold war is over and thank God for it. The cold war mentality had us funding a huge military force that was assembled to fight a large war against Russia. Now we're faced with building a fighting force to fight small wars around the globe that can spark up at a moments notice while also developing and employing a fighting force that can maintain a ready force to fight a war like the one in Iraq. You see that's where we went wrong in the 80's and 90's "the cold war is over, we want a leaner/meaner fighting force." True, but that leaner/meaner fighing force was soon weary after 5 years of War in Iraq; a fact we weren't prepared for. We have to find a balance and be prepared to do both, no matter what the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 If I'm China I don't even try to match the US in air superiority. I just build ground based missile systems at a fraction of the price. You send in your carrier, I put it into the bottom of the ocean for 1/1000th of what you paid to build it. You send in a $353 million F-22, I shoot it down with ground to air, again, at a fraction of the price. Moronic is thinking China is going to engage us in dogfights top gun style. They're not stupid. Moronic is thinking that the F22 is built to simply be a dogfighting Air Craft. It's biggest asset is it's stealth technology, it can do what the F117 did only better. China will not find it easy to acquire, target and shoot down an F22. Our pilots train against missle systems far superior to anything the chinese have, our own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 #37 is a great post, Zoed. While "the military" is as big as waste-zone as any enormous beauracracy can be and would be much better with half the fat, graft, cronyism, and incompetence cut from both the public and secert budgets, and while that would be the ideal way to get "leaner & meaner", it will be as hard to change as with any similar area of government. Your outlining of the strategic needs and the unproductive thinking/spending chocies that were made versus the reality we've come to understand, is very accurate in my view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicious Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 TWO WORDS: Unmanned Aircraft Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 TWO WORDS: Unmanned Aircraft Seriously, (and nothing personal) I'm not sure I have ever seen you post on a substantive topic where you didn't seem clueless about the matter under discussion but chimed in anyway trying to appear clever. We ought to change your ES name to 'Vacuous' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 21, 2009 Share Posted June 21, 2009 Name one part of the military that is no longer needed. We have a bunch of Ohio-class subs that sit around "protecting" us against the laughable possibility that someone will somehow manage to destroy all of our land-based nukes at the same time without us noticing anything until it happens. We keep all sorts of overseas bases open that are completely unnecessary, especially in Europe. Even if Russia is acting meaner, their military has completely fallen apart. Europe doesn't need our help anymore. We keep 13 carrier battle groups up and running when the next Big Bad Enemy, China, has exactly zero. At the same time, we have several dozen active attack submarines that can fire cruise missiles at land-based targets, those aforementioned bases which would allow for land-based strikes against a bunch of countries, and B-2's that can bomb any point on the earth within 24 hours. Exactly how many extremely expensive ways do we need to have to make something far away go boom before we decide that it miiiiight just be a bit of overkill? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 We have a bunch of Ohio-class subs that sit around "protecting" us against the laughable possibility that someone will somehow manage to destroy all of our land-based nukes at the same time without us noticing anything until it happens.We keep all sorts of overseas bases open that are completely unnecessary, especially in Europe. Even if Russia is acting meaner, their military has completely fallen apart. Europe doesn't need our help anymore. We keep 13 carrier battle groups up and running when the next Big Bad Enemy, China, has exactly zero. At the same time, we have several dozen active attack submarines that can fire cruise missiles at land-based targets, those aforementioned bases which would allow for land-based strikes against a bunch of countries, and B-2's that can bomb any point on the earth within 24 hours. Exactly how many extremely expensive ways do we need to have to make something far away go boom before we decide that it miiiiight just be a bit of overkill? First thing you need to realize is that just because an aircraft, sub, vessel, armor vehicle was developed for a certain aspect of war fighting it doesn't necessarily mean it's still serving in that capacity. We're constantly updating weapons platforms to be more suited for the task at hand. I'm sure if it's still in the inventory and in use today it's role has been modified to make it suitable for today's threat instead of the cold war era threat of yesterday. As for the bases in Europe, we're not there to help them. We're there for logistical and strategic reasons. Without the tankers these bases provide none of our aircraft could fly the missions they fly. Not to mention the CAOC's and massive communications centers that we've established in these countries that allow us to have complete oversight of our fighting forces. Last but not least, deterence. Russia, China and whatever other country you want to name isn't a threat because we have submarines, battle groups, missles and missle defense systems that they know they can't compete against. You don't stop being the biggest, baddest dog on the porch just because every other dog on the street is a poodle. You have to maintain superior weapons platforms in every realm of warfare to discourage the enemy. You think for a minute if we didn't have superior submarines that China wouldn't have nuclear subs capable of attacking us from the sea? You can give potential enemies any opportunity to find a vulnerability. It's just dangerous to assume that we're superior in every way so start cutting weapons platforms to save money. You can't put a price on freedom or security. Could we trim some fat here and there? Sure we could but there is so much red tape that goes into the funding of these platforms that if you cut one it inadvertantly cuts others and before you know it your left with your ass hanging out there in the breeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IbleedBnG83 Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 I personally think that the government spends WAAAYYY too much money on the military to begin with. This sounds like a small step in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ZoEd Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 #37 is a great post, Zoed.While "the military" is as big as waste-zone as any enormous beauracracy can be and would be much better with half the fat, graft, cronyism, and incompetence cut from both the public and secert budgets, and while that would be the ideal way to get "leaner & meaner", it will be as hard to change as with any similar area of government. Your outlining of the strategic needs and the unproductive thinking/spending chocies that were made versus the reality we've come to understand, is very accurate in my view. The politics involved are mind boggling. I was talking to our maintenance CO the other night about the F22 and he was telling me about why they're stationed in AK, NM and HI. I can't give you names but each one of these states have a high ranking politician on the defense budget committe or some other gov't committe and these guys lobbied for their bases to get the planes to keep them from ever being BRAC'd. AK, NM and HI serve absolutely no strategic purpose for having these jets other than some politican has more pull than the other. It's no different than Northrop Grumman getting defense contracts because of the politician they have in their pockets. You know the drill. The unfortunate fact is the military members get caught in the middle of the political jockeying and become collateral damage because of it. When we needed to upgrade our jets in the Air Force they cut people to save money. We put some damn good Airmen on the street so we could upgrade and now we're enlisting every kid with a pulse to take their place. It doesn't make sense but it is what it is. I'm all for keeping the politics out of the miltary but that will never happen. Just let us go kick some ass and do our jobs, that's all we want to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 The politics involved are mind boggling. I was talking to our maintenance CO the other night about the F22 and he was telling me about why they're stationed in AK, NM and HI. I can't give you names but each one of these states have a high ranking politician on the defense budget committe or some other gov't committe and these guys lobbied for their bases to get the planes to keep them from ever being BRAC'd. AK, NM and HI serve absolutely no strategic purpose for having these jets other than some politican has more pull than the other. It's no different than Northrop Grumman getting defense contracts because of the politician they have in their pockets. You know the drill. The unfortunate fact is the military members get caught in the middle of the political jockeying and become collateral damage because of it. When we needed to upgrade our jets in the Air Force they cut people to save money. We put some damn good Airmen on the street so we could upgrade and now we're enlisting every kid with a pulse to take their place. It doesn't make sense but it is what it is. I'm all for keeping the politics out of the miltary but that will never happen. Just let us go kick some ass and do our jobs, that's all we want to do. You know who I thought of immediately when I read your post? Duke Cunningham. Goddamned shame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HighOnHendrix Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 Seriously, (and nothing personal) I'm not sure I have ever seen you post on a substantive topic where you didn't seem clueless about the matter under discussion but chimed in anyway trying to appear clever.We ought to change your ES name to 'Vacuous' Damn, Jumbo! "Nothing personal, but just let me kick you in the nuts real quick... " :evilg: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slateman Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 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. :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical: Government contracts go to the lowest bidder. Even in the military. Oh, and the F-35 is superior in that it: Costs less Has a much better/more advanced sensor system Is smaller Has VSTOL capability Is designed as an attack fighter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peeping Wizard Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 The next generation fighters will be unmanned airframes...get used to it. Yep. Drones are the wave of the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted June 22, 2009 Share Posted June 22, 2009 First thing you need to realize is that just because an aircraft, sub, vessel, armor vehicle was developed for a certain aspect of war fighting it doesn't necessarily mean it's still serving in that capacity. We're constantly updating weapons platforms to be more suited for the task at hand. I'm sure if it's still in the inventory and in use today it's role has been modified to make it suitable for today's threat instead of the cold war era threat of yesterday. I'm aware of this concept. I'm also aware of the fact that the missiles on our Ohios generally target the same Russian missile bases that they did 20 years ago, because they don't have anything else to target. You can only point so many nukes at China before it becomes really, really, really redundant. As for the bases in Europe, we're not there to help them. We're there for logistical and strategic reasons. Without the tankers these bases provide none of our aircraft could fly the missions they fly. Not to mention the CAOC's and massive communications centers that we've established in these countries that allow us to have complete oversight of our fighting forces. Heard this argument more times than I can count. It's not true, and it's never been true. If we closed most of our bases in Europe, our aircraft could still fly all of the missions they currently do. Last but not least, deterence. Russia, China and whatever other country you want to name isn't a threat because we have submarines, battle groups, missles and missle defense systems that they know they can't compete against. You don't stop being the biggest, baddest dog on the porch just because every other dog on the street is a poodle. You have to maintain superior weapons platforms in every realm of warfare to discourage the enemy. You think for a minute if we didn't have superior submarines that China wouldn't have nuclear subs capable of attacking us from the sea? You can give potential enemies any opportunity to find a vulnerability. Go back and read the the rest of the thread. I specifically said that I wasn't arguing for cutting back on R&D. It's just dangerous to assume that we're superior in every way so start cutting weapons platforms to save money. You can't put a price on freedom or security. Could we trim some fat here and there? Sure we could but there is so much red tape that goes into the funding of these platforms that if you cut one it inadvertantly cuts others and before you know it your left with your ass hanging out there in the breeze. You just argued for never cutting anything when military spending amounts to over half a trillion per year without counting the wars we're fighting, in a time when our economy is getting pwned like a toddler playing Knock Out!. The simple truth is that we spend a lot on crap we don't need. I threw out a few specifics about that crap, and you responded with vague, chock-full-of-hypotheticals generalizations that could apply to just about any military system, anytime, anywhere, ever. I can make dog analogies too, but, honestly, the B-2 ain't a poodle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.