Why isn’t the Raptor part of a stimulus?
posted at 2:15 pm on April 13, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Obama administration has put together both a $700 billion stimulus package and a $3.5 trillion budget for the coming year, claiming that government spending will restart the flopping economy. Obama wanted to focus on “shovel-ready” projects to get ditch-digging started as soon as possible. However, the Pentagon tubed a program that not only had people already employed but also produced the kind of fighters that keeps America dominant in the skies. Hugh Hewitt wonders in today’s Washington Examiner why this shovel-ready project got buried:
The planes cost less than $150 million each to build. We can get 100 more F-22s for $15 billion. Given that our six-month deficit for the fiscal year under way is already scraping $1 trillion, what’s $15 billion for an extended run of unchallenged air superiority against existing and –crucially—unknown threats?
Did I mention that the F-22 is shovel ready? Remember all those jobs President Obama wanted to “create or save”? Evidently there is a category of jobs he doesn’t count among those worthy of retention –those on the national security shift.
Even if the Raptor wasn’t a guarantor of margins of safety for every American soldier, sailor or Marine operating below its shield, even then you’d have to conclude that the shuttering of its production line in an era of giant job losses was indicative of a remarkable, deeply ideological hostility towards defense spending.
The second coming of the Carter Administration is upon us, heralded by this almost wanton sluffing away of a weapon of unmatched capabilities and the simultaneous paring of missile defense appropriations.
The Carter reference, in this case, relates to Jimmy Carter’s cancellation of the B-1 bomber program shortly after taking office. I recall this quite clearly, as the Admiral Emeritus worked for Rockwell International, the prime contractor for the B-1, and would have lost his job had he transferred to that program as he had been planning. Carter decided to cancel the B-1 to focus on the new work being done in stealth technology, but Ronald Reagan reinstated it, convinced that America could walk and chew gum at the same time.
This seems like a similar circumstance. The question for the Pentagon appears to have been whether to buy more Raptors or wait for the F-35 Lightning II deliveries in a couple of years. The correct answer would have been to do both; buy more Raptors and keep 95,000 people employed, while waiting for the Lightning IIs.
Would it cost more money? Of course, but let’s put that in perspective. Fifteen billion dollars amounts to a whopping 2% of the total price tag for Porkulus. Unlike at least half of Porkulus’ spending, it would actually provide immediate work, saving existing American jobs. Not just any jobs, mind you, but hard-core, high-paying manufacturing jobs, the kind that politicians like Barack Obama laments when they disappear. I’d guess that many of them are union jobs, too.
Unlike most of the supposedly shovel-ready projects in Porkulus, this delivers a usable, valuable product that serves the government’s legitimate purpose of national defense. It doesn’t feed the pork-barrel demands of Congress, and most importantly, it’s a proven military system.
I wrote in February that the Raptor was a no-brainer for a government looking to provide economic stimulus. I got the “no brain” part right.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »
Trickle-down Obamanomics.
Slublog on April 13, 2009 at 2:19 PM
F-22 was not designed or designated to be sold to foreign countries. Where the F-35 was going to be an export also.
What that allows us to do is create a fighter that is more sophisticated, and be sure to arm it with a defense against the F-35 in case who ever buys them, “turns”.
right2bright on April 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Why isn’t Missile Defense part of the Stimulus?
Why isn’t Navy guarding the U.S. Ships going into the Sea of Aden part of the Stimulus?
Why ask Why? Trust the Obamanomics of life! /s
upinak on April 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
More PLANES!
saiga on April 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Peace though superior firepower.
Disturb the Universe on April 13, 2009 at 2:20 PM
Continuing to fund the Raptor would not continue to provide Americans a job, but the funding would have an almost immediate impact. That’s without even considering the national security gain America would get.
Obama only cares about protecting American jobs and shovel-ready funding on issues that are important to or benefit him. That means green technology, the automobile industry, etc. — not American defense. The saving American jobs line is an excuse to provide funding for areas he wants to throw large chunks of money.
amerpundit on April 13, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Defense contractors have become millionaires thanks to the federal government. These people make fighter jets which costs about 1 billion and sell it to the federal government 20X the price. I’m glad I finally have a president who is capable of stopping the free lunch
nice343 on April 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Lets build Harry Reid a light-rail from LA to Vegas, but let’s not ensure military air superiority.
marklmail on April 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
FDR discovered defense is good for depression relief.
tarpon on April 13, 2009 at 2:23 PM
No. Let’s have more union McJobs created, especially the kind where holes are dug one day by someone only to be filled in the next day by another. All financed to no (net) purpose by your friendly government patronage-generator.
Greg Toombs on April 13, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Sorry, Ed, but 2% of crap is still a poor argument for spending anything under Porkulus. It’s not a question of trade-offs, it’s a question of…crap! We don’t want crap!
karl9000 on April 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
It is because we are building bridges to make sure that people can get to small businesses per Biden.
deidre on April 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
have a look at my video of the SU 35 and know why we need the Raptor.
Kaptain Amerika on April 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Not to mention the $6 billion we are going to spend on 250,000 paid “volunteers” to weatherstrip windows as part of Barack’s Universal Service scheme.
Buy Danish on April 13, 2009 at 2:25 PM
FIFY.
cs89 on April 13, 2009 at 2:26 PM
The answer to this is blindingly obvious. Obama wants a world without war, and thinks disarmament is the way to get there. Just like how gun control gave us a nation without crime. But Obama thinks big – he’s skipping over the civilians for now and aiming to take the guns out of our soldiers’ hands.
pifactorial on April 13, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Wait, you mean that companies manufacture needed equipment at a lower price than they sell it for? Making them a profit on something they’ve invented and built? I demand an investigation! Someone get the Mortgage Queen on this stat!
You’re delusional. You have a problem with defense contractors selling defense equipment to the federal government and making a profit in the process. Would you prefer they be forced to give it away? Maybe we can make some of those Kim Jong-Ilesque posters with Obama’s picture on it while we’re at it.
amerpundit on April 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Re-direct the porkulus money going to community organizers for Democrat GOTV programs, and you pay for a good chunk of the F-22 program right there.
One more reason I’m going to the tea party on Wednesday.
juliesa on April 13, 2009 at 2:28 PM
The Raptor is and air superiority fighter, the JSF a strike fighter. In other words, the F-35 is the designated prey of the F-22.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 2:29 PM
If you’re going to make stuff up, go for real scary number like kagillion. That will get your point across.
karl9000 on April 13, 2009 at 2:30 PM
Drill here. Drill now.
Build F-22s here. Build F-22s now.
UltimateBob on April 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Another aspect with shutting down the Raptor lines.
Many of the skills that are needed to build high performance planes are highly skilled and exist in no other industry.
Once lost, these kinds of experience can take years to recover. Sometimes they can’t be recovered and new techniques have to be delveloped, at great cost.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM
and do both with borrowed money.
ernesto on April 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Please tell us the name of this $20 Billion Fighter jet you mention.
Idiot.
The F22 costs $140 million.
redshirt on April 13, 2009 at 2:32 PM
So the EPA, the NEA and ACORN are getting increases in Federal funding, but the Military is getting cut. So we need less Military power and more carbon neutral voter fraud? Good thinkin’ Barry!
trubble on April 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
nice343 on April 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
It’s nice to see that there is no limit to the number of subjects on which nice343 is willing to demonstrate his absolute ignorance.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
What jet, exactly, is being sold to the US government for $20 billion? Do libs like you just flail at the keyboard and post whatever the end result is? Nothing you say ever makes any sense.
strictnein on April 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Whoa. Do you guys really think there was any kind of sincere cost/benefit analysis involved in this decision? Obama needed to make cuts somewhere so not to seem completely Orwellian in his goal of “fiscal responsibility.” Remember the summit? Military spending is essentially the only thing he can cut without pissing off the left, so that is what he did. No need for all this analysis.
Joe Caps on April 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM
BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!
You really are delusional, jerk343.
UltimateBob on April 13, 2009 at 2:35 PM
I’m quite sure that nice343 believes that the cost to build each plane is the only cost that matters.
(Let’s completely forget the billions spent to develop the plane and it’s software. The fewer planes that are built, the more each one costs, because of this fixed cost.)
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
The Raptor isn’t part of the stimulus because no money goes into Mayor Daley’s pockets or Chris Dodd or Barney Blowhard Frank or Nancy Triple AAA Cup Pelosi……..the Porkulus Bill is only designed to buy minority votes not to actually give real voters jobs………..
Cinday Blackburn on April 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Just look at all the decisions Obama has made. This Manchurian Candidate has opted to damage our economy, foster socialism, and damage our national defense at EVERY opportunity. There is no feasible counter-argument anymore.
Obama is on a mission to destroy our nation, and Congress (mostly Dems) are dutifully obliging!
stonemeister on April 13, 2009 at 2:36 PM
I think the B-2 was $200M, but am not sure, and I vaguely remember $2B subs. Maybe some of the bigger destroyers and cruisers are $20B.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 2:37 PM
A lot of talk from the White House in the past few months has focused on cutting small while growing large.
If we can give Hamas $900 million to rebuild what they are responsible for being destroyed, one has to wonder where the priorities of this White House really are?
The Defense industry has been given a bad rap since the last days of the Eisenhower Administration. Defense is one of those things that we can pour a lot of money into and see no results for decades, if at all. Yet, when we need, really need, a weapons system, or a new military technology, when we really need it…will we have it?
Robert MacNamara had a thing for bean counting…and almost crushed our defense capabilities by concentrating on more bang for the buck, so we ended up with an over abundance of strategic capability but very little at the troop level. Thus, when we were well into our fight in Southeast Asia, a huge quantity of equipment, to include air-dropped ordnance, to infantry web gear, to artillery, tanks and vehicles, was of a WWII variety. And people died because of it…our people.
The amount that a single fighter costs is a lot more than the cost of a hundred…per unit. And the cost is wrapped up more in infrastructure and wages than it is in the actual material used to complete each aircraft. Having Grumman produce only a few dozen aircraft is far more costly overall than having Grumman produce a hundred or more.
Defense procurement has also shown that an item is obsolete the moment it is rolled out the door. That is the nature of weapons development and defense. But, as Carter did, to stop development of systems and force our military to maintain older, less capable systems, less reliable systems, in the name of balancing a budget, especially at a time when entitlement programs are far far more costly than defense spending, and a fraction of the stimulus/porkulus spending, a very small fraction, is, well…dumb.
Obama promised a lot of things to a lot of people…and never gave much thought to how it was all going to be paid for…other than those nasty rich folks and nasty rich corporations had to give even more.
If my bank wants to give back TARP money….and cannot under law…something is rotten in Washington, DC, and it isn’t defense spending.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 2:38 PM
trubble on April 13, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Good point.
As when Clinton took over in 1993, he went straight for the jugular on the DoD. All those so-called 90′s “surpluses” – achieved on the backs of the American military.
Just as Clinton did, so goes Obama. See how they have worked to chenge the terminaology? No more “war on Terror”, it’s a “man-caused disaster” now. since we arent’ fighting a “war” anymore, we can spend this new “peace dividend” on more social engineering.
Democrats always go after the DoD – it’s the only part of the government they can get away with cutting the hell out of.
catmman on April 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM
She’s probably thinking of the Stealth bomber, which cost $2 billion when it was developed several years ago, if I remember correctly.
At any rate, the real numbers don’t matter in her fuzzy little brain. Billions, trillions…. it’s all the government’s money, not ours. So we needn’t worry about the actual figures.
UltimateBob on April 13, 2009 at 2:39 PM
A B-3 Boomer. perhaps?
karl9000 on April 13, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Yeah, we need to stick it to those defense contractors! They shouldn’t have any financial reward or incentive for making the best equipment in the world for our young to fight with! They should just do it out of the goodness of their hearts.
/sarcasm off
Seriously, those people then take their millions and spend in the economy. Did you know the top 25% do 70% of the spending in this country?
Would contractors compete by making the best, most innovative products they could if their salaries were capped at $500,000? No, they would make planes or other things for other private industries. These planes are designed and demonstrated first at great risk of capital, then when they prove themselves, the government rewards them with a contract.
What would be your incentive? Oh, that’s right, incentive is not what libs are about. They’re about having no incentive while they sit around waiting for the government to take care of them by taxing the *(#$ out of people who have the incentive to get rich.
PastorJon on April 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
The standard lib-MSM argument is that the F-22 is a “cold war” weapon designed to take on enemies that “don´t exist anymore”.
Which is untrue. Air superiority is everything and there are challenges even today. Besides, in 2000 we had no idea what challenges would face us two years later. How can these fools think they know what the world will be like in 2015 or 2025? You can´t just quickly produce more fighters when you need them.
Finally, we need to replace hundreds of fighter aircraft anyway – our hardware is aging fast. Same goes for ships, subs, vehicles, a lot of other equipment as well as training, which also costs a lot. We have been resting on our Reagan-era laurels for too long already.
This is a shortsighted, ideological decision made by an administration which told us just weeks ago that any spending is good spending in a recession.
All this “end of history” thinking is, to borrow a green term, unsustainable.
el gordo on April 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
nice343 on April 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
We can take all of the savings from the mighty Obama’s heeling of the military to create thousands of Unicorns divisions, replete with Skittle shooters and rainbow rockets.
catmman on April 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
This is one big shell game.
Economic stimulus under one shell.
Economic destruction under another.
Chicago politics much?
cntrlfrk on April 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Hey….no problems….more popcorn..this is a helluva movie..we are so screwed…for real/for real(Pittsburgh speak)
JJKRN on April 13, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Least we forget “keep stimulus money away from skilled workers…..” Killing the F22 is fatal mistake that we will pay for in blood.
nObama and Die
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 2:44 PM
The F-22 is a better plane than the F-35, which would make it the plane of choice if a war with a major power should happen. This would save pilot’s lives and the attrition rate comparison would make the extra cost justified. Here is a link to compare the two planes:
http://www.afa.org/ProfessionalDevelopment/IssueBriefs/F-22_v_F-35_Comparison.pdf
DL13 on April 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM
I’m glad I finally have a president who is capable of stopping the free lunch
nice343 on April 13, 2009 at 2:22 PM
At least with this “free lunch” we get something tangible out of it in terms of defense.
Now, the free lunch that comes along with entitlement spending, on the other hand, I see much less “bang for the buck,” as it were.
Thanks for the laugh, though.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM
Oh, like increases in Nanny State expenditures, i.e. food stamps, welfare, and on and on? Please…
mwdiver on April 13, 2009 at 2:46 PM
To all you goofballs who think our military equipment purchases are wonderful examples of free-market enterprise:
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/US_Military_Equipment_in_Afghanistan
“…Significant price gouging by counter-IED defense contractors is evident. For comparison, each briefcase-sized “Warlock” IED jammer, of which is there is on average more than one per vehicle, is worth $150,000; however, as can be seen by this analysis, that is more costly than nearly every vehicle it was designed to protect…”
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/11/05/MNGU5FJN341.DTL
“U.S. owes Iraq $208 million, auditor says;
Gouging, shoddy work by Halliburton blamed”
http://www.pogo.org/pogo-files/letters/national-security/ns-bmd-20030317.html
http://www.lewrockwell.com/engelhardt/engelhardt373.html
“As a result, concluded Spinney, inadequate amounts of wildly overpriced equipment are purchased, “new weapons [that] do not replace old ones on a one for one basis.”"
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 2:47 PM
Everyone keeps squawking “JSF! F-35!”
Why? It won’t be ready for a minimum of another three years. The F-22 is in service now.
Lemme put it this way: Do you want to see one F-22 take out an entire Somalian pirate training camp next week or do you want to wait until the fall of 2012 just before the election?
ScottMcC on April 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Obama’s alternative shovel-ready project is graves for pilots, soldiers, Marines, allies, and citizens.
Beagle on April 13, 2009 at 2:48 PM
Why is Oprompta cutting defense? He’s a Democrat.
Next question.
Akzed on April 13, 2009 at 2:49 PM
Well, I, for one, do not want any defense system, aircraft, tank, or even my boots, made by entry-level unskilled/semi-skilled labor.
But, what happens, most often, when a major defense contractor gets hit with an unprogrammed shutdown, or a system is abandoned after it is already past R&D, a lot of highly skilled artisans (yes, artisans) are put out of work, often at an age where they will not be rehired, and an entire block of expertise and experience is lost, forever….not even a fledgling apprentice class beneath them to learn the ropes.
And when a new system is needed…seems only the Chinese will have the in-house expertise to build what we need.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 2:49 PM
I think the F-22 is being redisignated, it is found to be so versatile.
The F-35 is several things depending on what disignation…the important message is that we keep one for ourselves, and know what the other weakenesses are.
We can build the F-35, which was designed to be “inexpensive”, and ship it out, and keep the real robust one for ourselves.
right2bright on April 13, 2009 at 2:51 PM
The Marine Corps is not happy with the F-35 the F-22 is superior with testing complete and upgrades already done and utilized.
MNDavenotPC on April 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Don’t worry too much about nice343, facts NEVER get in the way of his(her?) argument.
You notice nice343 almost NEVER comes back and defends their statement? That’s what I call a “seagull” – flies in, makes a lot of noise, craps everywhere, and then leaves.
JeffWeimer on April 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1547927.html
“Expensive and arguably outmoded, the F/A-22 Raptor faces its first battle–with the military’s top brass.
…
Designed in 1986 to counter emerging Soviet fighter designs, the F-22 was meant to do more than keep up with the MiGs. It would get into Soviet territory fast with a Mach 1.5 non-afterburner “supercruise” (top speed is over Mach 2), kick some MiG butt, and get out without so much as a blip on Soviet radar.
But when the test YF-22s were first taking off in the early ’90s, the plane was already losing its mission. The Soviet Union had crumbled, and the modified F-15E used in Desert Storm proved capable of owning both the skies and the ground.“
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM
And a lot of these jobs are UNION jobs. Plus some high-paying engineering jobs. F-22s are built here in the US.
Oh well. File this away under “paying any cost” to support our men & women in service.
hawksruleva on April 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
DL13 on April 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Good link, the reality is one can not compare the 2 aircraft, they are designed for different mission sets and are to be used as an overwhelming air power suite complimenting each other through the execution of tactically unique but mutually supporting missions. In today’s Air Force the F15 = F22 and the F16 = F35, all are capable of overlapping missions, but each type is designed to dominate a single environment.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
My sentiments exactly, particularly with regard to the Chinese.
What I find equally distressing is the cutting of a proven program, one that we’ve already paid money into – all of the money that has gone into the program from its inception is now lost.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 2:57 PM
The US version of the F-35 has all sorts of stuff in it that other countries aren’t going to get.
DaveS on April 13, 2009 at 2:59 PM
So, I guess we can just ignore the fact that the Russians are selling their top of the line MiGs and SU’s to anyone with a little hard currency.
Yeah, we can forget about EVER having to face those aircraft, huh?
Idiots
Fatal on April 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
The Russians are still making and selling top notch aircraft to anyone who will buy them. The aircraft being made by the Chinese are getting better in quality as well.
The idea that we can continue to use a 30 year old air frame as our front line fighter, when the rest of the world is improving rapidly is insane.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
I don’t think we’re arguing that it’s capitalism at its best. But if you’re going to waste government money ANYway, why not spend it on something that will help protect our nation? Having complete air supreriority stops a lot of armed forces from even attempting action against us. If we are perceived to have lost air superiority, someone will challenge us, which means shooting, and high-carbon footprint dogfights.
hawksruleva on April 13, 2009 at 3:00 PM
MNDavenotPC on April 13, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Study the subject matter or end up a statistic, your point is unfounded. The Marine Corps does not task the air superiority role.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM
If you’re arguing that we shouldn’t spend the money at all, that’s one thing. But the point is that we’re spending the money anyway, on purpose, as a stimulus. If we must spend the money to stimulate the economy, why not spend on the raptor? It beats giving the money to ACORN, Hamas, or the NEA, doesn’t it?
trubble on April 13, 2009 at 3:01 PM
A ten year old aircraft designed around twenty year old technologies might be perfectly fine for flying the wife and kids down to St. Simon’s for a beach and golf weekend, or maybe flying on Southwest to Vegas. But, for the Air Force, Navy, or Marines, to utilize in combat? The Vietnam experience showed us one thing clearly…old aircraft fall apart faster under the strain of combat operations than the “experts” anticipated.
The F-15 is an old aircraft.
The F-35 is a pie-in-the-sky hoped for aircraft, with a number of bugs already known, and years away from being sent out to the aircrews.
The F-22 is here, now, and has shown itself capable, and is an airframe that can be built on, further developed without loss of aircraft integrity.
That old Piper that ya got from grandpa might make a nice aircraft for a Sunday afternoon flight after lunch to nowhere particular…but I’d not put it through round-the-clock air ops for more than a couple hours, if that.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
I’m guessing that you believe the lives of the troops inside the vehicles being protected by the “IED jammer” have no value?
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:02 PM
Still enjoying your transistor radio, glass tube TV and that CRT on your desk?
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:03 PM
I remember reading about an excerise involving an F-22 and about a dozen F16′s being flown by experienced pilots.
The F-22 shot down all of the F-16′s before the F-16′s could even get missile lock on the F-22.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Nope…try again.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:05 PM
Maybe somebody needs to tell this symbol of military ineptness that the F-22 is an air superiority platform, whereas the F-35 will be a multi-role platform. This would be like getting rid of the M1A2 Abrams because we have the M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle (which has its own colorful history…) or getting rid of all sniper rifles because we have the M4.
Something tells me that Obama won’t have a ship named after him. In fact, maybe we should rename another piece of equipment after the man: the chock block.
Send_Me on April 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM
We already have F-22s. This isn’t a question of having F-22s or not having F-22s. This is a question of how many more F-22s we will buy and commit to maintaining for the next 30+ years–beyond what we already have–while waiting for the F-35s.
DaveS on April 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM
I have no quarrel at all with that argument – except that in the case of the Raptor, it doesn’t hold water. The F-22 was designed from the very start to knock out of the best MIG’s the Soviet Union could field and then split before they even knew what hit them. At the time (1986) that was a very legitimate goal.
BUT…this is 2009. No more Soviet Union. Their air force is a shadow of what it once was. We now have planes designed to protect us from a threat that doesn’t exist.
So exactly who is challenging our air superiority? Are they throwing threats at us our existing air force can’t already handle within reasonable levels?
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM
I’m not involved in the development of this stuff, so I have no way of knowing for certain, but I have heard rumors of special codes being embedded into the software of the computers in these “for sale” planes. Codes that US pilots can use to disable all advanced features of the target plane on command should they ever try to face off against US forces.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Doesn’t that describe the Raptor now (or in a few years)?
The F-15 is more like a 20 to 30 year old aircraft designed around 30 to 50 year old technology.
Remember Top Gun? The pour old F-14 has already been put out to pasture (what a beauty of an aircraft it was).
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:08 PM
Send_Me on April 13, 2009 at 3:07 PM
The Latrine!!!!
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:09 PM
As if military contractor costs a not audited. Charge more than the contract allows, and the company has to give it back — and their management could face criminal charges.
Go on with your anti-capitalist fantasies, you ‘nice’ idiot.
Right_of_Attila on April 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
Let’s scrap all present auto production in the US. After all, the latest designer/experimental models were already shown at the Detroit auto show this year and should be available to the public in about three to five years, maybe a few years later.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
There is a better use for this money, and no I don’t mean additional subsidies for Democrat constituencies. Manned fighter aircraft will soon be obsolete and it’s better that we be the ones obsoleting them than the Chinese.
Wasn’t one of Boyd’s points that cheaper fleets have an extra edge against more expensive ones? That if the cost factor was N, the expensive aircraft needed to be much more than N times as lethal?
Well, we have the chance to go beyond even that. Unmanned fighters can not only be much cheaper but can also be more lethal than manned ones. We could have air supremacy for the rest of the century.
edshepp on April 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
A) If someone is challenging us, we are already behind where we want to be.
B) If the enemy has new production of older designs, and all you have are old airframes, your screwed. Have a little foresight, here.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM
edshepp on April 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
SkyNet is still a ways off……..
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:12 PM
How quaint. Paint me as a semi-Luddite for not cheering the latest round of people-killing and property-breaking gizmos.
As a matter of fact we do have a transistor radio about in the laundry room. Works as fine as it did the day off the assembly line. Also a half-dozen CRT’s (hooked up and in use). Heck, I’ve got a radio scanner that’s older than I am, and the only reason it’s not useful anymore is because so many things send out radio interference. Still good for picking up weather warnings at least…
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
To be fair the F-22 is an air superiority fighter designed to go head to head against other fighters and as such that limits the types of missions it is used for. Conversely the F-35 is a multi role attack aircraft that has been designed to operate as part of digitally networked battle space in conjunction numerous other assets like AWACS aircraft, UAV’s, Ground forces and Navy ships simultaneously. Its is this concept of total battle space management that the F-35 was designed to utilize that makes it a very potent aircraft.
As for the F-22 instead of shutting down the production line I would have made design changes and created a strike bomber version of the F-22 to fill the medium-range interdictor and tactical strike aircraft role left vacant by the retirement of the F-111 fleet. I would have also allowed export of a downgraded version of the F-22 to countries like Australia and Japan in order to keep the lines running in the short term.
Dreadnought223 on April 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The F-35 does not replace the F-22. Anymore than the F-15 replaced the F-16. (Or was it the other way around?)
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
The Chinese have a few newer fifth generation fighters and all-purpose combat aircraft already well under development. The Russians and India are moving toward joint production of their own fifth-generation all-purpose combat aircraft.
All three nations are potential adversaries, if not already.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 3:13 PM
And are absolutely worthless if the enemy can jam your transmitions or, say, knock out your satellites. They are fine against low tech opponents, but until you get fully autonomous unmanned vehicles, they are not going to be useful against a serious threat. (Bracing for the screams of “Skynet!”)
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
It would be nice if you at least tried to know what you are talking about.
1) The Soviet air force did not evaporate just because the Soviet Union collapsed. The planes are still there.
2) The factories that made the soviet air force did not evaporate just because the Soviet Union collapsed. They still exist and are still making planes.
3) The engineers that designed the Soviet air force did not evaporate just because the Soviet Union collapsed. They are still busy designing new and better planes, to be built in the still existing factories, to be sold to whoever has the cash to buy them.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Right, because human beings should be perfect! And since they aren’t, our young men can die in inferior equipment! Makes sense to a lib I suppose. Some people scam the government and so now our best should not even be attempted.
I’m sure you’ve been ripped off by a restaurant, do you still go to others, or do you insist on only home cooking now? You’ve read a bad book, so have you stopped reading? Then why should we stop protecting our young men with the best equipment because some contractors have gouged us?
What would be your solution? Only the wonderful federal bureaucracy that gave us a bankrupt post office, 31% Medicaid fraud, the interstate bridge in Minnesota, etc should design and build our weapons? It is the competition that has built the exellence America enjoys in military technology. Yes, competition’s weakness is the possibility of cheating, which is usually punished in one way or another. But competition’s strength, which is creating the best products, far outweighs it.
By the way, what allowed contractors to get that gouging through? Right, government bureaucracy. The only part of our government that works efficiently are the men and women of our armed forces. Even they are human and make mistakes the libs love to magnify and apply to all the military, but it is their honor and ethics codes that make them so excellent. The rest of the federal government, including the federal employees that handle defense contracting, have no honor or ethics codes, only a union that protects them from virtually any mistake.
Again, you can pick and point out mistakes, but those are exceptions, not the rule and don’t make your point. Again, you libs still haven’t told us what system would be better for encouraging people to innovate, take risks and make the best systems they can.
I’ve ridden in cars made in the Soviet Union while there as a student before Perestroika. It was crappy, because there was no incentive of competition to do better. I feel lucky to be alive from that one short taxi ride.
So, again, what’s your system to get these people to make the next better step of innovation? Competition has worked very well, do you have a better way?
PastorJon on April 13, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Idiot. I never said we shouldn’t keep our current designs going. The slack-jawed fascination with the newest must-have Very Expensive (obsolete) Gadget is what I’m arguing against.
The time and resources spent on the F-22 would have been far better spent on improving the older generation of fighters and developing the new one.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:17 PM
It describes every plane eventually.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:17 PM
Maybe he is waiting for the production of the F-22 Hybrid. Those regular F-22s are fuel hogs.
digitsiam on April 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM
If by “soon”, you mean sometime in the next 30 to 40 years, you might be right.
The question is, what do we do in the meantime?
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM
I think it is 14-15-16-18, with the F-18 kind of replacing the F-14, even though the F-14 was a dedicated interceptor, and the F-18 is mostly a striker (I wonder how they are doing with that, actually).
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:19 PM
There are already engineering studies going on to create an unmanned version of the F-35 at some stage in the next few years.
Dreadnought223 on April 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM
A lot to be said for unmanned fighters and other combat aircraft, not all of it good.
EMP will destroy the ground-air links, and the onboard systems with a loss of aircraft…but no pilot losses. That’s the good part.
But, having a live thinking, breathing pilot involved offers something else…a fail-safe. Is t hat roop concentration on the ground ours or theirs? Only a pilot can make this sort of last second decisions…not always correctly but more correctly than an unmanned combat aircraft that has to rely on multiple levels of computerization and artificial intelligence in a matter of milli-seconds. As for unmanned aircraft…we are not there, yet. The demostrators seem to work, and the Predators and Global Hawks have shown that they can work, in a limited fashion with a limited mission. We have a long way to go yet before we can actively consider fielding squadrons of unmanned combat aircraft.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 3:20 PM
If DS had his way, we’d still be fighting with muskets.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM
We’re up to the F-18E/F now – it’s supposed to be a dual-role fighter/strike acft, but it still doesn’t have as long legs as we really need.
We’re waiting for the F-35 as well.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:22 PM
The F-22 is already “skipping” a generation. You want to make it two? The rest of the stuff we have is old, and not built for stealth, the same way that, after WWII, the old airframes were not built for jet power. It is the F-22 and the F-35 that we will keep for a while, improving and modifying, until the next airframe-changing development comes along. But that means we have to keep them in production.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Okay, you’ve been “modifying” your ’72 Monte Carlo for the past 37 years rather than ever buying new.
Yeah, that’s brilliant.
ScottMcC on April 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Normally I say give our fighting forces the most advanced weapons possible, but no less an authority than John Boyd (father of US air combat doctrine, the F-16 and the A-10) thought that expensive air superiority fighters like the F-15 and F-22 were not a good use of resources.
Quantity vs quality is an old debate regarding military hardware.
The Sherman tank was generally inferior to the German Tiger and Panther tanks but the US (Chrysler for the most part) built about 3 times as many Shermans as the Germans were able to build heavy tanks.
rokemronnie on April 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 Next »