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: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
The F-14 started out as an air superiority fighter but towards the end of its career they were upgraded so that they could be utilised as an attack aircraft as well.
The original F/A-18 was a fighter attack aircraft and the newer F-18 super hornet can perform both roles. It was the Super Hornet that replaced the F-14.
Dreadnought223 on April 13, 2009 at 3:26 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
The F-35 is replacing the F-16. My husband is part of the start up on the base for the F-35. The more note worthy part of this is why the Mayor of Valpariso Fl, is filing a lawsuit to block the F-35 from coming to Eglin AFB. He has created major problems.
http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/ross_16652___article.html/eglin_destin.html
milwife88 on April 13, 2009 at 3:26 PM
And where are the pilots and fuel to fly them? Where are the skilled mechanics with tools and spare parts to maintain them? And where’s the powerful organization wielding all of the above as a unified force that threatens the world? Hardware sitting around gathering dust has a tactical value of zilch.
…which our current air force can already handle with aplomb, and which haven’t posed any threat to our air superiority in decades.
Thank you, but I kind of figured that out already. The same thing has happened with their chemical/biological/nuclear design teams and I’ve read a number of articles about same.
Now why don’t we try and find out what kind of planes they’re designing, if they’re a threat and if they’ll even ever get off the ground in any appreciable numbers instead of designing a countermeasure to a boogeyman that isn’t there?
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:27 PM
The F-14 was built in tandem with the 80-mile-ranged Phoenix interception missile — I think only other plane that can carry them is the interceptor version of the SR-71. I don’t know what the F-18 has to make up for that, but it worries me. I don’t think we have any carrier based fighters dedicated to interception and air superiority any more.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:28 PM
What is really nice about an Airframe is that it is a long lived asset (C130, B52 and KC135 fleets will be 80+ year programs), its a highly mobile asset, and aircraft don’t really depreciate if properly maintained…
Even better, is that if DoD was given the capital to do this, they could have ramped up production by flowing working capital down the supply chain, hence the suppliers wouldn’t have to borrow a dime to ramp up hiring… aerospace suppliers are pretty well spread out all around the country.
The stimulus would be even stronger by procuring another 250 F-16′s (which is still in production for export)… which then could be used to replace war-torn airframes, or be re-sold to IRAQ who will need to build their air defenses over the next 5 years…
The ideologues are in power, after 8 years of projection…
Defense bad, abortions good… kick up the class warfare…
phreshone on April 13, 2009 at 3:28 PM
If I remember the stories right, the reason we stuck with smaller tanks had more to do with problems of shipping them across the ocean than a desire to build more. The fact that the Panzers outclassed the Sherman resulted in the deaths of a lot of US tank crews.
Ultimately, it was the fact that the Allies had complete air superiority that removed the German tanks from the battle field, not the numerical superiority of the Sherman’s.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:29 PM
The USS FORD, the brand new aircraft carrier will only cost 7 billion, I think. So I’ve no idea where those numbers come from, besides his rear.
todler on April 13, 2009 at 3:29 PM
They still exist. As does Russia, which is using it’s newfound oil wealth to create lots of problems for it’s neighbors.
a) So you know more about the ability of our aircraft vis-a-vis Russian hardware better than the people involved in the field? Nice to know that the liberal penchant for believing they are experts in all fields remains unchallenged. The Soviet planes matched up well with our planes in the last days of the Soviet Union, and like us, they have also continued to improve.
So you admit that you have no idea how good the newest Russian planes are, yet you remain convinced enough to risk the lives of US pilots on your unshakeable belief that ours are and will always remain better.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:33 PM
Well gee maybe it is because Gates has planned a shift in spending away for some time. He was proposing many of these cuts before Obama took office. In fact Gates himself said the following:
“My hope is that, as we have tried to do here in this building, that the members of Congress will rise above parochial interests and consider what is in the best interest of the nation as a whole,”
He is referring to spending more on irregular warfare projects and intelligence. Hugh might have overlooked the fact that we are fighting two wars which probably don’t need next generation interceptors. AQ don’t have an air force and the current order of F-22s is more than enough to handle America’s requirements. Pity about the flawed F-15s. I really like the F22… it’s a great plane but we have more pressing needs elsewhere in all the services. Gates doesn’t come across as the kind of person to run down our military.
lexhamfox on April 13, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I have heard that it was actually quite common for the Sherman to survive the death of its crew. That, and they lacked the firepower to get through the armor of the heavier German tanks at all.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:34 PM
The AMRAAM is the long range active air-to-air weapon being used currently.
I think the Navy did it right, frankly, using the F-18 variants as an intermediate weapon system while developing the next generation dual-role fighter/strike aircraft.
We won’t be able to hold on to this advantage for long, though.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:34 PM
Provided they could get a shot at the undercarriage, the Sherman had no trouble knocking out a Panzer.
I’ve heard a number of accounts of Sherman’s positioning themselves so that they could shoot at a Panzer as it crested some kind of rise, precisely so they could get a shot at the underside.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 3:36 PM
He is, however, already setting us up to fight the last war, not the next one.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:37 PM
F-22 = Expensive missile platform
F-35 = Cheaper Missile platform
Predator = Cheap missile platform
PS: The Defense Dept. has had all American built fighters since 1996 to have electronic remote control Kill Switches so they could be neutralized if they came under control of hostile powers. (Source: Wikileaks – but removed from files in 2008).
Note: Does not include Israel aircraft because they installed their own electronics.
SocratesShadow on April 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM
As well as a lot of HA posters, apparently. Rather frustrating to say the least…
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM
There’s nothing saying they can’t do better – procurement been a problem for years, and it’s the politics, not the profit that’s the problem – even your sources agree.
Some of your examples make the wrong comparison; the jammer is not there to protect the vehicle, but the people inside!
But do you think OTHER departments in the federal government will do BETTER with all the money being dumped on them?
Here’s an oldie but goodie, courtesy of the National Park Service:
http://www.theplumber.com/outhouse.html
JeffWeimer on April 13, 2009 at 3:38 PM
Sounds good. Maybe the AMRAAM is a smaller missile than the Phoenix (which cost a cool $1M on its own).
Well, if there was any time that they could get away with that kind of stop-gap, it was the relative peace of the last two decades. I wouldn’t count on that continuing, though.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I was charitable to you earlier, no longer. Waiting to see what the Japanese were up to worked out real well, so didn’t Europe’s vigilance after WWI. Every major conflict occurred when a potential adversary did not wait and see, they armed and struck. Crawl back into your hole and read up on history by candle light.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:41 PM
Surely you find it mildly humorous to think of us all sitting in the “War Room” while General Turgidson tells us the Soviets will make a better bunker, so America “must not allow a mine shaft gap.”
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Advanced missles made the Raptor obsolete – after all the design now is 25 years old
too bad great aircraft – for the 90′s
EricPWJohnson on April 13, 2009 at 3:42 PM
Wait, even ours? So, if somebody gets the codes, they can shut down our air force with a radio?!
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I can’t help but think of the Chinese and their developments. 20-30 years they could equal us in military power. We have to think 20-30 years ahead as well as in the presence. Not cheap, but there it is.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:44 PM
?
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 3:45 PM
Prove to me that the F-22A is obsolete. Show me where it’s being blown out of the sky everytime it goes up in a head to head engagement.
There’s a line that you have to draw where things need to stop, like with aircraft age and so on. I don’t know about you, but I think having our fighters literally fly apart in mid-air is a significant problem. Would you want to go onboard a commercial airliner that’s 35-65yrs old? That’s about the average age range of the Air Force fleet that we’re dealing with. It’s time we start getting the ball rolling on procurement.
ViperPilot on April 13, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Looks like the HA short bus is about full, time to send for another.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Ehhh…. I’m going to put my 2 cents in here. Right now the U.S. Navy has the F/A-18 Super Hornet acting as the all-around fighter with the EA-6B Prowler (soon to be replaced by the Growler) as its electronic warfare platform. The U.S. Air Force has largely replaced the F-15 with the F-16 and F-22. Ground missions are mostly taken over by bombers and A-10′s. So we are largely in good shape as far as fighter jets are concerned. That being said, we’ve never bombed our way to victory in a campaign. While air-power is still important, there are other aspects of the military that are of equal importance.
That being said, the entire defense budget is getting cut in places. So no DD-1000′s for the swabbies, no F-22′s (or F-35′s) for the airdales. Thankfully bullets are cheap so the soldiers and marines are still in business.
….and I was looking forward to the DD-1000 too…..
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 3:48 PM
Ed, Maybe the correct answer is to cancel both. Yes, I’m serious. Just because something is 2% of the stimulus in size isn’t a reason to spend the money. Yes, the hypocrisy of Obama is staggering in terms of chopping “shovel-ready” defense projects and expanding every other area of government, but that doesn’t mean that either F22 or F35 are good programs. There are a LOT of bad defense programs (way under delivering and way over budget). Trust me, I want our boys to have the best stuff, but that doesn’t give DoD carte blanche to pour money down ratholes, buying all sorts of high-tech stuff for the hell of it. I’d much rather see the F22 and F35 money funding the missile defense programs and make due with the existing F22s and F15s and F16s.
PersonalLiberty on April 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM
Don’t tell that to General Clark! Or Curtis LeMay, for that matter…
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:50 PM
ROFL – Boyd was a co-designer on both the F-15 and F-16. Not of A-10 fame either, that was Sperry. Nice try though, thanks for playing.
Dark-Star – look up the Su-47 “Berkut.” Not the -37, that’s a cheap knockoff upgrade of the Su-27 that the Russians are using as a stopgap and export airframe (to the Indians) until the -47 is ready. The Berkut is what you’d get if you mated the thrust-vectoring of a Raptor with the FSW design of the X-29, and is maneuverable as you can ask for. The -27 is roughly equivalent to the MiG-29 and the early models of F-15. The -37 is roughly equivalent to the F-15C (such as the ones that were falling apart in midair back in 2007!). The -47 is designed to eat Raptors. I don’t think it will do that job, myself, but I do think that it will bring about parity.
Parity on the battlefield is something you try to avoid if you value the lives of your people. We don’t seek fair fights – we seek to win. Raptors will give us that for about 5, maybe 10 more years guaranteed, but after that it’s dependent on the pilots and maintenance techs – which means we need to go back to the drawing board again. I’d rather spend a mountain of cash than pints of blood, honestly.
F-35s are all well and good, but they’re not designed to do the same air-dominance role as the Raptors. They’re meant to replace aging F-16s and (B models) Harriers, both for us and for foreign allies that can afford them. They’re not as stealthy, not as reliable, not as capable, as Raptors. They’re also not as expensive, which is why we really should be pursuing both models at this point. Double the number of Raptors (which reduces the per-plane cost as explained above by others), accelerate production of the F-35 family, and put the Hornets, Vipers, and Eagles on the block. Take the Harriers to the shredders; they’re worthless. That’s how the modernization plan should proceed.
Blacksmith on April 13, 2009 at 3:51 PM
By the way, one of the Discovery network channels (forget which one) did a whole series on the F22. Other air forces going against a wing of F-22s would be decimated before the F-22s even appeared on their radar. Do we have enemies that would put us into that kind of battle right now? No, but we shouldn’t wait until we do to create the defense against it.
PastorJon on April 13, 2009 at 3:51 PM
That Zumwalt-class DD-1000 was a just plain evil looking ship…awesomely evil…that new littoral patrol ship, the Independence is also an awesomely evil looking ship…got to love them.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Well it certainly has helped, but where in the history of air-warfare have we won with airpower alone. At any rate, Adm Arleigh Burke could take both those guys blindfolded with one hand behind his back.
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 3:54 PM
The worst part of this cut is there was a long-term strategy in place to develop a family of ships off this platform.
Well, arguably it’s the worst part, anyway. It’s disappointing to me to see a long-term strategy of this nature dashed within two months.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 3:56 PM
I dunno. I liked the DD-1000′s because they reminded me of a Star Destroyer from “Star Wars”.
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 3:57 PM
1st cold warrior: The F15 was an air superiority fighter. In that is is unequalled. It has never been shot down by an opposing aircraft, and it can take any aircraft in the air from any country except the F22, which it has trouble seeing. However, if it can see the F22, I suspect the latter will be toast. The F15 has many years left on it. The B52 and C/KC135 are being flown by the grandchildren of the original pilots and will probably be flown by their grandchildren. (admitted different missions) Maintenance makes all the difference, even of the F15s.
2nd Mark the great Your argument is good for where did all the commies and their spies go, question. However your stated facts stink and are false for the remaining airpower of the old Soviet Union. The planes are not still there. No maintenance and no pilots. Out of 2500 MIG 25s, none remain flyable; of the MIG 29s less than 500. They managed, through supreme efforts to get a few Tupelovs in the air for an international flyover.
They don’t have the engineers or mechanics. It has been 20 years since the collapse of the USSR. That means at least half the engineers are gone and the other half are out of practice. Half the aircraft workers are gone and the remainder have forgotten what to do. That, is why we can’t shut down and restart an aircraft assembly line! The jigs and fixtures get lost or out of claibration, the drawings get lost. The old institutional knowledge is lost. Try reading the “Strategy Page Worldwide” and see the problems countries with USSR equipment are having maintaining and using the equipment, even countries with a good engineering base. To shut down the F22 line before the F35 line comes on line is betting on the come.
Old Country Boy on April 13, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Hmmmm… Linebacker II? Viet Nam?
Pretty much brought the North to the peace table…
Romeo13 on April 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM
So we shouldn’t build any modern interceptors until we are in a war in which we need them.
And to think, some people believe liberals are unable to plan ahead.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:01 PM
The F-15 only edged out the F-14 in dogfighting, but would have been shot down at range by the F-14′s longer range. I don’t have the stats, but I got the impression that the F-22 outperforms the F-15, and there are a number of Russian aircraft that outperform the F-15 (at least on paper).
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:04 PM
As well as a whole lot of help from Marines, Soldiers, and Sailors. The bombings weren’t effective until we started targeting N. Vietnam’s industry. Until that point we were mostly bombing jungle.
I’m not saying air-warfare isn’t important. Shoot, the main part of a Navy task force is the Aircraft Carrier. I’m saying that it isn’t the ONE deciding factor.
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 4:08 PM
The F15 never faced the equivalent Soviet aircraft piloted by well trained pilots. The Iraqi pilots were amatuers compared to our guys.
The F15 has never faced anything built by the Russia in the last 20 years.
Regarding the old Soviet airforce. Yes, they did downsize tremendously, but the did not disappear entirely. They never stopped flying. BTW, mothballed planes can and often are brought back to service after many years. It all depends if they were stored properly, or just left to rot in a hanger somewhere.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Many audiophiles and guitar players who own some rather costly and collectible equipment prefer the sound of vacuum tubes to solid state devices – though there are some “Class T” amps on a chip that sound incredible for the price.
rokemronnie on April 13, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Oh look at the pretty shiny nickle. Let me step over the dime to pick up that nickle. I believe that is what President Obama was doing when he met the Saudi King. He wasn’t bowing, just stepping over the dime to pick up the nickle. Some what like he is doing with the economy IMHO.
USMCDevilDog on April 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM
A lot of variables go into the time table for aircraft design and production. Someteimes a decade or more from design to actual flight testing, and in select aircraft, using off the shelf components, it can be reduced greatly. The U-2 and the P-38 come to mind. If enough money is thrown at it miracles happen, the YF-12/SR-71, for example.
But wholesale production of combat aircraft, these days? In the past several decades? This isn’t the ash and fabric aircraft world anymore.
If we wait to see what sort of aircraft a potential adversary is gonig to rollout tomorrow, we are already pathetically behind the game…and playing catch up these days, let alone ten or twenty years from now is not an option if we plan to survive.
What have we learned from successful airframes over the past two or three decades? Not all these airframes embodied the perfect aircraft by any means. But we did learn. And improved designs, capabilities, internal systems and avionics, air tactics…the list is endless.
If we do not go through the production cycles and fielding of systems as the F-22, and upgrades, instead waiting for a more perfect aircraft to come along, that perfect aircraft will never come along.
And waiting until “we really need it” is way too late to even consider it.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Ooh, I’m so scared!
The situation leading up to WW2 occurred because not one but several free nations willfully ignored a very credible military threat that anyone with a set of eyes could see coming. Anti-war sentiment from WW1 and isolationist see-no-evil foolishness caused the mess; the blitzkrieg and Pearl Harbor came only after years of buildup that we refused to acknowledge. The correct response would have been to produce arms & armies capable of taking on the Axis powers…BEFORE they’d already conquered half the planet.
How well was it maintained? When parts wore out, were new ones put in that functioned exactly the same? Is the airframe as a whole still sound?
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 4:11 PM
Vectored thrust helps a lot there.
That puppy can just about fly sideways.
The ability to rotate your aircraft rapidly aids tremendously when you’re trying to get missile lock, or getting ready to fire your guns.
I’m pretty sure the F-22 also has a better power to weight ratio compared to most older planes.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:13 PM
The “correct” answer would be for both the F-22 and F-35 programs to progress, but the “liberal” answer is going to be for both programs to get the axe. You’ll see.
There’ll always be some more exotic technology just over the horizon, e.g., air combat UAVs or improved stealth aircraft, and that’ll always be the libs’ excuse for not funding military purchases in the here-and-now. Of course, don’t mention that they’ll also starve those futuristic systems of R&D funding as well, so the “future solution” never makes it off the drawing board…
The F-15 Cs and Ds have been grounded in large numbers and are being retired from service early due to severe metal fatigue that has caused multiple airframes to disintegrate in mid flight. The F-16s can’t be far behind in this unwelcome development. Yet you can see the Obama-esque “logic” that flows from it:
1. The F-15 is a “cold war” weapon;
2. That we “no longer use”;
3. So we’ll get rid of it (and not replace it).
Besides, once the spending-orgy in Washington DC starts running up mammoth deficits, does anyone doubt for one second that the defense budget is going to become nothing more than a piggy-bank to get busted open to pay for increased ACORN funding?
The Carter administration became known for “The Hollow Military.” The Clinton administration became known for “The Procurement Holiday.” The Hope-a-Dope administration will be known for “The Supply Sergeant Shuffle:”
- We don’t have it;
- We can’t get it;
- You don’t need it;
- It’d have cost too much money, anyway…
Spurius Ligustinus on April 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM
rokemronnie on April 13, 2009 at 3:24 PM
Yet that very same F-15 has never been defeated in air-to-air combat, when flown by anyone.
Proving your reference VERY wrong.
Now comes the F-22 which defeats scores of them, F-16, F/A-18, etc. in the hands of experienced undefeated pilots, but let’s do stop making them, huh?
PJ Emeritus on April 13, 2009 at 4:16 PM
FIFY.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 4:19 PM
As a former Marine I can vouch for that.
pseudonominus on April 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Sperry was part of Boyd’s circle. There’s some question about Boyd’s role in the F-15 and F-16 programs. Though he was highly influential on both programs, I don’t think he ever drew any of the designs of either plane. Reading over comments about Boyd, it seems that the F-16 was a truer distillation of his ideas than the heavier, more expensive and electronics laden F-15. The F-16 is the sports car of fighter planes, the F-15 is more like a high performance GT (grand tourer), and the F-22 is an exotic 10/10ths supercar.
If I’m not mistaken, Sperry and Riccione have spoken out against the F-22 program.
rokemronnie on April 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
One question: has any F-15 ever been in a real dogfight? As in, flown at close range against an enemy in a kill-or-be-killed kind of circumstance?
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Soooo…. you are saying that in a hypothetical matchup between myself in a F-22 (I’ve never flown a plane in my life) versus Manfred von Richtofen (aka the “Red Baron”) in an F/A-18, that I would win because I have the newer technology? I appreciate your confidence in me…. or rather the technology. =D
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 4:22 PM
I happen to support making the F-22. I was just saying that there have been knowledgeable and informed people who think it’s way too expensive.
Like I said, quality vs quantity is an old military debate.
rokemronnie on April 13, 2009 at 4:23 PM
That depends on whether you crash the F-22 before the Red Baron crashes his F-18, provided either of you can figure out how to get the things off the ground.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:25 PM
THe whole point, which you are too dense to comprehend, is that if you wait until you need them to build them, it’s too late. If they aren’t on the runway ready to fly, with pilots who have been trained for years in THAT aircraft, then there is no need to start the production run. The war will be over, and you will have lost before the first plane can reach the battlefield.
I love the way that you are so sure that no threat exists, or ever will, so we don’t need to spend this money.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:26 PM
If you ever find a defense program that has no detractors, check the color of the sky, for you have left this world.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:27 PM
So if I crash AFTER the Red Baron, do I get credit for the kill?
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 4:28 PM
Only if you crash on top of him.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Only if you crash on top of him.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
All right!
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM
If we are being generous. We might require you to have actually come within firing range, though.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:30 PM
lol
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Ehhh. Maybe, I’ll just stick to swabbing decks. That’s a hell of a lot easier….
Rightwingguy on April 13, 2009 at 4:32 PM
I love the way you obviously speedread my posts.
I never said that our air power will be #1 forever. I’m just tired of being told more of my tax money needs to go to building insanely expensive instruments of destruction to counter some boogeyman or another. The Soviet MIG-force is pretty much defunct and the F-22′s purpose with it. Redirect efforts to the F-35′s or the next generation of bombers…something we need and can use.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Yes, the Israelis used it against Syrian Migs.
Iblis on April 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 4:33 PM
Ah yes, the old, instruments of destruction boogeyman.
Why don’t you just come out and admit, you don’t want the US to have a military in the first place.
You are one of those morons who actually believes that if we love everyone else enough, that they will just love us back.
MarkTheGreat on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
But think of all the beautiful Wind Turbines we’re going to get instead of those awful Raptors.
Dhuka on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
Ooh, didn’t know that. Was it a real dog fight or just one of those see target, kill target things?
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:35 PM
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, and serves essentially one role. And it is monumentally expensive. It works really well in the role it serves, but at a price.
The Pentagon expects to expand production of the multi-role F-35, which has economies of scale advantages over the F-22. The F-35 does not exactly have the F-22s air superiority performance, but we don’t really need it for the foreseeable future. And it will be available in 3 designs: ground, carrier, and V/STOL.
So the “stimulus” will be in the F-35. However, I think that was the plan before Obama stepped in.
Bigurn on April 13, 2009 at 4:36 PM
What is the underlying theme here? What is being said between the lines? What is not spoken and not part of the discussion? Referring to the CBO, the White House, DoD, and Congress…not the HotAir crew.
As costs, expenditures, entitlements and that pesky stimulus/porkulus package goes forward, and there are several solid indications that Reid and Pelosi are already crafting a Second Stimulus, hoping to get it out before the 2010 election cycle, Defense is going to be cut to the bone.
We are in it for several trillion dollars already…look for the cuts to begin with earnest, and soon.
That is the underlying theme.
Smart diplomacy will become primary, and that old troglodyte nasty uncomfortable military will become tertiary at best when it comes to how this Administration views priorities.
As for cash outlays nothing, absolutely nothing, will be allowed to get in the way of the wholesale purchase of the electorate with free money and free programs and all sorts of wonderful things.
And defense?
Why put money into defense if we have no real enemies anymore? People around the world are going to love us. Look at the bulk of Obama’s rhetoric over the past year.
And there will be, there are, a number of entitiies out there that are just waiting to take advantage of it all.
China comes to mind, first. But look at India, look at Russia, pathetic looking as it is today, with just a few changes, it’ll be back with a vengeance. Brazil? Certain members of the EU?
Going to hear more of this “we don’t have any real enemies anymore” talk over the next few years.
This F-22, and DD-1000, and a few other systems are just the beginning.
I do not advocate a wholesale spending spree on anything military…but it seems that there is a lot more going on than canceling the F-22 while we wait for the F-35 going on.
And when the time comes that we really need something to defend ourselves, a lot of lives are going to be lost, and scapegoats found, but none of it will be attributable to the Dems until long after it can do any good.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 4:37 PM
DarkStar it’s statements like this that make it clear you have no idea what you are talking about. The jammers protect the crews you tool, not just the vehicle.
Also, Warlock is a generic name for a series of jammers, most of them made by one company. Some of them are expensive and some are cheap, at 5k or so a copy. So saying a “Warlock” costs 150k is like saying a “car” costs a 150k. Yep you can find some that do cost that but there is a wide variation.
When the radio control initiated IED threat first evinced itself we had nothing to combat it. The initial types of Warlock systems were developed quickly from equipment that had been designed for a completely different purpose. All that existed at the time were some very complicated and large systems developed for EOD. So a rushed development funded by the military but carried out by civilian companies took place.
Once the systems showed success there was a need to get thousands of them in the field as quickly as possible. To do so DoD paid companies to expand facilities, hire additional shifts of workers, provide field service representatives to repair them, produce training classes and ship systems forward. We also gave producing companies priority on certain critical components that are in short supply. You don’t go through a rush development process and into production working three shifts w/o paying a premium price. And we did. Nobody knows how many lives were saved because we did, but I can safely say it is in the hundreds at least. I think it was worth it.
Finally, the RC IED threat changed and evolved as the bad guys got smarter and tried new things. Consequetly, early systems that were no longer effective were replaced. So, there are a number of jammers that we purchased early on that have been returned to be broken up.
Bottom line is that moving things forward quickly costs money. It costs the vendors and it costs us. Did they make a profit, absolutely. Did we save Americans, absolutely.
SoonerMarine on April 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM
“One question: has any F-15 ever been in a real dogfight? As in, flown at close range against an enemy in a kill-or-be-killed kind of circumstance?
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Yes, the Israelis used it against Syrian Migs.”
Further, the F-15 is undefeated in over 100 engagements. That having been said, it hasn’t really been challenged that much. We “engaged” the Iraqi Air Force, and mostly on the ground. What’s the fun in that?
Bigurn on April 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Some other notes:
The F-15 replaced the F-4, not the F-16. The F-15 and F-16 have different roles and different cost/benefit analyses.
The F-18 replaced the F-14, but not really really replacing it until the larger-winged Super Hornet version. The F-14 was an all-weather, fire-and-forget, air superiority machine. It was massive, expensive, burned fuel like a dragster, but was dang hard to kill. The F-18 wasn’t, and depended upon support aircraft to succeed. The Super Hornet addressed most of the Hornet’s shortcomings. The F-18 is a scalpel, and the F-14 is an angry, malicious, fire-breathing scalpel that will hunt you down wherever you hide and kill you without remorse. Just my $.02.
Bigurn on April 13, 2009 at 4:46 PM
And it leaked oil like a sieve. Maintenance on those pigs was atrocious.
Otis B on April 13, 2009 at 4:51 PM
Having flown a previous generation fighter against a “modern version” flown by an enemy, I can tell you it isn’t any fun. The ONLY thing, and I mean the ONLY thing that kept us alive was our better missle technology, otherwise we would have been blown out of the air by a “minor” player.
I hear a whole lot of people who obviously have never actually had their butts in the cockpits spouting a lot of nonsense on this thread. The F-22 should be purchased in large numbers as a replacement for the F-15 and the F-35 variants will act as replacements for the F-16 and F-18.
Those crowing about us still flying B-52′s seem to forget we only do that where we have absolute air superiority (which we will not achieve with older generation aircraft) and the fact that we supplement the B-52′s with B-1b’s and B-2′s.
Finally this:
The MiG 25 is a 40 year old aircraft, not a modern design and it was designed to shoot down our spy planes (primarily the SR-71 and, to a lesser extent, the U-2). And yes, they still fly some of them as, if you have enough money, a rich civilian can “buy” a ride in a MiG 25 from the Russians to this day (I think the going rate for training, outfitting and a “ride” is $50k+).
Sure a lot of “arm chair” flying going on in this thread. Believe it or not, the real thing isn’t really like those games you’ve all been playing on your PlayStations and X-boxes.
Fatal on April 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM
I always did like the Tomcat. It also seemed somehow more artistic than the other war planes out there.
Though I think it was classified as an interceptor, not an air superiority fighter.
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:52 PM
Heh, heh. No doubt. But I love them anyway (the games, that is).
Count to 10 on April 13, 2009 at 4:55 PM
The two aren’t comparable. If you were responsible for using and maintaining the car for 30-40 years, you may very well wait 1 or 2 years and invest resources in a different model. You’re using a very simplistic calculus here if you are comparing fighter planes to cars.
Also, lost in this discussion seems to be the fact that the military doesn’t seem to have any objections to these reductions.
DaveS on April 13, 2009 at 4:56 PM
Cope India
Might want to reconsider the F-15s complete invincibility.
Beagle on April 13, 2009 at 5:01 PM
Wish I were back in the pipeline in DC again…I’d love to be able to sit in on a few of the most recent hatchet briefings.
The military hasn’t been vocal on a number of things lately, which is good, in general, since we do not wish to have a politicized military running around. But there surely have been major trade-offs along the way.
Let’s see, for example, hypothetically, of course, we’ll give the Navy $X more for these two programs, but that DD-1000…it is gone. The Air Force…well we can trade the entire C-5 fleet for the C-17′s, and keep a few bases open, maybe augment a program or two, but this particular system is gone, finito. Army? We can upgrade the SpecOps folks, but we will turn over a number of programs to civilians, and we’ve built our last M-1, and we are closing Lima’s tank rehab facility…Anniston will have to suffice. And, forget about the new fires systems, we can depend on regular old tube artillery for a few more decades.
Marines, we can give you an extra Brigade, maybe two…but we are shutting down several other programs along the way.
Seriously, it is an auction at times, being in some of these budget meetings/hatchet briefings.
The bottom line is always, this is all we are going to get from Congress, and Congress says if we cannot come to an agreement, then they will make the choices for us. And we’ve seen how that works, too…building ships we don’t need from a shipyard in a senior Senator’s district, or pushing not needed aircraft out the door of a favored Representative’s favorite constituency.
And the experts in all of this? Rarely are they part of the budgetary discussions. They submit their proposals and validations to whichever service chief they serve and it all gets tossed on the table.
So, because the active military haven’t raised a big fuss on this does not at all indicate these choices went down smoothly and without rancor.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM
To most of the commenters here. If someone doesn’t like the F-15, there has never been a good aircraft or competant pilot that has gone up against one. If that is a random sample, what does that say about the rest of the USSR era equipment and training?
Just when I detect that your “facts” are statements, not facts, I notice that you still arrive at reasonable conclusionss. The F-15 was the best of its day. The F/A 18 (Fighter/Attack) multirole at the flip of a switch is arguably the best Navy fighter. The F22 is better than all if the stealth is always working and there are no maintenence mistakes. The technology is new, and don’t be surprised if there are mechanical failure problems in its future. The F35 will fill future gaps. Based on the arguement that good is the enemy of best, I feel the following has the most benefit for The United States:
1. Continue to build the F22 until it can be replaced in numbers by F35 or UAVs.
2. Continue with the F35.
3. Continue with the next after the F35.
4. The declared question of this thread was, since we are throwing money all over the place for really stoooopid reasons and results, why couldn’t we hedge our bets and continue with a comparatively few bucks for the F22? I’m not a fan of the F22, but I think we should. My answer is yes.
An old AV8B; F15C, D, E, and I; and F’nA18 engineer.
Old Country Boy on April 13, 2009 at 5:09 PM
I wasn’t crowing about the B52 anc C/KC135. You misunderstood me. With excellent maintenance and pilots, many aircraft can fly “forever”. I’m not advocating that; only using that as a comparison of how the USSR era aircraft would have to have been maintained to keep them usable today. I agree with you, as in my previous comment, we must keep trying to produce the very best aircreft we can for exactly the reasons you gave. However, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. We can build F22s and develop F35s at the same time, and we should. As any gambler will tell you, don’t bet on the come and always hedge your bets if you can.
Don’t let the people that say the first rollout af any system must be perfect. I recall that the C-17 was much maligned and accused of being too expensive, until the C141s started falling apart on the ramp. You remember the bradley? You know, it could only shoot at portapotty fans, but it did pretty good in the last two wars. The Apache was an Army boondoggle, couldn’t fly in the desert. But boy did the critics do an about face when Iraqis surrendered to it.
Old Country Boy on April 13, 2009 at 5:21 PM
Raptor isn’t being dumped because it’s expensive to buy, but because it’s expensive to maintain.
cyclosarin on April 13, 2009 at 5:30 PM
My nephew is an F-15 pilot and has seen the F-22 up close and talked to the pilots who fly them. Him and all the other pilots love this aircraft and feel it is needed to replace the 30 year old F-15. If we stop the development how many years would be wasted getting a new design approvved, tested and in service?
Kevin in Southern Illinois on April 13, 2009 at 5:55 PM
You’ve got plenty of practice jumping to conclusions; why not enter the Olympics? Put that talent to good use.
…
I am not opposed to America having armed forces, you slack-jawed dittohead. I am opposed to the constant barrage of reasons why we just must have this new high-tech gadget or that new plane and we must have it right now Or Else.
Dark-Star on April 13, 2009 at 6:30 PM
It is not like we are buying every gadget that some inventor or developer brings in to a military procurement office. Each year, dozens if not hundreds of weapons and systems designs are floated past the military for consideration and most never get farther than that, a portion get field tested, at developer expense, and a few more are given over to proving grounds testing by the military so they can simulate combat or field usage in a controlled environment…and render a decision as to efficacy and applicability.
For each new aircraft or new weapons system, or new combat boot, that gets as far as the acquisition agencies, there are dozens and hundreds strewn along the roadway not approved by the military,nor of use to the military.
coldwarrior on April 13, 2009 at 6:42 PM
I’ve been involved in the development of the B-2. It’s the most technologically advanced bomber in the world, and among the most advanced, state-of-the-art aircraft ever built. But it was designed in the ’70s and ’80s. Sure it was bleeding edge, but can you think of anything you would use today designed back then, and think it’s state-of-the-art?
My point is NOT that the B-2, or the F-22, is obsolete…rather, the technology is so far advanced that it takes many years, even decades, to put into the air. You don’t scrap a project like this willy-nilly. Just because there “might” be new technology does not mean we’d just “switch over” to the new. It takes many years.
stonemeister on April 13, 2009 at 6:47 PM
Yet the AIM-54 has yet to make a single A2A kill.
Who said the F-22A is meant just for the Soviet Air Force. There are other air forces out there in the world that have modern indigenous or Russian built aircraft in their inventory.
ViperPilot on April 13, 2009 at 7:04 PM
You know count to 10, From the way you write, you must have been an ace in three wars. I think you are like those who think he could have been an ace if he was ever given a chance to fly a plane, which everybody knows it is easy, if the stew on Airplane could do it. I bet you could do a better job than the marine snipers, if only they would let you be one without going through the school.
If I were you, I would stop with these comments. There are pilots on this thread who have probably shot down flying enemy aircraft who almost shit in their pants when they engaged. I wish one of them would tell you that there is no such thing as “Was it a real dog fight or just one of those see target, kill target things” when you are at the sharp end of the spear. Boy, am I tired of you arm chair bravados! Come on, one of you pilots, ground this guy.
Old Country Boy on April 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM
I don’t get it…try again.
right2bright on April 13, 2009 at 7:41 PM
Didn’t Carter cancel the B-1 to allow the limited defense funds allocated to cruise missiles? I seem to remember that from reports at the time or the Military Channel.
David
LifeTrek on April 13, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Follow up — it appears both are right:
But in secret he authorized work on the B-2.
David
LifeTrek on April 13, 2009 at 7:57 PM
Sorry, far too much crap flying at the time so it was lock on and squeeze. Point to be made on the F35; there may be some neutered software but the hardware will be the same…you can do the math.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 8:28 PM
I agree but then they seem to be have a valid reason for doing this. Also, the project isn’t being scrapped. They are cutting back on the order. Shifting priorities. Most of the real advances are in powerplants, avionics, and ammo… we still fly B52s. We just launch better missiles.
The only item in the cuts that I thought was as odds with shifting needs was the C17.
Early days… the Pentagon requests and then the politicians give them what they don’t want. Gates made the plea to let them decide priorities.
lexhamfox on April 13, 2009 at 9:01 PM
Oh, boy! Another thread where we can all argue the shit out of military strategy, tactics, and logistics issues while most of us on the thread have absolutely no idea what we are talking about. Future congressmen in the making, for some.
/sarc
On a more sober (and somber) note, we need to get our heads around the fact that Obambi’s “cuts” in the military are a drop in the ocean compared to all the spending his budget (and Spendulus) provides for, which will neither create so-called “shovel ready” jobs, nor will it provide any long-term benefit to the economy.
And someone has to pay for it.
The fact that someone would willingly choose to spend billions of our future tax dollars on such noble pursuits like ACORN and HAMAS, but not on military hardware (e.g., more F-22′s, F-35′s, and various BMD systems such as ABL and MKV) demonstrates to me that the spending has no connection to reality, nor will it do anything for its intended purpose – stimulating the economy.
And the best part of all this? Liberals will continue to whine about Conservative spending on military readiness, even as Liberals create the gutted supply chain issues that required the spending to catch up to begin with. Then, when the actual threat materializes, they will blame Conservatives for not being ready for it.
Perhaps I’d just feel better if I had a full lobotomy and could join the legions of people who hang out on Kos and HuffPo…sigh.
Wanderlust on April 13, 2009 at 9:33 PM
Breathtakingly simplistic and criminally ignorant. I’ll follow you and your BUFF into hostile airspace, good luck and Gods speed, you’ll need it. Please leave a forwarding address so we can send condolences and flowers to your loved ones.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 10:07 PM
Disagree.
Firstly – I disagree with the premise of spending tax payer dollars to “stimulate” the economy. Why? Because the only parts getting stimulated are the ones the political power wants stimulated.
Secondly – the Lightning is a more capable platform – and it’s not that far behind. Additionally – the F-16′s and FA-18′s currently serving in the fleet are wonderful aircraft on sturdy frames that can hold the line until the Lightning comes along.
This isn’t even close to the B-1 decision Carter made. At the time – the B-52 was an aged and dilapidated platform that simply didn’t have the terrain hugging capabilities of the B1 – even though a few hot rod B-52 pilots tried to prove that it did (wish I could have been there for that test!).
Anyway – don’t pervert a weapon system procurement for purposes of economic stimulation. We need the best out there in the F-35. Don’t spend any money on an inferior platform.
HondaV65 on April 13, 2009 at 10:10 PM
Perhaps Dear Leader wishes to emulate the many successes of the Carter Administration? Guess he was too high to remember how that went down.
Pretty typical of North American and Western European Leftists. The Bolsheviks and Maoists have always shaken their heads when wondering where these wimps are coming from and have long seen them as useful (albeit well-meaning, ideologically acceptable mind you) idiots.
Dr. ZhivBlago on April 13, 2009 at 10:13 PM
Let’s not forget here that two fighters require two different parts lines and sourcing, etc. Keep the logistics simple and buy one fighter.
Additionally – I believe more of our allies have signed on to the F-35? And some of them – like Norway – took some crap over that. I was in Norway and many of the Europeans thought the competition was rigged in America’s favor over some other formidable proposals from Europe. We’ve sold the F-35 concept to our allies – stick with dream here and don’t flush it for a stimulus that won’t work.
The Raptor won’t fix the economy – all of the king’s horses and all of the king’s men won’t fix that.
HondaV65 on April 13, 2009 at 10:22 PM
You show your ignorance of the F-22A’s capabilities and purpose right away by totally ignoring what plane it’s meant to replace – the F-15, not the F-16. You say “it’s a more capable platform”, and yet you don’t offer anything to substantiate your point. People like you fail to comprehend that the F-22A and the F-35 are not meant to replace each other, but rather they are meant to work in conjunction with each other. The F-22A is meant for Air Superiority, and the F-35 is meant for Strike Fighter.
ViperPilot on April 13, 2009 at 10:47 PM
I see you fly for the Peoples Republic. The F22 will maul the F35 in the air-to-air arena. As for the more capable platform you’re attempting to compare a bird to a brick with the 35 being the brick. Strike aircraft perform their task much better when they don’t have to contend with an enemies hunter-killers. Stick to your obsolete rice burner.
dmann on April 13, 2009 at 10:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »