So long, F-22
posted at 3:36 pm on April 22, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The high-level campaign to save the F-22 as a production system has likely come to an end. Lockheed Martin, the program’s prime contractor, announced that they would cease all lobbying activity after Defense Secretary Robert Gates scratched the Raptor in a series of cost-cutting moves at the Pentagon. That leaves 95,000 jobs at risk:
Lockheed Martin will not spend any more time and effort trying to overturn Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to halt production of F-22 Raptor fighter jets, a top company official said Tuesday.
After making a vigorous case for the F-22 with Gates, other senior Pentagon officials and Congress in recent months, Lockheed plans to move on and meet its commitments for other major defense programs such as the F-35 joint strike fighter. …
Lockheed had lobbied the Pentagon and Congress for months to counter public statements by Gates and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England that the Air Force did not need to buy more F-22s after pending orders for 187 planes are filled.
The company even bought ads in Washington newspapers and on bus-stop benches extolling the F-22’s virtues.
Lockheed instead will focus on accelerating deliveries of the F-35 Lightning II fighter, which Gates chose as priority over the F-22. They want to push the schedule so that they can make up the difference in revenue quickly, as the lack of sales would likely force layoffs rather than transfers to the new program. They scheduled F-35 deliveries originally to begin in 2010 and to meet operational levels in 2012, but with the extra labor and narrower focus, perhaps Lockheed can move those dates up a bit.
The withdrawal will likely close a minor debate point from President Obama’s critics, who looked at the scale of government stimulus spending in other sectors and wondered why the F-22 wouldn’t make a good subject for job preservation. The entire production chain employed 95,000 people by its advocates’ estimates, and the price of delivering the remaining Raptors would have been dwarfed by the rest of Porkulus. With Lockheed conceding the point, the question is now moot.
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 4 Next »
nice, way to go douchebag liberals. Here was not only a shovel ready project, but it was way past the shovel. They hate America.
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Which Senators will face unemployed constituents?
ladyingray on April 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Well, with the borders being gone – did we really need it?
Give peace a chance.
Everybody sing “Kumbaya!”
kybowexar on April 22, 2009 at 3:39 PM
my point being, they should do both, since it’s the federal govt’s primary task to see to the defense of the country.
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Our base was supposed to replace the F-117 Stealths with F-22 Raptors. It was going to mean possibly more growth, more jobs for a town that has zero industry, only the base and government jobs. This affects more than the bottom line, not to mention, drawing down our security so that obama can give more money to acorn and la raza.
HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I thought President Obama raised the defense budget? /
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I was never a fan of the F22 myself. It seemed to be one in a long line of AF projects which have been sucking up tax dollars for years while the US Navy continues to fall behind.
Where do you think we will be fighting the war with China?
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 3:42 PM
I was guessing the main assembly plany was going to be in the South. Googled it, and it turns out I was correct. Main assembly is in Marietta, GA.
WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM
Short sighted at the very least.
The F-22 was not the end-all be-all of combat aircraft. And the F-35 will not be, either.
But, the F-22 had a role that it could fill…today…not three or four years down the road.
The cuts in defense spending made in the sacrifice of the F-22 will be eaten up shortly by cost overruns in other systems, by the Congress, and by slight-of-hand
bookmakingbookkeeping of the Obama Administration. And as most of those 95,000 F-22 related jobs will vanish, those presently holding them will be hard pressed to ever find comparable employment.In effect, there will be no savings.
coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 3:43 PM
So in an era wherein America can almost take total air superiority for granted, we’re worried that the Defense Department isn’t spending billions of dollars on a multi-purpose airplane…
But people aren’t sweating that the Defense Department continues to drag its feet on replacing the 45 year old M16 small arms weapon system?
Spc Steve on April 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
The international financial framework.
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Hopefully never. No wise person or nation picks a fight with the strongest person/nation on the block.
WashJeff on April 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Lockheed….move to Israel.
Limerick on April 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
You don’t like your M4?
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 3:44 PM
Well the title is not entirely accurate, it does not mean the F-22 is going away or being retired, just they arent buying more. And they should buy more, since the most expensive part (Research and Development) is done with.
firepilot on April 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM
95,000??? That’s almost the same as GM and Chrysler combined. You don’t see the government buying thousands of cars for no reason and giving them money to save jobs do you?
Rocks on April 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Probably Republican Senators representing the laid-off workers, which makes it a perfect Democrat budget slash.
Griz on April 22, 2009 at 3:46 PM
Fair enough.
Spc Steve. Another good point.
In the context of fighting China, though, I would be more worried about finding the next gen of Aegis and a true next gen cruiser and destroyer.
Call me parochial, but as a CruDes Surface Guy, it annoys me to know end that we are the last part of the military to get an upgrade.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
No, just dumping billions and billions of tax payer dollars into a black hole.
HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
Gutted is the defense budget. Gone are the fighter jets. Everybody just learn how to smile, shake somebody’s thumb like a “brother” while hugging their arm, bow to our enemy and give them a big wet kiss. Given that we have a clueless DHS Secretary that looks like Janet Reno and is dumber than homemade rope, we should have no problems being safe. Then throw in there our Secretary of State who is making Albright look brilliant. They are trying to take away the internet by saying they need control. They want to silence talk radio. They own the media that doesn’t report anything. Look back… this has all happened elsewhere – by ruthless dictators. Welcome to Hope and Change and Obama. Dipshits that voted for him.
suzyk on April 22, 2009 at 3:48 PM
If they invade Taiwan (which they will) it will be fought in the Strait of Taiwan.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM
I like the H&K416 better. Or the H&K G36 system. Or the FN SCAR platform. I think the XM8 had outstanding potential.
Fact is, we rule the skies with F16s, F15s, and A10s. No one can doubt our air superiority in any theater where we put our minds to it. So why spend billions of dollars upgrading that combat space when a fraction of that budget could be used to provide a superior small arms system?
Spc Steve on April 22, 2009 at 3:49 PM
NOOOOOO. Damnit. Good job Obama, spend us to Oblivion but cut down our military when China is cyber hacking us, Russia is ready to play war games with Venezuela, Mexico and Pakistan about to collapse, North Korea is firing missles over Japan and Iran is enriching Uranium. You are WEAK.
Not only were these jobs but they were important manufacturing and engineering jobs this country needs.
Palin better start raising hell about the missile defense system in Alaska. I can’t believe Obama is even thinking about cutting back on that.
Daemonocracy on April 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM
I was sort of joking. I’m not generally a big fan or the lopsided level of funding the AF receives, either. I’m just not happy that President Obama is spending like a drunken sailor in port while simultaneously cutting the defense budget.
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM
No doubt! The ‘Little Boys’ are the tip of the spear for the U.S. Navy. Carriers are grand but the fleet knows where to put the men. (Thanks for your service, BTW).
Limerick on April 22, 2009 at 3:51 PM
Thank Goodness.
Now we will have enough money to build that rail system from LA to Las Vegas. Maybe we can tie some goats to the tracks as bait for the terrorists, and then run over them with the train.
Yeh, that’ll work.
fogw on April 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Umm… they decided they only need 187 of them. Why the title and the constant braying as if the program itself is canceled? This decision was not made based on a few protesters in Berkeley or a political party’s election pledge… this was a decision made by the Pentagon and the Secretary for Defense.
The F22 will still be flying. Get over yourselves. Chances are they want more of something you don’t even know about yet.
lexhamfox on April 22, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Ah, two Republican Senators and Isakson is up for re-election in 2010.
ladyingray on April 22, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Although this seems to mirror Al Gore’s old campaign line about how he cut the size of federal government–though it was mostly through defense cuts–it’s really more a matter of military planning and strategy than anything.
Let’s not emulate the Leftists here. If the F-22 is worth its salt, then fine. But taxpayers don’t need to pay for equipment so that it can gather dust. I’m not terribly surprised that the jet’s manufacturer wants to keep the government bucks rolling in, but it appears he’s already adjusting to the changing market.
If only a few large “private” corporations had the flexibility and foresight to make similar adjustments. And yeah, I’m talking to you, GM.
cackcon on April 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
We must give credit where credit is due. Thank you king George Bush.
True_King on April 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
Um, within range of Japan?
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 3:54 PM
To paraphrase Johnny Mac, as a drunken sailor, I am offended by that comparison.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
SeniorD on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
A good question indeed. Why all the hoo-hah towards a line of fighters for a mission that died with the USSR, instead of making badly needed improvements* on a battle technology that would benefit every warm body who carried a rifle?! ‘Government intelligence’ indeed…
Hopefully the facilities and personnel will be redirected toward other pursuits that make use of the same talent and equipment wherever possible. Put them to work on F-35′s, or designing any one of a dozen kinds of airplanes we needed yesterday. Let’s not make the mistake of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
*I keep hearing stories that our boys overseas seem to prefer AK-47′s to their issued combat rifles. If those are true that’s a pretty sad commentary on our weapons technology.
Dark-Star on April 22, 2009 at 3:57 PM
With Robert Gates being picked by Bush and this being his call I’m hard pressed to jump and holler. At some point we have to trust Gates opinion about reshaping the military.
patrick neid on April 22, 2009 at 3:58 PM
Oh but people remember we are getting brown shirts and ACORN upgrades. What do you want more? Security of another liberal bastion?????
Rick007 on April 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Which was also canceled.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Lockheed has to take some of the blame here. They promised the sun, the moon and the sky, which they could not possibly deliver. Then they took too long to deliver what they could.
I suspect the next “next generation” fighter will be delivered a lot more on-time and budget under the next (and I hope) Republican president, because Lockheed will have realized the window of opportunity for this business will not last forever.
doufree on April 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
All those here who are saying “gee, good job–we didn’t need it anyway!” are wrong. We already SPENT the money to design them. Now we were just building them. So most of the money spent is now gone, as we are trimming from what, 500 odd planes and replacing them with the 187 F-22′s now built? Smart. Really Smart.
Liberal thinking, no less. And Gates didn’t even hint at this under Bush–this is all a liberal thing.
Vanceone on April 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
Barry will never use the military anyway. Even if we were invaded he would be out shaking hands and taking photos with the new dictators. CNN (Communist Nerd Netroots) & AP (American Peckers) would provide coverage.
izoneguy on April 22, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I generally trust gates. Next we need to cancel LCS. And then cancel all of Lockheed Shipbuilding contracts. Seriously, they can not build a ship to save their lives.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:01 PM
That’s whats funny isn’t it? Most of the money in these things is in the design phase. Building them is the easiest and cheapest part.
By not building them, you just make the average cost of each one rise; and the money you’d spent has gone into a huge hole, with little or no benefit at all.
Typical government in action, though.
lorien1973 on April 22, 2009 at 4:03 PM
The fact is, there is better stuff out there than everything we have except the F-22. It was supposed to be skipping a generation, remember? Even if we are fine now, what about in ten years when the F-22′s from this batch are the only superiority fighters we have that aren’t falling apart in mid air?
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
True.
But I thought the “Hope and Change” economic policy was to sacrifice Taiwan sovereignty on the altar of “Keynesian economic spending using
Chinese credit cardbuying up T-bonds so that Generational Theft taxpayers can pay for it decades later.”Seriously, I thought Taiwan sovereignty evaporated once Obama unfunded liability spending skyrocketed.
By the way, Squid,
As a non-veteran, I always appreciate your posts because they allow us military novices to catch up to speed on the world of defense-military issues. Thanks.
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 4:04 PM
The National Goat Association would like a word with you, fog.
HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 4:05 PM
The war with China will be lost as soon a China decides to dump the US debt. Period! China doesn’t need to use any military hardware or fire any bullets.
belad on April 22, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Call me parochial, but as a CruDes Surface Guy, it annoys me to know end that we are the last part of the military to get an upgrade.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 3:47 PM
As another CRUDES guy, who do you think is REALLY to blame for the Navy’s shipbuilding woes?
PBoilermaker on April 22, 2009 at 4:08 PM
I’m not afraid of Harry Reid.
fogw on April 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Gates works for Obama now. You can bet he knows that.
cs89 on April 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM
MRAPS and body armor now over a plane that has never flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. This plane has been in the arsenal since 2004 and has never been used.
All this time while IEDs have claimed and maimed soldiers. Defense is important, but so is being realistic.
koolbrease on April 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM
Glad to do it Colts,
I only have about 9 months left until I become a reservist. So I will enjoy knowing alot about my little piece of the strategic puzzle until I become just another pogh in December.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:09 PM
From WSB News:
Lockheed Martin says they’ve seen the handwriting on the wall and will accept the Pentagon’s plans to end the F-22 fighter jet program.
Senator Saxby Chambliss has fought for the F-22 and the jobs it brings to Marietta and Georgia. But he acknowledges that, without Lockheed on board, it’s an uphill battle .
Lockheed’s CFO says the impact on Marietta might not be a bad as first feared.
The Defense Department intends to ramp up production of the F-35, along with the C-130 and C-5 cargo planes, which will mean work for Georgians.
http://wsbradio.com/localnews/2009/04/lockheed-accepts-f22-end.html
Dark-Star on April 22, 2009 at 4:10 PM
Lockheed is one for making a bunch of lousy ships.
No good proponents for Surface power at the top is another.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM
LMAO!
HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 4:12 PM
Excellent point.
I think China threatened this awhile back, and there was some short-term market instability as a result, but….I am currently having trouble finding a Google search on this topic though.
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Ok, im an Army guy here so i may be ignorant to the facts, but wasn’t both F-16 and F-15 strictly developed as Air superiority fighters but both airframes have been enormously successful as strike aircraft as well. Does it not stand to reason that F-35 could do the reverse? I understand the importance of F-22, but how much more capable is it then F-35.
Dragoonchris on April 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
Of course when the F-35 gets close to delivery, they will find some excuse to cancel it as well.
MarkTheGreat on April 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM
We have a winner!
I can’t get mad at other branches when we do such a poor job of fighting for our own needs.
PBoilermaker on April 22, 2009 at 4:14 PM
But but…she has to keep those great toned arms in shape.
Face it people, the military is going to take it where the sun don’t shine…..again.
Old Hippie Vet on April 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
It is just anothe vehicle for Lockheed to suck up govt money without producing any quality product.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
Look, I love the members of our armed forces for their service, but the casualties you are talking about are on the order of traffic accidents back in the states. Weakness in our ability to take on large scale threats increases the number and magnitude of threats on the low end. The point of the F-22 is not having to use it, because it is better all around if no one dares make us. The less we have, the more likely we will need them (the same goes for the new ships as well).
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:15 PM
95,000 jobs at risk, maybe they can apply at Caterpillar. Porkulus did pass, President Obama said Caterpillar would do re-hiring. Then again the 95,000 my be to over qualified
for Caterpillar. /sarc off/
USMCDevilDog on April 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Hey man, don’t sweat the 95,000 jobs- Obama’s solar panel projects are projected to employ about 15!
Kinda like the “let’s cut $100 million from the budget to show we are fiscally conservative” while deficit spending $4 TRILLION.
NTWR on April 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM
I don’t blame Gates at all, he is given a budget, has to do what’s best. It just stinks that the liberal social fantasy experiments get anything. I mean, why isn’t the fact that Acorn still exists a big story?! They’ve been proven corrupt in everything they do. Oh yeah, they’re liberal. forgot.
kirkill on April 22, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Ok, I would like to point out something here. The Air Force is still getting 187 of the F22′s. It is not like they are going away. They are currently stationed at Tyndall AFB. They are just not making anymore of them. Since there are F22′s in operation they will continue to fly and maintain them. Everyone is acting like they are not being produced at all. That is not true. They are just not getting as many as first mentioned. Not sure of that exact number. They are however ramping up production on the F35 and today the jet arrived at Eglin AFB for a viewing. I’m actually going to go see it tomorrow. I think that the outrage is somewhat amplified. We will still have them. Just not as many. BTW they are producing almost 2500 F35′s.
milwife88 on April 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM
IF we ever get another conservative back in office, they will bring back the F-22. Just like Reagan did the B-1.
BoomJunkie on April 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM
Dumb move. This makes me shake with anger.
Cardiganfox on April 22, 2009 at 4:17 PM
And maintenance. Aircraft require A LOT of maintenance hours compared to how much they actually fly.
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM
I tell you right now, when the Chinese start getting missiles in to all those fancy new carriers that all the Carrier Admirals fought for in the 90′s, because the Chinese figured out how to beat Aegis and get through the screen, they are gonna feel real lousy.
On top of that, the Iranian have Chinese missiles now, wont it be fun when the Chinese sell them their Aegis Killers.
Enjoy this picture, the RONALD REAGAN at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:18 PM
A-10s are not air superiority aircraft, and they would be slaughtered if sent in where there were not already control of the air. It is a ground attack aircraft.
Actually we are finding many of aircraft are being outclassed already. Su-27/30s have the gas to outlast many of our fighters, can outmaneuver and carry more missiles. Chinese J-10B will be a 4.5 generation aircraft too it appears.
Much of our planning against enemy Surface to Air missile sites would involve attacks by F-22s flying at M 1.7 at 60,000 ft with guided bombs that can go a really long ways when dropped.
firepilot on April 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM
I see you are still pushing that old lie.
1) The Russians are still making good planes, the most recent of which match up well with the F-22.
2) The French are building good planes, and will sell them to anyone with the money to buy.
3) The Chinese aircraft industry is improving by leaps and bounds, it will catch us in a few more years. Especially of Obama sells them as much technology as Clinton did.
The claim that there is no mission for the F-22 is a lie based on ignorance, arrogance, and no small part of stupidity.
MarkTheGreat on April 22, 2009 at 4:19 PM
For those affirmative action experts, do those 95,000 jobs count in the created or the saved jobs column?
jukin on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 4:13 PM
I remember reading they stopped buying as much U.S. debt and were investing heavily in copper and other raw materials. Long view.
cs89 on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
The F-22 is designed specifically for air dominance. It’s stealthy, cruises at Mach, highly maneuverable and about the only time an enemy knows there’s one operating in the area is when he’s floating in his chute watching his jet go down in flames.
The F-35 is a joint service strike aircraft. It’s stealthy as well but isn’t built to own the skies like the F-22. It’s an attack aircraft much like the F-16.
darwin on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Here is an interesting article, from The Atlantic of all places, defending the F-22. The gist of it is that we haven’t lost a soldier to enemy aircraft since Korea. This is due in large part, exclusively?, to our air superiority.
This superiority is becoming equality as we continue to rely on older equipment. Our enemies are closing the gap and we need to ensure that the men and women who put themselves in harms way have the best available tools at their disposal.
c.u.shoeless on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
I know you didn’t mean it that way, but what you wrote is highly offensive to some of us who’ve had friends maimed or killed by an IED. It’s not even remotely close to a traffic accident.
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
The F-16 was always a strike aircraft — the cheap ones always are, because the air superiority craft are in a direct arms race against their competitors, while the strike craft just need to do the job. You can use an air superiority frame like the F-15 for strike work, but the opposite doesn’t work so well (I understand that they are stop-gapping the loss of the F-14 with an F-18 variant, but I don’t know how well that is working).
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Odd, the link didn’t come through…
http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200903/air-force
c.u.shoeless on April 22, 2009 at 4:20 PM
Mark,
If we had a superior Aegis system, it would not matter what fighters the other guy had, it would not get past the AD screen.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Like it or not, it’s the smart thing to do. Any combat aircraft requiring a pilot is obsolete.
epluribusunum on April 22, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Other countries have caught up to the F-15. Soon it will be surpassed. The F-22 is a remarkable jet and virtually unbeatable by anything flying today.
Our edge has always been technology and superior military hardware and software. If we don’t stay ahead with that we’ll soon be overwhelmed.
darwin on April 22, 2009 at 4:23 PM
In quantity or anecdotally? I’m pretty sure there are more traffic fatalities in the US than IED deaths overseas. As for gruesomeness, I can’t say, but some pretty messed up things can happen to a human traveling at highway speeds. I don’t mean to offend, and I don’t like the losses, but I’m trying to be realistic here on the level of threat to the nation as a whole.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:24 PM
You really have no idea what you’re talking about. Drones don’t take the air and keep it.
darwin on April 22, 2009 at 4:25 PM
Hi HotAir commentators:
I am not knowledgeable about military/defense issues at all.
I keep hearing the theme of “air superiority”, and I was wondering if the U.S. Navy still has water superiority. My question is raised because I read clips that suggest Chinese subs are faster and quieter than ours.
If that is true, shouldn’t we beef up the submarine R & D budget?
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
They don’t need missiles to make this happen with all of that mineable water. As for the non-littoral stuff, we have the ASW piece to worry about.
I’m more worried about a submerged threat than any missile, but yes, the top SWO’s have been asleep at the helm for too long.
PBoilermaker on April 22, 2009 at 4:26 PM
Um, no. Strike drones used against guys with RPG’s is one thing, but a sophisticated enemy can take out your unmanned vehicle with a jammer.
Count to 10 on April 22, 2009 at 4:27 PM
Yet another hole in our defense, soon THE ONE will have us where Slick Willy had us leading up to 9-11, a cigar in a box in one hand with America’s pants around its ankles!
But hey I guess we should look on the bright side, Slick Willy did give us a budget surplus (you know, the budget surplus the left always brags about and scolds Bush for destroying) we just didn’t know 9-11 would be the price tag!
I feel so safe with THE ONE as POTUS./
Liberty or Death on April 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
+1
Unmanned aircraft actually require more people involved in the data chain than a piloted combat aircraft, hence more potential for error, more chefs spoiling the broth, and more dependence on systems that are vulnerable to some of the most insignificant things out there…see how your laptop works 100% perfect all the time? One bug, one mis-sent or frag command in the system, a small glitch or surge, and it locks up…or you lose data.
Not ready for unmanned combat aircraft yet…a few decades or more from now, perhaps.
coldwarrior on April 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Obama wants to shrink the Navy as well. Our “superiority” is apparently offensive to tyrants, thugs and dictators. Also the EU is really, really tired of us backing them up.
darwin on April 22, 2009 at 4:30 PM
Damn I hate these people in DC.
what the hell are they doing cutting off the F-22. these aircrafts are the most advanced and superior then any other aircraft in the world.
This will come home to roost….and our asses will soon be toast.
hawkman on April 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Don’t just blame the left. LockMart was not enthusiastic about pushing F-22 if it meant putting off the far more lucrative F-35, or in any other way compromising that program. And neither Bush nor Gates ever backed the USAF’s request for 300+ planes. The actual number they’d settled on was 183: Obama actually recently added 4 more planes to the latest budget to cover attrition.
So the bungling and short-selling of F-22 was more of a tripartisan effort (Democrat, Republican, and LockMart). The only people who really wanted it were the people who would use it–the USAF. The real tragedy of it all is that this means the F-35 will, somehow, absolutely have to fulfill an air-to-air role which it was not designed for, and in terms of raw performance is ill-equipped to perform. Where F-22 can at least out-run any of its potential adversaries, avoid being seen by them, and shoot at them with roughly the same punch thanks to its 8-missile payload (versus a theoretical 10 on behalf of the Su-27 family), all of F-35′s fighter eggs are essentially in two baskets: sensor fusion and middling stealth. It can’t carry many missiles, it maneuvers little to no better than an F-16 (with the F-35B’s and C’s actually being markedly worse), and its stealth, while no doubt decent from the front aspect, is nowhere nearly as impressive as F-22′s. And despite having the most powerful fighter engine developed in its posterior, it can’t supercruise (which is somewhat astonishing), or even hit a particular impressive top speed.
That means we’d all best pray that sensor fusion proves to be all it’s cracked up to be (and it certainly may prove so–but it’d be nice to have it in addition to all the other bells and whistles, rather than instead of them).
There could be one silver lining: Maybe now there’ll be some urgency to fit the existing F-22′s with helmet cueing and AIM-9X support. For some reason the most advanced air superiority fighter in the world isn’t equipped to use America’s most advanced close-in missile system, and so far there have been no plans to change that. Considering the value of the planes, it’s a shortcoming that needs to be remedied.
Blacklake on April 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
HT: Redstate. Grass has priority over defense.
Wethal on April 22, 2009 at 4:31 PM
Our subs are still the best, I think we will stay ahead of that game. The Virginia Class is an amazing piece of machinery.
We still have more carriers than the all other nations combined. We will win in that area.
PB,
I am very concerned about our mine warfare caps too. Mines have always been a cheap and effective tool for poorer nations. The key will be getting off fossil fuels all together and stop caring about the SOH.
Squid Shark on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
I recently finished watching Falklands War on You Tube.
What surprised me was this:
how could a Third War country like Argentina come very, very close to defeating Great Britain?
ColtsFan on April 22, 2009 at 4:33 PM
From what i understand the Virgina class subs are pretty much the F-22 of the oceans. I don’t know if they are on the chopping block yet.
Dragoonchris on April 22, 2009 at 4:34 PM
Giving up on the Raptor is the only way to be absolutely sure the Chinese will control the skies 20 years from now.
Aristotle on April 22, 2009 at 4:34 PM
There are more traffic deaths in the U.S. in a month (3-4k) than there have been IED casualties in the entire Iraq War, so I assumed you weren’t comparing them in quantity. It sounded like you were making a comparison in the tragic nature of the deaths.
BadgerHawk on April 22, 2009 at 4:34 PM
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/
For those of you inclined to learn more about the F35 here is the link. Like I said before, the F22 is NOT going away. Take a minute to watch some of the videos.
milwife88 on April 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Hole, old hippie vet, not ho….Hee Hee.
HornetSting on April 22, 2009 at 4:36 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 Next »