Obama proposes to cut funds to the F-22 and other military projects.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Okay, first of all, I already support cutting back the Pentagon budget, provided no US troops are in combat, and it done the right way. This isn't be done the RIGHT way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-war-needs/

How do you know its not the right way? Whats your expertise on jobs at Lockheed or Boeing?

How do you know that this will directly lead to 25,000 jobs lost in the USA? (They just say 25,000 jobs are affected, they didn't say all those jobs will be lost)

With some of the money being used, that money could provide more then $25,000 jobs. Plus, pretty sure those working at Lockheed will be a-ok (depending on position, I have a few friends working at Lockheed that make more then 97% of CP, and they are under 30 years old).

Also, from your article, it appears this money (or at least a portion) will be used in other parts of the military. Not that there's enough money used on the military anyways.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Given your stance on most of Obama's maneuvers, I would think you'd be for cutting government spending, but here he is cutting spending and you are curiously against it.

Like I said....I would agree with cutting back the amount of F-22s being made each year, but I wouldn't kill the program

Around $65 billion dollars have already been invested to create the F-22. Seems like a serious waste of money to just scrap the program.

Nevermind baffling considering how Obama talks about 'government capital'....and keeping the money in the economy.

Remember, the defense budget was around $315 billion during Clinton's last year, WHILE the F-22 was in full flight production.....it increased to over $500 billion while Bush was President with the same progress being made on the F-22. So thats $200 billion on stuff other than the F-22.

Plus, design and production of the aircraft started in 1986, and like I said, the total cost per date has been $65 billion. Thats around $3.4 billion per year. Assuming the defense budget was around $300 billion....thats .01 percent of the budget. Not exactly a 'cut' that will make a difference.

Plus, the defense budget is still $534 billion. Makes you wonder where all the money is going.

Reading through the official proposal, it looks a lot more like funds are just being transferred to other things.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Also, from your article, it appears this money (or at least a portion) will be used in other parts of the military. Not that there's enough money used on the military anyways.

Yeah, like I said, DoD budget is till $534 billion for 2010....so no real cuts are being made.....just funds being moved around to other things.

The F-22 is being 'cut off' at 187 planes if I read it correctly. So the entire program is being killed....and the F-15 will still be used despite its aging.

[Phanuthier]

Multimillion dollar projects get cut all the time (dunno about billion dollar though, but its the military / NASA / et al), this wouldn't be the first really. Sunk costs are factored in, but just because you sunk a lot of money into the project, that isn't a sole justification keeping it alive.

[photon]

Have to take into account maintaining existing planes that would have been replaced as well, which grows significantly the older the planes get, having to retrofit new avionics onto old airframes, etc.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

He's probably mad that the Su-27 kicks the crap out of the F-35

The F-22 was designed to replace the Su-27.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Multimillion dollar projects get cut all the time (dunno about billion dollar though, but its the military / NASA / et al), this wouldn't be the first really. Sunk costs are factored in, but just because you sunk a lot of money into the project, that isn't a sole justification keeping it alive.

Multi-million in a $500 billion dollar budget is peanuts, and I wouldn't complain....although I would the cuts are being made because the program is useless, not to save money.

[CaptainCrunch]

In terms of a purely military and capabilities argument its a stupid decision. Trying to use the f-35 in place of the F-22 is equivalent to using a buggy in place of a car. The f22 is a full generation ahead of anything else out there. The f-35 while capable is equivalent to the latest flight Russian fighters.

The f-22 projects power more efficiently has better range is stealthier and more effective at delivering a lot of ordinance.

In terms of costing jobs, shutting down the F-22 project is going to be extremely destructive to the aerospace industry and Lockheed. If you want to be more efficient you retire all of the older airforce platforms like the F-15 and the F-18 and replace them with a smaller number of F-22's. You shrink the size of your airforce and increase your force multipliers.

To me this is a questionable move thats going to cost a lot of jobs. Its almost equivalent to Canada gassing the Aero and destroying our aerospace industry for a generation.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

I don't know, guys--you kind of can't have it both ways. Either you feel government spending is stimulative and creates jobs, or you don't--and if you want to claim that spending on infrastructure (something the U.S. needs a lot more right now than more military hardware) doesn't create jobs but building planes does, then you're really trying to have your cake and eat it too. The U.S. military is basically a giant boondoggle--unless it's somehow magically embroiled in a dozen conflicts overseas that end up costing far more money in the long run.

If the U.S. government wants to cut back on military spending in favour of entitlements and infrastructure, that's a legitimate policy decision, for which a powerful argument can be made. People keep asking: how is Obama going to pay for things in his budget while cutting the deficit in half? Well, one way is to reduce spending on what has become the largest military in the world.

The question shouldn't be about jobs. You can't keep an unnecessary program in operation only because it creates jobs--it also must fill a need. Does the U.S. need more new fighter jets? I'm no military expert, but my guess is that with the type of conflict they're currently involved in the dollars can be spent more effectively elsewhere.

[sclitheroe]

Maybe the U.S. could lift the export ban on the F-22 and make it available to NATO allies. That would be one way of sustaining the production lines.

[jammies]

On the one hand, the F-22 is clearly several steps above the F-15 that it is replacing, and those F-15s are getting past their original service life. On the other hand, the cost of each fighter is ridiculous because they were designed for the USAF only (no ability to reduce costs via mass production of export models) to fulfill a narrow air-superiority role best defined as "completely untouchable by any other fighter aircraft".

These planes aren't currently fighting overseas as there neither is nor was any Iraqi or Afgan air force to shoot down. The only remotely realistic scenarios where they will be needed is if the USA goes to war with China or Russia, and if such a conflict comes in the next few years, the USAF still has more than enough naval and land based craft to beat either or both of those nation's air forces.

However, going forward the idea is to use the F-35, which is a multi-role aircraft, to fill in for the extra F-22s the US doesn't get. As a fighter, an F-35 doesn't even have the performance of an F-15, so that's a rather dubious proposition. So the real question is if any hostile power is likely to build enough 5th generation fighters to pose a real threat to US air hegemony after the F-35 has become the main US fighter (retiring the FA/18s, F16s and F15s) and there are only 180 odd F22s available.

I personally don't think it's going to be a problem, as the F-22 is more or less an invulnerable platform, so how many do you really need? It is stealthy, incredibly fast, extremely manueverable and well-armed, so there is no reason to think that anything other than an overwhelming numerical advantage is going to take one down. So you are looking at an enemy who has to not only build enough fighters to overcome the 2500-3000 inferior F-35s they are going to build, but enough to also swarm the F-22s. Not likely.

[QuadCityImages]

Originally Posted by sclitheroe

Maybe the U.S. could lift the export ban on the F-22 and make it available to NATO allies. That would be one way of sustaining the production lines.

Yeah, giving current allies our top aircraft has never backfired before...

[Azure]

Still think that just shutting down a program that has cost $65 billion dollars is a stupid idea.

Slowing down production because you already have 150+ fighters on hand......but still replacing the F-15s with time is a better idea.

You have to deal with aging military hardware all the time, so its either spend a little money NOW, and replace all the F-15s, or spend more money down the road to restart the program and replace them anyways. And in the meantime, you spend money fixing up the F-15s.

Probably costs more in the long-run.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

Multi-million in a $500 billion dollar budget is peanuts, and I wouldn't complain....although I would the cuts are being made because the program is useless, not to save money.

Was that $65B spend within 1 year's $500B budget?

Multi-million projects are cut with budgets that are multi-million all the time.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Was that $65B spend within 1 year's $500B budget?

Multi-million projects are cut with budgets that are multi-million all the time.

No, the $65 billion was actually spread out over 19 years or so.

Not exactly a costly investment, considering what the return was.

I bet you it didn't turn out to be more than 1% of the total DoD budget in that time.

Face it, the US is going to have to replace the F-15 anyways, unless Obama proposes to cut the Air Force, something Gates would never go for.

So, you either replace it now....and just spread out the cost over 2x the time, or you spend money fixing up F-15s until they can't be fixed up anymore, then you replace them with F-22s anyways.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

No, the $65 billion was actually spread out over 19 years or so.

Not exactly a costly investment, considering what the return was.

I bet you it didn't turn out to be more than 1% of the total DoD budget in that time.

Face it, the US is going to have to replace the F-15 anyways, unless Obama proposes to cut the Air Force, something Gates would never go for.

So, you either replace it now....and just spread out the cost over 2x the time, or you spend money fixing up F-15s until they can't be fixed up anymore, then you replace them with F-22s anyways.

Hmm I dunno - did you get that from the DoD's balance sheets or something?

How do you know what the money will be spent now and in the future?

What exactly is involved in the $65B that is being scrapped? If its just planes, can those planes be bought in the future? I mean, Lockheed and Boeing still has the designs, doesn't it?

So the $65B is a big deal in a $500B budget is a useless comment, becuase it has nothing to do wtih the current budget right now, right?

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Azure

So, you either replace it now....and just spread out the cost over 2x the time, or you spend money fixing up F-15s until they can't be fixed up anymore, then you replace them with F-22s anyways.

No, they are going to use F-35s to "replace" the F-15s, despite the F-35 being designed to replace the F-16, which is an entirely different type of aircraft. There is no plan to restart the F-22 program once it is mothballed and you probably couldn't (realistically) even do so if you wanted to - it's not like it's made of off-the-shelf parts, so once the knowledge and infrastructure is gone, it's gone.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Hmm I dunno - did you get that from the DoD's balance sheets or something?

How do you know what the money will be spent now and in the future?

How do I know? Because the F-15s won't be around forever, and eventually the F-22, or a different place will replace them.

What exactly is involved in the $65B that is being scrapped? If its just planes, can those planes be bought in the future? I mean, Lockheed and Boeing still has the designs, doesn't it?

The $65 billion dollars has already been spent to develop, design and produce the plane. I suppose what would be shutdown is the production lines for the planes the US was supposed to buy.

So the $65B is a big deal in a $500B budget is a useless comment, becuase it has nothing to do wtih the current budget right now, right?

Eh? Like I said, the $65 billion was spread out over 19 years of yearly DoD budgets. The design, development and initial production have already been paid for. What Obama is proposing to scrap is the payments of $355 some million for the additional planes. I believe they're taking a few more planes to get to 187, and then the production lines are being shutdown, and Lockheed and the other companies involved are going to work on other stuff that Gates is apparently pushing for.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by jammies

No, they are going to use F-35s to "replace" the F-15s, despite the F-35 being designed to replace the F-16, which is an entirely different type of aircraft. There is no plan to restart the F-22 program once it is mothballed and you probably couldn't (realistically) even do so if you wanted to - it's not like it's made of off-the-shelf parts, so once the knowledge and infrastructure is gone, it's gone.

Yeah, well that makes even less sense.

[Phanuthier]

Originally Posted by Azure

How do I know? Because the F-15s won't be around forever, and eventually the F-22, or a different place will replace them.

Well then, I propose rather then cut $65B, Obama should add $65B to design whatever replaces the F-22!

Originally Posted by Azure

The $65 billion dollars has already been spent to develop, design and produce the plane. I suppose what would be shutdown is the production lines for the planes the US was supposed to buy.

Well how much of that is on R&D? How much of it is the cost of production? Can't production happen in 5 years? 10 years? The designs are still going to be there.

Originally Posted by Azure

Eh? Like I said, the $65 billion was spread out over 19 years of yearly DoD budgets. The design, development and initial production have already been paid for. What Obama is proposing to scrap is the payments of $355 some million for the additional planes. I believe they're taking a few more planes to get to 187, and then the production lines are being shutdown, and Lockheed and the other companies involved are going to work on other stuff that Gates is apparently pushing for.

Yeah, the articles were a little vague on where the money was going, but in your initial article you posted:

President-elect Barack Obama's transition officials are in early talks about making significant cuts in some high-priced weapon systems, seeking savings to offset budget deficits and help pay for arms sought for conflicts in places like Afghanistan and Iraq.

To me, it sounds like money is needed, and thus money is being re-routed.

So, since you already concluded that this is a wrong decision, what is your proposal? To spend more? But... you are against spending... I think...

Actually, TBQH, I'm not sure what your stance really is. Pro or anti government spending? Are you against pricey projects that produce little results, or for it?