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

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

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

And this is supposed to mean what? The next generation fighter AFTER the F-22 and F-35 is probably going to cost a lot more than $65 billion to develop.

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.

I assumed that too......that a few years down the road, the US would just restart production and replace the F-15s anyways. But, apparently they're going to use the F-35 instead, like jammies said.

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

Well, the $200 billion dollar combat system was being halted for now it seems.....but, like you said, money is be rerouted to other areas.

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...

I've already said about 6 times in this thread that there is nothing wrong with slowing down the amount of F-22s produced per year, and use that money on more needed things. But don't quit production completely, and push off replacing an already aging F-15.

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?

You must not pay attention, because you've been involved in a few threads where I've already said that the Federal Government has the responsibility to protect its people by maintaining a well-armed, well equipped and well trained military.

I don't believe in government spending on welfare programs, entitlements, subsidies, etc, etc.

[Phanuthier]

Ok - so pro-military spending, anti-economy spending then?

I guess thats why we disagree so much. I think way too much is spent on military (but I'm no expert, so I'm not going to fight that one) and the economy is the most important task for the government to deal with.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Ok - so pro-military spending, anti-economy spending then?

I guess thats why we disagree so much. I think way too much is spent on military (but I'm no expert, so I'm not going to fight that one) and the economy is the most important task for the government to deal with.

Well by no means do I think the US should be spending over $500 billion per year on defense spending. Some things can be cut, I just don't think the F-22 is one of them.

Specific reason why?

According to Global Security, the total number of F-15 family airframes that are flight worthy today is fewer than 400 out of the more than 1200 produced.

According to a friend of mine who is involved with the F-15s...

#1 - I don't know if it's overall funding or if the USAF is robbing from Peter to pay Paul, but right now, his Wing is funded at 80% of peace time recommended levels.

#2 - When he first climbed into the cockpit, one bird per month had to pull duty as Hanger Queen to provide spare parts for the rest of the operational birds. Today, it's four birds per month. That's almost a quarter of the whole Squadron sitting on it's ass in the ready shack for a whole month getting 0 flight hours.

#3 - In 2003, when the birds in Korea were deployed to the Gulf, his Wing was deployed to Korea to fill the gap. His particular flight was eight birds. Four had to RTB due to mechanical failures.

#4 - On September 11th, 2001, when the FAA shut everything down, he was looking at shepherding 200+ jets out of American airspace and into Canada. His squadron could only put 6 birds in the air. Six out of 18.

The F-15 is getting past its time, and needs to be replaced.

[Hack&Lube]

I fancied myself a bit of an airplane buff as a kid but this thread is full of wow...

F-22 fanboys abound!

Wait until China brings out their 5th generation planes and the U.S. has nothing to face them...

[photon]

Heh, I confess that I don't want funding cut to the F-22 simply because it's cool.

I was more of an F-23 fan though

[CaptainCrunch]

A couple of things.

The F-15 and its airframe design and capabilities are now a generation old, and it will start fading in comparison to some of the more advanced Air Superiority fighters that are coming off of European (ie Rafale sp?) and Russian assembly lines. The F-15 is still a good multi role craft and ground pounder but its not near stealthy or agile enough to hang with front line fighters.

If you shut down the F-22 production, you lose the brain trust and the assembly lines and it will cost a lot more to start them up.

Its great to say that the American's should focus their dollars on counter insurgency roles, but in the case of the U.S. it doesn't work that way, they have to keep a military thats balanced to face every eventuality. They could end up fighting air wars against Iran or NK, or sea battles against China or Russia or NK, you think its impossible, but its hard to predict whats going to happen over the next 20 years.

If your going to save money, you save it by moth balling older designs, that includes the F-15's and the older model F-18s for example, you don't mothball a plane that acts as a massive force multiplyer that can kill far more then its number.

You also don't make a decision thats going to throw the aerospace industry into a panic.

To me militarily its a bad decision.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well by no means do I think the US should be spending over $500 billion per year on defense spending. Some things can be cut, I just don't think the F-22 is one of them.

Specific reason why?

According to Global Security, the total number of F-15 family airframes that are flight worthy today is fewer than 400 out of the more than 1200 produced.

According to a friend of mine who is involved with the F-15s...



The F-15 is getting past its time, and needs to be replaced.

Azure, The F-15 has been replacing itself for many years now, out of the 450 or so F-15 A models built only a handfull of the training versions (F-15 B) are flying today. they were replaced by the F-15 C.

The "C" models were already being replaced by the "E" models (around 280 in service i believe) long before there were structural problems with the "A" and "C" models and before the F-22 was even thought of.

Given the fact that the 280 F-15 E models will be in service for at least another 15 years there is no need for more than 200 rapters to go into service as you would be replacing a perfectly good fighter just for bells and whistles.

There is no need to have more than 400 or so aerial combat fighters in service at the same time, at 400 it's overkill compaired to the rest of the world.

I'm told they will build a tonne of F-35's to replace the old F-16, older F-18's and a V/STOL version to replace the Marines Harrier.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by T@T

Azure, The F-15 has been replacing itself for many years now, out of the 450 or so F-15 A models built only a handfull of the training versions (F-15 B) are flying today. they were replaced by the F-15 C.

The "C" models were already being replaced by the "E" models (around 280 in service i believe) long before there were structural problems with the "A" and "C" models and before the F-22 was even thought of.

Given the fact that the 280 F-15 E models will be in service for at least another 15 years there is no need for more than 200 rapters to go into service as you would be replacing a perfectly good fighter just for bells and whistles.

There is no need to have more than 400 or so aerial combat fighters in service at the same time, at 400 it's overkill compaired to the rest of the world.

I'm told they will build a tonne of F-35's to replace the old F-16, older F-18's and a V/STOL version to replace the Marines Harrier.

Even with the enhancements to the newer F-15s their airframes and capabilities are incapable of going up against the next gen fighters that are popping up.

The F-35 is the same.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Even with the enhancements to the newer F-15s their airframes and capabilities are incapable of going up against the next gen fighters that are popping up.

The F-35 is the same.

Whats popping up? 5th gen SU-35?
Some say that the Sukhoi can kick the crap out of the F-35, I disagree,people who say that like to watch airshows a little too much, the Flanker would be shot out of the sky before it even see's the F-35 coming due to stealth.

The day of the dogfight is over when your fighting against something your radar can't see.

The Russians have some great aircraft but lets face it, the cold war is over and 200 F-22's and 2000 F-35's is quite enough to win any war.

[jammies]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

Wait until China brings out their 5th generation planes and the U.S. has nothing to face them...

Both the F-22 and F-35 are fifth generation planes, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that the US will have "nothing to face" any 5th generation Chinese fighter, IF one ever gets built. The F-22 took over 20 years from first concept to production, and the Chinese allegedly started their development in 2002, meaning it could be late in the next decade or even the 2020's by the time it debuts. By that time the US and NATO will have thousands and thousands of F-35s.

Further, you can't just compare generations as if the aircraft are equivalent; you can't leave aside the enormous edge the Americans have in command & control, avionics, missiles, radar, computers, materials & stealth tech, and infrastructure. The F-15E has racked up over a hundred kills with zero losses, and only a part of that is due to a better plane - in fact, a plane like the Su-27 looks better on paper but in actual combat the F-15s win every time.

The Russians are trying to get the Indians and the Chinese to pool all their tech to make a true challenger to the American machines, and then you might have something that is at least roughly comparable. Doubtful, but maybe. But then you still have to match all the other American advantages, which they have developed over the last 40 years or so, and tested in real combat.

Which is why it's probably the right move to axe any more F-22s. Nobody is going to challenge the USAF anytime soon, barring some kind of complete collapse of the USA politically or economically, in which case F-22s aren't going to help anyway.

[T@T]

^^^ to expand on your post jammies if it came down to needing all the US fighters in a war i predict doom from from the ultimate weapon anyway.

The submarines alone could end a war in an hour.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Oh, and the F-22 is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously at a very insane advantage too, but thats the name of the game.

F-22 have not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan.



http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0406/p02s07-usmi.html

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually, Gates was one of the people that ran things in Iraq before David Petraeus came around. Not to take anything away from what Gates has done, but give credit where credit is due. We all know how things went in Iraq before David Petraeus turned it around.

Um... Unless I am missing a part of Gates career? He was never involved with Iraq before he was named Secretary of Defense in 06. Was he pulling tactical strings from his position as President of Texas A&M university? In fact he became SOD Dec 06, Petraeus became in charge of Iraq in Jan 07, so are you talking about the 1 month of service as SOD? Gates is/was not in the military at any point of time that I know of, he was CIA.

Also, someone called him a Republican. Gates has never been registered to either party and has voted both ways.

[RT14]

Originally Posted by Azure

Both Russia and China are increasing military spending, and I would think the US would want to stay on top of the game as well.

Most of what you're saying I have to agree with, but statements like this I have to reply to.

China and Russia would have to increase military spending by a whole heck of a lot to catch up to the States. I think the US is still holding a fair advantage in the military spending department.

If they are planning on completely shutting down the F-22 program, then I agree that is not the right thing to do. As you say, if anything it should be cut back, not shut down.

I just wanted to provide an idea of just how much more the US spends over EVERYONE else in the WORLD. It's really quite ridiculous and in no means necessary. Imagine how much better their country would be if they used $300 Billion of that money on improving the lives of the average American citizen. Even then, they'd be spending 3 - 4 times as much as any other single country.

[HOZ]

I am sorry....but I will have to shed my Neo-con leopard skin and side with the YEA's. Financing for the project is NOT cut but slowed. As 'others' have said we can still take our Sopwith Camels and kick their butts. Waste of cash to talk about USS Enterprise stuff, etc. If Top Gun has taught us anything it is that we kick butt in Kung Fu!

I will now return to my Right Wing Conspiracies

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by RT14

I just wanted to provide an idea of just how much more the US spends over EVERYONE else in the WORLD. It's really quite ridiculous and in no means necessary. Imagine how much better their country would be if they used $300 Billion of that money on improving the lives of the average American citizen. Even then, they'd be spending 3 - 4 times as much as any other single country.

Without joining the argument, some factoids for rebuttal . . . .

American defence spending, at about 4% of GDP, is actually at one of the LOWEST points in the history of the country.

In fact, American defence spending is currently about 1.5% BELOW the 45 year-average of 5.5% of GDP.

At the end of WWII, it was 25% of GDP.

When Eisenhower issued his famous warning of a "military industrial complex" in the late 1950's, defence spending, I believe, was about 15% of GDP.

Through Vietnam, American defence spending was about 9% of GDP, about 2.5 times what it is now.

Carter dropped it down to about 4.7% . . . . . that's right, Jimmy Carter spent more of defence as a percentage of GDP than warmonger GW Bush II.

Reagan pushed it up to about 6.2%. Clinton dropped it to around 3%. Bush II pushed it to about 4.2%, I think . . . . not unexpected with a couple of wars.

A simple dollar comparison is fairly illusory. First, America is a wealthy country, with about half the global economy. They can simply spend a whole bucketload more than anyone else combined and not notice it at all.

In addition, China, as an example, pays its soldiers and sailors about $1 a day . . . . if we equalized all costs, we might find some of these countries would be spending a great deal more than they're letting on.

I think Eisenhower would have been quite happy to see the military industrial complex reduced from 15% of GDP to 4.2% of GDP. If I remember right, this is the guy who gave serious thought to nuking China.

[CaptainCrunch]

Awesome post Cow.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

I fancied myself a bit of an airplane buff as a kid but this thread is full of wow...

F-22 fanboys abound!

Wait until China brings out their 5th generation planes and the U.S. has nothing to face them...

Well, just reading some tidbits on Global Security about training exercises around the world using the F-15, apparently the India and Israeli Air Force both beat the US in staged 'fights' last year.

So, you're already coming to the point where training alone, something that has given the US an advantage for years no, won't be much of a factor.

Of course, the F-22 has outperformed any other plane in staged fights, even at 5-1 odds.

China is currently working on a 4th generation fighter....they might have it in the air already, so if the US wants to stay ahead in the game, the F-22 is almost a necessity.

[llama64]

Originally Posted by RT14

<snip>

I just wanted to provide an idea of just how much more the US spends over EVERYONE else in the WORLD. It's really quite ridiculous and in no means necessary. Imagine how much better their country would be if they used $300 Billion of that money on improving the lives of the average American citizen. Even then, they'd be spending 3 - 4 times as much as any other single country.

Compared to military spending, social spending is a drop in the bucket. I recently read that the UN had pegged solving yearly world hunger would cost a grand total of $185 billion (or somewhere near that number -- can't find the article anymore).

Course... Jesus said you don't give a man a fish, you give them a fishing rod.

Even if the F-22 gets cancelled, I doubt the American Military will lose any strategic advantage over any other nation. They still have the worlds largest supply of ICBM's and the ability to project military force anywhere in the world in a matter of hours. I very much doubt any other nation can match that for at least a decade.

War has changed. The enemies of the USA don't fly fighter jets, they drive scooters with C4 strapped to them. Why spend billions on hardware that is completly ineffectual against the current day threat?

Add in the fact that China owns a large percentage of the US now... Go Chinamerica go!

[LChoy]

Interesting tibit
With stealth being the future, so are anti/counter stealth technology. China has been experimenting with new radar and weapon systems based on "cellular" technology that has some success in detecting stealthed objects.

Also, the main advantage right now with the States is the ability to integrate real time intelligence into the battle field. F-22's, F-35's, Commanche's,..etc all have the ability to plug into a digital network that allows information, targetting data, strategies, and other intelligence in real time.