Funding halted for F-22 Raptors

[gabosaurus]

Time to bring the military into the present era.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-spending22-2009jul22,0,5514285.story

[hjmick]

You know, the design of the F-22 is only 18 years old, hell, the first one wasn't even delivered until 2003. The SR-71 flew for 34 years. The A-10 Thunderbolt (Warthog) is still in use today, 34 years after the first production aircraft took flight and it is still one of the best and toughest planes being used. There are a good number of aircraft still in use that are decades old. I only mention this as a way if indicating that the F-22 wasn't necessarily an outdated piece of equipment.

Now, that being said...

The DoD didn't want the bird, they're ready to move on to the F-35. This makes sense, it has a broader range of capabilities.

[Gaffer]

B-52's are still in use as well. And just because a piece of equipment is retired doesn't mean it isn't still be used in special circumstances.

[CSM]

B-52's are still in use as well. And just because a piece of equipment is retired doesn't mean it isn't still be used in special circumstances.

anyone care to guess how old the .50-cal machine gun is?

[hjmick]

From everything I've read since this thread was started yesterday, the F-22 is considered to be a damn fine plane. In some circles, the F-35 is derided. They say it won't be as useful as the F-22. Based on it's description, it struck me as more flexible than the F-22.

[hjmick]

anyone care to guess how old the .50-cal machine gun is?

The Ma Deuce has been around since the end of WWI.

[CSM]

The Ma Deuce has been around since the end of WWI.

Yep. As has been stated, old technology is not necessarily useless technology. In fact, there are many occasions where I find fire (a very very old "technology") quite useful.

[-Cp]

Time to bring the military into the present era.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-spending22-2009jul22,0,5514285.story

Uh... what part of the F-22 story has anything to do with the "present era"?

The F-22 is the unmatched plane for air-superiority... NO country has a jet that comes close...

[darin]

you have to read gabby's posts thru gabby filters. Luckily, I have one here on firefox as an add-on.

To me, it reads "I don't have any knowledge of the subject, however my precious lord and savior Obama is involved, so I'll side with Him."

[Sitarro]

Time to bring the military into the present era.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-f-22-spending22-2009jul22,0,5514285.story

There are Russian and Chinese fighter pilots that are really happy with their comrades in the Dimwitocrat party,I guess this is one of the numerous systems that Putin ordered the skinny little punk actor, playing the role as an American President, to cancel. Hell, why would we want to own the skies........ spend the money on crap aircraft that aren't excellent at anything....... as long as the Marines and Navy are happy.


Have you picked up your copy of Rosetta Stone, Russian version, yet?

[hjmick]

There are Russian and Chinese fighter pilots that are really happy with their comrades in the Dimwitocrat party,I guess this is one of the numerous systems that Putin ordered the skinny little punk actor, playing the role as an American President, to cancel. Hell, why would we want to own the skies........ spend the money on crap aircraft that aren't excellent at anything....... as long as the Marines and Navy are happy.


Have you picked up your copy of Rosetta Stone, Russian version, yet?

Chinese would probably be a better choice. Of course you then need to settle on a dialect...

[-Cp]

There are Russian and Chinese fighter pilots that are really happy with their comrades in the Dimwitocrat party,I guess this is one of the numerous systems that Putin ordered the skinny little punk actor, playing the role as an American President, to cancel. Hell, why would we want to own the skies........ spend the money on crap aircraft that aren't excellent at anything....... as long as the Marines and Navy are happy.


Have you picked up your copy of Rosetta Stone, Russian version, yet?

Being objective about this - we really don't need the additional F-22's we have enough to OWN any other country out there and we don't have the money for them..

[hjmick]

Being objective about this - we really don't need the additional F-22's we have enough to OWN any other country out there and we don't have the money for them..

They've cut the funding for the F-22 so they can start production on the F-35. I don't think they're worried about money. They certainly aren't wooried about defense either as it will be a couple of years before the first F-35 rolls off the line. That obviously means there will be a gap in which the U.S. will have no fighter jets added to it's arsenal.

[-Cp]

They've cut the funding for the F-22 so they can start production on the F-35. I don't think they're worried about money. They certainly aren't wooried about defense either as it will be a couple of years before the first F-35 rolls off the line. That obviously means there will be a gap in which the U.S. will have no fighter jets added to it's arsenal.

That's not what I read into this...

From the sounds of it this is about the fact that they have Military leaders telling them we have enough F-22's... and don't need to buy more..

The F-35 is a completely different aircraft aimed for use in different type of missions than the F-22 is used for...

[namvet]

you have to read gabby's posts thru gabby filters. Luckily, I have one here on firefox as an add-on.

To me, it reads "I don't have any knowledge of the subject, however my precious lord and savior Obama is involved, so I'll side with Him."

ya beat me to it. she thinks its a new mop for the kit floor :laugh2:

[darin]

That obviously means there will be a gap in which the U.S. will have no fighter jets added to it's arsenal.

we may not NEED more added to the arsenal.

[namvet]

and if we get involved in a global conflict ?????

[-Cp]

and if we get involved in a global conflict ?????

Than this is what it'd be like:

30 hornets (F-22s) vs. 30,000 bees (other country's aircraft) :)

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDSf3Kshq1M&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JDSf3Kshq1M&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[gabosaurus]

The U.S. military already has more weaponry than the rest of the world put together. I think many of you want new weapons just for the sake of having more weapons.
There is no need to defend oneself against the "threat" of world conflict. If one hothead puts his finger on a button, there is no more world.
We need fewer weapons, not more.

[namvet]

The U.S. military already has more weaponry than the rest of the world put together. I think many of you want new weapons just for the sake of having more weapons.
There is no need to defend oneself against the "threat" of world conflict. If one hothead puts his finger on a button, there is no more world.
We need fewer weapons, not more.

I think you'll live long enough to see that final bright flash over your head

[darin]

The U.S. military already has more weaponry than the rest of the world put together. I think many of you want new weapons just for the sake of having more weapons.
There is no need to defend oneself against the "threat" of world conflict. If one hothead puts his finger on a button, there is no more world.
We need fewer weapons, not more.

Where did you learn that factoid? I don't buy it one bit. Further, from where do you draw your opinion - what base of knowledge or experience in warfighting?

[namvet]

Osama promised her no wars and sunshine and 80 till the end of the century !!!!:laugh2:

[emmett]

The U.S. military already has more weaponry than the rest of the world put together. I think many of you want new weapons just for the sake of having more weapons.
There is no need to defend oneself against the "threat" of world conflict. If one hothead puts his finger on a button, there is no more world.
We need fewer weapons, not more.


This is one of those rare times when I must agree with Gabster. Not to be confused with the fact that I think we need all the F-22's we can manufacture you understand.

Weapons os Mass Destruction are indeed a thing that suggests a pitiful surmising of the world's ability to interact with one another. Wish we didn;t need them. There are however entire civilations out there that would if they had the ability press that button you speak of. I am for eliminating all weapons of Mass Destruction but I know this is a pipe dream. I would however be conforted to know that all were gone and we still possessed the USS Ohio (SSGN 726), my favorite boat in the US Navy. arguing with this ship can have devastating consequences as it is capable of changing the way you think in a hurry!!!:salute:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Ohio_Logo_2.jpg

[namvet]

This is one of those rare times when I must agree with Gabster. Not to be confused with the fact that I think we need all the F-22's we can manufacture you understand.

Weapons os Mass Destruction are indeed a thing that suggests a pitiful surmising of the world's ability to interact with one another. Wish we didn;t need them. There are however entire civilations out there that would if they had the ability press that button you speak of. I am for eliminating all weapons of Mass Destruction but I know this is a pipe dream. I would however be conforted to know that all were gone and we still possessed the USS Ohio (SSGN 726), my favorite boat in the US Navy. arguing with this ship can have devastating consequences as it is capable of changing the way you think in a hurry!!!:salute:



http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Ohio_Logo_2.jpg

boomers are outta sight and outta mind

[gabosaurus]

Where did you learn that factoid? I don't buy it one bit. Further, from where do you draw your opinion - what base of knowledge or experience in warfighting?
You don't need to fight a war to know how it works. In fact, those on the outside might be more knowledgeable, since those on the inside are obviously limited in what they know and believe.
You can read Jane's Defense, various State Department memos and other defense related stories. The U.S. possesses military strength that exceeds the rest of the world put together.
The primary reason why the U.S. doesn't cut its weapons strength is economics. The armaments industry employs a huge chunk of work force. More importantly, defense contractors make huge political contributions, and hold a ton of clout in the legislative process.
The U.S. could cut its weapons stockpile in half and halt production of new armaments without endangering national security. That is because our current level of weaponry and defense is far above every other country and terrorist group. Not to mention our nuclear weapons capability.
Conventional warfare is in the past. Having 10,000 plans in the air and a million troops on the ground will not help us if someone decides to launch a few nukes.

[Silver]

You don't need to fight a war to know how it works. In fact, those on the outside might be more knowledgeable, since those on the inside are obviously limited in what they know and believe.
You can read Jane's Defense, various State Department memos and other defense related stories. The U.S. possesses military strength that exceeds the rest of the world put together.
The primary reason why the U.S. doesn't cut its weapons strength is economics. The armaments industry employs a huge chunk of work force. More importantly, defense contractors make huge political contributions, and hold a ton of clout in the legislative process.
The U.S. could cut its weapons stockpile in half and halt production of new armaments without endangering national security. That is because our current level of weaponry and defense is far above every other country and terrorist group. Not to mention our nuclear weapons capability.
Conventional warfare is in the past. Having 10,000 plans in the air and a million troops on the ground will not help us if someone decides to launch a few nukes.

Gabby forgot her PS....

"And this just proves that I'm a liberal airhead and Obamabot that in fact knows nothing about the subject...I'll make up and say anything to 'prove' my point... "

[Gaffer]

Gabby forgot her PS....

"And this just proves that I'm a liberal airhead and Obamabot that in fact knows nothing about the subject...I'll make up and say anything to 'prove' my point... "

Another point she and all liberals don't understand is, if you prevent your enemies from acquiring those weapons, they can't use them against you.

[namvet]

but we still have to worry about chief big ears and little brain answering the phone at 3 am.

[gabosaurus]

Another point she and all liberals don't understand is, if you prevent your enemies from acquiring those weapons, they can't use them against you.
Like there are not enough weapons to go around. :laugh2:

[emmett]

All countries know that after the BS and threats are counted, anyone who launches an assault against us gets their shit knocked out of the air and our shit landing on their head. It's that simple. You can;t maintain that threat without weapons.

Think about this Gabster. What if Iran had our stockpile and we were struggling to create our first weapon of Mass dest. How long do you think you would live?

I'm done.

[Stephen]

All countries know that after the BS and threats are counted, anyone who launches an assault against us gets their shit knocked out of the air and our shit landing on their head. It's that simple. You can;t maintain that threat without weapons.

Think about this Gabster. What if Iran had our stockpile and we were struggling to create our first weapon of Mass dest. How long do you think you would live?

I'm done.



Not long not long at all.........

[darin]

You don't need to fight a war to know how it works. In fact, those on the outside might be more knowledgeable, since those on the inside are obviously limited in what they know and believe.
You can read Jane's Defense, various State Department memos and other defense related stories. The U.S. possesses military strength that exceeds the rest of the world put together.
The primary reason why the U.S. doesn't cut its weapons strength is economics. The armaments industry employs a huge chunk of work force. More importantly, defense contractors make huge political contributions, and hold a ton of clout in the legislative process.
The U.S. could cut its weapons stockpile in half and halt production of new armaments without endangering national security. That is because our current level of weaponry and defense is far above every other country and terrorist group. Not to mention our nuclear weapons capability.
Conventional warfare is in the past. Having 10,000 plans in the air and a million troops on the ground will not help us if someone decides to launch a few nukes.

Do you believe the USA has the largest military, as you stated? Do you think we have 10,000 aircraft and one million ground troops?

My point is, you have no idea what you're talking about re: warfighting. Having an 'outside' view point does NOT produce better or more-clear thinking.

[gabosaurus]

My point is that the number of ground forces no longer makes any difference. Nor does how many planes or ships that you have.
Warfare has gone high-tech. World wide conflicts can be fought by a handful of skilled practitioners. Or even a few folks with their fingers on the nuclear button.
Which is why diplomacy is now far more important those which quick tempers. If another Dubya-witted buffoon comes into power and does a vengeful military jerk-off, no one might be left to regret it.

[darin]

Of COURSE it makes a difference. Think we could have made this much progress in Iraq w/ an Air war?

You're thoughts on warfare are naive. You WANT it to be that way, but nobody with any background or study on warfare would reach that conclusion.

Diplomacy is fine - but sometimes, an ass-kicking is all the enemy will understand.

[namvet]

our enemies are now growing stronger. land sea and air. so if Osama wacks the military we're back to sticks and stones. maybe we deserve it.