What is Digg?Sponsored by AVG
Windows 7 Needs An Extra Layer of Security view!
free.avg.com - AVG Anti-Virus Free 9.0 works with Windows 7, to provide the best protection against web threats.
306 Comments
- clejeune, on 07/20/2009, -13/+100The Defense secretary says the expensive F-22 fighter jet has limited use and building more may make the U.S. MORE vulnerable.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la- ...
The Pentagon doesn't want it, the Air Force doesn't want it, our own troops don't want it. It hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. There are many other weapon systems that should take priority over this over-priced monstrosity.
http://www.vetvoice.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=2945 - DewOfTheMountn, on 07/21/2009, -7/+77Pros and Cons of the F-22 program:
Cons:Costs a ***** of money
Kills the same amount of terrorists as the other fast jets
Pros:The thrust vectoring allows pilots to do awesome backflips n ***** to post to youtube. - TaeKwonDonkey, on 07/20/2009, -2/+67The cost effectiveness of an air superiority aircraft, like the F-22, is not the same as it once was during the Cold War. We already have a considerable number of F-22's and since they are not used in the two wars we currently have a major role in, there is no need to produce more. Our current F-16s and F-18s can only be matched by few Sukhoi fighters such as the Su-35. If push comes to shove, will still have a few squadrons of F-22's to back up the aircraft that we currently use abroad. I understand that this view point is not shared by all, but I feel as though we should slightly move away from state-of-the-art 100 million dollar warplanes and towards something else with similar but not as complex technology that can be produced in mass quantities at approximately one fifth or even one tenth the cost of an F-22. After all that was the design philosophy behind the F-16.
- seroevo, on 07/21/2009, -0/+55Another misleading digg title.
This isn't about scrapping the F-22, but about not buying another 12 planes beyond the 137 they have already budgeted. - protogenxl, on 07/20/2009, -0/+41And while this thing was being devloped the kind of ground support aircraft troops love and need like the A-10 were being decomissioned and sent to the scrap yard.
- clejeune, on 07/20/2009, -4/+42A job manufacturing a product that we do not need or want is by definition a "do-nothing job." On the other hand, Obma's plans to increase federal spending on firefighters, police, school teachers, and the VA gives actual useful jobs. We need firefighters. Even SECDEF Gates has said we don't need the F-22.
- skintigh, on 07/21/2009, -1/+38Average cost: $350,000,000
Average flight time before critical failure: 1.7 hours
Number of hours of maintenance per single hour of flight: 34
Cost per hour of flight: $49,808
Number of sorties flown in Iraq: 0
Number of sorties flown in Afghanistan: 0
Flight readiness of deployed aircraft: 55%
Also, the are vulnerable to the rain and have many parts that are hand-fitted.
I don't think you can accurately say the USAF and troops don't want them, but I'm sure the Iraq troops could have used $350,000,000 in body armor and uparmored humvees when Bush sent them to war with none.
Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - foolieo, on 07/21/2009, -1/+38 I watched Independence Day and saw how our F-16 and F-18 got there @$$ kicked buy the aliens. This plane might just give us a fighting chance.
- richmomz, on 07/21/2009, -5/+37Sorry - the F-22 is a cool airplane but it's just too damn expensive ($130 million EACH - an overbloated pork-project if ever there was one) and we can't afford to blow billions on a fleet of limited role fighter aircraft right now. The aircraft we've got are already top-notch and will remain so for at least the next decade - after that, unmanned drones/aircraft will probably be the future anyway.
- DirtyVicar, on 07/21/2009, -0/+30I'd pay $100 to have you as Secretary of Defense pushing the plane in front of Congress and Meet The Press with that argument.
- govtdoesnotwork, on 07/20/2009, -4/+34I think the "next thing" will be robotic fighter aircraft, which will be basically sustained missile platforms as our Predator is now, only faster & equipped with different kinds of missiles. No pilot means a lot less equipment on the platform combined with abilities like high g-force turns not found in aircraft manned by humans. For this and other reasons (cost) I'm against the F-22 program.
- yocouchdigga, on 07/21/2009, -9/+37end it. if they need to waste money on building toys, build predators or better yet, spend the money on research and jobs - where it's needed!
- Stormwern, on 07/21/2009, -3/+31"The F-22 program gives jobs to many highly educated and skilled people."
They're not producing anything useful. You could just as well hire them to dig holes and fill them up again, and it would be alot less expensive. - TotalHalibut, on 07/20/2009, -15/+42This paranoia does not justify wasteful spending.
- clejeune, on 07/20/2009, -6/+28avengingturnip,
I do know how the real world works. I know that in Afghanistan our troops have been begging for more Predator and Reaper drones. I know that in Iraq I was in real need of HEV's, body armor, and daily ammo supplies. My unit was using outdated conventional explosives because we could not get supplied with new MDI. Let me ask you this - If we actually need more than the 187 of these planes that we already have - why is it that the Air Force disagrees with you? Why is it that the SECDEF disagrees with you? Why is it that our own troops disagree with you? Why is it that the Pentagon disagrees with you? DO they not know how the real world works? - publiclurker, on 07/21/2009, -3/+25But jacking up the national dept for useless fighters is a good thing? Sounds like someone just want to line their pockets with the overpriced toys.
- Number23, on 07/21/2009, -4/+25Putting the alleged issues with the F-22 aside, arguing that it’s a waste because it’s not good at killing terrorist is a stupid argument. Just because we are fighting terrorist today does not mean we won’t be fighting some else, perhaps more sophisticated, tomorrow.
- TheSwashbuckler, on 07/21/2009, -0/+20"Kills the same amount of terrorists as the other fast jets"
Totally wrong.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter. The terrorists don't have any kind of air force.
The F-35, F-18, F-16, F-15E can all attack ground targets, i.e. terrorists. - erkokite, on 07/21/2009, -2/+22The F-35 has a MUCH lower thrust/weight, can't supercruise, is not stealthy in the infrared (exhaust nozzle is not designed for this), lacks thrust vectoring (except in the marine model where it is only used for takeoff and landing), and has an internal payload of only 2 missiles+2 bombs. And I don't think its radar is as powerful due to fewer T/R modules. And the F-35 isn't cheap either. There has been significant criticism from military experts of the plane's performance. It's really not on the same level as the F-22 (despite being slightly newer) and was never meant to be.
It's a common misconception that the F-35 is superior the 22. This is far from the case; it is very much the opposite way around. The F-35 was intended be a low cost, lower performance stealthy fighter intended for domestic and export use.
Really the only things needed in Afghanistan are Predators, and maybe A-10's and F-16's (I'm not an expert by any means but this seems to be the case). - rrife, on 07/21/2009, -1/+20I'm glad the submitter can see into the future and knows this plane is not needed.
- theberlindoctor, on 07/21/2009, -4/+22AMERICA. ***** YEAH.
- camaroz06, on 07/21/2009, -1/+19F-35 is to F-22 as F-16 is to F-15
Its meant to be a cheaper, more produced, less capable, compliment to F-22. - sentinel106, on 07/21/2009, -0/+18As if an answer to your wishes, I present you with the F-35 Lightning II
- psunut5, on 07/21/2009, -0/+17Just pull out the area 51 UFOs already. Its about time we embrace our alien overlord technology.
- Lax32, on 07/21/2009, -2/+19I actually think programs like the F22 are some of the actually more relevant ones we should be looking at hopefully our 2 wars die down and we enter a time with virtually no major conflict.
Here's my view on it: When we actually talk about national defense and if we can protect our people, air superiority is key. While sometimes we have to look at what equipment we can use to maximize how efficiently we fight war (With the growing emphasis on JSFs like the F35, Reaper and Predator drones and such), it's my belief that nuclear options aside the US will always be safe as long as we have air superiority, something that has helped us win every conflict since WWII. There isn't anything in production elsewhere in the world that can touch the F22 there. While they might be useless now with limited bombing payloads, they're the backbone of the military equipment we would need if we got ourselves into a serious fight for our well being and way of life. And F22s take time, you can't just start building them when a conflict arises and have 50 built in 2 months. As far as peacetime spending for national defense I think thats a pretty good way to spend money. - ousthouse, on 07/21/2009, -0/+17The malfunctioning weapon systems ended up killing Randy Quaid... so sad... so brave...
- tgc1, on 07/21/2009, -3/+20It's pretty maddening to realize that 350 million is for ONE aircraft. Not the missiles, not the fuel, not the maintenance. Just the aircraft. Can you imagine how many troops could have been fitted with armor, how many extra humvees, how many tanks, how many other systems could have been paid for by not ordering ONE aircraft?
Now what should piss the military off even more is looking at how many the US government ordered. Billions of dollars pissed down the drain so some company can fill its pockets. Got to love the defense industry. - marmotjmarmot, on 07/21/2009, -3/+18Can't fly in the rain? Well good luck with that.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ... - Pseudorious, on 07/21/2009, -3/+18Manufacturing an item deemed unnecessary by the Sec. of Defense and large numbers of congressmen and senators on both sides of the aisle does not create real jobs. They could not be more fake.
- publiclurker, on 07/21/2009, -5/+20It's much more likely that you and your friends have simply goose stepped so far to the right in your war mongering that everything else looks left to you.
- SouthsideIrish, on 07/21/2009, -1/+15>Number of hours of maintenance per single hour of flight: 34
And that is the real problem. I was a F-16 crew chief and I could turn it around in 30 - 45 minutes and we could fly the hell out of it. Three sorties a day in a normal work day was a piece of cake. - PhantomRogue, on 07/21/2009, -1/+15The Warthog is the best aircraft ever made.
- fangor, on 07/21/2009, -4/+18We need to end the silly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there really is no good reason for us to be there, and we could have bought MANY MANY (almost an even 6839 now) F-22's for how much those wars have cost us.
- Spytap, on 07/21/2009, -2/+15@TGC1 I don't mean to come off as an anti-defense hippy, but can you imagine how our schools or infrastructure could have benefited from not building just one or two F22s?
I understand they're different pots completely, but the hypocrisy of spending (Defense gets an Amex with no spending limit; schools, roads, water, affordable health care etc. all get food stamps) irks me to no small degree. - erkokite, on 07/21/2009, -1/+14I think it is much more than $130 million. I have seen $184 million a few times. There is a proposal to export them to Japan and after the R&D that would need to tailor the plane for export and to Japanese needs, the cost comes out to $290 million. Compare that to $60-$80 mil for a Eurofighter (the next best aircraft) or $40 mil for a Gripen or Su-35.
- SirBruce, on 07/21/2009, -0/+13Exactly, the title is very wrong. They're not "ending" the F-22, just not buying as many as we originally planned as we have plenty for our needs. Unlike some of the other comments here, the F-22 is not a waste of money and is a great fighter. But we don't really NEED that many air superiority fighters when they have virtually no opposition in the world. They are also very expensive. The F-35 is much cheaper, and much more versatile, as is the F/A-18. The F-22 has a limited role to play and will continue to play that role, but we don't need to spend billions more for them.
- opticwind, on 07/21/2009, -0/+13I don't have an opinion on the usefulness of the F-22 program, but I'd like to throw this interesting tidbit in: You know who is opposed to any removal of the F-22 programs?
Japan!
Interestingly enough, Japan sees the F-22 as incredibly enticing in its defense against obvious threats (er, threats that are obvious to them, at least). The stealth abilities and easy access (several being stationed in Japan already, I believe) make it something they want to actually purchase. - erkokite, on 07/21/2009, -2/+14Actually the air force loves it, and it's a great plane. But the thing is not economical by any means, nor is it useful in Iraq or Afghanistan or any other low intensity conflict.
- avengingturnip, on 07/20/2009, -11/+23Paranoia? You have no idea how the real world works do you? I don't like how much that plane costs either but the reality is that the F-35 cannot hold its own in air to air combat against the latest Sukhois.
http://www.ng.ru/politics/2008-09-17/2_su.html
http://p2o2.blogspot.com/2008/09/woops-f-35-got-do ...
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-Flanker.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-030907-1.html - protogenxl, on 07/20/2009, -0/+12We are slowly getting there. They have already turned the Predator Drone into a Missile Bomber with off the shelf hardware.
- smackydoodle, on 07/21/2009, -1/+13A heart attack is more serious for me. I don't see myself dying of an F-22 when I'm old.
- govsucks, on 07/21/2009, -0/+11A suggestion that is conservative of both resources and life. I like it, I was against the shut down of the program for air superiority reasons until I read that absolutely logical argument. A fighter without a pilot would be limited in maneuverability only by mechanical limitations and could easily outfly any human pilot while sitting someplace miles away.
- richmomz, on 07/21/2009, -7/+18The F-35 isn't turning out to be as hot as we'd hoped but I don't think we're in danger of losing air superiority in the immediate future. The aircraft we've got are still top-drawer and will remain so until unmanned fighters/drones take over in a decade or two.
The likelihood of a conflict with Russia, China, or any other country with next-gen Russian aircraft is pretty slim anyway unless we get really overly-aggressive - the prospect of "losing the country" without the F-22 is flat retarded (who's going to invade? Canada? Mexico? ROFL). - bradleyland, on 07/21/2009, -0/+10There exists no good reason for two civilized nations to engage in war. However, this will not prevent them from doing so.
- drmangrum, on 07/21/2009, -0/+10That's a pretty piss poor argument. People are under the assumption that all conflicts from here till the end of time will follow an irregular warfare model. To assume we'll never again have a state-to-state conflict is very shortsighted. We may not need to replace our current inventory in the next 5-10 years, but a steady replacement should still happen. Our current F-15 and F-16's are based on 40 year old technology and the aircraft themselves are aging.
The F-35 doesn't hold a candle to the capabilities of the F-22 either. - govtdoesnotwork, on 07/21/2009, -0/+9Thanks, govsucks. In addition to the human body's dislike of G-forces, it's my impression that dogfights these days almost NEVER involve either side's pilots using human eyesight to detect the other guy's airplanes. It's almost all sensor equipment all the time these days, and that suggests we can jettison the human.
- duewydo, on 07/21/2009, -0/+9@PhantomRogue
The Warthog I wouldn't say was the best ever made, I think we could argue that but I won't. Regardless there is no doubting the Warthogs superiority and versatility, it is certainly an under appreciated machine. - publiclurker, on 07/21/2009, -1/+9How are fighters sitting on the tarmac supposed to help your lack of police. they aren't even being used in current combat.
- BottledViolence, on 07/21/2009, -0/+8"True conservatives" are the opposite of bible bashing neo-cons.
- Kyrgizion, on 07/21/2009, -0/+8Why would that be a surprise? Japan has a well-known technologically advanced (military at least) enemy: North Korea. I can indeed see them being interested in especially the F22's stealth capabilities, given the area's rather unique threat.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 312 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is