Do you want to see more of these planes?

yes, damn him for funding things intended to help the struggling economy while nixing a program that wastes millions of dollars every year...

Are you serious?

One can argue that the stimulus spending should have been less (I don't agree), however one cannot argue the merits of additional F-22 funding...

I wonder how much of that pork was earmarked for your state?

Yeah, let's let him dismantle the military too. That way the foreigners can just roll right in. Our tax money should go to strengthing our military instaed of all the Obama free loaders.

skiddy and willie - Really, do you want to see more of these planes or are you two just bashing Obama?

What is it? got anything to add besides some insane rant?

Yeah those freeloaders happen to be the richest people in the country. They complain about social welfare programs while at the same time being the greatest beneficiaries of one sided, trickle down, government instituted pseudo welfare in the history of the world. There has been no group benefitted more by government aid in America other than the rich.

oh come on, it's only 1.8 billion. that's chump change compared to what the morons running this country waste. this will actually put people to work.

Wait.....1.8 Billion for seven freaking planes and some of you actually are putting him down for wanting to stop this madness ?

OMFG we truly are a Country of half-wits.

1.8 billion is nothing compared to what he's spent already.

Also, that 1.8 billion goes back into the US economy because they build F-22 here in AMERCICA. so actually, that right there would do more than 75% of the stimulus package.

Finally, our air force is flying planes that are nearly 40 years old and are falling apart. We NEED new planes. and it would be well spent to purchase a plane that is better than any other fighter plane in existance

yeah, forget the planes. let's just give the money to goldman sachs. 1.8 billion isn't much compared to what they are used to recieving. hopefully they won't get mad and do something stupid like require another bailout because their former execs permeate all the highest levels of our government.

hmmm.on second thought, let's double it. giving it to a company like goldman sachs is so totally worth it. we won't even ask what they used it for.

bitco,

The answer to you question "do you want to see more of these planes" is also a two part question. Which is better for the safety and defense of our country, (a) to have a sufficient supply of military equipment and man power to use it, (in this case the F-22 Raptors) to defend and deter attack by our enemies or (b) have to try to build them and train the personnel after we are in a war?

I don't know about you but I don't wait until I need my gun to load it. Much like our military I am ready for most any situation I am likely to get into. Obama's plan would have us scaling back our military and eventually our state of readiness would be weakened, to say the very least. This, the fact that Bush got us into a war in Iraq that never should have happened, and the fact that Clinton cut defense spending and Bush did nothing to help the situation are primary reasons why our military is stretched to the limit as it is now. Instead of helping the situation Obama wants to make it worse and put more people out of work in the process.

There are really F-22 supporters? Who knew? This jet can't even be used in rain. Why would anyone suggest we should spend billions more to keep building them?

Those who say these billions will stimulate the economy are right. But couldn't we stimulate the economy in other ways with things that actually benefit our citizens?

I'd like to see light rail between my downtown and the airport. I wouldn't mind an updated electrical grid that would allow me to sell back into the grid what I can make on my own. These are just two ideas that would greatly enhance the economy AND would give some benefit to me. An F-22 benefits me in no way whatsoever. Everything it does can be done by a variety of other weapons for a fraction of the cost. This is ridiculous pork spending.

Reading

Is

Fundamental

If you are picking one party over another in this arguement, you haven't looked into it. There are Republicans and Democrats who want to put a cap on the program, and Republicans and Democrats who want to spend too much money on it. You can argue for either point, but you can't argue that there's a party line drawn in this. Well, unless you just want to ignore reality.

Thanks guys. You're right, at least it's jobs here in America, and very cheap compared to the stimulus package, and can be used for something good for America.

And yes, the F22 does benefit you, schanomin, it helps allow people like some on here to say and do the things they call 'rights."

Typical Republican/Conservative bull$hit - never see a defense program worthy of cutting - if they had their way we would still be making WWI equipment.

I want to know how it can take 70,000 - 90,000 workers to build 7 planes, that is more workers than GM has to build 3 million cars per year. Noway can it take over 10,000 people to build a plane, the companies might have that many, but they have to be working on other things too.

“We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.”

It isn't 7 planes, it is more something like 100 more. And it is a fairly advanced technology plane.

So willie, in terms of health insurance, how many American citizens would 1.8 million dollars provide for?

If this country spent as much money on health care as it does on war and BS, we'd have it made.

The F-22 was a bad idea and the program needs to be "abandoned in place".

1) It is a relic of the Cold War and is designed to fight an enemy that longer exists.

2) It is not a multi-mission airfraft like the JSF and cannot be safely exported because of the advanced technology involved.

3) The "advanced" technology includes and anti-radar coating that was not ready for prime time. It ablates (wears off) far too quickly and because of its three-layered construction is extremely expensive to re-coat. The coating wears more quickly at high speed. The coating cannot be applied in field conditions. Four combat missions is the most one can expect and have this aircraft retain its stealthy coating.

4) The cost of the F-22 is far too high for it to be effective as an air superiority fighter. If you take the lifetime costs of an F-22 (over $361 million a copy) and use that money to buy cruise missiles as around $230k lifetime costs or steathy UCAV's ( about $700k lifetime costs) whose performance is equal to or better to the F-22, you will see that the F-22 would be easily overwhelmed by the hordes of low-tech and high-tech aircraft that could be bought for the same money.

5) The F-22's performance exceeds the physical capabilities of the pilot. It can take more G's and maneuver in such a way that the pilot is "outside the performance envelope." In other words, there is no pilot alive who can actually use the aircraft to its full potential.

6) Air-to-air and ground-to-air missile technology have evolved faster than the F-22's maneuverability, leaving it far more susceptible to missile hits than was ever imagined when the aircraft was designed.

7) The future belongs to multi-mission aircraft like the JSF or to unmanned aircraft (ACAV's) or cruise missiles. The particular F-22 killer would be a UCAV. A pilotless aircraft can outmaneuver the F-22 because there is no pilot to limit performance. If you lose a mannned aircraft and its pilot, the pilot is the more valuable resource. With a UCAV, this is not a concern. The gross weight of a UCAV is much lighter because of the lack of a pilot and all the equipment necessary to sustain him in flight. And a UCAV has potential to be more steralthy than a piloted aircraft because of human facctors design criteria.

Like I say, this was not something that the Air Force ever wanted. The only reason it was ever appropriated was by spreading its manufacturer over 40+ states. This is not a good reason to buy such an expensive white elephant. The money could be much better spent on the next generation of UCAV's, cruise missiles, and the JSF.

Derek #1.18

This particular piece is just 7 planes and the President and Armed Services Committee doesn't want them. The only people who want them are the ones whos districts will lose jobs if they aren;t bought but I find 70,000 to 90,000 jobs as easy to believe as a $600 toliet seat.

computerdoc,

I wondered when someone qould bring up that toilet seat. Here's the story on that: Once upon a time there was S Democratic Senator named Proxmire. He likes to see his name in headlines. He liked to point at things and declare them a waste of the taxpayer's money. The toilet seats were replacements in a lot of 6 for the Navy's P-3 Orion ASW aircraft. The aircraft can fly missions as long as 20 yours and needs a toilet. All parts (spare and otherwise) for military aircraft require Military Specification Certification (MilSpec.) This is an expensive process, especially for small lot spare parts. The supplier is permitted to add the cost of MilSpec Certification and paperwork to the price of the lot --- otherwise no one would ever bid on the small lots. The actual toilet seats cost $12.00 each ($72 for the lot) . The remainder of the $3600 was for paperwork and MilSpec testing. If 100 toilet seats had been ordered, the cost would have been about $46 per toilet seat. But crews on P-3's got to sit on cold metal rims and curse Proxmire's name until the aircraft was retired. No company would ever bid on replacement toilet seats.

Wanna hear how Proxmire killed all the honeybees with his Golden Fleece Award?

F-22 can't be flowin the rain? Put down the crack pipe, it most certainly can be flown in the rain.

F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the world. Other countries are already trying to come up with something to compete against it (lookup Sukhoi PAK FA or Shenyang J-XX). It is the responsibility of the US military to be ten steps ahead of everyone else. When the US goes into battle we dont want it to be a fair fight, we want an extremely UNFAIR fight that is unfair in OUR favor.

A great point was made: This money goes right back into the economy since the planes are manufactured in the US.

he also got a lot of press for his opposition to the sst and his hair transplant,however he did learn from the master,another wisconsinite named joe mcarthy

I hear odumbo assured Russia that we would build no more of these airplanes.

F-22 can't be flowin the rain? Put down the crack pipe, it most certainly can be flown in the rain

The F-22 requires north of 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight. The primary source of this high maintenance cost? Rain. The metallic skin used for radar absorption is vulnerable to rain and other abrasion. So, yeah. It will fly in rain....well, with lots and lots of maintenance.

Sometimes the crack pipe comes with facts.

"“We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22."

To those who wonder how it could cost that many jobs, a defense industry depending on the 243 planes the US already agreed to purchase backing out on the agreement costs a company billions. The billions in losses + R&D = cutbacks on the payroll. It's just like GM cutting 20K jobs recently. The big difference is that a jet is much more expensive and difficult to manufacture than a car. It's only 3X the jobs for something that costs hundreds of times more per unit that so it's not that far fetched.

Schwann, I'm thinking the crack pipe doesnt come with anything but nonsense. Here is a quote from the manufacturer of the F-22 in direct response to a question about the affect of rain on the plane:

"The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well. "

The F-22 is projected to require 12 man hours of service for every hour of flight which isnt that unreasonable. Stop buying into propaganda and trying to spread it here.

This is from the F-22 Mission Briefing: "Any rain or cloud penetration severely abrades the aircraft's radar absorbant coating." Also, being flows too fast abrades the coating. Also dust in the air (in places like Iraq and Afghanistan) abrades the coating. The current estimate in Janes All The World's Aircraft (the unclassified bible on such things) estimates that 4 combat missions are all it takes to "significantly degrade" the anti-radar coating. In the first Gulf War, that was less than one days' missions.

So canudigit, your job is 1) convincing our enemies only to attack us on cloudless days, 2) convincing them not to use too many cruise missiles or UCAV's just because they're cheap, and 3) convincing the Chinese and the Russians to build an expensive aircraft to directly oppose the F-22. You're a great talker, should be a piece of cake for someone who doesn't have any idea what he is talking about.

Oh, and BTW, the Su T-50 is indeed designed to compete with both the F-22 and JSF, but unless India buys a substantial number will never see production. You have to remember that it is the JSF they really worries people who might oppose us. And, as for China, good luck --- they are still 30 years behind and can't even field a 4th generation fighter. Just because something is on the drawing board doesn't mean that it will ever see production.

Remember that the Russians developed a space shuttle (the Boron) that was vastly superior to ours. But they looked at it, and said that it was simply too dangerous and expensive to operate and grounded it after its proof-of-concept flight. It sits in a park in Moscow for kids to play on while we have to pay them to use their BDL's to send up people and supplies to the ISS. (And no, they didn't copy our space shuttle, that's just another internet myth.)

Not everything that looks good on paper flies well. And that Includes the F-22, the Shenyang J-XX and Su T-50 and the Space Shuttle.

"And, as for China, good luck --- they are still 30 years behind and can't even field a 4th generation fighter. Just because something is on the drawing board doesn't mean that it will ever see production."

Isn't that what americans and europeans said something similar about the japanese and the zero airplanes back in the 1930's and early 1940's?

"This is from the F-22 Mission Briefing: "Any rain or cloud penetration severely abrades the aircraft's radar absorbant coating."

Do you have a link to that mission briefing that says that?

“We’re about to lose 70,000 to 90,000 jobs in the aerospace industry,” said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., citing industry estimates of the employment impact of terminating the F-22. “We’re about to make an incredible decision.”

The Voice of the Military-Industrial Complex.

Chris

The F-22 was a bad idea and the program needs to be "abandoned in place".

Are you some kind of expert in aviation all of a sudden?

1) It is a relic of the Cold War and is designed to fight an enemy that longer exists.

Might not exist at this moment you mean. Are you a soothsayer that can predict the future? I don't think the Chinese are napping while reaping all those billions of dollars we send them every month and they certainly are not going to advertise what they are doing with their weapons plans, which include new fighters.

2) It is not a multi-mission airfraft like the JSF and cannot be safely exported because of the advanced technology involved.

So what? It is an air superiority fighter for the use of OUR armed forces. That is not a bad idea.

3) The "advanced" technology includes and anti-radar coating that was not ready for prime time. It ablates (wears off) far too quickly and because of its three-layered construction is extremely expensive to re-coat. The coating wears more quickly at high speed. The coating cannot be applied in field conditions. Four combat missions is the most one can expect and have this aircraft retain its stealthy coating.

Debatable and if true probably applies to all other Stealth technology airplanes as well.

4) The cost of the F-22 is far too high for it to be effective as an air superiority fighter. If you take the lifetime costs of an F-22 (over $361 million a copy) and use that money to buy cruise missiles as around $230k lifetime costs or steathy UCAV's ( about $700k lifetime costs) whose performance is equal to or better to the F-22, you will see that the F-22 would be easily overwhelmed by the hordes of low-tech and high-tech aircraft that could be bought for the same money.

You can't use cruise missles to shoot down airborne enemy fighters. I am not confident that our military can launch a suprise attack with cruise missles that would effectively cripple an enemy airforce on the ground with the 100% certainty that your plan would require. You do have a point with the quanity versus quality argument.

5) The F-22's performance exceeds the physical capabilities of the pilot. It can take more G's and maneuver in such a way that the pilot is "outside the performance envelope." In other words, there is no pilot alive who can actually use the aircraft to its full potential.

That is also true of every airplane since the F4 Phantom.

6) Air-to-air and ground-to-air missile technology have evolved faster than the F-22's maneuverability, leaving it far more susceptible to missile hits than was ever imagined when the aircraft was designed.

Bull@!$%#. That is what stealth is for.

7) The future belongs to multi-mission aircraft like the JSF or to unmanned aircraft (ACAV's) or cruise missiles. The particular F-22 killer would be a UCAV. A pilotless aircraft can outmaneuver the F-22 because there is no pilot to limit performance. If you lose a mannned aircraft and its pilot, the pilot is the more valuable resource. With a UCAV, this is not a concern. The gross weight of a UCAV is much lighter because of the lack of a pilot and all the equipment necessary to sustain him in flight. And a UCAV has potential to be more steralthy than a piloted aircraft because of human facctors design criteria.

No multi use fighter is going to be as effective as a fighter strictly designed for combat air superiority. Long term, and I emphasize long term, UCAV will be the fighter of the future. But that future is not now.

Like I say, this was not something that the Air Force ever wanted. The only reason it was ever appropriated was by spreading its manufacturer over 40+ states. This is not a good reason to buy such an expensive white elephant. The money could be much better spent on the next generation of UCAV's, cruise missiles, and the JSF.

btco

I would like to see more of the F22's. The F-18's were introduced in the 1970's. The first ones placed on active duty were in 1980.

As far as the UCAV goes, no machine will ever be able to beat a human pilot. Machines do not have instincts.

I agree with those who have posted that spending on the F22 ( or any other project) will keep Americans at work and paying taxes. We also need to keep any current equipment in tiptop shape. It's a difficult balance especially when the money for those projects gets tight. We must never be in a postion like we were after Pearl Harbor. Almost all our aircraft, armor, artillary, ships, subs, and in some cases small arms were inferior to the Axis powers. Read stories of our pilots at Midway flying the old, outdated TBD Devastator torpedo bomber. Those men sacificed themselves trying to get hits on the Jap carriers. I'd hate to see that happen again on some other battlefield because we, the taxpayer, said no more spending on defence.

You can't dismiss the plane in its entirety just because of its price tag and cost overruns. Just because a project is overbudget doesn't automatically mean you should cancel it.

The Russians have since developed a plane that is marginally superior to the F-22's predecessor, the F-15. Our experience in air combat has shown us that the better plane always wins air battles, and thus the side with the better plane is able to maintain air superiority over its adversaries. This was the case at the beginning of both the Korean and Vietnam wars... our fighters at the beginning of the wars were inferior to our opponents, and it got so bad that we couldn't even fly our planes because they were sure to get shot down. This was unacceptable to the American public, obviously.

The F-15 is a good plane and filled its role well. But it was developed in the 70's, and 30 years is an extremely long lifespan for a fighter. The F-22 program is a good investment, because with the F-22 we will be able to maintain a technological advantage over our adversaries well into the 2020's and perhaps into the 2030's. Building a cheaper plane with a shorter lifespan isn't necessarily a better investment.... the F-22 is hugely expensive, but you get a whole lot of bang for your buck with it. The F-22 is essentially worth about 10 of its Russian contemporaries.

It is also important not to dismiss a weapons system simply because it hasn't been used in Iraq or Afghanistan... our military does a lot more than just fight a couple of Middle Eastern Wars. Not every weapon system this country has developed has been used, but "usage of a weapons system" shouldn't be a barometer for its success.

We've passed a $787 billion stimulus this year, and it is chock full of pet projects that will probably provide little benefit to Americans, like airports and roads that no one will ever use. Now the question is: do we need more F-22's beyond the 187 ordered? And, of course, the answer is: I don't know, you don't know, and there are probably very few people that can answer that question, as information on our strategic air defense is classified. But I can say that those F-22's seem a lot more important than probably half the stuff our

juliane said:

"So willie, in terms of health insurance, how many American citizens would 1.8 million dollars provide for?"

gee I don't know juline....but once you buy their insurance with the 1.8 billion how much will it cost NEXT year to buy it again..and again, and again and again?

Let me see, 46 million without insurance, 11 million of which make over 75K a year, 9 million who already qualify for medicaid but NEVER APPLIED for it and 12 million or so illegals...seems we are going to trash a system to fix something for a pretty small minority...oh and they already said 17 million will STILL be without coverage.

Let me know whaere in the constitution it says Uncle Sam can start a business in DIRECT competition with the private sector, I must have missed that in Gov 101.

You are wrong weagle, TRAINING, TRAINING, TRAINING has ALWAYS been our ace in the hole. Up until the F-15 (and that's arguable) we never really had the best planes. The MIGs outperformed our planes time and time again, hell even going back to WWII with the Japanese and Germans they had better planes. Our training, tactics, intel, and bravery (at times dumb luck too) has been what has kept us on top. Look at the Germans and the Tiger and Panser tanks they had compared to our Shermans. Sheer numbers, bravery, tactics and training overwhelmed them.

As for the F-22 what you have to understand is we have the planes in service, the thing is certain Congressmen have ADDED 7 more planes more than what the Airforce asked for in order for them to say during election time "I saved such and such many jobs". That's what Obama is going to veto. Not the whole program.

Not to mention even if we were to cancel the whole program, we still have the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter) which could do the job just fine.

There are lots of opinions on here about the F-22 that show how little the public knows about this VERY expensive piece of equipment. After being called lots of names (I kinda resented the "commie" one) and seeing the kind of abuse that people thinks passes for intelligent discourse (if you have no facts, call names or just naysay.)

I strongly suggest that you start educating yourself on this sort of thing before posting. I would suggest that you start at http://www.janes.com/ . This is the definitive unclassified source for military equipment and tactical information. Much more reliable than anything you're likely to find coming from an advocate of a failed piece of equipment with billions in profits at stake.

Remember, it is better to keep your mouth shut and be thought ignorant than to open it and remove all doubt. (Thanks Oscar)

I don't know how you can call this a "failed piece of equipment." It outperforms any other jet in existence hands down, both now and in the immediate future. It might be expensive-but it is worth it for our pilots to have the edge in an air superiority fighter, and air superiority is an imperative in a military conflict. I don't want to see our military ever again have to send our pilots in Brewster Buffalo's up against the Jap Zero, to draw a parallel from the past.

And while I am at it-where in the hell did you ever get the idea that it will only cost 700k for a UCAV????

weagle,

To the contrary, our experience has never shown that the best plane wins. It is the best pilots who win. The Japanese Zero was a much better aircraft, but until the Hellcat came along and matched it, we held out own quite well because we had better pilots. The ME-109 was better than the Spitfire and remained the best until the Mustang came along, but because of vastly superior pilots, the Spit outdid the 109. In Korea, the Mig-15 and later the 17 were better airfract, but even the old Corsair held its own against them ---- better pilots. Even in Vietnam, I still have a RECAP recording of the pilot of an A1E (Spad) shooting down a Mig-21C. "You've been had by a Spad, Dad!"

It's pilots who make the difference and Russian and Chinese-trained pilots have never come close to the training standards for our pilots. Not even in the same ballpark. In similar type aircraft, the U.S. would have a 6-to-1 avdantage over the Russians and at least a 20-to-1 advantage over the Chinese (and neither have similar type aircraft in most cases.)

The Jap pilots were superbly trained. The Jap Zero had a better rate of climb, superior manueuverability, and marginally better armament (cannon) over the Wildcat. The Wildcat was faster in a dive, had better armour protection for the pilot, and self sealing gas tanks which the Zero did not have. The Zero was technically superior in a dogfight, but our pilots learned to use whatever advantages they had over the Japs, but only after absorbing punishing losses first. Having to fly an airplane that erupted into a fireball when hit by a couple of 50 caliber rounds was a distinct disadvantage for the Japs. It wasn't until the Hellcat that we had a fighter superior to the Zero. The Brits were definitely good, but not superior pilots, to the German Luftwaffe. What they had was radar, and the advantage of fighting over their own country, where if shot down they could parachute out and jump into another airplane right away. The Me109's only had about 15 minutes fuel duration over England in combat, and they were ordered to shephard the bombers instead of taking on the fighters, which is what they should have done. A lot of those Me 109's wound up ditching in the English Channel due to fuel exhaustion.

Chris I'm still waiting for your source that I asked for when it comes to your mission briefing.

Skyking and Chris, Thanks, at least someone knows their history around here. Only problem with todays aircraft is the long development time. When the Japs hit Pearl the TBF/TBM Avenger was unvailed that same day. It's first combat mission was at Midway (6 planes). It was months until they went to the fleet. The F6F took even longer, but because we came across an intact Zero in the Aleutions, that helped in the design of that plane. The Corsair was first flown before Pearl, but was terrible at carrier landings because it had too much bounce in the landing gear (that was fixed later). However it served the Marines quite well from the land bases. I'd hate to wonder how long it would take to get a new design in the air in a wartime situation today.

MO1 #1.38,

About the F-15's & F-16's, have they all been inspected & refurbished ? As I recall, during the past few years we have lost a few & a few pilots during training exercises. The reviews indicated that a these incidents were the result of structural fatigue due to extreme forces experienced at supersonic speed and the age of the aircraft. Question: have we identified the number of aircraft with these defects, have we made all of the necessary repairs, how much more flight time can we get with what we have available?

About the F-35 (JSF), how much longer is it going to be, before they are ready to go into production ? They apparently only have a handful for testing, at present. Once they are "satisfied" that they've got it "right". It will take time to ramp up production.

Then the big question to be answered still is "how do the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-35 fit on the time line". It wouldn't be too pretty if there was any time period where we were lacking a minimum number of supersonic fighters necessary for mission requirements!

Cut wasteful spending yes!!! Cut military spending to the point that our military's ability to defend this country is compromised NO!!!!.

It is a very fine line between wasteful spending and necessary spending and as such subject to interpretation from person to person. Take my version of wasteful spending for example: It it doesn't work and can't not be made to work efficiently and effectively then it is a WASTE..... Period.... If it works and can be made better or is a new project that with each stage of development shows positive progress in strengthening the defense and safety of this country, then it IS NOT A WASTE.....PERIOD....

I view our military (both personnel and the equipment they use/need) as I do my firearm. I would rather have it ready and myself trained to use it than to have to yell "Time out!" I have to get my gun out of the safe, get the ammo out of another safe, load my firearm and then you can shoot at me. I don't want our military compromised to the point that we have to recruit and train personnel and build equipment for them to use should we be drawn into another war. I fear this is the path that Obama wants to lead us down.

Yeah, agree with the President. Let's stop spending money on the national defense and pass another bill giving it to the people in America who don't want to work.

Good post Ernie. I agree totally. He is a known anti 2nd Amendment person also. He will cut the military to the bone and disarm all the law abiding citizens if allowed. It needs to stop.

They want to move the money to the f-35 program, and even the airforce does not want anymore of the f-22 planes.

Ernie, you can't seriously believe that not funding an F-22 fighter jet is going to seriously cripple our defensive capabilities do you? If so, you're very childish and unrealistic.

Dallas, maybe you don't understand the concept of air superiority.

Julian in Dallas,

You really need to get out more and look at the big picture. If all Obama wanted to do was stop the F-22 then you would be correct. You should really consider changing your screen name to "fool in Dallas" if you truly believe he will stop there. This is but the beginning of the dismantling of America's defenses that Obama has planned.

There is an old saying that I believe applies here: "Give some people and inch they will take a mile." To make it simple for you the F-22 represents the first inch of the mile Obama wants to take.

If it makes you feel better about Obama, think of it this way. He is no different than local and state government leaders who want something but lack the money in their respective budgets to get it. The first place they look to take money from is the local police and fire budgets since they often represent the largest budgets and they continue to do this in spite of the fact that history has demonstrated this makes their towns, counties and states less safe. The only real difference is that Obama is the leader of the United States of America and wants to take money away that is necessary to our national defense and he is disguising the fact by calling it cutting wasteful spending when we all know that is not his true goal and truly wasteful spending will be alive and well with a new and politically correct name to hide it.

come on Ernie.....you really think Obama wants to leave our country defenseless? I think you just hate Obama and are making up things. you conservatives really need to come up from under the bed...everything's gonna be ok.

Chucky,

No I do not believe that even Obama is that stupid. There is however a big difference between leaving us totally defenseless and with a weakened ability to defend ourselves. The latter is what I beleive is Obama's goal as part of his kinder and friendlier America image. After all, who could feel threatened by a country that is no longer a super power. This is Obama's goal and only a fool can not see it. Obama is living a make believe life. He is pretending to be POTUS, he is pretending to know what he is doing as POTUS, he has probably even convinced himself that no one will bother us if we are less able to pose at threat. The worst thing about it all is that the American people are still buying his "used car salesman" smile and pitch.

The F-22's are not an example of wasteful spending. They are a proved commodity and a far superior aircraft than what the rest of the world has. The F-22's are sacrificial lambs and just the beginning of Obama's goal to disarm America.

Talk about wasteful spending, then go after stupid crap like the funding that goes on for things like the study of cows burping adding to global warming. That's the stuff they need to cut.

Jet Fighters are fine things, but Bombers win wars.

BenCT.

Have you read Douhet?

No, sir.

Ernie...we know you don't LIKE Obama, but just because you dont like him doesnt make what you say so. I don't like McCains views or Sarah Palins either....but if they were president/vice pres, i wouldn't go off half cocked aboutwhat I THINK they are gonna do to this country until I see where they are going...you guy haven't given him the chance. you call him a terrorist and think he does not love this country, well his passion and fight for healthcare should tell you that he care about human kind. some of you have real concerns about how he's gonna pay for it...but alot of you hate this fight for healthcare just because you hate Obama.

Chucky,

Actually I have nothing against Obama and hope he succeeds as our POTUS. However I know a con-man when I see one and tell it like I see it. As I said before, Chucky do you have to wait until you auto runs out of fuel before you put fuel in the tank or do you take the intelligent steps to prevent that? I don't want to wait until Obama cuts funding to our military to the point that we can't defend this country before I speak up and sound the alarm. Obama is an intelligent person and knows he can not accomplish his goal of reducing or military to his ideals all at once and the F-22 Raptor (which is a proved aircraft by the way) is simply the beginning. A little additional info for you on this countries "Air Superiority". Did you know that even no country in the world has ever shot down an F-15 Strike Eagle? Why you might ask when some have superior aircraft and well trained pilots? They don't have the avionics that our planes are equipped with. With this advanced technology we and our military maintain our "super power" status and keep the wolves at bay "so to say." The F-22A Raptor is the most advanced aircraft of it's kind and no other country can even match it, much less defeat it. Obama would have us limiting this tactical advantage to just what we currently have. Don't you think that North Korea, China and even Russia are developing something superior to the F-22? Do we cut spending to the point that we have to play catch up or do we continue to set the bar for the rest of the world. China knows that in an all out ground war they are far superior and the have nuclear abilities yet they do not attack. Have you for even one minute thought about why? It is simply because they can not compete with our military technology, yet Obama would simply do away with that with the stroke of his mighty pen and in the process give those who wish to see the destruction of this country a fighting chance. No Chucky, when it comes to the defense of this country it is far better to be proactive than reactive.

As for his health care plan that is a topic already addressed in another forum. To sum it up though on this issue his agenda is more clear. He says he wants reform and true socialized health care plan for this country. His actions indicate that he wants just the opposite. He wants to provide health care to not only those who truly can not afford it and need it, but to those who are simply too lazy to earn it, to the generations of "welfare families" and worse yet to illegal immigrants who have no right to it at all and the worse part is he wants to do it at the tax payers expense. This is another situation where Obama is putting the cart before the horse as the old saying goes. Much like issuing the order to close GITMO before knowing what to do with those being held there, he is pushing for his health care reform bill, before properly addressing the illegal immigration issue. He would find it a much easier sell if he aggressively attacked the illegal immigration problem before trying to shove the health care plan down our throats. He says if we are happy with our current health care plan we can keep it. However his actions will lead to most if not all private health care companies going out of business because they can not compete with a health care plan funded by our tax dollars.

While Obama is not Greek (and meaning no insult to those reading this who are) as the old saying goes "Beware of Greeks bearing gifts." Do not make the mistake of forgetting that Obama is a politician and there is no free lunch. "Most" of his ideas will end up costing all Americans far more than we can afford to pay. Where are all the jobs he promised. I read on the Internet just yesterday that many are about to lose their unemployment benefits very soon and in the mean time all you hear is Obama asking Congress for more money to get the financial institutions through the hard times to come?????? What about the people. Doesn't he realize that with more and more people unemployed he will have less and less of our tax dollars to waste?

No Chucky, what Obama wants us to see and what Obama is are two entirely different persons. To date he has pulled of a well played con. However, his so called "health care reform" may yet expose his true motives, if he isn't careful, because it is not "reform" that he wants it is total and absolute control.

Many of agree that the cost of our health care is out of control and something needs to be done. What we don't need is another private industry ran by our federal government that has no business in private enterprise in the first place.

Ernie, Ernie Ernie you spout off at the mouth a you STILL did not READ the article. The Airforce did not ask for or need these 7 EXTRA planes!!! Some Senators whose states makes this plane or some part of the plane put this in the budget! The Airforce will still get its 300+ Raptors! All Obama is doing is vetoing the 7 extra planes the Airforce didn't ask for!!!

Man!! Do you hate this President THAT much?!!!

mo1-1138156,

Yes I read the article and can see it for the con job that it is. This is not about a mere 7 F-22 Raptors. Look at the big picture. This is the beginning of the ultimate goal for Obama and that is total control of this country.

This ploy is no different that his so called "health care reform" bill. Seems harmless at first then suddenly you are left with only one choice for health care, well make that two. (a) Pay for the entire cost yourself or (b) Obama's favorite, his socialized health care plan. You need look no further than Medicare and the V.A. to see how well the federal government runs health care plans. Yet Obama wants to use our tax dollars to put private health care out of business. He is playing us for fools and truly believes we can not see that no private health care will be able to compete with his government plan. He tells it will be free to all, but what about those still working and paying taxes? Is Obama going to pay for it himself or is the real truth that it will be funded by our tax dollars? That's a rhetorical question and you don't need to be a rocket scientists to figure this one out.

The same goes for the 7 remaining F-22 Raptors. The do not represent true wasteful spending. The are mere pennies compared to true wasteful spending going on both in the military and other areas of federal government. The do represent actual jobs that will be lost and income to local, state and federal governments, but Obama wants us to ignore that fact.

I will try one last time to make it clear enough that people like you can understand. I do not hate POTUS Obama...Period.. In fact I hope he proves me wrong, repairs the economy, so people can go back to work and keeps this country strong both economically and militarily. The problem I have is that to date his "spending our way out of debt" system is not working. Unemployment continues to rise and he is making cuts in all the wrong places. That is not to mention the numerous campaign promises he has already went back on and those he is considering going back on, and he has only been in office for 7 months!

When Obama gets "real" on his approach to cutting wasteful spending, then he will have my support. Until then I tell it like I see it, a con job by a con-man poseing as POTUS.

"It's going to be a close vote," said Carl Levin, D-Mich., chairman of the committee, who cosponsored the amendment with John McCain of Arizona, the committee's ranking Republican.

Sounds bipartisan to me. Take your "Dimwitocrat good", "Retardican bad" filters off.

Dan is an idiot. It is bipartison and one of the sponsors of the original bill is none other than Dumbocrat John Murtha.

Dan, the dems control congress. If congress is "fighting" Obama then it is the dems fighting him as well.

Another perfect example of Liberal facts when the very story they're commenting on says otherwise. Thanks for the smile Dan. Don't forget to blame NAFTA, China one way trade, and the first 7 of the 8 yrs of 9/11 hijacker training on Bush while you're at it. Oh and say the words "IT'S ABOUT OIL" alot. It's all the rage. Oh and one of the most famous ones, forget and ignore every Democratic speech during the Clinton years regarding WMDs in Iraq and say only Bush said it. Oh I almost forgot, call the Republicans warmongers and make sure not to read up on history to see the very first war started with a Republican in office was the war in Iraq. Call them racists but neglect to remember the first black in office was a republican in the 1800s well before the democrats appointed one in the 1960s.

Sorry I couldn't help myself. I just can't help but smile when I hear Democrats talk.

No, we don't need F-22's.

The Cold War is over.

Al Qaeda does not have an air force.

For some reason "having a strong, capable military" is synonymous with "buying high-tech weapons we don't need" in the brains of some conservatives (the kind of people who thought the Iraq invasion was a good idea). I'll tell you what...the Military Industrial Complex loves it. They make taxpayer money off a mistaken ideology.

...keep factories open? Why? Why spend taxpayer money producing things we don't need??

Use the money to pay for health care instead. We do need that.

so the impression i get from you is that we should save even more money by completly disbanding our military and using that money to spend on a healthcare plan and stimulus bill that will not work. am i wrong?

Totally wrong, F-22

1. Do you believe there is a difference between cutting defense programs we don't need, and totally disbanding our military?

2. Not every weapon is useful just because it's expensive.

3. Use the money towards a health care plan that does work. The current versions in the house don't meet that criterion.

4. No, I didn't support the stimulus plan. Dumb spending doesn't justify further dumb spending. Just because we waste money on pork we don't need doesn't justify wasting more money on F-22 pork we don't need.

LMAO....canceling seven planes is dismantling our military ? What a rube !

Two Cents

You are correct. We already have F22 Raptors deployed:

The Raptor is operational today, protecting our homeland and combat ready for worldwide deployment. Two squadrons of F-22s are assigned to Air Combat Command’s 1st Fighter Wing at Langley AFB, Va. And two squadrons are assigned to the 3rd Wing at Elmendorf AFB, Alaska. Raptor pilots and maintainers train at Tyndall AFB, Fla., while operational testing is conducted at Edwards AFB, Calif., and Nellis AFB, Nev.

This is mostly about jobs as Murtha (lets build an airport in No Where) is pushing for the program to pay back his lobbyist.

The panel also approved $369 million in advance funding to build 12 more F-22s over time. A separate proposal in Senate legislation would authorize seven new planes at $1.75 billion.

They are only talking about the separate proposal for the $1.75 billion dollars. Sen McCain is opposed to adding more F22 aircraft as he feels we need a new generation of fighter.

This is kind of funny because the issue really pits Obama against his own party over this funding. In truth with the money Obama has porked away in the Stimulus, this is small potatos.

George Spring, TX,

Actually it pits the Airforce who does not want them, against members who have jobs in their state and seem to know whats best for the Airforce, or so they think.

Carl,

Can you say NORTH KOREA?

I didn't think so.

The ability to maintain air superiority is critical for the defense of the United States. If you dont understand this then you shouldn't be posting on the board. The Cold War may be over, but countries like Russia and China are working hard to build up new military technology. The mandate of the US military is to be prepared to deal with any threat the world can bring to it.

There still is Russia, China, North Korea and etc. Friends today can become enemies tomorrow. We need to continue to build up the military because our country depends upon it.

BTW: Someone said we should cut defense. It is only 4th on the list.

United States Federal, State,
and Local Government Spending
Fiscal Year 2006

Function
Amount
(billion)
Percent
GDP

Overall government spending

Federal, State, Local
$4,704.1
36.1

Spending by major government function

Pensions
$747.1
5.7

Health Care
$783.8
6.0

Education
$786.8
6.0

Defense
$622.2
4.8

Welfare
$411.4
3.2

Interest
$312.3
2.4

Cheers and Beers to all...

curious..you should change your tag to afraid. although i agree we need a strong defense, why is it you are so afraid of the world? and why is it you think we have to have a war for every conflict? some of us just think we should try to talk about our differences before killing people first.

Carl, sorry but your way of thinking is what led the Japs to attack us. They looked at us as weak willed and not having the spirit to fight. Why do you think Reagan increased spending on the military. Because the Russians saw us weaklings after the Carter years. I guess you didn't live through those times did you.

Carl,

The "cold war" as we knew it with the former Soviet Union is over you are correct to a point. We currently have a new cold war that we are facing with both Iran and North Korea. If we do not maintain our military superiority, the "cold war" on either or both of these fronts could get very hot, very quickly.

Which would you rather do Carl, keep Iran and North Korea at bay by have a superior military (which includes an Air Force 2nd to NONE)? Or, reduce the spending to our military and reduce it's abilities to the point that these countries believe the have a fighting chance of going to war with us and winning?

It is not a trick question nor one that is difficult to figure out a simple "yes" cut spending leave us vulnerable or "NO" do not cut and do continue to maintain our current status and strive to improve.

I will break it down even simpler for you Carl. I do not know where you live but what do you think would happen to the crime rate where you live if say the size of your local law enforcement was cut in half???? Again, not a trick question nor one difficult to answer.

F-22A Raptors are not an example of wasteful spending. They are an example of a state of the art war aircraft that is without a doubt expensive. If they didn't do the job they were designed to do and there was not hope that they ever would, then they would be an example of wasteful spending without question. If you want to see examples of wasteful spending look at what it cost the tax payers for POTUS Obama's overseas trips. Like this there are many areas within the military that are examples of wasteful spending that can be cut without sacrificing the safety of our troops or our nation. When Obama gets real about cutting wasteful spending he will have my support and not until then.

Understand please, were HAVE the F-22!! the 7 planes were ordered by a select few Senators! THe Airforce is still Scheduled to get 300+ F-22 not counting the 7 mentioned here. That is what Obama is VETOING! The Airfoce is scheduled and budgeted to receive what they asked for in the amount of F-22!!

He's not cutting the military. He's cutting funding for a high-tech weapon we don't need.

We don't need to beat the Soviets for air superiority. In case you didn't notice, the Cold War is over. Al Qaeda does not have an air force.

What do you want next?? A secret, trillion-dollar base to launch F-22's down to Earth from the far side of the moon??

Actually my dimwitted friend he increased their budget, all he wants to do here is redirect the money to stuff our guys actually need. Do a little research before making such ignorant remarks.

carl,

it's totally awesome how you can predict the future. how do you do that? anyway, i feel much safer knowing that we will never enter into a war with a nation like russia or china. and it totally kicks butt knowing we'll never have any more little skirmishes.

thanks carl

p.s. the soviet union crashed. went bankrupt. it no longer exists.

independentbychoice,

I guess you're a little slow since you didn't get the sarcasm in the "soviet" comment.

Why would we end up in a war with Russia or China?

Russia makes hundreds of billions exporting energy all over Europe. In the event of a conflict, they'd be cut off. Everybody loses.

China makes hundreds of billions exporting manufactured crap all over the world (particularly the USA). Plus, the loan our government lots of money. If there was a conflict with China, we'd both lose out economically.

I know Russia and China aren't free, open democracies like we are, but they aren't stupid or suicidal. Countries that trade with each other don't go to war with each other. They have too much to lose.

It's like you live with this outdated, paranoid ideology that says "we need to go around wasting money on every high-tech thingie that blows things up because everybody in the world is our enemy". In reality, it's a huge drag on our economy. It prevents us from investing in things we really need and saving taxpayers' money.

Go put your tinfoil hat back on and reload your shotgun. Somebody's out to get you.

Independent - I was thinking the same thing. Maybe Carl should be President since he seems to know who we will fighting in the future?

hey carl,

i'd say you're the one with the tin foil hat. you sit there and tell the entire board who we will not be fighting in the future, what our needs will be, blahblahblah. lmfao. do me a favor. put it on and tell me who will win the next super bowl. i'll place a bet now.

Carl, we may not NEED this high tech weapon today, but when the time comes that we do need it, and we dont have it, then it will be a dark day.

Carl,

How could anyone fail to see this from your prospective. Wait until we need weapons like the F-22 Raptor, call a time out until they are built and then use them to defend our air space and or regain what we already have, and that my friend is "Air Superiority".

Let me guess you are the type of person who thinks about filling the fuel tank on your auto when you run out of gas, right?

Hey Carl, read my post #1.35.

Do we keep borrowing money from China to fund jobs that produce stuff we don't need?

In case you didn't notice, our country is already way in debt (thanks to Bush and Obama both).

We should spend taxpayer money on things we need, not high-tech weapons that we wanted back during the Cold War.

We don't need F-22's, TIE fighters, X-Wings, etc. I know they're high-tech, but we're not in the Cold War anymore.

Carl, right now with the manpower we have in the military, our technological advantage is all we have. That must be maintained as long as we have a volunteer military. Would you like to reinstitute the draft?

We spend more on our military than the rest of the world combined. We already have an air force without equal on Earth. Why waste more money on high-tech planes that we don't need?

We already have an air force without equal on Earth

Other countries are working hard to remove this advantage from us.

canudigit and skiddy: Why don't you answer Carl's question? Why build planes we don't need and that our own military doesn't want?

Uhh, read the article michelle. The AIR FORCE wants over 200 of them. Last I checked the Air Force was a part of the military. Here's a quote, I'll save you the trouble: "...the Air Force still has a formal requirement for 243 of the planes"

canudigit. you misread that part of the article. "But the administration faces a phalanx of lawmakers determined to keep the F-22 alive. They argue that the Air Force still has a formal requirement for 243 of the planes — which is 56 more than Obama wants to buy."

it's not the air force that wants them, it's congress that says they have to buy them

Carl W.

I agree with your points entirely. The problem is that these conservative, rifle huggin NRA conservative types are just too simple-minded to understand what constitutes wasteful spending and what doesn't. These are the same people who think that if we don't keep our troops in places they don't belong, like Iraq, and Afghanistan, that somehow they'll follow us back here. These people are foolish enough to believe that scrapping a contract for 7 new fighters is going to totally disarm this country in the face of a threat, real or perceived. It's this same crowd that were stupid enough to vote for Bush....TWICE, because they believed he was protecting us from something.

It's no use reasoning with ignorant people. Their ignorance is by choice. You can tell a conservative till you're blue in the face that the sky is blue. However, they will tell you that it's actually red and the "mainstream liberal media" is making it look blue.

Juan,

This is the same Clintonology that caused this mess in the first place. It is far too apparent that you know nothing about military strategy. When possible you don't deploy troops and equipment over long distances. To take our troops out of foreign countries is much like your local police sitting at the police station awaiting a call for service instead of doing preventive patrols.

We currently (and I stress the word "CURRENTLY") have the greatest military in the world. That mere fact combined with our troop presence throughout the world helps to keep our enemies at bay much like the police car you see driving around helps to prevent at least some crime by their mere presence.

If you, people like you and Obama have their way we will become victims and have to take back the freedoms and safety we currently enjoy. Remember my friend, it was not the politicians who gave their lives for our rights, it was that which you seek to weaken, our military.

Ernie you just don't like the President, and WTH are you babbling about? Your rants are at best incoherent!

Just beginning?

How is agreeing with the Air Force not supporting our troops? Seems to me that the one you should be angry with for not supporting our troops is the LAST President, who sent our troops into a war of CHOICE with not enough people or equipment to do the job and absolutely no strategy for what to do with the country once we overthrew their sovereign (albeit nasty) government ... all the while secretly (and illegally) spying on them. But he sure did give them nice lip service, didn't he? What you are accusing Obama of is TREASON and SEDITION: why is it you people can't just come right out and say it, instead of dancing around the "truth" as you see it? Oh, because you would actually have to back those opinions up with some actual proof, wouldn't you?

I want more fighter jets too. Why would Obama put our soldiers at risk? He needs to get his priorities right. Spending money to fight terrorism is better than what he threw away to the States for NO reason at all except as stimulus. What has been stimulated? NOTHING!!! You Michelle don't have to go to war, and won't, so stay out of it. Unless you do want to enlist and go over there with no air cover. If so, then by all means GO!!! If not go back to sleep.

Puck: Answer my question, then. How is agreeing with our military to cut these unnecessary and overly expensive planes not "supporting our troops"? Give me some real, actual proof, otherwise this is all conjecture and guesswork on your part. The neocons have decreed that the Dems can't keep our country safe, I say PROVE IT. I'm sick and tired of hearing that crap: it's one of the biggest lies this country has swallowed from the THP/GOP in the last several years. Who's watch did 9-11 happen on? And who was warned repeatedly that AQ was planning something, and that it had to do with commercial airlines? No, if you want to argue that we need some new planes because of "X", then fine, but don't sit there and sanctimoneously say that it's because Obama doesn't want to keep us safe, or that he doesn't support the military. It's CRAP, and worse ... you people KNOW it's crap, but you repeat it anyway because you know it scores POLITICAL POINTS.

Puck: By the way, I didn't realize that military service is a prerequisite to voicing my opinion! You showed your hand on that little comment, I must say. THIS SHOULD NEVER BE AN ISSUE!!! This is still America, no matter what "W" tried to pull on his watch, and regardless of my military service, my voice counts ... whether you like it or not. My father, grandfathers, uncles, etc., fought for MY RIGHT to speak as well as YOURS. And guess what ... YOU don't get to decide. Whether we serve in the military or not, we are all still Americans, and regardless of what you might think of my political ideology, that should ALWAYS be the case first and foremost! Like the THP party's slogan says "COUNTRY first." I'd LOVE it if neocons would actually believe it, instead of just using it as a tag line to sell a product.

hey carl,

why stop with the f-22 program? why not complain about ALL the money our government wastes? you must admit, 1.8 billion is a drop in the ocean compared to what the morons in dc waste. and don't get me wrong, both sides of the political aisle are full of morons.

hey independentbychoice,

Why don't you answer even one of Carl W's questions in post 10?

I notice when people put logical questions in front of you chickenhawk Obama haters, you change the subject.

I'm a Marine, and I can tell you that the US has more than enough in it's arsenal to provide adequate air support to those in the field, WITHOUT building a single, solitary new F-22. This F-22 crap is just something else for you bitter, childish Obama-bashers to make a big deal out of. Not a single one of you non serving chickenhawks has a clue what's necessary to defend a nation, go back to your T.V. and Rush Limbaugh.

Nice, but just like with the poster below, do some homework. You are stating a non-issue, as there are insane Democrats and Republicans supporting the addition to this fighter. It isn't a party issue. You have conservatives with brains (Gates) supporting the cut, and insane liberals (Dodd) wanting to shell out huge bucks for nothing. Common sense says we have enough F-22s and that is that.

Derek

The problem is not that we have enough F-22s, the problem is that we have a entire fleet of 40 year old F-15 that are falling apart. We need the F-22 to replace aging fighters that are in danger of breaking apart while flying. Plus the F-22 is a better fighter than any other plane out there

I disagree, but this second point is at least debatable. My problem is people turning this into a Republican vs. Democrat arguement, when it isn't that at all. This is an arguement with both parties on either side. And it leads me to believe when someone posts some political ranting about one party or the other, they haven't even begun looking into the issue at the level you are talking about (i.e. an intelligent level).

Or wait for the new f-35 which is a far cheaper airplane.

For those who want to see where this all goes, take a trip out to Tuscon, Arizona, and look at all the billions of dollars worth a of past aircraft sitting there.

DJ: The F-15 is not being replaced as it is technologically old. We, of course, still build (and sell) f-16s and F-18s. The issue isn't that we aren't building F-22s....we are. The issue here is how many we need. And the difference between what Gates wants (a little over 100) and what Dodd and others want (243 ish) is a big difference in money. The arguements F-22 makes, if I'm not off the mark, is that more F-22s means more jobs, plus you can't ever have too much military hardware. The arguements against the additional F-22s are that we already have enough on order so the rest of the money is being wasted, particularly since the F-35 is well along the development line. Thus you only need enough F-22s to maintain superiority until then, and too many F-22s will only either take money from developing the F-35 or take it away from another part of the military that needs money.

Robby, whether you know it or not, many of those aircraft are stored in operational condition. That has been going on since the end of WW2. If the crap hits the fan and additional birds are needed to replace those lost, they are pulled out of storage and put back in service very quickly. Some of the older birds that are no longer in service with the regular or reserve units are used as live flying targets for missle tests or sold to other countries (the old A4 Skyhawk for instinse).

DJ,

With that mentality why bother making new car models if the ones from 40 years ago work just fine. why replace anything new from 40 years ago. Things change, you either keep up or get left behind.

Nice, but do some homework. This isn't a party issue. It is a common sense one.

"It was the Republicans who sold weapons to Iran and everyone else to make a few bucks"

Please don't try to oversimplify something to twist the facts. Those weapons were in response to Iraqi biological weapons. They refused to retaliate with their own biological weapons, yet were at a huge disadvantage to an enemy that had no qualms with firing gas into civilian areas. If we take what you said at face value, are we to assume Democrats in 1980-1988 wanted to allow such a thing to continue? I seriously doubt it. Sometimes party lines are not as clear cut as you might think. If they were, swords can be double edged and you can be cut on either side. Liberal comments like this plague the internet and are taken as fact way too often. It goes that way for both sides I know, but it seems the liberals just took it very badly that until this election they had only one president in 3 decades and resorted to name calling.

rgarrett,

Well if you want to play the constitution card, then we must cancel these planes, after all it only makes the President the cammander of the ground and naval forces, and hold no mention of a string Airforce or any funding for it. :)

rgarrett, if we stop military spending we can start working on fixing the warmer/cooler natural cycle of the sun that has caused ice ages since way before man started burning oil? Really? And the U.N., is it not made up of individual countries military strength put under one flag? So if the individual countries of the U.N. disarm, the flag will protect us? Disarming citizens who enjoy target practice or hunting within legal limits has anything to do with this as well? Please tell me you're being sarcastic ;)

rgarrett..if that was satire....nice. (I really hope it was)

Again, Reading Is Fundamental.

Many Conservatives want to cut the program. Many liberals want to expand it.

Please, this isn't just directed at you, but people need to find out more about what they are commenting on.

The B-1's were originally deployed as strategic nuclear bombers, a task that even then was probably better carried out by missiles. B-1's couldn't even carry conventional payloads until the 1990's. Now that they have been re-tasked to carry JDAM munitions, they are finding a niche, having been used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those creaky old B-52's aren't going to fly forever.

Yes, the B1's have their place. The F-22's have their place too. The question is how many are needed now. Another question is what other weapons might be a better value. During Carter's presidency, he decided the ratio included more cruise missiles. Now Obama is making a similar choice. There are some F-22s. However the ratio should include more drones and other military solutions of better effectiveness and value in the conflicts that we are likely to engage in.

People tend to forget that when you make a decision to buy too high a count of very expensive military equipment like B1 bombers and F22 fighter jets, that the costs keep accumulating every year. The aircraft have to be operated maintained, and pilots have to be trained. All those costs are huge too. So it's better to be wise economically when choosing a mix of weapons.

Electing a president who can effectively deal with leaders of foreign countries, and spending a few bucks on good diplomats saves billions of dollars too!

Thanks for shining some light on these Obama haters Joe Bpsplk!

I'd like to declare you, Sean, and Carl W the "Axis Of Common Sense" in this thread.

Thank you Julian! I bet most people are for "more weapons is better" in the suburbs surrounding Dallas. It seems like there might be an island of common sense within the city of Dallas though. The tactics of the Republican party seems to be to avoid talking about the progress that President Obama and the Democrats are making, and instead to take goofy hateful swipes at them.

I saw Obama on the McLeher Report tonight speaking about health care reform, and wow! -- is he ever sharp and articulate! I am so grateful that we have someone intelligent and competent as president again. I feel that our nation is finally back on track and making progress again.

Most of our military aircraft are older than the pilots who fly them. We can only keep patching them together so long. Our premiere air superiority fighter is the F15. It is a more than 40 year old design. Our primary strategic bomber is still the B52. The newest one is over 50 years old. We can't continue to ask our pilots to risk their lives in those antiques.

100 aircraft isn't nearly enough planes to support actual war fighting against an enemy nation. In WWII we mounted 1,000 plane raids, with losses running as high as 40%. In the Korean war, we lost more than 100 aircraft in a single day of combat. We lost 12% of our strategic bomber fleet in a single day over North Vietnam during Rolling Thunder. At the time of their loss, those B52s were modern aircraft. They no longer are, but our pilots still have to strap in and fly them. Since Vietnam, we've lost more flight crews due to crashes than we have to enemy fire. That's because our planes are OLD, and not being replaced at a rapid enough rate with more modern aircraft.

We would have lost more to enemy fire except we haven't faced an enemy with an air defense network since Vietnam. But that doesn't mean we won't ever face such an enemy again. North Korea, Iran, Russia, China, Israel, South Africa, etc have formidable air defenses. Even Venezuela and Peru have dangerous air assets, as does Cuba. Old enemies Japan and Germany, and much older enemies like Great Britain, also have competent air forces. We must be ready to face and defeat any one, or any combination, of those nations. Nations have no permanent friends, only permanent interests. Just because we aren't currently at war with a nation having a credible air force doesn't mean we won't be tomorrow, or the next day. We have to be ready to fight anyone, anywhere, any time. Currently, we have a handful of front line aircraft, and many many antiques. Using the latter in modern combat would be suicide.

Sure, we have missiles, but Obama is trying to throw away the nuclear warheads they are designed to carry. Besides, no one in their right mind would trust unmanned missiles with the mud moving task of close air support of ground troops. We need close air support aircraft TODAY, and not just 100 of them either. We need thousands.

Therin lies the problem. When we get to the point of not worrying about 1.8 billion here or 1.8 billion there, we are destined to dig ourselves a deeper hole. Cancelling less than 1/2 of a percent of the military budget may seems like small potatoes, but if that logic could be applied to ALL wasteful pork, we'd get somewhere.

At least there is a return on the "welfare". I'm confused by the whole thing. This is where this administration is fiscally responsible? It's not just this. They've been hinting at other cuts to include making wounded vets pay for medical insurance. Adjusting retirement pay for active duty. Dropping the amount leave (vacation time). Base pay, housing, COLA, and many, many others. Guess you have to be effected by all of this for it to matter, but continue to spend away on other issues. You can always take while you say you support us.......signed member of the money cow.

The F-35 is a little cheaper, but not that much cheaper. F-35 development costs have been buried in the F-22 program. DoD experts are projecting purchasing something like 2,000+ F-35's across all variants at an expenditure of $1 trillion. Because the F-22 wasn't planned to be produced in such great numbers, it cannot take advantage of the F-35's anticipated economies of scale.

Against the F-22's higher production costs you have to figure that the F-22 has two engines (not just one), higher top speed, supercruise capable, improved stealth, greater maneuverability, superior SAM-killing ability, and longer unrefuelled range. Also, the F-22 is available now, whereas the F-35 won't fly its first operational sortie for at least another 5 years. When you add initial troubleshooting, training, and deployment, it will be about 7-8 years before the F-35 is available in sufficient operational strength to have much effect on our deployment of forces. So, there is something to be said for keeping the F-22 alive in the near term.

The F22 is strictly air superiority, its can't even be put on a carrier. The F35 is suppose to share 80% of all components across all variants therefore it will be cheaper to maintain.

F-22 will still exist, they just won't need so many of them. Plus the cost difference is around significantly not just slightly on the overall cost of the program.

When you put the F-35 development costs where they should be, the F-22 looks a little better. I will not deny that the F-22 is more expensive in absolute terms, but there is a bit of clever accounting going on, too.

I don't think the F-22 was ever intended for carrier operations; it's too darn big. But it does have ground attack capability and can carry the 1000lb JDAM's or 250lb narrow bombs. But since we are planning to build 2,000+ F-35's, building the F-22 fleet to the 250 (plus or minus) mark, which is the "medium risk" number recently put out by an Air Force general (whose name eludes me at the moment), seems prudent, particularly since the F-35's are still in development. If it means retiring legacy fighters sooner, it's probably a good trade off. One F-22 is probably worth two or three F-15's in combat.

I'm not criticizing you, Nav, but it seems that many people want to cancel the F-22 simply because it is so good, particularly against the SAM threat. Russia, Iran, Pakistan, Syria, and North Korea all have vastly more SAM's than Iraq or Afghanistan ever did. If we have to engage in any of those environments, our current fleet would get mauled. Only the F-22 and B-2 would have much of a prospect for success.

The F-35 is great, but it is being developed by many countries working together hence "joint strike fighter". The F-22 is a US only project and in a fleet of F-35s the F-22 is the ace up your sleeve.

different planes for different roles. its like you cant play football with a hockey puck.

F-22 is meant to shoot down any other aircraft without being seen. that is its only role.

the F-35 can proform a multiple of roles but not excelle in any of them.

ChrisMcK

It has nothing to do with the fact that the F-22 is very good. Its a cost issue. You can't keep spending this kind of money on equipment all the time. Its too much. It cost over $120 million per aircraft.

Other countries are contributing to the developement of the F-35 JSF, but that is not the reason it is called "joint." It is joint because both the USAF and the USN would employ this aircraft, unlike the F-22. As part of the Joint PPBE, new or proposed weapon systems are assessed to determine if they can be developed and employed by multiple services in order to get more bang for the buck. This concept is being applied for communications equipment and also vehicles such as the Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).

The defense budget is not limited and the budgets submitted by the services to the DoD (SecDef) to congress must be justified and support existing and expected requirements that are determined from executive guidance, QDR, National Security Strategy, National Defense Strategy, National Military Strategy, and other documents. All of these documents are used for the Joint PPBE process. Services must prioritize what they must have/need/and would like due to constrained funding. Spending monies on expensive end-items, such as the F-22, may mean less funding for other necessary programs that contribute to the current fight and the anticipated types of conflicts for the near to mid future.

US Army, '97-present