| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Harry Hope" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2005 06:07:12 PM |
| Object: |
183 F-22s at $133 million each |
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83274,00.html
December 19, 2005
F-22A Raptors Ready to Take Flight
ARLINGTON, Va. --
The Air Force’s first squadron of 12 F-22A Raptors is ready to go to
war.
Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley
Air Force Base, Va., where the fighters will be based, said Thursday
that the F-22A is "initial operational-capable" as of Dec. 15, a term
that signifies the fighter’s fitness to hit the skies in defense of
her country if needed.
The designation does not mean that the Raptor is headed to Iraq or
Afghanistan any time soon, Keys said.
"IOC is an extreme go-to-war declaration," he said.
The first Raptor squadron of 12 aircraft at Langley "is in the queue
to become part of our air expeditionary force in January 2007, and at
that point" the jet may be employed in the Middle East if needed, Keys
said.
The jet was originally designed to "protect central Europe against the
Soviet hordes," Keys said.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, "naysayers" began
questioning the Air Force’s need for a new stealth fighter, Keys said.
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
____________________________________________________
"Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done
with the trillion you've got."
Les Aspin
Harry
.
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 06:27:58 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ktfmq1pjnc3t13k1bc54i786pf7lms9tqu@4ax.com...
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83274,00.html
December 19, 2005
F-22A Raptors Ready to Take Flight
ARLINGTON, Va. --
The Air Force's first squadron of 12 F-22A Raptors is ready to go to
war.
Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley
Air Force Base, Va., where the fighters will be based, said Thursday
that the F-22A is "initial operational-capable" as of Dec. 15, a term
that signifies the fighter's fitness to hit the skies in defense of
her country if needed.
The designation does not mean that the Raptor is headed to Iraq or
Afghanistan any time soon, Keys said.
"IOC is an extreme go-to-war declaration," he said.
The first Raptor squadron of 12 aircraft at Langley "is in the queue
to become part of our air expeditionary force in January 2007, and at
that point" the jet may be employed in the Middle East if needed, Keys
said.
The jet was originally designed to "protect central Europe against the
Soviet hordes," Keys said.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, "naysayers" began
questioning the Air Force's need for a new stealth fighter, Keys said.
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
____________________________________________________
"Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done
with the trillion you've got."
Les Aspin
Harry
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08. We can
live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs $35
million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't 4 times
better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane.
Pathetic.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
"The first operational Joint Strike Fighter, now designated as the F-35, is
scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2008. The F-35 is actually a family of
three aircraft designed to replace aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine
Corps and the British military. A total of 2,852 planes scheduled for
delivery starting in 2008 for the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and a
small number to the British Royal Navy. Other nations interested in
participating in the program include the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway.
Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike aircraft through
2040, Aldridge said. "It will provide air- to-air capability second only to
the F-22 air superiority fighter," he said. The plane will allow the Air
Force forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy
and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect" stealth
airplane."
.
|
|
|
| User: "DeserTBoB" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 11:40:17 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:27:58 GMT, "The Pretzel"
<rold_gold@hotmail.com> wrote:
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08. We can
live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs $35
million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't 4 times
better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane. <snip>
The F-22 Raptor program is an example of "Repuke pork." The
already-aged design traces back to the RayGun Plague, when the project
was for an intercontinental supersonic fighter with some (later more,
due to coating technology) stealth aspects of the already developing
F-117A, then code named "Have Blue."
The F-22 has no place in the Air Force inventory, other than to
channel taxpayer money to corporate Bush campaign patron
Lockheed-Martin, now a Texas-based military-industrial monster. The
F-35 and variants are FAR more capable and flexible planes overall,
and will easily replace the defective F-16, aging F-14 and F-15, as
well as the flimsy F-18 Hornet and the ill-conceived British Harrier
jumper. This plane gives the Air Farce throttle jockeys a hardon, and
the press releases have been hyped to say it's "state of the art," but
when you peel through the layers, it's just a scam to get more
military budget money into Texas by the Bushies.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will fly rings around an F-22, both
aeronautically and technically; "air superiority" fighers are as
obsolete as the B-36. Then why aren't the Democrats demanding that
Congress scrap the program at 19 units, like the Repukes scrapped the
Democrat-supported B-2? Patronage, why else? Meanwhile, for every
F-22 delivered by Lockheed, two or three more F-35s won't be built.
I have first hand knowledge of both projects, having a close personal
ally working at Lockheed. Write your Congressman and Senators
today...demand that the F-22 be SCRAPPED and the F-35 project be
enlarged. The taxpayer getes more bang for their buck and ALL the
military services get rid of obsolete old crap that came from...you
guessed it...Texas.
dB
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 04:42:16 AM |
|
|
"DeserTBoB" <desertb@rglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ns2nq150roi2trp87ju7jeno4v6t8c076t@4ax.com...
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:27:58 GMT, "The Pretzel"
<rold_gold@hotmail.com> wrote:
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08. We
can
live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs $35
million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't 4
times
better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane. <snip>
The F-22 Raptor program is an example of "Repuke pork." The
already-aged design traces back to the RayGun Plague, when the project
was for an intercontinental supersonic fighter with some (later more,
due to coating technology) stealth aspects of the already developing
F-117A, then code named "Have Blue."
The F-22 has no place in the Air Force inventory, other than to
channel taxpayer money to corporate Bush campaign patron
Lockheed-Martin, now a Texas-based military-industrial monster. The
F-35 and variants are FAR more capable and flexible planes overall,
and will easily replace the defective F-16, aging F-14 and F-15, as
well as the flimsy F-18 Hornet and the ill-conceived British Harrier
jumper. This plane gives the Air Farce throttle jockeys a hardon, and
the press releases have been hyped to say it's "state of the art," but
when you peel through the layers, it's just a scam to get more
military budget money into Texas by the Bushies.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will fly rings around an F-22, both
aeronautically and technically; "air superiority" fighers are as
obsolete as the B-36. Then why aren't the Democrats demanding that
Congress scrap the program at 19 units, like the Repukes scrapped the
Democrat-supported B-2? Patronage, why else? Meanwhile, for every
F-22 delivered by Lockheed, two or three more F-35s won't be built.
I have first hand knowledge of both projects, having a close personal
ally working at Lockheed. Write your Congressman and Senators
today...demand that the F-22 be SCRAPPED and the F-35 project be
enlarged. The taxpayer getes more bang for their buck and ALL the
military services get rid of obsolete old crap that came from...you
guessed it...Texas.
dB
I guessed as much. I also assumed people in the NG's would know more about
fighter aircraft then I. I do try and keep up. I don't know why. Maybe
'cause my parents and family were in aerospace. My aunt gave me an F-5e
Tiger II manual when I was a kid. I studdied the flight controls, etc... I
later became a "cheerleader" for the F-20 Tigershark. I know it had its
problem history in flight tests but I smelled a rat. GD cut the legs out
from the bidding process even when the "off the shelf" F-20 had longer range
at 50% maintenace cost of then updated F-16's.
My point with the F-20 is, your "conspiracy theory" is probably pretty
accurate.
.
|
|
|
| User: "SJ Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
25 Dec 2005 03:26:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 10:42:16 GMT, "The Pretzel" responded to
a comment by "DeserTBoB" to the effect that:
The F-22 Raptor program is an example of "Repuke pork." The
already-aged design traces back to the RayGun Plague, when the
projectwas for an intercontinental supersonic fighter with some
(later more, due to coating technology) stealth aspects of the
already developing F-117A, then code named "Have Blue."
The F-22 has no place in the Air Force inventory, other than to
channel taxpayer money to corporate Bush campaign patron
Lockheed-Martin, now a Texas-based military-industrial monster.
TheF-35 and variants are FAR more capable and flexible planes
overall, and will easily replace the defective F-16, aging F-14 and
F-15, as well as the flimsy F-18 Hornet and the ill-conceived
British Harrier jumper. This plane gives the Air Farce throttle
jockeys a hardon, and the press releases have been hyped to say
it's "state of the art," butwhen you peel through the layers, it's just
a scam to get more military budget money into Texas by the Bushies.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will fly rings around an F-22, both
aeronautically and technically; "air superiority" fighers are as
obsolete as the B-36. Then why aren't the Democrats demanding
that Congress scrap the program at 19 units, like the Repukes scrapped
the Democrat-supported B-2? Patronage, why else? Meanwhile, for
every F-22 delivered by Lockheed, two or three more F-35s won't
be built.
I have first hand knowledge of both projects, having a close personal
ally working at Lockheed. Write your Congressman and Senators
today...demand that the F-22 be SCRAPPED and the F-35 project
be enlarged. The taxpayer getes more bang for their buck and ALL
the military services get rid of obsolete old crap that came from...you
guessed it...Texas.
....saying:
I guessed as much. I also assumed people in the NG's would know more
about fighter aircraft then I. I do try and keep up. I don't know why.
Maybe 'cause my parents and family were in aerospace. My aunt gave me
an F-5e Tiger II manual when I was a kid. I studdied the flight controls, etc...
I later became a "cheerleader" for the F-20 Tigershark. I know it had its
problem history in flight tests but I smelled a rat. GD cut the legs out
from the bidding process even when the "off the shelf" F-20 had longer
range at 50% maintenace cost of then updated F-16's.
My point with the F-20 is, your "conspiracy theory" is probably pretty
accurate.
Chuck Yeager was also an advocate for the F-20 (and despite the fact
that Northrop was paying him to promote the aircraft, I know enough
about Yeager's character to give credence to his statements that the
F-20 was a better "pure" fighter aircraft - particularly in terms of
serving the needs of the same first- and third-world countries whose
air forces had been successful with the F-5 "Skoshi Tiger" - than was
the competing F-16C).
I also happen to believe that the wing-wipers would have done better
to retain the P-47N Thunderbolt in their fighter inventory at the end
of War Two rather than dumping the "Jug" so completely in favor of the
P-51D and its later (and sometimes quite bizarre) variants. As the
Douglas AD (later A-1) Skyraider proved well into the '60s, radial
engines are a helluva lot more capable of sustaining damage, par-
ticularly such as is commonly suffered in the air-to-ground role.
But then, of course, the Fighter Mafia of our single unconstitutional
branch of the military (check out Article 1, Section 8, of the U.S.
Constitution and show us where Congress is empowered "To raise and
maintain an Air Force") has always favored pretty, aerobatic, "fun-to-
fly" airplanes over effective killing machines. Note that in the '60s
they had to take "double ugly" Navy aircraft (the F-4 Phantom and the
A-1 Spad) into their inventories because the eye candy Century Series
fighters were relatively less effective at the job of putting bombs on
target and getting their aircrew back to base.
I do not doubt that political self-dealing has had too ***** much to
do with the acquisition of weapons systems in all areas. That is, of
course, one of the intrinsic liabilities of any system in which those
who govern are chosen on the basis of their ability to buy, steal, or
lie themselves into positions of authority. Democracy, appropriately
translated from the Greek, means nothing more or less than "How the
hell did we get in *this* mess?"
It's why the listing of duties under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S.
Constitution cannot ever be regarded as anything other than a list
of specific and highly limited prescriptions, and why it is even more
important to hold hard to the contents of both Article 1, Section 9
and the amendments of the Bill of Rights as stringent and *never*-
to-be-violated proscriptions binding the swindling, megalomaniacal
murdering thugs of government firmly to their duties and allowing them
absolutely *no* discretion whatsoever insofar as aggrandizement of
their powers are concerned.
As far as any sensible man can view it, the U.S. Constitution *is*
a suicide pact. The public officer who swears to uphold it has made
a solemn statement to the effect that his violation of that charter is
a manifest of his desire to die, and it is every private citizen's
right and responsibility to help the miserable ***** quit this life
as expeditiously as can be managed.
Until that fact is recognized by sufficient of the populace to make it
usual and customary to briskly and effectively amend the sorts of
actions you describe with regard to the Tigershark's competition
against the politically adroit contractors of General Dynamics, we
must suffer the costs - monetary and otherwise - of operating under
the present conditions of corruption and incompetence. Tsk.
Setting that reasonable and responsible thought aside for the moment
(without nevertheless bearing in mind that those provisions of the
National Security Act of 1947 creating the U.S. Air Force are entirely
unconstitutional, and that the whole damned establishment can only
operate lawfully if it is re-incorporated in the Army of the United
States as the U.S. Air Corps), let us return to the matter of the F-22
and its value in the air superiority role.
About five years ago, the British Defence Evaluation and Research
Agency did a rather extensive (and still largely classified) study
using pilots flying aircraft simulators tuned to represent the charac-
teristics of various aircraft. The pilots used the weapons and
tactics of each nation. The benchmark was how many Su-35s (the
advanced Russian warplane, then in development, based on the
Su-27) that would be lost for each friendly aircraft. China, India
and Russia use the Su-27, including advanced models of the fighter.
The results of this study were:
U.S. F-22 - 10.1 : 1 (i.e., 10.1 Su-35s lost for each F-22)
European Typhoon - 4.5 : 1
French Rafale - 1.0 : 1 (i.e., parity)
Russian Su-35 - 1.0 : 1 (as expected)
U.S. F-15C - 0.8 : 1 (slightly better than parity)
U.S. F-18D - 0.4 : 1 (somewhat *worse* than a 1:2 kill ratio)
U.S. F-18C - 0.3 : 1 (worse than a *1:3* kill ratio)
U.S. F-16C - 0.3 : 1 (damnably ditto)
Even admitting that the most sophisticated simulations represent
"a map of the territory, not the territory itself," there is not a
helluva lot else that the reasonable individual can or should take
into consideration other than the best knowledge available, worked
into the best analytical tools that can be devised. To my own
knowledge, there has been no substantive deviation from the results
of the cited assessment insofar as these and other air-to-air combat
weapons systems are concerned. As the 27th Fighter Squadron
(the first of the USAF combat units to be equipped with the F-22)
continues operational exercises with the aircraft, and as other
squadrons equip and train with the Raptor, we'll see how accurately
the simulations and other analyses have assessed the utility of this
fighter.
Consider always, however, that in a real-world situation, the failure
of air superiority assets to provide impermeable protection against
hostile interception (and bear in mind the promise of relatively cheap
and plentiful "smart" UACV weaponry, low in radar cross-section and
likely capable of greater maneuverability than manned aircraft, which
will require an aerial combat capability *markedly* superior to that
which is needed to reliably kill Su-35s), a whole lot of American
aircraft - bombers, attack planes, cargo carriers, AWACS platforms,
intelligence-gathering "snoops," tankers, whatever - are going to be
shot out of the sky.
You can't get "perfect," but the failure to get as close to it as the
technology will allow is absolutely inexcusable.
----------
The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military
establishment: good, but not good enough to win.
-- Robert A. Heinlein, *Expanded Universe* (1980)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Vandar" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 09:36:01 AM |
|
|
DeserTBoB wrote:
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:27:58 GMT, "The Pretzel"
<rold_gold@hotmail.com> wrote:
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08. We can
live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs $35
million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't 4 times
better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane. <snip>
The F-22 Raptor program is an example of "Repuke pork." The
already-aged design traces back to the RayGun Plague, when the project
was for an intercontinental supersonic fighter with some (later more,
due to coating technology) stealth aspects of the already developing
F-117A, then code named "Have Blue."
The F-22 has no place in the Air Force inventory, other than to
channel taxpayer money to corporate Bush campaign patron
Lockheed-Martin, now a Texas-based military-industrial monster.
Lockheed is headquartered in Bethesda, MD.
The
F-35 and variants are FAR more capable and flexible planes overall,
and will easily replace the defective F-16, aging F-14 and F-15, as
well as the flimsy F-18 Hornet and the ill-conceived British Harrier
jumper. This plane gives the Air Farce throttle jockeys a hardon, and
the press releases have been hyped to say it's "state of the art," but
when you peel through the layers, it's just a scam to get more
military budget money into Texas by the Bushies.
The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will fly rings around an F-22, both
aeronautically and technically;
The F-22 is faster, has a higher ceiling, longer range, and higher
takeoff weight.
"air superiority" fighers are as
obsolete as the B-36. Then why aren't the Democrats demanding that
Congress scrap the program at 19 units, like the Repukes scrapped the
Democrat-supported B-2?
The B-2 was declared "full operational" in 2003 and currently has no
orders primarily because of it's cost.
Patronage, why else? Meanwhile, for every
F-22 delivered by Lockheed, two or three more F-35s won't be built.
I have first hand knowledge of both projects, having a close personal
ally working at Lockheed. Write your Congressman and Senators
today...demand that the F-22 be SCRAPPED and the F-35 project be
enlarged. The taxpayer getes more bang for their buck and ALL the
military services get rid of obsolete old crap that came from...you
guessed it...Texas.
The parts for the F-22 are built in Washington and they are assembled in
Georgia.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "SJ Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 12:06:56 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 00:27:58 GMT, "The Pretzel" wrote:
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08.
We can live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs
$35 million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't
4 times better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane.
As your own quotation speaks on the subject, the F-22 was not designed
to provide the Air Force with "advanced strike fighters" but to serve
as an air superiority asset, gaining sufficiently secure control of
contended airspace to permit "mud movers" like the F-35, the F-15E,
the F-16, the A/F-18, the B-52, the AC-130, and even (ghod help us)
the contemplated AC-17 to operate without threat of interception.
Though I agree with the line heard in *Flight of the Intruder* to the
effect that "fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history,"
I remember the losses suffered by VT-3, VT-6, and VT-8 at Midway
because they initiated their attacks without fighter escorts having
first engaged and defeated the Kido Butai's CAP. I also remember
that the poor bastards didn't even manage to put a torpedo on target.
Not just massive losses, but also mission failure. At best, they
served as a distraction, drawing the Japanese fighters down to low-
altitude interception, coincidentally (*not* intentionally) helping
the dive bombers to come in a bit later and take out three of the
four Japanese fleet carriers in their initial attack. A damned costly
"distraction."
The combat effectiveness of American air power is a critically
important factor in the efficient functioning of our military as a
whole. We can afford to field relatively small forces - and win with
them at relatively low cost in terms of casualties and the collateral
damage inherent in a schrecklichkeit exploitation of less-than-precise
but overwhelmingly massive firepower - chiefly because we have
been able to count upon air superiority. Without the certainty of
that superiority (which is always a "moving target" as our potential
enemies' air-to-air capabilities grow as the result of inevitable
technological parasitism), we cannot count on having big, vulnerable
bombers loitering over the battlefield, loaded with precision-guided
small-diameter bombs, to deliver parsimonious but reliable firepower
as the average infantry or armor small unit commander calls for it.
Beyond the likelihood of suffering much higher rates of casualties
among our ground forces (which will have to be much larger to
compensate in numbers for the combat effectiveness lost as the result
of no longer being able to count on BUFF bomb trucks pinpointing
targets with JDAMs) and the costliness of a much larger logistical
support "tail"), we will go back to sending our "fast mover" attack
aircraft down to altitudes at which mobile and fixed air defense
assets - even man-portable missiles - can kill them, meaning that the
lack of a $266 million element of F-22 air superiority aircraft can
lose us a whole bunch of $33 million F-35 strike fighters and the even
more expensive pilots driving them.
You should bear in mind the fact that from World War II to the
present day, it isn't air-to-air combat that tends to get American
fighters shot up, but rather sending them down "on the deck" in
ground attack operations.
Or are you like the generals of World War II, who sanguinely decided
to accept the horrible loss rates among the crews of the high-profile,
poorly protected, gasoline- fueled M-4 Sherman (aka "Ronson" or
"Zippo") medium tanks because they didn't want to sustain the monetary
costs and the logistical complications inherent in fielding a decently
armored and more heavily armed main battle tank like the M-26
Pershing?
Does the present expenditure of this money - most of it in the form of
already "sunk costs," remember, and therefore irretrievable - matter
*that* much more to you?
--------------------
Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing
is difficult. These difficulties accumulate and produce
a friction, which no man can imagine exactly who has not
seen war.
-- Carl von Clausewitz, *Vom Krieg* (1832)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "C. Pangus" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 07:59:31 PM |
|
|
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ktfmq1pjnc3t13k1bc54i786pf7lms9tqu@4ax.com...
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
If they work well, and are able to prove themselves both economically and in
the field we can always order more! Woe it be we should need to.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83274,00.html
December 19, 2005
F-22A Raptors Ready to Take Flight
ARLINGTON, Va. --
The Air Force's first squadron of 12 F-22A Raptors is ready to go to
war.
Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley
Air Force Base, Va., where the fighters will be based, said Thursday
that the F-22A is "initial operational-capable" as of Dec. 15, a term
that signifies the fighter's fitness to hit the skies in defense of
her country if needed.
The designation does not mean that the Raptor is headed to Iraq or
Afghanistan any time soon, Keys said.
"IOC is an extreme go-to-war declaration," he said.
The first Raptor squadron of 12 aircraft at Langley "is in the queue
to become part of our air expeditionary force in January 2007, and at
that point" the jet may be employed in the Middle East if needed, Keys
said.
The jet was originally designed to "protect central Europe against the
Soviet hordes," Keys said.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, "naysayers" began
questioning the Air Force's need for a new stealth fighter, Keys said.
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
____________________________________________________
"Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done
with the trillion you've got."
Les Aspin
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 01:26:52 AM |
|
|
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:7SIqf.9705$Dd2.8640@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ktfmq1pjnc3t13k1bc54i786pf7lms9tqu@4ax.com...
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
If they work well, and are able to prove themselves both economically and
in the field we can always order more! Woe it be we should need to.
$51 Billion for 381 fighters.
Eh, screw it. What the hell? ***** it...
Iraq's liberation cost us 10 times that.
ThanX King Georgie IV.
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83274,00.html
December 19, 2005
F-22A Raptors Ready to Take Flight
ARLINGTON, Va. --
The Air Force's first squadron of 12 F-22A Raptors is ready to go to
war.
Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley
Air Force Base, Va., where the fighters will be based, said Thursday
that the F-22A is "initial operational-capable" as of Dec. 15, a term
that signifies the fighter's fitness to hit the skies in defense of
her country if needed.
The designation does not mean that the Raptor is headed to Iraq or
Afghanistan any time soon, Keys said.
"IOC is an extreme go-to-war declaration," he said.
The first Raptor squadron of 12 aircraft at Langley "is in the queue
to become part of our air expeditionary force in January 2007, and at
that point" the jet may be employed in the Middle East if needed, Keys
said.
The jet was originally designed to "protect central Europe against the
Soviet hordes," Keys said.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, "naysayers" began
questioning the Air Force's need for a new stealth fighter, Keys said.
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
____________________________________________________
"Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done
with the trillion you've got."
Les Aspin
Harry
.
|
|
|
| User: "C. Pangus" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
24 Dec 2005 05:21:06 AM |
|
|
"The Pretzel" <rold_gold@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:0FNqf.6376$ka.4406@tornado.socal.rr.com...
"C. Pangus" <craigpangus@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
news:7SIqf.9705$Dd2.8640@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"Harry Hope" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:ktfmq1pjnc3t13k1bc54i786pf7lms9tqu@4ax.com...
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
If they work well, and are able to prove themselves both economically and
in the field we can always order more! Woe it be we should need to.
$51 Billion for 381 fighters.
Eh, screw it. What the hell? ***** it...
Iraq's liberation cost us 10 times that.
ThanX King Georgie IV.
Liberation or corporate capitalization? Isn't the basic dispute between the
'terrorists' and US the changes required in Moslem society for corporate
capitalism to florish?
I mean, what's more important, sexy advertising, alchohol, and profits or
modesty, family values, and community?
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,83274,00.html
December 19, 2005
F-22A Raptors Ready to Take Flight
ARLINGTON, Va. --
The Air Force's first squadron of 12 F-22A Raptors is ready to go to
war.
Air Force Gen. Ronald Keys, commander of Air Combat Command at Langley
Air Force Base, Va., where the fighters will be based, said Thursday
that the F-22A is "initial operational-capable" as of Dec. 15, a term
that signifies the fighter's fitness to hit the skies in defense of
her country if needed.
The designation does not mean that the Raptor is headed to Iraq or
Afghanistan any time soon, Keys said.
"IOC is an extreme go-to-war declaration," he said.
The first Raptor squadron of 12 aircraft at Langley "is in the queue
to become part of our air expeditionary force in January 2007, and at
that point" the jet may be employed in the Middle East if needed, Keys
said.
The jet was originally designed to "protect central Europe against the
Soviet hordes," Keys said.
Once the Soviet Union collapsed, however, "naysayers" began
questioning the Air Force's need for a new stealth fighter, Keys said.
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
____________________________________________________
"Before we give you billions more, we want to know what you've done
with the trillion you've got."
Les Aspin
Harry
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
25 Dec 2005 04:01:11 PM |
|
|
Harry Hope wrote:
And with budget constraints, the F-22 is facing a major challenge: the
Air Force wanted 381 fighters, but some in the Pentagon want that
number reduced to 183.
The most recent Raptors cost about $133 million, not including
research and development.
Well, that sure beats 3.2 BILLION usd per B-2 stealth bomber.
Sort of made me wonder just what they got in them there stealthy
aero-planes.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 06:36:45 PM |
|
|
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe S." |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 08:02:22 PM |
|
|
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
I'm glad to hear we have state-of-the-art fighters to fend off the Al-Qaeda
air force.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 08:41:26 PM |
|
|
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:doflqp02lu3@news2.newsguy.com...
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
I'm glad to hear we have state-of-the-art fighters to fend off the
Al-Qaeda air force.
ROTFL!
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country BANKROLLING the
F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberalism was so Last Century" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 09:38:48 PM |
|
|
The Pretzel wrote:
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:doflqp02lu3@news2.newsguy.com...
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
I'm glad to hear we have state-of-the-art fighters to fend off the
Al-Qaeda air force.
ROTFL!
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country BANKROLLING the
F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 01:20:56 AM |
|
|
"(Liberalism was so Last Century)" <progressive_libertarian@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:1135309128.700881.158500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Pretzel wrote:
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:doflqp02lu3@news2.newsguy.com...
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it
is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general
in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come.
And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
I'm glad to hear we have state-of-the-art fighters to fend off the
Al-Qaeda air force.
ROTFL!
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country BANKROLLING
the
F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
I own a Jeep.
So Shut-up.
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberalism was so Last Century" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 08:23:56 AM |
|
|
The Pretzel wrote:
"(Liberalism was so Last Century)" <progressive_libertarian@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:1135309128.700881.158500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Pretzel wrote:
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country BANKROLLING
the
F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
I own a Jeep.
So Shut-up.
You own a Daimler. Your point being... buy German?
Sell that outdated foreign dinosaur, and go buy an H2. For America!
<rousing rendition of Star Spangled Banner>
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
24 Dec 2005 01:58:19 AM |
|
|
"(Liberalism was so Last Century)" <progressive_libertarian@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:1135347836.082911.216310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Pretzel wrote:
"(Liberalism was so Last Century)" <progressive_libertarian@yahoo.com>
wrote
in message news:1135309128.700881.158500@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
The Pretzel wrote:
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country
BANKROLLING
the
F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
I own a Jeep.
So Shut-up.
You own a Daimler. Your point being... buy German?
Sell that outdated foreign dinosaur, and go buy an H2. For America!
Great.
You think I own Mercedes Benz.
<rousing rendition of Star Spangled Banner>
-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 09:53:49 PM |
|
|
(Liberalism was so Last Century) wrote:
The Pretzel wrote:
"Joe S." <anon@mous.com> wrote in message
news:doflqp02lu3@news2.newsguy.com...
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways,
it is like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument
- that was wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders
as a general in Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal
laws of war, trying to reinvent the concept. Or America being late
in even having an airforce back during the world wars. Or America
thinking 'building MORE cheap tanks is better than building fewer
BEST tanks' which was also a huge military blunder. I need no
specific purpose for my best fighter jets in the world beyond them
being the best fighter jets in the world. My professional generals
decide how to best use them. Having that option to use them means
a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology. I would want
Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having another
nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to
come. And - those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser
technology have a chance against them. That kind of superiority is
worth some money.
I'm glad to hear we have state-of-the-art fighters to fend off the
Al-Qaeda air force.
ROTFL!
Actually, China's the threat. Thing is, China's the country
BANKROLLING the F-22!
China: "Can we have our aircraft now? We bought them."
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
-
What can you buy American?
Goods are cheaper and better from off shore.
We're slipping fast and our government is not helping turn things around
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberalism was so Last Century" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 10:55:04 PM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
What can you buy American?
Goods are cheaper and better from off shore.
We're slipping fast and our government is not helping turn things around
Liberals are certainly, not helping turn things around. Defeatism
oozes from them, like stink from a pig on a farm, in a Red State. A
big fat pig. Oink, oink!
A pig, being raised by a hardworking American farming family, on their
American farm - which they cultivate driving an International Harvester
tractor, the farmer taking his goods to market in their Ford pickup -
while being protected from the elements by his quality jacket - an
understated, well made, incredibly popular garment - sold by the
million by Carhardt (made in the USA). He then goes to an American
church on Sunday - and thanks God for blessing our country.
By contrast:
Liberals mostly seem only to really work anymore, at BEING THE PROBLEM.
Determined to get in the way. Fight progress, fight America, fight
anything and everything which any conservative might be doing - simply
because of mindless partisanship - then complain because we're not as
productive as we once were. Then go down to the corner (since they're
not working) to protest, waive signs and demand to be taken care of by
people to work and pay taxes...
Put up or shut up, you defeatist weenie. 133 million x 183, not only
buys the most formidable (by far) plane in the air, it also represents
a fine employment sector in our economy - where we are utterly the
best.
Let's keep it that way.
Buy American. If you don't know how to buy American, no problem ... go
ask any Republican.
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "c-bee1" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 12:21:51 AM |
|
|
"(Liberalism was so Last Century)" <progressive_libertarian@yahoo.com> wrote
in message news:1135313704.751586.129400@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sid9 wrote:
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
What can you buy American?
Goods are cheaper and better from off shore.
We're slipping fast and our government is not helping turn things around
Liberals are certainly, not helping turn things around. Defeatism
oozes from them, like stink from a pig on a farm, in a Red State. A
big fat pig. Oink, oink!
A pig, being raised by a hardworking American farming family, on their
American farm - which they cultivate driving an International Harvester
tractor, the farmer taking his goods to market in their Ford pickup -
while being protected from the elements by his quality jacket - an
understated, well made, incredibly popular garment - sold by the
million by Carhardt (made in the USA). He then goes to an American
church on Sunday - and thanks God for blessing our country.
By contrast:
Liberals mostly seem only to really work anymore, at BEING THE PROBLEM.
Determined to get in the way. Fight progress, fight America, fight
anything and everything which any conservative might be doing - simply
because of mindless partisanship - then complain because we're not as
productive as we once were. Then go down to the corner (since they're
not working) to protest, waive signs and demand to be taken care of by
people to work and pay taxes...
Put up or shut up, you defeatist weenie. 133 million x 183, not only
buys the most formidable (by far) plane in the air, it also represents
a fine employment sector in our economy - where we are utterly the
best.
Let's keep it that way.
Buy American. If you don't know how to buy American, no problem ... go
ask any Republican.
rofl more made-up crazyass republicrap.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 08:02:35 AM |
|
|
(Liberalism was so Last Century) wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
The Air Force is buying American.
Are you?
What can you buy American?
Goods are cheaper and better from off shore.
We're slipping fast and our government is not helping turn things
around
Liberals are certainly, not helping turn things around. Defeatism
oozes from them, like stink from a pig on a farm, in a Red State. A
big fat pig. Oink, oink!
A pig, being raised by a hardworking American farming family, on their
American farm - which they cultivate driving an International
Harvester tractor, the farmer taking his goods to market in their
Ford pickup - while being protected from the elements by his quality
jacket - an understated, well made, incredibly popular garment - sold
by the million by Carhardt (made in the USA). He then goes to an
American church on Sunday - and thanks God for blessing our country.
By contrast:
Liberals mostly seem only to really work anymore, at BEING THE
PROBLEM. Determined to get in the way. Fight progress, fight
America, fight anything and everything which any conservative might
be doing - simply because of mindless partisanship - then complain
because we're not as productive as we once were. Then go down to the
corner (since they're not working) to protest, waive signs and demand
to be taken care of by people to work and pay taxes...
Put up or shut up, you defeatist weenie. 133 million x 183, not only
buys the most formidable (by far) plane in the air, it also represents
a fine employment sector in our economy - where we are utterly the
best.
Let's keep it that way.
Buy American. If you don't know how to buy American, no problem ...
go ask any Republican.
-
We need more and better education for all of
our people, not just those who can afford it.
America is chintzy about building the most
valuable resource we have, our people's brains.
We're slipping because other countries such as
China and India aremaking great strides in
moving into the 21st century which America
creaks along in the 20th century.
Some Americans, like the RRR want to take us back
to the 19th century.
F-22s are a weapon without an enemy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Liberalism was so Last Century" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 09:15:11 AM |
|
|
Sid9 wrote:
We need more and better education for all of
our people, not just those who can afford it.
Sounds like a great idea! So break the NEA's stranglehold on our
education system, take public education from the PC hotbed of leftwing
indoctrination back to the solid system of EDUCATION it was before the
teachers unions started wrecking it.
Then let's start on the universities.
America is chintzy about building the most
valuable resource we have, our people's brains.
"Chintzy"? What is that, yiddish? Are you a racist? Sounds like hate
speech. (sarcasm)
See how such nonsense interferes with intelligent dialogue?
We're slipping because other countries such as
China and India aremaking great strides in
moving into the 21st century which America
creaks along in the 20th century.
Meanwhile liberals are trying desperately, to keep us there.
Some Americans, like the RRR want to take us back
to the 19th century.
F-22s are a weapon without an enemy.
That's perhaps the single stupidest thing posted on newsgroups, this
month.
The world is getting significantly more dangerous, every single day.
We'd best keep preparing and innovating. And not elect braindead
leftists who are still clinging to "glory days" in their 1960's
communes, declaring it is our own "military industrial complex" which
we need to fear.
Weapon without an enemy?
Our world has rarely, been more dangerous than it is becoming right
now.
Things are getting worse, no thanks to liberals.
The "mainstream" media isn't paying ANY attention - they're far to
worried about American power. Since liberalism and media are
equivalent in America today - liberals don't think there's anything to
worry about.
Morning in the United Nations...
Neville Chamberlain lives!
-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
23 Dec 2005 09:23:51 AM |
|
|
(Liberalism was so Last Century) wrote:
Sid9 wrote:
We need more and better education for all of
our people, not just those who can afford it.
Sounds like a great idea! So break the NEA's stranglehold on our
education system, take public education from the PC hotbed of leftwing
indoctrination back to the solid system of EDUCATION it was before the
teachers unions started wrecking it.
Then let's start on the universities.
America is chintzy about building the most
valuable resource we have, our people's brains.
"Chintzy"? What is that, yiddish? Are you a racist? Sounds like
hate speech. (sarcasm)
See how such nonsense interferes with intelligent dialogue?
We're slipping because other countries such as
China and India aremaking great strides in
moving into the 21st century which America
creaks along in the 20th century.
Meanwhile liberals are trying desperately, to keep us there.
Some Americans, like the RRR want to take us back
to the 19th century.
F-22s are a weapon without an enemy.
That's perhaps the single stupidest thing posted on newsgroups, this
month.
The world is getting significantly more dangerous, every single day.
We'd best keep preparing and innovating. And not elect braindead
leftists who are still clinging to "glory days" in their 1960's
communes, declaring it is our own "military industrial complex" which
we need to fear.
Weapon without an enemy?
Our world has rarely, been more dangerous than it is becoming right
now.
Things are getting worse, no thanks to liberals.
The "mainstream" media isn't paying ANY attention - they're far to
worried about American power. Since liberalism and media are
equivalent in America today - liberals don't think there's anything to
worry about.
Morning in the United Nations...
Neville Chamberlain lives!
-
Funny....the RRR makes student loans more difficult and expensive and you
blame the NEA.
RRRs want to ruin science educvation in America because it conflicts with
their religious beliefs:
Religion: Creation, creationism, "Incredible Design"
chintz·y (chnts)
adj. chintz·i·er, chintz·i·est
1. Of, relating to, or decorated with chintz.
2.
a. Gaudy; trashy: chintzy merchandise.
b. Stingy; miserly.
Chintz is a kind of fabric as is sleaze which is the RRRs attack on
education in America.
chintz·y (chnts)
adj. chintz·i·er, chintz·i·est
1. Of, relating to, or decorated with chintz.
2.
a. Gaudy; trashy: chintzy merchandise.
b. Stingy; miserly.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 08:08:30 PM |
|
|
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it is
like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument - that was
wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as a general in
Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of war, trying to
reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even having an airforce
back during the world wars. Or America thinking 'building MORE cheap
tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks' which was also a huge
military blunder. I need no specific purpose for my best fighter jets
in the world beyond them being the best fighter jets in the world. My
professional generals decide how to best use them. Having that option
to use them means a lot. America has a fragile lead in war technology.
I would want Airbus to build my jets over any American company. Having
another nation rule the skies can and will happen if Americans let it.
Airpower will remain a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And
- those jets are bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a
chance against them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08. We can
live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane costs $35
million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the F-22 isn't 4 times
better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane. ...AND it will have air
superiority for the years to come.
Pathetic.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
"The first operational Joint Strike Fighter, now designated as the F-35, is
scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2008. The F-35 is actually a family of
three aircraft designed to replace aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, Marine
Corps and the British military. A total of 2,852 planes scheduled for
delivery starting in 2008 for the US Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, and a
small number to the British Royal Navy. Other nations interested in
participating in the program include the Netherlands, Belgium and Norway.
Plans call for the F-35 to be the world's premier strike aircraft through
2040, Aldridge said. "It will provide air- to-air capability second only to
the F-22 air superiority fighter," he said. The plane will allow the Air
Force forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy
and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect" stealth
airplane."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sid9" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 08:24:59 PM |
|
|
The Pretzel wrote:
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it
is like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument -
that was wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as
a general in Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of
war, trying to reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even
having an airforce back during the world wars. Or America thinking
'building MORE cheap tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks'
which was also a huge military blunder. I need no specific purpose
for my best fighter jets in the world beyond them being the best
fighter jets in the world. My professional generals decide how to
best use them. Having that option to use them means a lot. America
has a fragile lead in war technology. I would want Airbus to build
my jets over any American company. Having another nation rule the
skies can and will happen if Americans let it. Airpower will remain
a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And - those jets are
bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a chance against
them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08.
We can live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane
costs $35 million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the
F-22 isn't 4 times better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane.
...AND it will have air superiority for the years to come.
Pathetic.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
"The first operational Joint Strike Fighter, now designated as the
F-35, is scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2008. The F-35 is actually
a family of three aircraft designed to replace aircraft in the Air
Force, Navy, Marine Corps and the British military. A total of 2,852
planes scheduled for delivery starting in 2008 for the US Air Force,
Navy, Marine Corps, and a small number to the British Royal Navy.
Other nations interested in participating in the program include the
Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Plans call for the F-35 to be the
world's premier strike aircraft through 2040, Aldridge said. "It will
provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air
superiority fighter," he said. The plane will allow the Air Force
forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy
and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect"
stealth airplane."
We have fighter planes that have no enemy nor do they have an enemy in the
forseeable future.
Great toys for the Air Force.
That stuff was great against the Soviet Union...no other potential opponent
comes anywhere close
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Pretzel" |
|
| Title: Re: 183 F-22s at $133 million each |
22 Dec 2005 08:51:55 PM |
|
|
"Sid9" <sid9@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:EbJqf.31$wq.8@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
The Pretzel wrote:
<fastillion@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1135298204.892005.221670@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
I am not a huge fan of America's military spending, but the need to
have the best combat jets in the world is critical. In many ways, it
is like the old 'missiles make dog fighting obsolete' argument -
that was wrong. Or, it is like Rumsfeld's idiot amateur blunders as
a general in Iraq, where he ignored the most basic universal laws of
war, trying to reinvent the concept. Or America being late in even
having an airforce back during the world wars. Or America thinking
'building MORE cheap tanks is better than building fewer BEST tanks'
which was also a huge military blunder. I need no specific purpose
for my best fighter jets in the world beyond them being the best
fighter jets in the world. My professional generals decide how to
best use them. Having that option to use them means a lot. America
has a fragile lead in war technology. I would want Airbus to build
my jets over any American company. Having another nation rule the
skies can and will happen if Americans let it. Airpower will remain
a primary weapon platform for decades to come. And - those jets are
bad to the bone. No jets of lesser technology have a chance against
them. That kind of superiority is worth some money.
The whole plane should be dumped. The F-35 will be delivered in '08.
We can live without advanced strike fighters until then. The plane
costs $35 million each. It may not be as good as the F-22, but the
F-22 isn't 4 times better then the F-35 at $133 million per plane.
...AND it will have air superiority for the years to come.
Pathetic.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35.htm
"The first operational Joint Strike Fighter, now designated as the
F-35, is scheduled for delivery in fiscal 2008. The F-35 is actually
a family of three aircraft designed to replace aircraft in the Air
Force, Navy, Marine Corps and the British military. A total of 2,852
planes scheduled for delivery starting in 2008 for the US Air Force,
Navy, Marine Corps, and a small number to the British Royal Navy.
Other nations interested in participating in the program include the
Netherlands, Belgium and Norway. Plans call for the F-35 to be the
world's premier strike aircraft through 2040, Aldridge said. "It will
provide air- to-air capability second only to the F-22 air
superiority fighter," he said. The plane will allow the Air Force
forces to field an almost all-stealth fighter force by 2025. The Navy
and Marine variants will be the first deployment of an "all-aspect"
stealth airplane."
We have fighter planes that have no enemy nor do they have an enemy in the
forseeable future.
Great toys for the Air Force.
That stuff was great against the Soviet Union...no other potential
opponent comes anywhere close
Very true.
....but "unrealistic". The F-15E strike Eagles they're met to replace are
15-35 years old and need greater maintenence. Try telling the politicians
and the US pop. they don't need an airforce. $40 Million vs. $160 Million.
The F-35 isn't a heavy lift. It's a lighter craft and doesn't have the same
range or armament. More is better in this case and the F-22 will have an
ugly enemy by a cheaper, easy to deploy advanced SAM system.
The reason for the F-22 is blasted by your argument. The F-22 is a
pre-Soviet fighter.
So we're still on the same page.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
