Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do

shades of carter

Gary,

Now, I have no strongly developed opinion on this matter so I won't comment on the jet issue; however, did you read your comment before you posted it?

It's called progress and innovation, just because someone has the "best" of anything at the moment is no reason to give up all all research and development. Seriously, your comment astounds me for its complete lack of insight and thought.

Sam,

The PENTAGON leadership under Bush AND

the PENTAGON leadership under Obama have both declared without equivocation --

THE ADDITIONAL F-22 FIGHTERS ARE NOT NEEDED NOW AND WILL PROBABLY NOT BE NEEDED AT ANY TIME IN THE FUTURE.

The only reason the F-22 support has continued is Congressmen and Senators pushing for aircraft manufacturing jobs in their districts and states.

THAT'S IT.

It is purely a matter of powerful lobbyists getting members of congress to do their bidding.

THE RECORD IS VERY CLEAR AND HAS BEEN FOR YEARS -- THE EXTRA F-22S ARE NOT NEEDED~!!!

THE EXTRA F-22S ARE NOT NEEDED!!!!

The billions the unneeded airplanes would cost to purchase are needed for infantry vehicles, weapons and such basic things as improved body armor.

FOR PETE'S SAKE, quit listening to the bombastic radio mouths trying to earn their fat checks for being the hawks supporting highly profitable fighter manufacturers.

Amen Herndon Hank!

Now we're saying that Congressmen who try keeping their constituents from losing their jobs are just representing powerful lobbyists?! People have really started going overboard. How dare they try to save jobs in their districts. I mean the nerve of some people. What's next, creating jobs instead of just "saving" them? Perish the thought!

Our F-22s carry larger loads allowing them to deliver more hell to more places with fewer flights which saves the lives of our pilots. These planes would also be used to support our ground troops. I don't know why people can't understand that by supporting your airpower you're still supporting the ground troops. I'm sure there are plenty of people who are fighting on the ground who can say their lives have been saved by the people up there in the air. The F-22 is the best and the safest aircraft available when you fly into hostile territory, that's why so many people want that plane for our troops in the air including our troops on the ground.

There are 187 planes and nearly half of those are going to need to be used for training and educating the new pilots and the mechanics that will be working on their machines. 100 planes is not that many when you have to consider the fact that many will see action now plus what we would need to fight a conventional war. Conventional war is still something we need to be prepared for and not just prepared but well prepared.

What Mr. Eldridge fails to present in his story, which to most readers shouldn't be surprised, is the fact the main reason for stopping production of F-22s is because a)the F-22 is NOT used in any of our military actions and b) the government is instead going to ramp up production of the more modern F-35 creating roughly 82,000, which far outpaces the 11,000 jobs lost by continuing building a fighter jet that isn't even used in war anymore.

But this is classic Mr. Eldridge, present the information (spin) in only such a way that the reader can only assume that the Obama Administration is completely cutting military out at the legs. It's not true, but Mr. Eldridge wouldn't dare present both sides of the story. It would ruin his fear mongering.

So, Mr. Eldridge, why did you see fit to not even mention that the President, Pentagon, and now Congress are ACTUALLY choosing to spend their money wisely by getting rid of an outdated, unused F-22 and starting production on F-35.

It's the kind of responsibility you beg for on a regular basis on these blogs, but instead of actually giving credit, you hide most of the story so you can get another lame attack on the president.

There's nothing this president can do that will ever satisfy you and you made it abundantly clear with this blog by twisting and spinning what actually happened today. As soon as I saw this story I knew, I KNEW, that you would put some kind of far right loony spin on it, and you did not fail me. At least I can say that you are reliable, for getting the zealot lies out there.

I can't wait for your hit piece on health care reform, and you can bet that I'll be right here correcting your spin and lies.

Trying to talk sense to these poor diluted leftists is useless. They really don't have much choice.

In their zeal to run everybody's life, they have over stepped and people are getting wise.

Obama, their great hope, turned out to being nothing more than a punk radical leftist, with the same old tired leftist ideas that have polluted the planet for far too long.

They have all their leftist eggs in the Hopey Change basket, what choice do they have but to propagandize.

I want you leftist nuts to keep at it. Hopey Change goes down, you'll go with him. Then maybe liberalism will be the laughing stock that it should be.

So let me get this straight Sceptre, you favor wasting millions of dollars on a jet because of its superiority in a war that isn't even being waged?

You are so committed to the now defunct Cold War that you still believe that the reason we build weapons is to compete against the Ruskies.

It amazes me that you all have been railing against the Obama Administration for the entirety of his term for wasteful spending, and he actually does something not wasteful, so your basic response is to continue trashing him. That makes sense.

Earlier when I called the F-22 out-dated, I wasn't specifically talking about the jet, but it's use. We are in two wars right now and it's not being used in either war. There's no point, and it doesn't make sense, to continue making a jet that is not even being used in combat.

The only jet that ever compared to any American jet was the MiG but no other country, not even Russia, has ever built a fighter jet comparable to the U.S. The F-35 may be a simpler jet but it is still far superior to any other jet in the world.

Mr. Eldridge, I see once again you have completely ignored the facts in all these posts to still spin your version of events. Congrats.

The thing about conspiracy theorists is that no matter how many facts you produce for them they are never convinced. No matter what you say their conspiracy theory will always be the truth.

"The thing about conspiracy theorists is that no matter how many facts you produce for them they are never convinced. No matter what you say their conspiracy theory will always be the truth."

It's funny you say this Mike. I was recently reading a study which came to the conclusion that conservatives, when confronted with evidence that contradicted their beliefs, they would actually STRENGTHEN their misperceptions instead of abandoning them.

Disclaimer:

Of course, that is not to say that this is true for all conservatives, it was simply a trend discovered by the research that conservatives were more likely to react this way to evidence contradicting their perceptions.

Of course, the study was conducted at a university, and we all know that they are just cesspools of liberalism. They probably just made it up ;)

We only have about a 100 F22s available for actual combat duty that were supposed to replace our truly outdated jets which are still in service and many pilots still need training for them. Replacing jets is a process and with the denial from Congress to build up an adequate fleet, I doubt you'll see anyone want to risk losing such a limited and valuable resource as the F22 in a hostile territory when our current fighters are patrolling the skies fine. The larger the fleet the more we can use the F22 to replace the fighter jets it was meant to replace in the first place.

I'm sorry but your whole logic is that because we they haven't been sent to Iraq and Afganistan that we don't need them? That's narrow minded thinking at its worst. It's not solely about Iraq and Afghanistan, it's about being best prepared at all times for any situation that may arise.

Your problem is that you can't plan ahead. You think just because we're fighting a war on terrorism that the need to protect ourselves against a conventional war disappeared? NEWSFLASH: The threat of conventional wars waged in the air didn't go away because of terrorism.

The F-22 is designed as an air superiority fighter but it can also be used for ground attacks as well. The difference between the F22 and F35 is that the F35 has sacrificed air superiority to become a multirole fighter which is fine for a multirole fighter. However, we still need to have the best aircraft available for a range of uses. F35s can be relied on for ground attacks but they have a reduced capability of air to air combat compared to the F22. The F22 can offer a lesser role in ground attacks compared to the F35 but it is unparalleled in its air to air combat capabilities compared to the F35. By having the best aircraft in all areas we prepare ourselves for all possible threats, not just the ones that we see today.

Air superiority does not simply refer to dogfights it also includes the ability to evade SAMs or other AA fire. Conventional wars are never scheduled in advance that's why the US must be ready at all times if that situation arises. Anyone who knows anything about history should know that the world is a crazy, dangerous and unpredictable place. It only makes sense that we are ready with the best troops and the best equipment on all fronts. Obama found it in his heart to find $650 million more for the DTV transition and $1 billion for the Census that went over budget but when it comes to preparing our nation with the best aircraft that's when he says we're being wasteful. Well, at least the Census Bureau doesn't have to worry about going over budget they'll just wait for Stimulus II while we all watch tv.

Also, you can't say that keeping the F22 would reduce body armor or equipment for ground troops because it's the DODs entire budget. There are thousands of places you could look at in the DOD budget that don't include body armor or equipment for ground troops. This notion that F22s being produced means we're neglecting body armor for troops was a political tool used by those who know that most people (like many on this blog, obviously) have no idea how budgets are made or how they can be altered. Another fallacy is that the $1.7 billion will buy more body armor, it won't. The $1.7 billion was a CUT which means that money will not be spent at all, not on F22s, not on F35s, not on more body armor or equipment for the troops... that money's gone and stricken from the budget entirely.

I will give them this, they sure got you to buy the whole "F22s mean less body armor" gig. While it is amusing, in a sense, to watch you people fall for this stuff. I don't know whether to feel sorry for you because you've allowed yourselves to be manipulated or to be seriously worried because you allowed it to happen so easily.

"The F22 was not made to counter Russian anything"

Wow what an educated statement....Sphincter,oops I mean Sceptre, please go to Global Security.org, bring up F22 and read entire article on the F22, or go to Wikpedia and read their article on the F22. In no certain terms both of the them state in many more words than this: in 1981 the Air Force developed a requirement for a new air superiority fighter...to replace the F15, and to counter emerging worldwide threats including development and proliferation of SOVIET era SU27 (and others).

The first one was not delivered until 2003, over 20 years from start to delivery. In 1981 the Soviet Union was still alive and developing aircraft to counter ours. Since you are so knowledgable how can you make that statement above? Not one word by me stating that we do not have the greatest aircraft in the world, but for you to state it was not made to counter Russian anything indeed shows your ignorance as to how weapon systems are developed and why.

Perhaps you should call General Yeager and ask him how and why aircraft are developed! You could also watch the military channel they have many excellent programs that explain why over the years aircraft, tanks, assault weapons, etc. have been developed. It usually is to counter a perceived threat or real threat from an enemy, now or in the future.

Treasonous act? No way. Saving our tax dollars and puting them to better use? Yes, but people like you won't admit it, cause Rush says it ain't so!

Mike:

"It amazes me that you all have been railing against the Obama Administration for the entirety of his term for wasteful spending, and he actually does something not wasteful, so your basic response is to continue trashing him. "

Are you agreeing that much of the recent government spending has been wasteful? That's how it reads to me.

jhat,

Thanks for the kudos.

You do raise a couple good points. The same number of F35s will be built regardless of whether the F22 program was continued or abandoned. Like I stated earlier, there are many places in the DOD budget that could be cut to maintain the F22s production if needed. This could be spread out with minor cuts across thousands of line items within the DOD budget reducing the impact on any one project, budgeted equipment or agency of the DOD. The other option would be to pay for it the same way the stimulus was paid for but I'd rather see minor cuts across the thousands of line items as a more responsible approach both fiscally and administratively.

I also don't worry about my individual safety over the use of F22s or F35s. However, I do worry about the safety of the pilots flying them. The F35s are not only going to be used to replace the F18s (previous multirole jet) but now the F15s (air superiority fighter) instead of replacing our F15s with the F22 which is the best aircraft for that role. The F22 far outperforms the F35 in this area and that is why it was planned to replace our F15s. The Congress is now proposing to use F35s to take this role simply because it is cheaper.

The Air Force did request these jets and that's where the $1.7 billion figure came from. There are people in the Air Force who have been approached by superiors (and I'm sure Gates is one of them) and told that they can have the F22 or else face cuts to other parts of their program. When faced with this threat, they simply prioritized the F22 program against the threat of proposing removing funding for other programs they need for today's operations. They know nothing is certain in Washington, chose not to gamble and abandoned the request based on the potential risk of having too much funding taken from their other programs rather than spread out like I described earlier. This is how government works. Especially, during the budgeting process. They aren't saying they don't need the F22s. They're only saying based on the legitimate risk of lawmakers or Gates taking funding from only their other programs, they chose to abandon the F22 production. It's all a matter of context and the budget negotiation process.

G.I.,

You've obviously missed my point about the fact that we don't HAVE to sacrifice funding for ground troops and urban warfare weapons to maintain the F22 program. It would require a lot more work and a closer review of the budget but it is entirely possible. However, you still seem hung up on the talking points where you try convincing people that the F22 program means sacrificing funding for our ground troops and urban warfare equipment. So, keep preaching the talking points but hopefully people will have the intelligence to see through the propaganda.

Isn't this the same arguement we had in the '70's and '80's between the F-15 and F-16. One was bigger, more powerful and much more expensive. The other small and less expensive. What one could do with agility (F-16), the other could do with pure brute force (F-15). When it came to actual combat, the F-15 won out.

The F-22 in not a pure air superiority fighter. It was designed not only to clear the air of enemy aircraft, it is built to deliver bombs of any type with great accuracy and through any type of radar defense. We may not actually need many of these aircraft to get the job done, we still have radar evading aircraft like the F-117, B-1, and B-2. The F-22 weapon system fits in as a compliment. As for the JSF-35, it's still a long way from production, alot can happen till then.

Let's utilize and perfect what we already have.

HerndonHank, great post but you will not get an answer from these people! If ol' oxyRush or Handjob don't tell 'em over the old radio they have no answers.

They are unable to think on their own.

I would really love to see their answer on the KBR,Haliburton fraud statement, but of course that is different, something that is off limits!

Please Stuffy explain what in the hell a $50,000 wedding has anything to do with a discussion on the F22 fighter? Perhaps it has something to do with debt? Why,you W followers should all be experts on debt, since he did such a wonderful job running up the national debt during his 8 glorious years.

Sorry, I stand corrected.

The problem with your assessment of the situation is that we don't HAVE to take away from our current operations in Iraq and Afghanistan like you'd like us to believe. The cuts could be made anywhere from the thousands of line items in the DOD budget but nobody wants to look at their entire budget, they only want to focus on convincing people the budget consists of a few select appropriations and that's it. This is of course a misrepresentation of the makeup of budgets in general. You only want to look at specific parts of the budget that could be cut instead of looking at the entire budget. The other alternative is to finance it the same way they did with the $789 billion stimulus bill you seem to support but I think that's a poor alternative and since it would go towards the defense budget, I'm sure you would oppose such a plan too.

1,763 F35s to the Air Force to replace their F15s, 480 F35s to the Navy to replace their F18s and 480 F35s to the Marines to replace their F18s and Harriers but somehow we're neglecting F35s by purchasing 7 more F22s and more importantly, committing to continuing our replacement of the F15 fleet with F22s. The total number of F22s the Air Force requested to replace the F22s was 442 (although they are only proposing 7 more aircraft this year, in hopes of building up gradually) compared to 2,723 F35s across the military and people still cry out about how we need MORE F35s?

Btw, cutting the F22 funding will not add one single F35 to replace the F15s because that was never part of the Air Force's proposal. Their F35s are meant to replace the F16s for the Air Force. If they want to do that they will still have to cut something above the $1.7 billion for the F22 program or finance it with more debt. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend for some. The F16s were designed for ground attacks and F15s were for air superiority. Taking F35s from the stock of F16 replacements to replace F15s reduces the number of ground attack aircraft available to the Air Force because the F35s to replace the F15s would be stationed in different areas and designated for weapons and maintenance procedures for air superiority aircraft which differ from those for ground attack roles. Their is a cause and effect to this people just can't grasp, it seems.

"Well, since the JDAM INS/GPS targeting system can lock onto targets from approx 15 miles away, in a dogfight it could be used to hit enemy radar sites before ever even engaging enemy planes...duh."

Haha. I'm assuming that's a joke but I'm not quite sure. Ask any pilot how many radar sites he could hit in a dogfight and you're likely to get a dumbfounded look on their face or they would brag about being a multitasker. Your example would still be a ground attack role. However it could also be used to destroy bridges, enemy rail lines, bases, fortifications, ammunition depots, missile silos or any other stationary targets on the ground. There's nothing stationary about a target in a dogfight until someone wins and the smoke clears.

The DOD budget is anything but beside the point. I'm not so proud to say it but our military has been known to fork over a lot of money on some pretty boneheaded ideas such as the "bat bomb" and nearly choosing it over the A bomb for development in WWII is one legendary example that comes to mind. I'm sure there are still plenty of places to cut in the DOD budget and also places to tighten up expenditures which would allow for the purchase of the F22s this year. The problem is nobody wants to truly go line by line in the budget and look at where all the money is being spent and have a thorough review of these programs, some of which are most likely classified.

Russia is becoming more and more unpredictable and unstable. Russia is also not known for keeping their technology out of the hands of rogue nations. If they want to sell aircraft to a nation like Iran or N. Korea than they would do it. If Iran attacked Israel it's very possible we would assist them. If N. Korea attacks S. Korea then it's possible we would assist them as well.

You are right about one thing though. We don't need 7 more F22s, we need 255 more F22s but the Air Force took everything going on today with the economy, direction from their superiors and our current needs into account and reduced that number to just 7 for this year. Which I believe was primarily to maintain commitment from Congress for the F22 program. Why do you think as soon as they said no F22s this year it was immediately followed by the suggestion of replacing F35s with F22s? It's because the Congressmen who made these suggestions know that cutting funding for a year is their first step towards completely eliminating an entire program.

These Congressmen are talking about wanting to substitute F35s for F22s which defeats the purpose of having the best aircraft available for its designated role. In this case it happens to be an air superiority fighter. The biggest reason for funding the jets is to maintain a level of commitment to the F22 program. I'm not saying 7 planes will make or break our Air Force. I'm just saying that, in government, if you have a program scrapped one year then it makes it harder to get funding for that program every following year. Even if they only funded 3-5 planes it would still be better than none at all.

Another thing I forgot to mention earlier is this nonsense about how producing the F35s will compensate for the jobs lost due to the scrapping of the F22 program. The F35s proposed are going to be produced anyway so they are not replacing any jobs. Congress is only talking about replacing the F15s with F35s. There is no money in the DOD budget to replace those F15s with F35s. That means the jobs that would have went to the production of the F22 will be lost. The jobs that go to the F35 would still remain even if we had built the F22s.

It kinda reminds me of the stimulus project propaganda. Everyone talked about these "shovel ready" projects that would create or "save" jobs. However, in reality the only projects eligible this year are the ones that had all their homework done and were budgeted for this year anyway. You can't say you created or "saved" a job that was there anyway. Kinda like they "saved" 150,000 jobs but really they lost 2 million of them and then try convincing us that we would have lost the 150,000 jobs but offer no way to back up their claims with anything but a simple mathematical formula with no basis in reality.

I was wrong, you were right about two things. We're in for a long decade. A long, painfully expensive decade.

re the f-22. There's several points that need to be addressed here. First, there is a stink of politics in the whole f-22 debate.

I run on a basic premise that if both parties agree/ignore a particular issue, somehow, another agenda isn't being exposed. eg.Immigration has disappeared off of both parties talking points, much more efficient systems using petroleum fuels,REAL job creation instead of bail-outs for the big boys, again BOTH parties, the list goes on.They are not germaine to the F-22 issue other than the commenality of both parties "agreeing".

Let me say up front that I support the F-22 program, I'm not in the military, have no politcal affiliations nor stock or family work for any Defense contractor.

It is my belief that the F-22 does to the skies what the Nimitz class super-carrier does for the blue water oceans, to wit, complete and utter dominance. Period.

One either believes that we are the policeman of the world and as imperfect as we are at it, there's no one remotely close as in second place who could or would do the job.

Or you believe that any military expenditure is a waste and better spent anywhere other than on the military.

Then there's those somewhere in between. That IS America, that's how it works. Its how its supposed to work.

The f-22. I've worn out my lap-top covering the subject and will give you some numbers that might surprise, I haven't got all the source references to hand but you can look em up yourself or e-mail me and I will direct you the best I can.

Yes, we cut seven 22's, saved money, too. Then why are the projected number of f-35's to be built over the life of the program 4-6 THOUSAND planes?

Price per unit? f-35 initial unit cost 200 million per, dropping to 100 mil per later. Current unit cost for the f-22, 141 million. (both prices exclude develomental costs).cont'd...

f-22 cont'd

The main function of the f-22 in the gulf "war" is one of deterrance. In any planning for operations in Syria, Iran, Pakistan, the F-22 would be in the forefront. In my view, the mere threat of the f-22 gives pause and mitigates outside interferance from said countries and is already saving U.S. lives.

The F-22 outperforms the f-35 in speed, climb rate, range, altitude ceiling, manuverability, air superiority. The plane is so big, that external racks could carry massive amounts of ordinance, the racks released after using the ordinance with full stealth regained. Its altitude and the 360 degree, 1100 kilometer radar range allows the 22 to used with or even replace an awacs!Not even mentioning its telemetry capabilites.Heck, the 22 can rotate under 1000ft!

That means, theoretically. you could crane a couple of 22's on each Nimtz class carrier, put the bow into the wind, flank the engines and pull a"B-25 Mitchell off of a carrier in support of the 18's!!

Yet, Gates says the 22 is out of date. Plans to legalize the export of F-22's squashed. Israel, Japan and Australia wants to buy them, even if its a "wound down" version!

The money "saved" by cutting seven 22's hasn't gone to a more "needful" military need, its just been cut. Why? Why build 4 to 6,000 inferior platforms and cut the best plane we've ever built.Why are we putting our stratigic needs and airmen at risk? Who benefits? What's the real reason? Exporting a wound down f-22 would save jobs, help the trade deficit, win browny points for an administration that needs some. Cont'd tommorrow.....