And, the last seven F-22s were shot down, not by enemy fire, but by the United States Senate:
The Senate voted 58-40 on Tuesday to strip $1.75 billion for seven more F-22 fighters from a military spending bill, handing President Obama a crucial victory in his efforts to reshape the military’s priorities.
The victory came after the president had placed his political capital on the line by repeatedly threatening to veto the $679.8 billion spending bill if it included any money for the planes.
AdvertisementThe F-22, the world’s most advanced fighter, had become a flashpoint in a larger battle over the administration’s push to shift more of the Pentagon’s resources from conventional warfare to fighting insurgencies.
The plane’s supporters, who ranged from hawkish Republicans to Democrats close to organized labor, also voiced concern over the possible loss of high-paying manufacturing jobs at a time when the economy is in turmoil.
Immediately after the vote, Mr. Obama praised the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.”
Whatever you might think about the merits of the F-22, it’s important to remember that once stopped, those manufacturing lines cannot be restarted. Period.
So let’s hope we don’t live to regret this decision.
We need a ReWrite™ – “So let’s hope we don’t live just long enough to regret this decision.”
Seriously, if memory serves, the F-35A (the Air Force “dogfighter” version) cannot stand up to the bleeding-edge of the rest of the world, at least given equal pilots. Of course, the ObamiNation will do everything in its power to ensure that our pilots aren’t even equal.
Tut, tut, tut. What with Dear Leader handing out unicorns like they were lollipops, soon we will have no need for a military.
Heck, He’s already gotten North Korea to give up its nukes. OK, wait, bad example. But Iran, er, that’s another bad example. But he has gotten our NATO allies to significantly boots their presence in Afghanistan.
Um, sooooooo, when and where should we hold that air force bake sale. I’ll make brownies.
The only inexcusable waste is sitting in Washington…
‘Immediately after the vote, Mr. Obama praised the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.”’
Well, I guess he would be the resident expert on inexcusable waste…
While I am disappointed that they would not allow those extra airframes, I would like to point out that the F-22 does have several problems that need to be resolved before they make any more. As does the F-35.
It’s a crying shame that an America that produced the Apollo program and so many great and record breaking airframes in her past can’t get her act together now because of greed, politics and a declining amount of talent in our engineering class.
So much for our wonderful liberal American Educational system.
As far as starting the line back up your right in a way, but it can be done and has been done in the past. It just costs more money.
I’m hoping some of the money not spent will go into the A-10 program and into the armed drone programs. And communications for our troops. The buying of walkie talkies by troops just to talk to each other is a national shame when our million dollar radios won’t work worth a damn.
Papa Ray
West Texas (soon to be Central Texas)
USA
People, come on! I figure you all for being against pork (not the animal kind), so why do you like the FY22? I mean, the days of dog fighting are over, the days of fighter escort over, the days of aces are over. Now, we are entering a phase when air combat will be handled by remote control drones. Why? Because airplanes have become weapons delivery and air-to-ground guidance systems, and what we need are delivery systems optimized for various environments, not a one-size-fits all fighter/bomber manned by a squishy human. My fear is that we don’t realize this, and we will simply take the money we don’t have and pour it into something boneheaded, you know, like public healthcare. Seriously folks, someone point out how wrong I am, if anyone can.
Jeff
Jeff,
Yeah, maybe, and when we have those operational and proven and ready to produce in quantity, along with all the operational necessities, I’ll be less concerned about the F22.
Jeff:
The era of the dog fight might be over (it was first declared dead in the early 60′s once you had effective air-air missles), but I wouldn’t count on it. Also, the F22 isn’t a dog fighter (like the F18), its an air superiority platform. Dog fighters are usually designed for knife fighting range, the F22 is designed to be lethal from extreme range on in.
The main complaint against the F22 is that there are no more air to air fights, but that’s only because the USAF is so dominate. When the US fighters go hunting, no one comes up to challenge. Remember all those epic dogfights in Iraq? Neither do I. Remember those big battles against the “best air force in the middle east” in Dessert Storm? Yeah, 38 got shot down, over 100 fled to Iran instead. The last air force to try and get in an air to air tussle with the USAF was Libya. As long as the US has undisputed aerial supremacy, we can rule the skies without any real fight. We currently rule the skies because no one has an aircraft that presents a reasonable counter. But you bettter believe they’re trying. And while the F35 is considered to be superior to any 4th generation fighter, the Russians have some designs that while not technically 5th generation, tiptoe on the line, and the new Sukhoi PAK may actually be roughly comparable. Anything the Russians can build, they will sell, and you’ll see these in any air force that wants to contest their local air space.
The F22 is a weapon thats successul exactly because no one will fight it. I hope the F35 and the B1R missle boat variant are able to serve as sufficient deterent.
That was done 50 years ago, over Korea.
Here’s a rule of thumb: if Obama and Bush BOTH want to kill a weapons program, the Congressional pork protectors should lose.
Kirk –
That’s a pretty smart rule. But I have to wonder if – until the UAV future arrives – we should unilaterally limit ourselves to about 135 operational air superiority jets. Especially given that no more than about two-thirds of which will be available on any given day. We might make 80% or so availability for a planned surge, but emergencies rarely present that kind of advanced notice.
“Mr. Obama praised the Senate’s decision, saying that any money spent on the fighter was an “inexcusable waste.”
And I suppose Mr. Obama’s administration would be omniescent enough about inexcusable wastes would he not?
I believe the Matthew Sheppard Hate Crime Bill was a hidden addition to this military spending bill. Obama promised a hate crime bill and also promised a smaller military. He used his veto threat rather skillfully and the hate crime bill flew home under the radar – or that portion was just blacked out in the press…..
Marty, I’m not sure I’d give the F22 “proven” status, but alright, let’s say it is proven, it’s still a sail ship in a steam world (missiles, weapons systems, avionics, these things make the difference, oh, and stealth, but why send a man when you can send a drone?).
Mauther, there are no more dog fights for the same reason there are no more sword fights. Our military can be all about tradition, until it comes to weapons. And these days, fighter planes are out. As for “air superiority” I’d wager that all whole bunch of F16s, all armed to the teeth and supported by AWACS and drone recon would slaughter a squadron of F22s. Let the Chinese and the Russians build the old crap. We’ve got something new (networked fighting forces) and we should embrace it and develop it.
McGehee, I suppose you think a battleship is better than an aircraft carrier, or a horse better than a tank? FIFTY YEARS AGO? Christ, go work for the Pentagon, they need fools like you to pitch for pork.
Still waiting for that compelling argument…
Jeff
Jeff, you insufferable tool, you have no grasp of history. Idiots like you have been preedicting the future of aerial warfare for fifty years and BEEN WRONG ALL ALONG.
You’re the one with no compelling argument.
McGhee, wow, you’re an intellect. What an astute, thought-out argument. You win.
McGehee, crap, wish I could take down my last pissy comment. I’m sorry. I was the one who called you a fool and I should not have.
Seriously, what happened in Korea that you find so compelling? The birth of the jet? What? And would you not agree that the military must continually innovate and take risks? To polish our current metal — which is all the F22 seems to do, despite its many advancements — will keep us in a race the Chinese and Russians might actually be able to kinda, sorta compete in. But to change the game, as we did with aircraft carriers, our air force, coordination between air and ground forces via satellite control, well, this is what will win, in my opinion. Further, as we engage with more terrorists, we need ways to support our ground troops. The F22 ain’t it. But drones, well, now we’re talking. A friend of mine, who is an officer in the SEALs, agrees with me that we need MORE drones NOW, but apparently there’s “no money”. Killing the F22 won’t give my SEAL friend his drones, but it’s a step in the right direction.
Again, really sorry for being an abusive commenter. I should not have done that.
Jeff
“We might make 80% or so availability for a planned surge”
Only if there really IS a God.
Or at least that was the rule during my decade and some in Marine Corps aviation. 80% is like dream territory. And to GET there, we didn’t call it “cannibalization” for nothing.
Quoting from a July 14, 2009, article by Senator Orin Hatch, Utah, the full text of the article can be found at http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4188/is_20090714/ai_n32160188/?tag=content;col1
“The Raptor will accomplish this while simultaneously establishing air superiority. For example, during a recent military exercise in Alaska, the F-22 dispatched 144 adversaries versus the loss of only one aircraft. Once again, the F-22′s advanced stealth capabilities and supercruise engines proved decisive. The F-22 also has remarkable avionics that, in addition to collecting intelligence and providing battlespace awareness, enable it to engage aircraft and surface threats long before an enemy can retaliate.”
Also, this article:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/4311433.html Excerpting…
“F-22s dominate at Red Flag as well. Red Teams flying F-16s and F-15s take them on. Those who train to be the adversaries at Red Flag belong to the 64th and 65th Aggressor squadrons. These seasoned Red Team veterans find it frustrating to fight what they can’t see. ‘Aggressor pilots are not typical Air Force line units. They tend to have much more experience,’ says Mike Estrada, a spokesman at the air base. ‘And I can tell you that our Aggressor pilots are getting very tired of always getting shot down by the F-22.’”
And one other excerpt from the same article:
“This week fighter jocks role-play bad guys trying to shoot down the U.S. Air Force’s most advanced warplane—the F-22 Raptor—and ‘die wholesale’ in the process. The Air National Guard 174th Fighter Wing will be flying training missions over the desert outside Nellis Air Force Base in a high-stakes war game. Here are the pilots who train against the deadliest dogfighter in the world.’
Whenever you are in a battle, be it land, sea or air, you do not want to eke out a win, you want to have the ability to crush the opponent. And when you have this ability, a lot of battles that would have to have been fought otherwise suddenly never materalize. In the case of the US, it has been our absolute and overwhelming air superiority that has made many such battles never take place. But once you get to anything remotely close to parity, then the enemy simply needs to put up a sufficient number of aircraft to overcome the odds.
The F-22 means that close combat will seldom take place because the opposition can be neutralized at long range and that close up it will be no match for the F-22. If I remember the numbers correctly, at a recent Red Flag event, the F-22′s took out 144 enemy planes at the loss of only 1 F-22. That is a phenomenal ratio.
There is a lot of talk about how expensive the plane is, some 4177.8 million based on 181 airframes, but the cost of having to replace of only 5 F-18′s – and the pilots – is considerably more than this, $55 million per F-18.
I would much rather have a state-of-the-art fighter like the F-22 at $177.8 million than the cost of replacing the 5 F-18s at $275 million. And that does not take into account the human cost of the 5 pilots.
David
No air superiority=no drone missions, at least in theaters where there is an even remotely credible air-superiority challenge. Might not matter so much fighting Islamist terrorists, but are we all willing to stake our future dominance on the belief that those will be the only kinds of wars we’ll ever again be called on to fight? Anybody have a reliable crystal ball?
After every war, we’ve dismantled our capabilities to a degree that proves to be pretty expensive when the next oh-my-God-who-could-have-foreseen-it calamity confronts us. Then we scramble to catch up, and we have in the past thanks to our incredible manufacturing prowess and the creative talents of our engineers and industrialists.
Any bets on how much of that we’re gonna be able to count on going forward?
Fair points about the F22.
Question: how much of its advantage is due to weapons systems vs. the plane? I ask, because weapons systems should be somewhat platform dependent, and can continue to be developed irrespective of the ultimate aircraft they quip.
Gotta read more about these games. I mean, if the game is for two squadrons of fighter planes to meet, well, I should hope the F22 would win. My point, however, is that in the future — which we will create, by the way — lumbering human-manned aircraft will be like the Maginot line. Totally invincible, except…
Besides, well already have nearly 200 in service. That’s a lot, in my opinion.
Good arguments,all.
The telling aspect of BO’s remark is the words he chose (I didn’t hear the tone, but having heard BO often, I can well imagine.)
There’s an arrogance,an “I know it all,” and a “crush the very idea” tone to his chosen (and disdainful) term “an inexcusable waste.”
Not “we must always work toward keeping our military the best in the world, but…times do not permit” or “we are in bad economic times,” even “health care is more important.”
No, it’s an “inexcusable waste.”
That contempt,distaste,scorn — is “hatred” too strong a word? — for the military and frankly, for America, comes through waaay too often when BO speaks.
Maybe he has done so, but I just can’t imagine him using such dismissive words when describing why a social program or even pork should be cut.
Jeff, you’re finally getting the idea. The Raptor has regularly beaten the best of the best in every match-up. If you do that reading, you’ll find out it’s the plane as much as the weapons; I would say the plane more than the systems.
…Then you go and compare the Raptor to the Maginot Line. {shakes head} That is such an apples to oranges comparison it’s not funny.
Let’s go back to something touched on briefly above. You have the same mindset as the designers who stopped putting guns in fighters (in the 1950s) because we had developed air-to-air missiles by then. Missiles could hit & kill a target at a far greater range than could guns, and with radar direction were far more accurate. Thus the days of guns were over, to use your phrasing. It was all very logical.
Alas, when the Vietnam War broke out it turned out that the missiles didn’t work as well as they did in the labs, the pilot needed to be in a nearly-perfect 6 o’clock position to fire effectively, and that the MiG drivers came up with some pretty creative ways to dodge the little buggers as well. It turned out that the American fighters were at such a disadvantage in lacking this “obsolete” system the Air Force actually stuck an external gun pod on the Phantom II to compensate! If memory serves the F4-E was the first model to include an onboard gun.
This bit so hard into the memory of designers that even the F-22 Raptor still had a gun built into it.
Another good example of “obsolete” systems was the Pentomic Army during the 1950s. If you haven’t heard of it, check out strategypage.com or wikipedia. Possession of nuclear weapons made US Army leaders decide that the day of the infantry was over; they were as useless as, well, sword-fighters. So the US Army remolded itself around nukes everywhere, all the time. They even had a frikkin’ nuclear mortar! (the Davy Crockett)
Most military historians (and soldiers) now agree that the Pentomic Army concept was one of the dumbest moves ever made by the US Army.
As for some of your other examples: yes, an Iowa probably could take out a Nimitz, unless they used nukes. The BB could throw an armor-piercing 2,500 lb shell nearly thirty miles, and carried extensive armor itself. By 1945 the American BBs also had an extensive anti-aircraft capability including dual-use 5″ guns designed to not only shoot down, but knock down aircraft. Kamikazees, don’tcha know. A modern CV, on the other hand, probably doesn’t even have 2,000 lb bombs on board, and if they did they’re most likely general-purpose high explosive, not armor-piercing.
The dreadnaughts were even more expensive to build and maintain than a modern aircraft carrier. It was the expense that did them in.
As for horses vs. tanks/vehicles, well… Check out what the US Army did in Italy during WW2; they used mules extensively for transport and supply due to mountainous terrain. Horse cavalry was frequently used on the Eastern Front for scouting and patrol, and the Wehrmacht employed horse-drawn wagons for 80% of their transport and supply during the entire war. They still kicked buttocks.
Sometimes obsolete still works very well. Which reminds me: do you know how they invented the first Sidewinder missile? They took an unguided 5″ air-to-ground missile and stuck a guidance system on the nose. It’s still one of the most effective air-to-air missiles in the world. Same thing with JDAMS; a dumb bomb with smart flaps.
Sometimes it doesn’t take much to make an “obsolete” system very, very effective.
Nearly forgot: ever hear of the “Horse Soldiers” in Afghanistan the past 8 years? Those crazy, silly Special Forces guys, riding around on horses instead of APCs. Sheesh.