It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Heads up! Raptor isnt on your 6! It went faster then it came...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   
Again, no anti Raptor talk in this thread unless you want to hit the silk road...


Penta gon Cuts Jet Fighter Program


Hey, I'm all for 160, yes one hundred and sixty Fighter/Attack twenty two Raptors if we can kill off the national debt...
If a war breaks out and air power is needed long term like Vietnam type goodness then the Raptors production line will be cranked back up...


After all the Raptor was supposed to be in service in 1999 and be replaced or complimented by 2015 by a superior fighter jet, via Cold War times.
If the national debt is dealt with we will have enough money to actually invest in an even better program in the 2015-2020 timeframe.




posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:17 PM
link   
ugh... you know what will happen if this passes? each plane with cost like 350 million, then the critics will then say "350 MILLION PER FIGHTER!, THATS CRAZY!" then they will try and cut it back some more. Thats what has being happening ever since. I'm almost to the point of saying "all or nothing", get hundreds of raptors, or kill it now and make sure the F-35 survives.

This Iraq war is sucking us dry.
I would kinda like it if we just left and focused more on protecting only ONE country, our own.

heres a few that caught my eye.


One leading industry analyst, Loren Thompson, said the program could be ended after producing about 160 aircraft, possibly saving more than $15 billion over time but significantly raising the cost per plane.



Analysts including Mr. Thompson noted, however, that the F/A-22 had never fit into Mr. Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into a leaner, more agile, yet deadly force that put a greater premium things like improved space-based sensors and communications.



"Every year, we've gone through this fight over the F-22, but we can't cut below where we are now," Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Georgia Republican on the Armed Services Committee, said in a telephone interview. "We'll fight to keep it where it is."



The Raptor has endured a rough ride through its history. Two decades ago, the Air Force planned to buy 760 Raptors, based in part on the original cost of $35 million a plane. Within the last decade, that shrank to 438 planes, then 339 at the end of the 1990's, then 277 today.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the USAF's eyes are bigger then their stomach.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Murcielago]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:32 PM
link   
[edit on 29-12-2004 by ChrisRT]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 07:34 PM
link   


quote:
One leading industry analyst, Loren Thompson, said the program could be ended after producing about 160 aircraft, possibly saving more than $15 billion over time but significantly raising the cost per plane.


It's only logical too assume that the more you order the less you will pay. There is a point where you break even. You have a certain budget to get a certain amount of fighters. Someone somehow thinks that the less you order the less you will pay... What idiots.




quote:
Analysts including Mr. Thompson noted, however, that the F/A-22 had never fit into Mr. Rumsfeld's plan to transform the military into a leaner, more agile, yet deadly force that put a greater premium things like improved space-based sensors and communications.


The F/A-22 is part of the power vector force. It may be the heart of it. What better to have an absolutely undisputed air dominance fighter that can go right over the enemies most defended spaces with impunity and destroy anything in the air and ground that you like? The F/A-35 lacks the range, and extreme degree of stealth that the F/A-22 has. No deep strike or escort for the B-2 unless you want a big ass tanker to be seen on radar.


Anyway, when Japan and possibly other countries order the F/A-22 our costs will go down.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 08:48 PM
link   
The Air Force I don't think is too popular with the Congress right now. They got their butts chewed up by the Congress because they've been not wanting to give the Army the air support they need.

This is kind of cowardly if you ask me, but they pulled that in Vietnam too, when some C-130s needed air support. As a result, the C-130 pilots who were brave flew into an extremely "hot" area and carried out their mission, meanwhile the fraidy-cat Air Force pilots who refused to fly into that area stayed in their nice air conditioned rooms back on base. A few C-130s crashed because of that too from heavy fire.

The thing with the Air Force is one of their main arguments is, "We don't want to be sending our guys into lethal combat with second-rate equipment" (i.e. they need the F/A-22 Raptor). YET, after making that statement, they are perfectly willing to not support the Army when it needs air support and thus Army troops on the ground suffer (the jerks).

Lately I believe some of the Air Force has been put under command of the Army, since they were acting up. Although the Army and the issue of outer space are very distant, I truly think it was a mistake to separate the Air Force from the Army. If it was the Army Air Force like in the days of WWII, those air support problems wouldn't be so big, because the aircraft would be under the control of the Army.

The Army Air Force could still work with the space program, just they'd be Army officers instead. Army and space may sound very distant, but it allows support, and when lives are on the line, that matters more. Also, Vietnam and Iraq have shown that the Air Force doesn't get along with the Army in warfighting situations; if they were part of the Army, that wouldn't happen.

The gov't at the same time has tried unsuccesfully to get the Marine Corps to drop their air wings and just rely on the Navy, but the Marines said no way in hell, and good reasoning too I think.

That is kind of funny though that the gov't scolds the Air Force for not supporting the Army, yet then they expect the Navy to support the Marines if the Marines give up their aircraft. Navy and Marine pilots may both be placed on aircraft carriers, but the mindset of a Navy pilot and the mindset of a Marine Corps pilot are often very different.

And I am way of track, but my basic argument is, at least in my opinion, maybe if the Air Force wouldn't be so selfish in terms of air support, they'd get more popularity in the mainstream government, and thus they wouldn't get cuts to the F/A-22 program so quickly.

You know, like if the Air Force was really dedicated to supporting the Army troops and cared about making sure those guys are safe, and then they say, "Blah blah blah this and that, we need the F/A-22 if you expect us to keep on top," then I bet the gov't would be a lot more friendly.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:12 PM
link   
The article says that the USAF may still get 160 Raptors, thats still a lot of Fighters. At $258 million a pop its a mighty expensive piece of equipment, by the sounds of it there are a lot of jobs tied up in this program and it still has to get past congress. I wouldn't despair just yet, i think the US will get the plane just not in as many numbers.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Janus]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:22 PM
link   
the thing is... the US does not face an technologicaly advanced army where all this hi-tech stuff is neccesary.

The us is fighting small scale wars against insurgents, and every time the rebels score a kill... it's hugely expensive to the US.

I can't see the US and Russia or China coming to blows anytime soon... until then a cheaper and more easily deployable army is what the US needs.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   

by the sounds of it there are a lot of jobs tied up in this program and it still has to get past congress.


Trust me, I know, my dad's job is one of them....
He feels pretty confident that he's got nothing to worry about here...

Personally, there are plenty of other areas to cut, without trying to trim out what's supposed to be one of the backbones of our air force for the next generation....
I wonder how a decision (one way or the other) on this will affect the JSF??? (F-35, Joint Strike Fighter, but then I'm sure you all knew that....
)


the thing is... the US does not face an technologicaly advanced army where all this hi-tech stuff is neccesary.


Not true. The early, and quick establishment of air superiority is KEY to our redefined defense needs, and stealth fighters are a BIG part of establishing that dominance. This tactic saves billions, as well as lives, in losses, when engaging enemy forces.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Gazrok]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Common guys and gals....
I think you guys are taking this a bit hard.

I'll take 160 along with the ability to buy and produce more in the future, when things get better.

Now see....that didn't hurt so much, did it?


Personally, I would have liked to see them cut the funding for the F-35 before the F-22, but thats the way the beans spill. Ah well.
Keep in mind though, the UCAV program (X-45) still thrives.


X-45 UCAV





seekerof

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:31 PM
link   
It would be a damn shame if they mothballed it all together, but i cant see that happening. I love this plane and im not even an American lol.



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Ummm.... you really believe the NY times?

I am sure the US will have atleast 300 Raptors by 2013, they can afford cost overruns.

I mean this is just ridiculous. Sheesh.

One more thing, ONE person said it would be cut to 160, but the official number still stands at 277, i would go with that, but i am sure the number of raptors would be bumped up somewhat.

[edit on 29-12-2004 by Hockeyguy567]



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well, to be honest, those numbers are ALWAYS false. For example, I remember during Gulf War I...they were saying they only had a certain number of Nighthawks... It was bull#, I was talking to my father who was looking out his window at 17 of them on the Tarmac in Yemen as the hour approached initial sorties....


EDIT: better copy and paste this quick, before I move it to RATS....



posted on Dec, 29 2004 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Broadsword20068 - Thats why they are becoming better connected, kinda integrate them all together. Its part of Rummy's plan. Personally I think the Air Force should be in charge of the top dog fighters and bombers, and also space. While the army should protect themselves, by that I mean let the army take control of the A-10's, I dont like the whole 'no fixed wings' crap.

In the future they "hopefully" will all be very well connected, and are aware of what eachother are doing. Without communication you lose.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 02:52 AM
link   
True, that is a good point.

Lucretius, the point of the F-22 is that no one knows what kinds of threats may arise in the future. Remember, the F-15 can only be upgraded only so much....the reason the Navy replaced the F/A-18 C/D with the F/A-18 E/F is because the C/D has been upgraded as far as they can upgrade it. The F-15 is approaching that limit.

There are anti-air defenses coming out that in the future, even a smaller, poor country could have that the F-15 just won't be able to stand up against. That is where the F/A-22 and F-35 come in.

And no one "knows" anything about future conflicts. # happens during centuries, so the main point is to ALWAYS be prepared.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:01 AM
link   
You know, Im just playing along slightly here... In the past they have always ordered many more fighters then initially planned. I think we may see ~500 or so F/A-22s when a new program will come online in the next 15 years...

And no, with a squadron already operational and the billion$ spend on the program it is absolutely impossible to get cut. Dont try to bring the RAH-66 into this as it was mainly a technology research program with the possibility of it going into production...

Hey, Im all for a more stable deficient so we can actually fund a new ATF program in ~12-15 years



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:08 AM
link   
hmm, I didnt know you could get stuff like that in the bulk section!

I would think that if it were $250M/jet, you would multiply that by the number of jets you buy. In which case, the more you buy the more you spend- I mean does the government actually get bargains, like price breaks for quantity? Heck, I thought they just made up the prices in order to pad their wallets without us knowing any better!



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisRT
You know, Im just playing along slightly here... In the past they have always ordered many more fighters then initially planned. I think we may see ~500 or so F/A-22s when a new program will come online in the next 15 years...


Maybe not, the Pentagon has announced that they may cut the procurment from 277 to 170 or so. No idea what that will do to its unit cost. The ATSNN story can be found here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:17 AM
link   
It like this, the more you buy the less you pay. There is some point that some jackass isnt calculating where the break even point is.

You can pay $300 million a pop and but 100 or you can buy 300 and pay $100 million a pop...

While it's slightly more complicated then that, it is basically how it works with military hardware....



Maybe not, the Pentagon has announced that they may cut the procurment from 277 to 170 or so. No idea what that will do to its unit cost. The ATSNN story can be found here:


That is what this thread is about...



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 03:25 AM
link   
Do any of you think this might be a way of negotiating a better price for the aircraft? Afterall, it is private enterprise that builds these jets for the US. Do you think that this leak may be a way pf putting some pressure on lowering the cost or losing the program all together? They want the planes, we will have the planes, its just a matter of how many.



posted on Dec, 30 2004 @ 10:55 AM
link   
I really don't believe any of this, the US will definatley see 300+ Raptors.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join