It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


White House threatens veto over F-22 jet fighters

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:15 AM

Originally posted by ZindoDoone
We made the very large mistake of believing an airwar would only be fought with missiles and no human dogfighting. It ain't so.

That is my point!

The USAF don't want to make exactly the same mistake with the F-22 as they made with the AIM-7 in Vietnam.

I accept your point on UCAVs - they aren't there yet, and probably won't be for 20 years... but that was a worst case scenario (more to illustrate the potential demise of the manned ~10g limited fighter).

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 11:18 AM

Originally posted by kilcoo316
This place is really going to the dogs.

The USAF right now, does not want the F-22. Right now, the USAF wants CAS bomb trucks, and it wants both strategic and tactical airlift capabilities.

It also wants improved intelligence from UAVs or other methods.

I think you need to rethink that one. The USAF leadership want to kill the Raptor ie Gates, and his merry band of generals that have to two his line. That is a difference. Gates also is trying to kill the C-17 so much for Strategic airlift.

It does not need or want a silver bullet at the expense of these things.

The F-22 is being bandied about by Gates as a 'Silver Bullet" to justify the small numbers they are producing. Its more of a sound bite. The Raptor in exersizes has shown its much more than some high tech toy eh?

In 10 years time, the F-22's main advantage relative to the rest of the world will be diluted, if not effectively removed.

Assuming that the Raptor stay static and there are no improvements to the aircraft, its weapons sytems etc. But what systems does that? The F-15 flying to day is a far different animal than the F-15A that was released in the 70's

Who here fancies sending your $150 million F-22 up against $50 million flankers*? Thats a helluva way to win a war.

*Or worse, $30 million UCAVs?

But thats always been the case no? The F-15 costed way more than its main adversary at the time. It

They are making decisions like this BECAUSE THEY KNOW MORE THAN YOU.

DO they? Sorry I guess Id better get back in the sheeple pen then :shk:

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 01:41 PM
We spent a ton of money on the F-15 to ensure it would handle anything that could come against it for many years to come.

Forgive me if I mis-speak, but I think that not one F-15 has been lost in air to air combat to date.

I do recall the Israelis sending a few against Syrian MiG's, and the Eagles smoked multiple MiG's.

The reason you spend lots of money on these advanced systems is that POTENTIAL enemies - the biggest current threat being China - will not be so tempted to press a bad issue.

For the grunts on the ground, and gentlemen, that's what makes things happen - air superiority is absolutely necessary.

One enemy aircraft unchallenged can kill scores of Americans on the ground and flash millions of dollars of badly needed ground ordinance and systems.

So if it's your father, son, nephew, daughter, niece, cousin, or neighbor on the ground, relying on good air cover, don't you want them to at least not be threatened because we didn't have enough aircraft to ensure clear skies?

True we can't have it all, at once.

But a good synergistic blend mandates first and foremost - air superiority.

Without it, everyone and everything is at risk every moment.

Hell, I'd also like to see either more A-10's or a new A-10 replacement. Every single time they start to eliminate the A-10's, an event proves that nothing can deliver on time and on target like an A-10. Grunts love, and I mean LOVE the A-10.

Air superiority.

Necessary. Mandatory. Required.

It saves American lives.

posted on Jun, 25 2009 @ 10:30 PM
Coming from a simple mid-atlantic'er.

Surely the best way to keep the F-22 alive and in production would be to offer it, or more likely a downgraded version, up for sale. I know that it is barred from sale by congress, but when was this last challenged.

I daresay that there are a few close US allies in proximity to N.Korea and Iran which would like the opportunity to fight these grave threats to democracy with the sharpest blade around.

I reckon that if you unloaded some of the already produced F-22s you could even develop an advanced version or else use it for the basis for the 2014/2018 bomber.


posted on Jun, 26 2009 @ 02:49 AM
Apparently funding the Alternative engine for the F-35 will trigger a vetos as well.

But, Im betting that the congress might be able to override the veto given the large amount of pork in the defence budget.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:10 AM

Originally posted by SharkBait
Gates is an Ass! he's clueless-Does he really think from now on out we only going to fight Terrorists on the ground?

The Threats that have been there are always there. I'd rather have 2000 F22’s and spend the money than have one foot soldier die on the ground. We need technology to defeat the enemy with as few lives lost as possible.

The Terrorist issue has be dealt with in other ways, but that’s not going to be our only fight in the next 20 years.

You hit the nail square on the head, sharkbait.

F-22 and the Survival of American Air Power

JSF, F-22, C-17 and the Hon Robert Gates: “Next war-itis” – Yet another dose of ‘alternate reality’

F-22 Termination: America’s Self-Induced Strategic Death Spiral

If I were a USAF general, I would want 32 combat squadrons of Raptors to win air superiority in three theaters of war and be able to survive attrition.

posted on Aug, 9 2009 @ 12:54 AM
Just found out...

The F-22 requires 18.1 maintainence hours per flight hour. The RAAF F-111 fleet requires 180 hours of maintainence per flight hour.

And people thought the F-22 was bad?

[edit on 9/8/2009 by C0bzz]

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in