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.

 

F-22 funding just cut off by Senate

page: 2
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:38 PM
link   
Ohh let's all loose are minds because the government isn't making our favorite weapons anymore.

Come on now folks, who cares, I think it's great that they aren't wasting money on continuing useless projects. We all know they have far better than the F22, that's just their public model.

I mean ok yes, the jobs, that's bad and perhaps another project should be given to the people who build them, but as far as I am concerned, less guns is good.

~Keeper




posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


And what about our Soldiers and Marines? How will they get all the little things they need if all our money goes to maintaining these "jobs?"

And if you're so worried, look at it this way. We increasing funding for the Army and Marine Corps, then the jobs go someplace else. Its not as if the jobs disappeared.


Fair Enough!

As long as the money doesn't go to bankers, so they can pretend to loan it back to us at a higher interest rates, so we can borrow money to buy what we already had before we lost our jobs!!!



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zosynspiracy
What's the difference betwee 187 and another 7? LMAO! Government is a joke nowadays. I'd much rather have my tax money go to build more F-22s than bail out some bankers.


Well there you go, you said it yourself, another 7 is hardly enough to bother spending the money on.

Although I agree with you... build some planes with the money not bailout the bastard bankers.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 01:48 PM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


Your perception of other countries tends to remind me of Europeans view of the Japanese at the beginning of the 20th century especially considering the Japanese were the first to defeat a modern European military force which was the Russians during the Russo-Japanese War. Later on what was it that the Japanese created that shocked us? Oh yeah the Japanese Zero fighter which military found a wreck and studied before making a response to it by bringing the Hellcat, but then it was too late for the pilots in the older fighter planes that were no match for the Zero. If the potential opponents have built a fighter plane in response to the F-22 and produce it in 2015 just after the end of our F-22 production, by then to build a new plane would take 15 or more years correct? How long did it take to build the F-22 from scratch? The F-35?



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


It's off topic but I'll respond about our ground pounders. It's the entire mentality involved when politicians stick their noses into running military operations. It hasn't worked since Korea. The limited warfare nonsense doesn't work. Our troops are funded now. When this all began they didn't have proper armor or vehicles. Now the armor is coming out of their noses. It's still hard to defend huge IED buried on some mountain path. Your big equipment won't make it up the mountain and body armor is useless.

Healthcare is an individual responsibility not some god given right. Instead of overhauling the entire system, why not help the ones who absolutely can't work and provide for themselves? Hell, 12+ million illegal immigrants will soon be citizens and adding to that sucking sound of our dollar being flushed. You have to pay for car insurance right??? Pay for your own healthcare! Kick all able bodied, lazy, SOB off of welfare and have them work the jobs that all of the hard working illegal immigrants are doing. Cutting the F-22 is taking away more jobs and therefore placing a bigger burden on our society.

Back on topic. Where Russia, China, and India can hurt us is engagements near their territory. Our carriers are amazing but one carrier wouldn't last long off the shores of Russia, China, or India. Just the threat of a nearby F-22 squadron may give our adversaries pause.



[edit on 21-7-2009 by on_yur_6]



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by tothetenthpower
Ohh let's all loose are minds because the government isn't making our favorite weapons anymore.

Come on now folks, who cares, I think it's great that they aren't wasting money on continuing useless projects. We all know they have far better than the F22, that's just their public model.

I mean ok yes, the jobs, that's bad and perhaps another project should be given to the people who build them, but as far as I am concerned, less guns is good.

~Keeper


Many of you keep mentioning that the USA has something better than the F-22. Well what is it?? Does anyone have proof or have you all just read too many Tom Clancy novels? If and I mean if there is something out there not many of them have been built. It takes a large scale operation to build squadrons of planes/Triangles/UFO or whatever you think is out there. I haven't seen any hard evidence suggesting the USA has something far superior to the F-22 but I would love to see it!



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 03:22 PM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


Go read up on all of the F-15 airframe failures. Those birds are awesome but they are worn out. I'd rather have the latest and greatest available and in great condition if I was a pilot.



posted on Jul, 21 2009 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by on_yur_6
Back on topic. Where Russia, China, and India can hurt us is engagements near their territory. Our carriers are amazing but one carrier wouldn't last long off the shores of Russia, China, or India.


How about don't go invading their territory then...


Your country is skint. Spending in the US is about to nose-dive... big time. Alot of people will have an awful lot of readjusting to do, both in attitude and lifestyle.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by sweatmonicaIdo
 


Hey, don't knock the P51. I could use some for close air support in Astan, and I am not kidding. The SEALs are already looking at another turboprop to fill this role. Sometimes low and slow works great.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:13 AM
link   
www.flightglobal.com...


The US Senate today voted to end production of Lockheed Martin F-22s after 2011, overturning a challenge to the Obama Administration's defence budget priorities with a surprising 18-vote majority.

The Senate voted 58-40 to strip $1.75 billion for buying seven more F-22s beyond the 187 funded in the current programme of record. The money had been added in June by the powerful Senate Armed Services Committee



its over - the F22 is DEAD , Gates has got his way and the golden monkey , with all its problems will be the figher/bomber for the future.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:36 AM
link   
whats of interest is that as of now - the F22 can carry 3 different weapons: AIM-9 , AMRAAM and JDAM GBU-32 - 1000lb , and GBU-39 250lb)

and thats it


its not actually qualified to carry any other stores - whether internal or external, the ground mapping modes on the radar are very limited and are only now being intergrated - the typhoon has a greater ability there, and the helmet sights are still in developement as is the side looking radar, subject to block 30+ funding , which likely wont even happen.


so no powered guided AGM , no SEAD ability (actually the F35 cannot go `SEAD` either as the HARM cannot be carried internally either and isn`t in the IOC weapons fit)


so looking from the other side - whilst the F22 is a great air to air fighter - the world has changed and you need a jack of all trades from a cost point of view.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

so no powered guided AGM , no SEAD ability (actually the F35 cannot go `SEAD` either as the HARM cannot be carried internally either and isn`t in the IOC weapons fit)

Don't use current HARM or HARM at all then? I understand alternatives may not be integrated for some time, however. What about JSOW & JSM? No proper seeker I presume?

Also while searching I found these.

www.f-16.net.../%3Ethe%20missile%20is%20part%20of%20the

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:54 AM
link   
HARM isn`t intergrated on the F22 nor is it going to be (IMO) - its not even mentioned in the `might not be funded` block 40 , and the F35 doesn`t have HARM on the weapons list for IOC.

so literally the F22 can carry 1 short range and 1 medium range missile type - unpowered bombs , either SDB (8 of) or 1000lb GBU-32 (2 of) , and the gun


and thats it - the wings are fitted for fuel tanks and missiles only.

so with an A2A radar (no it cant do A2G yet) and limited A2G weapons , the F22 right now cant do SEAD or DEAD.

and this is why , right now - i think its being canned - whilst an amazing air dominance fighter - in the last 25 years , we can count the number of `air battles` on 1 hand; the biggest used aircraft in the sand box are harriers, A-10`s and F-16 bomb trucks.

F-15C`s are sitting looking pretty as hanger queens , so in a way Gates is right , although the F35 will be a compromise, and in its real world day to day fighting will have the wing tabs ripped off and be bombed up to the hilt anyway.


yes the HARM will be fitted to the F-35 but in its `first off the line` weapons fit - it wont have it.

www.defenseindustrydaily.com...-2908


edit:

The AGM-88E isn`t even in service yet - its also known as the AARGM , but again the fins are far to big to fit internally on either aircraft.

look at the threads recently over the proposed upgrades to the F22 costing nearly as much as the aircraft itself - this is what gates wants to kill - the rampant overspending on a platform that was never meant to bomb.

[edit on 22/7/09 by Harlequin]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:25 AM
link   
I heard about this quite a while back. I found it odd.

As I understand the F22 hasnt even seen combat yet... so its superiority is really just theory and stats is it not?
I dont understand why it is not used un Iraq and Afghanistan, unless they are afraid of losing an expensive thing (not to mention prestige of the greatest aircraft taken down), or maybe they are saving it for something better..?

I was shown some pictures of the new MiG MFI and the new Sukhoi and they look craaaazyyyy... supposedly outperforming but I do not have any stats. Anyone have them?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 06:47 AM
link   
Lets not overlook the fact that the f-22 is built in Marrietta Ga. a notably red state. This is more political punishment me thinks with our security being put at risk.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Ridhya
 


Nothing to shoot down in Iraq and Afghanistan.
It's pretty much theoretical how well it would do in an actual fight.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:57 AM
link   


Many of you keep mentioning that the USA has something better than the F-22. Well what is it?? Does anyone have proof or have you all just read too many Tom Clancy novels? If and I mean if there is something out there not many of them have been built. It takes a large scale operation to build squadrons of planes/Triangles/UFO or whatever you think is out there. I haven't seen any hard evidence suggesting the USA has something far superior to the F-22 but I would love to see it!


Also factor in cost. If it costs to much money to make the F-22 then how are we going to secure funding for the next gen air fighter? Not to mention development, testing etc etc.

From what I understand, the air fleet is pretty aged and replacements are needed. Will the JSF replace all those old F-15's 16's, 117a's and the ancient F-14's?

I see it as a pay me now or pay me later scenario. We can build 22's now at current cost and still have the best fighter on the planet or we can wait and build something new in 10 years at double the cost. What are the plans for filling in the gap between now and then?



[edit on 22-7-2009 by SwatMedic]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:01 AM
link   
F-117 was retired with no replacement. I think the F-35 will be the replacement in the long term, with the role partially covered short term with stand-off munitions like JASSM and JSOW. F-14 was "replaced" by the F/A-18E/F, though it is rather a slow strike aircraft rather than a fleet defense interceptor like the F-14 was. The F-35 will replace the F-16, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and Harrier - maybe A-10 in a few decades.


What are the plans for filling in the gap between now and then?

Upgrading the newest F-15's.

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
F-117 was retired with no replacement. I think the F-35 will be the replacement in the long term, with the role partially covered short term with stand-off munitions like JASSM and JSOW. F-14 was "replaced" by the F/A-18E/F, though it is rather a slow strike aircraft rather than a fleet defense interceptor like the F-14 was. The F-35 will replace the F-16, F/A-18A/B/C/D, and Harrier - maybe A-10 in a few decades.


What are the plans for filling in the gap between now and then?

Upgrading the newest F-15's.

[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]


So...is this sufficient? Do you know which planes are still in production...meaning are we still cranking out F-15's or upgrading old ones already in the stable?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:16 AM
link   
post removed for serious violation of ATS Terms & Conditions



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join