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: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by SwatMedic

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?


www.globalsecurity.org...

From what I understand, the oldest F-15 examples will be retired, while the newer aircraft will be upgraded, with AESA radar for example. No new aircraft are being procured, but the F-15 production line is still open and builds planes for foreign costomers.

The F-16 is undergoing upgrades but is planned to be completely phased out by the F-35 around 2025. The F-16 is still in production but not being procured by the US.

F/A-18A/B/C/D is out of production and is planned to be be phased out with F-35 by >2020.

F/A-18E/F is still in production and being procured by the US Navy. JSF is designed to compliment it.

And yes there is going to be a massive fighter shortfall that reaches peak I believe, late next decade. Even then force is so big and the F-22 so expensive that no amount of F-22's can help. There are still uncertainties with the F-35 so it would not be surprising for the F-15 and F-16 to be procured again.

On a side note...

What a day, first RAAF Super Hornet flies and the US Senate cancell the F-22A... Not a good day to be a card carrying member of Air Power Australia!

Abraham Gubler


[edit on 22/7/2009 by C0bzz]




posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
reply to post by kilcoo316
 


Nobody said anything about invading there territory. 12 miles out is international waters. USA uses the Navy to keep the sea lanes open. There are all kinds of scenarios where our aircraft carriers may be present during a conflict. taiwan comes to mind, how about Russia claiming the artic as their land now so they can drill for oil?

It's better to have more F-22's than might be needed instead of not having enough.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by C0bzz
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.


Everyone keeps talking up the F-15 and it's victories. Ask any F-15 pilot that has gone up against an F-22 and see what they have to say about the F-22's abilities.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:22 AM
link   
As much as I fell in love with the F-22, proven by it's ability to utterly obliterate the F-15 Eagle in air-to-air combat, which is no slouch, we had no choice. The cost was just to high. On the bright side, the JSF-35 designed to do more, like air-to-ground, will do a good job in place of the F-22's. Technology is the same generation. Not as perfect as the F-22 in air to air, but the difference is not that important.

One thing we can and should accelerate work on is our unmanned armed ROV/autonomous fighters. The F-22's computers inhibit manuverability so the pilot does not splatter one's brains on the instruments... Freed from this, Lord help any pilot who has to go up against a drone that can pull and maintain 20g's, and more.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 04:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by on_yur_6
USA uses the Navy to keep the sea lanes open.



The US uses its navy for much more than keeping sea lanes open.


Don't even try and pretend otherwise.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Gates is as brilliant as was McNamara.

Just as short-sighted.

The reason you HAVE advanced weapons is not to FIGHT a war, but to PREVENT a war.

And this BS about the F-35 replacing the A-10? Get serious!

You have to be a complete idiot to believe that.

We're losing SKILLED technicians in some critical areas once this line is closed.

I guess the thing that pissed me off the most is that our GROUND troops need to be able to rely on air cover.

Hundreds of times in the past several years, our troops have been left with their asses hanging out in the breeze because they could NOT get sufficient AIR support.

When a firefight goes on for hours, and not ONE SINGLE A-10, and not ONE SINGLE APACHE is available, then we may want to rethink the F-35's all purpose promise.

McNamara did the identical same thing with the F-111. It was a do-everything DO NOTHING.

We need A-10 replacements, and we need the high-end F-22's, and fewer of the middle-road crap.

FINE! If the US can't buy anymore, then let's sell them to Japan and Israel. Anything to keep the production line open and operating.

This will eventually cost hundreds and likely thousands of American lives on the ground.

THEN how much will these damned planes cost?



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 07:24 PM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


Yeah we don't have the best fighter aircraft in the world without the F-22, of which we have 170+ in service. We can just buy whatever we want in life and never have to worry about the cost...sure, right. Even John McCain said the program should be shelved. Who are you afraid of? The North Korean Air Force?? We don't need the F-22 to maintain air dominance for the next 30+ years so let's spend that money on things we do need imo.



posted on Jul, 22 2009 @ 10:13 PM
link   
reply to post by hawkeye1717
 


John McCain is just Obama light. I really don't care what his views are about future weapon systems. I'm sure those that lose their jobs won't care either.



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 01:24 AM
link   

And this BS about the F-35 replacing the A-10? Get serious!

You have to be a complete idiot to believe that.

It would not be surprising in the least to see this.


We're losing SKILLED technicians in some critical areas once this line is closed.

Many will be moved to F-35... most, actually.


When a firefight goes on for hours, and not ONE SINGLE A-10, and not ONE SINGLE APACHE is available, then we may want to rethink the F-35's all purpose promise.

What are you talking about? F-35 is not replacing Apache, only possibly the A-10 after 2028.


same thing with the F-111. It was a do-everything DO NOTHING.

???? F-15, F-16, F-18 are all multirole and the best fighters ever created.


We need A-10 replacements, and we need the high-end F-22's, and fewer of the middle-road crap.

How many more do you think they should get?


We/Allies aren't bying F-35s "just in case" like how people are saying we should do with the F-22. The actual demand exist for missions the F-35 performs. They are happening everyday in the CENTCOM AOR and off the decks of USN Carriers.

DarthAmerica on f-16 dot net.


And yes I think more F-22's would be great but I don't think cutting the F-35 to make room would be the smartest move. And um, how would more F-22's instead of more F-35's help the troops?

[edit on 23/7/2009 by C0bzz]



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 07:58 PM
link   
clinton destroyed our military bush built it back up now obama is destroying it again democrats rather spend money on programs that are supposed to help American citizens but it only ends up helping illegals since their include in the funding and take nearly 90%of it the other 10 goes into admin costs or gets screwed away when the new generation aircraft start being sold to our enemies then we will rebuild but at even more costs than previous before

if they would have bought all the f22s at once it would have been 80 million a plane but instead they only bought 4 to 10 guaranteed a year with no guarantee of more for the following year so their 150 to 180 million a plane original plan was to buy 700 raptors then went to 350 then 240 now 187 witch is kinda ironic considering 187 means murder they just killed our air dominance

so now for the price of 187 raptors we could have got 1000 +
just more wasteful spending congress sucks we need term limits for em just like the president



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by standupamerica32
 


bush started the cuts in the raptor buy


you do know that don`t you?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 08:44 PM
link   
I just saw a technology show here on tv in Scandinavia.

The Americans said that these are the last manned fighters in history?

The future belongs to unmanned uaw and such, robot war and 3D grid and chit!

Gates said the days of the traditional fighter pilot was over?



posted on Jul, 23 2009 @ 09:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


im not just talking raptors obama is cutting back in all aspects of the military
with the exception of surveillance aircraft and a limited number of new troops 10000 or so but when it come to artillery system that need to be replaced he stopping funding the air dominance fighter f22 he stop funding altogether going to stop plans for the ddg100 destroyers witch and stop any threat from an ememy to an aircraft carrier i can go on and on he is going to destroy this military ability to fight a powerful enemy even a semi powerful enemy like a Iran or nkorea (just for example)



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 03:18 AM
link   

when it come to artillery system that need to be replaced he stopping funding



XM2001 Crusader was cancelled , by Bush, in 2002


the air dominance fighter f22 he stop funding altogether


about damn time - there is no role for the F22 now - its an A2A only with very limited A2G - unpowered short range `iron` bombs is all it will carry.


going to stop plans for the ddg100 destroyers witch and stop any threat from an ememy to an aircraft carrier



the new DDG`s cost nearly the same as an aircraft carrier


each


for 1 zumwalt you can get 4.2 arleigh burkes or nearly 1 nimitz carrier or even ,


ready for this?


3 wasp class asault carriers for the marines (USS Bataan cost $731 million)


thats why the navy are buying 2 - they are the biggest , most expensive mistake ever made - the manufacturer needs to be dragged out and shot for the over the top costs.

even the new corvettes are nothing like cheap.


the entire procurement system is a bloated corrupt mess - the ambiguous `$500 toothbrush` which needs to be kicked into touch.



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:05 AM
link   
reply to post by on_yur_6
 


yo F that, honeslty you shouldlt cut an air dominance aircract that the first of its class. ofcourse its going to cost alot if its going to be the first legit 5th generation fighter class, not to mention if we have the first 5th generation fighter class we will control the skies. i have no idea why there going to cancel it. its kind of pointless when no other country has a 5th generation fighter......



posted on Jul, 24 2009 @ 04:09 AM
link   

the air dominance fighter f22 he stop funding altogether


about damn time - there is no role for the F22 now - its an A2A only with very limited A2G - unpowered short range `iron` bombs is all it will carry.

the air dominance is not over. obivously russia is trying to build there 5th generation fighter which will try to challenge the raptor. its just not worth canceiling a project thats cost billions of dollars and not to mentions many years to produce. so why would you waste that many years or research to produce the worlds best fighter aircract



posted on Jul, 27 2009 @ 01:41 PM
link   
On July 24, 2009 CongressNow reports that Congressman Murtha is considering supplemental funding to add 20 more F-22 fighter jets to the fiscal 2010 Defense appropriations bill. This number reflects the view of General Schwartz's ideal number for a total of 200+ F-22s.

Murtha added that the threat by other nations like China requires building more F-22s than the 187 currently planned. Murtha also noted the plan to sell an export variant to Japan as a counter measure against NK missiles for instance.

And for the sake of clarification, the Senate voted to cut off funding in their current version of the appropriations bill BUT both houses have to agree on a single appropriations bill before it goes to the White House. Supplemental funding may very well work its magic as might a Congressional nod to an export version of the F-22.

How that pendulum swings . . .



posted on Jul, 30 2009 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Ummm take this to your BANK no pun internded. The US economy is coming back and with the "attitude and lifestyle" adjustments this country will be back stronger and stronger than ever.



Originally posted by kilcoo316

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 Aug, 1 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
F-22 funding was cut because we have a new plane to spend money on.

[edit on 1-8-2009 by Holographic]



posted on Aug, 2 2009 @ 02:49 AM
link   
reply to post by Holographic
 


The F-35 is not designed as an alternative to the F-22. Put it this way.

" The F-22 is turning out to be the American Mig-25 Foxbat for those old enough to remember the effect that aircraft had. A phenominally awesome fighter but designed for very specific roles."

-DarthAmerica




Oh, and does anyone else find it amusing that people think a lone F-22 can defeat the S-300 with freefall weapons?

[edit on 2/8/2009 by C0bzz]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join