Military slashes programs. F-22 production has ceased.

[Chowboy]

Correct, the future has arrived. The advantages of un-manned combat aircraft has been proven, and the technology is already effective in the early stages, and the technology is moving ahead very very fast.

We will be seeing (or maybe not as much is being kept secret) a change in air warfare on a scale very similar to that of the introduction of tanks and mechanize warfare on the ground.

It was in the WSJ yesterday, that the Taliban/Al-Qaeda delivered an ultimatum to the Afghan/Pakistan governments that they will start a campaign of having 2 suicide bombings each week, until the US stops using their UAV attacks. That tell us just how effective these are already. And again, we are just beginning to apply them in the real war theatre.

Not just the advantages that they do have and will have tactically, but economically they will be a huge success particularly as they move into mass production with economies of scale.

Well said. The paradigm has shifted and the services will get on board even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming (The fighter jocks are the most resistent - they gotta have their new crotch rocket to bore holes in the sky.

[BuildKing]

This makes no sense. It's not about "getting the job done" when we need to have air superiority.

Air superiority against who? Afganistan? Iraq?
The USA will not fight a war against Russia or China because of MAD , its impossible , who do you need 500 F-22's for air superiority for?

[Chowboy]

Air superiority against who? Afganistan? Iraq?
The USA will not fight a war against Russia or China because of MAD , its impossible , who do you need 500 F-22's for air superiority for?

Limited, non-nuclear warfare with a "super power" has to be in the potential warfare scenarios that the DOD considers and plans for. Anything else would be short sighted and, possibly, suicidal.

[Ibanez]

Air superiority against who? Afganistan? Iraq?
The USA will not fight a war against Russia or China because of MAD , its impossible , who do you need 500 F-22's for air superiority for?

The Cold War Warriors need them, not want them. They are essential to a healthy psychological complex and a fundamental need of every human.

I don't know about you, but the battle of end times against Russia and China is fast approaching and you have to ask yourself...do you really want to be a pussy in Cessna or be the **** in your f-22 dropping bombs on Moscow or Beijing?

The latest book from the DoD says "Slavs and Chinese aren't humans" so if Slavs and Chinese aren't humans how can killing them wrong? Answer, it can't, it's nothing more than throwing away a piece of paper.

Sure, Russia or China would launch ICBMs, but it doesn't matter, we got star wars and obi wan will blast those mutherfackers out of the sky. Yeah, you're laughing now, but when the death star is complete ain't nobody gonna fack with America.

I don't know about you, but if every man, woman, and child doesn't have their own personal F-22, well, that's just pro evil, anti life, and fundamentally immoral.

So the question is, are you a Cessna or an F-22?

The only thing immoral about the military industrial complex is we don't spend half our GDP on it.

[TheStender]

So the question is, are you a Cessna or an F-22?

Can a F-22 do this?

[ripper6]

Well said. The paradigm has shifted and the services will get on board even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming (The fighter jocks are the most resistent - they gotta have their new crotch rocket to bore holes in the sky.

They might like their crotch rockets, but they are also very bright guys. I was impressed when a listened to a long interview with a top gun pilot a few months ago talking about pilotless combat aircraft. He did say that his generation was the last. UAVs are definitely going to take over. I don't doubt that there will be combat pilots trained, so they can better fill the seats and deploy UAVs from their control base in Nevada or where ever, but the age of UAVs is here and has changed the whole game in the air.

I remember how, in both Iraq wars, Sadaam Hussein gave bounties and orders for the capture of American pilots. We saw what happened to John McCain and other pilots in Viet Nam. Always, there is the reluctance of the civilian government to commit actual lives to an operation. The propaganda and morale and diplomatic problems, etc, were always feared. That is all out of the picture with UAVs.

I continue to marvel that the far left president Obama is NOT reluctant to use UAVs daily to cross national borders and attack terrorists. That says a lot about the impact of this technology.

[edible_eye]

It's not an all or nothing deal though. We already have over 100 (135?) of them, and they're planning to fulfill the contract of another 187 (through 2011). That's a lot of F-22's given their capabilities. It's also only the proposed budget for 2010, they can always decide to increase development of another type of craft in the 2011 budget, decide they need more F-22's and put more in the budget before production even stops etc. It's not like they're cutting money out of the budget and leaving the US weakened. They're moving money to make our military more effective in the types of conflicts more likely to happen in the coming years.

You're mixing my response to kel's posts with a feeling that I'm concerned about the cessation of the F-22 program. I'm not.

My father is involved with the program, same as he's been involved with many military development programs. It's no big deal - machines are made, maintained, retired and replaced. That's life and the military.

Thanx, though.

[ripper6]

Well said. The paradigm has shifted and the services will get on board even if they have to be dragged kicking and screaming (The fighter jocks are the most resistent - they gotta have their new crotch rocket to bore holes in the sky.

The UAV concept is moving into tanks and ships, etc., too.

[Ibanez]

Can a F-22 do this?

BROWSKI, CAN A CESSNA DO THIS?



I don't know about you BROWSKI but I like to drop my bombs and drink my tea too.

[NotRippedYet]

You're mixing my response to kel's posts with a feeling that I'm concerned about the cessation of the F-22 program. I'm not.

My father is involved with the program, same as he's been involved with many military development programs. It's no big deal - machines are made, maintained, retired and replaced. That's life and the military.

Thanx, though.

My apologies then. It seems to be a common theme in this thread (as well as the few in the Misc) that everyone assumes that the plan is to pull the plug on F-22 production immediately, and funnel the funds outside of military spending. When in actuality it will still put us at over 300 F-22's and the money will be spent on increasing our ground troops by half a million, give better response and deploy time through increased utilization/technology of helicopters, and increase our short range capabilities from the sea.

[edible_eye]

My apologies then. It seems to be a common theme in this thread (as well as the few in the Misc) that everyone assumes that the plan is to pull the plug on F-22 production immediately, and funnel the funds outside of military spending. When in actuality it will still put us at over 300 F-22's and the money will be spent on increasing our ground troops by half a million, give better response and deploy time through increased utilization/technology of helicopters, and increase our short range capabilities from the sea.

No need to apologize, man. It's cool.

I have no qualms about our power as a military force or the overwhelming acuity of our arsenal - if anything, my concerns have to do with the Washington pols at the helm and their willingness to let our boys and girls in uniform do the jobs thy've been trained to do.

But I guess that's an age old complaint.

[Boxman]

What a bunch of military noobs. If you much of anything about the US armed forces, you'd know we sure as **** don't need F-22's to gain air superiority.

We could cancel the entire F-22 program and still having nothing to worry about for decades to come. Indeed we could freeze every new weapons systems in the current pipeline for 20 years and still have nothing to worry about. The simple fact is, the US armed forces are many decades ahead of everyone else, not just in terms of quality, but also in terms of sheer quantity.

That's an important point lost on the ill-informed military noobs that always call for more defense spending. They don't realize our armed forces are actually HUGE.

We have more tanks and armored fighting vehicles than any other nation (yes, even China). We have more combat aircraft, more transport aircraft, more AWACS, refuellers, etc. Our navy is so vast (in both #'s and capability) that you could add up all the navies of the entire world put together and they still wouldn't compare.

We also have many force multipliers that no other country even possesses, like stealth bombers with enough range to hit anything on the globe without warning (B-2), or massive nuclear-powered aircraft carriers that pack more punch than most countries' entire air and naval forces combined. Another huge force multiplier we hold a monopoly on: UAV's - and we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg when it comes to that next big revolution in air power.

Most people are unaware the US spends more on its armed forces than the rest of the world combined. Those who support higher defense spending are typically uninformed; they think the US armed forces are small and underfunded, which is total nonsense.

This is the perfect time to cut defense spending and take advantage of the new, cheaper technologies that we currently hold a virtual monopoly on. We can end up with a vastly cheaper but more capable (and flexible) military. The key is spend smarter, not bigger. Capitalize on the new technologies that give the greatest "bang per buck" - to that end we should actually kill off the pointless Cold-War era boondoggles like the F-22, the new "Gerald R. Ford" aircraft carrier class, the proposed XM-series artillery, etc. Tons of useless crap that would cost trillions and never see combat.

[Snoopis]

A couple points about the JSF. For one, it is NOT an air superiority fighter. It will be pretty good at most everything, but I don't think it is even close to the F-22 in that role. The role of the JSF pretty much depends on the F-22 to provide that air superiority - if we don't get it, then we're going to lose a lot of JSFs because they will be getting hammered trying to do their job.

Further, it won't be nearly as cheap as people say it will. They say $83mil, but you know by the time the ball really gets rolling it will be well over $100mil and that's assuming high production numbers. Also, again, that Silent Eagle option was $100mil and if you want to make it worth a **** it will cost even more, and it still won't be anywhere near the F-22.

The JSF is also not as close to being ready as you might think. Even the Wiki link earlier says while the 4 aircraft being delivered this year are production, there are 13 more being built for testing. The flight test program has a LOT of work left. I don't know exactly how much, but if they tell you it is a year's worth, it will be three. They just built (actually I think it is not complete the main building structure is up) a huge hangar at Pax River NAS and they will be hiring hundreds of engineers over the next couple years for the flight test program. Back to the Wiki link, look at the history of the test schedule for the first F-35:

19 Feb 2006 : first roll-out
15 Dec 2006 : first flight
31 Jan 2008 : evaluated by first military service pilot, on the jet's 26th flight

That's 26 flights in two years. They might start full-rate production and begin deliveries in 2010, but they will be operationally limited until all that testing is complete (years later). And all this assumes things go well.




Someone sarcastically mentioned that we won't lose a war just because we don't have 1000 F-22s. The question isn't will we win or lose, but will we win decisively! We don't need to sit on our asses and wait for a fair fight. If we find ourselves in a fair fight, or even only at a slight advantage, we have screwed the pooch.

[...Rousseau...]

The F-22 is the best game changing weapon we have come up with. We will likely have a fairly intense cold war with China in the future. Victory or defeat may come as a direct result of how many F-22s we have. Yeah, we are fighting terrorists today, but when you build a fighter you are thinking about tomorrow. They take decades to develop and they will likely remain relevant for decades.

The F-22 has no comparison. They would neutralize an enemy airforce without even being detected. This is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on.

[NJlifter88]

It's actually a $21B increase over the current budget.

i believe it. its kinda ridiculous IMO. i guess i just look at the bright side of things because in these times of government expansion, at least they cut something.

[frankenstein]

we will no longer have the air advantage in 2020 and beyond. we have lost our edge because of this.

No offense, but that's propaganda you are obviously regurgitating right there. The US is so far ahead of the rest of the world's air force, not only in tech but in size too. How does it make ANY sense to build hundreds of planes that will not see the light of day likely ever? By the time these planes could POSSIBLY be actually needed, they'll be outdated. What is wrong with building military needs as needed and just slightly ahead of time? Building these planes is such an obvious waste of money, it's not even funny.

I was stoked to see this news story. Finally some intelligent decision making regarding our military spending. Hopefully, this is just the beginning and we'll see more intelligent moves made. You know, like removing the tens of thousands of permanently stationed troop levels in Germany and South Korea.

The jobs argument is such bull**** too. Yes, some more people will become unemployed. There's no reason to keep people employed by spending money on blatant bull****. If we're going to build hundreds more of these planes above and beyond the nearly 200 that have already been built, the govt may as well have people with tiny brooms sweeping streets and paying them $20/hr to do so. Inefficiency is inefficiency my friends. Waste is waste. To Robert Gates, I say good job, Dave man.

[Chowboy]

No offense, but that's propaganda you are obviously regurgitating right there. The US is so far ahead of the rest of the world's air force, not only in tech but in size too. How does it make ANY sense to build hundreds of planes that will not see the light of day likely ever? By the time these planes could POSSIBLY be actually needed, they'll be outdated. What is wrong with building military needs as needed and just slightly ahead of time? Building these planes is such an obvious waste of money, it's not even funny.

It's that kind of philosophy that makes for an unprepared country. While I am all for cancelling the F-22 at current quantities, we still must maintain a strong and technologically current force structure. That will require the continued development of new platforms and maintenance and upgrade of existing. Anything else is Carteresque.

Lead time for any new platform is 3 to 4 years just to get to the point of producing. If you are in a **** storm, you don't have that kind of time.

[r0gue6]

The F-22 is the best game changing weapon we have come up with. We will likely have a fairly intense cold war with China in the future. Victory or defeat may come as a direct result of how many F-22s we have. Yeah, we are fighting terrorists today, but when you build a fighter you are thinking about tomorrow. They take decades to develop and they will likely remain relevant for decades.

The F-22 has no comparison. They would neutralize an enemy airforce without even being detected. This is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on.

I'd rather have radar and lasers....but that's just me.

[AA43560]

The F-22 is the best game changing weapon we have come up with. We will likely have a fairly intense cold war with China in the future. Victory or defeat may come as a direct result of how many F-22s we have. Yeah, we are fighting terrorists today, but when you build a fighter you are thinking about tomorrow. They take decades to develop and they will likely remain relevant for decades.

The F-22 has no comparison. They would neutralize an enemy airforce without even being detected. This is the one thing we SHOULD be spending money on.

Wow your really naive. The F-22 is an outstanding plane, but its not a gift from God or anything. Against a skilled pilot, it can still lose.

Stop watching so much future weapons.

[Snoopis]

As for the over-all defense budget, I think it's important to keep it in context. Defense spending was pretty low from the late 80s and through the 90s, and only really started to increase after 9/11. At that point, we were playing catch-up. A big chunk of our spending at that point was just spent replacing old stuff. Well, sort of. A lot of money that could have been spent replacing or upgrading old stuff was instead spent in Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not saying that was a good thing or a bad thing, but that's what happened. Imagine what our military would look like today if all that money was spent on procurement. So anyway, we are still playing catch-up while also trying to push forward new programs at the same time because we know the old stuff will be obsolete soon. There's just a lot of stuff to spend money on!

The US is so far ahead of the rest of the world's air force, not only in tech but in size too. How does it make ANY sense to build hundreds of planes that will not see the light of day likely ever? By the time these planes could POSSIBLY be actually needed, they'll be outdated. What is wrong with building military needs as needed and just slightly ahead of time? Building these planes is such an obvious waste of money, it's not even funny.

The fact that we produce so many of these bad-ass machines is one of the biggest reasons they will "not see the light of day." Si vis pacem para bellum.

[sharkeh]

maybe the government should think over their retarded procurement process

in WWII they designed and constructed aircraft in much shorter periods of time, like 1-2 years... now it takes 20 years

[dr_D]

maybe the government should think over their retarded procurement process

in WWII they designed and constructed aircraft in much shorter periods of time, like 1-2 years... now it takes 20 years

you can't just bolt together a frame, solder on some wings, slap on an engine and propeller and send it into battle like back then...

these machines are extremely sophisticated. They cannot be mass produced at the pace and ease it was possible back then. And there is no urgency to begin with.

[sharkeh]

you can't just bolt together a frame, solder on some wings, slap on an engine and propeller and send it into battle like back then...

these machines are extremely sophisticated. They cannot be mass produced at the pace and ease it was possible back then. And there is no urgency to begin with.

i know and accept that

the first flight for the YF-22 took place in 1990! F-22, 1997!

Then it enters service in late 2005

15 years? please... it can be done better than that

[dr_D]

these f-22s probably have Pentium or Pentium II processors lol

[bubba g]

we will no longer have the air advantage in 2020 and beyond. we have lost our edge because of this.

They will have the current f-22s for years, and years. If I'm not mistaken there are f-15s that have been in service since the 70s

There are b-52s that have been in service since the 40s.

They should develop something off the design of the f-22 that is super smooth, as opposed to being coated with stealth material.

Advanced radars can pick them up no problem anyway.

[Snoopis]

maybe the government should think over their retarded procurement process

in WWII they designed and constructed aircraft in much shorter periods of time, like 1-2 years... now it takes 20 years

I'll tell you some of the biggest problems.

Back in the day (probably 30 years ago), the government would award a contract. Then the contractor would build a couple test aircraft, run through a quick test program to make sure it actually flies and can safely drop a bomb or whatever. Then they would crank up production and start spitting them out.

After they got into service, they would start to find deficiencies, like "x" wears out too fast, or "b" is too hard to replace. Or maybe they would add a new requirement, like all of the sudden it has to be able to land and take-off fully loaded at 12,000ft elevation instead of 6,000ft. Or maybe they have a new radar to install. So they would run a small test program to incorporate these new changes, then implement those changes in new production aircraft and call it "block b" or the "c model" or whatever you want to call it.

Then the "block b" would go into service and eventually they find something else that needs fixing or upgrading, and they go through that process again.


Fast-forward to today. They go through everything I just mentioned 4 times before they actually start production. Basically all the little things they would fix along the way, or upgrades they would add to the next production block, are being done in the initial development phase now. They want to produce the PERFECT airplane on the first go, which is impossible. So development drags on and on and on... AND, while they're trying to fix all the little things, after several years they realize they don't have the time or money to make the real important changes like new engines or a bigger wing.


Another problem is just government involvement in general. The first thing they do after you win the contract is change a bunch of requirements. I really wish the contractors would raise hell when this happens, but they're probably afraid it would cost them contracts in the future - don't bite the hand that feeds you. Then they want to have a bunch of their own managers and engineers integrated into the test program to "help" the program along, and, well, you know how that goes. Also, when you have multiple contractors, subcontractors, etc., then you also have to deal with each of them having their own rules and and communications problems between them, plus dealing with ITAR regulation, etc. Again, it goes on, and on, and on, and...