President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates have won a standoff over funding the creation of new F-22 fighters.
The Senate voted 58-40 Tuesday to take out $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense appropriations bill that would have gone toward building seven new F-22s.
Mr. Obama immediately hailed the decision, saying it will "better protect our troops."
"I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," he said. "...And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5177419.shtml
-edit 2.0-
A lot of people are missing the point. It's not that they scrapped the F-22 to save money. Oh god no. I know just as much as anyone that we're broke, and we need to make cuts somewhere. If a single penny of that money was going towards a viable domestic venture, I'd have never made this post.
But no. Congress cuts the Raptor, and somehow THE DEFENSE BUDGET INCREASED!! How the fuck does that happen? They just diverted the money to the Joint Strike Fighter. While I like the F-35A, it's no replacement for a fighter like the Raptor. That's my gripe.
Well, that and the fact that everyone makes it out to be a useless jet, when it's better than everything out there.
The Senate voted 58-40 Tuesday to take out $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense appropriations bill that would have gone toward building seven new F-22s.
Mr. Obama immediately hailed the decision, saying it will "better protect our troops."
"I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," he said. "...And that's why I'm grateful that the Senate just voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 fighter jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need."
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/07/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5177419.shtml
[soapbox]
Personally, I think this is the worst political-military blunder since Napoleon laughed at the inventor of steam-powered warships. Secretary Gates said that the F-22 is a "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios." While I can't argue that the F-22 was built from the ground-up to do one thing, and one thing only: kill anything that flies within a 40 mile radius, I'd hardly call that scenario 'niche'. No war since World War I has been won without Air Superiority, and F-22 is the best Air Superiority fighter in the world.
The Raptor DOMINATED in 2007's and 2008's Operation Red Flag. For those not in the know, Operation Red Flag is like the E3 of NATO operations. Every year, Air Forces and Navies from each of the NATO countries send pilots and planes to Nellis AFB to participate in the world's largest simulated war, where the teams are separated into rookies and aces. During last year's Red Flag, The USAF sent 12 F-22s, all with rookie pilots. These pilots, who have never been in a furball outside of a simulator, had a kill to death ratio of 244-2. No, that's not a typo. And one of the 2 deaths was due to blue team's AWACS controller having a brain fart. Anyone who says the Raptor is outdated or worthless, is quite frankly, talking out of their ass.
Another concern I'd like to raise is the F-22's Replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 was never designed to take over for the F-22. It was first designed as a stealthy multirole fighter with Air to Ground capabilities that would supplement the F-22's air dominance in joint missions. It's slower, less agile, and less stealthy than the F-22, and it burns more gas. It doesn't have the thrust-to-weight ratio to compete with Russian and Chinese Sukhois in a dogfight, and it doesn't have the fuel capacity for a sustained battle. The F-35 is a great fighter-bomber, and it's stealth makes it ideal for SEAD missions, but it is a far cry from being an air battle winner.
Our current Air Superiority Fighter, the F-15 Eagle, is coming up on 40 years old. That's fucking old. The first F-15s flew when Vietnam was still going on. Granted, no F-15 has ever been lost in an engagement with another plane, we might not have to lose them to an enemy fighter. Just a year and a half ago, the entire F-15 fleet had to be grounded for weeks, because one of the fighters broke apart in mid air [http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123074547]. I wish I was making this up; The plane literally disintegrated around the pilot. The next best jet we have, the F-16 Falcon, is only 5 years younger. We desperately need a replacement for our 1,100 Eagles, and 1,200 Falcons, and 187 F-22s, and 1,000 JSFs are not going to cut it.
The only real argument against the F-22 is it's price. At $137 million a pop, it's obviously a tough pill to swallow. And with the state the deficit is in, I can see where the president is coming from. The JSF, being that it costs half as much, is obviously the more attractive solution. So much more attractive, that Robert Gates wants to up the Air Force's order of F-35's from 1000, to 1700. Am I missing something here? We don't have the money to build 200 more F-22's, but we have the money to build 700 more F-35s. And let's not even get into the multi-trillion dollar quagmire we're fighting in a country we have no business in.
Well, it's not like it matters anymore. The F-22 project has been suspended, and it's not likely it will be resumed. Until we find the money for a decent 5th generation dogfighter, we can only hope our wars consist of beating up nations with no air force.
[/soapbox]
-edit-
And let me take this time to point out that I'm far from objective in this matter. Last semester, Gates' cuts to the Air Force screwed me out of a commission. The man can rot in hell for all I care. Still, I know a thing or two about fighters, and that just makes me think he's an even bigger asshole for pushing this.
Personally, I think this is the worst political-military blunder since Napoleon laughed at the inventor of steam-powered warships. Secretary Gates said that the F-22 is a "a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios." While I can't argue that the F-22 was built from the ground-up to do one thing, and one thing only: kill anything that flies within a 40 mile radius, I'd hardly call that scenario 'niche'. No war since World War I has been won without Air Superiority, and F-22 is the best Air Superiority fighter in the world.
The Raptor DOMINATED in 2007's and 2008's Operation Red Flag. For those not in the know, Operation Red Flag is like the E3 of NATO operations. Every year, Air Forces and Navies from each of the NATO countries send pilots and planes to Nellis AFB to participate in the world's largest simulated war, where the teams are separated into rookies and aces. During last year's Red Flag, The USAF sent 12 F-22s, all with rookie pilots. These pilots, who have never been in a furball outside of a simulator, had a kill to death ratio of 244-2. No, that's not a typo. And one of the 2 deaths was due to blue team's AWACS controller having a brain fart. Anyone who says the Raptor is outdated or worthless, is quite frankly, talking out of their ass.
Another concern I'd like to raise is the F-22's Replacement, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. The F-35 was never designed to take over for the F-22. It was first designed as a stealthy multirole fighter with Air to Ground capabilities that would supplement the F-22's air dominance in joint missions. It's slower, less agile, and less stealthy than the F-22, and it burns more gas. It doesn't have the thrust-to-weight ratio to compete with Russian and Chinese Sukhois in a dogfight, and it doesn't have the fuel capacity for a sustained battle. The F-35 is a great fighter-bomber, and it's stealth makes it ideal for SEAD missions, but it is a far cry from being an air battle winner.
Our current Air Superiority Fighter, the F-15 Eagle, is coming up on 40 years old. That's fucking old. The first F-15s flew when Vietnam was still going on. Granted, no F-15 has ever been lost in an engagement with another plane, we might not have to lose them to an enemy fighter. Just a year and a half ago, the entire F-15 fleet had to be grounded for weeks, because one of the fighters broke apart in mid air [http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123074547]. I wish I was making this up; The plane literally disintegrated around the pilot. The next best jet we have, the F-16 Falcon, is only 5 years younger. We desperately need a replacement for our 1,100 Eagles, and 1,200 Falcons, and 187 F-22s, and 1,000 JSFs are not going to cut it.
The only real argument against the F-22 is it's price. At $137 million a pop, it's obviously a tough pill to swallow. And with the state the deficit is in, I can see where the president is coming from. The JSF, being that it costs half as much, is obviously the more attractive solution. So much more attractive, that Robert Gates wants to up the Air Force's order of F-35's from 1000, to 1700. Am I missing something here? We don't have the money to build 200 more F-22's, but we have the money to build 700 more F-35s. And let's not even get into the multi-trillion dollar quagmire we're fighting in a country we have no business in.
Well, it's not like it matters anymore. The F-22 project has been suspended, and it's not likely it will be resumed. Until we find the money for a decent 5th generation dogfighter, we can only hope our wars consist of beating up nations with no air force.
[/soapbox]
-edit-
And let me take this time to point out that I'm far from objective in this matter. Last semester, Gates' cuts to the Air Force screwed me out of a commission. The man can rot in hell for all I care. Still, I know a thing or two about fighters, and that just makes me think he's an even bigger asshole for pushing this.
-edit 2.0-
A lot of people are missing the point. It's not that they scrapped the F-22 to save money. Oh god no. I know just as much as anyone that we're broke, and we need to make cuts somewhere. If a single penny of that money was going towards a viable domestic venture, I'd have never made this post.
But no. Congress cuts the Raptor, and somehow THE DEFENSE BUDGET INCREASED!! How the fuck does that happen? They just diverted the money to the Joint Strike Fighter. While I like the F-35A, it's no replacement for a fighter like the Raptor. That's my gripe.
Well, that and the fact that everyone makes it out to be a useless jet, when it's better than everything out there.
