The Raptor is dead.

[Chiefmon]

Why don't we just spend less money on giant fighter jets, and more on world peace?

World Peace is impossible for one. No matter what happens Earth will always have at least two rival powers. Hopefully one of them will be the USA. Secondly, war is costly, and those costs go towards arms, the arms supplied by the home nation. So without war or an army to fight it, the world would lose a huge percentage of jobs. This doesn't mean that we always need war, but to eliminate it would hurt the global job market. Besides war is sometimes needed to get rid of the bad blood between nations. Kind of a "Oh man we screwed up. No no, we screwed up." sort of deal.

That's why we spend money on intergalactic travel, so that we can have "World" peace.

 

[Private Custard]

Actually the only "animals" that deibirately kill their own kind are... Humans.

Someone needs to do some research before typing!

 

[psijac]

The Raptor's Dead? Someone tell Randall Munroe!


...No? Not funny?

TOO SOON!


Also i wish the Osprey would die

 

[Outamyhead]

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"I reject the notion that we have to waste billions of taxpayer dollars on outdated and unnecessary defense projects to keep this nation secure," he said.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

Spoiler: Preachy soapbox text-wall

[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.

-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.

Erm better protect the troops how?

Iraq, and Afghanistan don't have any air power, Iran...meh nothing an F-18 couldn't handle, Israel more of the same old stuff, North Korea ummm....farts in a tin?

The F-22 is an air superiority fighter that means it's just air combat, it was not meant to strafe, bomb, or launch rockets at the ground. Now if they stuck money into keeping the A-10's flying (there aren't many left, and it's supposed to last until 2028) then that would be a smart move, that plane has killed more armour than the tank battalions put together...and two helicopters.

Hmmm which is more menacing to the enemy, ugly as sin wearing a sharks grin, armed to the gills, A-10...or the lawn dart looking piddly single engine (less likely to survive an engine failure, or heavy damage for that matter), flies too fast for ground attack, f-35?

 

[ElephantGuts]

The JSF is much more valuable than the Raptor and much more worthy of the funding. The USAF already has overwhelming air superiority with the fighters it already has, primarily the already existing F-22s (which are more than enough) and F-15s. But even those planes can't provide what we really need, which are multirole attack aircraft capable of being based and operating close to anywhere there is ground warfare, particularly amphibious invasions.

All we have for that now is the Harrier, which is already several decades old. The JSF is an amazing plane that can perform anything the Raptor could do and more, considering that the Raptor would never even be used to its full potential.

Spending the money on more Raptors would be a complete waste. We still don't even need the JSF or any new military aircraft that bad considering the types of military conflicts we are getting into, but if we're going to spend money on any plane it should clearly be the F-35.

 

[ElephantGuts]

The JSF is much more valuable than the Raptor and much more worthy of the funding. The USAF already has overwhelming air superiority with the fighters it already has, primarily the already existing F-22s (which are more than enough) and F-15s. But even those planes can't provide what we really need, which are multirole attack aircraft capable of being based and operating close to anywhere there is ground warfare, particularly amphibious invasions.

All we have for that now is the Harrier, which is already several decades old. The JSF is an amazing plane that can perform anything the Raptor could do and more, considering that the Raptor would never even be used to its full potential.

Spending the money on more Raptors would be a complete waste. We still don't even need the JSF or any new military aircraft that bad considering the types of military conflicts we are getting into, but if we're going to spend money on any plane it should clearly be the F-35.

Good man. Idealy what we would need, as far as air to ground cover, is a retooled or even new version of the A-10 Thunderbolt. The AC-130 Specter has become popular once again, but that thing is from 1965. With so much fuss about the F-22 people forget that the AH-64 and the AH-1 do most of the heavy lifting, so to speak, when it comes to air support.

What we need is an F-35/A-10 hybrid. I would have an orgasm.

 

[Devil's Due]

We need a new President.

 

[Unreliable]

Why don't we just spend less money on giant fighter jets, and more on world peace?

World Peace is a good idea in theory, but as long as we have bat-sh*t crazy dictators ruling their countries through Either Religion or Military Force, it will never come to fruition

Like George W Bush.

 

[Sparrow]

Thought this had something to do with the Bioshock sequel then. Thank god it didn't.

Then again, not really sure what to make of this. Just so I know... is this a bad thing?

 

[Amnestic]

Thought this had something to do with the Bioshock sequel then. Thank god it didn't.

Then again, not really sure what to make of this. Just so I know... is this a bad thing?

No. Common opinion is that it's a good thing as purchasing these extra 7 raptors would have been a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

Why don't we just spend less money on giant fighter jets, and more on world peace?

World Peace is a good idea in theory, but as long as we have bat-sh*t crazy dictators ruling their countries through Either Religion or Military Force, it will never come to fruition

Like George W Bush.

Ugh another one, could we please not start this?

Indeed. We really, really don't need another political flamewar. Especially not one so defined as "Obama Supporters Vs. People who don't like Obama."

 

[Devil's Due]

We need a new President.

Ok just no, just exit quietly and dont try to start a flame war in an interesting topic.

Not trying to, just stating the fact after reading the first post that we need a new President

 

[Devil's Due]

We need a new President.

Ok just no, just exit quietly and dont try to start a flame war in an interesting topic.

Not trying to, just stating the fact after reading the first post that we need a new President

Well you do realise the post is exagerating a bit at best and completely wrong at worst right? Besides, changing presidents isnt exactly a realistic solution or viable argument to bring up now is it? In short, you arent contributing at all, you are just making inflamatory comments.

You know, you're the one starting a flame war. I just said my sentence and left to go watch some more videos, and then you show up telling me not to start something. Seriously, you're not contributing either with this petty argument. You've been ignored, troll.

 

[SilentHunter7]

Good man. Idealy what we would need, as far as air to ground cover, is a retooled or even new version of the A-10 Thunderbolt. The AC-130 Specter has become popular once again, but that thing is from 1965. With so much fuss about the F-22 people forget that the AH-64 and the AH-1 do most of the heavy lifting, so to speak, when it comes to air support.

Actually, they are coming out with a new A-10. The A-10C [http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3039/A-10C-revolutionizes-close-air-support.html]. The C variants have new engines, a HOTAS system, an AESA radar, a glass cockpit, a targeting pod, even more redundancy, a bigger cannon, the ability to connect to the battle network, and compatibility with satellite guided bombs. Basically a ground commander's best friend, or worst nightmare, depending on what side he's on. Eventually all the A-10A airframes are going to be overhauled and upgraded to the C variant, in addition to the ones they're manufacturing right now.