Gates says F-22 program to be ended - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Military vehicles, aircraft, ships, guns and other military equipment. Plus any general military discussions that don't belong elsewhere on the board.

Moderator: PoFo The Lounge Mods

#1860466
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates says the Pentagon will end the F-22 fighter jet and presidential helicopter programs run by Lockheed Martin Corp.

Military analysts widely expected the radar-evading supersonic jet -- considered an outdated weapon system designed for the Cold War -- would not go beyond the 187 already planned. The planes cost $140 million each.

But Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed, the nation's largest defense contractor, has said almost 95,000 jobs could be at stake if the Pentagon didn't buy more of the planes.

The new fleet of presidential helicopters -- with a price tag of $11.2 billion that was nearly double the original budget-- also were considered at risk to be cut in the 2010 budget.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Pentagon- ... 60901.html
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1860506
Ok so what we will give up Air superiority to the Chinese and Russians? Dumb short sighted bastards.
User avatar
By W01f
#1860708
Ok so what we will give up Air superiority to the Chinese and Russians? Dumb short sighted bastards.

Cuts have to be made. No power has ever maintained its military supremacy during an economic collapse, and America will be no exception.

Though that's still 187 more 5th generation fighters than the Chinese or Russians have, and it's not like they couldn't start up production again in the future if there was a need to.
User avatar
By Igor Antunov
#1860764
Those 187 fighters at $140 million a pop without including support and maintenance costs are somewhere around $26 billion. Damn straight this program should be crushed, killed then destroyed just to make sure. The development program alone has cost 65 billion.

Although the europeans aren't doing much better with the eurofighter typhoon, at $100 million each.

For the price of one 5th generation F-22 I could purchase fourteen 4th generation mig-29's or ten of them for the price of a single eurofighter.

Also F-16 Fighting Falcons cost between 14-18 million, why not just build them. Christ.
By Falx
#1860771
has said almost 95,000 jobs could be at stake if the Pentagon didn't buy more of the planes.


And if we started the production of spears from bronze upwards of 300,000 jobs would be created.

Dumb short sighted bastards.


Yeah, because a plane like that is exactly what is needed for the current world situation. Tell me, apart from getting there faster what does supersonic add to a jet that is going to be used exclusively in wars against people who's idea of high technology is stone throwing?

I know you secretly hate America and try to bankrupt it, but really give it a rest with the useless ideas.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1860788
Yeah, because a plane like that is exactly what is needed for the current world situation.

That is what I meant by short Sighted , we dont need them now doesnt mean we wont need them soon.


Tell me, apart from getting there faster what does supersonic add to a jet that is going to be used exclusively in wars against people who's idea of high technology is stone throwing?


Again I dont think that will always be the case.

I know you secretly hate America and try to bankrupt it, but really give it a rest with the useless ideas.


Listen I dont want to derail the thread, so I am not going to respond in kind.

In any case if things have to be cut for the common good lets start with Medicad, Welfare, and other similar programs. Our security is more important then, comfort and luxury. The Chinese are spending like nuts, upgrading developing, buying and we are decreasing our spending. We will be faced with a China who has waited for its time and will strike severly at US interest across the world. To preserve Peace prepare for war.
By Falx
#1860801
we dont need them now doesnt mean we wont need them soon.


Actually it does, nuclear weapons are proliferating and these by their very logic render conflict between countries that have them impossible. Any country that could afford to build a 5th generation fighter already has a nuclear weapon, and most countries that could build a 4th generation could also build nuclear weapons with in 3 years if they put their economies on a war footing.

Do you think we should build a bronze spear stock pile in case someone tries to? If you didn't want the US to fall behind Europe in weapons then the Super Conducting Super Collider should have never been cancelled, neither should have the various plasma reactors and so on.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1860858
Actually it does, nuclear weapons are proliferating and these by their very logic render conflict between countries that have them impossible. Any country that could afford to build a 5th generation fighter already has a nuclear weapon, and most countries that could build a 4th generation could also build nuclear weapons with in 3 years if they put their economies on a war footing.


I suspect we can neutralize the threat of ICMBS within the next half decade, so we would still need Top of the line equipment to fight wars. Wars arent going to become obsolete no way, no how.

Do you think we should build a bronze spear stock pile in case someone tries to? If you didn't want the US to fall behind Europe in weapons then the Super Conducting Super Collider should have never been cancelled, neither should have the various plasma reactors and so on.


So perhaps we should just disarm.
By Falx
#1860872
I suspect we can neutralize the threat of ICMBS


:lol: Wow you are a joker.

so we would still need Top of the line equipment to fight wars


Such as the 200 planes here :?:

So perhaps we should just disarm.


Or invest in the sort of technology that made America a super power, but then again that would undermine your goal of destroying it.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1860886
Such as the 200 planes here


Not enough we can afford more, the planes are more important then a bridge to no where, or other Pork barrel spending not to mention a whole host of useless inefficient social programs. Our security is paramount, all else is secondary.
User avatar
By Le Rouge
#1860898
As bad ass as F-22s are, the billions it costs just to maintain them could easily be put to other endeavors--ones that don't involve killing brown people.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1860905
endeavors--ones that don't involve killing brown people.


Please, we wouldnt waste the talents of the F-22 on such missions, thats what Predetors are for. Also we are equal opportunity Killers, whether White, Black or Brown you screw with us and well kill you son.
User avatar
By NYYS
#1860979
I've actually got a finance question about this... why did Lockheed's stock jump today? Is there some news I'm missing or what? This seems like it would be bad news for them, but their stock was up 9%.
User avatar
By The American Lion
#1861014
I've actually got a finance question about this... why did Lockheed's stock jump today? Is there some news I'm missing or what? This seems like it would be bad news for them, but their stock was up 9%.


Because the Pentagon is keeping the F-35 program alive. Which is a Lockheed exclusive. The F-22 was a joint Boeing-Lockheed project.
User avatar
By Dr House
#1861034
The American Lion wrote:the Pentagon is keeping the F-35 program alive.

*Gasp* They're keeping that piece of shit alive instead of the Raptor?

Fucking A.
By Piano Red
#1861100
1.) The F-22 Program is not being ended. Production is simply being capped. There's a difference.

2.) This Budget Proposal still has to get through Congress (and the Air Force to a lesser degree), with the amount of support the F-22 has its doubtful that production will be capped indefinitely. In all honesty it makes sense that it at least be halted while the economic crisis is allowed to pass.

3.) If anyone has bothered to read the fine print of the Proposal they'd know that there is a corollary that allocates funding for the Lockheed F-22 Production Line to be maintained through 2011, at which time a new DoD review can decide to resume production or not.


Just had to put that out before anyone posting something else that was erroneous.

Where to begin....:

Oxymoron
Ok so what we will give up Air superiority to the Chinese and Russians? Dumb short sighted bastards.


Our edge above the Chinese and Russians is enough for us to hold onto regardless of the F-22 being capped at it's present numbers.

187 F-22s alone is more than even most developed countries are able to field in terms of frontline fighters. Let's just check shall we?

Russia: 10 Su-30, 10 Su-34s, 10 MiG-35, 100 MiG-29 with non-fatigued and modernized frames (the rest mostly retired or in reserve), 256 MiG-31, 12 Su-35BM.

China: 130 Shenyang J-11, 160 Chengdu J-10, 100 Su-30MK2 and MKK.

India: 116 Su-30MKIs are active in the IAF, and 56 baseline 4th gens, the Mig-29s.

W01f
Cuts have to be made. No power has ever maintained its military supremacy during an economic collapse, and America will be no exception.


:lol:

Though that's still 187 more 5th generation fighters than the Chinese or Russians have, and it's not like they couldn't start up production again in the future if there was a need to.


Something I can agree to.

Igor Autunovic
Those 187 fighters at $140 million a pop without including support and maintenance costs are somewhere around $26 billion. Damn straight this program should be crushed, killed then destroyed just to make sure. The development program alone has cost 65 billion.

Although the europeans aren't doing much better with the eurofighter typhoon, at $100 million each.

For the price of one 5th generation F-22 I could purchase fourteen 4th generation mig-29's or ten of them for the price of a single eurofighter.


Considering that a single F-22 could engage and destroy as many of those fighters as it carried missiles i'd say it more than lives up to its unit cost.

The only reason the F-22 costs so much to begin with is because the original production order was cut back.

Falx
Yeah, because a plane like that is exactly what is needed for the current world situation.


Congratulations for committed the infamous Second-Class Battleship Fallacy.

The necessity for the F-22 isn't about today's current world situation. Its about tomorrow's.

Oxymoron
Listen I dont want to derail the thread, so I am not going to respond in kind.

In any case if things have to be cut for the common good lets start with Medicad, Welfare, and other similar programs. Our security is more important then, comfort and luxury. The Chinese are spending like nuts, upgrading developing, buying and we are decreasing our spending. We will be faced with a China who has waited for its time and will strike severly at US interest across the world. To preserve Peace prepare for war.


Oxy don't blow a fuse man.

I'm actually quite satisfied with this, and to be honest it's not so much of a budget cut so much as a re-prioritization of interests for this year. Certain programs are being scaled back, but the only real major thing being really cut is that god awful FCS program. Which i'm happy as hell the Pentagon has finally given up on.

You realize we're still on track to acquire thousands of F-35s in 4 years right?

Which are also 5th Gen fighters, and just as deadly at blowing the aircraft of potential adversaries out of the sky right?

NY Yankees suck.
I've actually got a finance question about this... why did Lockheed's stock jump today? Is there some news I'm missing or what? This seems like it would be bad news for them, but their stock was up 9%.


Because their investors were actually expecting this budget proposal to be alot worse. The fact that the LMASC facility outside Atlanta is being kept open means the company will still be pulling a profit from the F-22 line for at least the next two years.

The F-35 line being kept on schedule was of a much lesser concern.
By Falx
#1861154
Congratulations for committed the infamous Second-Class Battleship Fallacy.


How long does it take to build a battle ship? 3-10 years?

How long does it take to build an airplane once a conveyor belt has started? 20 days?
User avatar
By MB.
#1861212
i'm too drunk to provide an immediate response.
By Falx
#1861313
And letting us know this was an immense contribution to this thread, just as this post is.
User avatar
By Oxymoron
#1861363
Oxy don't blow a fuse man.

I'm actually quite satisfied with this, and to be honest it's not so much of a budget cut so much as a re-prioritization of interests for this year. Certain programs are being scaled back, but the only real major thing being really cut is that god awful FCS program. Which i'm happy as hell the Pentagon has finally given up on.

You realize we're still on track to acquire thousands of F-35s in 4 years right?

Which are also 5th Gen fighters, and just as deadly at blowing the aircraft of potential adversaries out of the sky right?


Alright, thanks for making me feel better about it :D .
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Horrifying footage from Volchansk Bodies of civi[…]

Israel doesn't have hostages. They overall have[…]

Ireland, Spain and Norway to recognise Palestinia[…]

World War II Day by Day

May 22, Wednesday Bletchley Park breaks Luftwaff[…]