Yet to see combat, F-22 stealth fighter in budget war
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. Security Council blames Syrian gov't for Houla killings
( 4 )
-
U.S. drones kill 5 militants in Pakistan
( 9 )
-
NATO has fight on its hands in Afghanistan - Panetta
( 5 )
-
Iran may rethink 20% enrichment: spokesman
( 0 )
-
Egypt's uprising activists weigh Brotherhood vote
( 0 )
-
- English Instructor (Osaka, Kyoto, Kobe)
- Berlitz Japan, Inc. (ベルリッツ・ジャパン株式会社), Kansai
- Salary: ¥125,000 ~ ¥250,000 / Month
-
- ALT - Mie Prefecture - Yokkaichi City - June start
- NPO法人グローバル教育推進機構（GLAD), Mie
- Salary: ¥230,000 / Month For a full working month. Some months differ.
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
Order by Time Order by Popularity
27 Comments
Login to comment
0
Betting
"“In the last two decades, the U.S. has used airstrikes to contain dictators, punish aggression, turn around international violations of sovereignty and stop regime-inflicted humanitarian disasters. No-fly zones squelched Iraqi military activity for a decade,” she wrote in a research paper for the Lexington Institute earlier this month".
In your wildest dreams I'd say. If Iraqi military activity had really been squelched, was the invasion of Iraq a necessicity? And I think many countries in Africa could say, "Where were you when we needed help America? Oh that's right, we've got no oil, not anywhere near Europe and nothing else useful for you ... guess we'll have to suffer through the bloodshed".
But other than that is the F-22 really useful? With being so few in numbers, if (and only if mind you) would the F-22s really be able to cover a large theatre? Even with all their capabilities they can't be everywhere at the same time. And if one were to lost, what would the cost be? I'm not just talking money, I mean what cost to the military operations in that arena plus the possibility of the technology being recovered by an enemy.
I remember when a B-2 crashed in Guam a while ago, a loss of something like 1 billion dollars and since there is only a handful of those bombers in operation it must put a strain on other operations.
Kind of sounds like the days of old with battleships, many people didn't want to risk them in combat as they represented a huge investment of a country's resources.
0
likeitis
America easily outspends every other country on the planet by SIX times. Yes, we could use some scaling back.
Time to look for a new job. Hopefully doing something other than making war machines. Something peaceful would be nice...
0
likeitis
On military spending I mean.
Get these guys some jobs making planes to fight fires in Oz.
0
SushiSake3
One of the biggest problems with the U.S. military is that it is still focused on big, inter-nation wars.
What we are now seeing is a move towards battles in urban areas against people who don't wear uniforms.
In this scenario, spending $140 million a pop on F-22s is just ridiculous.
Unmanned drones are more than enough to suppress insurents in a city, since these vehicles are able to hover above an area for up to 24 hours and blast anything identified as a target by their controllers back in the States.
0
rajakumar
F-22 jobs in Lockheed Martin may go, in Obama administration.
Time for Lockheed martin to make more civilian planes/helicopters or civilian planes-helicopters spare parts .
65 billion f-22 project, costing 140 million each, can be used to run 8 giant airlines companies, the size of Ryan air ,with 1448 units of 737s or A320s.
0
mareo2
F-22 is for destroy an advanced country, today USA diplomatic ties with the main military powers of earth are way better than 30 years before. For stop a third world dictator a F-35 is more than enough and what is the point of make the best fighter if you dont sell it to your allies for recover some of the $65 billion invested on the program? Is the point is keep jobs, allow exports.
0
SuperLib
I say keep the plane, but scale it down. It's just too much of a badass to not have.
0
SushiSake3
Superlib, you're saying to scale it down - to make it more like other planes in USAF inventory?
0
SuperLib
Just produce fewer planes.
0
SushiSake3
Got it.
0
likeitis
Agreed. Not only this plane, but all of them and other things as well. The f-22 is worth keeping, we just don't need a bunch of them, or anything else.
0
SushiSake3
likeitis, no no, I think it is, in fact, crucial for America to have enough nukes to completely destroy Earth at least 160 times.
That's, heh, 100 times more than the other guy....
0
smithinjapan
God, if Lockheed/Martin could put as much money and effort into making peaceful machines as those intended for war, the world would be a MUCH better place. Forget the F-22s and start figuring out alternative fuel tech. for commercial airlines or something. There's no reason the US can't have a superior fleet of things that fly that are not designed for war.
0
SuperLib
I tend to think the F-22 puts conflict with the US out of reach for other countries which, in the end, is a good thing. I'd rather spend money on expensive planes that aren't used than 10x more money on 100x more planes in war.
0
Nessie
I drive a bicycle. What's your point?
0
Betting
I don't think there is a point Nessie, it was just something cool sounding to say in the article. The way the US airforce is made to procure new aircaft seems pretty bizarre to me. So many accountants and procedures to go through, getting a new plane out in less than 30 years seems impossible these days. Could you imagine what would have happened during WW2 if the US had to operate under the same conditions.
0
sailwind
We can pay for this. We just have to find innovated ways to fund it. Such as in the training budget. We could use simulators more save some bucks that way to fund it.
Well kinda like this idea.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2289/2453804056_fbd901b0f6.jpg
0
sharky1
If the F-22 is a stealth plane, how would the media know if it had been in combat or not?
0
mareo2
I wonder what country can be enough stupid for declare a conventional war to the USA, that have something like 10.000 nukes. Better invest on the CIA and FBI for counter terrorism that is the real treat of these days.
0
SushiSake3
Superlib - "I tend to think the F-22 puts conflict with the US out of reach for other countries which, in the end, is a good thing."
You haven't heard of the 'Great Kim Jeong-IL Black Sabre FireBrand Lightning Bolt 3000SX' currently under construction in North Korea?
Oh dear..... :-(
0
SushiSake3
Sailwind - "We can pay for this. We just have to find innovated ways to fund it."
Like begging the Chinese government for money SEVEN days a week instead of the standard 5 days a week? :-)
0
SushiSake3
Let's face it, thanks to the previous U.S. president, China now owns America, and any money for projects like the F-22 will ultimately come from Chinese (ie: rural farmers out in the Chinese hinterlands) or male Japanese hosts in Kabukicho.
0
bushlover
By 'making peaceful machines' and ignoring things that can protect you would leave the US in the situation that Britain was in when Hitler was arming and the Brits were caught with their knickers down. They almost paid the price in another way. Thank god for their allies ne mates? I say make sure you keep this but as Superlib said maybe not as many to save on money. Advancement of technology is not a bad thing. And remember the jet engine and it's technology we can thank Hitler for.
0
VOR
If Obama and his cast of thieves were really interested in "creating or saving millions of jobs" this is one program that should have been in the "stimulus bill".
0
UnagiDon
If the F-22 does get canned I won't be worrying too much about Lockheed-Martin since they're also the ones building the F-35, along with cash from several other countries, so the pork will still roll in.
0
SuperLib
And how did we get 10,000 nukes? By investing in the technology.
0
mareo2
In place of recognize that your idea of F-22 being a deterrence is critically flawed, you just change the subject. What have to do invest on nukes with invest on a fighter? A nuke is an strategic weapon, a fighter is a tactical weapon. You try to make opinions on military subjects and you dont know even the basics.
Back to top