Our air dominance rests with this one fighter plane.
Posted on 07/21/2009 11:13:49 PM PDT by AKSurprise
"July 21/09: The US Senate votes 58-40 in favor of S.Amdt 1469, the Levin-McCain amendment to strip $1.75 billion for 7 F-22As out of the Senate’s FY 2010 defense budget. The additional funds had been inserted in committee, just as the recently-passed FY 2010 House defense budget proposal contains $369 million in initial funding for 12 more F-22s.
The vote was heavily determined by state lines, with 40/50 states voting coherently. Both Republicans voted “yea” to F-22 funding removal in AZ, SC and WY. Both Democrats voted against the amendment in CA, CT, HI, NM, and WA. John Kerry [D-MA], who often reiterated his support for the F-22 in the run-up to the vote, would have added to that trend – but he voted to remove funding, and F-22 supporter Sen. Kennedy [D-MA] was absent for medical reasons. Democrat senators split in WVA (Sen. Byrd nay), and while Republcans split in AL (Sen. Shelby yea), and OK (Sen. Coburn yea). In the 7 remaining cases, the split was party based, with the state’s Democratic Party senator supporting the amendment to remove funding, and the Republican Party Senator opposing: FL, IA, LA, NE, NH, NC, and SD.
S.Amdt 1469’s passage does not entirely end the mater, since the House and Senate bills must now be reconciled in committee before they are submitted to the President. But the 17-12-1 vote among Senate Armed Services committee members to remove F-22 funding does raise the aircraft’s obstacles, absent pressure in the interim that causes Senators to shift their positions."
(Excerpt) Read more at defenseindustrydaily.com ...
BTTT
It’s an air-to-air fighter. Waste of money. We need air to ground, CAS to protect our troops. Can it.
Thread BUMP.
We need both — save it.
We already have ~180 of them and we don’t have an infinite supply of money.
Pelosi's mouse slated for $30M slice of cheese washingtontimes.com
(Salt marsh harvest mouse.)
House votes to save wild horses, burros By KEVIN FREKING The Associated Press
"...the Restore our American Mustangs Act would cost about $200 million over the next five years. To comply with the bill, the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management would need to find an additional 20 million acres, primarily after 2013, at a cost of up to $500 million, according the CBO.
Space Shuttle Mission: STS-127
Endeavour sets sail on its 23rd mission with the Kibo Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (Space porch.) and Experiment Logistics Module Exposed Section.
The average cost to launch a Space Shuttle is about $450 million per mission. nasa.gov/
We got plenty of money for these. What we don't have is the money to fund all of Obama's BS that's going to wreck the economy.
I forgot the sarcasm tag. Please forgive me?
Air to ground, CAS aircraft are cannon fodder if they don’t have air superiority fighters sanitising airspace. The F-15 is getting old and is no longer the best in the business. Besides the Raptor has enough air to ground capability for limited precision strikes.
Our air dominance rests with this one fighter plane.
“Besides the Raptor has enough air to ground capability for limited precision strikes.”
As compared to the F-35? Why not trade F-22s for F-35s?
The F-35 was designed to have an air to air capability just better than the F-16. Which is the reason why Britain and Italy are continuing with the Eurofighter while also being JSF customers. Other nations like Australia have also had doubts. The F-35 cannot compensate for the F-22.
There are no F-35’s in service. The F-15 is old. It needs a replacement. The F-16 can augment the F-15/F-22 mission. But, it is not ideal. The F-16 can only augment what the F-15 and F-22 can do.
I’m no expert. I just watch LiveLeak milporn. When I see bad guys die, it’s from Apaches and A-10s. I just think we need to support the boots on the ground first.
If we do not have an air superiority fighter in sufficient quantity for the future, we will cease to be a superpower. I believe this is the intention.
Why not cut down on the 1700 F-35’s the Pentagon wants, and buy 400 F-22’s. They cost the same now anyhow...
The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter. It is a single engine multi-role fighter. It is arguably better than the F-16C and may be inferior in some areas to the F-16E/F Block 60 units that are for FMS.
If we cannot achieve air superiority or air supremacy, we cannot have A-10s, Predators, F-16s, and boots on the ground without sacrificing their safety.
OK outta my league. If Obama is against it, I’m for it.
Earth to Americans: Has each and every one of you not figured out yet that Obama is doing everything in his power to weaken America and her allies - economically, socially, and militarily.
Canceling the F-22 is just more of BO’s and the Rats treason against this country. Nobody in the world can defeat this plane except a traitorous non-president, a traitorous Rat congress and a sprinkling of traitorous Rinos. You control the air, you control what’s beneath it, ask the Germans and the Japanese about that.
While channel surfing, I happened to see Barney Frank on PMSNBC with (IIRC cuz I didn't linger there long) David Schuster subbing for Keith, and Barney Frank and David were discussing the F-22 cuts.
Barney made the statement (paraphrasing here but PRETTY CLOSE) that: "People are arguing that we don't have the money for health care reform, cap and trade and other things when we are WASTING BILLIONS OF DOLLARS ON DEFENSE that should go to other much needed social programs"
The socialist circle-jerk conversation between the two made me almost break the TV.
McCain McCain McCain = shame shame shame
as a young man this same fellow had this to say :
“We thought our civilian commanders were complete idiots ,
that did not have the least notion of what it took
to win the war “
He has become what he used to decry .
How do you live with something like that ?
And at what cost .
Coup ? Now
The Apache and Warthog are amazing platforms when it comes to what they are designed for. They are hardy resilient airframes that can bring gehenna to enemy armor and personnel. However, the reason they have been so successful is that they have always operated in largely sanitized airspace. In airspace that is not sanitized, for instance one that still has enemy air-to-air assets flying hot, or one that still has a functioning/advanced SAM integrated air defense system, then the A-10 and Apache are dead.
For several decades the US has had the 'benefit' of facing off against foe nations that are not technologically or militarily adept. What those nations have had are either numbers or faith. However, things change, and it is possible that sometime in the future we may have to face off against a nation that is either a near-peer (e.g. China, Russia), or against a nation that even though far lower on the totem pole is advanced enough to throw some nasty surprises at us (e.g. the Kosovo conflict was interesting in how the USAF got tricked into believing it had destroyed far more armor and radar sites and what-not than it had, with simple tricks like microwave opens facing up. It was also in that conflict that one F-117 stealth 'fighter' was shot down, and another allegedly damaged. It did not take advanced tech or anything like that ...simply a group of people using their God given intelligence and taking advantage of a situation).
This is why I always say that some people (including many FReepers) get deluded into thinking victory in war is some sort of God given right to the US. It is not! The reason the US wins is because it has a major qualitative advantage, has the best strategy and tactics, leaders who see many steps ahead, and soldiers who can think on their feet.
However, send your troops to battle with 'good enough,' and do so against an enemy who is a couple of rungs above your typical foe (typical: read, Jihadi who still smells of camel and goat hair), and you could get a nasty surprise. Not that the enemy will win ...he probably will not. It is just that the enemy ONLY needs to ensure he has enough American soldiers killed, and the media and opposing party will do the rest for him. I always like to use the example of, say, China managing to sink, or at least cripple (with many dead), a US capital ship ...say a carrier. That is all it would need to do ...the American public, American Left, and American media would do the rest for it.
Anyways, I strongly believe that many here have become soft due to the constant victories the US armed forces have had, to the effect of believing a win is given and what has worked so well before will work now, and continue to work going forward. That is how people end up getting killed.
The A-10 and AH-64 are good machines, it is just that for them to digest the enemy they require far superior assets to ensure that they get the opportunity to do so. So far, F-15s and F-16s, F-18s and WildWeasels, etc etc, have done that, and done that well. Taking out enemy air, and pounding enemy SAMs. However, F-15s are getting grounded, F-16s are not getting any younger, and the enemy is starting to get platforms that are an even match for them (you don't want a fair even fight ...you want an unfair fight where you club the enemy like a baby seal). Furthermore, the enemy's anti-air systems are starting to get very formidable, to the point that near-peer SAM/IADS are getting to the point where they will be really toxic for legacy airframes. Please remember in the first Gulf War, where the Allied Nations had an IMMENSE qualitative advantage over Saddam's Iraq, and where Saddam had an older Soviet-based system, he stillmanaged to shoot down a number of Allied planes. Now, imagine taking those same planes, with upgrades ofcourse, against China say 10 years from now, with double-digit SAMs?
My point is, the F-22 is a completely useless fighter against the typical threat the US faces (that is, a Queda Jihadi with a Kalashnikov and suicide vest). However, a prudent planner not only looks at current threats, but at potential threats. Some of those threats involve near-peer nations, or nations that though not near-peer can acquire technology that gives them some sort of hit-back ability. Against such a threat, the F-22 becomes VERY MUCH NEEDED.
Are 187 enough? Well, the Pentagon says so. I do not think so, but I am just some anonymous poster thus my words do not mean much. However, note that Germany in WW2 did have some VERY (for then) advanced weapon systems in ground (e.g. King Tiger tank) and air (jet fighters), but they were so few that they made no difference whatsoever (apart from giving Soviet and American scientists valuable information of what could be ...e.g. Soviet and American space programs owe a lot to NAzi Germany).
Anyways, I fear some day America will go to war, and will be expecting the usual rolling over of scum and washing the tank treads later, but what it will get will be a surprise that will put many people on the back foot. I am not wishing ill upon the military, but keep on cutting (not just troops, but also development), and see what happens. Probably in the next 15 years.
If we get into a shooting war with an adversary who wants to make a fight of it in the air, using Russian, Chinese or even European hardware, we are going to find out quickly why fighting an air superiority war of attrition thousands of miles from our mainland with a fighter that is simply on par with their opponent’s hardware is a loser.
Sure, we can sweep the skies over Egypt, Iran and a few other places with our current forces, but for example, if we have to get into a real fight with the Chicoms over Taiwan and we don’t have F-22’s to fly down from Yokota in any decent numbers, we are going to find out that a 3-1 kill ratio (which is probably about the best we will do against a will trained opponent flying modern Russian hardware) simply means we are going to lose all of our planes.
And I can guarantee that when that happens, the people who are going to scream the damned loudest are those people who advocated just maintaining our current fleet for another twenty years.
History is full of people who thought there would be no more war, the weapons in the last war wouldn’t be needed, that because someone defeated an enemy in the past that enemy will be defeated in the future, or that being prepared to fight and win is a waste of money.
The war to end all wars. We don’t need guns on planes. The Abrams tank and the Bradley vehicle are boondoggles.
Boondoggles. We hear that one a lot regarding the F-22. Ask any American pilot, some of the best trained, prepared, supported and equipped in the world who has had to face an F-22 in the air whether they think it is a boondoggle.
Our OWN pilots think it is UNFAIR to have to fight against it, even in exercises. IT IS NO CONTEST.
And no, John McCain’s opinion does not count.
We depend on air superiority for the success of our armed forces. For our ground troops, our ships at sea, and nearly every single thing you can relate to.
We have been spoiled, because we have had adults in charge most of the time who understood this necessity, and worked towards maintaining it. We have had air superiority in every single engagement of any kind from the end of WWII up until today.
If we do not maintain control of the skies and cede that to our next enemy, we will see American blood shed in ways we have not seen since WWII.
We won’t be able to supply and transport our troops by air. Helicopters are sitting ducks for the enemy if they control the air. We won’t even be able to medevac.
Our supply columns will be destroyed, as will our tank formations. Our ships at sea will suffer the same fate.
In the same way that nearly the entire food chain from livestock down to corn is dependent on water, military power is dependent on air power. Without it, you cannot have and project military power.
It is really that simple, and it is why we must buy more F-22s and F-35’s. But we know that isn’t going to happen, the same way we know that transiting this economic and leadership crisis unscathed isn’t going to happen.
You, like most of the media, also seem to ignore the role that the Bell AH-1 Cobra has had in all of the conflicts/wars. I know the Apache is a good aircraft, but I don’t understand the lack of recognition for the Bell Cobra, which has shown in battles to be devasting to the enemy.
spetznaz!
Very good posting! I posted elsewhere something very similar, but with not as much detail.
The F-22 will/would provide for air superiority for several decades. That is what is needed for any success in support of land/sea based operations. Current aircraft are adequate, but even improved electronics can’t overcome the aging on the airframes.
McCain has to be voted out of office in 2010. Many call him a hero because he damaged or crashed at least 5 aircraft and was a POW. That’s been his claim to fame; ‘hero’. ....He’s nothing of the sort and his talks on the Senate floor against the F-22 were really maddening to listen to. He’s lost all perspective and should be eliminated by voters in 2010.
There’s more than enough pork in the air force budget that they could fund as many F-22s as they wanted and not miss a beat. As usual, USAF management has their priorities all screwed up.
You omitted that they are operating in a low threat environment.
Great Post, thanks!
Here's a view from Russia (granted, the source is Pravda, but hyperbole aside... worth paying attention): The Russian jets are a serious competition for the US F-15 fighters. The jets of Russia’s renowned Sukhoi design bureau proved to be more successful than their US competitors during a number of tests. The Pentagon has been trying to obtain the Russian warplanes, and Ukraine helped the nation do it legally. The news about the deal between the USA and the Air Force of Ukraine appeared on the US-based website Strategypage.com. The website said that Russia’s Su-27 fighters were technically similar to F-15 jets, although the Russian planes were 30 percent cheaper. .....
USA Buys Russia’s Su-27 Jets From Ukraine to Find Out Why F-15 Is So Bad - Pravda.Ru The Pentagon purchased two Russian-made Su-27 fighter jets from Ukraine. The United States will reportedly use the Russian jets to train effective counter-operation efforts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.