Congress will fund 20 more F-22s - Rep Abercrombie

Reuters on Yahoo ^ | 6/18/09 | Jim Wolf

[NormsRevenge]

WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - Congress will fund at least 20 more Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-22 fighter jets despite Obama administration plans to cap production at 187, the chairman of a House of Representatives panel with Air Force oversight responsibilities said on Thursday.

"You've got to do 20 more of these" as a bridging strategy while the administration mulls longer-range strategic issues, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Hawaii Democrat who heads the House Air-Land subcommittee. He made the remarks to a group of reporters.

On Wednesday, the House Armed Services Committee voted narrowly to add $369 million in funding to keep the F-22 production alive.

In April, the Obama administration announced it would order only four more of the radar-evading fighters, halting production at 187. Some industry officials are urging Congress to lift an export ban on the F-22 to keep the production line running until the new F-35 fighter production begins to ramp up in 2014.

[Catholic Canadian]

These planes are totally wicked, one came to our airshow last year.

[snowrip]

Great.

Now, it’s only an additional 180 to bring the USAF up to what it really needs.

[frankenMonkey]

Consider it a jobs program for highly-skilled Americans.

[Oldexpat]

Zero would rather give health insurance to millins of illegals then jobs to more defense workers.
If the stimulus money were going for defense spending and real roads and bridges it would be better spent.
Instead it is going to illegals, ACORN, welfare, LaRaza etc.

[Wiseghy]

After watching “future dogfights” or some such on History Channel the other day, I was trying to figure out how DOD was going to manage with mostly a bunch of drones and few fighters. In 10-15 years, it looked to me like a lot of pilots were likely to get killed in outdated equipment.

[bamahead]

I saw that show too. While the USAF is certainly trying to do ‘more with less’ and the F-22 is a big piece of that, if we get into a major conflict we’re probably going to need more than 187 fighter planes.

Let’s hope they extend the order again, or order extra F-35. While not quite as insanely awesome as the F-22, it’s still miles ahead of anything the bad guys have now. I’m still partial to the F-22 though because I live 3 miles from where they build ‘em. I enjoy watching the shakedown flybys over my house :)

[SteelCurtain_SSN720]

This is good news for us in CT making the engines for those awesome machines.

[Boiling Pots]

Yeah, I’ve seen them at air shows.

Are they needed, or is this just more welfare for the MIC.?

(Plane not used in Iraq or Afghanistan)

[Nachum]

The list, ping

[ArrogantBustard]

We'll never get them if we ask for them all at once. Twenty here, ten there, another fifteen next time ...

After a while it adds up.

[PLMerite]

“...if we get into a major conflict we’re probably going to need more than 187 fighter planes.”

Any time you’re up against an equal - or even equally determined - adversary you stand to lose people and equipment.

One of the reasons the Soviets/Russians keep all their old stuff is that they know once they’ve hacked through all our shiny new planes and tanks their old stuff is front-line again. And we’ve used all our old stuff for target practice.

[org.whodat]

Can we are can we not shoot down a missile with a missile???

And then there is: The Russian system, called the S-300, is one of the most advanced multi-target anti-aircraft-missile systems in the world today and has a reported ability to track up to 100 targets simultaneously while engaging up to 12 at the same time. It has a range of about 200 kilometers and can hit targets at altitudes of 27,000 meters.

There will be no future dog fights with humans in the planes.

[rahbert]

don’t need ‘em in Iraq or A-stan, so why subject them to the operational stress of dust and primitive airfields.

they are needed for opponents with air forces, AA missiles
and kooky actors with bad hair doing recreational missile launches over Japan.

[Sundog]

You give the right response for the wrong reason. It seems the next-gen Soviet Pak-FA has been cancelled.

http://www.militaryparitet.com/en/data/ic_en/6/

[Lucky Dog]

There will be no future dog fights...

People have been saying that since WWII. In fact, all of the models of the F-4 prior to the "E" lacked a cannon because every thing was going to done "with missiles."

People who make statements like you did keep having to learn the same lesson in every new conflict. The only aerial war without dogfights, past, present or future, will be one in which the other side refuses to fight in the air.

For every measure there is a countermeasure. For the Russian S-300 there is one, too. (I am sure you have heard of the "Wild Weasels," haven't you?) As good as any missile is, there is always something better, like beam weapons that shoot down missiles or anti-missile missiles or jammers or just plain old flares and chaff.

In any conventional conflict, the side with air superiority will always win. Missiles have never, yet, achieved air superiority, nor is such likely anytime in the foreseeable future. Therefore, manned aircraft, and fighters, in particular, will continue to be key pieces in achieving air superiority.

[org.whodat]

For every measure there is a countermeasure. For the Russian S-300 there is one, too. (I am sure you have heard of the "Wild Weasels," haven't you?) As good as any missile is, there is always something better, like beam weapons that shoot down missiles or anti-missile missiles or jammers or just plain old flares and chaff.

Yes and we have all those weapons SG1 sent to area 51 from Star Gate.

[TalonDJ]

You are totally correct.

[TalonDJ]

Fighter mounted anti missile lasers are not very far in the future. They are a lot close than an AI we would trust to fight autonomously.

[NormsRevenge]

I hear ya.. The best defense is a strong offense.

We’ll see if O swats F-22s down as well as he does flies. Japan wants ‘em and I’m sure the Israelis and Aussies could be persuaded to take some too. ;-)