via Alert 5 and the Atlanta Journal Constitution...
“This isn’t just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country,” Gingrey said in a telephone interview.Is the F-22 Dracula or what?
But Gingrey conceded that concerns over spending and the federal deficit could make the funding battle a difficult one. The planes have a price tag of $120 million each. “We would have to look at it with a very, very sharp pencil,” he said. “It would take some negotiating.”
Suggestions from the debt commission, made public this week, may hold some possibilities A three-year freeze on federal pay and a 10 percent reduction of the federal workforce “are things that really get me excited,” the Marietta congressman said.
Production of the F-22 ended with its omission from the 2009 defense bill. Critics called the plane a Cold War relic poorly suited for anti-insurgent battles in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of State Robert Gates, a Republican holdover from the Bush administration, recommended the end to F-22 production, and President Barack Obama threatened to veto the defense bill if more funding for the stealth fighter were continued.
Originally, 381 F-22s were to be built. Production ended nearly 200 short. Gingrey said he and many military analysts think the planes are necessary to meet a scenario in which the United States faces two hot wars at the same time.
What does it take to make this issue go away!
It takes the will power not to blog about it, because doing so perpetuates the argument, bit of a catch 22...
ReplyDeletenot exactly blogging about it, more like covering the news on it.
ReplyDeleteto observe that a group of individuals...
*some who are afraid that the F-35 will dominate future markets
*some that want the F-22 as the fighter and a super F-111 as the bomber
*some who want the F-22 as the high to a low end of advanced F-16s
*some who see advanced fighters as a waste and only want simple, cheap fighters in the vein of the F-5
...all are seeking to revive the F-22 and kill the F-35 all because they aren't being honest about the F-35's capabilities.
So you think the f-35 can beat the f-22?
ReplyDeleteIt's got nothing to do with whether an F-35 can "beat" an F-22 or not. There will be circumstances where an F-35 might indeed "beat" an F-22, but no-one will argue that the F-22 is the better air to air fighter. It is NOT however the better multi-role fighter. It is purpose designed for air to air combat, it has a strong ISR role and it has a limited air to surface strike capability, that was tacked on to try and give the F-22 some relevance to the type of air wars fought today. The F-35 however is designed to confront the multitude of tasks required of a fighter and will be very good at all of them, though lacking in some specific areas against some aircraft, ie: it won't be a supercruiser and you won't see it pulling extreme airshow stunts. What it will be is an extremely capable combat aircraft, which is the point...
ReplyDeleteThe reason F-22 was killed, is a matter of cost effectiveness. Simple fact of the matter is, when you include development costs you can afford between 2-3 F-35's for each F-22. When you need to recapitalise a fleet as large as the USAF, the F-22 simply becomes unaffordable and most definitely cannot "beat" an F-35A in this regard.
These F-35's can cover the full range of missions. The F-22 on the other hand, is capable of a very limited range of missions and it's ridiculously expensive to maintain.
There are also long term upgradability concerns for the F-22 that make it's long term future decidedly bleak. The best thing for the F-22 would be to completely redesign it's processing architecture and re-write it's software in a modern programming language (rather than the archaic mil-spec AdA language they used) to make the aircraft supportable and easily upgradable in the longer term (as they have done with F-35), but they won't because this would incur an absolutely horrendous cost.
There are already mumblings about designing a 6th gen fighter to replace it from 2025, leveraging a large amount of JSF technology packaged into a higher performance and less observable, air superiority designed airframe. Less than 20 years service from something that cost $40b to design and bring in to service and another $20b to acquire? Does that seem like a good investment or value for money?
Only those who's idea of reality is inconsistent with the rest of the world, can possibly think that USD$60b for 187 fighters is a worthy thing.
Fortunately they possess absolutely no influence whatsoever over the decision makers and hence why they get so frustrated. Deep down, they understand the futility of their own "cause" but getting them to admit it. That would be a trick...