F-22 Raptor: Legacy Halted.

[TeeKup]

Senate rejects funds for more F-22 fighter jets
Obama hails decision, says no need to waste taxpayer money

msnbc.com staff and news service reports
updated 6:10 p.m. ET, Tues., July 21, 2009

WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to terminate further production of the U.S. Air Force's topline F-22 fighter jets, giving President Barack Obama a major spending victory and siding with the Pentagon's desire for smaller jets better suited to 21st-century wars.

F-22 supporters complained the action would be a blow to long-term national defense — and cost thousands of jobs in the middle of the recession.

The 58-40 vote to cut the money from a $680 billion defense bill was a hard-fought victory for Obama, who had threatened to veto defense spending legislation if it included funds for more F-22s. Wavering lawmakers heard repeatedly from Vice President Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and other senior administration officials.

While Tuesday's vote gives momentum to the anti-F-22 side, a final decision must wait for the House and Senate to reach a compromise on their differing defense bills. The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 F-22 fighters.

Obama told reporters at the White House the Senate's decision will "better protect our troops." He said he rejected the notion that the country has to "waste billions of taxpayers dollars" on outdated defense projects.

The vote was "a signal that we are not going to continue to build weapons systems with cost overruns which outlive their requirements for defending this nation," declared Republican Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who joined Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin in arguing for cutting off production.

The $1.75 billion was aimed at adding seven F-22s to the current plan to deploy 187 of the twin-engine stealth planes. Some of those 187 are still in the pipeline and will be completed.

More F-35s
On the other side, supporters of the program insisted the F-22 is important to U.S. security interests — pointing out that China and Russia are developing planes that can compete with it — and needed to protect aerospace jobs in a bad economy.

"The Chinese are really anxiously awaiting this vote," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia whose state would be one of the hardest hit by the shutdown of F-22 production.

Gates, first appointed by President George W. Bush, wants to shift military spending to programs more attuned to today's unconventional wars. The F-22, designed for midair combat, has been irrelevant to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore unused there.

Gates and other Pentagon officials want to put more emphasis on the next-generation F-35 Lightning, a single-engine jet that would be used primarily to attack targets on the ground and would replace the F-16 and the Air Force's aging fleet of A-10s. The Air Force plans to buy more than 1,700 F-35s, which are currently being produced in small numbers for testing purposes. Versions of that plane, known as the Joint Strike Fighter, are also being built for the Navy and Marine Corps, another plus for supporters.

The defense bill has money to build 30 F-35s.

"The president really needed to win this vote," said Levin, a Democrat, not only on the merits of the planes but "in terms of changing the way we do business in Washington."

This situation has me concerned. I respect the president, but I cannot agree with this decision. The Raptor has proven itself in countless simulations and relevant data to be the most advanced air superiority fighter in the sky. I don't understand why the government would want to cancel an aircraft with so much potential.


Gates, first appointed by President George W. Bush, wants to shift military spending to programs more attuned to today's unconventional wars. The F-22, designed for midair combat, has been irrelevant to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and therefore unused there.

Just because, at the moment, it seems unfitting doesn't mean you should toss it at first glance. I'd rather have a gun and not need it, then need it and not have one, the Raptor may be needed further down the line. Wars can be incredibly unpredictable, should the need arise, I would certainly feel comfortable with the Raptor in sky. The F-15 was an incredibly proven aircraft, but it is becoming obsolete.

The F-35 is the virtual cousin of the Raptor, the only differences are its multi-role ability and it's 3 separate models on the drawing board. To me when that aircraft is in final production should be as expensive if not more than the Raptor.

I want your opinion on this. I can understand the ridiculous cost for this aircraft but should it be shutdown, Georgia would lose an immense amount of jobs. Right now that doesn't seem like the best decision.

[Xetsuei]

I think it's a horrible decision, and when I first heard that they were doing this I just thought "dumbasses". This is one of those things that is way too good to waste, even if it does cost quite a bit. Seeing as it's probably the best air superiority fighter there is, I just think they're insane.

[Boba]

If this fighter is good as we think it is, I don't see how we'd need more than ~180.

[Dwood]

That's one of the stupidest decisions i've ever seen. The F-22 has every reason to be put on the line... Besides, It's eventual that we'll find ourselves against nations that rise in power to the point where they can challenge us again. Geopolotics, anyone?

[TeeKup]

Because Boba, like I said, wars can be incredibly unpredictable.

[sdavis117]

I agree with Obama here. The plane is just pork. We already have excellent fighters, and I doubt we need even better ones.

I would though like to see a cheaper version of the F22. That is something I could put my non-existent influence behind.

[Xetsuei]

I agree with Obama here. The plane is just pork. We already have excellent fighters, and I doubt we need even better ones.

I would though like to see a cheaper version of the F22. That is something I could put my non-existent influence behind.

F15, F18, F/A35 do not match up to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

[sdavis117]

F15, F18, F/A35 do not match up to the Eurofighter Typhoon.

But we won't be fighting anyone with a Typhoon. Every nation getting Typhoons are our allies.

Also, a Typhoon is much cheaper then an F22.

Edit: Also, we have over 180 of these things still. It isn't like we are scrapping the ones we already have.

[Arteen]

Couldn't the US start making new ones if they actually become needed? They have a bunch already, too.

[Jean-Luc]

Couldn't the US start making new ones if they actually become needed? They have a bunch already, too.
In war, you need it NOW. There's no time to screw around.

[Rob Oplawar]

I work for Lockheed Martin and I love the F-22, but I have to agree with this decision. It's not that it's worthless, it's just that there are better ways to spend the money. Besides, it's not like the existing F-22s are just going to be thrown in a junkyard now.

[Amit]

In war, you need it NOW. There's no time to screw around.

Remember, it's the US that invaded Iraq, not Iraq invading the US. Bush decided to go to war. I agree that some good has come of it, but not a whole lot. Afghanistan is a more plausible cause. Raptors are absolutely deadly. How many do you need if, theoretically, one skilled pilot could take out multiple opponents easily?

[Jean-Luc]

Sorry, didn't clarify that right. I wasn't referring necessarily to this war we have right now, but future wars.

Let's say, hypothetically, ________ decided to launch an assault on us, and we were in dire need of additional aircraft, and it would be to our tactical advantage to have multiple large squadrons of F-22's. Now how would you feel if the manufacturer's told you "We would be happy to build 250 more F-22's for immediate use, but we regret to inform you that it's going to take some time before each will be operational."

Now, while the chances of this actually occurring anytime soon are slim, you don't have time to dick around when it's actually happening.

[Amit]

Sorry, didn't clarify that right. I wasn't referring necessarily to this war we have right now, but future wars.

Let's say, hypothetically, ________ decided to launch an assault on us, and we were in dire need of additional aircraft, and it would be to our tactical advantage to have multiple large squadrons of F-22's. Now how would you feel if the manufacturer's told you "We would be happy to build 250 more F-22's for immediate use, but we regret to inform you that it's going to take some time before each will be operational."

Now, while the chances of this actually occurring anytime soon are slim, you don't have time to dick around when it's actually happening.

You'd have to assume this country would have mass quantities of a fighter that is superior or on-par with the F-22. The F-22s aren't the only capable fighter of taking on other fighter aircraft. The F-35 is almost as capable as the F-22. Even older aircraft are still good by today's standards, they just need to have upgraded electronics systems.

[ExAm]

I work for Lockheed Martin and I love the F-22, but I have to agree with this decision. It's not that it's worthless, it's just that there are better ways to spend the money. Besides, it's not like the existing F-22s are just going to be thrown in a junkyard now.^This. I agree with this. Yes.

[Jean-Luc]

You'd have to assume this country would have mass quantities of a fighter that is superior or on-par with the F-22. The F-22s aren't the only capable fighter of taking on other fighter aircraft. The F-35 is almost as capable as the F-22. Even older aircraft are still good by today's standards, they just need to have upgraded electronics systems.

It was just a hypothetical situation. However, just remembered something. Isn't this country in a recession with a $13,000,000,000 deficit? What happened to that? :saddowns:

Rob's probably right on this one.

[Choking Victim]

Maybe they found a cheaper alternative to the F-22 from alien technology they acquired and reverse engineered.
:realsmug:

[Xetsuei]

But we won't be fighting anyone with a Typhoon. Every nation getting Typhoons are our allies.

Also, a Typhoon is much cheaper then an F22.

Edit: Also, we have over 180 of these things still. It isn't like we are scrapping the ones we already have.

A Typhoon costs nearly the same as an F22, and you really never know.

Plus there's all the Russian fighters too.

And no, I do not believe the F35 is anywhere near as capable as an F22 in aerial combat.

[Amit]

Alright Xet, why do you think this is such a bad decision? Especially when the country is already hundreds of billions of dollars in debt? Is every nation in the world going to launch a massive air offensive against US forces everywhere?

[Xetsuei]

Because it's a good great fighter jet, probably the best in the world, and they're just throwing away the program. The fate of the 140 or so existing ones hasn't been decided yet.

[ExAm]

Because it's a good great fighter jet, probably the best in the world, and they're just throwing away the program. The fate of the 140 or so existing ones hasn't been decided yet.
They're not "throwing away the program". They're denying a huge funding package that isn't even needed right now. They're for sure not scrapping the existing F-22s, and we don't even fucking need any more right now.

[PenGuin1362]

The F-22 is an exceptional fighter. Thrust vectoring give it outstanding maneuvering capabilities, it's customizable LCD displays make it easier for the pilot to see and read his controls. It's speed is outstanding. It's design even makes harder to detect on radar. It's fucking bad ass. But we really don't need it. Right now, Air to air combat has been a major part of any war since vietnam, and even then couldn't compare to what is was in WW2. The need for a plane to perform that well in air to air combat at this point in time is unnecessary. In addition, that planes we currently own all do their parts extremely well, whether it be air to air or air to ground. The A-10 absolutely dominates in air to ground combat. Our air arsenal at this moment is perfectly substantial, even for future events. The F-15, 18, 35 all perform wonderfully and can stand their ground against any enemy fighters currently around. And the F-35 is not far off from the performance of the F-22 and its VTOL capabilites can prove to be more useful. The F-22 is wonderful, but it's really not what we need to be spending our money on right now.

[Xetsuei]

It's still not saving money either way since we're still in debt.

:v:

[DEElekgolo]

Fuck ur jets, we got nukes.

[ExAm]

It's still not saving money either way since we're still in debt.

:v:
Doesn't mean we can spend shit with abandon.

[Xetsuei]

Doesn't mean we can spend shit with abandon.

We don't magically gain money back by halting the development of F22s.

[RedBaron]

Yes, but now we'll be in less debt then we would've been. It's like giving up money for a new 60" LCD TV to instead make the minimum payment on your house's loan. Obama is just looking out for our priorities of where the nation's money is going, and a multi million jet isn't one of them right now. Really, with the combined fleet of existing Raptors, F-15's, and the other air assets, the US does not need to be building more of them. It's not like the wars in the middle east consists of daily dogfights in which dozens of fighters are shot down.

[ExAm]

Yes, but we don't fucking go further into debt for something we don't even need.

[Masterz1337]

SSSSSSTTTTTTTTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARSSSSCCCCCCCCCCCC CCREEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAMMMMMMMM

Even though the plane is awesome and can transform, we don' really need it. We got 180 of them? More than enough for now.

[Xetsuei]

Yes, but now we'll be in less debt. It's like giving up money for a new 60" LCD TV to instead make the minimum payment on your house's loan. Obama is just looking out for our priorities of where the nation's money is going, and a multi million jet isn't one of them right now. Really, with the combined fleet of existing Raptors, F-15's, and the other air assets, the US does not need to be building more of them. It's not like the wars in the middle east consists of daily dogfights in which dozens of fighters are shot down.

We're not going to be in less debt, we're going to be in the same amount of debt. What else could we possibly use the nonexistent funds on? The jet costs 140mill and we've spent about 200bill making them so far.


We got 180 of them? More than enough for now.

140 of them.

And you guys seem to be using need quite a bit in this thread. Let's just say, the US likes it better safe then sorry. Sure we don't need thousands of nukes, tanks, jets, or various other things, but that's completely not the point.

[Masterz1337]

Still enough. What the hell are we even using them for?

Edit: We're in debt, so by stopping production may not be gaining money, but we are saving money and not having to pay for the plane and whatever expenses coe later (fuel, repairs, etc)

[Xetsuei]

Still enough. What the hell are we even using them for?

Edit: We're in debt, so by stopping production may not be gaining money, but we are saving money and not having to pay for the plane and whatever expenses coe later (fuel, repairs, etc)

I'm not sure what we're using them for, you can dig around, they're mostly there just in case anybody tries to mess with us.

And no, we still have to pay for all the expenses of it. Just because they stopped production of them doesn't mean they'll stop flying them.

[RedBaron]

Yes, but now we'll be in less debt then we would've been. It's like giving up money for a new 60" LCD TV to instead make the minimum payment on your house's loan. Obama is just looking out for our priorities of where the nation's money is going, and a multi million jet isn't one of them right now. Really, with the combined fleet of existing Raptors, F-15's, and the other air assets, the US does not need to be building more of them. It's not like the wars in the middle east consists of daily dogfights in which dozens of fighters are shot down.

Fixed. And who's really going to mess with US and be able to outgun it's existing fleet? The only country relatively close to matching the US's airpower in numbers and quality is Israel, and they won't being doing any of the messing with the US, it's in their religion.

[Cagerrin]

Personally I'm not a big fan of the Raptor, what really pissed me off was this:

"Gates and other Pentagon officials want to put more emphasis on the next-generation F-35 Lightning, a single-engine jet that would be used primarily to attack targets on the ground and would replace the F-16 and the Air Force's aging fleet of A-10s."

>replace the F-16 and the Air Force's aging fleet of A-10s.

>replace

>A-10s.

:saddowns:

[Xetsuei]

Yeah, that's pissed me off too. The A10 is one of the all time greats next to the F15. I read somewhere that they would make it into an upgrading A16, but I don't know if was true or not. Something like the A10 really doesn't need replacing, just upgrading.

[SnaFuBAR]

Role change of existing platforms is also an alternative. An example i saw was to use small groups of fighters to make quick engagements of larger enemy forces. Enemy squadrons can be painted by our fighter's radar (or tracked by radar observation aircraft) and relayed to "missile truck" aircraft, such as converted b52's or b1's, who would fire air to air missiles. With most of an enemy force engaged by missile from long range, the chaos and disarray means that force on force ratio is not a problem.

This is especially the case if we are merely defending our own skies.

[FreedomFighter7]

The F-22 may be great, but can it do... this?:

http://www.modacity.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17278


Fuck ur jets, we got nukes.

YES! Just fucking yes! Exactly what I was thinking! If we ever really got into a jam with another country we could just use the ultimatum: the nuclear weapon. Of course this depends on if the other country(S) have a way to strike back and initiate armageddon.

I don't know about all the qualifications everybody has, but I think this is a lot of speculation, by people who know little about the subject. I think our leaders have whats best in mind, and know whats best and I think this decision is a direct result of that. I'm no expert on anything, so what do I know so I'm just going to say this.

[itszutak]

Wow. Came in a bit late for this. Anyhow, here's my two bits:

I'm glad for this. From what I've heard, the F-22 is entirely solid state, no tubes involved. (Not to mention, it was a ridiculously expensive project)
If someone were to use a powerful enough EMP blast (say, from a nuke), the plane would be rendered useless-- it would be fried.

On the other hand, (and this is just what I've heard, none of this has been verified so please, please tear this apart if I'm wrong) F-16s and their like use tubes-- they are still flyable during an EMP blast.

I might be a bit biased considering my grandfather designed the radar tube in the F-16, but I don't like the idea of a complete switch to solid-state technology, especially in military aircraft.

[CN3089]

And who the fuck is going to compete with the United States in terms of air power in the foreseeable future? Russia? China? Those wars would go nuclear far before F-22 stocks deplete. The F-22 is a gigantic waste of money.


oh hey I can quote :siren: your secretary of defense :siren:


The F-22, to be blunt, does not make much sense anyplace else in the spectrum of conflict. Nonetheless, supporters of the F-22 lately have promoted its use for an ever expanding list of potential missions. These range from protecting the homeland from seaborne cruise missiles to, as one retired general recommended on TV, using F-22s to go after Somali pirates who in many cases are teenagers with AK-47s – a job we already know is better done at much less cost by three Navy SEALs. These are examples of how far-fetched some of the arguments have become for a program that has cost $65 billion – and counting – to produce 187 aircraft, not to mention the thousands of uniformed Air Force positions that were sacrificed to help pay for it.

[PenGuin1362]

We don't need them. I would murder thousands of new born babies to be able to fly one, but we don't need them.

[Disaster]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

Fifth Generation fighter that is being developed by Russia.

And we all know what happens to Russian technology....

[Jean-Luc]

YES! Just fucking yes! Exactly what I was thinking! If we ever really got into a jam with another country we could just use the ultimatum: the nuclear weapon. Of course this depends on if the other country(S) have a way to strike back and initiate armageddon.

Because completely leveling and irradiating the surrounding area is a perfectly acceptable alternative to targeted strikes with far less casualties/ecological harm. :nsmug:

Do you really find it acceptable to use nuclear weapons, even if just as a threat? No country would tolerate that shit, and it would lower our standing in the eyes of the world even further. Personally, I still think our nuclear stockpile needs to be severely reduced, as does that of other countries. Nobody needs 2,000+ nukes. Nobody needs 200 nukes. Biased post is biased, I know

[Cojafoji]

nuclear deterrents don't work, because that system leaves WAY to much room for concession type behavior. "Oh, I'm taking Poland, and there's nothing you can do about it unless you want a nuclear war, which you don't, so fuck off."

[Rob Oplawar]

From what I've heard, the F-22 is entirely solid state
The term you're looking for is fly-by-wire. I don't personally know very much about the F-22 or fly-by-wire, but trust me when I say the engineers who design these things think these things through, and I would like to think the redundant control systems wouldn't be disabled by an emp blast.

Xet: stop posting.

Everybody else: you can always construct a scenario where it would be better for the US to be more heavily armed. The job of the people in charge is to be prepared for what is likely while taking into account other factors, like the giant fucking recession. And in spite of the recession we're still handily the military superpower, without spending billions on programs with little benefit.


Meh, it's all pointless anyway. North Korea is going to launch hundreds of bombs into space to turn low-earth-orbit into a massive debris field and obscure the geo-synchronous satellites' view of the ground, and with the world blind to nuke launches everybody is gonna launch at once (fucking kangaroos).
That is if Yellowstone doesn't explode and kill off the world's food supplies first.

[Mass]

Are you serious? There are people who honestly think this is a useful program? There are no enemies against which it would be necessary to have air superiority fighters that aren't also situations where the fact that we're at war means it's already over.

Just because it's a really powerful weapon system doesn't mean it's smart spending, in the kind of wars we are actually fighting we could coerce more people not to attack us by simply giving them free food and clothing for less money than these jets. Think about it.

Besides, we already have more than a hundred...

[Xetsuei]

:downsdance:

Great job finding a way to put me in that.

[Amit]

Great job finding a way to put me in that.

It's hard not to. You're the only one left defending the program and won't listen to reason. We all love the raptor, you know we do. But it just isn't necessary anymore. It never really was necessary.

It won't look like the US is going into much more debt because it's so fucking high! You have to start cutting down somewhere and it looks like Obama would like to allocate the money somewhere that would directly benefit the people in the US.

[Xetsuei]

It's hard not to. You're the only one left defending the program and won't listen to reason. We all love the raptor, you know we do. But it just isn't necessary anymore. It never really was necessary.

It won't look like the US is going into much more debt because it's so fuckign high! You have to start cutting down somewhere and it looks like Obama would like to allocate the money somewhere that would directly benefit the people in the US.

I will listen to reason, I just won't listen to illogical reason.

Sure this will help cut down, but the money that is going other places isn't even there. We're still in debt.

[kid908]

It's really isn't a "useful" program per-say. It's more of a psychological weapon. Would you really want to go to war with a country that has the F-22 Raptor when it is:
1. An air superiority fighter that dominates over other air fighter
2. A stealth fighter that you won't see when it comes and take out power units to leave you in the dark
3. A bomber
4. Fly in squads of 4-5 fighters
5. able to use most armanents and be fitted for an extremely variety of missions

[Jean-Luc]

I will listen to reason, I just won't listen to illogical reason.

Sure this will help cut down, but the money that is going other places isn't even there. We're still in debt.

So you'd rather go further in debt over an unneeded aircraft than go further in debt attempting to help this country heal? Now who's using illogical reasoning?

I originally thought it would be a good idea to have production of this aircraft continue, but looking at manufacturing costs (~$137,000,000 per aircraft), that money could certainly be better directed.

E: For reference, the cost of the Newport aquarium, a 100,000 sq foot structure, cost merely $40,000,000 to build

[SnaFuBAR]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

Fifth Generation fighter that is being developed by Russia.

And we all know what happens to Russian technology....
i believe that was dropped when the program failed to produce anything viable and the cost per plane skyrocketed.

[Xetsuei]

So you'd rather go further in debt over an unneeded aircraft than go further in debt attempting to help this country heal? Now who's using illogical reasoning?

I never said they should continue building it, don't jump to conclusions. I ask you though, where is that money going then?

[Disaster]

i believe that was dropped when the program failed to produce anything viable and the cost per plane skyrocketed.
Even so, China and India are developing 5th generation planes as well. China and India aren't exactly our friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Combat_Aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-XX

[SnaFuBAR]

Even so, China and India are developing 5th generation planes as well. China and India aren't exactly our friends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Combat_Aircraft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shenyang_J-XX

the indian fifth gen is the same as the russian one, and the j-xx isn't even known to be a fifth gen aircraft :ugh:

[RedBaron]

I couldn't see china attacking, or even being remotely aggressive towards their only major source of income.

[Disaster]

the indian fifth gen is the same as the russian one, and the j-xx isn't even known to be a fifth gen aircraft :ugh:


http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Rec/rec.aviation.military/2006-06/msg01043.html

"The first picture has recently become available of the new Chinese 5th
generation "stealth" fighter."
:allears:

http://news.rediff.com/report/2009/may/04/india-sets-sight-on-futuristic-combat-jet.htm
Uhh, No it is not. The MCA is being built by india and india only.

[FRain]

We're not going to be in less debt, we're going to be in the same amount of debt. What else could we possibly use the nonexistent funds on? The jet costs 140mill and we've spent about 200bill making them so far.


"We're in debt, we wouldn't be going into more debt by not making them, so lets get into so lets use the excuse that we already put ourselves into debt making them, that it's okay for us to get into more debt!" :allears:

[SnaFuBAR]

Uhh, No it is not.The MCA is being built by india and india only.

uh, yes it is the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

joint research/funding involving russia. thanks, try again.


"We [India and Russia] will share the funding, engineering and intellectual property [of the new project] in a 50-50 proportion."

[Disaster]

"We're in debt, we wouldn't be going into more debt by not making them, so lets get into so lets use the excuse that we already put ourselves into debt making them, that it's okay for us to get into more debt!" :allears:
The f-22 program has also created 95,000+ jobs. Think of the program as a "stimulus" program. :-3

[Jean-Luc]

"We're in debt, we wouldn't be going into more debt by not making them, so lets get into so lets use the excuse that we already put ourselves into debt making them, that it's okay for us to get into more debt!"

hmmm, idk, something that actually generates revenue?

No, wait. If we don't build aircraft, the terrorists win! :saddowns:
No offense Xetsuei, I just really wanted to use that joke.

[Disaster]

uh, yes it is the same
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_PAK_FA

joint research/funding involving russia. thanks, try again.
:lolugh:

The 2 are completely independent of one another. India was doing hardly anything on the T-50/PAK FA.

The program was dropped by the Russians because of the pricetag and India dove head first into creating the MCA. The MCA was originally planned to be the compliment of the T-50/PAK FA

"The Medium Combat Aircraft (MCA)[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medium_Combat_Aircraft#cite_note-0) is a twin-engined 5th generation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighter_aircraft#Fifth_generation_.282000-Present.29) stealth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_aircraft) multirole fighter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multirole_combat_aircraft) being developed by India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India). It will complement the HAL Tejas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAL_Tejas), the Sukhoi/HAL FGFA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi/HAL_FGFA) and the Sukhoi Su-30MKI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukhoi_Su-30MKI) in the Indian Air Force (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Air_Force)."

:allears:

The HAL FGFA is the Indian version of the PAK-FA/T-50

Thanks, try again.

[SnaFuBAR]

Bah, fuck reading shit wrong, my bad. MCA supplements the t-50. idk how i was reading that the t-50 was the basis for the MCA :ugh:

my bad.

[Disaster]

Bah, fuck reading shit wrong, my bad. MCA supplements the t-50. idk how i was reading that the t-50 was the basis for the MCA :ugh:

my bad.
:realsmug:

No worries. Just hate when people mess up their facts.
:cop:

[SnaFuBAR]

easy to do when you're up till 6am, wake up at 8:30 ><

[Disaster]

easy to do when you're up till 6am, wake up at 8:30 ><
:smith: Hate it when I get no sleep. Always feel like crap the next day.

[SnaFuBAR]

try doing 2.5 hours of sleep for a week, or zero sleep for 4 day straight :saddowns:

[CN3089]

China and India aren't exactly our friends.

what


holy shit you're dumb



e: HEY GUYS LET'S KEEP MAKING MORE F-22S BECAUSE WE MIGHT GET INTO A SHOOTING WAR WITH INDIA OR CHINA AND THESE 190 WE DO HAVE JUST WON'T CUT IT



e2:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

oh hey it's just your best general ever??

[Disaster]

e: HEY GUYS LET'S KEEP MAKING MORE F-22S BECAUSE WE MIGHT GET INTO A SHOOTING WAR WITH INDIA OR CHINA AND THESE 190 WE DO HAVE JUST WON'T CUT IT


I consider human lives more valulable than money. I don't know about you. the F-16 and F-15 are incable of outrunning modern SAMs and there is the chance of them getting shot down in any fight. The f-22 can't be detected by missles and will never have to worry about SAMs again unless it is damaged and its stealthy hull is screwed. The F-22 program also employs almost 100,000 people. The program is bring money down from the government back to the people while making our military even stronger. Sounds pretty good to me. Shutting down the program causes arround 100,000 job losses. That is just what we need to help our economy.

I wasn't implying we would fight China or India. China or India are most likely going to sell the tech to someone who hates us and we have to stay on top. That is what I meant when saying they weren't exactly our friends.

[CN3089]

or you could use those billions of dollars to employ people that make things that are actually useful, like hospitals, or schools, but fuck that we need more useless fighter jets!!!


http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Tags/lf-arecountry.gif

[Xetsuei]

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Tags/lf-arecountry.gif

That you don't live in.

[ExAm]

Oh, so foreigners aren't allowed to be informed in our policy? :downs:

[CN3089]

Oh, so foreigners aren't allowed to be informed in our policy? :downs:

hey bro, http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c251/CN3089/Tags/lf-arecountry.gif

[=sw=warlord]

I consider human lives more valulable than money. I don't know about you. the F-16 and F-15 are incable of outrunning modern SAMs and there is the chance of them getting shot down in any fight.
I thought the whole idea of anti SAM's was exactly that, to defend yourself against such things.
I think rossmum or snaf might agree here those flares arnt there just to make some prety fireworks.
Besides theres always the chance of the F22 being shot down at some point so matter how fast its flying technology is always evolving so to say "need moar F22s" is rather harsh in my opinion.
Over specialise and you breed in weakness.

[Xetsuei]

Oh, so foreigners aren't allowed to be informed in our policy? :downs:

That's not what I said. Don't be stupid and jump to conclusions.

E: 5 bux says Bod will lock this thread.


I thought the whole idea of anti SAM's was exactly that, to defend yourself against such things.
I think rossmum or snaf might agree here those flares arnt there just to make some prety fireworks.

Because flares work 100% of the time? And if you run out of flares?

[Bodzilla]

The defense has a ridiculous budget as it is.

Billions and billions of wasted money here.
God move obama.

[=sw=warlord]

Because flares work 100% of the time?
Because F22's are everything a military force will ever need?

[Xetsuei]

Because F22's are everything a military force will ever need?

In terms of fighter jets, yes.

[Rob Oplawar]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Xetsuei again.

Dude, seriously, stop posting. Bod, do what he says, I think we've all heard enough here. I have, anyhow.

[Bodzilla]

what


holy shit you're dumb



e: HEY GUYS LET'S KEEP MAKING MORE F-22S BECAUSE WE MIGHT GET INTO A SHOOTING WAR WITH INDIA OR CHINA AND THESE 190 WE DO HAVE JUST WON'T CUT IT



e2:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities. It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population. It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals. It is some fifty miles of concrete pavement. We pay for a single fighter plane with a half million bushels of wheat. We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people. This is, I repeat, the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking. This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron. […] Is there no other way the world may live?

oh hey it's just your best general ever??
best post in the entire thread. by far.

[Bodzilla]

E: 5 bux says Bod will lock this thread.
:raise:


Why would i do that. Everyone else is having a good discussion in here.

[Xetsuei]

:raise:


Why would i do that. Everyone else is having a good discussion in here.

Because you like to lock threads in their prime.

It seems anytime somebody disagrees with me they like to -rep me. That's nothing short of trying to force your beliefs on people. Pathetic.

[Bodzilla]

Because 2 people going round and round in circles each rejecting and bringing up the exact same posts for 180 replies......... is a thread in it's prime.

:WTC:

[Disaster]

I think we have enough f-22s for the moment but I feel that more f-22s will be needed in the future and that you shouldn't rule out purchasing more later. Shutting down the program entirely would be a stupid move. Merely put the program on "hold"

[Amit]

I concur. Expand the capabilities of it. Keep doing some research on making it better, but the line has to be drawn. No matter how many F-22s you have, you can't save everyone should the country be attacked by...enemy nations.

Because the only way you'd need more raptors than there are currently is for everyone to attack the US. It would be pretty awesome to see liek friggin 500 F22s slicin n' dicin though :iamafag:

[PenGuin1362]

Ok, if the country is going to be attacked, air to air combat is going to be one of the least of our worries, since the amount of tanks, soldiers, and artillery it would take to effectively siege and hold a country our size would be somewhat immense. If anything money would be more useful towards anti air defenses on the GROUND that would cost a fraction of the price. The sky is not a very large battlefield these days, it's not worth the money when we already have perfectly fuctioning and outstanding aircraft as it is. Plus we already have the F-22s that were produced, so we get to keep some.

[ChemicalFizz]

Because you like to lock threads in their prime.

It seems anytime somebody disagrees with me they like to -rep me. That's nothing short of trying to force your beliefs on people. Pathetic.

It's not like dogfights are so frequent that we have to employ a F-22 everytime there's an aerial threat. I think you're living out your fantasy about American F-22's engaging competitors in the air on a 1-on-1 fight to the death, when in fact, that's not reality. The Raptors' use in Iraq and Afghanistan is limited, and necessary airstrikes are easily accomplished by 4th generation fighters. Maybe you get a sense of joy from living in a country where we can build such a badass as the F-22 (and no shit about it, the F-22 is a badass), and god bless your patriotism, but it's blowing the whole issue out of proportion to say that 140 of quite possibly the best fighter in the world isn't enough to keep the US' reputation in aerial combat, especially when those multi-million spending dollars are needed elsewhere.

Half the fight is in the pilot.

[Xetsuei]

It's not like dogfights are so frequent that we have to employ a F-22 everytime there's an aerial threat. I think you're living out your fantasy about American F-22's engaging competitors in the air on a 1-on-1 fight to the death, when in fact, that's not reality. The Raptors' use in Iraq and Afghanistan is limited, and necessary airstrikes are easily accomplished by 4th generation fighters. Maybe you get a sense of joy from living in a country where we can build such a badass as the F-22 (and no shit about it, the F-22 is a badass), and god bless your patriotism, but it's blowing the whole issue out of proportion to say that 140 of quite possibly the best fighter in the world isn't enough to keep the US' reputation in aerial combat, especially when those multi-million spending dollars are needed elsewhere.

Half the fight is in the pilot.

First, why did you use that quote? It has nothing to do of what you're talking about. And secondly, you're interpreting what I'm saying completely wrong. I don't want to bother correcting it all, so all I can say is try again. The F22 is air superiority, you do know air strikes are mostly accomplished by attack planes?

And where do you find half the fight is in the pilot from?

And this WHOLE thread we've been talking about the same thing. Summary: Good fighter, we have plenty, our current fighters are good enough, the money could be used for other things. There's the thread in a nutshell, is there really anything more to discuss?

[Dotkito92]

The program should continue. Having more jets means we have something to show off to the rest of the world.

[Bodzilla]

And this WHOLE thread we've been talking about the same thing. Summary: Good fighter, we have plenty, our current fighters are good enough, the money could be used for other things. There's the thread in a nutshell, is there really anything more to discuss?
so now your calling for me to lock the thread.


irony it's delicious.

[Xetsuei]

so now your calling for me to lock the thread.


irony it's delicious.

No not even close, but what else is there to do but continue arguing about the same thing?

[Bodzilla]

you could always find something else to talk about. steer the thread in a more productive thoughtful direction.

[PenGuin1362]

Well everyone was pretty much in agreement except you. But seriously, I would devour infants to be able to fly one.

[Xetsuei]

Well everyone was pretty much in agreement except you. But seriously, I would devour infants to be able to fly one.

Yeah, but you guys were the ones continuing it. :ssh:

[ChemicalFizz]

First, why did you use that quote? It has nothing to do of what you're talking about. And secondly, you're interpreting what I'm saying completely wrong. I don't want to bother correcting it all, so all I can say is try again. The F22 is air superiority, you do know air strikes are mostly accomplished by attack planes?

And where do you find half the fight is in the pilot from?

And this WHOLE thread we've been talking about the same thing. Summary: Good fighter, we have plenty, our current fighters are good enough, the money could be used for other things. There's the thread in a nutshell, is there really anything more to discuss?


You ARE the only one in the thread that has the stupidity to say that a project mostly about aesthetic beauty in the air is worth the billions of dollars, right? All your posts in this thread basically have the same argument, so I didn't bother searching and just used the nearest one.

"The F22 is air superiority, you do know air strikes are mostly accomplished by attack planes?"

No shit. That would be why I wrote: "...and necessary airstrikes are easily accomplished by 4th generation fighters." Can you read? People have been posting how F-15's and F-35's are capable of getting the job done in half the cost. What? The F-22 is the only one that can effectively drop a bomb? It's the only one that can perform an airstrike? Do you even know the general idea behind aerial combat? Even reading a wikipedia article about the air force for 30 minutes could've given you a better idea than what you posted. Maybe you should get off the bandwagon full of F-22 fanboys that are there purely for the "coolness" factor of the plane.

Do you really think there are really intense dogfights happening over Afghanistan right now? What do you think the primary reason behind the bill is? You heard it from Gates himself: there is no need for the plane. It's not like smart bombs were actually successful in seeking out hidden terrorist caves and reducing bystander casualty. Why would the F-22 be any better in the same situation, considering, there are important issues at hand such as the war we are currently in and the financial troubles at home?

[PenGuin1362]

Maybe you should get off the bandwagon full of F-22 fanboys that are there purely for the "coolness" factor of the plane.

I doubt it's "coolness". The F-22 can hands down out perform any aircraft currently in active duty. It deserves the praise it gets, it's just an unnecessary cost right now

[Xetsuei]

I doubt it's "coolness". The F-22 can hands down out perform any aircraft currently in active duty. It deserves the praise it gets, it's just an unnecessary cost right now

Basically this. I don't have time to dissect that huge post, I'm going to bed.

[ExAm]

Thread has served its purpose.