Some USAF Pilots Refuse To Fly F-22 Raptor 569
Hugh Pickens writes "The LA Times reports that some of the nation's top aviators are refusing to fly the radar-evading F-22 Raptor, a fighter jet with ongoing problems with the oxygen systems that have plagued the fleet for four years. 'We are generally aware of a small number of pilots who have expressed reservations about flying the F-22, and each of those cases will be handled individually through established processes,' says Maj. Brandon Lingle, an Air Force spokesman. Concern about the safety of the F-22 has grown in recent months as reports about problems with its oxygen systems have offered no clear explanations why there have been 11 incidents in which F-22 pilots reported hypoxia-like symptoms. 'Obviously it's a very sensitive thing because we are trying to ensure that the community fully understands all that we're doing to try to get to a solution,' says Gen. Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command. Meanwhile Sen. John McCain says that the jets, which the Air Force call the future of American air dominance, are a waste of their $79 billion price tag and serve no role in today's combat environment. 'There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft,' says McCain, a former combat pilot himself. '[The F-22] has not flown a single combat mission... I don't think the F-22 will ever be seen in the combat it was designed to counter, because that threat is no longer in existence.'"
Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
...but for those who say the threat "isn't there", I guess this [ausairpower.net] is just a figment of the imagination then? And they certainly didn't have any "help" [dailymail.co.uk]...
Oh, I know, China isn't a "threat". The fact that it's on track to exceed US military spending by 2025 [economist.com] must be for "peaceful regional defense". This [nytimes.com] isn't [economist.com] really [economist.com] happening [nytimes.com].
What about the F-35? Oh, yeah — that, too. [aviationweek.com]
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
China will never have enough to invade the US, so it isn't a worry. At best, they could attack/invade isolated islands, but China wouldn't be able to invade the US. It would take 10 years of obvious build-up to where they could. The LA police is better armed and trained than any force China could project in California, and would likely be able to repel an invasion of Long Beach without US military involvement.
China has lots of people in their military, and unless Russia completes the tunnel under the Bearing Straight, China couldn't get them to US soil without us killing them faster than they could land them (and if the tunnel was built, I expect it would be shut down fast, in case of war).
There exists no scenario where China threatens the US mainland. The US could abolish the standing army, let China build up for 5-10 years, and China would still be unable to invade the mainland. China is as much a threat to the US as someone who gets a picnic overrun with ants, then asserts they must spend $10,000,000 to ant-proof their $100,000 house because ants could invade at any time, and insecticides would be too little too late.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
And if they start landing, they better pay attention to what a few Japanese generals stated about a rifle being behind every blade of grass
Multiple conflicts throughout history have shown what local gurrila fighter can do against a "proper military" - now imagine what one of the best armed civilian populations could do... The 2nd Amendment isn't about deer, duck, or dove hunting - it is about fighting back against enemies both foriegn and domestic.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know I'd never get elected, but if I were elected this No
Not sure precisely (Score:4, Informative)
There isn't a precise count, because records aren't kept centrally. Though there is a federal background check done on new weapons sold to civilians in the US there are two things:
1) It is quite new, most firearms were sold prior to it.
2) No record is kept by the government. The sale is approved or denied and that is it.
Records are kept by individual gun shops (as required by law) but not centrally.
However it is a lot. Best estimates are around 270 million or so. Not more than the population but close.
You are correct about uneven distribution in that many people who choose to own a gun, choose to own multiple ones as different types are good for different purposes, and like most hobbies they simply enjoy it. About a third of homes have firearms as best as surveys can tell.
It would make for an exceedingly armed militia. While there aren't a lot (relatively speaking) of fully automatic weapons in civilian hands (100,000 or so) there are plenty of weapons with military value, hunting rifles, AR-15s, AK-47s, etc. The US does not restrict such things from civilians, and many civilians own them. Likewise there is little restriction on ammunition. Some types (like steel) cannot be bought but legal ammunition is unrestricted to the point of being sold over the Internet and shipped directly to homes.
A foreign power conquering such a populace, if they chose to fight, would be near impossible. The whole "getting shot from every window" would be a fairly literal reality. Blowing shit up is easy from afar, but occupation requires soldiers in cities and that is where the problem would be.
Re: (Score:3)
Private gun ownership was outlawed in Germany in the late 20's or early 30s...
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah... no.
All your 9mm Glocks and hunting rifles and even AK-47's and AR-15's aren't going to do much good against an armored column. The point of a guerilla response is to make the enemy bleed enough that it (eventually) saps the popular and political will supporting the invasion and occupation, forcing an eventual withdrawal. But that can be an awfully long time: How long was Russia in Afghanistan? the US in Iraq, Afghanistan? The French in Vietnam? The British... everywhere? An "armed resistance" sounds great. But it does not compare in the slightest to a modern, well-equipped, well-trained military. If you think a hundred thousand Angelenos and New Yorkers are going to meet the invaders on the beaches in a pitched battle rivaling Normandy... I want some of what you're smoking. Without a standing military, we'd be eminently invadable.
The only thing we'd have is the firepower to offer some resistance after the occupation. But even still, 300 million amateurs with handguns are still fucking amateurs. The vast majority will know nothing of small unit tactics, communications, survival, evasion, etc. required to effectively fight against an occupying force. And there's a pretty steep learning curve when the smallest mistake means you catch a .50 caliber round in the face. There's a VERY small number of people who own guns and who would be capable of mounting effective resistance. The rest would be ground meat in about 2 days against any reasonably well-trained military. "Red Dawn" was a fanciful notion, but it's just that: fanciful.
China is interested in blocking US projection (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
...not attacking us; there's no point. They want to challenge our force projection and protection of other countries, especially those they want land and resources from. They could care fuck-all about North America. They want oil, rare earth metals, and territory buffer/control near them. We've been a thorn in their side, protecting Japan and a whole lot of the rest of Asia from them.
I'm out of mod points, but this is right on. Whether China has a blue water navy is irrelevant. The point is to make our navy hesitant to get involved in regional conflicts against Chinese interests. It doesn't take many ship killing cruise missiles to keep carrier battle groups away from danger and hence out of action.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, it's shown that sometimes the guerrillas win (but not reliably), and that sometimes the guerrilla's force a draw - and a considerable percentage of the time they're used to wipe the floor by the "proper" military. (That is if you actually study history, rather than go by urban legends.) Generally, where the guerrillas end up on top, there's problems of some kind within the "proper" military,
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Insightful)
You're off by 3x, cowboy. (Score:3)
The US outspends China almost 10:1, and has for the past 10 years, that doesn't look to be changing, but China will still be spending more in 13 years than the US, who is spending 10 times as much today.
Did you even TRY to verify your facts before you posted that? Or are you seriously believing the official China figures of $25BN? You're off by an enormous amount:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_People%27s_Republic_of_China#Comparison_with_other_countries
"Jane's Defence Forecast
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Funny)
Ronnie didn't beat the commies, they just fell apart. Fuel prices fucked their economy, they got tied down in a series of costly pointless overseas wars, and the government became too bloated, corrupt, and bureaucratically frozen to function.
Fortunately that combination of influences will never ever happen to anyone ever again, ever.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
That's pretty evident. His statement:
'There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft,
shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
His point seems valid. Air superiority hasn't been remotely in question in any war the US has been involved in since WWII. $80B was a massive waste of money for a plane that after 15 years of development is still not combat-ready (and more notably hasn't been missed in the slightest).
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.
And I will point out that the reason there has never been a question of Air Superiority is precisely because the US was always looking at the Soviets as the next potential combatant, and developing high-tech planes for that eventuality. Now they are looking at the Chinese, or their client states, as well as places like Iran or Syria that have something like 50 times the anti-air missile technology that Iraq had.
You can't seriously be suggesting that we wait till there is a superior opponent kicking our asses before we start development can you? It sure sounds like you are.
The money was all spent here, and the aircraft will server for 30 years.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems valid only to people who will not learn the lessons of history.
If you want to learn the lessons of history, just look at HOW the US and NATO eventually conquered the Soviet Union. It wasn't though a SINGLE weapon used in war, it was by forcing them to spend money on their military until it basically bankrupted them.
And big surprise, that's exactly what terrorist networks have done, what China, North Korea, Iran, etc have done. Create perceived threats with little expense and goad the US into responding with trillions of dollars in useless wars and weapons development. In China's case, they are even providing the shovel (ie loans) to dig the hole.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
But none of that would have worked if the US had not maintained a large and very well equipped armed forces. Without the ability to hold the Soviets in check militarily, the West would have been screwed.
What defeated the Soviets was Containment. Part of that was economic, and par of it was force projection and the ability to counter or respond to all Soviet military capabilities.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
What defeated the Soviets was that the "Communist" economic model they used was ineffective at promoting long term economic growth and prosperity.
I believe their economic model was best summarized by a saying of the workers: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Interesting)
What defeated the Soviets was that the "Communist" economic model they used was ineffective at promoting long term economic growth and prosperity.
I believe their economic model was best summarized by a saying of the workers: "We pretend to work, and they pretend to pay us."
True, but be aware that even if the economic system was flawed, the Soviet Union made it 70 years and through a World War fought inside its borders. Without very significant military opposition, they would have had ample time to accomplish an invasion of Western Europe and a great deal of Asia. Stalin probably could have accomplished a lot of it himself even before he died a few years after the war.
And I don't have to remind you that once there is enough conquests and inertia, even crappy governments can remain in power for decades, even centuries. Just look at the Roman Empire and how long it took to fall apart even with insane numbers of bad leaders and civil wars. Why? It had resources and manpower coming out of its ears, as well as strong institutions. If you count the Byzantines, it took them 1,450 years to cease existing as a government, and if you don't count them, it was merely 475 or so. And of course, the Chinese don't seem to be going anywhere, even if they are more national socialist than communist these days. That's a long time to have to live quoting Marx, Lenin, and Chairman Mao.
Re: (Score:3)
Nonsense, the Soviet Union was dependent on Western handouts pretty much from the start. First the bankers financed the revolution, then investors were lured in by Lenin's NEP (New Economic Policy), then Stalin got huge military aid during the war and after the war, they constantly needed grain imports to keep their population from starving. (And that in a country that was the traditional food-exporter in the 19th century.)
In the 1980s, Poland and East Germany were only kept afloat by massive Western loans.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh, the Soviet Union was defeated with a lot of help from by surface to air missiles (Stingers among others), antitank missiles and mines supplied by the U.S. to Pakistan which in turn provided them to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union was bled white fighting a brutal, futal ten year war in Afghanistan and some of the returning veterans were a leading voice of disillusionment with their government.
They were pretty cheap weapons, but still you are exaggerating your point when you say "It wasn't through a SINGLE weapon used in war".
It is also something of an exaggeration to say military spending bankrupted them. It may have been a contributing factor but the collapse of the Soviet Union was a lot more complex than that. If Gorbachev hadn't been in power, and a hard liner had been, it might not have collapsed at all.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the bigger problem is the hypoxia and the cost.
I'm not opposed to be planning for the future, but we can't bankrupt ourselves doing it like North Korea. Build a cheaper plane and figure out how to keep the pilots from fucking suffocating.
Quite franky, if it takes 350 million to push out a single aircraft then it is unsustainable. If it cost 10 million a piece for single family houses we would still be living in caves and huts.
Instead of the constant boondoggles and Military Industrial Complex bailouts let's figure out a plane that will give us air superiority in either tech or numbers for less than 50 million a plane.
Is that really that unreasonable?
Ohhhh, and the ability to breathe too while we are at. For those pussy pilots who need oxygen.
Cost of a plane... (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't know about $50M, but I remember somewhere that the marginal cost for another F-22 was something like $60M. That's discounting the R&D and operational costs.
Excepting the RAM coatings, the F-22 was actually designed to be cheaper and easier to maintain than a F-15. The hypoxia is a serious design flaw, yes, but it's actually a pretty tiny portion of the plane.
If you want a $50M plane, we're going to have to build them by the thousand to justify the R&D and tooling to automate manufacture to the point that they're that cheap.
IE want 10 F-22s? $75M a piece, discounting R&D. Want 100? $60M because they end up automating more.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
There are already UCAVs- unmanned combat air vehicles- being tested, including the Boeing X-45 and Grumman X-47. Neither is capable of matching the performance of an F-22; these are subsonic aircraft with lower ceilings. But there's no reason that you couldn't build a UCAV with the performance of the F-22; in fact it would have better performance- higher speed, longer range, lower observability- since you could build it without needing to worry about the weight added by the pilot and cockpit, and without worrying about the stealth characteristics of the cockpit.
At any rate, the F-22 program is no longer an issue- production stopped at 187. The idea was that the F-35 would take its place. The problem is that the development of the F-35 has been a nightmare of delays and cost overruns. It turns out that making one fighter to fill the conflicting demands of the Navy, Air Force, and Marines is a lot tougher than it sounds. Right now the program is estimated to run a total of 1 trillion dollars.
I'm all for maintaining air superiority, but I think that spending a trillion dollars on F-35s is insane when our enemies, for the foreseeable future, are goat herders with IEDs and AK-47s. It would make more sense to cut back the F-35 program drastically and continue to use F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s until we can build stealthy, supersonic drones to take their place.
Re: (Score:3)
If the F-35 is supposed to replace the F-22, that must be a new development. The F-35 was never supposed to replace it. They serve different purposes. The F-35 could almost be called the A-35. It can hold its own in the air and can also be very effective against ground targets. The F-22 is designed to shoot thing out of the sky, other planes, like the F-35, will take care of things on the ground.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Informative)
You only have drones and you have a weakness (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:You only have drones and you have a weakness (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm pretty sure drone A. I. is going to be vastly better at air combat maneuvering quite soon. Keep in mind that a plane without a human on board doesn't have to respect the body limits regarding g-force.
The way I see it, humans have the edge on 1-on-1 fight, so then you could just default your drone to follow him as best as it can, even if it ends up in a "draw". Once you start going X vs X, the drones can communicate practically instantly with the whole network, much faster than the humans, and that IMO is a decisive factor (not considering the g-force limitations that the drones don't have).
Re: (Score:3)
"The idea was that the F-35 would take its place. "
That was not the idea. That idea does not make any sense.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's a pity the US and the West didn't think about Chinese dominance before they started shipping their hi-tech manufacturing there.
Why not? It worked for WW2 (Score:5, Insightful)
And the price was only the US getting its ass kicked and the death of hundreds of young men fighting a superior force in obsolete planes. But hey, it is not you doing the dying is it, just someone elses son.
WW2 saw the US hopelessly unprepared and it wasn't the fat cats who paid the price for it. Afterwards, the US promised itself to never be caught unprepared again. Preparing your national defense for what is happening now is silly, it takes decades to prepare and nobody can predict even 5 years ahead. War is wasteful, being prepared so war can be avoided only seems wasteful. Until you get it wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. That is incorrect. In Korea the US did have issues with air superiority until we deployed the F-86 and even then it was touch and go.
2. Since then we have had air superiority because we have spent the most to develop it and keep it but even over vietnam we only had a roughly 1:1 kill ratio.
Guess what? The same thing has been said about just about every aircraft ever developed. The F-4 was big and expensive and people said we would be better off just buying more F8Us. The F-15 was big and expensive and didn't see combat for a decade after it's first flight.
And so on and so on.
The F-15 is late 1960s tech. It is older than most of you on this board. It is now getting threatened by SU-32s and Su-37s.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Air superiority hasn't been remotely in question in any war the US has been involved in since WWII.
Or, as USAF types put it, "American troops have not had to fight under a hostile sky since WWII. This did not happen by accident."
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.
The F-22s were designed for the cold war and in much greater numbers. So much for forward thinking eh ?
200 aircraft is too small a number to do 2 things :
-insure the integrity of the US airspace
- and deploy a sufficient number of F-22 to insure the air superiority of a hypothetical future battlefield that is not 100 km^2.
In fact the number of F-22 is so small that the US military is too afraid to use them and potentially lose them on the battlefield. Much much better to lose then at home.
They have become so costly as to be useless for all pratical purposes.
Same problem as the B-2s. Why do we keep flying B-52s in bombing missions instead of B-2s ?
Answer : we have a fuckton of B-52s and they are cheap, we have 20 B-2s and they cost a billion each so losing one is not acceptable.
Military weapons that are too costly and in few numbers is never a good thing.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
200 is plenty.
You build the weapons you need in the quantity you need. We have drones to do the super dangerous missions, and tons of F16s FA-18s, F-15s to rule the roost once the the F22s sweep the skys. Please don't assume because you have a computer and an internet connection that you are qualified to design force levels for a theater you can only guess at. Production has been purposely held back so that the country can be bankrupted paying for healthcare.
Having an aircraft designed, tested, and an assembly line in place, these very small aircraft can be built in great numbers very fast as soon as cost become not a constraint.
The F22 was not designed for a cold war. It was deigned for air to air combat.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's thinking like this is why, in fact, the US is doomed. Yes, it's far better to pour billions into some weapon of war that may or may not prove useful in some unknown future war(mongering) scenario, rather than do something positive with a fraction of that cost to give its citizens a better quality of life right now. Healthcare in other countries hasn't bankrupted them, there's no reason it should bankrupt the US. That's just right-wing FUD. The problem is that the US has been fed this thinking for so many generations now that it has become a military state - it seems perfectly normal to constantly talk of war and keep its industries on a war footing, and anything that even faintly smells of small-s socialism is treated with enormous suspicion. It's so out of balance with any form of rational basis for a nation that it will certainly topple over. It's not a question of if, but when.
Re: (Score:3)
It's so out of balance with any form of rational basis for a nation that it will certainly topple over
I'm not sure how you define "rational basis for a nation," but historically, when nations fail to maintain a strong army, they've toppled. The same can't be said for healthcare.....
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And Canada, well Canada is just a vassal state of the US.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't have the figures at hand (and sorry, haven't looked 'em up for this quick post) but I understand that the US pays a rather large amount for the healthcare it does get - despite it being privatized. The US healthcare system is pretty good (if you have insurance) but there are huge compliance costs to cover the litigious nature of the industry, plus unnecessary tests just to stave off later legal challenges.
If the heath system was nationalized at the US Federal level it would never become cheap (bu
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Informative)
"Having an aircraft designed, tested, and an assembly line in place, these very small aircraft can be built in great numbers very fast as soon as cost become not a constraint."
You would need MORE parallel lines, not a speedup.
That also doesn't solve component lead times, crew training times, maintainer training times, maintenance infrastructure buildout times, and the other things which make spewing out modern aircraft a bit different than knocking up a WWII piston-engined fighter.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
200 aircraft is too small a number ...
Which is why we have, and will have, thousands of other aircraft.
Same problem as the B-2s. Why do we keep flying B-52s in bombing missions instead of B-2s ?
Because it costs less? We've used B-2s regularly (as far as wars go), but once the enemy has no air defense, why pay more for a mission than necessary?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Insightful)
shows he is perpetually fighting the LAST war, and never thinking about what might happen next. These aircraft were never intended for Afghanistan or Iraq.
That's exactly McCain's point. The aircraft aren't intended for Afghanistan, or Iraq, or any of the wars we've actually been in for the past 10 years, they're intended for a war against Soviet Union. Back in 1981 when the Air Force began looking for an F-15 successor, this probably made sense, but since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the question becomes, why do we need these planes?
The only countries currently pursuing fifth-generation fighters are China and Russia. At this point, the idea of war with China seems like a remote possibility. The U.S. can't live without iPads and China can't live without U.S. money. Russia's military fell apart after the collapse of the USSR and it would take a long time to rebuild it to the point where it would be a serious threat. At any rate, war with either country is extremely unlikely given this little thing called "mutually assured destruction". Because of that, the U.S. hasn't gone to war with a major power in 60 years, when we fought against China in Korea.
So it's a fair guess that the wars of the next 50 years will look like the wars of the past 50 years- Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. Wars against enemies with inferior air forces, and guerrilla wars. In that sense, the Obama administration's move to cut the F-22 program while expanding the role of drones and increasing the size of Special Forces looks like the right move.
Re: (Score:2)
McCain is a senile old man who never got his PTSD treated. It's unfortunate that he is still in office but just because he says the threat isn't there doesn't mean people are going to pay heed.
He's suggesting we wait until someone's shooting at us before checking to see if we packed our guns and ammo. "Senile" is being kind. I'd rather we have tools we don't need than need tools we don't have.
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Interesting)
Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner
It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
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. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
I'll just leave these in this thread...
Re:Not only that... (Score:5, Insightful)
Give me the money that has been spent in war and I will clothe every man, woman, and child in an attire of which kings and queens will be proud. I will build a schoolhouse in every valley over the whole earth. I will crown every hillside with a place of worship consecrated to peace. ~Charles Sumner
It'll be a great day when education gets all the money it wants and the Air Force has to hold a bake sale to buy bombers. ~Author unknown, quoted in You Said a Mouthful edited by Ronald D. Fuchs
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. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron. ~Dwight D. Eisenhower, speech, American Society of Newspaper Editors, 16 April 1953
I'll just leave these in this thread...
Nice sentiments. But far too idealistic and unrealistic. Your problem is, human nature. Those who beat their swords into plowshares will till the soil for those who have not.
Re: (Score:3)
Ask Britain and France how losing air superiority worked out in the pursuit of peace. Peace isn't something that magically happens, it is enforced and protected.
Re:Not only that... (Score:4, Interesting)
The F-22 has been fighting problems since like forever. The only other aircraft in the US with as many development problems right now is probably the V-22 Osprey. That is not in use anywhere either. Heck the US has had to dust off their Chinooks and the Navy is reconsidering their Jolly Green Giants because the Osprey... sucks. It was an interesting idea in theory but in practice it is crap.
Re: (Score:3)
The V-22 isn't in use anywhere? That's odd because I deployed with CV-22s to Afghanistan in 2010, and we lost 4 men and an aircraft to a crash during combat operations. [flightglobal.com]
I'm not necessarily defending the airframe, but it very much is in use in Afghanistan. The Marines have been using it in theater even longer than the Air Force.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You're wrong about the V-22; the development program was long delayed and over budget, and several complications arose during testing. However, since operational deployment, the aircraft has an excellent safety record--in fact much better than the CH-47s it's been replacing. Your opinion on the aircraft is dated, and doesn't represent how things have turned out in actual practice. And unlike the F-22, the V-22 is very well suited to recent types of conflicts--it can rescue downed pilots or deploy a speci
Re: (Score:3)
As the United Kingdom did (well hell, most of Europe) did a couple of centuries ago... Then if you really want to go back a bit farther, the Romans, the Greeks, the Persians, the Hittites, the Assyrians... well... you get the picture.
Is it ethical? No, not really. And as we've evolved as a planet, the justifications put forth for such meddling have been revised to the point of oddity. First it was "to bring others under the benevolent rule of X" (X being whatever empire was in charge at the time)... then it
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Insightful)
Precisely.
I'll note that members of the military are sworn to follow only lawful orders, and are likewise duty-bound to disobey unlawful orders.
One could definitely argue that while "fly this plane into extremely dangerous enemy territory and blow them up, we'll give you all the support we can but there's still pretty good odds you won't make it back" is a lawful order, "fly this plane on a routine practice mission over our own, undisputed territory, that's likely to kill you for no reason" is not. At the very least, you could argue that your death and the subsequent loss of the aircraft would amount to sabotage of America's defenses.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't know what backwoods piece of shit branch of service you served in but in the Marines we are honor bound to do the right thing.
I will tell you how my drill instructor told us many years ago while on one of our many island hopping campaigns (those were fun ugg)
"A Marine is bound to always do what is right. If a superior gives you an order that you know you should not follow you better not."
"However bitches here is the kicker. YOU HAD BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT!"
in other words when an enlisted person refuses an order he deems unlawful he had BETTER BE FUCKING RIGHT! (or he is fucked)
There is no gray area for an enlisted person it is a very black and white situation, right or wrong.
My favorite marine quote.
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps! "
Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945
Re: (Score:3)
actually, it's officers who have the right to interpret orders. as an enlisted or noncom you can still be convicted for refusing to follow an order from your CoC regardless of merit.
Since TFA is about F-22 pilots, I'll note that all of them are officers. I don't think the USAF has any enlisted pilots at all - aircrew yes, but pilots are all officers.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
actually, it's officers who have the right to interpret orders. as an enlisted or noncom you can still be convicted for refusing to follow an order from your CoC regardless of merit.
Um, no. Everyone in the military, from E-1 to O-10, has both the right and the duty to refuse an unlawful order. And officers can also convicted for refusing to obey an order if they thought it was unlawful, but the court-martial finds otherwise. Obviously political reality enters into this -- a corporal is a lot more likely to end up behind bars for refusing to obey an order than is a colonel -- but under the law, there's essentially no difference between the obligations of officers and enlisted in this regard.
Re:Hmm. (Score:4, Insightful)
As long as SuperPAC donor corporations are making money building the F-22 and the F-35, it doesn't matter one bit what is "safer" or "more effective" or a "better weapon". It doesn't matter how many pilots get splashed and it doesn't matter that the generals don't want those aircraft.
What matters is some transnational corporation's stock price and political donations depend on those boondoggles. They're going to fly the F-22 and like it, because nobody cares what those pilots want. And not one dollar can be cut from military spending, no matter what agreements were made, no matter what votes were taken, no matter how wasteful.
And one presidential candidate wants an additional $100 billion for defense spending, while cutting $600 billion from "wasteful" things like Pell Grants, Head Start schools, infrastructure and food stamps.
Now who are the real "welfare queens"?
Re: (Score:3)
I doubt that.
There is a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yup, that's the only thing stopping al Qaeda from developing an air fleet--they know it would be out-gunned by our F22's.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. Besides we basically have the F35 ready by now. So tossing the F22 would really be the most sensible thing to do, and i would argue that the only reason why we haven't done it already it's because people get attached to their pork.
Funny how the same people that want to starve the government start to cry bloody murder when government supported defense jobs are at stake.
Re:There is a point (Score:5, Informative)
Ok, if you want to make that argument, you take an F16, skin it to look like an F22, make hundreds of them and fly'em around and look scary.
Would work for about a month until the paint fell off. I'm all for shock and awe, but spending 80+ billion on a bluff is just batshit stupid.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:There is a point (Score:5, Interesting)
Which in fact seems to be China's exact strategy with the J-20. Build a barely working prototype that superficially looks like the F-22, and let the US continue to spend billions (borrowed from them!) to pay for development of something to "counter" it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah you're right, obviously, because we've been nuked so many times. Oh, we haven't?
Re:There is a point (Score:5, Insightful)
Spending 80+ billion on a bluff would be stupid. The F22 is however not a bluff. It is the deadliest, sneakiest air superiority fighter ever created by man. The US government has spent 80+ billion ensuring that every other nation on Earth has planes in the air only because the US lets them, and the Russians and Chinese amongst others know this.
You can assess the effetiveness of a weapon only when its been through fire.
F-22s up to now are a bluff, a very expensive bluff.
The day they go on the battlefield and emerge unscathed after being fired upon by the state of the art sam batteries then we can say yeah F-22s are great.
Re:There is a point (Score:5, Funny)
The F22 is however not a bluff. It is the deadliest, sneakiest air superiority fighter ever created by man.
And apparently, some of its pilots agree with you.
No. (Score:5, Insightful)
To use the F-22 correctly we'd have to go to war with Russia or China. If that happens then there are a lot of other issues that are more important than the F-22.
If we fight another proxy war (like Vietnam was or when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan) then we'll probably be using drones.
Follow the money. Who's making the profit on the F-22?
Re: (Score:3)
To use the F-22 correctly we'd have to go to war with Russia or China.
See? There's a simple solution to every problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a point for the F22, and that is to suppress all other power's desire to make stuff that will encounter it.
If that's true, then the "other powers" are pretty much guaranteed to win. You know that's how NATO eventually defeated the Soviet Union, right? No need to fight, just make your opponent spend so much money on perceived threats it bankrupts them.
No purpose? You sure about that? (Score:3)
There is no purpose, no mission in Afghanistan or Iraq, unless you believe that al Qaeda is going to have a fleet of aircraft
But there are companies with lucrative military contracts in Iraq, so it has a purpose for someone.
Re: (Score:2)
What I don't get is this: They could make equal money building out a fleet of say, 1000 F16 / F18 Superwhaterver BlockZ aircraft. Scary enough and potent enough to deal with any adversary in the next several decades. Cheap enough for generic use.
Something else is going on, maybe military penis size or something.
Re:No purpose? You sure about that? (Score:5, Funny)
What I don't get is this: They could make equal money building out a fleet of say, 1000 F16 / F18 Superwhaterver BlockZ aircraft. Scary enough and potent enough to deal with any adversary in the next several decades. Cheap enough for generic use.
But this is the F22. It's 4 louder than the F18!
Something else is going on, maybe military penis size or something.
A little known fact: the famed pacifist Gandhi had the biggest cock in all of India. He'd swim in the Ganges, and people would think that an anaconda was following him. Which was kind of weird, since anacondas live in South America. Then Gandhi and Martin Luther King would stand on opposite sides of the river and have a swordfight.
Re:No purpose? You sure about that? (Score:5, Informative)
So the expensive equipment is better for the War effort, even if 1000 F16s and A-10s would kill more enemies in a shorter period of time for less money, because A-10s get shot down because they go low and slow. And it's not successes that win wars anymore, but lack of losses.
hmm (Score:2)
Headline seems a bit grandiose. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sen. John McCain says that the jets, which the Air Force call the future of American air dominance, are a waste of their $79 billion price tag and serve no role in today's combat environment.
If the Libyans had acquired Eurofighters, rafales or if the syrians had any decent russian aircraft he'd be singing a different tune. Yes NATO has air assets that can handle SU27's and Mig 29's, but you end up in a shooting war with eretria, or sudan or syria and they manage to down even one US aircraft people will be wondering wtf there wasn't something better available.
The problem with *all* military spending is that you're trying to guess future needs and have something that can cope with an unknown problem. It's not like the US was stupid enough to only buy f22's (at the astronomical price that would have entailed). The US Air force has something like 2400 'fighters' of which about 200 are F22's. That's not counting the Navy. For what they do that seems like a fairly reasonable allotment of 'might need for air superiority role' for the next 20 years or so. One can argue specifics on stealth, performance or total numbers, but it doesn't seem like the F22 purchase was wildly out of place by US standards. As with any piece of equipment it's possible there is something wrong with a system (in this case the oxygen system), but that could be a maintenance issue, a replacement part issue a design issue, or any number of other things. Whenever you buy any piece of equipment (including a car) you take the chance that something on it will be defective.
Re:Headline seems a bit grandiose. (Score:5, Interesting)
The BIG problem with the F22 and F35 is the military is putting the cart before the horse. They design an aircraft that has never flown and pushes the technical envelope in dozens of different ways and then try to come in on a budget. They NEVER, EVER get even close to budget. Never.
Why they think it will be different this time I don't know.
What they SHOULD be doing is giving the advanced designs over to the various skunk works. Let them come up with the tech. When it's mature enough for production, then put it in line of battle machinery. Not before. Yes, that means you have to fund R&D better, but that's what you're doing anyway, just doing a half assed job of it. The advantage there is you aren't hosed if one of the high tech gizmos doesn't turn out the way you want it - you just design the device around another tech. Once you freeze the design, it's much harder to change.
Re:Headline seems a bit grandiose. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why they think it will be different this time I don't know.
The contractors lie about capability and cost because they want to win the contract. The DoD accepts these lies because it wants shiny new toys. Congress goes along with it as long there's pork involved. No-one learns anything because there's no incentive to avoid corrupt behaviour. The MICC at its finest.
Reality intervenes and the project goes overbudget. Production gets cut, yet it doesn't really save any money. The project continues through several cycles of the death spiral until it is either cancelled or delivers a product. And we end up with the congress critters getting their pork, contractors getting their piles of money, DoD getting their shiny new toys, along with promotions for anyone who didn't end up holding the bag. The troops end up with nothing or a handful of gold-plated weapons with less capability than they were promised. Oh, and the taxpayer gets screwed, but that's the usual outcome.
Also somethign to keep in mind (Score:5, Insightful)
Is the R&D type military spending does have civilian benefits. The most major and obvious one in recent history would be GPS. It was built because the military wanted to be able to precisely locate all their men and material anywhere. Now? It is the principal navigation method for virtually commercial and civilian all craft, falling back to less accurate measures only should it fail.
GPS is the biggest and most evident, but not the only one.
While that doesn't mean we should just blindly throw money at anything, I think money spent on military R&D is better than money spent on wars, or having a massive military. I'd rather have a smaller military with the highest of the high tech equipment than a massive one with whatever can be scraped together.
And of course, as with any R&D, you can to be ok with the idea that the results may suck, they may not work, they may have problems, or there just flat out may not be any. If you want guarantees, you have to stick with what you have. If you try new things, there may be problems, failures, as you push the envelope.
The bleeding edge (Score:2)
The F22 is a remarkable aircraft. It has some problems but they all did. It takes decades to work out all the bugs.
Is the F22 meaningless because it's foe doesn't exist. Not really. It's silly to think we don't need air superiority fighters simply because of the war on terror. Don't try to fight the last war. That's over. We need tools for the NEXT war which might well include more technologically savvy enemies.
That said, I think the real problem the F22 is that it isn't a drone. Generally, the future of al
Re: (Score:2)
The Shuttle was Truly Amazing (the most complex device ever devised by man). But it wasn't a good idea because it was too expensive and too complicated.
Sometimes you just want to meet your military objectives, not amaze your friends and enemies.
You will look fondly on $79 billion (Score:5, Interesting)
When the near trillion dollar price tag for the F-35 comes due. Already nearly 5 years behind schedule, with hundreds of billions in cost overruns and no end in sight. 7 project ending design flaws uncovered in the last Quick Look Review. And the model being built for the Marines, they don't even want it. The Naval version is melting carrier decks and the Air Force version doesn't fly well. Plus most of the Tier 1 nations that are supposed to buy it in return for building components for it, are starting to bail out and contracting with rapid upgrades of the soon to be discontinued F-16 or purchasing the Eurofighter or Dassault Rafale.
And the really sad thing is that their early competition, the Boeing F-32 was widely acknowledged to be a better cheaper more efficient and elegant AND more advanced plane but it was not selected because, and I quote, the Air Force didn't think it looked aggressive enough, compounded with weak VTOL characteristics that now, it's clear, aren't going to work out for the F-35 either because it's SO efficient that it melts runways, which is why the Marines don't want it.
Re: (Score:3)
$175 billion a year to end global extreme poverty (Jeffery Sachs)
This is a chimera - a mythical beast. It's also a false dichotomy, equivalent to "eat your peas, there are children starving in India". And it's a phony number do boot. One _might_ say that with $175 billion we could _mostly_ eliminate some of the most egregious problems that the extremely poor are subject to - such as that less than 1/2 of the people in India have access to toilets.
Let's just assume that $200 billion is suddenly made available to 'end poverty'. (that basically means sending or spending
Threat isn't the point (Score:3)
The Vietnam Analogy (Score:5, Interesting)
During the decades before the Vietnam war, everyone was also convinced that conventional air combat was a thing of the past. We even designed our air forces and training regimens around the contemporaneous concept of high-tech air warfare. In Vietnam, however, it turned out that actual combat ended up being more of the same from previous wars. But, our pilots and planes weren't equipped to fight this way, so our pilots found themselves getting their butts handed to them. The Navy, which was less invested in the high-tech warfare concept, was the first to clue in and start training their pilots appropriately and going old school by putting "antiquated" anti-aircraft cannons back into or under their jets.
The point is that the military has been burned at least once badly by the idea that our high-tech trinkets will fundamentally change warfare. While the military will continue to adopt new technology, until there's a shooting war that *proves* the F-22 is an obsolete concept, they won't abandon traditional tactics.
BTW, the F-22 still serves a vital role. You can't use our last two counter-insurgencies to imply that air superiority aircraft aren't needed anymore.
Re: (Score:3)
and when it comes to a shooting war we can drag out the real killers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairchild_Republic_A-10_Thunderbolt_II [wikipedia.org]
Short sighted much? (Score:5, Informative)
McCain might be right, but his statement sounds frighteningly a lot like when they believed in wars after WW2 that dogfighting aircraft were no longer needed, and then had to make an about-face when the MiG fighters had no American competition in Korea. For a short time in Korea, we had WW2 propeller driven Mustangs fighting against MiG jets. There were even some pilots from WW2 flying, and supposedly helped advise the design of modern jet fighters and dogfighting techniques to counter the MiG.
It all makes sense (Score:3, Funny)
Now we know why Luke started hearing voices in his head all of a sudden.
Re: (Score:3)
If Slashdot employed real journalists then it would've had the scoop months ago. Instead Slashdot is just another referral farm.
You are aware that Slashdot is not, has never been, and has never said or implied that it is a primary news source?
It's a, you know, discussion blog based on user submissions? Hell, I don't think there is any evidence that Slashdot even employs any editors.