Comments on: Congress squanders tax-dollars on F-22’s

By: Rick Cain

Rick Cain — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 06:32:37 +0000

Russia demonstrated you can open a can of major whoop ass for pennies on the dollar. Just ask the Georgian president Sakkashvili.

Our military may cost as much as gold, it doesn’t seem to be worth its weight in it.

By: Tom

Tom — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 03:34:56 +0000

Nah Taylor,

It could more than likely have been a conventional war with Warsaw Pact if the cold war had went hot. And even if it went nuclear, you would have needed interceptors to engage enemy bombers. So don’t knock the necessity of an interceptor.

By: RTaylor

RTaylor — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 23:28:33 +0000

Even if the Cold War went hot, a bunch of interceptors would have been damn useless with MIRV’s raining down on cities. It ended up being a war of economies, and the USSR went broke first.

By: Somebody_Else

Somebody_Else — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:07:34 +0000

#40
“Military procurement seems seriously broken. That $4 billion ($500 million? — still too much) plane started out as a new kind of dart until the defense contractors got ahold of it. Even with the current high price of gold, the B-2 costs approximately as much as the same weight of gold.”
____

Like I said, the high cost ($2 billion per B-2) is because we put a ton of research money in and only built 21. Manufacturing and maintenance costs would have been significantly lower per aircraft if we had build 200.

Regardless, I think the B-2’s capabilities are worth its high cost. I can’t say that about the F-22. Bombers and strike fighters are useful, interceptors aren’t.

By: Winston

Winston — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:07:41 +0000

“why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.”

Yes, that IS funny! When has a HUGE mechanism of a cold war military industrial infrastructure carefully spread out among congressional districts EVER put a continuation of their business above the taxpayer’s interest? I mean, the bank bailouts you and your kids just paid for (with money borrowed from Japan and China) PROVE that business people always have NOTHING but YOUR best interests at heart.

Christ…

By: Winston

Winston — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 16:01:37 +0000

“Just wait until someday when ground troops are denied air support because there are no planes available. The first ones screaming will be these bleeding heart liberal like Eideard.”

Ground support against WHOM? What _real_ current or future adversary has the capability to even put a tiny dent in a USAF that has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,286 are fighters, an Army that has over 1000 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters alone, a Navy with 3700 aircraft and Marines with both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

Stop buying the BS propaganda. The Cold War is over, so if we need to build anything, it isn’t hardware appropriate for a huge Cold war adversary.

By: Mr. Fusion

Mr. Fusion — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:47:36 +0000

#40, Uncle Patso,

why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.

#41, traaxx,

Oh geeze, I thought Uncle Pat gave me a good laugh with the honesty. You are just rip roaringly stupid which I find extremely hilarious. How can someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic pretend he does? And I bet you did it with a straight face too. And indignation.

By: RTaylor

RTaylor — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:51:12 +0000

Traaxx

The wing emblem used isn’t the symbol of the real Confederate Air Force. The CAF is a great organization that restores and flies old war birds. The CAF has nothing to do with the ideology of the former Confederacy of the American Civil War. It began as a joke name. If you have the fortune of seeing a WWII Era aircraft flying, more than likely it’s one of theirs.

By: brian t

brian t — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 11:00:04 +0000

Perhaps some of those tax dollars could go in to educating people in to the correct use of the apostrophe in English? You never use the apostrophe to indicate a plural. It might be used in a plural, but not because it’s a plural, for another reason such as to indicate possession. Example: “the sisters’ skirts’ hems were dirty”.

If you could convert “F-22’s”, “RPG’s”, “American’s” and so on in to sound, it would be the sound of nails dragging down a chalkboard. Ow …

By: joaoPT

joaoPT — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 10:10:39 +0000

#44
Right on the money:

You can’t build a cheap plane or else you wouldn’t have the budget to spend on the payoffs you’ll need to spread around so you can build them in the first place…

(read with a Jersey/mob accent)
“Yeah…a coat of paint…aaaah…that’s a…one mil…per plane, yeah…special paint.You know…Just say’n.
Unless you want all those Arabs knockin’ down you penthouses…Just sayn’…your call…
And…aaaa…here’s a little “incentive”…ahhh…take the wife to Paris…”

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 07:11:03 +0000

Just think, it won’t be long now before Hollywood cooks up a few features to showcase these aircraft in. I read that the V22 Osprey was already featured in the 2007 “Transformers” movie. So much for secrecy and “need to know”. This all gets tossed out the window when there’s some budget promotin’ or recruitment boostin’ to do. I once saw the SR71 in a scifi film, a year before it was declassified. Way to go Texas film board.

By: Glenn E.

Glenn E. — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:46:07 +0000

I like how the Pentagon comes off blameless. But I’ll bet they make a “conservative” order for a plane. And then steer their contractor buddies to the “right” congressmen, to get those numbers hiked upward. And then act as if “Congress forced us to have planes we didn’t want”. But they always seem to know were to put them. And have as many pilots needed to fly them all. I’ve never heard of an air base that complained of having a jet fighter or bomber surplus. Have you?

So I suspect that the Pentagon under bids. And then allows certain congressmen to take the credit for bumping up the contract, to where they really wanted it. And then everyone wins.

By: Rick Cain

Rick Cain — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 06:44:34 +0000

These days our enemies wear sandals and carry RPG’s. The F-22 is rapidly losing its justification for existience in these slow burn insurgency conflicts.

By: deowll

deowll — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 05:58:20 +0000

The plane is great in a way but 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying times seems more than a lot extreme. The price serious limits the number of machines any nation can afford maybe to point of not being able to control the air space against a major player.

The other fact is that remote control/robotic machines have so many advantages over these machines it’s pathetic. We can also use cheaper more reliable platforms. It’s the electronics and weapons platforms that matter.

By: Traaxx

Traaxx — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 04:30:55 +0000

Yes, you dip, we need the planes. It’s a little late to build them when you go to war.

What do you want to spend the money more welfare, that never ends. Health Care for all the illegal immigrants to so they can drop the living wages of Americans. You are so full of it Edieard.

So why is the ‘Confederate Air Force’ emblem there. You are such a racist NAZI, judgmental and bigoted.

Whatever………………

Traaxx