Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Six Democrats join GOP in overturning Obama administration’s efforts to cut F-22 funding.
Last April, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended capping production of the F-22 Raptor at 187 planes. Gates said the move was part of a series of changes in defense spending that he called “no-brainers.” (The F-22 has never seen action in either Iraq or Afghanistan.) Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee “threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end” the F-22 program, voting 31-30 on a measure marking up the Defense Department spending bill that would “add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.” Six Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Courtney (CT), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Eric Massa (NY), Bobby Bright (AL), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — joined 25 Republicans in voting for the amendment. The Wall Street Journal reports that “the extra money would be a boost for Lockheed [Martin's] Marietta, Ga., production facility” which is in Marshall’s home state.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Who’s got the fork? I think this thing is done.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pmThe MIC is a heartless, soulless, mindless machine. We must do the thinking for the MIC, to keep it on our side. The lobbyists must look for new work.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:42 pmJust proves that there are idiots everywhere…………
June 17th, 2009 at 5:44 pmCan I get one to go with my rocket launcher? It is my right god damn it….
June 17th, 2009 at 5:45 pmYesterday, the House Armed Services Committee “threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end” the F-22 program, voting 31-30 on a measure marking up the Defense Department spending bill that would “add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.”
Of it’s so “advanced” , why isn’t it being used , numbnut ?
June 17th, 2009 at 5:46 pmI love this fighter jet, but it hasn’t seen action, it’s over priced, and we have a better jet that could be used by two branches of the military unlike the F-22 which is used by one. Republicans want to control spending this is the perfect example of getting it under control.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:47 pm*Oh* , not “Of”
June 17th, 2009 at 5:48 pmour military spending budget is one of the most frustrating things in the world to me.
we spend more on our military then almost every other country in the world combined spends on theirs.
we could still spend more on our military then any other country by far and reallocate some of that funding (not even that big of a chunk of it) and offer bad ass universal health care to every citizen in the united states without raising anyone’s taxes by a single penny.
but instead we build bombs, useless jets that are mostly used for training sorties, and fight wars based on faulty intelligence…. much more productive use of our tax dollars than taking care of the health of our citizens.
on this issue… everyone involved in our government should be ashamed of themselves.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:49 pmReader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:51 pm- Mark Twain
Six Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Courtney (CT), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Eric Massa (NY), Bobby Bright (AL), and Mike McIntyre (NC)
Soooo, I’m guessing there are some significant subcontractors in CT, AZ, NY, AL and NC, in addition to the main contractor in GA. This crap has been going on for decades on both sides of the aisle and it sucks.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:56 pmFairy tale time.
Once upon a time some military genius came up with the idea for a vehicle that could supply support for the troops in the field and could be repaired with an adjustable wrench and a screwdriver. It served the US military for close to 50 years.
Its replacement is four times the size and requires a degree and technical equipment to even come close to keeping it in the field.
Now we have an airplane that needs the equivalent of a PhD to fly and the same to service. Yet the military has this quaint policy about who it lets into the service so a large percentage of the people who could fix or fly the damn thing, can’t.
Military preparedness. No wonder the Afghanis are kicking our butt.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:58 pmAs of last month the US has 141 F-22’s.
Everything I’ve ever read about it (and I’m a long-time combat aircraft nut) makes me conclude that it is actually an over-produced ‘technology demonstrator’ and not a viable, reliable front-line weapon.
Unit cost is huge ( even at the original order level), maintenance is a nightmare and it has no counterpart that a current F-15 can’t really handle.
141 of these lemons is quite enough.
The F-35 is a better bet, operationally and fiscally.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:00 pmYou all still calling these guys Democrats?
June 17th, 2009 at 6:03 pmYou have to love the military mind. They are always, at least, one generation behind where warfare really is.
Remember the Maginot Line!
June 17th, 2009 at 6:08 pmHealthcare….we can’t afford it.
GM bailout saving hundreds of thousands of jobs…..we can’t afford it.
High tech weapons we will probably never use and certainly don’t need…….PRICELESS!
June 17th, 2009 at 6:13 pmI’m reminded of an oldie but goodie:
it will be a great day when our schools get all the money they need and the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber
We can apparently afford limitless funds for (obsolete) military equipment, but we can’t allow healthcare to pass.
PEACE
June 17th, 2009 at 6:15 pmSince the turn of the century mankind has been shown there is only one way to contain terrorism. You can’t beat them militarily, as shown in the American Revolution, Ireland and Viet Nam, to name three examples.
Negotiation, honest and straight forward, is the only thing that works.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:17 pmspencers mom, thank you. Same to eyeswideopen1.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:18 pmMrs. Lennon’s boy said it, ‘Imagine’.
What would our world be like if war and fighting wasn’t the first choice.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pmAnd they complain that health care overhaul will cost $1 trillion over ten years while as an economy we already spend over $2 trillion per year on health care. The same people who obsess over the costs of pro-human initiatives are quick to defend and set aside the estimates of building, maintaining & housing bulky weaponry the country doesn’t even use.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:22 pmIdiots. . . your constituents are losing their homes and you are voting to spend taxpayor dollars on a boondoggle. Pigs don’t fly, neither do these planes. How far will these sleezy democrats fly on the hoses of their elephantine friends? (Ever heard the tale of the frog and the scorpion?)
June 17th, 2009 at 6:27 pmThey complain so much about wasteful spending, etc. but don’t mind wasting millions of dollars building an aircraft the military does not use? This just makes no sense.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:28 pmWhat was that thing that bush used to do with a pen….signing something!
June 17th, 2009 at 6:29 pmMilitary spending is ridiculous. If I could get the Pentagon to pay a billion dollars for a large rock, Congress would still be incapable of cutting it from their budget.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:30 pmCongress people, word to the wise, children are taught it, perhaps a grade school tutorial is in order:
http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html
June 17th, 2009 at 6:33 pmI don’t know about this….those Iran guys look pretty mad this week. I just saw on google earth Kim Jong Il out polishing his new missle in his drive way this afternoon, that can’t be a good thing. I even noticed Debbi is batcrapnuts today. Somethings in the air? When in doubt, jump in your jet and start shootin stuff for Obama’s sakes.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:35 pmOne has to bless trolls like Slappy. They missed their calling in stand up comedy.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:44 pmIt’s so hard to give up on a good boondoggle when the “campaign contributions” are so good.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:45 pmSnoBird….your silly! And old too…..the frog needed a handgun…..guns make everyone behave and equal.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:46 pmOr befor the Obama Administration officially evolves into GHW Bush Administration 2.0, Obama should review his campaign promises, you know, those in which he promised:
1. Get rid of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell;
2. Get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act;
3. Reinact transparency legislation (including visitor lists);
4. Ending useless defense contracting obligations;
5. Demanding accountability in government (including the use of “enhanced interrogation techniques (torture)).
We Americans who spearheaded your campaign are not seeing much if any progress on these fronts, in fact quite the opposite . . . you in fact appear to be propogating the very policies that you were popularly elected to abolish.
Where are you Mr. President . . . cultivating the next class of the Wall Street predators and the military industrial complex (Eisenhower warned us so strongly against).
Where are you? Clean up your act and get busy executing the policies promised and
June 17th, 2009 at 6:48 pmthat got you elected.
Slappy, do you paint your face white and wear alittle red nose when you tell these jokes of yours? Do you have alittle car that you ride in too? Just wondering.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:50 pmHoodathunktick Says:
One has to bless trolls like Slappy. They missed their calling in stand up comedy.
And the food service industry appreciates their selfless dedication to burger flipping…
June 17th, 2009 at 6:51 pmcapitalism equals war mongering for profits for the few.
americans are imperialists pure and simple
they dont have a clue they are imperialists.
not a clue.
700 military bases around the world two unwinable wars for profits and americans think it is for their freedoms.
what a dumbed downed society america is.
just flew back from peoria illinois. scary very scary.
take a trip through the south now there is some real war mongers.
even have children to fight in our wars for profits and call them heroes for doing so.
americans dont have a clue they are war mongers.
the house of rep dennis from ohio knows.
america is about wars for profits just like ike said we would be way back in 1961.
simple as that.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:53 pmOne reason they have never flown in battle is the relativly low-tech ease with which they could be shot down.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:54 pmSnoBird…..there are plenty of places left in the country (or others) where none of that crap, THAT YOU WILL NEVER CHANGE, is meaningless…..MOVE
==============================================
angels81…..I will have you know it’s not little cars for me anymore….I saved up and bought a “show pony” from uncle Barry at his yard sale in Chicago when he moved a while back.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:56 pmSlappy,
Thanks for setting me straight. Next gun show . . . I’m totally there.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:57 pmAnd lordy, wouldn’t it be a treasure trove of top secret innovation, for the country that succeeded in bringing one down. All that money spent on r&d, and our enemies would learn it’s weaknesses, and limitations.
June 17th, 2009 at 6:59 pmOh Slappy,
Change is gonna come . . . I have no intention of changing my address.
If you don’t like it, you leave. While the voice of dissent is always welcome, I suspect that if you leave that we’ll be a better country for it.
Just which country do you think will take you?
June 17th, 2009 at 7:06 pmI think the military-industrial complex can only be dismantled after we’re no longer considered a “superpower.” Once the rest of the world gets on with the business of ignoring us, we won’t be able to justify “paying the cost to be the boss” any more.
It’s a shame really. I’d like to hope we could actually do the “beacon of freedom” thing properly into the 21st century. But it doesn’t seem we’re up to the task. Right now the best thing we could do would be to just be decent and join England in the ranks of halfway responsible ex-empires.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:10 pmWell, I know I’ll catch hell for this but I’m glad they’re trying to overturn this one. We don’t have to agree with President Obama on everything and this is one decision of his that I was against from the onset, even more so now with the recent developments in North Korea.
The F22 is a highly advanced weapon that is capable of dominating anything in the air. The reason it hasn’t been used in our recent “police actions” in Afghanistan and Iraq is because we haven’t been engaging in air combat.
Period.
The reason we need the F22 isn’t for operations like Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s to deal with countries like North Korea, and China or Russia (who may back North Korea should war break out). The F22 is a major deterrence. Its the “big stick” that we walk softly with.
In fact, the F22’s best capability is deterring war with another military superpower. The fact that it hasn’t been used is a testament to it’s capability. It gives us a superior edge that no other country out there wants to confront. Because air dominance is critical when two super powers collide, as we learned in WWII, and WWI.
Germany made better planes in WW1, with the Fokker Dr1, D7, D8 and Albatross fighters. The D7 in fact outclassed anything the allies had in the air at the time, (although the Nieuport 28 came close). The problem was production. They didn’t make enough of them. So we won by attrition. If they had made more of them, and trained more pilots to fly them, they could have extended the war, although admittedly it didn’t play as big of a role as did air war in WWII, where the ME109, the Focke Wolf and even the Stuka (which was a lousy plane but a great dive bomber) gave Germany an edge, until companies like Lockheed Martin (who makes the F22) came out with planes like the P38 Lightning, (which was superior but difficult to maintain) and of course the P51 Mustang, and all the advanced long range bombers gave us the edge. Any student of WWII knows that if weren’t for our investment in the best, fastest and most technologically superior aircraft, we would not have won the war. Air power was key.
And speaking of WWII, a prime example of how an advanced weapon which may be expensive to produce can give a country an unbeatable edge, was the German Mark 1 Tiger. The Tiger was notorious for being difficult to build, and expensive (800,000 marks for a single unit), and it wasn’t a viable player on every battlefield. When the Germans tried to use the Tiger in the streets of Leningrad they were misapplying it, as it was designed to be used on the open battlefield as opposed to being a close quarters vehicle. Just like the F22, it wasn’t used widely in many campaigns simply for that reason. It wasn’t designed for it. But used in the open battlefields of North Africa for example, or high on the hills overlooking Bastogne these tanks proved unstoppable.
Allied Tank crews had become so terrified of the Tiger that they actually coined the phrase “Tiger phobia”, and often tank commanders would run from encounters with Tigers rather than engage. Just the sight of a Tiger, (or a Panzer Mark IV with armor skirting that made it resemble the Tiger) was enough to send most smaller tanks running, and rightfully so. The Tiger after all could kill most tanks (from 2000 meters out)without ever engaging them closely enough to put themselves in any danger.
We beat them only by sheer numbers, (meaning extremely high casualty rates among allied tank crews) and the fact that the Germans didn’t produce enough of them to make a difference except in a few specific battles. Like the F22, it was difficult to produce, expensive to produce, and was designed for certain types of engagements. And like the F22, the Tiger was not made in sufficient numbers, thanks mostly to allied air raids on German factories coupled with the difficulty of manufacturing them. Had the Germans been able to increase the production of Tigers (and it’s successor, the Mark II “King Tiger”) then the Tiger could have easily turned the tide of the war. In fact most commanders admitted the landings on D-Day would have been greatly hampered if not thrown back had the Tigers of the 12th SS Panzer Division and Panzer Lehr been given permission to engage on the beach fronts instead of keeping them back as a defensive weapon as Hitler had ordered. We have instances where a single, lone Tiger Mark I took out as many as 22 allied tanks. Had these weapons been unleashed during the landings then the landings may not have been as successful, if at all.
In a nutshell, advanced weaponry has it’s advantage, when used properly and in sufficient number. The F22 Raptor is our “Tiger Tank” so to speak in the modern warfare arena, and while it is not suited for the small operations of Iraq and Afghanistan, where no serious threat from enemy aircraft is in play, it does present us with a formidable “big stick” deterrent against the larger players out there, namely China, Russia and North Korea. China’s working on more advanced fighter craft every day, as is Russia. They have nothing yet to compete with the F22 Raptor, but given time they might come up with a comparable 5th generation fighter that could give us a run for our money. Which is why it is so critical that we don’t cap production on the F22, but continue building it, while simultaneously working to improve on the design.
Limited production of the Tiger I and Tiger II’s in Germany, along with misapplication of them and failure to use them when they had the opportunity, played a key role in Germany’s ultimate defeat. As did air superiority both in technology and numbers. And in modern times we can learn from those lessons, and work to keep the best, most technologically superior weapons on the cutting edge of our arsenal so as to deter the likelihood of ever having to engage China, Russia or other super powers in open war.
And should war break out in North Korea, as it’s threatening to do as we speak, the F22 will give our pilots a huge advantage over the MIG 29’s of the KPAF (Korean Peoples Air Force) and other lesser generation fighters, giving us full dominance in the air, which in a war with Korea could mean the saving of millions of American and South Korean lives.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pmSlappy,
Only America would embrace a nut who wants to arm frogs. Rest of the world . . . not so much.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:11 pmbarfly….I dont flip burgers ……. heres something I learned in Chicago public schools….you pick a copy of the Sun Times up off of the street somewhere and look for “weddings and funerals” hoping neither are yours of course…. the address is right there, use your free bus pass and you will find all the free food you can eat, more often than not you will meet someone else you know. You dont even need a tux or suit…..just wear your Acorn shirt and your good to go.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pmStep away from the f ucking mic, Slappy.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:16 pmWaynebro,
Perhaps I’m wrong, but I think you got the story wrong. Obama actually supported abolishing the F-22 program and was thwarted by Congress. He wanted to get rid of the program and Congress overruled him. So far as I know, no appeal.
“Yesterday, the House Armed Services Committee “threw a wrench in the Obama administration’s plans to end” the F-22 program, voting 31-30 on a measure marking up the Defense Department spending bill that would “add $369 million in extra funding to keep production of the Air Force’s most advanced jet alive.” Six Democrats — Reps. Jim Marshall (GA), Joe Courtney (CT), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ), Eric Massa (NY), Bobby Bright (AL), and Mike McIntyre (NC) — joined 25 Republicans in voting for the amendment.”
This inert jet is worthless…is nothing but an outdated protogype. Not to be rude, but get your facts straight.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pmSno….I have the capacity to create my own reality! (And my nearest neighbor is just “out of range”) WE, IN THESE HERE PARTS, GOT IT JUST THE WAY WE LIKE IT.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:19 pmSlappyBastinado Says:
barfly….I dont flip burgers ……. heres something I learned in Chicago public schools….you pick a copy of the Sun Times up off of the street somewhere and look for “weddings and funerals” hoping neither are yours of course…. the address is right there, use your free bus pass and you will find all the free food you can eat, more often than not you will meet someone else you know. You dont even need a tux or suit…..just wear your Acorn shirt and your good to go.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
:)
:p
June 17th, 2009 at 7:22 pmSlappy
You mean you don’t have a rocket that can shoot Russia from your front porch . . . talk to Sarah . . . if anyone can fix you up, she can.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:27 pmNo, I think you need to reread my comments.
I said nothing about the President “not abolishing” the F22 program.
In fact, a simple peruse of the very first sentence of my comment would have shown you that.
I think some in here just like to say “you’re wrong” without ever bothering to read that persons comments.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:30 pmOn second thought Slappy,
Puttie might be the only one able to get you out of your predicament . . . might not want to bottle rocket Puttie . . . where else will a guy who aims to arm frogs seek help?
June 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmThats funny….Todd and I were just talking about that rocket thingie the other night. With next years snow machine race winnings, a little luck, and a keg of powder we will at least bet something in the air………..
June 17th, 2009 at 7:31 pmNext time you might try actually reading my comments, prior to “not being rude”.
And the F22 is a superior 5th Generation aircraft, not an “obsolete prototype”.
And that’s a proven fact by the US Airforce, who has tested the aircraft extensively in simulated tactical maneuvers.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:33 pmWaybebro, my mistake.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:35 pmI really just wanted to see you repeat it
June 17th, 2009 at 7:36 pm.
Killer! Just launch Todd . . . two birds with one stone.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:37 pmIf we get into a war with China or Russia, I don’t think a few jets are going to make all the difference. They would cut off the oil supply. They would shoot down our satellites. They would probably shoot down the F-22s as well. It would be miraculous if it didn’t go nuclear.
Sure the military needs to be prepared for all contingencies, but to act as if the need to be prepared to outgun Russia and China is more important than anything else is to act as if there is nothing more important than mutually assured destruction.
I think health care is more important than the F-22.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:37 pmI’m curious.
$369 million is the price of, roughly, four to six F-22s. Is this funding going to production or modification/maintenance?
June 17th, 2009 at 7:39 pmWaynebro,
Your comments were so long. I took a nap, called my uncle, a flight engineer at the Air Force Academy, and took his word that the F-22 is a POS that he wouldn’t ask a cadet to fly.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:41 pmOh yeah, he’s a decorated fighter pilot.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:42 pmWhich is it?
Was it “your mistake” and you were lying when you said you wanted to see me “repeat it”? Or were you lying when you said “your mistake” and really wanted to see me repeat it?
:|
By the way, I wouldn’t post a comment to try and support your position on the F22 being an “outdated prototype” that describes the F22 as the Air Forces most “Air Force’s most advanced jet alive”.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pmSlappyBegger. Get some self respect man. All you do is debase yourself begging us to pity you. We KNOW you are stupid and pathetic and deserving of our pity but enough is enough. Stop with your constant begging
June 17th, 2009 at 7:43 pmWiley is a wise man.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:44 pmwiley has it just right, we up here in Alaska can watch and see which side is going hay wire and jump to the other…..or back again….we will still have all the oil and caribou we need……even if we have to scrape it off the roof…..
June 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pmWell, if you’d read my comment you’d see that the entire premise of my argument was that a “FEW JETS” were the problem.
Capping production means a “few jets”. We need more of them. Not less.
And they will make a huge difference, considering that the F22 can shoot down anything Russia or China send up at us without even breaking a sweat.
That’s a HUGE advantage.
In fact that’s the ball game.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:45 pmNo, I wasn’t lying. I misread, but then really wanted to see you repeat.
FYI, jets are not “alive” and if you think so, perhaps you should jump on the back of Palin when he bottle rockets. Where you got your quote is unattributed, so who can determine it’s value.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:47 pmI didn’t know you were also a military history buff, WAYNEBRO.
I am not looking for a fight, or even an argument, but one could make a strong case that the French SPAD XIII and British Sopwith Snipe were good matches for the Fokker D VII. Even the Se5a was much faster, though it was not as manuverable and had a lower ceiling.
As for the Nieuport 28? It was structurally defective, had an engine that was prone to catching fire, and rejected by the French. The only reason it ever saw combat was because we Americans bought them until enough SPADs were available.
That being said, I agree on the F-22. It’s a full generation ahead of anything else in, or near, production. At least until the F-35 is operational. We’ve already invested in the ones we have. It would be unwise to give up such a technical edge.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:50 pmYea, will for simple minded juveniles who are best suited to one shot insults and silly back and forth baby talk, yea, I imagine they were too long.
As for your “uncle”, who gives a shit what you claim your “uncle said”?
A. I doubt you called him.
B. I doubt you have one working as an engineer.
C. His opinion doesn’t supersede the opinions of the US Air Force Air Command, nor the pilots who actually “Fly” the aircraft.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
June 17th, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Waynebro,
Perhaps with all of your hot air, we can just wrap it up in plastic and detonate it with Palin . . . surly that blast and the sweet scent of your sweat will anniolate “anything Russia or China send up at us” . . . game over. So cost effective. . . a single Waynebro, one Palin, a little plastic, self generated hot air and some good ole Alaska egnighter . . . pow! Russia . . . China . . . take that!!! World Peace!
June 17th, 2009 at 7:53 pmBrilliant.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:55 pmWow Wayne…..I remember that….that whas some heavy duty stuff along with Aurora Borealis and all those Russian Badgers and Backfires watching from the sidelines…what a show, what a show………
June 17th, 2009 at 7:57 pmYeah, and your sources scoring a simulated kill-ratio of 221-0
have the veracity of Ahmadinejad.
Actually, my uncle and I don’t get along so well . . . but he he is what he is and he said it.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:59 pmWrong. As the tactical maneuvers have demonstrated anything the Russians or Chinese have now would be DOMINATED in the air by the F22, and thus they would not be “shooting them down”.
The F22 is a superior aircraft to anything any other super power has to offer. It ensures complete “dominance” in air to air combat, which is a key deterrent to such a war ever occurring. Walking soft but carrying a “BIG” stick, in this case the F22 is one reason these countries do not want to tangle with the US.
As for going nuclear? Unlikely. Neither China nor Russia want to see an end to mankind. They’re not crazy. North Korea? Sure. But Russia? China? They know all to well the outcome of nuclear engagement.
And as history has shown us, we can engage them in “proxy war” and not have it “go nuclear”. We engaged them in Viet Nam and in North Korea once before.
IF war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, then the F22 is going to play a KEY ROLE. A critical role. And it will be responsible for saving American and South Korean lives.
Capping production is a mistake. A huge mistake made because of budget constraints I imagine, and one that I am standing behind congress on overturning.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:59 pmIf one wants an example of just how advanced the F-22 is? We won’t even sell them to Israel or let pilots from allied nations fly them.
We in the West have learned to denigrate the latest Russian fighters because we, and the Israelis, have only gone up against de-rated export models flown by lesser pilots. If we found ourselves going head to head with the latest Russian and Chinese fighters, and pilots, our F-16s and F-15s would be hard pressed. West German pilots in Mig-29s have a very inpressive kill ratio against in combat simulations. In particular, they have helmet mounted sights and superior short-range missiles. The F-22 is a different story.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:59 pmWell…..thats it…..you all have lost your minds….time to feed the hogs……….
June 17th, 2009 at 8:00 pmLike I said, you’re best suited to juvenile insults, baby talk and random nonsense, rather than engage in any real debate.
You’re wrong about the F22, and you’re wrong about me. I am not for war, as anyone who’s seen my posts over the last 4 years knows. I am 100 percent against it.
Which is why the F22 plays such a critical role in preventing war from ever starting.
I don’t expect a juvenile like yourself to get that, but you could at least try.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:01 pmThat’s fine. I’m not looking for one either. I’m surprised in fact we’re on agreement on the F22. Just goes to show the left is not as goosestepped indoctrinated as the right.
On the 28, I guess I’ll have to agree with you there to a point. It was a dream to fly from what I understand, and I guess I liken it’s success more to men who flew it, like Rickenbacker, who got his start in one.
As for the SPAD, I’d have to differ in that the it was prone to stall and spun out in a steep dive, something the later DVII’s did not do due to their superior design and of course their aluminum tubing construction, which made the aircraft sturdy in the dive, easy to fly, (important when your pilots are inexperienced) and generally what I feel was a superior aircraft. In fact in the armistice agreement Germany had to surrender their DVII’s. It was specifically mentioned.
All in all if the DVII had entered the war earlier, and in larger numbers it could have played a key role in extending the war. That was my only real point.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:11 pmExactly. They’re forbidden for export. Which tells us a lot.
The Air Force loves them. It’s unbeatable in the air as the Air Force will quickly point out. It’s just the money issue. But I have no problem with Congress spending money on something that is guaranteed to make Russia and China think twice about looking to start a conventional war, whether directly or by proxy via North Korea.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:16 pmProxy wars went out with the Cold War.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:17 pmTell that to Kim Jong Ill
June 17th, 2009 at 8:24 pmPete.
Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoRsOtlTSLU&feature=related
June 17th, 2009 at 8:25 pmSorry for the continued OT folks but, this is a favorite subject of mine.
The Fokker was a fantastic plane. Even R/C scale models are easy to fly. But, the Germans had a problem when their engine development fell behind the French and British. They never made an engine that could compete with the best of the Rolls Royce line (though the Brits couldn’t build enough of them) or the French Hispano Suiza.
Where the earlier Albatross was optimized for speed, ruggedness, and firepower; the Germans were forced to emphasize climb and turning performance in later designs (kinda like the Mig-29). Once in a dogfight? The Fokker had an advantage. However, it wasn’t particularly fast. That was a pretty big “equalizer” since faster aircraft, like the SPAD and Se5, could use their speed to evade combat and pick their fights. Heck! It couldn’t even catch the DH-4 bombers.
Though it wasn’t universally realized at the time, speed is everything. WW2 demonstrated that. Our faster, heavier, stronger, planes totally outclassed the smaller, lighter, aircraft of the Germans and particularly Japanese planes. And even the few late war designs (with the German jets in a class of their own) could exceed the performance of our planes, our planes could operate at extreme ranges in support of our bombers.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pmThanks for the vid, WAYNEBRO. But? I can beat that. I had an opportunity to attend an airshow at Old Rheinbeck and got to see, and touch, an original D VII and all the others. They even have a few with original rotary engines. Super cool!
June 17th, 2009 at 8:34 pmThese people would spend the entire yearly GDP [14 trillion] a year if they could.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:36 pmCosts are a factor. If it costs 135 million to replace every jet shot down, it won’t take long to break the bank.
Shouldn’t we be more concerned about rebuilding a military that is allowing criminals to enlist, and criminal corporations to electrocute our soldiers in the shower, than with Cold War scenarios?
We’ve been in Afghanistan for seven years, and Iraq for five years. What’s with these idiots who think we’ll be successful in a fight with a well-armed nation as long as we spend enough on aircraft?
Kim Jong Il is not a proxy for China or Russia. He’s a nut in an isolated country.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:39 pmAhh, the Old Rhinebeck Areodrome. Know it well. I’m actually from that area near the Hudson River Valley. Did they have the Triplane when you visited? The one with the black and white striped tail? I know Cole Palen died a while back, not even sure if they’re still flying the WWI models anymore.
I was disappointed to find out that the Areodrome down here in Bealton Va stopped flying the WWI planes because someone got killed in the Triplane. Very difficult to fly, but as you know lethal in the hands of a skilled pilot as Werner Voss showed us in his last dogfight against 8 SE 5’s.
Here. You’ll love this video. It’s one of my favorites. This video demonstrates the logic of the hickory axe handles fixed to the bottom wings of the Fokker DRI’s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoBr7KVxMGo&feature=related
June 17th, 2009 at 8:49 pmNot if they can’t shoot them down.
The projected kill ratio for the F22 fighter is around 240-1.
That’s 240 enemy planes downed, for every one F22.
Building more of them therefore is a no brainer.
And remember, building them means US Jobs, since it’s a non export item.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:52 pmI would think we should be “equally” concerned.
Especially given recent developments in North Korea, which is far over and above “saber rattling”.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:53 pmReally?
Then where do you think he’s getting his MIG 29s?
:|
Walmart?
June 17th, 2009 at 8:55 pmWell, wiley, the theory is that they won’t be shot down; assuming they aren’t forced into roles they aren’t designed for. My point is that we’ve made the huge investment in the F-22 and it would be foolish to give it up in order to save 1% of the entire program.
As for making good the attrition of Bushco’s follies? We probably will be faced with a smaller military in the long run. That’s another reason to maintain a technical edge. We probably won’t replace the stuff we’ve worn out on a one to one basis.
The one that has me concerned is out tanker fleet. Our biggest advantage over ANY potential enemy is our ability to project force 12,000 miles from home. That’s hard to do when our tanker fleet is, mostly, around 40 years old. They were nearing the end of their life before we embarked on the conquest of Afghanistan and Iraq and we’ve been wearing them out.
June 17th, 2009 at 8:58 pmYes, WAYNEBRO.
I was there when the Tripe was still flying. Though they couldn’t get the Camel running and had to do the “chase” with a Sopwith Pup. Actually, I think my favorite was the replica Curtis “Boxkite”. There was enough wind that it took off and landed with nearly zero ground speed. We’ve come a long ways since the days we had to wait for the wind to die in order to make it home!
June 17th, 2009 at 9:08 pmWell the two are quite different. Iraq and Afghanistan are essentially police actions where we’re fighting an embedded insurgency. Thus air superiority is not much of a factor except for ground attack aircraft.
A war in North Korea however is completely different, in that we’d be fighting an actual uniformed military, with an actual air force sporting MIG 21’s, 29’s and several spinoffs. Not to mention artillery, armor and naval support. This is where air superiority will be CRITICAL in a swift victory and containment, as well as in saving American lives. Our soldiers lives namely.
We send them in their with F16’s against MIG 29’s and we’ll be losing a lot more American pilots than if we send them in their with F22’s. Sure there are the F35,s but they don’t compare in speed, climb, etc against the F22 which make it vastly superior. The F35 is a good plane but everyones got them in NATO. The F22 is our baby, and it beats the crap out of anything anyone else has got.
If you care about American lives then producing more numbers of the F22 is the best way to ensure a low casualty rate should war break out with North Korea. And a high number of them is the best way to ensure that doesn’t happen in the first place.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:13 pmOh that’s right. They had the Pup. I actually liked the Pup. Always thought the Camel was ugly. That triplane is a thing of beauty. I’ve always loved that plane. In fact, you’d probably like my collection of “Bachman Mini-Planes” from the 60’s which includes a mint condition Fokker DRI in the box, two mint condition DVII’s in the box, and a mint in the box Nieuport 17, Sopwith Camel, Bristol “Brisfit” and a SPAD. I’ve also got the Fokker Eindecker and an Albatross DIII but they’re not mint.
You’d probably also like my collection of mint condition “Enemy Ace” comics (Hans Von Hammer). Silly stuff for a grown man I know but hey, every ones got their quirks.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:20 pmI have no doubt that if North Korea became such a problem that war with the U.S. made sense, they would also be a problem for China and Russia who have recently agreed to put sanctions on North Korea, which is a land-locked country that doesn’t have a natural supply of fuels in significant quantity to fight a war. Unless N.K. finds a way to power their army with coal, they are not a military threat. The idea that because N.K. buys what are probably Soviet era weapons, that they are a proxy is silly.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:22 pmGabrielle Giffords (D-AZ) voted for it because her district, Tucson, is the site of Raytheon (formerly Hughes), the city’s largest employer and one of our nation’s largest defense contractors (all kinds of fun-type missles). But I’m sure that has nothing to do with Rep. Giffords’ vote. Or nothing to do with the fact that her biggest supporters are people who can best be described as the “military-industrial complex.”
Now, if it weren’t for the internet, would you know that?
June 17th, 2009 at 9:27 pmWaynebro,
First you cite Wikipedia for the assertion that the F-22 has a record of “scoring a simulated kill-ratio of 221-0.”
Minutes later, your story has cooked to such a ripeness that now you assert that:
” The projected kill ratio for the F22 fighter is around 240-1. [hum, a stastical change from 221-0 to 240-1 . . . that certainly sounds believable . . . what a difference a few minutes make . . how many of these suckers had to crash before you arrived at that stat? Would you fly this POS? Unlike Pete, I’ll pick a fight).
You claim “That’s 240 enemy planes downed, for every one F22.” So your claim is that for every one F-22, that has never once shot down a plane, that America’s Air Force Academy won’t let it’s students fly, that the US won’t sell to Isreal or any of out other allies, one of these flying lemons will shoot down 240 planes for every one that’s lost? Yeah, you listened to Bush and are now adopting the deafedness of Ahmadinejad strategy.
That’s one flabbergasting claim . . . one unproved plane can down 240 Chinese aircraft.
Honestly, that’s not good defense spending . . . it’s really bad international policy. Shut up.
Shout out to China and Russia, we’re upping the stakes.
Building more of them therefore is a no brainer.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:46 pmApparently you’re not aware that North Korea has large stockpiles of fuel for just such war. In fact the majority of North Korea’s resources goes to supplying it’s military force, one of the largest in the world.
Not to mention China apparently you’ve forgotten that they get fuel from China, and through the back door from Russia.
Not to mention you’ve forgotten that China already backed them in a war against the US, that many of our parents fought in.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:47 pmNo, the idea that you think the MIG 29 is a “Soviet Era Weapon” is what’s silly.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:48 pmHere Wiley. Take a look at this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpPSfCuAxCg&feature=related
Then tell me we don’t need the F22.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:50 pmWhat does North Korea stand to gain by actually starting something?Can we be serious? Nobody including the Chinese wish to upset a global applecart in which the rich stay and get richer…
June 17th, 2009 at 9:51 pmWaynebro is a repug plant. Ignore him.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:57 pmWAYNEBRO:
I had a few “Mini-planes” myself. Alas, they haven’t survived my moves. I also had about seventy plastic models I built and painted (I’m not certain that the paint wasn’t responsible for some of my quirks) before I graduated to flying models. My Dad even had three on display in the San Diego Air and Space Museum before it burned down.
I’m not familiar with Enemy Aces but, I have most of the autobiographies from pilots in WW1 and WW2. I have a high appreciation for the last remnants of the “Age of Chivalry”.
Are you familiar with a series called “Aircraft in Profile”? It was a late sixties series published in England. They have a nice mix of technical and anecdotal overviews. Though, being produced in Britain, they never contained a disparaging word about British planes.
Though not a fighter pilot, one of the highlights of my life was shaking the hand of Jimmy Doolittle. I was totally shocked that he was so small in stature. One expects one’s heroes to be larger than life and he was a little feller. I guess I shouldn’t have been surprised because my Dad was rejected for pilot training, he became a navigator in B-17s, because he was too tall at 6′2″.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:59 pmWell I suppose Lamb of God is slightly less annoying than Gwar. Atleast everyone knew Gwar was a joke. Are there really people that sit down and listen to a wholeLamb of God cd in on sitting that are frustrated male adolescents from broken families and serious anger management needs?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pmSorry Wayne, I’m not going to tell you that we need F-22s. There are plenty of experts that disagree with it. Any idea that getting into a war with China or Russia or even North Korea is anything but chickenhawk crazy is chickenhawk crazy.
We have not even begun to wear out the possibilities for containment. You’re not going to get me to worry about N.K.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pmWaynebro f/k/a Slappy is likely to pop up again.
While adversarial opinions are useful, this dude is useless. Ignore him.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:01 pmon =one, are =aren’t but that is probably obvious…
June 17th, 2009 at 10:02 pmFighter pilots are not so tall, but they’re fun at parties.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:02 pmSnoBird:
I’ve had a few battles with WAYNEBRO. He’s opinionated and can be harsh and stubborn but, he’s no GOoPer.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:07 pmpete Says:
You met Jimmy Dolittle? Ok, well that’s got me beat. I did the model thing too, mostly Revell and Monogram. All the WWI planes, and of course WWII Tanks, (Panzers, Tigers, Panthers, Sturmpanzers, Grants, Shermans, Halftracks, etc) and built the dioramas etc (yup, total geekster). I also red “Richtofen” when I was like 9, read his diary about Bolke and how he learned the “Bolke Bible” etc. I read books like “The Fledgling” (can’t find it now) which was a great story about a DH2 pilot fighting the German Albatross DII’s and such. All this as a kid.
Enemy Ace is a DC Comics thing. You’d love them. You should check them out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enemy_Ace
You can still buy them on Ebay and there’s reprints for sale through Amazon.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:08 pmWe have 187 of them. It’s time to start cutting the pentagon budget, rightfully in half. Of course the services are going to lobby their interests.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:13 pmHonestly, I don’t think we can build a pentagon big enough to deal with the destabilization the Iraqi invasion has caused. It’s going to take diplomacy and a lot of it. We’re going to have to change our ways and reach out like never before.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:17 pmOk, then try this video;
Chinese 5th GEN Fighter
Or this one;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKi31GSGMc4&feature=related
June 17th, 2009 at 10:19 pmThe thing to keep in mind about the F-22 is that it isn’t designed to fight current technology. It’s the next generation and has left the rest of the World in a race to catch up.
As such, it serves as a deterrent until potential enemies can match it. We can argue about the value of deterrents till Doomsday but, there’s little dissent that it’s the best at what it does. Personally, I think that $396 million at this point is a reasonable investment on top of the money we’ve already invested.
I would love to reduce or eliminate military spending. However, I don’t think it’s wise. If we have a superior weapon in service I think we should keep it.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:21 pmChina spends about 65 billion in defense we spend 10 times that
June 17th, 2009 at 10:23 pmOutfit an F-18 with F-22 electronics, plus direction thrust engines…viola!
Even if we did get in a war with China the F-22 is pretty much custom built and couldnt be ramped up for mass production quickly
June 17th, 2009 at 10:26 pmXisithrus. right on. I think most people want a strong military, but our military budget is overkill. (pun unintended).
If we are serious about eventually getting our spending under control, cutting the military budget has to be a prime consideration.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:32 pmWAYNEBRO:
Yep. I met Jimmy Doolittle. He was attending a golf tournament at Torry Pines, in San Diego, and the place where we flew R/C sailplanes was right there so he came to watch. He seemed impressed. Actually, we had a few Navy fighter pilots in the club. One of the guys who taught me was the squadron Commander for the last Crusader squadron in active service. I think his name was Doug but, that was a long time ago.
I also got to see the prototype F-14 flying out of North Island. It flew over our boat at supersonic speed while we were out fishing. BOOM! It looked like a UFO in those days.
I was planning on becoming a Naval aviator before my eyes went to Hell. They don’t accept people with 20/80 vision.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:33 pmWell you realize I didn’t put the music there, right?
But the fact is both China and Russia are sharing technology and aggressively developing 5th Gen fighter technology to compete with the F22. If we stop production on the F22, and they continue, where will that leave us?
I’m no warmonger. You know that I’m sure. But at the same time I am confident that walking softly and carrying a really big stick is the best way to avoid a war. Don’t start one, and be strong enough so no one wants to start one with you.
You asked what North Korea could possibly gain from a war with the US. Well for one thing they could gain Seoul, and the reunification of the country. We barely beat them back in the 50’s, settling for a draw essentially south of the 38th Parallel.
I’m not saying he will start a war, I’m just watching the news. And what he’s (Kim Jong Ill) doing right now amounts to more than “saber rattling”. If he continues to enrich uranium and develop a nuclear program what will happen? President Obama said they “won’t let that happen”. Kim Jong Ill says it will mean war if we stop any of their ships.
I’m hoping it will blow over but President Obama has said they will not be allowed to continue enriching uranium and that doesn’t leave us much room to maneuver. So I don’t know what will happen, but one things for sure. China has been backing Iran, as has Russia, and providing them with technology and missiles for their nuclear program. The same things happening in North Korea. It’s not that far fetched that given we’re currently in the middle east (without an invitation) that a proxy war could break out any time now between the US and Iran and the US\UN with North Korea.
If they continue making nuclear weapons I’m not sure what else could happen if the sanctions don’t work. So being “prepared” is not “silly” it’s prudent. It’s what a wise nation does. And the F22 Raptor is a key component to our “being prepared”.
Stopping production of it to save a buck is what’s silly.
And not taking the threat of North Korea is silly.
You ask what do they have to gain.
Well, considering his country is currently isolated and starving, a better question would be, what do they have to lose?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:34 pmI agree with this. It would be great to cut down on military spending, but if not these kinds of programs – what?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:35 pmNope, there’s no way it could equal the still classified climb rates of the F22, or the speed. The F22 is our Excalibur.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:39 pmThat’s the best argument I’ve heard yet for continuing production now.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:40 pmWAYNEBRO
June 17th, 2009 at 10:41 pmI did not mean to suggest you had any connection to the clownish Lamb of God. Still What the North Koreans stand to gain by posturing is just more leveragein negotiations. They will not risk an offense attack no more than Iran will. It is assured destruction and they know that. Despite our own internal propaganda neither nation is insane. To a large extent any hardline stance playsinto their hand and allows themto drive the game
That’s because we’re currently fighting two wars.
China is not.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:42 pmThank Go..I mean cool.
That sh$t drives me crazy. I have to turn my speakers down to watch the video.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pmJust for the record:
To the best of our knowledge, an F-18 with better avionics is not a replacement for an F-22. If published stats are any indication the F-22 has MUCH greater range and performance and is nearly invisible to current radar.
It’s too late to avoid the investment already made so? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to keep them in service. If this particular $396 million is for acquiring a few more? It’s a bad deal. If it’s for upgrading them and keeping them in service? It’s not such a bad idea.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pmIt seems that if we forego the weapon system, we dilute our defense capability. But, if we don’t find some way to strengthen our national balance sheet (ie, cutting defense systems or other spending), we are also diluting our defense capability.
With more of our future resources going to service debt, we will have less to fund defense.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:50 pmWell they are risking attack from the UN by continuing to enrich uranium, develop long range missiles to carry the warheads and threatening all out war. It’s more than saber rattling.
President Obama says they won’t be permitted to develop nukes. If the sanctions don’t work, what then?
And given the state of their country currently, I’d say the better question is still, what do they have to lose?
June 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pmThis plane is an animal. Our founding forefathers set up our federal government with 2 functions… Protect the states militarily, and ensure that no state’s laws violate the constitution. Want universal healthcare? Do it on a state by state basis. UHC is not a function of the federal government. But this badass plane IS a function of our federal government. Our federal government has become a big fat pig. We should continue to be the greatest force on this planet, because if we are not, someone else will be… and the runners up are pretty scary.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:59 pmWell if that spending means US jobs, isn’t that part of the recovery effort?
Building bridges is one way and its a good one. Building F22 raptors is another.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pmThere are two crises that were created by Bushco’s follies.
1. Our military is exhausted, men and machines. Much of our equipment has been worn out or lost.
2. MANY programs were cut in order to pursue Bushco’s follies. Our troops in the field are using refurbished, patched up, “extra” equipment.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:00 pmand the runners up are pretty scary.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:01 pm—–
How so?
I’d add one more to that list.
3. Our mandate for dealing with REAL threats, was weakened drastically by invading Iraq who was NO threat. If we hadn’t invaded Iraq, then we would not be here right now with North Korea.
It’s the “Bush who cried wolf” syndrome.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:07 pmSo on what basis do you all decide sovereign rights to tecnology. Should the Israelis be allowed to continue to upgrade their weapons of mass destruction? What of India?Pakistan? North Korea lacks seroius miniturization technologies. This is leverage. They will not make an offensive preemptive attack and besides even if they did could they not justifiable claim preemption ala the Bush doctrine. I fear them not.Neither China nor Russia wants to put up with them. They will however standby and watch the US spend itself into collapse pretending that the rogue nation with three nukes thing is some sort of super concern…
June 17th, 2009 at 11:08 pmThe F-22 uses fewer radar absorbent materials than the B-2 or F-117 Nighthawk,
June 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pmWaynebro. I support the idea of surging the economy to recovery. I won’t try to defend past Republican or corporate mismanagement of the economy.
But, while I agree with the positive influence of creating jobs, building bridges, and F-22 contracts; the obvious caveat is the bill. Currently, we seem to be funding these efforts by just printing money.
Huge debt, growing deficits. Servicing debt obviously costs money. If we are spending huge amounts servicing debt, the opportunity costs are future defense spending and other social programs.
While I support Obama’s plan to date to help recharge the economy, there will eventually come a time when we have to increase revenues (yes, raise taxes) and make painful spending cuts, in order to move towards sound economics.
If not the F-22, some other painful choices. The denial of this reality has been going on for the last 8 years (probably longer).
But, it seems that a strong American balance sheet is essential for a strong national defense.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pmDammit, WAYNEBRO, stop agreeing with me! It’s creeping me out. Hahahahahahaha.
You’re right, of course. We’ve pissed away much of our, terribly expensive, military superiority on a fool’s errand. And, just like health care and countless other issues, it’s going to cost us to fix it.
Now, if this particular $396 million means more delay in the new tanker/cargo program? It’s probably a bad deal.
I hate the idea of sending young men to war. I really hate the idea of sending young men to war in airplanes that are nearly as old as I am.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pmOn the same basis we decide that an ex felon cannot posses a handgun.
Because once we know someone is a criminal and a violent one, it is incumbent on us to protect the rest of society, from them.
Not to mention the Armistice of 1953 which prohibits weapons and components for building weapons from being shipped to North Korea. And since the technology for building their nukes and the missiles to carry them is being shipped in, that gives us every right to stop and inspect ships traveling to North Korea.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:03 amI’m freaky that way.
Seriously though, we’ve agreed on stuff before. And now I know you know what a 2 seat “Rumpler” is I’ll have to pay more attention to what you have to say. In fact all this talk has made me want to get out my digitally remastered copy of “The Blue Max”, or maybe “Hells Angels”.
As for the “fools errand” there is no better description of the invasion of Iraq. Unless of course you want to get me into the comparisons to Germany’s invasion of Poland. The idea that Iraq could have ever provided a threat to us was laughable.
Even the idea that North Korea could hit us with a nuke is laughable. They talk about these long range missiles like the Taepodong-2 has a theoretical range of 6,700 kilometers which is about 4000 miles, which they claim means it could hit Sarah Palin’s house in Alaska. Theres also talk out there that stripped down, it could make about 6000 miles, supposedly threatening the west coast.
Of course the truth is these miles and “air miles” are two different things, not to mention the advanced technology needed to send a space vehicle (which an ICBM is) that far and make it actually hit something. At best they could probably stir up some fish as they drop them in the pacific ocean like they keep doing in the sea of Japan. They have nothing that could reach us, and no one thinks they’d try. It would mean immediate retaliation of a horrific scale, and they don’t want that. All that talks just fear mongering.
But what they might do is use them to collapse South Korea in the face of all out war, especially if they’re losing. And worse, we KNOW they will sell them to terrorist factions. They’ve already been caught doing just that, like shipping mid range missiles to Yemmin. So they just can’t be allowed to develop them. That’s a no brainer.
They need to allow weapons inspectors back in and abide by the terms of the armistice, but since that whack job Kim Jong Ill, or “little Hitler” as I call him, has declared the armistice void, I’m not sure what options we’re going to have left soon.
Bush was afraid of him, and hands off, which that coupled with the mistake that was invading Iraq, has left us where we are now. What comes next? Don’t know. But having 500 F22 Raptors on hand would be a good thing to have, either way.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:25 amWAYNBRO:
Ah, the Rumpler. Beautiful plane with an unfortunate name. Are you familiar with “Flying Fury” by James McCudden? I think it’s still in print. He dealt with his own personal war against the Rumpler at length. He tuned up his engine (high compression pistons and heads) and added a spinner to his Se5 so he could catch them. He even described the hazards of flying at 20,000 feet without oxygen.
It also includes the best description, I’m familiar with, of Voss’s last fight and a whole lot more. It’s one of the best WW1 books I’ve read.
Back on topic:
I don’t know that the F-22 has much to do with N. Korea. We’ve provided S. Korea with pretty good weapons (Their F-15s and Abrams tanks are newer than most of ours) plus our own forces. Let’s face it. One JDAM in their reactor would end N.Korea’s nuclear program. Not that I think that would be a good idea at this time.
N. Korea is disturbing but, without outside aid they are no more dangerous than Iraq in a conventional war. I see the F-22 as an answer to unknown future threats. As I said: we’ve sunk the costs into the program so it doesn’t make much sense to “cheap out” at this point. We’ve got them so we might as well keep them flying.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:50 amBTW. “The Blue Max” is awesome! Have you seen “Wings” with David Niven? How about ‘Dawn Patrol”? They were both made when authentic planes were available and it was still legal to crash planes on purpose. CGI can’t compete with that kind of realism.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:55 amWhat do you think we’ve been doing since 1971 when Nixon took us off the Gold Standard?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:58 amGreat book. It’s where I first read of Voss’s final dogfight.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:01 amOh of course. I have “Wings” remastered on DVD. Wings was the first movie to win an Academy Award for “Best Picture”. And the Dawn Patrol I’ve seen many times. It’s one of the few I need to get on DVD.(I don’t have the Great Waldo Pepper either, another one with some great flight shots of a Triplane in flight). And I couldn’t agree more on the CGI thing.
Recently I watched a movie you’ve probably seen called “Flyboys”. It was just miserable. I watch it on cable a lot just for fun but the flight scenes are ridiculous looking. They did better in 1966 with the Blue Max, and in 1932 with Hells Angels. The CGI just couldn’t get the feel of the real thing, and for me its like watching a cartoon. And the way they dove down in those triplanes, they looked like Japanese Zero’s diving on a battleship. Ridiculous. And what’s worse, everyone was flying Triplanes. No Albatrosses, no Halberstadts, no Pfalz’s, just DRI’s. And considering they were CGI you’d think they’d have made everything. I did like the CGI recreation of the Gotha bomber though. It was the one thing they got right.
One movie you might check out on DVD is “Von Richtofen and Brown”. It’s historically inaccurate and the script is all fabricated and poorly written, but the flight scenes are wonderful. They actually purchased the planes from the producers of the Blue Max and just repainted them. Fun movie to watch just for the air combat scenes. It’s filmed over California though unlike the Blue Max which was filmed in Ireland, so the ground doesn’t look quite right for 1917 France and Germany but the flight scenes are still worth it.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:11 amBy the way, the Triplane’s on the Blue Max were not authentic. They were replicas. Look at the front cowling. It’s open cowled because they didn’t have the Oberursel engine of course, and they didn’t use the Le Rhone engines either, (like they use in more authentic replicas like the one used at Rhinebeck) but instead used a conventional radial and the engines kept cutting out because they couldn’t get the exhaust out of the engine cowling. So they cut the cowlings, allowing the exhaust to escape and the engine to breathe.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:20 amWell I disagree there. The KPAF is fairly large, MIG 29’s , MIG21’s and various other offshoots.
Since the F22 has been tested against MIG29 comparisons and produced a 240 to 1 kill rate, I’d say the F22 would play a key role in dominating the skies over North Korea with a very limited loss of American pilots, if any at all. The F22 guarantees our complete unfettered dominance over the skies of North Korea.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:26 amYep. I think the last authentic Tripe was destroyed in an air raid during WW2. There weren’t very many to begin with.
Speaking of the Pfalz, was that a beautiful plane or what? I don’t care that it was too heavy and underpowered. If I were 19 and had to chose a plane as my very own, and my life didn’t depend on performance? I wouldn’t need long to decide. I don’t know if there has ever been a more elegant warplane.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:32 amThey said the Pfalz was a dream to fly and one of the most underrated planes of the war. It was overshadowed at the time by the Albatross, but I agree it was a sweet ride.
If you get “Von Richtofen and Brown”, they show some great scenes of the Pfalz and they really put it into some harrowing maneuvers.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:36 amVon Richtofen And Brown at Amazon
June 18th, 2009 at 1:38 amWAYNEBRO Says:
Well I disagree there. The KPAF is fairly large, MIG 29’s , MIG21’s and various other offshoots.
Since the F22 has been tested against MIG29 comparisons and produced a 240 to 1 kill rate, I’d say the F22 would play a key role in dominating the skies over North Korea with a very limited loss of American pilots, if any at all. The F22 guarantees our complete unfettered dominance over the skies of North Korea.
I can’t disagree. In any possible conflict we owe our forces the best chance of success/survival. I’m just saying that N.Korea is a known threat that could be countered with lesser equipment.
The F-22, as I see it, is designed for the unknown threats and future threats. I still want them in the front line in any future air war even if they outclass the competition. And I don’t even need to mention how hard, and expensive, it will be to counter the F-22.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:45 amActually, the Pfalz was a contemporary of the Fokker DVII. The Albatross was at the end of it’s run when the Pfalz came on the scene. It was better, with a stronger airframe, than the Albatross “V strutters” but? It used the same engine and suffered for it.
If they had built enough of the BMW engines used in the later Fokkers it would have made a great compliment to the Fokker. And it probably would have been faster. The BMW engine turned the DVII from a very good plane into a dominant plane.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:00 amG’night, WAYNEBRO. It’s been fun and I’m glad we found some common ground. Any time you want to talk old planes is cool with me.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:07 amWell I hate to be disagreeable (yea right lol) but that’s just not correct. I’m a big buff on this stuff and have been since I was a kid.
The Pfalz DIII came out in April of 1917 known famously as “Bloody April” when the DIII was at the peak (and when Richtofen was knocking everyone out of the sky) of its use and just a month prior to the DV (which came out in May 1917 into production).
The Pfalz began being shipped to the Jasta’s in August, 1917 for combat use, and was always seen as a direct competitor of the Albatross DIII and DV both by the pilots and the manufacturers.
The Fokker DVII on the other hand wasn’t even in the air yet.
The Fokker DVII wasn’t shipped to the Jasta’s until May, 1918, almost a year later.
Thus, the Pfalz DIII and the Albatross DIII and DV were the contemporary’s of each other, and the Fokker DVII was the plane that was designed to replace them.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:48 amAnd when I say the “DIII” was at the peak of its use I’m referring of course to the Albatross DIII. In fact, when the Pfalz came out just about 90 days after the Albatross DV first entered combat, so to say it came out when the Albatross was “at the end of its run” is not accurate. The DIII had been out for a while (although still considered a solid fighter) but the DV was just hitting the Jasta’s when the Pfalz DIII came onto the scene.
The one used in “The Blue Max” was a DIIIa, which you can tell by the bigger teardroped stabilizer, and the exposed machine guns (Pfalz first made the concealed guns which they copied from the Roland’s they originally produced). It was a great plane, mostly because of stability (plywood construction) and dive capabilities but the Albatross was generally considered a superior aircraft.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:59 amAgreed. Giving our guys an overwhelming tactical advantage in my book is the only way to go. What better way to demoralize your enemy than by demonstrating complete and utter air superiority.
Unfortunately though the Chinese and Russians are steadily working on more advanced aircraft than they currently have, and the SU models are trying with the SU 37, (which is an amazing plane and some claim can compare to the 22 due to its high maneuverability and speed at Mach 2.5), the SU47 , the MIG 39 (4.5 Generation fighter) and the new MIG 1.44 which is a 5th Generation fighter designed specifically to compete against the F22, and of course the Sukhoi PAK FA which is a 5th Gen fighter that is expected to enter service this year in the Russian Air Force. Also the Chinese have several other next gen fighters under the XX designation designed to hit service by 2012.
In other words, as fantastic as the F22 is, it’s only fantastic until these other planes start seeing service. Then it’s suddenly on par with them, and we will lose air dominance as the Russian and Chinese air forces start employing these newer, equally superior next gen fighters.
Which means canceling the F22 is a bad move. With Russia and China producing planes in the same class, we’re going to find ourselves losing that edge that the F22 now gives us. We need to keep producing these planes, and improving on them. Not back off on them.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:35 amI’m glad I checked back before bed.
I didn’t make myself clear. The Pfalz DIII was a generation (half generation?) later than the original Albatross but lacked the engine to make much difference. It, along with the Albatross DV and Fokker DrI was meant to answer the 1917 designs of the allies and couldn’t hack it in sheer performance. It was the pretty one.
The Pfalz DXII (the ugly one) was the contemporary of the Fokker D VII. Of course, if we want to be picky, the Siemens-Schuckert DIII-IV and Fokker DVIII, representing the next generation, were even better than the DVII.
And now? I really have to go to bed. G’night, again.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:38 amOk, well the Pfalz DIIIa came out in November 1917 and the Fokker DVII didn’t come out until May 1918 so I still have to disagree there.
You might be thinking of the Pfalz DXII (which did away with the V Strut which they had copied from the Albatross and used the N strut, which was obviously copied from the Fokker DVII.
The Pfalz DXII came out in service in July 1918, just two months after the Fokker DVII and was intended to be a direct competitor to the Fokker DVII.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:01 amOh I see you did say the DXII this time. Ok, well that we agree on. I’m getting sleepy so I misread your last comment. Yes, the DXII was the direct competitor to the DVII. The DIII came out after the Albatross DIII was in use for almost a year so you’re right there too. But the Albatross DIII was still in heavy use when the Pfalz DIII and DIIIa’s came out and a quick glance at the DIII shows it was designed after the albatross, right down to the wooden oval shaped fuselage and V struts. The Pfalzwerks were clearly was copying Tony Fokkers designs.
As for the engines I’m not sure what you mean there. The Pfalz DIII and the Albatross DIII both used the Mercedes 170 and 180 HP inline engines for the most part.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:13 amYou guys should sign up as Wikipedia editors.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:29 amThank you..
Sesli Chat
June 22nd, 2009 at 3:19 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet