House Panel Votes to Keep the F-22 Jet Fighter Alive
June 17, 2009
WASHINGTON — Led by Republicans, the House Armed Services Committee voted 31 to 30 on Wednesday to keep the Pentagon’s advanced F-22 fighter jet alive.
The committee chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, and the chairman of the air and land forces subcommittee, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii, both voted against the measure, which would set aside $369 million to buy parts to build 12 more of the fighters.
The Obama administration has said it wants to quit building the plane, and House aides said its supporters would face a struggle to win approval for the money in the rest of the House and the Senate.
The vote came as the plane’s supporters have also been talking up the idea of selling the fighter to Japan and other allies.
The Japanese government recently expressed interest in buying as many as 40 F-22s, which are built by Lockheed Martin. But Pentagon officials have said there are substantial obstacles to any such sales.
Given the plane’s crucial stealth technologies, Congress would have to overturn a law that bans any exports. And if the ban were removed, Japan might have to pay $1 billion to $2 billion to cover removing some of the highly classified technology.
Many Republicans have opposed the administration’s plan to halt construction at 187 planes, saying that more are needed as insurance against potential conflicts with major powers.
But critics have described the planes, which cost $200 million each and have not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as cold war relics that are no longer affordable.
The House committee’s vote for the $369 million in advanced procurement spending came on an amendment, proposed by Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, to a broader spending bill. It shifted the funds for cleaning up environmental hazards on military bases.
I love you replublican party!!!!!
not really, but I am happy about this decision.
The critics claims were dumb. What would be the purpose of F-22s in Iraq or Afghanistan? Looking cool?
But I don't believe Japan should get the F-22s, I don't trust their ability of keeping it off the hands of others in the area...
Well, before you get all merry pal, did you notice that the article also said...Originally Posted by cr9527
I love you replublican party!!!!!
not really, but I am happy about this decision.
The critics claims were dumb. What would be the purpose of F-22s in Iraq or Afghanistan? Looking cool?
But I don't believe Japan should get the F-22s, I don't trust their ability of keeping it off the hands of others in the area...
"...and House aides said its supporters would face a struggle to win approval for the money in the rest of the House and the Senate."
"Cold War Relics" - this sort of garbage makes me livid. I guess the F-16, F-15, and A-10 are also cold war relics, since they were designed in the cold war.
Just because something is not useful in a limited war doesn't mean it's not needed. We don't know what the future holds. To be unprepared is idiocy.
We aren't using boomer subs, minuteman missiles, and 75% of the Navy right now... get rid of them too. Norad? What good is Norad? Patriot missiles? The list is extensive.
The F-15 is now 37 years old. Purely based upon lifespan and age, that is the equivalent of entering the Korean War equipped with squadrons of Sopwith Camels.
well i see this latest 12 pack of planes being pushed through and that would put us at 199 something or other,plus i see at least one or two more twelve packs pushed through before the f35 comes online,putting us close to 220 -224 whatever then its gonna go the way of the dodo,unless the pak-fa or chinese jxx shows up soon to spook someone into some sense of needing 250+..
*sigh* another last hurrah for porkulus that the pentagon says it doesn't want or need..... It's crackling season!
Show me where the pentagon has ever said at, anypoint, that they don't want more F-22's There have been a few published reports saying they think they will be able to meet very minimum mission requirements after cuts are more or less writting on the wall.
Interesting thing about the military, They will almost always do their best to attempt to formulate a plan with a chance of success for the mission set to them by their government with the resources provided by the government. Now there will usually be some disenting voices that speak out of turn but the majority of the military establishment will support the government and tell the populace that the resources they are given are at least adequate. This has been true almost thoughout history in any represenative form of government.
Last edited by Maxor; 21 Jun 09, at 12:33.
F-22's are cost efficient for their price tag. For about 130 million, it can take down planes totaling up to 200 million dollars, like 2 F-22 vs 16 F-15E's the F22 will win with no losses. Meaning that you require less aircraft for the magnitude of the situation. I think they should be kept in small numbers though, station several dozen around the boarders of the US and keep a few on standby on Aircraft carriers in case of need of quick deployment.
As for Afghanistan, I don't think we need super maverable aircraft like the F-15, F-18 and F-16's either. We'd be better of redeploying very fast multi role fighters like F-4 Phantoms, because terrorists don't have their hands on aircraft so Air Superiority aircraft are irrelevant, and equip the F-4's with CM's incase if they get their hands on Stinger Missiles or something along those lines.
Even that I think is also a not very cost efficient idea, I think the best decision is to have AC-130's patrolling the skies all the time like Chrome Dome and provide instant fire support when they attack, so hit and fade operations become a lot more difficult and terrorist kills start to rack up.
Too slow, there is a reason we prefer US 18's + 15E's over even our own Harriers. They can get where we need them very fast and deliver hell where we want it speedily.
Yes, from those who have worked with AC-130's in the past I hear they will decimate the enemy very effectively. But they if they were there instead of fast jets the wait could well cost lives.
Last edited by Shiny Capstar; 22 Jun 09, at 00:01.
Nulli Secundus
People always talk of dying for their country, and never of making the other bastard die for his
Then we should be spending time refitting F-4 Phantoms with precision munition strikes like JDAM's and better radar. F-4's can go even faster than F-18's at times too, and they are cheap too.
The only problem I see with that idea is the distinct possibility of being at war with Iran in the future, but we can station a couple of F-15's and F-18's on standby in Afghanistan if that ever happens.
In Afghanistan the issue with aviation is how do we deliver a bomb onto a target as fast as possible. F-4's fill that need quite well with a small price tag.
F-4's are no longer operational. The cost to bring them out of mothballs, buy adequate spare parts, train pilots (requires months, minimum) and prepare them for combat, is higher than you might expect. Further, the F-4's fire control and targeting systems would need to be completely rebuilt to interface with the modern ordnance... more $$.
Why use F-4's when the F-18's and F-15/16's are better and available now?
I doubt refitting the F-4E's that are laying around is going to be more expensive than building the 35 million dollar machine that is the F-15 or god knows how many for an F-18 or heaven forbid a Super Hornet. F-4E's costs generally around the 2 million mark which is WAY lower than any modern plane today, and I'm thinking it would cost a minimal amount to equip it with fire control mechanisms for JDAMs. People today still know how to pilot an F-4E too, remind you that it only left service in 1996. And honestly for many countries, that is their training aircraft.
Let me alleviate your doubts then. It'll cost you a whole lot more in maintenance than the more modern aircraft. Further, you'll practically have to rebuild those F-4s which could potentially fall apart in mid-air since they're reaching airframe service life, assuming they have not done so already.
... which is going out of style quickly in favor of far more capable aircraft. F-16's, F-15's, typhoons, rafales... superhornets.F-4E's costs generally around the 2 million mark which is WAY lower than any modern plane today, and I'm thinking it would cost a minimal amount to equip it with fire control mechanisms for JDAMs. People today still know how to pilot an F-4E too, remind you that it only left service in 1996. And honestly for many countries, that is their training aircraft.
You really think you'll pay two million for an F-4 when a cessna costs you half a million? Keep dreaming
Ok, so according to your thesis the US should have F-22s around the beaches, a F-22 navy variant on the seas, move backwards to resuscitate 1960s F-4 dodos and reconfigure them with modern suites, crank up C-130 production to cover a 645,000 km2 area in Afghanistan? In the mean time, the USAF keeps the 000's fleet of F-16 & F-15s neatly polished under sheds just in case of a war that might never even happen? Oh, and at the same time the pentagon can keep dumping billions of dollars on an upcoming 5th generation AC that now has no role to play? Really?
We already do most of that ANYWAYS! Where do you think that 600 million dollar defense budget goes towards? F-16's and F-15's are already under the shed, and F-22's are basically scattered around ready to scramble at a moments notice. F-15's and F-16's are overly capable and overly expensive for the job that needs to be done in Afghanistan, which is delivering a bomb at high speeds in order to reach the target. Those aircraft don't have to be maneuverable, or stealthy or really anything other than able to carry a payload at super sonic speeds.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Share this thread with friends: