McCain allies with Obama on F-22

To have the most modern plane in the word in our military arsenal I think is exactly what we need. But again.... what do I know. I'm just a stupid republican patriot of my country.

I am with the President and McCain on this. Read up about the F-22, and you'll find it only exists to further politicians futures. It's production is spread out across the country, so as to keep it alive. It also comes at a huge cost to the nation, and for very dubious results. Yet another example of pork-barrel politics. Even if they spent this money anyway, spend it on something worth while, not just on make-work jobs.

These are Pratt engines we are taling about here.

ge the light bulb company not involved.

Yup, your right Patrick, lets develop some of those high tech jobs (General Electric)so that we can sell those high tech components to the Chinese who will in turn invest in their air force and leave America's technically challenged Air Force in the dust. Ridiculous.

gb- What does being a "stupid republican patriot of your country" have to do with it? We already have a bunch of these planes. How many is enough in your book?

Having a formidable third gen fighter is vital to maintaining American air power and superiority. With advanced A.T.G proliferating throughout the world, we could soon find our air power advantage quickly neutralized. With The U.S faced with large parts of the world off-limits, due to these weapons. The F-22 is the best first contact fighter in the world.

Robert Gates has made the point very eloquently that fighting terrorism is expensive, and that it is not helped much by expensive conventional weaponry. It may be cool to have great fighter aircraft, but they will not help us address today's threats. As Patrick said, much of the motivation for building expensive military hardware is pure and simple political pork barreling. They provide jobs in senators' and representatives' districts. I like Gates' practical approach to defense and I applaud Obama and McCain for supporting it. I believe that is lots more "patriotic" than the knee jerk conservativism of gb.

Stealth fighters are useless in most the conflict the US will likely fight in the upcoming years. Our first move in a war is to destroy enemy radar installations and gain total air superiority.
All the F-22 funding would be better spent on improved body armor (such as Dragonskin) armored vehicles or replacing the M16/M4 weapon system.

Not that it's a bad plane or anything, but it's expensive, and I think the Joint Strike Fighter is a much more economical bird at a fraction of the cost of a single F-22. Both are pretty stealthy, and can perform multi-role missions. But the JSF can do VTOL, while the F-22 can't, a HUGE advantage in terms of deployability. On the other hand, I don't believe the JSF can match the F-22 flight envelope, but by the same token, the F-22 can perform maneuvers that almost can't be executed by a human due to extreme G forces.

You have to realize in a predominantly air-to-ground war, an air superiority fighter doesn't have much use. Then you take into account our future and predict which countries we could go into an air-to-air war with and we still have the upper hand with our current lineup of aircraft, including our current F-22 (including already committed ones in production) and the F-35. This money would be better invested in the F-35 program that's a lote more cost efficient and can be used in more ways then one and could actually be useful.

It is telling that McCain opposes the final 7 planes in a production run of about 160. I don't think his patriotism or commitment to the country's safety is very much in question: his opposition to corporate welfare is what seems in play here.

The Pentagon has never been shy about asking for $1000 hammers, so I would also tend to take rather seriously the Joint Chiefs statement that these planes are not needed.

Perhaps gb could further enlighten us as to why no one here seems to mention the F-35 program (google it...), which has been flying in prototype form since late 2006 and was put forward as more economically using design elements of the F-22.

Hey "stupid Republican Patriot" if you had read all the related news regarding this story, you will have come across the little tidbit where the Pentagon itself stated that they do not need or even want these fighters.

The opposition to not cut the production of these fighters is coming from Senators who want to protect pet-project spending within their own states.
In short, these Senators want to spend huge money on fighters the Pentagon does not want in order to keep money flowing into their own states.

Perhaps you should educate yourself on the issue at hand before commenting.
Of course

Here is snipet from yesterday's article in the Globe on the same story.

"But when it comes to the administration’s proposal to end production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet to save billions of dollars over the next decade, the New Hampshire Democrat is drawing the line: Hodes has joined other members of the president’s own party to insist the Air Force buy more of the planes despite fierce objections from the Pentagon and even the threat of a presidential veto.

MT, do a little research; the F22 is a generation 5 fighter. And this program needs to compete with the Russians, who has a generation 5 fighter the SU-47 in production NOW and scheduled for service in 2010. Its not out of the questions for them to sell it to the highest bidder. Don't forget alot of our enemies have alot of money. Get a grip of the world, we are not the only ones out there.

The June 8th Air Power Australia review rates the F22 as the only survivable plane (manned or unmanned) the US has in future conflicts. All the developments in Anti-Access weaponry, and the ongoing 4th and 5th generation airframes from China, India and Russia are all technologies that will be exported to other nations including Iran, Pakistan, Venezuela etc.

Without a generous suply of F22s - more the the 187 or so - the US will be unable to have or maintain air superiority, without which ground troops non-survivable.
This is tatamount to uniateral disarmament.

the Russians and Chinese can detect these planes dispite 'STEALTH'. 200 million each , 1 TRILLION dollar budget deficit so far this year....we really can't afford it. we might get them now but won't be able to afford to service them tomorrow. You might say we can afford them but if you were to really assess the situation ..we can't.

The F-22 is a truly amazing plane. Yes it is stealth, but it has a variety of fighting uses. It is a bomber, a fighter, and a stealth jet to get around in. This plane is clearly replacing older fighter jets. This program needs to be saved!!!

The idea that we do not need these planes for the current type of war in which we are engaged in is terribly short-sighted. As other country's air forces continue to advance in technology it will take us years of re-tooling to catch up. This is solely about budgets and procurement practices not appropriate technology.

The most effective aircraft in the last three engagements has been the A-10 Warthog. It carries more firepower, flies in close ground support and costs about 1/20th what the F-22 costs. Lets buy more of those.

the Joint Strike Fighter is a much more economical bird at a fraction of the cost of a single F-22. jimmy July 13, 09 03:17 PM

The F35 (a fighter bomber) is not an air superiority plane. Further it is still under development. More - it is a 4th gen plane - which is inferior in all respects to the F22, as well as the SU30, SU40 (Flanker) series. The F22 will bearly hold its own in combat with the newer and nearing production SUs - an F35 cheap as it might be, in combat with an SU would never know what hit it.

If we can find agreement to slash defense spending when it only represents the specific interests of a few legislators attempting to bring some bacon home, We can come together to slash other spending if we have the courage to do so. Fiscal responsibility is so very necessary when we are facing extremely difficult economic times.

gb (comment #1) - that's quite an ironic response there...

Soooo... then that must also infer that McCain was not a Republican and patriot during the election if he now agrees with Obama?

Sorry, mate, you can't have it both ways.

Ask the ground troops in gun battles what they think of the Fighters, Gunships and air attack. They will assure you that this is their best weapon and keeps them safe.

The professional war fighters are screaming for additional funding for a number of systems that will help them fight the war we are now in. None of those systems include the F-22.

How about we let the professionals define what is required, budget for it, and then execute on that strategy.

ps. note to the guy who mentioned Dragonskin - The scientists over in Natick looked at it and it has a number of problems. Parents who send it over to their sons and daughters in Iraq are not doing them any favors.

Resisting the urge to reply on the silly political aspect of this.....

While gee whiz technology is a good thing, the thing to remember is that an airplane is only as effective as the person flying it. USAF, USN and USMC pilots (aviators in the Navy) are truly the best trained in the world. That's not just a jingoistic mantra, it happens to be true. Modern Soviet jets were no match for the combined air fleets of the USAF/USN and USMC during Desert Storm because the Iraqi's flying them were no match for our jet drivers. On paper, for instance, a Mig-29 is just as good as an F-16 but our pilots were better. We didn't have much of a chance to prove this because the Iraqi's bugged out to Iran before they ever tried to engage us.

The F-35 is the weapon of choice for those who are in a position to make that decision. To see both men who were in a position to be President last year agree on that choice is a beautiful thing. I say go with the wisdom, or is Senator McCain only correct when he agrees with knee-jerk neoconservatives?

Hey, I'm just askin'

I don't think in the rush to develop anti-terrorism measures we don't lose sight of force projection measures. This plane is a key part of force projection.

Obama and McCain are right on the money here. With Robert Gates recomendation no less. It is not about how much money you spend it is about the Where the money is spent. While the f-22 is a great bird, it is not needed in the numbers we are producing. Warfare has changed dramatically in the last 20 years, this is not WWII where you needed thousands of plans and millions of men.
People, don't get fooled by Obama, he never said we should end the war or surrender to our enemies, he just said we should fight in the right place. Iraq was not a war we needed to get into. The man is a hawk, not a dove.

These are facts:
Developing nations have radar systems that current gen fighters cannot penetrate without a serious risk of being shot down. The F-35 has ten times the radar cross section of an F-22, and is also over twice as loud. The F-22 can hold more ordnance than an F-35, it's just that Gates refuses to use the F-22's over Iraq. The F-22 is stealthy from every angle, where as the F-35 is stealthy from head-on only.

Gates is a hypocrite, if he let the raptors do attack missions, then they could, easily, it's just that he won't let them.

This is absurd; our National Security goes hand & hand with our Air Superiority. Having these 'couldn' t hurt!'

The F-35 can do almost anything the F-22 can do in the conflicts the US will likely be fighting. Is the F-22 "better?" Yes. "Better enough" to justify the huge cost? No. Someone above said "alot of our enemies have alot of money." That's simply not true. The Russians and the Chinese may be developing F-22 like aircraft, but they aren't going to be turning out fleets of the things. The current complement of F-22s will more than counter these developments for the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the wars we are actually fighting require a very different aircraft. It's time to meet our real needs rather than waxing nostalgic about the Cold War.

Finally, weapons systems aren't and should not be jobs programs. To keep bringing up the "but the parts are made in our backyard" argument is exactly what Eisenhower warned about when speaking of the "military-industrial complex."

As Sun Tzu pointed out, if you are strong everywhere, you are weak everywhere. There was a day when the USA could actually swamp its opponents on all fronts, including the air. Those days are gone. The country has to choose. If the USA follows a strategy of strength and power all the time at every point, it will follow the path of the UK and USSR. The continued demands of the military will consume the economy, leaving an indebted hulk that was once great.

Perhaps we should seek guidance from 5x military deferment coward Dick Cheney? He's the expert on all things security isn't he? What would an honorable and decorated guy like John McCain know?

Boys and their toys. Not to sound like a hippie, but couldn't the money that's being spent on these panes be used elsewhere? These planes have never seen one minute of combat and are nothing but pork at it's worst. "Air superiority"? What does that even mean? Only birds have air superiority.

the production of components to the f22 fighter is concentrated in the new england area so many jobs are being lost if anyone cares about that

"The conflict we most likely will be fighting..." Fine, all of you Foreign Policy Experts, go line up in the history of Foreign Policy Experts who were right about predicting past wars, their direction, and the tactics and weapons that won those wars.
Do you want to bet your house on the next conflict America will be involved in?
Do you want to bet your country?
Get our best warriors the best equipment- everywhere.
And for the record for you political monkeys out there, I've voted Democrat for the past 25 years.

The "wars" of the future will be the following:

1) selling consumer products to all nations. This is a war we are losing big time thanks to Defense spending on an inordinate scale. Only idiot countries like North Korea would think about fighting us. The rest now see us their best customer but sell little in return. If we can sell more consumer products made here, there will be plenty of jobs for all.

2)Special ops should have been allowed to complete the job in Afghanistan in 2001-02. Instead in got blown way out of proportion. Innocent civilians got killed by the hundreds. Al Qaeda got away.

The only reason the F35 is cheaper is becuase much of the technology it uses has already been developed through the F22......that being said, the jury is still out on if we really need these F22 planes. For every hour of operation it takes about 34 hours of repair or $44,000...why cant this be a little more in the ballpark of previous planes. This is about 10-12k more in repairs per flight.

im a vet and been in battles... we need the best equipment but right now the F22 though very powerful is not needed. We have unmanned aircraft, solid fighters and bombers already to go another decade.. just temp suspend the program until we are ready with cash to start it up again. and like the 1st commentor I am also a repub

Hey as long as we don't start oursourcing defense contracts like we tried to do with the cargo planes. I'd say it's alright. It shouldn't be an issue of whether or not America can afford to build them. Remember the saying freedom isn't free. Well that is the defense of America in a nutshell. We need to spend the money if we intend on keeping the land we have safe. Now if we can build a better plane such as the F-35 claims to be for less. Than I say go for it. We have a compliment of F15's, F16's, F18's, and the F117's for a short time still along with the F22's we do have. There's also the A10, the Apache, Cobra, and Commanche. I think we have the ultimate in airsuperiority.

Liam, right on! It's great to have "air superiority," but there needs to be a consideration of cost. And I'd say the argument of fighter ground support is becoming more or less moot anyway. Why not invest in better development of drones so we can send 10 of them to neutralize every 1 fighter that an enemy might have without risking any lives?

Actually, if you look at the state of unmanned aircraft (theregister.com and wired.com's danger room section are a good place to start), you will see that the F-22 is already on the verge of being outclassed by *unmanned* fighter aircraft. We can have air superiority/air dominance without this fighter, even though I'm a big fan of its coolness factor. The money would be better spent on UAVs and protecting our satellite network (which China already has plans to strike, and without which we can't operate militarily anyway).

Exactly what we need, an ultra high tech stealth aircraft, perfect for avoiding al queda's most advanced weapon -- the stingers WE gave them in the 80's

The F22 is a remarkable airplane. I had the pleasure of seeing one at the R.I. airshow back in June. Amazing. It can do things that an airplane shouldn't be able to do. It's stealth capabilities have yet to be tested in a real theater of conflict and they most likely never will. Those barking about Russia and China need to realize that the government needs to plan for a budget that will pay the best dividends in the most likely areas of conflict in the foreseeable future, none of which include Russia or China. I don't see the animals crawling in and out of caves over in Afghanistan or Africa climbing into any jets anytime soon. I don't see them shooting down any F16's, F18's or F15's anytime soon either. If we ever have to go into any place where an F22 is needed, we already have plenty on standby. Look where we've had the most difficulty in Iraq. Close quarter ground combat with an enemy that's patient and willing to hide in schools, villages, and Mosques. Try dropping even the most sophisticated precision guided weapon from a plane that's basically invisible on a school and you'll have the world in an uproar. We need to be smart with whatever money we spend. It's not an argument of patriotism. It's an argument of making decisions that will give us the most bang for our buck in the most likely scenario.

Employ those people to build a cheaper, better plane. Pretty simple.

I am certainly not an expert in this field but the next generation of fighter aircraft is already in some form of production and they will not be manned by humans. There is no sense in spending money on machines that are outdated.

If there was ever a time we didn't need a weapon, and a weapon we didn't need, now is the time and the F-22 is the weapon.

At the moment, no one can seriously challenge our PREVIOUS generation fighters (the F-15 and F-16). We already have around 200 F-22's in service. The F-35 is on line and will put us further ahead.

It's almost impossible to construct a scenario where America's security picture will be improved or even affected by our building more F-22's.

I'd say we need to go into the future with F22 like planes, not all of our wars will be against terrorists in mountains etc. Most likely there will be wars with countries or perhaps factions with air capabilities which can be bought from the Russians. SU47 is very comparable to the F22, but not as controlled it lacks the vector thrusting i believe.

We cannot be naive in saying drones will suffice in all battles, it's just not effective to have a computer do your fighting for you when battle decisions are split second actions. A dude on a computer terminal at HQ with a latte in one hand will not be sufficient to win the battle. Planes like the F22 are great also for drone deployment deep into enemy territory.

I think fiscally we should slow it down, but not shut it down altogether that was and is a stupid decision. I would rather see the f15 program shut down and the f22 increased than this.

I wonder if Obama lost a bet with our enemies and he ante'd up the f22 project...

This is a big step to being under gunned in future warfare, it almost feels like he's just opening up our doors to be conquered.....i hope not.