U.S. Fighter Jet Could Die to Help Fund War

[Flagg]

U.S. Fighter Jet Could Die to Help Fund War
59 minutes ago Add Top Stories - Reuters to My Yahoo!


By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon (news - web sites) may have to scrap its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq (news - web sites), Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), an influential member of the Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday.




"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said on NBC's "Meet the Press."


McCain said both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps must be expanded overall, a position at odds with President Bush (news - web sites)'s administration. The United States has about 135,000 troops in Iraq, a number that McCain said must rise.


As part of a broad overhaul of U.S. priorities, he said, the Pentagon may have to scrap the $71 billion Air Force program to buy F/A-22 air-to-air fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. .


"We may have to cancel this airplane that's going to cost between $250 million and $300 million a copy," said McCain, floating what could become a major new legislative hurdle to a top Air Force priority.


McCain led a drive that stalled what has become a $23.5 bi


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040411/ts_nm/iraq_usa_mccain_dc&cid=564&ncid=1473

[DCDemo]

1. It's SICK that they refer to a weapons program "dying"

I mean we're talking about a production and manufacturing program here, not a living, breathing person.

Lazy use of powerful language...

[Lizz612]

4. My mind switched the words

So I thought it said a jet fighter was going to die, a real person you know. Might be intentional.

[ixion]

2. And so it begins... the decline

Not that I necessarily support the development of weaponry, although I am a aviation buff... so I was interested in this from a technological perspective. But my point is that as this quagmire goes from bad to worse, more and more programs -- domestic and otherwise, will be scrapped to pay for the tragic mess that is Iraq, and Afghanistan, and any other wars the neocons decide to declare.

[kalian]

3. Wow...this is huge....

first, they scrapped the Comanche after spending billions on the
program. Now, they want to kill the Raptor... :wow: They are
really desperate to keep their oil...

[markses]

5. They building this baby in Marietta, GA?

Hope Cobb County is happy with their choice for President...:eyes:

[0007]

6. Wow! there goes life in the fast lane

The pentagon has rat holed 3 trillion and they want to suck more blood out of us, `fuck 'em let it die.

[dai]

33. I don't see Al-Qaeda on that graph...

we can't let ourselves fall behind their technology!

[sam sarrha]

7. The F22 would give air superiority for the next century, I worked on it.

..as much as i really hate to say it .. we need that plane.. all the rest is old rebuilt stuff. really old. a few F22's could protect them and keep them alive in combat.

[drfemoe]

9. 277 of them is what the story says ..

Reuters source:
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4798748
http://tinyurl.com/ywhxn

"The Air Force hopes to buy at least 277 F/A-22 fighters, which it describes as key to dominating the skies in future combat. It is about to enter operational testing en route to replacing the F-15C. "

Is the F-15C the same as the "Strike Eagle"? Or another F-15?

[Kolesar]

22. "Strike Eagle" = Ground support = dropping bombs

The F-15 was a fine design, so they decided to build some for close air support with lots of bomb racks and bomb-dropping-electronics. I expect a lot of it was for smart bombs.

[DS1]

10. Protect whom?

Other fighter jocks?

[Ready4Change]

12. I agree.

I recall that when the F-15, 16 and 17 (ne: 18) were being developed people objected to the cost and scoffed at the need for them.

[mobuto]

27. Why do we need the F-22 when we have the F-35?

What threats exist or could exist in the near (15-20 year) future that cannot adquately be addressed by the F-35?

[Devils Advocate NZ]

39. Because the F-35 is a strike fighter, whereas the F-22 is an

air superiority fighter.

As for keeping the F-15 the problem is that the F-15 is not stealthy, and thus can be shot down by current missile systems. For example, there is no way in hell that F-15's would've been sent to downtown Baghdad until after the air defences had been nuetralised.

The point is, the US likes having air superiority, and the ONLY way it is going to get and keep that is by staying ahead of the game. The current generation of Russian aircraft are superior to the F-15, and thus any country with deep enough pockets to convince the Russians is bound to try and buy them.

The where will the US' empire be?

Me, on the other hand, I prefer the US to NOT have air superiority - maybe then US presidents would be less likely to invade other countries. So as far as I am concerned the US should scrap ALL of its advanced aircraft programmes.

[uberotto]

17. I have to disagree...

While it would be sad to see the project cancelled because of the loss of jobs, the F-22 is probably the most UN-necessary project currently being funded by the Government.

First, while the F-16 and F/A-18 are both based on technology that is 30 years old, they are still currently in production, so what is being flown by the military is not all old, rebuilt stuff. And while Europe and Russia have both produced new aircraft designs since the introduction of these two U.S. Aircraft, they have not yet produced anything that can effectively challenge the U.S. Air superiority. They can possibly match it, but not surpass it. For an example, look at the B-52. While it is based on 1950's technology, it is still the best thing flying for doing the job it was created to do.

Second, the F-22 will have a life span of only 20 to 30 years before it is obsoleted by unmanned aircraft. UAV technology is advancing at a very rapid pace, and it will not be too much longer before companies are starting to produce unmanned aircraft that can match or even exceed anything currently flying. UAVs can be produced at 1/10 the cost of a manned vehicle, so while the F-22 is an impressive weapon, economics have already doomed the project to a short life.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

24. Well, what about the JSF? Why TWO fighters?

The Joint Strike Fighter is a brand new plane too.

[mobuto]

26. Air superiority? Over whom?

Our Air Force today is so far beyond what the rest of the world, combined, can do that there's really no comparison. So who are we competing against? The Europeans? The Russians? The Chinese? The first two may be able to field fighters equivalent to ours in tiny numbers, but there's just no credible strategic threat. To the extent that Sukhoi jets worry US commanders, we'll have the more than capable F-35.

[American Renaissance]

8. put it out of it's misery,

This is another Reagan era pig weapons system that has been languishing for years with no meaningful progress or remaining purpose. What is this thing? 13 years behind schedual?

[bluestateguy]

11. Let the Pentagon get a taste of what schools have to go through

Aren't these guys on the Right the ones who always lambast schools and other social welfare institutions for lavish spending? "They should learn to do more with less," they say. I couldn't agree more. Let the Pentagon do more with less. If they want their bomber they can hold fundraisers, bake sales, garage sales and solicit donations from dittoheads and freepers.

[loudsue]

37. That's my favorite post....

:yourock: Yeah!!! :yourock:


:kick:

[makhno]

13. Off to the recruitement office

Well, let's terminate some more high paying jobs and send those LM employees packing to the nearest recruitement office.

Sometimes I wonder if the reactionaries' policies are not consciously designed to force ever vaster numbers of people into the lumpen underclass, thereby expanding that essential ingredient of any fascistic system - the impoverished, uneducated masses.

[frank frankly]

14. oh, so we have sentient jets now?

amazing choice of words.

lousy media bastards.

[banana republican]

15. That's another 5,000 jobs

down the drain.

I don't mind them building these things so long as they don't use them. If they have to use the weapons then they have failed in doing their job.

[CRYINGWOLFOWITZ]

16. F22 was designed for the cold war

is was ment to go up against the USSR. it is obsolete as the 21st century is not going to see many of these symetrical wars.

[Florida_Geek]

20. That right the F-22 is a piece of shit Air Force plane

that should have died with the cold war. The Joint Strike Fighter being built at around 1/2 the cost and can be used by Navy/Air Force Marines.

And no there will be no lost of jobs IMHO, the same company builds both, they will just start building the JSF in Georga too.

[agincourt]

18. The bloated F-22,

would probably enhance our national security much more than Cheny-Haliburtons oil fief ever would. At least it could shoot down al-quida crop dusters rather than put our troops in a position to be bullet magnets. The 80 billion for the plane wouldn't take a single human life and wouldn't make the world hate us anymore. Neo-con pigs bullied us into invading Iraq, a black hole if there ever was one. Bush's iraq folly should cut the feet out of right-wingers for years to come. Maybe thats the only good thing to come from this war, an ability to flush conservative politics out of our systhem for years to come. Dump Iraq. Dump Bush. Dump conservatives. They are the ones who bellowed for this war as they sat on their ass and loaded up on oxycontin.

[NewGal]

29. What is yourproblem with oxycontin?

Many of us liberals take it for legit reasons. Knock off the WOSD crap.

[mulethree]

31. false advertising for understating its addictiveness and lethality

Never heard of it so I had to look it up, might check out the following link seems the company got hit up with false advertising for understating its addictiveness and lethality; also a generic version coming soon.


http://www.csdp.org/news/news/oxycontin.htm

[mulethree]

30. 80 billion = 45,714

45,714 * 35,000/year * 50 years = 80,000,000,000

So it's the lifetime wages of about 45,000 median U.S. families

I would consider that the taking of more than a single human life, but it is spread across all the US taxpayers

[AndyP]

19. if it were John Kerry saying all this

the RW would be all over his ass saying how he was against national defense.

[nonbelief]

21. Australia will be sooo pleased.

Australia has already contributed 250 million dollars to the f22 program..and is counting on 70 of them to replace its f1-11's and f18's...

So much for slotting the Australian defence forces into the American system...

[mobuto]

28. Give them F-35s at a discount

That'd shut old Howard up. Unless, of course, they want to pay Lockheed to continue to develop the F-22.

[Waverley_Hills_Hiker]

23. F-22, tyical USAF boondoggle....defense death spiral.

The USAF is all about getting the most technologically advanced stuff for the jet jockys. Problem is, we just cant afford this right now.

This program was in trouble well before the Iraq war.

[The_Casual_Observer]

25. The US is the ONLY country stupid enough

to want to build shit like this anymore. It just too bad that the money, that they are borrowing anyway, is being sent to support the illegal occupation in Iraq.

[Zech Marquis]

32. this overpriced POS jet

is STILL having all kinds of technical problems ,yet for some reason Langley AFB is STILL building a bunch of new hangars and assorted support buildings for its arrival :eyes: I mean, what's wrong with the F-15? You can build new ones with proven upgrades and not skip a beat. And NOW because shit's hitting the old proveberal fan, Rummy thinks it might be best to scrap the Raptor so he can keep his meatgrinder in Iraq running.

We are FUCKED.

[Doc_Technical]

34. Why don't we buy the SU-37 Russian Fighter?

And while we're at it, we can buy AK-74 assult rifles to replace
our M-16s.
We could buy T-84 tanks as well.

[mobuto]

35. Uh, yes, right

Because that'll happen about the time Willie Nelson gets elected President of the United States.

[kalian]

36. Already proposed by a retired Navy admiral....

Read it here:
http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/su27/su27.asp

Pretty wild stuff. I think its an awesome idea IMHO.

[loudsue]

38. Lockheed Martin is in Newt Gingrich's district....

This whole area is MAJOR radical right-wing nutcase heaven. And many many many of the people who live in that area --- repukes AGAINST big government, mind you -- have been nursing on the government tit through Lockheed Martin since ... forever.

If they DO cut back on production there, and jobs take a hit (which I doubt they will....our government would send money to L/M simply because L/M turns around and gives the money back to the politicians to get them elected), maybe some of the right wing fundies would stop and say...."huh??" Maybe a THOUGHT would take shape in their brains, and they may start to see what a mess we're in.

I used to live in Cobb County. 10 repugs to every 1 sane person.

:kick: