Home » Air » Romney’s F-22 dreams died Tuesday

Romney’s F-22 dreams died Tuesday

by Mike Hoffman on November 7, 2012

President Barack Obama’s re-election Tuesday signaled any bids to restart the F-22 production line after Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had raised the issue on the campaign trail saying he wanted to build more F-22s.

Romney lumped in the F-22 with his plans to build more ships for the Navy during an interview with a Virginia television station in September.

“Rather than completing nine ships per year, I’d move that up to 15. I’d also add F-22s to our Air Force fleet. And I’d add about 100,000 active duty personnel to our military team,” Romney said in the interview. “I think the idea of shrinking our military to try and get closer to balancing our budget is the wrong place to look.”

Romney’s interest in adding to the Air Force’s F-22 fleet took many by surprise. The Air Force had fought the Bush administration to keep production beyond 187 aircraft before former Defense Secretary Robert Gates shut those discussions down in 2007.

The Obama administration has shown no interest in restarting Lockheed Martin’s F-22 production line.

Loren Thompson, a consultant for Lockheed Martin and other defense companies, suggested that reopening the line would cost at least $900 million, not to mention the cost of each aircraft. In September, Defense Tech’s sister blog, DoDBuzz examined how long and what it would take to start building F-22s again:

In 2010, Japan discussed buying 40 F-22s from Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-22. Lockheed officials then told Japanese leaders it would cost $900 million to re-open the production line. Thompson said the cost would surely increase when considering two years have passed and the production line was still “semi-warm.”

The cost to reopen the production line would come in addition to the per aircraft price tag to manufacture each jet. That per aircraft cost is harder to decipher. When factoring in development and manufacturing, the price tag per jet totaled the U.S. more than $370 million. However, the flyaway cost — the cost of manufacturing one jet — equaled $137 million per jet.

Re-opening the production line in Marietta, Ga., would take at least two years, Thompson said. Lockheed would be slowed by re-establishing supplier networks and re-training employees.

“In a rush, you could do it in about two years assuming all the other workers weren’t on other projects like F-35,” Thompson said.

Share |

{ 134 comments… read them below or add one }

blight_ November 7, 2012 at 4:09 pm

Just tell Lockheed to make a new F-25, using lessons from low production F-22 and complex and intractable F-35. If it worked for the Virginia, rising from the ruins of the Seawolf program…

Reply

Mastro November 8, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Um- you want to throw together the two programs- AND save $$?

A simple F35- less stealthy bays to add weight- might be cheaper- but that's it.

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 1:19 pm

Just the -A.

The Marines and Navy will have to "make it work".

Though the Marines need the -B a little more than everyone else…

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:22 pm

Make it work? What is the Fleet Air Arm supposed to do? They have bet all the poker chips on the the F-35.

Reply

ddd November 7, 2012 at 4:19 pm

I'm a little confused…have they totally fixed the hypoxia issue?

Reply

Anonymous November 8, 2012 at 12:00 pm

It's the pilots fault. Support the troops!

Reply

Lance November 8, 2012 at 6:55 pm

I read something about them redesigning Combat Edge…idk if that would fix it…

Reply

Tad November 7, 2012 at 4:20 pm

Good. The US is broke. The wallet is empty. No money, no expensive toys.

Reply

dirtylodown November 7, 2012 at 4:37 pm

But somehow we are going to pay people to be lazy?

Reply

Tad November 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm

I didn't address that issue. Let me add to me original statement:

No money, no expensive welfare programs.

Reply

zak November 8, 2012 at 10:07 am

Oh the liberals will always find money for welfare programs…just mortgage more of the future!

Will Obamas 4 year plan work as well as Stalins 5 year plans?

Reply

ras743 November 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm

"Toys" you say? Peace-dividend Democrat? You'll see what kind of toys they are when other nations can dictate terms to us because they have more and better toys like these. Three things are true today: The One is still in power; it's still a very dangerous world; and he has no clue how to deal with it and couldn't care less as he leaves the troops to the mercy of our enemies while dreaming up more "bread and circuses" schemes for the masses.

Reply

Raraavis November 7, 2012 at 5:20 pm

Who is this threat that is building 5th plus generation fighters and is going to dictate terms to us?

Russia? If their technology is where the claim it is, and it never is, but the can't afford to manufacture them.
China? maybe someday real soon.
North Korea?
Al-Quida?
Iran?
The Muslim Brotherhood?
Space Aliens?
Bigfoot?

Please explain how this is a dangerous world and how you think making 200 million dollar Air Superiority Fighters will make it less dangerous.

Reply

Jayson November 7, 2012 at 6:57 pm

Read the papers, Bigfoot is a menace to society! We need boats and F-22 ASAP to counter their threat to our freedom!

Reply

ras743 November 8, 2012 at 8:09 am

Here you go, Rare Bird and like-minded naifs, from the Strategy Page: http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/China-Ha

Reply

Frank November 16, 2012 at 7:24 pm

The point is to be superior, not on the same level. It is a deterrent.

Reply

Tad November 7, 2012 at 7:36 pm

You should worry less about nebulous threats that lie across vast oceans away from the US, and more about "the One" having even more deadly toys at his disposal. He's shown quite a willingness to use them for anything that strikes his fancy.

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:38 pm

Like Americans without trial in Yemen?

Reply

superraptor November 7, 2012 at 6:21 pm

we need to let all the Bush tax cuts expire, otherwise we can't pay for our military anymore

Reply

Weaponhead November 7, 2012 at 4:39 pm

Let's all take Mandarin classes.

Reply

Raraavis November 7, 2012 at 5:01 pm

Yes because 20 more F-22's is all that separates us from peace and a Chinese invasion.

Reply

XYZ November 7, 2012 at 11:57 pm

I mean, it's a pretty good idea to take at least one language class. Mandarin or Hindi would be a solid bet – they ARE the most populous countries in the world.

Reply

jamFRIDGE November 8, 2012 at 10:52 am

Already did LOL

Reply

Mastro November 8, 2012 at 1:04 pm

Walmart will soon sell Chinese stealth planes anyway-

Reply

JE McKellar November 7, 2012 at 4:43 pm

Besides, what we really need to do is restart the A-12 Avenger II project. No point building a stealth aircraft if you can't deploy it at sea and it ain't got a decent-sized bomb bay.

Reply

Belesari November 7, 2012 at 5:00 pm

Your serious……………………………………..You mean the flying dorito which ate the Navy's budget and screwed up the Navies Aircraft fleet for decades. Oh and it also lead to the death of the new A-6 prototype (which we did and do need) and the super tomcat….no thanks

Reply

BlackOwl18E November 7, 2012 at 8:05 pm

The F-35 is doing exactly that to all of the services. It's eating their budgets and forcing the services to rely on their older proven designs for at least another decade.

Reply

JE McKellar November 7, 2012 at 11:06 pm

Only half serious. I do think that the last two decades have shown that heavy attack aircraft are important, maybe more important than a bunch of light strike fighters that never actually bother much with the air-to-air role.

Imagine a revived program as all the systems from the F/A-18F put into an airframe based on an enlarged X-47B. Not as fast as the Hornets, but with longer range/loiter time. Good for deep strike, air support, and missileering with a bay full of AMRAAMs. Also plenty of room for all sorts of EW, tanker, and drone-control modules.

Reply

Mastro November 8, 2012 at 1:06 pm

We do need a stealth F15E-A6 attack/bomber

I guess the closet we have is an overweight F35 and teh future bomber project

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:40 pm

The X 47 is going to fill that niche.

Raraavis November 7, 2012 at 4:53 pm

How about we bring home our troops and close some of our 700 foreign military installations. Instead of paying foreign nations for the privilege of defending them we bring our troops home and station them in the United States. Imagine the economic impact stationing 10,000 troops and their families at a base in a US City would have.

Have the Pentagon identify the foreign military bases that actually offer some strategic advantage and close everything else. All that money spent maintaining outpost all over the world can be spent on more advanced weapons.

The South Korean Economy is easily 100 times the size of the North Korean economy, certainly South Korea can afford to defend themselves. If North Korea invades South Korea we will happily assist the South Koreans with massive Air and Naval Support but why in the world should we have US Soldiers on the ground defending the border.

Reply

blight_ November 7, 2012 at 5:50 pm

Before you get flamed for opening the Too Many Bases Can of Worms without a reference:
http://www.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/bsr/BSR2012Bas

We have 666 "DoD sites" overseas, 94 in overseas territories and 4.4k in the United States.

Let the flaming begin…!

Reply

jhm November 7, 2012 at 8:55 pm

Do you really think 30,000 troops in Korea would halt a North Korean invasion? They are essentially cannon fodder to enrage our general public when they get demolished by the initial North Korean attack. No matter what you say, 30,000 Americans aren't much compared to a half a million strong RoK army and million strong commie army…

Reply

Teddy November 7, 2012 at 10:03 pm

It’s not about the US soldiers fighting it’s about an instant response for retaliation. If there where no US soldiers and the north invaded there would be deliberation and opposition but because there are and the US soldiers if the north attack there would be only one response for America and her allies

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 7:48 am

jhm's point is that the ROK really doesn't need us…

Even a reboot to the '90s and the Yugoslavia playbook of standoff weapons would supplement the ROKA.

Reply

Raraavis November 8, 2012 at 9:34 am

I know why the rational behind putting the troops there I just don't think it is valid anymore. Do you seriously think that a US President is not going to come to the aid of the South Koreans if the North invades? Of course they will so there is no need to sacrifice 30,000 troops to do it.

The other point is we can't afford to have them there.

Reply

Mastro November 8, 2012 at 1:10 pm

I agree- I think the 30,000 sacrificial Americans was back in the day before 24 hour news- the Norks might have sneaked some mischief in- like the Pueblo Incident during Tet.

Not now- we should have a small armoured unit, some arty and air power- maybe even rotate squadrons from Alaska/Guam.

Musson November 8, 2012 at 10:49 am

After Obama's proposed cuts to the nuclear arsenal – we will no longer be able to respond to North Korean aggression with nuclear weapons.

So, bring the boys home.

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 1:23 pm

I can't imagine anyone is ever really going to use a nuke. Sad but true.

When Russia invaded Georgia, did anybody fire a nuke? Nope.

When Korea was rolled up in '49, were there nukes? Nope.
When the Chinese came rolling in afterwards, were there nukes? Nope.
When Vietnam was invaded often, any nukes? Nope.
When Cuba was being armed, were there nukes? Nope, and thank god, it was pretty darn close…
When Israel was on the ropes, were there nukes? No…but rumor has it…

Teddy November 7, 2012 at 10:04 pm

It’s not about the US soldiers fighting it’s about an instant response for retaliation. If there where no American soldiers and the north invaded there would be deliberation and opposition but because there are and the American soldiers if the north attack there would be only one response for America and her allies

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:59 pm

We do have bases that make no sense anymore. Kosovo is a prime example. It's been close to 20 years. WTF, are still playing in the Balkans for 2 administrations later? Gitmo? As side from the Prison, what do we use it for? There are no Squadrons or Ships stationed there.

Reply

Jerry November 7, 2012 at 5:19 pm

Rather than building a war crap machine, lets invest in education, health, energy, and organic food.
Peace!

Reply

bobbymike November 7, 2012 at 5:40 pm

Has anyone is the history of the internet gone onto a organic food or 'education' website and said screw this use education funds for F-22's?

Reply

Lance November 8, 2012 at 6:52 pm

LOL awesome

Reply

Kim November 12, 2012 at 6:21 pm

Probably not, I am as surprised as you are. I agree with Jerry, though, save for the organic food bit.

Reply

Brian November 7, 2012 at 8:32 pm

How else are we going to deliver free birth control to fly over country without these stealthy contraception dispensers, Jerry? Those red states are well armed.

Reply

retired462 November 8, 2012 at 8:50 am

What you mean is more money for the teachers unions, right!
Expanded ENTITLEMENT PROGRAMS!
If you think that the war on terror is over; you're nuts. We have to stay strong!

Reply

Pappa51 November 8, 2012 at 11:35 am

Are you for real, See how much money the Terrorist are going to invest in you, your health and energy and organic food when they take over. You will be re-educated. and when you resist because it's to early to get up in the morning you'll get to be the fertilizer in that Organic Garden. Wake up!
The U.S.A. as we know it died on Tuesday. It's now a Socialist, Communist country. Hope your wife likes wearing a Barcia.

Reply

Mastro November 8, 2012 at 1:15 pm

I must have watched a different election…

Reply

Scott Elba November 8, 2012 at 6:16 pm

Wake up dude. It’snot that bad, u r OVERREACTING just a bit. Drama queen r ya

Reply

Victorinox November 15, 2012 at 10:45 am

Can you tell me how many Terrorist have been killed by the F-22 fleet?

I can… ZERO.

Reply

bobbymike November 15, 2012 at 7:17 pm

How about our SSBNs? ICBMs? You don't use every weapon in the arsenal if you don't have to.

The F-22 is for AD/A2 environments not a third world country with no air defenses or fighters of their own.

Reply

Lance November 8, 2012 at 6:58 pm

Dude…you're RETARDED. without a military, what is the United States of America?? We're already a huge target for a lot of countries, and the only reason they haven't attacked us is because our military is second to none. With a weaker military, we get smoked by terrorists. You woulndt like that, I guarantee it.

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:28 pm

The People of NJ & NY are more scared of looters than Terrorists right now. They want heat & light. Not a $300 million dollar Mig chaser.

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:24 pm

Guns vs Butter? Looks like butter won on Tuesday.

Reply

Dillard November 19, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Hey Jerry,

Go study history please….

Reply

sailor12 November 29, 2012 at 8:41 am

Yeah, nothing better than an educated slave

Reply

dubweiser101 November 7, 2012 at 5:21 pm

I don't think the USAF needs new F-22's anyway. There just isn't any viable opposition to justify its continued production at this point. The PAK-FA, J-31, and J-20 are still about 5-10 years from entering service. Until then it would be wise to keep upgrading the tech for the F-22's but not producing any more until there is a legitimate need to.

Reply

octopusmagnificens November 8, 2012 at 3:51 am

I agree. Furthermore, I think the USAF should concentrate its resources on the next generation of fighters, small unmanned fighters.

Reply

Lance November 7, 2012 at 6:14 pm

Not happening sad to see just a few F-22s make it into service. But now F-15 and F-22 upgrades need bigger importance.

Reply

Mike L November 7, 2012 at 7:00 pm

We have some of the F-22's here in Hawaii and it is a beautiful site to watch them sore thru our skies. I am waiting for the F-35s to get up there as soon as they can. Our aircraft are getting old and we need the new ones, not just because they are better. We DO NOT want to sacrifice our fleets or pilots because of old age.

Reply

safehouse November 10, 2012 at 8:28 am

That's "s-o-a-r".

Reply

Krypto November 7, 2012 at 7:14 pm

Perhaps those in charge new that it made no since to produce countless high priced F-22's, It's a safe bet that there are other weapons that are being developed. I'm sure the boys in the labs are cooking up some killer drones, and weapon systems so exotic we haven't even thought of them.
But for right now we have hard enough time taking care of the guy with RPG, or a stinger.

Reply

Marcellus Hambrick November 7, 2012 at 7:56 pm

Why do we need such a big military? Ali these liberal social programs will save us.

Reply

Raraavis November 8, 2012 at 9:37 am

Save us from what?

What is a bigger threat to our way of life then a 16 Trillion dollar debt and another 30 Trillion in unfunded future commitments?

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 10:03 am

If we downsize our military some more, people will stop begging for us to save them in all corners of the world. Whew! And we can get back to our Roaring Twenties in relative isolationism.

Reply

Citizen of the world November 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm

And what came after the ‘Roaring 20s’?

Reply

blight_ November 9, 2012 at 2:43 pm

Hitler, so therefore we must have a strong military to stop Hitler!

hail victory.

Reply

w d wilmarth November 7, 2012 at 8:25 pm

scrape the ill-fated F-35…toooooooooooo expensive and can't do any of it msns…just build updated F-15's and F-16's….they are proven and way cheaper I'm sure…LCMC will always win either way

Reply

jhm November 7, 2012 at 8:57 pm

I deplore the f35 program, but I highly doubt an legacy teen fighter is gonna put up much of a fight against Su-35/30s and the eventual arrival Pak fas…

Reply

Lance November 7, 2012 at 9:28 pm

No test shown F-15s can outmatch a SU-30 which is NOT a air superiority fighter but a multirole attack plane. In Red Flag in Nevada USAF F-15s massacred Indian Air Force SU-30s.

Reply

Stratege November 8, 2012 at 6:55 am

No quite exactly good comparison. Export-oriented Su-30 is not on par with the Su-35S.

Reply

Lance November 8, 2012 at 2:53 pm

The upgraded F-15 with ASEA radars is better than the SU-30 or 27. The Eagle can out-climb and turn a Flanker. Its new AIM-120Ds could kill a Flanker long before the Flankers radar can detect a Eagle. some 50-60 miles the D will have in range. Besides with Obama caving to the Russians we wont have to worry about none export Russian fighter anyway well give in long before war comes.

Nicky November 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm

Can't we just build an non stealthy version of the F-22 using the technology from the F-15E strike eagle.

Reply

William C. November 9, 2012 at 3:10 am

So we'd throw away the best advantage of the F-22 to do what exactly?

Reply

BlackOwl18E November 7, 2012 at 10:01 pm

All we need is for the U.S. Navy to get upgraded Super Hornets and advanced anti-radar ordinance to accomplish the mission. Cancel the F-35B and F-35C. Let the USAF get the F-35A and let our allies buy the F-35A.

If sequestration goes through, however, the military has to ask itself one very important question: What are they willing to sacrifice to save the F-35 program when cutting the program all together could easily manage the budget cuts?

Bottom line: if sequestration goes though in January then the F-35 has to go immediately.

Reply

Anlushac11 November 8, 2012 at 3:23 am

If you kill the F-35B the USMC has nothing to replace their aging AV-8 Harriers. The Harrier is out of production and there are no other VTOL multi role aircraft in development.

The USN does not have to have a F-35C. The USAF does not have to have a F-35A.

Only the USMC is desperate for a Harrier replacement that can operate off the USN Gators.

Reply

William C. November 8, 2012 at 4:15 am

Without any further F-22 production or development, the USAF needs the F-35A more than it ever did.

The Navy has a somewhat newer Super Hornet fleet, but lets not delude ourselves into thinking this administration will properly fund F/A-XX or another new strike fighter for the Navy. The F-35C working in conjunction with F/A-18E/F will be pretty potent, if not the best we could have done.

Reply

Rob November 7, 2012 at 10:58 pm

I see no urgency in any air weapon system. Despite growth, I do not see China, Russia or anyone else ready to take us on in the very near future.

Our current enemies are all on the ground. Many are in foreign countries amongst their population. Resources need diverted heavily to surveillance, electronics, body armor, defensive walls. Fortify our borders. Secure larger perimeters around all our remote bases.

It's a win/win. The more protected we are as a country, the less damage that can be done. Whether by terrorists, drug mafias, average criminals, or foreign armies.

Tech will only be better in the next few years. Build a super jet after the next decent tech leap.

Reply

XYZ November 8, 2012 at 12:03 am

I like you. Let's remember to maintain our liberties as we do all that though.

If you are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety you deserve neither. -A very smart man

Reply

William C. November 8, 2012 at 4:09 am

Besides for the F/A-18E/F which was intended to be an interim aircraft, we've held off on production of new fighters and attack aircraft since the '90s. We can't wait another two decades.

Reply

William C. November 8, 2012 at 4:07 am

Those who supported halting F-22 production and development and now support doing to the same to the F-35 ought to understand that they helped created this scenario where the F-35 is an absolute necessity. It is the only serious fighter development occurring outside of some minor upgrade programs to existing fighters that aren't enough for he long term.

Reply

Arby November 8, 2012 at 7:30 am

"President Barack Obama’s re-election Tuesday signaled any bids to restart the F-22 production line after Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney had raised the issue on the campaign trail saying he wanted to build more F-22."

That opening sentence is missing something. What is going to happen to any bid to restart the F-22 line? We know that Obama's re-election signaled the bids and that Romney had mentioned the issue on the campaign trail, but you fail to tell us what is going to happen to the bids.

Reply

god November 30, 2012 at 1:36 pm

it is fake and dream cuz it is easy to cheat people in the world

Reply

EW3 November 8, 2012 at 8:00 am

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Reply

McDowall November 8, 2012 at 10:47 pm

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tyt

1 – Alexis de Tocqueville never said that.
2 – The quote is attributed to Alexander Fraser Tytler, but he never said that either.
3 – This quote surfaced on the internet in 2000, ironically aimed at Bush after he won.

Reply

blight_ November 9, 2012 at 9:19 am

Tax cuts are another form of largesse. Anything outside of starvation is largesse.

Reply

@fevriul November 8, 2012 at 8:22 am

What I cant understand is why Lockheed Martin is allowed to always overrun by a huge margin again and again and again with every defence project they have! its as bad a BAE is in the UK, sometimes I wonder if they both have a stash of photos with politicians interfering with Donkeys as blackmail material

Reply

TonyC November 8, 2012 at 10:04 am

During the cold war, the public would never know how much it cost to develop and field the F-22A or F-35A for that matter. These would be black programs like the B-2 before them. Congress would be given only very basic estimates and the Air Force would spend the money. Now the costs are very speculative and putting an exact price on any new design is not possible until it is fielded. The F-22A is now the backbone of the Air Force first strike capability to protect the F-35A or B2. With a fleet of 187 aircraft, they are going to be careful where to use them. In a general war, there simply aren't enough F-22A's to make a difference. This is why the F-15C's have been upgraded and the F-16's are being SLEP'd. Both old air frames are at the end of their life, so there is no choice but to procure the F-35A. Drones can do some of the work and take pressure off the manned systems. if we intend to keep conventional forces relevant, a large number of tactical aircraft will need to be fielded.

Reply

Chris Lyon November 10, 2012 at 10:28 pm

build brand new 15's and 16's way less money than 35's

Reply

SJE November 8, 2012 at 12:04 pm

Job #1 should be fixing our weaknesses in cyber war and espionage. We spend billions on our tech, only to have it copied by the Chinese, dulling our superiority. I want to see US military tech, but I want it to stay in the USA.

Reply

Hefe November 8, 2012 at 1:58 pm

I see both sides of the argument. We need a strong defense including the best airforce. The F-22 is the best air to air fighter and probably will be for a long time. It's just that the deficit makes everything tough. It's too hard to pay for a 370 million dollar aircraft when washington can barely afford to keep the lights on. I think the smart thing would be to invest in research to make stealth fighters less expensive.

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 3:00 pm

/Research/ is what drives up the cost of our aircraft…just saying.

Our peer enemies look undermatched, even with every turnover because most of their turnover in new aircraft involves trivial improvements, and very little R&D to give it a technological advantage over what is being replaced.

Reply

Hefe November 8, 2012 at 4:56 pm

There doesn't seem to be a good answer to this problem right now. I agree with your statement to a degree. If the government gave an R and D firm some money to develop a better assembly line or even a 5th generation fighter that's more cost effective; and then have them share that information with different companies. That would force different companies to compete; then we would see costs for stealth aircraft go down. The problem is lockheed has a monopoly on 5th generation technology which allows them to charge whatever price they want. What is you opinion on the F-35? I'm a little concerned because popular mechanics has an article saying it can be detected from the sides.Plus the costs keep going up.

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 5:09 pm

Lockheed and Northrop have a monopoly on low RCS design.

The electronics are built by other people. The systems integration is supposed to be what expertise the government is paying for, combining the fruits of R&D with equipment from subcontractors to make fighter jets happen.

Reply

Jacob November 8, 2012 at 3:22 pm

So Romney mentioned once that he would increase shipbuilding and resume production of F-22's. That probably means that he wouldn't have done it if he had been elected president. This guy always said stuff and never really meant it.

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 3:40 pm

As head of Bain Capital, would he have let the defense industry get away with half the stupid crap that the government, Congress and the Pentagon does? Probably not.

Perhaps Obama should appoint him as Government Waste Czar. It's an honorable job for any efficiency-minded corporate type, let alone a Republican. Of course, the question is how much authority would he have to go after sacred cows.

Appointing a Republican to the task allows one to look bipartisan while washing one's own hands of the matter.

Reply

TimUk November 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

The basic fact is the F22 and whole stealth concept is under attack from senior pilots and chiefs amongst the USAF and Navy.

The F22 is a joke, it’s range , mission capabilities , super cruise , turnarounds between missions etc etc etc never mind poisoning pilots . Now the JSF comes along which has gone from being an f16 replacement to a jack of all trades at massive expense.The senior USAF generals should be sacked ! More damage has been done to the military and security of the US by these two programs than al Qaeda could dream about .

Reply

Dfens November 9, 2012 at 8:31 am

Stealth is only "under attack" by programs that don't have it. We will get rid of stealth when we start painting our aircraft dayglo orange. If they wanted a real stealth fighter, they'd start building the F-23, not F-22s. The only thing preventing the F-23 from being resurrected is the fact that the Air Force didn't pick it as the winner of the ATF competition makes them look stupid.

Reply

dee November 8, 2012 at 4:09 pm

"Re-opening the production line in Marietta, Ga., would take at least two years."

If we ever end up in a protracted 1st world nation on 1st world nation shooting war (meaning a World War against a certain rising aggressive super power to the East…….they make cheap stuff at a cheap price……..) then we'll be done b/c we cannot replace our hi-tech doo dads in a timely manner. The cheap but effective weapon systems (T-72, MIGs, BMPs, AKs, and RPGs) would win simply by swarming the hi-tech goodies we now have. This worked for the Russians vs. the Germans at Kursk.

Our Navy's mindset is to focus on carriers to project power and this is flat out wrong. They focused on battleships to project power pre-WW2, Dec. 7th 1941 showed how easy it is to turn wipe out the expensive battleship with a comparatively cheap wing of planes. Carrier Battle Groups will not survive a swarm of carrier-killing anti-ship missiles.

Reply

Raraavis November 8, 2012 at 5:13 pm

Good luck to either country to make much of anything without GPS, Satelite Communications, an Internet, or all of the electronics fried by the EMP weapons. Both Governments will be more worried about the food riots in their streets then rearming for round 2.

Reply

JE McKellar November 8, 2012 at 5:50 pm

There's always the boneyard and mothball fleet. Not much in the way of missiles, though, would have to do everything with guns and iron bombs.

Reply

Kirk Gibbs November 8, 2012 at 11:44 pm

Not to mention its tough to make war when your oil and food supplies are cut off. We have oil and food within our borders. They don't. Just do to them what we did in WWII to the Japanese.

Reply

big bubba November 8, 2012 at 6:08 pm

rethuglicans!

Reply

Jon November 8, 2012 at 7:58 pm

This was never going to happen no matter who won the election. There ain't no money period. While Lockeheed tries to figure out how to make the F-22 stop choking pilots and the tailhook on the -35 catch a wire the USAF could start test driving some Silent Eagles…

Reply

Steve November 8, 2012 at 9:32 pm

If we had an appropriate threat then it might make sense to construct more F-22's. Advanced Chinese and Russian designs that MIGHT constitute a threat are not fielded in numbers that would justify reopening F-22 lines. If and when we have a surplus as we did under President Clinton then we could pay down the debt and consider expensive new aircraft. After we leave the Afgan War we'll have untold equipment to refurbish and repair.

Romney's F-22 statements were like those about the 1916 navy, pointless saber rattling to appear "tough." I wonder if Romney had any idea of how many colliers and oilers accompanied the 1916 fleet. Many vessels are nuclear now and multi-role. A cruiser or destroyer can engage surface, sub-surface and air targets.

The most important military assets are our infantry in Afghanistan. Bring them home in 2014.

Steve, a retired disabled infantry officer

Reply

blight_ November 9, 2012 at 9:21 am

It's convenient for all that the fighting at sea did not go beyond the North Sea: the logistics get more interesting.

At least the USN had the sense to transition to oil instead of being stuck with a mixed fuels fleet.

Reply

Steve November 8, 2012 at 9:42 pm

If we had an appropriate threat then it might make sense to construct more F-22's. Advanced Chinese and Russian designs that MIGHT constitute a threat are not fielded in numbers that would justify reopening F-22 lines. If and when we have a surplus as we did under President Clinton then we could pay down the debt and consider expensive new aircraft. After we leave the Afgan War we'll have untold equipment to refurbish and repair.

Reply

Anton K. November 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm

I'm reading your comments about power, affordability and purpose of the US Air Force. And I'm shocked about some of those statements.
Your country won't be overrun by Chinese, Russians or even the Iran. The U.S. spend as much as the whole rest of the world for their army. (Simultaniously you are debt up to the ears – not just because of Obama.)
Compared to your situation I should be in panic because I am German and live in Europe. That's the same continent where Putin lives, there is still one total dictator left (white russia) and you just can hop across the Mediterranean Sea to meet the "terror" countries in North Africa.
Although there are much more Germans than Britains oder French we pay less for military purposes.
NO, I'm not a pacifist, e.g. I think it's right that we intervened together in Afghanistan.
BUT I think you can be a little bit more relaxed.

Reply

blight_ November 9, 2012 at 2:42 pm

Most of the money goes to payroll, contractors to maintain facilities and facilities themselves. Maintaining an overseas presence is not cheap, not even counting the costs of the active duty armed forces.

Reply

Chris Lyon November 9, 2012 at 5:22 pm

Why not just build new F-15s and 16's? A-10's also in a much larger quantity than the new tech planes. Overpower air defense with numbers and cheap pilotless drones.

Reply

Jack November 12, 2012 at 11:20 pm

Drones are not cheap. Everyone has the misconception that drones are cheap but read some books and articles about how expensive the r and d and how much of the "black" cia budget drones took until the usaf took over the program.

Reply

Guest November 11, 2012 at 12:33 am

According to Richard Banholzer, Boeing's Director of Business Development for the Air Force Fighters and Weapons, was a former USAF F-15A, F-15C and F-15E pilot and test pilot, with 2,000 hours on the F-4 Phantom II and 1,900 hours on F-15s.

He claims the F-15 still has a vital role to play (which I agree). The F-22 Raptor, with their greater stealth, Raptors might be the aircraft of choice to penetrate particularly high-threat zones.

However, on the "friendly" side or low to medium threat zones of the forward edge of the battle area – for cruise missile defence, defending high value assets and if the rules of engagement dictate close-in-engagement – the F-15 may be a better choice. So a mixed force of Eagles and Raptors would present a potent combination of flexibility and capability which is a perfect idea to complement with each other.

I'm not sure if you're aware Tee, Boeing Co. has extended the F-15 production line well into the 2020's to attract and satisfy new and existing customers.

Restart the F-22 production line. Indeed sell the F-22 to Japan & Australia which will bring our production costs down considerably.

Reply

Guest November 11, 2012 at 12:40 am

The F-35 is a boondoggle, it's too incapable of dealing with the changed threat environment. It won't do you any good of going ahead with the failed program and sink the money. Because the F-35 will be increasingly expensive aircraft that will fail the air defence program.

Reply

bobs1951 November 12, 2012 at 1:06 pm

Why was my comment deleted?

Reply

ELDERLYREPTILE November 14, 2012 at 12:46 pm

The "Ruskies" have the right idea when designing their aircraft. If a component successfully and reliably used in an earlier design can be used in a pending one THEY'LL use IT. Not only would it's use cut down design and testing time, the cost should be less too. This goes for oxygen systems too.

Reply

Eslam Ouda April 12, 2014 at 6:17 pm

i need to know how long it takes to build
f-22 and f-35 aircrafts

Reply

tiger April 12, 2014 at 7:32 pm

Several months. These are hand built with dozens of sub contractors as suppliers. The days of mass production of aircraft died 60 years ago.

Reply

Belesari November 7, 2012 at 4:57 pm

Dear god i hope so i mean we have throw uncountable billions on education and expect it to somehow transform our kids who are told doing nothing is "OK" and that they are "Special" even when both are untrue.

Then we are shocked when the crappy inner city schools continue doing horribly because the culture of learning and education is dead there when its even possible to teach for all the drugs, violence, and sexual abuse.

Health-hell Obamacare is screwed from the get go. Add millions of more people getting high on drugs which will destroy their systems worse than alcohol ever did and we will be paying medical bills throw the roof. All the jobs are going to go over seas so expect to have roughly 20% of the country actucally contributing something while the rest accept government doles.

Of course this will all be the fault of the rich who guess what? Will either become a part of the system, meaning that they will somehow be over looked-AKA George Soros and the numerous Old money in the country-or they will simply leave.

Energy??? WE HAVE TONS OF OIL, URANIUM, GAS, ETC……..why are we worrying about energy????

I haven't seen any unorganic food. Of course we are turning atleast 25-50% of our corn crop into fuel. (see above oil and wonder why-btw, biofuel made in that way is actucally worse for the enviroment and provides less hp meaning more is used. Hence more polution and cost.)

Reply

DGR November 7, 2012 at 5:06 pm

That is what I am assuming. I bit at the bait though, and for that I am ashamed…… Must refrain from feeding the troll…….

Reply

Jeff M November 7, 2012 at 6:50 pm

Damn, I didn't know lazy people were so great. Screw this defense contractor business, I'm gonna switch over to being lazy.

Reply

tecart November 7, 2012 at 7:32 pm

Uhm, the United States is China's largest trading partner, and largest
debitor. Without the US market, the Chinese economy collaphes and
they fall into civil war.

Reply

XYZ November 7, 2012 at 11:56 pm

Oh no, maybe the Chinese will dictate terms to us like "balance your budget!"

War with China – at least 50 years away. How about we use some of that nice juicy money to fund STEM programs, the NSF, and NASA. Then use the rest to pay back our debt ASAP.

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 7:37 pm

In what universe do you win a war vs. the PRC???? Who joins you in this Crusade? Nobody…….. Not Japan, Not Australia, not South Korea or the PI.

Reply

jhm November 7, 2012 at 8:52 pm

Same could be applied to Japan before WWII…

Reply

XYZ November 8, 2012 at 12:00 am

Stealth is a joke anyways. It's too easy to get around. Let's just invest in better radars and invalidate their shiny new force right after they build it.

Reply

William C. November 8, 2012 at 3:57 am

Hell yeah, how do I live off the system too? Apparently it's a good thing to not work for a living!

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 9:54 am

Indeed. Time for Lockheed to propose a F-24, using parts from JSF suppliers to make a two-engined fighter that would put the F-22 to shame. Get 'ir done.

Or Northrop could make a bounceback with a Black Widow III?

Reply

blight_ November 8, 2012 at 1:21 pm

Or skew it towards artillery…rocket artillery.

Reply

Kirk Gibbs November 8, 2012 at 11:35 pm

Simple, you starve them of oil. They don't have an easy supply that isn't vulnerable to subs and aircraft in the gulf. Also they buy a lot of food from us to feed their population. They want asymmetric warfare, we do it our way and not theirs.

Reply

tiger November 8, 2012 at 11:44 pm

They can get Oil over land from other nations. Food? China is not Britain circa 1940. Meanwhile what happens to our economy? Where do your Planes & Subs operate from? Because Japan wants no part of this & they can hit back at Guam.

Reply

Boon November 14, 2012 at 5:17 pm

Why is it SAD but true? The implication of your statement is that, all other things being equal, you'd like to see someone light off a nuke in anger. Seems fishy. Please explain.

Reply

Dillard November 19, 2012 at 4:27 pm

Nukes will be used…just a matter of time i am afraid…

Reply

blight_ November 15, 2012 at 11:19 am

Well, because the world needs to remember the whole point of nukes was to deter war.

Instead, we decided we would fight proxy wars just to keep the fight going…without nukes.

I suppose nuking the Chinese in Korea would have convinced everyone that any war would be playing with fire, and that everyone would take a deep breath and realize that North Korea wasn't worth dying for, and invading China to liberate it from the communists wasn't worth dying for either.

Nukes failed to keep the peace.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: