F-22 Raptor Cancelled

BayaWeaver writes "Slate reports that the F-22 Raptor has been cancelled by the Senate. At an estimated price tag of $339 million per aircraft, even the powerful military-industrial-congressional complex couldn't keep this Cold War program alive in these hard times. They look very cool though and have appeared in movies like Hulk and Transformers. But not to worry too much about the future of the military-industrial-congressional complex: the F-35 Lightning II begins production next year! As a side note, in 2007 a squadron of Raptors became deaf, dumb and blind when they flew over the International Date Line."

Comments

Re:Poor Title

[Edmund Blackadder]

If we ordered one more it would cost very very slightly under 339M. Which is still freaking expensive.

In any event, at this point since the program is stopped we can be sure that the ones we have cost 339m each.

Manned flight is obsolete

[Trip6]

UAVs can completely replace manned military flight within the next decade. Any further investment in manned aircraft is pure politics.

Re:Poor Title

[c6gunner]

no it wont. it requires extensive upgrades because the RAM or the skin of the aircraft cannot survive a rainstorm. it does not have a working heads up display on the helmet. the canopy blisters and peels with exposure to sunlight. it does not communicate with other aircraft because the electronics are deficient. it requires 44 HOURS of maint for every hour in the air. the raptor is a pile of crap and will eventually be phased out.

I see that you've been reading Pravda again ....

Anyone who mods that comment "informative" needs to have their heads examined. It should be clear at first glance that the AC who posted it is a zealot on a personal quest. Now, if anyone has some valid criticism backed by reliable references, I'd love to hear them. So far as I know, the F-22 has had no major issues after the incident in 2007, and has performed beyond all expectations in simulated air-to-air combat exercises.

Re:Poor Title

[c6gunner]

The objective of an air force is to bring to your party the unimpeded use of the skies to deliver both transport for your troops and weapons to targets. This was never achieved during the war.

Nonsense. A large part of why the US won every major ground engagement is due to the fact that they had air-superiority. Once again, I'm not sure where you're getting these ideas.

11,000 helicopters flew in Vietnam. 5000 were destroyed.. That's nearly half. There was never a time and place where helicopters were not threatened by enemy fire. We never had air superiority, therefor, the USAF lost.

Again, nonsense. Air-superiority refers to the ability to deny the skies to enemy aircraft - it has nothing to do with how many of your helicopters get shot from the ground.

I should also point out that the helicopters generally belonged to the Army and the Marines, not the Airforce. So, again, helicopter loss figures do nothing to support your original premise.

Re:Poor Title

[c6gunner]

Two engines does not equal superior. It just means more weight and a tad bit more speed

No, it means that when your engine sucks in a goose 10 seconds after takeoff, your multi-million-dollar fighter doesn't become a funeral pyre for your multi-million-dollar pilot.