Slashdot Mirror


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."

17 of 829 comments (clear)

  1. Poor Title by MozeeToby · · Score: 5, Informative

    Reading the title and summary would make you think that the entire program has been cancelled and the planes aren't going to be used by the US military. This is not the case. The Senate reduced the number of aircraft being produced such that no additional planes will be made. The F22 is already in service and will remain in service for quite some time.

    1. Re:Poor Title by Kamokazi · · Score: 5, Informative

      The cost is also a little misleading. Additional units cost ~$130M each (which is still expensive as hell), the $339M figure is total program cost plus build cost divided out per aicraft. That number only decreases the more we produce. So if we ordered another singe aircraft, it would not cost $339M.

      --
      As our way of thanking you for your positive contributions to Slashdot, you are eligible to disable Slashdot 2.0.
    2. Re:Poor Title by Reason58 · · Score: 5, Funny

      The cost is also a little misleading. Additional units cost ~$130M each (which is still expensive as hell), the $339M figure is total program cost plus build cost divided out per aicraft. That number only decreases the more we produce. So if we ordered another singe aircraft, it would not cost $339M.

      If that is the case then why don't we keep building them until they are free? As a bonus, we will have an unstoppable Air Force. Oh wait, we already did before the F-22.

    3. Re:Poor Title by timeOday · · Score: 5, Interesting
      The F14 is a good cautionary tale for the F22. They were expensive, high-strung, kick-butt air superiority fighters. And they saw more action in Top Gun than they ever saw in real life. The total number of engagements by the entire fleet of F14's you could count on one hand.

      I do believe in designing and building these things to stay sharp, but not thousands of copies in peacetime. (And yes, this is "peacetime" so far as the F22 is concerned - they have flown 0 sorties over Iraq and Afghanistan, and why would they?)

    4. Re:Poor Title by PopeRatzo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that they fly far above the clouds, the rainstorm shouldn't pose much of a problem.

      Really? Do they take off and land from 25,000 feet, too?

      Each one of these planes requires 44 hours of maintenance for every hour in the air, as someone has already mentioned. They are obsolete, and they have gone over budget by a factor of 3 or more.

      The F-22 is now, and has always been, a boondoggle granted to military contractors by lawmakers who get large contributions from those contractors. As far as I know, no F-22 has ever flown a combat mission. They cost hundreds of millions of dollars and have never been used.

      Meanwhile, we fight over whether a working family should have the god-given right to go bankrupt if one of their members gets sick.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    5. Re:Poor Title by Senjutsu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The whole needing F-22s if we ever get into a conventional war with a Great Power thing is a canard. Great Powers have nuclear weapons, so conventional wars aren't possible; we send in F-22s and 8 hours later half the planet is glass.

      Conventional fighting these days is done against guys hiding in caves in third-world countries, and the F-22 does precisely nothing to help in those scenarios.

    6. Re:Poor Title by Shadow+Wrought · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's not necessarily a superior craft from a combat standpoint.

      My understanding is that the F-22 is much superior as an air-superiority fighter, but the F-35 has more air to ground capabilities. The difficulty with the F-22 is that the F-15 is still the most dominant air superiority fighter in the world, and because of the cost involved in making anythign remotely better, is likely to stay that way for a good long time. The "Super Power" enemies, such as they are, relied on a greater number of less capable aircraft because they couldn't afford the price of the nicer aircraft. So in some ways, the cost of the F-22 making fewer units practical plays into the hypothetical "Super Powers" hand.

      The other factor to maintaining air superiority is the AWACS platforms which can direct the air war over very large distances. I think the West, and the US in particular has a huge advantage in that as well. Plus, as far as protecting our airspace goes, mounting air to air missiles on UAVs is just as easy as air to ground. So we would likely use those to counter any numerical superiority that our hypothetical "Super Power" posses as well.

      Finally, FWIW, I subscribe to the two level theory of war. The first level is the infantry, the second level is everything else: it exists to support the infantry since only the infantry can take and hold ground. Artillery, sea power, aviation, even tanks can deny the enemy ground, but only the infantry can hold it. So more A-10s putting more ordance where the infantry needs it seems a better deal than F-22's holding air superiority over a non-existant enemy air force. IMHO.

      --
      If brevity is the soul of wit, then how does one explain Twitter?
    7. Re:Poor Title by anarkhos · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have news for you: China is funding our wars.

      They don't need to fight us. What, are they going to fund our war against China, too?

      --
      >80 column hard wrapped e-mail is not a sign of intelligent
      >life
    8. Re:Poor Title by Solandri · · Score: 5, Informative

      U.S. Imports from China accounted for about $338 billion in 2008. Exports were about $70 billion. The U.S. GDP in 2008 was about $14.2 trillion, so trade with China accounted for about 2.9% of the U.S. economy. China holds about $800 billion in U.S. treasury securities. Even if you add that (which you shouldn't since it's a dollar amount while the other figures are dollars/year, but let's do it since we're talking about them hypothetically dumping all their securities on the market), China's impact on the U.S. GDP is only 8.5%.

      China's GDP in 2008 $3.9-$4.4 trillion, so their trade with the U.S. accounted for about 9.3%-10.5% of their economy.

      So economically, China needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs China.

  2. Re:Most deserving by Jeremi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What's amusing to me is that if you want to education or health care funded in the US, you have to lobby Congress like hell to fund it.

    Conversely, if you are the head of the Department of Defense and don't need or want a pointless weapons program, you have to lobby Congress like hell not not fund it.

    --


    I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
  3. Which seems to make sense over all by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

    The F-22 is a cool plane, but there are only so many the US really needs. Reason is that they are not carrier based planes, which is how a great many missions are done these days. It also is more or less strictly air superiority, not multi-role. Ok well there is value in that, while there may not be any current threats to the US, doesn't mean there won't be. You don't have good defense, in the real world or on your computer, by staying complacent. However that doesn't mean that there is the need or reason to roll out tons of the things.

    The F-35 is more suited to a larger scale production because it is multi-role, and carrier capable. Thus with it likely to come out soon (next year if they remain on target) it doesn't make sense to produce a ton of F-22As. The F-35 also has the advantage of having a good deal of support from other nations, which helps pay for R&D and will also bring unit costs down in the form of increased orders.

    So it makes sense to keep the F-22 around for when top-notch air defense is needed, it doesn't make sense to keep building them if an all around more useful plane is going to be coming out. Use what is complete, and use the research from the project on other projects (like the F-35).

  4. Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Only because the U.S. doctrine has been to have total air superiourity and the Air Force (and Navy) have been able to achieve it through superiour technology (and training) --- if 187 Raptors aren't sufficient to achieve that in some future conflict, a lot of soldiers are going to die, and that statement will cease to be true.

    William

    Yeah - or you could just stop invading countries. That's a good way of keeping your soldiers from dying.

  5. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  6. Re:Most deserving by spacefiddle · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's amusing to me is that if you want to education or health care funded in the US, you have to lobby Congress like hell to fund it.

    What's amusing to me is that people think education or health care is a proper role for the Federal Government.

    What's amusing to me is that people think education or health care is a proper role for unaccountable entities whose primary responsibility is profit.

  7. Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Informative

    if 187 Raptors aren't sufficient to achieve that in some future conflict

    Which conflict would that be? It's not the ones we are in now, which we're going into astronomical debt over. I don't know who has an air force that would rival us, but I'd guess China and North Korea. Either way, we can't afford it even with these cuts. In fact, I think/hope we can't afford to fight ANY more unilateral wars against ANYONE.

    Any war/conflict in which 187 raptors is insufficient is a war our economy is also insufficient for.

  8. Re:R&D by hardburn · · Score: 5, Informative

    So one F22 (properly maintained and competently piloted) is equal to how many old F16s?

    Many. In war games, single F-22s often take out entire squadrons of F-16s before they're even seen on radar.

    http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

    --
    Not a typewriter
  9. Re:How many soldiers die if 187 F-22s aren't enoug by MaWeiTao · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Even if everyone in the US unanimously decided that we were no longer going to meddle in international affairs other nations will inevitably drag us back into them due to the simple fact that we're an economic superpower. It's unavoidable.

    And the US government already spends plenty on social programs. The problem, like with this F-22 program, is that the money isn't being spent wisely. The US in general already spends more on education per student than most countries, and many areas, including the city where I live spends close to double what any other country spends. And yet education is by and large crap compared to other countries. The reason isn't because we're not spending enough money, it's because we're not managing anything properly and have this idiotic notion that more money will fix anything.

    And back to my original point, there are a lot of nations out there that could potentially become a threat in the future. I realize some people hold the believe that love will fix anything, but there are many more who disagree and may try to take advantage. China might currently be behind the US, but they sure are working hard to catch up, working on their own advanced fighter. Russia may not currently be a threat to the US, but they are working hard on their own competitors to the F22 and will certainly be selling the aircraft to China.

    That said, it made sense to cut back the F-22 program although it really is a drop in the bucket compared to how much the government is spending.