Glad to see so many comments in support of this plane. The best points to remember when assessing the cost of this aircraft is that 1) It can successfully engage and kill 2 times as many targets as an F-35, so divide the cost of the F-22 in half when comparing, 2) our F-15's and F-18's are falling apart, so we really don't have any other choice right now, and 3) i remember hearing all of this talk about sending our troops to war with the best equipment, well this is it.

I am not an expert on fighter aircraft but I know high tech stuff needs high tech folks for operation and maintenance as well as continuing R&D for upgrades and advancements. People are forgetting that improvements, advancements and reliability don’t come from computer models alone but from a lot of real world experience. In addition any advancements in technical knowledge produce spin offs that help the civilian economy although that may not happen until years later. If the F-22 is not adequate then we need to do the R&D to make it so or build another better aircraft. If it can be replaced by better and completely different technology, then fine do that. The bottom line is this. We are about 5% of the world population. R&D, production of advanced weapons and superior tactics and strategy are the only military advantages we have. We can’t afford to field massive military forces and lose tens of millions of folks in some third world style conflict. We could do as the leftists wish and hold hands and sing Kumbaya. But unfortunately holding hands and singing Kumbaya will eventually get you killed or enslaved.

learn how to raise 'piddling' to an art form. If you ever hire one of their cast-offs, put a shock collar on 'em so you can wake 'em up every 15 minutes.

Chad - I agree with you that our pilots should have the best.

But both you and PaulC should really read that article I linked from the AFTimes. The AF would like more than 187 F22's too but, understand the costs are too high when compared with other priorities. And they go on to say that they're happy with the mix of F35 and F22 jets they will end up with and are not that concerned about the gap in production times on the F35.

If jobs was the only reason to keep this airframe then I agree 100% to cancel the program. I was not trying to imply that we should keep military programs just because of the jobs. What I was trying to say and failed was that by keeping the aircraft in production - because in my opinion we need more then 187 - that we would also have the added bonus of keeping Americans working in a time that it is needed.

I also agree that Pilots and people are not perfect. And I do agree with you about the UAV's, loosing 10 to 1 pilot. I personally would love to see UAV's become our total airforce but at this time they just are not out there in the numbers needed. I was in the Air Force and have seen people lost and because of that - IF we need to send pilots out to war, I want them in the BEST AIRCRAFT MONEY could buy.

I've received emails from both GA Senators that they will NOT be voting for Cap & Tax.

If they change their mind, I'll just explode!

The House Armed Services Seapower subcommittee on July 24, 2007 recommended seven or maybe eight new carriers (one every four years).

China's new super missile targets U.S. carriers in deep ocean. The report also describes the new missile as being difficult to locate and track on radar because of its combination of "a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable."

The report said the new missile can fly at speeds of up to Mach 10 -- 10 times the speed of sound. That is about 7,500 miles per hour at sea level. It can fly more than 1,200 miles in less than 12 minutes.

that's a loss of 5500 plus/minus seamen and $4.5 billion due to one missile strike.

Stan, a lot of people who support the military were against Cleland. But as for Chambliss and Isakson, they both keep walking a tightrope. I'm honestly not convince they will vote against cap & trade. I'd love to have a decent choice the next time both come up for reelection.

1 hour of use for 30 hours of maintenance...sounds like a marriage to me.

I agree that sending pilots is an antiquated thinking but it is proven effective. Also machines are only as good as their programers. Some times it is good to have a human in the mix.

The Harpy is interesting, I need to do more research on that. Thanks for that one.

I understand where you are coming from with the mission focuse and I agree with that and I think we both agree that the AC in our airforce needs to be replace. I also agree that we do not need 700 F-22's but we need more then we currently have. F-15 are being grounded left and right for failing spars. If we stop F-22 production, right now what would you recomend to replace the f-15's, while we develop an more mission Focus aircraft?

Is it pandering to A large contractors, more then likely but Sax is also trying to save some jobs. In our countries current situation we need to keep people working too.

I'm sorry but you show an extreme lack of respect for our military if you think they need hundreds more F22's and a yet to be proven system to deter and defeat the threats you've mentioned.

I mean, what do you think we have now, tinker toys and spitballs? C'mon man...we are THE dominant power in the world and we have a blue water navy.

We could take down NK, Venezuela, and Russia and still maintain forces in Iraq and Afghanistan if needed to. All without a single nuke. Hell, our navy alone could bring NK to its knees in weeks.

I'm all for keeping things updated but, let's get real.

The need for air superiority fighters will remain as long as there are combat aircraft. The small highly mobile force they say they are making our Army into will depend heavily on air support, which will depend heavily on air superiority. The F-22 met or exceeded the performance requirements and won the competition which included maintenance. Maintenance costs are just an excuse to shortchange the pilots and taxpayers.

The F-35 has one engine, doesn’t have super cruise, and it doesn’t even match, much less exceed the speed or maneuverability of 15 year old Sukhois and Migs. Have we already forgotten the bloody lesson of the VMF-221’s Brewster F2A pilots defending Midway Island?

Any aircraft flying the distances ours do, in the environment and weather ours do, and being as expensive as they are, should have two engines. The Navy made two engines a requirement for aircraft flying off carriers after the A-7. F-16s are great aircraft, but when they have a problem and lose their only engine, that’s it.

If they have to drop one, it should be the F-35. The F-22 can do the job of the F-35, but the F-35 can’t do the job of the F-22. If we have to tangle with the chicoms we’ll be heavily outnumbered by superior aircraft. The chicom’s recently ordered 2000 new Su-30s, and Mig-35s are in the works. People seem to overlook that though the Soviet Union is gone, Russia is still there (being run by the old KGB), the advanced air defenses, and the Su-27s and Mig-29s (and their descendants) the F-22 was designed to defeat are still being built and bought by the thousands, mostly by people hostile to us.

We’ll probably end up doing what we did with the B-2, we’ll pay for all 700 F-22s and only take delivery of one or two hundred of them. The politicians will tell the ignorant they saved money, the contractors will get their money, and the factory workers, pilots, and the American people will get scr*wed again. We can only “hope” that on top of that, it doesn’t cost us a lot of valuable men or a war in the near future.

I’m still ticked at Sen. Chambliss for giving the dp cover in their little pre-election oil crisis, but he’s more right about the F-22 than most. We’ve paid over half the contract, we should get every aircraft we can out of it. We’re paying for them either way.

Someone mentioned how many states the contracting was spread over. They learned that with the B-1. It was voted down when contracting was spread over three states. They spread the contracting over 48 or 49 states, and it was approved, even with the substantial additional costs of the more complicated logistics.

The F-35 is built to be a low cost High production stealth airplane. It was design this way so that they could build thousands of them. It is not as capable because they, Lockheed Martin was required to keep the cost down but yet still be stealthy. By keeping the cost down they can sell more of them over sea’s. We still need the F-35 and it will become the dominate aircraft in our militaries inventory. The F-22 and F-35 are design to work together.

Chad, this is more what I think we should move to for SAM targeting: http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/uav/harpy/HARPY.html

I just dont see the cost/benefit to sending pilots behind enemy lines to destroy SAM sites. It seems very antiquated thinking - to me.

The China threat, I think, is the DoD's next great power war adversary that they use to feed large weapon systems programs like the F22. meanwhile, we're building bridges in afghanistan and struggling to stay ahead of small, mobile, well armed forces on the ground.

I know what you mean about our AC. All the planes I worked on in the AF were older than me. And Im all for turnover to new AC. But, they need to be mission focused AC. And I have a hard time seeing more F22s as being mission focused on foreseeable future scenarios for conflicts.

This looks a lot like DoD pandering to large scale contractors as a means to remain relevant.

In 1 v 4 flyoffs, the 22's "shot down" the 15's before they even knew they were there. If they can get the fly/man hours down, good, if not, sorry, it will have to go. Yes there are jets that can NOW probably match the 15's, but, since it was put into the inventory, it hasn't been shot down in air to air combat. Yeah, either a missle hit, FOD, or mechanical failure might bring it down, but it has not lost in A-A combat. It's been in service since the 70's, and still has a lot of growth potential.

The Pentagon weenies and REMFs want to kill this but the actual fighting troops want more. Neal you have been sadly misinformed.

The problem with UAV's is that they require a constant link between the aircraft and guy on the ground flying them. Once that link is gone, the UAV will fly a predetermined flight path home. Now some of the new Radar sites not only lock on to the radar signature but also on to any transmissions being emitted by the incoming air aircraft. This means that the Sam site could lock on to the UAV transmission and destroy it. Or the enemy could jam the link and once the link breaks, its back home. If they pick up the transmission link the element of surprise is gone too.

So could we send a hundred UAV’s in to get one site, sure we could but if the enemy jams their link – none will get through... Plus the UAV’s are not cheap yet either.

Don’t kid yourself about China. It could be a very real threat and Russia is not totally out of the game yet either. Right now, I agree that we are in small fights that we do not need hundreds or thousands of aircraft. But what you need to realize is that the average age of aircraft in the air forces inventory is 30+ years and some like the B-52 are 50 years plus. It takes YEARS to develop and build a new weapon system. The F-22 was started in the early 80’s and it was not till late 90’s that the first production aircraft flew. So, lets say some day down the road We REALLY do NEED a lot of aircraft, the F-15, F-16’s and the F-117’s are all gone. There is no way we will be able to build enough new aircraft fast enough. I can not predict the future nor can you, or at least I don’t think you can, but I do know that old airplanes are going away and we will need something to replace them and the F-22 is the only real replacement. There are lots of Cool UAV stuff in development but they are years out before they will be put into mass production.

to all of you old and young war dogs....from an old one.....thank you.

reading and talkin' 'bout killin' machines brings out a feelin' that makes me proud to be a member of the club.....it also makes me angreeeeee. our leadership is nonexistant......

The F-22 is the most kick-a$$ plane that is out there. No other country dares fly against us....they wouldn't stand a chance. I don't think it's such a bad thing to have a stock pile of these bad boys ready at a moment's notice.

If F22 IS needed, buy it, if not, don't. Period! And for the next 20-30 years this A/C is NOT NEEDED.

If this is not the A/C we need, then what is and for what reason? What conflicts are we likely to be engaged in the next 20-30 years and with whom?

Near term conflicts are likely to be LICs (Low Intensity Conflict like IR/AF) and for that type of conflict we will need CAS (Close Air Suport) A/C. Updated A10s or a follow on.

Problem is...the AF doesn't want to do CAS. Over the years leadership positions w/in the AF have been populated by fighter pilots that only want to pull and jerk. When the A10 was first purchased, the AF attempted to get the Army to buy it. The AF only tolerates CAS as a requirement needed to justify more fighters.

At the moment there is NO country we are likely to engage in combat that can challenge the F15. That isn't likely to change in the next 20-30 years.

Of course the latest MIG/SUs in the right hands are better, but there is a BIG difference in having those A/C and being able to use those A/C to the limit of their ability. You can't do that by flying 20-40 hours/year. The only countries flying those A/C enough to challenge the F15 are China/Russia. Are we likely to engage them in the 20-30 years? China possibly, but unlikely. So why do we need the F22. If by some chance we do end up in conflict with China (the most likely of the two), where will these A/C be based?

There is no doubt the F22 is currently the world's best air-to-air A/C so what should happen if the F22 contract is CNX.

Keep flying the F15, continue R&D on the F22 and buy a couple each year for T&E and when a possible bad-guy and need surfaces that justify the F22, ramp up production. There will be enough lead time to do this. We are not going to have a falling out with China/Russia that will not allow lead time, particularly when we already have a couple of squadrons of F22s. Those won't go away. Keeping the F15 flying is like buying a new car...no matter what you do to the old one, it's still cheaper than buying a new one and right now the new one can't be justified.

anyone seen Ivan?????? last I saw him was when Joyce M/B put the 'special brownies on the table and he grabbed a handfull......

dwarftosser..........thank you for your service. the f-4 was a truck but the naval aviators luv'd it....

there are a bunch of flyin' machines that should be retired buttttttttttt.....what is goin' to replace them? we both know that our young warriors need to have the very best killin' machines to do the jobs they are sent off to do....but many years ago the navy was flyin' the skywarrior in the jungle struggle, it was a PROP job...couldn't make it fall outa da sky unless it ran outa gas.....techno stuff is good but KISS works good too.....

but wouldn't we prefer to use unmanned aircraft to take out SAM sites? I would think we could do this job with these types of aircraft without human cost and more cheaply than an F22.

To me, the F22 is the replacement for several model of Aircraft but, I have to question why, rather than one jet to do all this, we can't get UAV to do a great deal of this and have a cheaper jet for everything else.

Not to mention - putting up NK and China as examples of future scenarios seems far fetched as a rationale for a new fighter jet. We need to focus on where we spend all our time - the seam states and lesser includeds are taking up all our time and we're still building a cold war military. Seems backwards to me.

I'm no maintenance officer, but my understanding is that military aircraft are high performance machines and that sort of maintenance requirement isn't unreasonable among comparable aircraft.

Mark,

The F-22 is not for just for air to air anymore. It is also a very capable ground strike aircraft. The F-117 is also being retired and it was the aircraft that the US used to clean out the Iraq radar / sam site systems. The F-22 has a smaller radar signature then the F-35 and will be used to do the f-117 mission. China and NK have some very good radar / sam sites. With NK we may just do a surgical strike, not a all out attack.

Now do we need 700 of these aircraft. No but do we need more then 187 - YES. If we had 315 or so F-22 and they wanted to build 350 or more - I would be right there with you asking - Do we really need that many more?

Neal,

Here is a link on some info regarding the article on which you are basing your comments on the F-22.

http://www.f-16.net/news_article3622.html

The Washington Post Article is nothing but yellow journalism, plain and simple.

We could make a movie with your term;

Barackolypse Now

Now that would be one scary movie!

Neal, I can't believe you just said to put highly trained air craft mechanics and engineers out painting over graffiti and raking leaves! That's a job for prisoners!!! Why are we cutting defense? If I didn't know any better I would think Jimmy Carter was back in the White House, and you are agreeing with him. I am getting tired of hearing the media and politicans say this plane is being replaced with the F-35, what! The F-22 is like a Cadillac, the F-35 is like a Kia. I'm disappointed too that you and all of your listeners are now agreeing with a Washington Post article with out questioning their facts and sources.

Mark -- No the F-35 can not replace the F-22. It was NEVER designed to replace the 22. See my other post.

Tshirt-doctor - Do not beleive everything you read in the press.

When then get rid of the F22, jobs lost in GA and NJ will be replaced by jobs gained in San Antonio on the newest flying love child. So it's just a matter of which constituency wins out.

I don't want to pay for the damn things.

The people at Lockhead-Martin are smart cookies, they will not be out of work for long, nor will any of their suppliers.

Why do we need an advance strike aircraft? Who do we need to defend ourselves from? Who do we need to attack?

The engineers and parts manufacturers for these planes can get jobs making private aircraft or even working for a company like Space-X. They will not be out of work for long at all.

If you do things more efficiently as a society that frees up those work hours and labors to increase productivity in other areas. These people, even if they all lost their jobs, aren't going to end up on welfare. If you can get a job building an F-22 who isn't going to hire you? Even in a down economy? What is to stop you from becoming an entrepreneur and building the next great space aged gadget? A nice fat paycheck from the FED thats what...

Saxby is wrong on this big time. Thats another strike against our Senator. When is a true conservative going to run against him. I hated voting for him last election, it was just better than Jim Martin. I think next time he won't be so lucky.

Wow, I finally totally agree with Neal!
Although the F22 is a wonder of technical cutting edge gadgetry - technology has moved on. The future is in unmanned and significantly less expensive craft.
Yes, a few of these expensive beasties are necessary for special missions (although they have never been used), but not budget busting hundreds more?
Let's be cost effective... and hey, why not build more F16's if they work and are wearing out!

As long as we the workers keep stuffing the fat faces of the fat-ass foodstamp welfare lazy looter losers, I say we should have no qualms about keeping F22's in the hangar, need them or no.

Swing and a miss Boortz.

Hugo, you don't even make any sense. When you're done with your innercity school education, come back and try to compete.

Aren't they looking to can the F22 and go with the F35 which will be cheaper and create more jobs? Thought I heard that somewhere...

Also, what's all this talk about the govt spending money to help create/keep jobs? It all sounds so "stimulus-like".

Did I walk into bizarro world again? :-}

i just wrote about this in my blog. it has vulnerability to rain. it has a defects in titanium booms connecting the wings to the plane, which the company, in a subsequent lawsuit against its supplier, said posed the risk of “catastrophic loss of the aircraft". its a plane that gets [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure.
you can read about it on my blog --->
http://www.blog2.tshirt-doctor.com/?p=934
or you can read about it here --->
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter

why don't the military deploy it to iraq or afghanistn?

Neal,
I'm surprised you're quoting the "30 hours of maintinance per flying hour" from the Washington Post without any question. That article is full of old, outdated information and a lot of anonymous sources. For example, the article still uses the old and misleading "$350 million per airplane" figure. The actual cost is more like $145 million per plane, but opponents like to add in all of the development money, which has already been spent, to make the plane's cost sound higher. Liberals have always been against the F-22 because it's far superior to anything else out there. This WaPo article is just another in a long line of hit pieces and I'm surprised you're taking it at face value.

The F-22 smoke checks the F-15 every time they compete against each other. F-15 pilots routinely report being "shot down" by F-22s before they were even aware there were F-22s around.

BOOM! You're dead and you don't even know what hit you.

And the costs aren't as bad as reported.

http://www.defpro.com/news/details/8584/

Replace the F-15 with what? Are you suggesting we buy Russian MIGs/SUs instead? Until we have an alternative, I say buy them.

Neil, if it only takes 30 man-hours to keep this fighter flying per hour of flight, that seems pretty efficient to me. Heck, commercial airliners require at least twice that much when you factor in every man-hour spent pre- and post-flight on every aspect of the plane. So what's the big deal here? That a highly sophisticated instrument of warfare requires care and maintenance? C'mon, gimme a break. Keep that badass plane flying and use it to kill some terrorists.

I don't know how many workers would be laid off if Raptor production were to shut down, but it's not like Lockheed would go bankrupt or even shut down its Marietta facility. It still produces and services the C-130's here and will continue to do so for the foreseable future, if not for the U.S., then for export customers. Lockheed still produces the F-35 JSF, albiet not at the Marietta facility, but they still have Air Force contracts to keep them going. Some pain now = big savings in the future.

While the maintenance requirements may be high, this is the only replacement for the aging F-15. The F-35 is more of a replacement for the F-16. The F-22 is an air superiority and the F-35 is multi-role. The F-22 is a stealth replacement for the F-15. Without it (F-22) , Russian counterparts may soon surpass our air superiority capabilities.

The F-22 and missile defense are NOT the areas that need to be cut.

It's not about jobs. These fighters were designed and built for "big wars", not the spotty insurgency-type fighting of late. Without the proper equipment (and deterrent factor as well), we're going to end up being caught unprepared for a big conflict one day. These fighters are insurance against that. The short-sightedness of our country's population strikes again.

"For every hour the F22 Raptor flies it needs an average of 30 hours of maintenance"

30 man hours or 30 calendar hours? How's that compare to other combat aircraft? Is the force sized to meet operational availability & readiness?

Yes, this is a jobs preservation plan for LockMart, but look at the beating the defense industry has taken under this administration. Future Combat Systems; Midcourse Missile Defense; Kinetic Energy Interceptor; Multiple Kill Vehicle; etc.; etc. At least these federal tax $$$ actually produce something worthwhile...unlike WIC and every other social bedwetter program.

What's going to replace the F-15? Most are older than the guys flying them and many are having wings falling off.

Add in that the F-15 is no longer the top dog in the sky, so we need something to compete with the rest of the world.

I do have to wonder why they decided on the F-22 when they knew it was going to be so costly to upkeep and if the YF-23 would have been cheaper and easier to maintain.