Should the USA cut the F22?

Too expensive my ***, and look at the jobs it provides to Americans:

"American Jobs, National Security, and Billions of Dollars at Stake

Preserve F-22 Raptor Production

I urge Members of Congress and the new Administration to take immediate action to release funds already authorized to continue production of the world’s most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor. Keeping the production line of this model aerospace program open currently requires no additional taxpayer dollars, and is not a rescue or bailout. Rather, it will allow us to maintain a healthy program that delivers considerable economic benefit while providing our Air Force with appropriate numbers of the best fighter aircraft ever made. Production of this aircraft is in jeopardy—and with it more than 95,000 American jobs, over $12 billion in national economic activity, and the superiority of America ’s Air Force."

http://www.preserveraptorjobs.com/

send the prez a note there to release the already approved funds for the needed F-22

The program is too expensive and should be cut. But there's a little

catch with that. We would have no immediate replacement for the

F22s and the planes they are supposed to replace are aging rapidly.

The bottom line is: If we terminate the F22 program we will be 2nd

class for quite some time. And that's not a very good idea when it

comes to air superiority. I wouldn't really see a problem with being

behind the Europeans for a while but with the upcoming versions

of Russian and Chinese interceptors I don't really see a bright

future for our current in service planes. And those are being sold

to potential future enemies. If we would have a qualified replacement

I would support it. But since we don't it's a decision that could backfire

big time.

I've heard varying reports as to the exact cost of the F-22, ranging from $190 million, to $300 million a pop.

There is no question that this would be world's best air-superiority fighter. But it will have nothing to fight. It will sit in hangers collecting dust, just as 40+ units of F-22 have done for years, all though 8 years of war.

This is just not a sound investment. For the cost and maintenance of one F-22, we can field an entire infantry brigade! And infantry brigade can lay downb far more firepower that one F-22 and nothing beats boots on the ground. We saw what the surge did. If only our leaders had realized that numbers do count when we first invaded Iraq, my bet is that the whole Bush legacy would be different.

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter costs less than half what the F-22 does and has many similar capabilities. It represents a fair compromise on price and abilities.

I'm not advocating staying with all old equipment, but I think we have to be more efficient in our spending. There's nothing more efficient when it comes to fighting wars than a well trained and equipped US Soldier or Marine. Let's spend our money on them.

While I definitely agree this man is out of his mind....(I give you the example of him wanting everyone that is seriously injured coming back from Iraq/Afghanistan to cover their own medical expenses) he is just like every other Democrat we have had (Clinton) with Military cut backs.

I think he is out of his for a few reasons....we have Air Supremacy...keep it...we dont have a whole hell of alot of anything else....our ground forces are strong...prideful...and eager to fight...but as you can see we are not like our WWII predecessors...we cant go the long fight nor do we have the desire to.

Through the air we can still achieve the "Shock and Awe" we have adapted to...but even that I believe is short lived as other countries get used to out TTP.

I support anything that gives us the Technological advantage and the Victory no matter how marginal over those that are trying to kill us. If money is an issue I believe AIG has some much needed money that we can take back.

But there is more on the cutting block than just the F22 program...check out www.ArmyTimes.com to see just how much he is trying to cut back on the Military while seeming generous on projecting a 2% raise the next year.

although i am very reluctant to support anything that man developes in an effort to find new and more efficient ways to kill each off and not spend the amount of money needed to cure diseases and solve the problems which exhist in the world today which have been around for years, i am reminded about world war two. before the war broke out our country had asumed the posture of isolationism which required the US to develope a crash program to strenghen our weakened military forces and most likely ended up causing many more lifes then necessary to be lost and the war to be as long as it was. in this day and age it is a dangerous policy to weaken our means of insuring the security of our country. having said that i think the program should not be cancelled or the unemployment rate will sky rocket. for every job lost in the program approximately three others (not based on fact just speculation) jobs will be affected which support the program. what makes better sense is to put a moratorium on future programs until our economy is more stable. it is a shame that the powers to be who approved the program of spending 354 million dollars per aircraft couldnt find it in their heart to spend the amount it will ultimately cost the taxpayer on research to cure aids and other deceases and problems that exist today.

100 or so F-22s augmented by a fleet of less expensive F-35s is probably better because that will free up money to replace our fleet of in flight refuelers that are about half a step from falling apart. So many air force platforms are so close to disintegrating that building a bunch of F-22s when F-15s are still more advanced than many enemy aircraft is wasteful. A lot more problems will be solved by upgrading the entire air force fleet instead of just buying the prettiest, most expensive toy.

Oh, and keeping a weapon system alive just for jobs is basically government subsidized employment... isn't that a bit socialist? Do we want the government making our cars next?

We are entering a world of economically interdependant nation states. Rogue nations will never surpass us technologically. Low intensity conflict is won by well trained and well equipped infantryman on the ground. That's where we need our biggest investment.

I'm with Lava 100%

You likely will recall that Clinton balanced the budget largely at the expense of the military. It's the first place liberals look when needing money for more social programs. Obama is even more deeply into that category than Clinton. ...and yes, he's out of his mind because we're going to need everything our military can get when his "soft diplomacy" with Iran and other countries fails.

I think that his agenda Requires that we become as militarily vulnerable as possible in the time he has available!

For all the loss of critical military technology; the F-22 program still gives us a qualitative advantage re other (hostile) countries' military. The loss of this program, or halting it at this time erodes that advantage. As near as I can tell, we are at nearly 40% under strength in available aircraft in this program, and almost 65% in total combat air power. In logistic support, we are at or near 22 months behind on asset availability.

What timetable Is he working on? Who's timetable is he working on? And what are the contents of that timetable?

Until we get a fully developed and tested unmanned fight aircraft, then we need to stick with the F-22.

And sorry folks, un-manned aircrafts will fly circles around any manned aircraft.. because they don't have to worry about taking care of the human body in the cockpit. And of course, you can send an aircraft in on a suicidal mission and only lose a machine, instead of one of your people.

Obama has probably never heard of nor seen the Russian's new Berkut fighter. We NEED the F22.