Pentagon cuts programs, including F-22

I don't think any other country can afford the F-22 eithier. Wasn't it supposed to replace the F-15? How many F-15s are still in USAF service?

 

What are the comparative costs of the latest fighter jets? Didn't Saab have a really nice cheap one coming out? Was it called Gripen? Or Vigen? I can't remember

 

The Gripen is Gen 4.5 right?

Any news on other Gen 5 aircraft? Is the Berkut finally scrapped?

 

Shame, it was my favorite aircraft. Hope MiG didn't steal the Gen seat from Sukhoi.

 

We expected the new liberal resident of the White House to attack the Defense Budget as liberals are want to do but not cut our security and jeopardize the nation; previous demands of the Pentagon by BHO to cut national security, "Obama demands 10% defense cuts," have been increased as our defense backbone is being raped and savaged... Feel safe? Far worse in many respects to national security, the military industrial complex that has saved this nation from previous recessions is being anchored by the White House, further fostering an economic depression on the horizon.

Obama's Defense Cuts
http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2009/04/unilateral_disarmament.asp
"Barack Obama is spending billions on this country's infrastructure, but he's shortchanging the United States military and undermining its ability to project power overseas and mitigate the missile threat from rogue regimes. Obama will also be eliminating tens of thousands of high-tech and union jobs in the process."

 

Australia wanted to buy them and have asked a number of times, but the USA have consistently said NO. Your loss (especially in the current financial situation), unfortunately.

 

See my previous post.

 

Yet Australia had announced its plans to purchase the F-35 long before going to talk about the F-22.

 

Congress has imposed a ban on selling the F-22 to any other country.

 

That's pretty standard though.

F15 ... released US: 1976* ... offered to others: 1981

F15E ... released US: 1988 ... offered to others: 1994 Israel, 1996 Saudi Arabia, 98 Lebanon, 02 Korea, 05 Singapore

F16 ... released US* and partners: 1978 ... others: 1981 Korea, 1985 Greece, 87 Bahrain, 90 Portugal, 92 Taiwan, 97 Jordan, etc.

F18 ... released US: 1983 ... others: 84 Australia, 85 Spain, 90 Kuwait, 93 Malaysia, 94 Finland, 95 Switzerland

F18E/F ... released US: 1999 ... others: 07 Australia


*In these cases Israel was approved almost immediately.

US release date is the year models are delivered to US Military and put to work.
Others dates are usually dates the contract is approved -- in many cases, the airplanes are not delivered until years after the contract is approved.

So you can see in most cases US Fighters aren't made available, even to allies (not named Israel), until years afterwards. I would guess at least 5 years between the date US gets deliveries and other countries get the deliveries.

The notable exception is the F18 -- maybe because it was originally a 1978 aircraft (it competed w/F16 for USAF contract) that the USN had to fight for and possibly these other contracts helped defray the cost ??
It's worth noting only Australia has the Super Hornets (F18E/F) ... and the contract was approved some 8 years after Super Hornets were being delivered to USN and USMC.

 

You left out the F-14, which was never sold to any foreign militaries--except Iran.

 

Was it never sold because it was too vital to give the tech away? Or because nobody was very interested? (honest question btw... not rhetoric...)

Right now I'd say it's safe to assume F22 is in the first category, but I think eventually it'll be available to our allies. Otherwise it really will end up being a huge black hole of money.

 

The issue with the F-14 was that it wasn't good in the strike role. That lack of multi-role didn't make it a popular export.

 

I thought it was because it was a Navy air superiority fighter and not many nations have carriers.

Perhaps that's a good thing.

 

That was said about the F-18 but that didn't stop it from being sold successfully.

 

You, as usual, have no idea what you are talking about. Just the other day, I heard some comments from General Cartwright, the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talk about these cuts. He supports them, and for good reason. It doesn't affect your security, inspite of what some right wing talking heads and congressmen think.

Who would you rather trust with your national security? A four star general or some self-important pundits and politicians?

Come by my office in the Pentagon sometime, and I'll explain how the Department of Defense in the real world works.

I'll make sure to have some milk and cookies for you.

 

Apparently the FA/18 really is a piece of shit.

http://exiledonline.com/the-war-ner...akes-the-pepsi-challenge-against-f-18-hornet/

 

As a vet, some of that guys' logic is pretty F'd up.

Yea, great. So we're just resources to this guy. Screw you.

Then he knocks the F18 because the REALLY OLD versions (original A/B) we sold to Australia have had 4 crashes.
1. Australia.... mmmm, are they really good pilots?
2. Original models we haven't used in god knows how long. We're on E/F Super Hornets (major upgrade) now.

uhhhhhhh.... that's WAAAYYY wrong.
USAF has plenty of helos -- including V22s
USN has a mix of everything too
Only thing he got right was the Army

Did he just imply Top Gun was a USAF thing ??

That's an interesting recount.
The line I know is that the F14s were too expensive and they wanted a 2nd (cheaper) aircraft to supplement them. So USN started a program -- but Congress wasn't happy with the results (budgetwise). So Congress told them to drop in on the USAF -- who was having similar issues. USAF was reviewing YF16 and YF17. They chose the 16 because it fit their purpose best.
Now this guy is forgetting that what fits USAF purposes isn't going to fit USN purposes. For starters, USAF was looking for a fighter *only*. USN wanted multirole with carrier ability. The YF17 fit that better, and became the F18.

And now the truth comes out. This guy has some beef against the Navy.



F18s are a great aircraft, and the Navy has been able to modify them to do all sorts of good stuff.
The Super Hornet models were also a great upgrade.
They've served both USMC and USN quite well, and they'll continue to for years to come.

The V22 does have major safety issues, but I'd volunteer to ride on one of those any day over 'nam era CH46s (which this ignorant author never even mentions... instead he compares V22s to the CH53s that they DON'T replace.)

The F16 is a good aircraft as well. But it's not what the Navy was looking for.

This article is crap. His knock against the F18 is that, basically, it's not the F16 and he hates the Navy but loves the Marine Corps for using the V22 cuz... really... who cares if 50 Marines have died, more of us die every year for worse reasons so just ignore any safety issues with Marines. Oh yea, and forgets that the Marine Corps has tons of F18s too.