Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Romney wants to buy more F-22s
DOD Buzz ^ | 9/10/2012 | Michael Hoffman

Posted on 09/11/2012 12:13:21 PM PDT by InsidiousMongo

Romney wants to buy more F-22s

By Michael Hoffman Monday, September 10th, 2012 5:54 pm Posted in Air, Election

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he would buy more F-22 Raptors as part of his plan to reverse many of the defense cuts planned by the Obama administration.

Romney told a Virginia Beach, Va., television station he would not include the military in the spending cuts he is proposing to cut down the U.S. deficit.

“Rather than completing nine ships per year, I’d move that up to 15. I’d also add F-22s to our Air Force fleet. And I’d add about 100,000 active duty personnel to our military team,” Romney said in the interview. “I think the idea of shrinking our military to try and get closer to balancing our budget is the wrong place to look.”

He’s repeated his plan to increase ship building from nine to 15 ships per year and add 100,000 active duty troops to the military’s end strength. However, this is the first time he’s mentioned any plans to buy more F-22s.

F-22 production was famously ended by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates after the Air Force had fought for the U.S. to buy more fifth generation fighter jets. Air Force leaders wanted to buy 243 F-22s, Gates halted production at 187. Originally, the Air Force wanted to buy more than 750 Raptors.

The last U.S. F-22 rolled off the production line in 2011. The Raptor program has since come under scrutiny after a string of pilots have suffered hypoxia-like symptoms and struggled to breathe in flight. Air Force officials claim to have found the cause, but it has repeatedly grounded the F-22 fleet the past two years and continue to impose flight restrictions.

Air Force leaders pushed to build more F-22s to add to the fleet because they warned a fleet of 187 would be insufficient to defeat an enemy with a top line air force like China. Former Air Force Chief of Staffs Gen. Norton Schwartz and Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley argued the costs of re-opening the production line would be too costly to build up the fleet if Congress changed its mind and wanted more F-22s.

If Romney wins and follows through on his plan to buy more F-22s, it would cost at least $900 million to reopen the F-22 production line, according to Loren Thompson, a consultant for Lockheed Martin and other defense companies.

In 2010, Japan discussed buying 40 F-22s from Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-22. Lockheed officials then told Japanese leaders it would cost $900 million to re-open the production line. Thompson said the cost would surely increase when considering two years have passed and the production line was still “semi-warm.”

The cost to reopen the production line would come in addition to the per aircraft price tag to manufacture each jet. That per aircraft cost is harder to decipher. When factoring in development and manufacturing, the price tag per jet totaled the U.S. more than $370 million. However, the flyaway cost — the cost of manufacturing one jet — equaled $137 million per jet.

Re-opening the production line in Marietta, Ga., would take at least two years, Thompson said. Lockheed would be slowed by re-establishing supplier networks and re-training employees.

“In a rush, you could do it in about two years assuming all the other workers weren’t on other projects like F-35,” Thompson said.

He didn’t expect the problems with the F-22’s oxygen system to hold a Romney administration back from following through on buying more F-22 plans.

“It wouldn’t be a problem, Thompson said. “If there are still issues with the oxgen system they could just switch over to another supplier like Cobham.”

There are also questions about whether further F-22 buys would affect the acquisition schedule for the F-35. The Defense Department plans to buy 2,443 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.


TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: f22; raptor; romney
If this is the case, I really hope Lockheed comes out with new and improved F-22s, such as an F-22C, with a minimum of increment 3.2 and/or 3.3 already included as standard software.
1 posted on 09/11/2012 12:13:28 PM PDT by InsidiousMongo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

I can see not totally shrinking gov by defence cuts, but given we spend more on military stuff than the next 20 countries combined (or something like that), there has to be some fat worth cutting.


2 posted on 09/11/2012 12:16:11 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Has he talked about where he will cut spending yet?

or will he not cut spending?


3 posted on 09/11/2012 12:17:51 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Nice idea, hope he gets the opportunity to act on it.

A better idea though would be the F-15SE. More bang for the buck and better than the F-35.

Flame away all you stick and rudder experts, self-proclaimed and otherwise.

Still need some cuts of waste but more than than that sweeping change in how we run things and budget across the board... fat chance for that.


4 posted on 09/11/2012 12:26:57 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
But remember that defense spending is constitutional...unlike all that wasteful counterproductive blatantly unconstitutional pork.

Defense is already just a shadow of what it was under Reagan. We need enough for deterrence via anti-missele systems, an overwhelming nuclear force, and the Heavy Brigade Combat Teams that can roll over anybody if the F22s are overhead.

5 posted on 09/11/2012 12:28:12 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Being fair and balanced I do not believe a word Romney or the bastard says.


6 posted on 09/11/2012 12:32:00 PM PDT by Gatún(CraigIsaMangoTreeLawyer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

Perhaps, but I think our overwhelming capability also tempts our gov to meddle in a lot of places we shouldn’t be in and/or over stay. I don’t think the constitution writers had the military/industrial complex in mind that we have today.


7 posted on 09/11/2012 12:34:14 PM PDT by DonaldC (A nation cannot stand in the absence of religious principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

We have a lot of very old, very worn out airplanes. The last decades of saber rattling, keeping the peace, protecting liberty and in general being the protector of all mankind have taken their toll on all of our hardware but mostly the stuff with wings and rotor.

Our men and women have done magical things to keep planes in the air and ships at sea. Ground hardware has been pretty well taken care of from what I can see. Thousands upon thousands of new, near new and blown up trucks litter the combat zones.

The first two numbers on the tail of USAF aircraft are the year of acceptance. Take notice of that.


8 posted on 09/11/2012 12:36:06 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

Thank you... we must advance because the chicoms will have a communist version of the F-22 before long. They are working on it with the rooskies.

LLS


9 posted on 09/11/2012 12:39:29 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("if it looks like you are not gonna make it you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad-dog mean" J. Wales)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo
We should buy more F-22’s and we should develop a very small, inexpensive, jet powered drone. It would be very stealthy, just large enough to carry 2 AMRAAMs, internally. It would not need blistering speed, just long wings to loiter in place, prepositioned, it waiting. It would be AESA radar and IR equipped. An F-22 will surely be outnumbered and it can only carry so many weapons. Drones would present more targets and even up the odds.
10 posted on 09/11/2012 12:42:10 PM PDT by ryan71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Planes are a means to an end, how does this support Mitt’s Foreign Policy, if he has one.

One thing Mitt better address and quickly, is how does he respond to what happened to our embassy in Cairo.


11 posted on 09/11/2012 12:44:32 PM PDT by dfwgator (I'm voting for Ryan and that other guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

I agree. If we can’t defend our country spending less than we do, we must not be doing it right.


12 posted on 09/11/2012 12:55:09 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
It is not our overwhelming military capability that tempts them as much as our ability to deliver pizzas, assistance, and money everywhere. Otherwise we would be invading Yemen for good oil fields.

We should not be in Kosovo or Bosnia. We should not be in Kuwait forever. We should not be in Haiti. We should never have inflicted Sharia constitutions on Iraq and Afghanistan. We need to get out of Afghanistan but with the proviso that we might just come back and then it will be no more Mr. NiceGuy. Next time the constitution will be diff for the greatly reduced population.

13 posted on 09/11/2012 12:55:21 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

When I read stuff like this, I know that Republicans aren’t serious about shrinking government. Let’s see, let’s undertake the expense of putting an overpriced plane back into production, likely with a much higher flyway price than it already had. Let’s add more planes to USAF’s fleet that cost 40 grand an hour to fly. THAT’LL help the deficit.


14 posted on 09/11/2012 1:01:16 PM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
Although what you say about the size of our defense budget is true, defense spending falls under the discretionary budget. If we cut ALL discretionary spending, the government would STILL be running at a deficit, because the mandatory programs eat the entire pie and then some.

Defense spending isn't the problem. NASA isn't the problem. heck, PORK isn't the problem. Entitlements are the problem. Cut them first and then get back to me about the defense budget.

15 posted on 09/11/2012 1:02:22 PM PDT by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
These Raptors fly here (Panama City/TAFB) on a regular basis and are a beautiful and heartwarming sight to see.


16 posted on 09/11/2012 1:03:30 PM PDT by capt. norm (Blessed are they who can laugh at themselves for they shall never run out of material. c)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
"...More bang for the buck and better than the F-35.." _____________________________________________________ F22 has its merits. The reason it became so "over-priced" is because the original planned order #s were greatly reduced. We can't keep flying old stuff forever. Fokker Dr1 Repros 377th FA Regt., Khowst Prov., Afghanistan
17 posted on 09/11/2012 1:09:53 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

I’m sure we could cut our overseas commitments and installations by half and still be everywhere. Let Germany, Japan, South Korea and other rich allies foot their own defense bills.


18 posted on 09/11/2012 1:12:51 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: capt. norm

I suprised so many Freepers are willing to throw away all the R&D investment on the F22 just because of a few teething problems. It is a very needed aircraft.


19 posted on 09/11/2012 1:13:33 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo
The tooling to produce F-22s has already been scrapped. We can't just order more F-22s, it will take a large amount of money just to build up to be able to produce them again. We need to just stick with what we have and continue developing the next generation of pilotless fighters.

And I agree with other posters, we should be hearing from Romney about how he will cut spending intelligently without making us weaker, not just throwing out red meat thinking this is what we want. The debt is serious, he needs to take it seriously.

20 posted on 09/11/2012 1:14:06 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who absolutely cannot or will not see that the PLA is our number one stratigic threat and had been for most of a decade already. There is already a hot cyberwar with the PLA. I've been in that trench. Add a resurgent Russian Bear to the mix and we are perilously close to re-enacting 1961, only with the flashpoints on the other side of the Pacific instead of off the Florida coast.

If we intend to remain a world power, we need a useful force of fifth-Gen fighters. We need stealth ships. Most of all, we need a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. We certainly aren't going to get ANY of that under 0bama. He'll throw Taiwan and Japan and South Korea under the bus before you can say "peace in our time."

21 posted on 09/11/2012 1:15:16 PM PDT by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
I suprised so many Freepers are willing to throw away all the R&D investment on the F22 just because of a few teething problems. It is a very needed aircraft.

I'm not. Paultardness runs deep these days. All the freedom and fiscal responsibility in the world will come to naught if we become a second-rate nation subject to some world hegemon. As a superpower we have been tolerant to a fault. We should not expect the same grace from our successors. They will scourge us with scorpions if they can.

22 posted on 09/11/2012 1:26:43 PM PDT by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: jboot

“...All the freedom and fiscal responsibility in the world will come to naught if we become a second-rate nation subject to some world hegemon...”

Whoa, that says it and that’s worth repeating.


23 posted on 09/11/2012 1:32:44 PM PDT by Monterrosa-24 (...even more American that a French bikini and a Russian AK-47.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

The tooling was not scrapped. There have been articles on military news sites indicating the tooling has been saved. How would they be able to make replacement components then? The program can be rebooted since the tooling still exists.


24 posted on 09/11/2012 1:40:56 PM PDT by InsidiousMongo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

Don’t you honestly think you are being just a little extreme?

Not only did we reduce numbers but the cost continued to increase. The F-35 is much worse for not having delivered what has been promised, problems and costs.

The F-15SE isn’t exactly old retro technology having been upgraded considerably and having similar stealth attributes of the F-35 but with more payload, more range, comparable avionics capability and redundant systems. For the role intended, mostly air to ground it will meet the need for a long time to come.

For air to air on the other hand the F-22 is the best we have available though in some camps the Eurofighter is giving it a good run.


25 posted on 09/11/2012 1:49:01 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Half the people are below average, they voted for oblabla.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Well I went out on the old internet thing and it looks like you’re right. I was going from memory on an article I read a couple of years ago. I still would like to focus on pilotless aircraft, though. If the same money that could be spent buying more F-22s could be spent advancing pilotless fighters by a few years, I’d take the pilotless aircraft.


26 posted on 09/11/2012 1:53:14 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
A better idea though would be the F-15SE. More bang for the buck and better than the F-35.

Flame away all you stick and rudder experts, self-proclaimed and otherwise.

Still need some cuts of waste but more than than that sweeping change in how we run things and budget across the board... fat chance for that.


I get into trouble with this one. I favor keeping the F-15C's through E (I'd consider bring back the old 1972/79 A model, IIRC, it could be used for ASAT warfare), F-16's of various marks and for new stock, the F-15SE. I'd like to see it bulwarked with a low-cost but effective fighter like the old F-5, I always favored the F-20, a suped up version of it. I'd maybe take the F-22 to a nice even number, 200 though.

Basically, I get into trouble for this one too, but when it comes to speed and performance, the jet fighter plateaued around 1960 or so when we reached the Mach 2 area, the differences are in avionics and stealth, I think the latter is overrated. That's why I tend to favor the F-5 with improved electronics, in which you get the F-20. We should have kept the F-14 for the Navy.

The F-35 screams junk to me and the F-22 for some reason seems overrated for its cost. It's like buying a car, we have money problems and unless we cut drastically somewhere, we might have to buy the Chevy instead of the Cadillac. We need to supply the military with the best we can afford but we also have to remember that we only have so much money and we need to stick closer to more established, off the shelf equipment proven to work. We have to face reality.
27 posted on 09/11/2012 1:58:02 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (June 28th, 2012, the Day America Jumped The Shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101
The first two numbers on the tail of USAF aircraft are the year of acceptance. Take notice of that.

I noticed that the tankers for the 171st Penna Air Nat'l Guard begin with "57" so they were built in 1957, heck, that's older than me. B-) I think overall, we did hyperextend ourselves and that figures into the wear value.
28 posted on 09/11/2012 2:01:07 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (June 28th, 2012, the Day America Jumped The Shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24

I’m more of a Sopwith Camel/Pup guy myself although I also admire the Gloster Gladiator and the Stearman.


29 posted on 09/11/2012 2:02:49 PM PDT by Nowhere Man (June 28th, 2012, the Day America Jumped The Shark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

Throwing money at defense contractors and rewarding cronies in congressional districts with bloated military projects is not being very fiscally conservative.


30 posted on 09/11/2012 2:05:14 PM PDT by turn_to
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jboot
Yes I know and I agree with you. I am certain that war is coming one day... our government used to prepare and evolve with the threat... we pray that it never happens... our enemies plan for it to happen.

LLS

31 posted on 09/11/2012 2:09:42 PM PDT by LibLieSlayer ("if it looks like you are not gonna make it you gotta get mean, I mean plumb mad-dog mean" J. Wales)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo
This is good news and I hope he means it.

The way we've been going through our military equipment is second only to the way we've been going through what's left of our finances and reputation.

One of the best jobs programs around is rebuilding the military. It hires people from all walks of life and all professions, while making us smarter and stronger.

32 posted on 09/11/2012 2:14:38 PM PDT by GBA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC
"I can see not totally shrinking gov by defence cuts, but given we spend more on military stuff than the next 20 countries combined (or something like that), there has to be some fat worth cutting."

I'm with you. But I will wait until he tells us if he is going to increase taxes to pay for them or bill all the countries in the world that we are protecting.

33 posted on 09/11/2012 3:04:25 PM PDT by ex-snook (without forgiveness there is no Christianity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

We are currently spending about 4% of our GDP on defense. We can afford it, and it is a moral (and constitutional) imperative that we maintain sufficient force levels to deter and if necessary defeat any enemy.

As for the fact that we spend more than the next 20 countries combined, that fact is irrelevant. We have forces that have global reach. Most other countries do not. Maintaining that capability is expensive, but necessary.

We also must be prepared to defend our interests against a wide array of potential enemies, while any single potential adversary does not have the same need. They are all arrayed against us, with a few exceptions, and to maintain our superpower status (a need that is not debatable in my mind) we have to be prepared to deal with a wide range of contingencies that lesser nations do not.

If we withdraw from the world, as those like Ron Paul would have us do, the world will become a much more chaotic and dangerous place. Just as an example consider what we spend to provide a defense umbrella, nuclear and otherwise, for allies such as Japan. By defending Japan we prevent it from acquiring its own nuclear weapons and thereby sparking an arms race in East Asia.

Four percent of our GDP (or even 6%, if we were to return to cold war levels) is a small price to pay for the stability and protection that it provides.


34 posted on 09/11/2012 3:40:38 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 9YearLurker
"I agree. If we can’t defend our country spending less than we do, we must not be doing it right."

I'm sorry, but that statement made no sense. Are you saying then that if we spent nothing on defense at all that we would then be doing it "really right?"

35 posted on 09/11/2012 3:58:14 PM PDT by noiseman (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: noiseman

No, what you’re asking is a non sequitor. As others have pointed out on this thread we pay more than most of rest of the world pays for defense combined. That’s what we are spending and what I was referencing.


36 posted on 09/11/2012 4:26:02 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: noiseman

No, what you’re asking is a non sequitor. As others have pointed out on this thread we pay more than most of rest of the world pays for defense combined. That’s what we are spending and what I was referencing.


37 posted on 09/11/2012 4:26:02 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Monterrosa-24
I suprised so many Freepers are willing to throw away all the R&D investment on the F22 just because of a few teething problems. It is a very needed aircraft.

I really want to like the F-22. When I first laid eyes on it not long after the prototype was rolled out back in 1990 or 1991, I thought it was going to be The Aircraft for the Air Force going into the future.

Here we are 20 years later, it's had all kinds of problems, cost overruns, delays, etc. It's going to be expensive as hell to restart the production line, and yes, you have to include the costs of restarting the production line in the per-unit costs. It's also going to take a few years to get fully up to speed. I don't necessarily buy the 2 year number being tossed around, I would say 3-4 years. Contractors move a lot slower than some think.

You mentioned R&D. There has been 25 years of R&D done since the F-22 was selected as one of the competitors in the ATF competition, and 20 or so years worth done since a YF-22 prototype actually took to the skies.

Romney is just trying to kiss up to the defense industry and its workers in an election. The Russians and Chinese have had a few decades of looking at the F-22 (and probably walking away with key technology thanks to Clinton). If we are going to build a fighter to take on future threats, and if it's going to be expensive and time consuming to restart production on something that amounts to a 25 year old design, let's take what's been learned over the past few decades from that program, let's take the latest avionics, and let's go ahead and make the leap to the next generation.
38 posted on 09/11/2012 5:27:12 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: andyk
I’m sure we could cut our overseas commitments and installations by half and still be everywhere. Let Germany, Japan, South Korea and other rich allies foot their own defense bills.

We're in Germany and Japan more because of their location these days than for defending them. Germany is one of the major hubs for us as far as our operations in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq, and it's even a major medical hub for troops injured in the Middle East. Japan is a major hub for Asian operations as well.

It's the case for a lot of other places as well. South Korea is different (and Japan plays a roll in that).

Russia is not going to attack Germany and China is not going to attack Japan.
39 posted on 09/11/2012 5:32:38 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jboot
There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who absolutely cannot or will not see that the PLA is our number one stratigic threat and had been for most of a decade already. There is already a hot cyberwar with the PLA. I've been in that trench. Add a resurgent Russian Bear to the mix and we are perilously close to re-enacting 1961, only with the flashpoints on the other side of the Pacific instead of off the Florida coast.

If China wants to destroy us, it's not going to be by military conflict. It's going to economically, and I hate to break it to you, but while you've been in the trenches of the cyberwar, a lot of us have been paying attention to the economic war, and China is making damn sure they are going to win it over the long run. Even as you and I speak, using Chinese-built computers, that connect over Chinese-built infrastructure, China is working to undermine our defense and aerospace companies.

As China takes more and more contracts away from our aerospace and defense companies, as they take away more and more manufacturing jobs at all levels from America, they put us that much deeper in the hole.

Doesn't mean a damn thing if we have the best military in the world if they destroy us economically, or have the means to destroy us economically.

If we intend to remain a world power, we need a useful force of fifth-Gen fighters

Those vaunted fifth-generation fighters that we are relying on were designed in the mid 1980s. China and Russia are both working on aircraft that are 10-15 years newer than the F-22. You know what that means? That means they are working on aircraft that were designed with the F-22 in mind, and probably using stolen F-22 information.

Most of all, we need a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. We certainly aren't going to get ANY of that under 0bama.

Are you seriously suggesting we are going to get in a nuclear war with China? Because unless I missed something, China didn't come up with a way to destroy all of our nuclear weapons as they rain down on Chinese cities. I don't even know how to respond to somebody who worries about China trying to wipe out our nuclear arsenal, because it implies that China only cares about military power and that China is willing to risk annihilation.

Wake up. They are going to do more harm to us economically than they ever could militarily. They watched how the Soviets could not beat us militarily. Being Chinese and taking long-term approaches to things, they saw what worked, and they figured out that they don't have to beat us militarily to destroy us, they can do so much cheaper, easier, and more thoroughly economically.

China is beating us economically. It's been their goal for decades, and it's starting to pay off. People like you are focused on the next 5 years, but guess what? While people make hay about their latest weapons systems, people are missing out on the fact that those weapons systems aren't just for China. China is ramping up their defense industry to take military contracts away from American companies. They want to supply India and large parts of Asia and Africa with military hardware, and they want to move on from there.

Once American aerospace/defense companies have to lay off even more workers than they have, you will truly see China is doing something much worse than engaging in a military conflict. They are already making the cheap crap that Wal-Mart sells, now they are trying to make the expensive stuff that Boeing and GE make.

They are working on thoroughly ruining us for many decades to come in a way nobody could never do militarily.

Let me tell you something my friend, once they destroy us economically, the door will be open for full-on socialism/totalitarianism. They are not going to convert us at the tip of a bayonet. They are going to do so by bankrupting us and reducing the number of middle and upper class jobs in this country.
40 posted on 09/11/2012 5:58:51 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp

“When I read stuff like this, I know that Republicans aren’t serious about shrinking government. Let’s see, let’s undertake the expense of putting an overpriced plane back into production, likely with a much higher flyway price than it already had. Let’s add more planes to USAF’s fleet that cost 40 grand an hour to fly. THAT’LL help the deficit.”

MEGABUMP


41 posted on 09/11/2012 6:21:03 PM PDT by KantianBurke (Where was the Tea Party when Dubya was spending like a drunken sailor?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: InsidiousMongo

900 mil, what’s that? about one solyndra plant or a couple of dozen chevy volts?


42 posted on 09/11/2012 8:30:22 PM PDT by printhead (Standard & Poor - Poor is the new standard.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
That's a nice essay.

A. I did not say that we aren't in an economic war with China. I did say that the Chinese constitute an enormous strategic threat. China's economic policies are one part of the total strategic threat, but one that I chose not to address on a thread about military hardware. That said, it is suspicious that you absolutely preclude the possibility of military conflict with China. Our Pacific allies have no such illusions.

B. The proper use of the nuclear arsenal is deterrence not combat. I find it suspicious that you consider the 1980s-era technology of the F22 to be hopelessly outdated and yet believe that our 1980s-era nuclear arsenal retains full deterrent value. It is a hollow force, and increasingly vulnerable. Over half of our warheads (and all or our multiple-warhead missiles) are concentrated in 14 1980s-era submarines. Much of this force could be neutralized before launch by conventional and asymmetrical means. It's not deterring China or Russia much now, and a decade from now it won't deter them at all.

C. Finally, what are you suggesting? Disbelieve in the military threat and do what? Cue the Ron Paul talking points?

43 posted on 09/12/2012 6:19:00 AM PDT by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: DonaldC

BINGO.

Considering the F-22 is the best plane on the planet, it is inexcusable we have stopped producing it.


44 posted on 09/12/2012 6:20:52 AM PDT by Cringing Negativism Network (America doesn't need any new laws. America needs freedom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jboot
That said, it is suspicious that you absolutely preclude the possibility of military conflict with China. Our Pacific allies have no such illusions.

With the exception of Taiwan, our allies are much more concerned with North Korea. Even with Taiwan, everybody knows that an invasion of Taiwan would be far too costly for China, militarily, diplomatically, and economically, and under the Chinese way of thinking, it's simply not worth the risk. China is a country that invaded a fully militarized Vietnam to make a point and then quickly pulled out rather than risk heavy losses or getting dragged into a war or proxy war with the Soviets. China wasn't willing to take on the Soviets over Vietnam, and they aren't willing to take on the US over Taiwan or South Korea or Japan, even before they began intertwining their economy with our economy.

The reason why it's not worth the risk, and the reason why I preclude the possibility of military conflict with China is that China has invested far too heavily economically in the United States, Japan, South Korea, and yes, even Taiwan, albeit indirectly.

Chinese investments in the US are not the actions of a country looking to go to war with us, but if China wants to hurt us, they can do so, right now. Here in September of 2012.

They could devastate us without firing one single missile or launching one single fighter.

They don't need their stealth fighters. They don't need nukes and ICBMs. They don't need their crappy Russian aircraft carrier or their cruise ships turned troop transports. They could up and try and pull out all of those investments they've made in the US and in US companies over the past 20 years out. They could cancel all of the partnerships that Chinese companies have forged with US companies. They could stop shipping goods to us.

That would devastate our economy. People just think our economy is bad now. We would look back fondly upon 20% unemployment. 10% unemployment, our grandkids would think we were just fibbing them.

As for 1980s nuclear weapons and 1980s fighters, the Chinese can easily work on countering our fighters, and they have been. Nukes though, as you say, are a deterrence, and the Chinese cannot counter them, because nobody wants to risk a single nuke getting through.

What I am suggesting is that it's kind of useless for us to spend the large amount of money trying to get the F-22s back in production, when if this is about aerial superiority, we should be looking at the next generation of Chinese and Russian fighters and not the Russian fighters that we originally designed the F-22 to handle.

But that's assuming that China wants a war with the US. They don't. Evey billion they sink into the US economy is yet another billion reasons why they won't go to war with us.

I think Romney is just playing politics as well.
45 posted on 09/12/2012 7:02:52 AM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr
I suspected this was all about how China really isn't a threat. "China's the greatest power the world has ever known and they cannot be stopped. We should make nice with them so that they will still let us play ball when they own the field."

Sorry, not buying.

46 posted on 09/12/2012 8:02:14 AM PDT by jboot (This isn't your father's America. Stay safe and keep your powder dry.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: af_vet_rr

I agree with the need for overseas bases for logistics and forward support. I’ve been to many of them in Germany and Korea, but not Japan. Given the extensive list of installations in those countries, only a few of each should be needed to achieve the goals you mention.

I do believe that each of the three countries I mentioned would spend more on defense if we weren’t there. That gives them latitude to spend on social and other programs.


47 posted on 09/12/2012 4:16:59 PM PDT by andyk (I have sworn...eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: jboot
I suspected this was all about how China really isn't a threat. "China's the greatest power the world has ever known and they cannot be stopped. We should make nice with them so that they will still let us play ball when they own the field."

I still suspect it was Romnney playing election year politics.

I don't think Romney was trying to play down the threat of China, because anybody who thinks that China doesn't mean to replace us as the predominant power in the world is a fool, living in a dream world.

Like I said, right now, China makes the cheap crap you buy in Wal-Mart or our cheap electronics. What happens in 10 or 20 years (or less), when they make the expensive stuff that Boeing or GE makes, and they win contracts with other countries? It's bad enough we've lost our manufacturing base for many cheaper things. Start putting aerospace/defense companies out of business or nearly out of business, or forcing the taxpayers to prop them up even more than we normally do, and you're going to see some real problems in this country.

The really sad thing, and you or somebody else mentioned this, but we are cooperating with them! There was a thread here last year that discussed a deal that Boeing had struck with a Chinese aerospace company. Even as Boeing was partnering with them, the Boeing CEO was saying that within 20 years, Boeing's biggest competitor would most likely be a Chinese company! The computer industry - same thing 10-20 years ago.

Top it all off with a White House and Congress that don't want to really play tough with China when it comes to international trade, even while China protests its companies, and things are going to get really bad.
48 posted on 09/12/2012 8:16:44 PM PDT by af_vet_rr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson