F-22 Raptor: Do we need more?

[Jack21222]

Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.

And I'm so tired of my tax dollars being used to blow up 3rd world civilians. I'm also tired of suicide bombers attacking our buildings in response to the "big bad US bully."

 

[mheslep]

And I'm so tired of my tax dollars being used to blow up 3rd world civilians. I'm also tired of suicide bombers attacking our buildings in response to the "big bad US bully."

Yes, yes, of course, 911 is our own fault. Why can't we just all get along?

 

[Jack21222]

Yes, yes, of course, 911 is our own fault. Why can't we just all get along?

Yes, a bunch of people committed suicide to kill Americans just because they were bored one day, and not because of our foreign policy.

Oh oh, I know, "they hate us for our freedoms," right? They're so angry that we have freedoms that they are willing to die to teach us a lesson for having freedoms. Is that honestly what you believe?

If not, what do you believe? What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks? How about the previous bombing of the WTC? How about the USS Cole? I propose that the actions of the US military abroad incited all of those attacks. I don't agree with what Al Qaeda did, but I'm hardly shocked that they did it.

Lets put it this way. If a guy is running his mouth off at a bar, and he gets a tooth knocked out because of it, you can't really say it was unexpected. Sure, the guy who punched him was in the wrong, and may go to jail for it, as well he should... but it's a logical conclusion to the first guy running his mouth off.

 

[Cyrus]

What does this have to do with the F-22?

 

[Jack21222]

What does this have to do with the F-22?

You see, the F-22 is an airplane used in the military. Therefore, how we use the military is a vital piece of information on whether or not we should engage in more military spending.

If we want to be World Police, then yes, we may need the F-22 in large quantities. On the other hand, if we stop engaging in military adventurism, the F-22 may not be so important.

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, a bunch of people committed suicide to kill Americans just because they were bored one day, and not because of our foreign policy.

Oh oh, I know, "they hate us for our freedoms," right? They're so angry that we have freedoms that they are willing to die to teach us a lesson for having freedoms. Is that honestly what you believe?

If not, what do you believe? What caused the 9/11 terrorist attacks? How about the previous bombing of the WTC? How about the USS Cole? I propose that the actions of the US military abroad incited all of those attacks. I don't agree with what Al Qaeda did, but I'm hardly shocked that they did it.

Lets put it this way. If a guy is running his mouth off at a bar, and he gets a tooth knocked out because of it, you can't really say it was unexpected. Sure, the guy who punched him was in the wrong, and may go to jail for it, as well he should... but it's a logical conclusion to the first guy running his mouth off.

Nothing about the F-22 or any other military spending cited here.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/21/alqaida.terrorism

Maybe they're mad about the environmental issues in the Middle East...all of that dirty oil mixed with sand.

It doesn't matter why at this point.

If we let our defenses down...and/or lose our military superiority...we will be attacked.

Remember the "Voluntary Somali Coast Guard" boarding last week?


If I recall, 4 teenagers in a row boat held off our Navy for how long? We not only need to own the hardware, we have to use it when threatened.

 

[Jack21222]

If we let our defenses down...and/or lose our military superiority...we will be attacked.

[citation needed]

 

[OmCheeto]

Gads. I used to brag about how I saved the US Navy $10,000,000 by solving a problem that would have kept our submarine in drydock an extra 10 days. (It cost $1M/day to keep them there in overhaul back in the 80's).

Never mind!

It appears that I only saved enough for a spare tire on one of these jets...

 

[Jack21222]

I was going to go to bed, but let me add a bit more to my last post, which may have been overly snarky.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting back our inventory of multi-hundred-million dollar aircraft implies "we will be attacked?" What are these planes going to be used for, specifically? I've seen some fantasy scenarios in the thread where we go back to war with Japan, I've seen vague premonitions of war, but I haven't seen any specific uses for all of these new planes. Who, specifically, are we expecting to bomb?

If we don't build this fleet of planes, who do you expect will attack us? Another terrorist attack? F-22s are useless against them. Aggressive use of the F-22s, however, may inspire a terrorist retaliation, in my opinion.

I just think it's kinda sick that this one order of airplanes is approximately 4 years worth of NASA's entire budget. As has been posted before, we're already spending about as much on our military as the rest of the planet Earth COMBINED. Basically, if every single country in the world declared war on us right now, we'd have a fighting chance to beat them all.

Yet, people claim that if we cut back on the military, "we will be attacked."

That's nothing but baseless fear-mongering, unless somebody can give me evidence that cutting back on our military means "we will be attacked."

 

[WhoWee]

I was going to go to bed, but let me add a bit more to my last post, which may have been overly snarky.

Perhaps you could explain how cutting back our inventory of multi-hundred-million dollar aircraft implies "we will be attacked?" What are these planes going to be used for, specifically? I've seen some fantasy scenarios in the thread where we go back to war with Japan, I've seen vague premonitions of war, but I haven't seen any specific uses for all of these new planes. Who, specifically, are we expecting to bomb?

If we don't build this fleet of planes, who do you expect will attack us? Another terrorist attack? F-22s are useless against them. Aggressive use of the F-22s, however, may inspire a terrorist retaliation, in my opinion.

I just think it's kinda sick that this one order of airplanes is approximately 4 years worth of NASA's entire budget. As has been posted before, we're already spending about as much on our military as the rest of the planet Earth COMBINED. Basically, if every single country in the world declared war on us right now, we'd have a fighting chance to beat them all.

Yet, people claim that if we cut back on the military, "we will be attacked."

That's nothing but baseless fear-mongering, unless somebody can give me evidence that cutting back on our military means "we will be attacked."

You were talking about "military adventurism"...not the F-22 specifically.

Lest we forget
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/
was this "fear-mongering"?

Let's not forget this list either
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0908746.html

or this
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/chronology.html

or this
http://www.heritage.org/research/HomelandDefense/bg2085.cfm

These people aren't going to stop their fight just because we stop defending ourselves.

 

[WhoWee]

Will an F-22 protect us from these people? I don't know.

 

[Cyrus]

You see, the F-22 is an airplane used in the military. Therefore, how we use the military is a vital piece of information on whether or not we should engage in more military spending.

If we want to be World Police, then yes, we may need the F-22 in large quantities. On the other hand, if we stop engaging in military adventurism, the F-22 may not be so important.

Please back up these statements or keep them to yourself. The pentagon decides if it needs the F-22's based on the requirements of the air-force. What you've posted is speculative nonsense.

I attend talks given by people like three star general Dell Dailey who works on counterterrorism for the state deparment. I don't need a lecture on your bogus claims.

 

[Jack21222]

Please back up these statements or keep them to yourself. The pentagon decides if it needs the F-22's based on the requirements of the air-force. What you've posted is speculative nonsense.

I attend talks given by people like three star general Dell Dailey who works on counterterrorism for the state deparment. I don't need a lecture on your bogus claims.

First, the air force and pentagon are basing their desire for more air power on the US's current foreign policy, which includes getting involved in "police actions" globally. I don't see how that is "speculative nonsense." If we were to adopt Switzerland's foreign policy, there would be fewer wars to fight, and therefore, the air force and pentagon wouldn't need so many expensive planes.

Second, the secretary of defense says we do not need the F-22. Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a0NQwnEqxSl4&refer=home

Third, just because the air force submits a "wish list" doesn't mean everything on that list is a must-have. With the current budget situation, where the US is trillions of dollars in debt and going deeper in debt by a few hundred billion dollars annually, we can't purchase everything we want right now. The air force doesn't necessarily have the country's fiscal well-being in mind.

Fourth, to date, no F-22 has ever been flown in a single combat mission. It's never been used in Iraq, it's never been used in Afghanistan. It is NOT designed for counter-terrorism missions. So, to answer WhoWee's question, here is a quote from Secretary Gates as reported by Time Magazine:

"It is principally for use against a near-peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is,"

(source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1710944,00.html)

By "near-peer," he means China.

So, I've outlined three different reasons why we do NOT need any more F-22s. First, they're not effective in the wars the US finds itself in today. We have 187 of these things, and we've never used a single one in combat.

Second, these planes come at an enormous cost which we simply can't afford right now.

Third, a change in foreign policy would lower the change of needing to use 350 F-22s in battle in the first place, and I believe that may be a better option.

The first two reasons are facts, the third reason is my personal opinion. Some people here seem to have "Monsters Under The Bed" syndrome (war with Japan? They're our allies, people). For those people, there's really no point in continuing the "We'll be attacked," "no we won't," "yes we will" line of argument. If somebody seriously thinks that every "near-peer" country on the globe is just waiting to attack us, if only we scaled back our military spending a bit, I don't have a convincing response. It just sounds an awful like paranoia.

Of course, I wouldn't be surprised if the responses to this post focus in on my idea for the US's foreign policy, and not the other two points about the F-22 not being used in either Iraq or Afghanistan and the fact that it's incredibly expensive at a time where the US is too broke to pay for it.

 

[Topher925]

I think the John Stewart says all that needs to be said.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67157/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-military-budget-cuts

http://vodpod.com/watch/1508309-stewart-lampoons-defense-spending-imbroglio

 

[WhoWee]

I think the John Stewart says all that needs to be said.

http://www.hulu.com/watch/67157/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-military-budget-cuts

http://vodpod.com/watch/1508309-stewart-lampoons-defense-spending-imbroglio

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

 

[Jack21222]

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

Not that I'm aware of. If you're going to make such a claim, I'd like to see some evidence.

Furthermore, at the moment it's illegal to export the F-22.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

 

[Topher925]

Isn't part of our strategy (regarding new weapons development) to sell the technology to our allies...and thus offset the R&D (and possibly our) production costs? Doesn't this create American jobs? (and not outsourced to China)

No. That is what the JSF is for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

 

[WhoWee]

Not that I'm aware of. If you're going to make such a claim, I'd like to see some evidence.

Furthermore, at the moment it's illegal to export the F-22.

http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d105:HZ00295:

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

 

[turbo]

Let's get back to basics. We have a huge military and each branch is making its case for what they want in their stocking for Xmas. The problem is that we cannot weight these requests equally unless we're going to blow our military budget to smithereens. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have placed extreme burdens on ground-troops, including special forces, marines, army, and reserve units. We went into these wars sorely unprepared and under-equipped and we need to rebuild our capabilities for such asymmetric warfare, including equipment for the detection and detonation of IEDs, armored-up Hum-Vees, better-designed APCs, drones with Hellfires, etc, etc. This is going to take a lot of money, planning, production time, and time to stage the equipment in-theater. Right now, it seems a bit silly to spend more money on Raptors when our ability to fight asymmetric ground-wars is sorely stretched. To take this a step further, we have a lot of returning veterans who have medical problems and they are taxing the VA. If we spent the production-costs of a few Raptors beefing up our VA system, would that help the soldiers who have already served? Our priorities need a real gut-check.

 

[Topher925]

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

No you weren't, you made a very bold and daring statement about the comedic value of John Stewart.

Stewart is a funny guy...RFC.

How dare you say such a thing without even a hint of evidence to back it up! For shame.

Turbo-1, your absolutely right. Are you running for office anytime soon?

 

[WhoWee]

No you weren't, you made a very bold and daring statement about the comedic value of John Stewart.



How dare you say such a thing without even a hint of evidence to back it up! For shame.

Turbo-1, your absolutely right. Are you running for office anytime soon?

I'll vote for Turbo-1

 

[Jack21222]

I'm not sure what my "claim" was, I asked a question.

You phrased it as a rhetorical question.

If you honestly didn't know, you could have said "Is part of our strategy to sell our technology to allies?" Instead, you phrased it "Isn't part of our strategy...?" But I guess you left yourself some room for plausible deniability.

You phrased your question the same way the congressman asked Dr. Chu about arctic oil. He said "Isn't it obvious that..." et cetera.

So, forgive me if I misunderstood your question, but the way you phrased it made it sound like you were making a statement in the form of a question.

 

[WhoWee]

You phrased it as a rhetorical question.

If you honestly didn't know, you could have said "Is part of our strategy to sell our technology to allies?" Instead, you phrased it "Isn't part of our strategy...?" But I guess you left yourself some room for plausible deniability.

You phrased your question the same way the congressman asked Dr. Chu about arctic oil. He said "Isn't it obvious that..." et cetera.

So, forgive me if I misunderstood your question, but the way you phrased it made it sound like you were making a statement in the form of a question.

Fair enough...I didn't know the F-22 is off limits for sale at this time...it makes sense.

I was thinking more in terms of economies of scale...with volume production the price per unit should drop...and I would hope we'd realize a savings...but I really don't know.

 

[Cyrus]

I flew down to NASA Langley in a Piper Arrow today. Outside the office of where I visited was an F-22 flying RIGHT over our building for an air show. IT WAS AWSOME!

 

[Jack21222]

Fair enough...I didn't know the F-22 is off limits for sale at this time...it makes sense.

I was thinking more in terms of economies of scale...with volume production the price per unit should drop...and I would hope we'd realize a savings...but I really don't know.

Well, yes, each unit will be cheaper.

That's true in the same way one spouse will say to another "I just saved 50 dollars by buying THREE pairs of shoes!" Meanwhile, they already had three pairs of shoes, and spent 250 dollars. "But at normal prices, they're 100 each! I just saved 50 dollars" they protest.

Well, yes, if the shoes were needed.

In your scenario, the spouse sells two pairs of the shoes on eBay for 40 each to offset the costs. Either way, you're down money, and you have an extra pair of shoes that weren't necessary.

 

[Cyrus]

Well, yes, each unit will be cheaper.

That's true in the same way one spouse will say to another "I just saved 50 dollars by buying THREE pairs of shoes!" Meanwhile, they already had three pairs of shoes, and spent 250 dollars. "But at normal prices, they're 100 each! I just saved 50 dollars" they protest.

Well, yes, if the shoes were needed.

In your scenario, the spouse sells two pairs of the shoes on eBay for 40 each to offset the costs. Either way, you're down money, and you have an extra pair of shoes that weren't necessary.

I'd like to know what information you are basing this 'not necessary' argument on.

 

[Jack21222]

I'd like to know what information you are basing this 'not necessary' argument on.

Please, I've already linked to Secretary Gates's comments. Please scroll up.

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, I didn't read your post earlier. My apologies.

 

[jhae2.718]

I would say this is a complicated matter, and probably one which should have waited for the completion of the QDR.

At the moment, do we need F-22s for engaging in asymmetric warfare? No, we don't. Could we use them to do so? Yes, we could: by configuring the F-22s with internal and external stores of JDAMs and SDBs.

However, what will we be dealing with in the future? The F15 fleet is aging rapidly and is a 30 year old airframe. Foreign fighters are already surpassing the F-15 and F-16 in capability and are being exported in large numbers. Furthermore, advanced air defense systems are being developed in fielded.

It is a central tenet in US doctrine that we maintain air superiority. The F-22 for the considerable future will allow us to maintain air superiority with much less risk. It can also serve as a precision strike aircraft; for this reason the F-117 fleet was retired as the F-22 was more capable in that role.

Thus, we need to ask ourselves as a country what are priorities are:
How do we value defense as compared with economic stimulus/social spending etc.?
Do we want to focus our capabilities on combating insurgencies at expense of our conventional capabilities?

As far as the F-35 goes, is it important? Yes. Can it replace the F-22? Not really. The F-22 and F-35 each fill their own niche: the F-22 as the powerful air dominance fighter and the F-35 as the versatile strike fighter. As far as numbers go, it is very unlikely that the F-35 will be purchased in as large numbers as stated. Thus we should probably get as many of both as possible. Once the production line closes, it will be very difficult to restart.

 

[Supercritical]

I'm not sure the case could be made that the US needs to equip for an asymmetric foe, at least not in Iraq. Afghanistan is another story.

Drawing from the Brookings Institution's Iraq Index (http://www.brookings.edu/saban/iraq-index.aspx ), page 15 (graphs are placed on adjoining pages), the following facts can be realized:

As far as uparmored humvees are concerned, RPGs have killed 3 GIs during the past 12 months (vehicle not specified). This is a low number, but RPG deaths have historically never numbered very high.

Mortars and rockets have also claimed 3 lives in the past 12 months. Tragic, but not exactly a dire problem.

And finally, regarding IEDs, historically the single largest killer of US troops in Iraq: they've killed 3 US servicemembers so far in April, and 1 was killed by an IED during the entire month of March (an average of fewer than 3 per month for the past 6 months). This compares very favorably to the average of 40-60 per month sustained from May 2005 to July 2007.

These numbers are very low, especially relative to the statistics from earlier parts of the war (the current trend appears around October 2007, see page 14). In fact, a fascinating transformation has taken place. Considering the entire Iraq War to date, IEDs have caused 40% of the casualties and non-hostile deaths (friendly fire, accidents) account for 16.7%. For the past 6 months, however, non-hostile deaths comprised 44% of the deaths and IEDs 19%.

Non-hostile deaths have remained fairly constant at 5-10 per month for the entire war. The trend is therefore due a unique indicator of the marked decrease of other threats (nowhere is this more visible than on page 26).

 

[berkeman]

I flew down to NASA Langley in a Piper Arrow today. Outside the office of where I visited was an F-22 flying RIGHT over our building for an air show. IT WAS AWSOME!

A few years ago, my (now) ex-wife worked at NASA/Ames. They used to have an annual air show, with the Blue Angels a regular attraction. NASA employees and their guests (me) were invited to the Friday sighting practice, and so I was standing next to the end of the runway (in the olden days, before liability concerns were over-riding) when the Blue Angels took off in formation. In afterburner.

Holy Mother of God! One of the split FA-18s banked right over us at the end of the runway, in full burner, and pulled vertical. Holy crap! Awesome ear-hammering sound, your whole body getting blasted with sound waves, and so proud of your country and our pilots and troops. Very special moment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

While we were eating lunch on in the quiet solitude of an Oregon forest, on the bank of the McKenzie River [a rafting trip], two F-18s went over low and fast. Time to change the shorts! I about jumped out of my skin!

 

[mheslep]

I would say this is a complicated matter, and probably one which should have waited for the completion of the QDR.

Why? It is not too complicated for Sec. Gates. He's made a decision, its over barring a miracle from Congress.

At the moment, do we need F-22s for engaging in asymmetric warfare? No, we don't. Could we use them to do so? Yes, we could: by configuring the F-22s with internal and external stores of JDAMs and SDBs.

Yes, and that would a grotesque waste of money for something that could be accomplished with another platform for much less.

However, what will we be dealing with in the future? The F15 fleet is aging rapidly and is a 30 year old airframe. Foreign fighters are already surpassing the F-15 and F-16 in capability and are being exported in large numbers. Furthermore, advanced air defense systems are being developed in fielded.

Do you have a source for the 'surpassing' claim? This also misses the point that US pilot training and capabilities, as an overall force, nobody comes close to.

It is a central tenet in US doctrine that we maintain air superiority. The F-22 for the considerable future will allow us to maintain air superiority with much less risk.

The 183 on order, in combination w/ other platforms will more than do that job.

It can also serve as a precision strike aircraft; for this reason the F-117 fleet was retired as the F-22 was more capable in that role.

So can 15's and 16's and 18's for much less money.

Thus, we need to ask ourselves as a country what are priorities are:
How do we value defense as compared with economic stimulus/social spending etc.?
Do we want to focus our capabilities on combating insurgencies at expense of our conventional capabilities?

This is def. contractor flag waving nonsense. The US already spends nearly as much as the http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png" When it gets down 3x China instead of 30x, then we can talk in these terms.

As far as the F-35 goes, is it important? Yes. Can it replace the F-22? Not really. The F-22 and F-35 each fill their own niche: the F-22 as the powerful air dominance fighter and the F-35 as the versatile strike fighter.

True, nor do we need it to.

 

[jhae2.718]

Why? It is not too complicated for Sec. Gates. He's made a decision, its over barring a miracle from Congress.

True...the complicated part comes from trying to predict future trends, which we seem to do poorly, to say the least.

Yes, and that would a grotesque waste of money for something that could be accomplished with another platform for much less.

I would agree; buying F-22s solely as a bomb truck using external stores would be a complete waste of money. But since we already have 183 of them, I see no reason not to use them, if only to recoup on our investment. It can't be that more expensive expensive to deploy the F-22s we already have than F-15s.

Do you have a source for the 'surpassing' claim? This also misses the point that US pilot training and capabilities, as an overall force, nobody comes close to.

As far as the use of the term "surpassing"; perhaps I should have been a little more reserved. One can really only speculate to these measure without having access to data from actual encounters between different aircraft. Aircraft such as the Su-35bm are, most likely, at least as good as the F-15, but the variable of pilot skill is one that is difficult to take into account. I would say that we have one of the best pilot training programs in the world, as well as having the resources to support large numbers of flying hours. As far as other aircraft, the Sukhoi PAK-FA will be interesting to see, if it is indeed unveiled this year as planned, if only to see how the American and Russian aerospace industries approached aircraft design for what is essentially the same role.

The 183 on order, in combination w/ other platforms will more than do that job.
So can 15's and 16's and 18's for much less money.

Currently, I would agree with you. I think, however, that to assume that will be the case for the next few decades would be a risky proposition.

It would be interesting to see how the economics of buying more Raptors compares with that of maintaining and upgrading decades old airframes.

This is def. contractor flag waving nonsense. The US already spends nearly as much as the http://www.globalissues.org/i/military/country-distribution-2007.png" When it gets down 3x China instead of 30x, then we can talk in these terms.

I was not trying to allude to any such meaning; I was just attempting to state that these procurement issues are simply a question of what we think as a nation should be our spending priorities. It would be nice if we could buy F-22s for the same price as F-15s, but thinking that would be unrealistic. This can really be reduced to an exercise in optimization: capability/need vs. cost. I wonder if anyone has applied the knapsack problem to fighter acquisition...

True, nor do we need it to.

The future is probably in UCAVs. Currently, though, we need to maximize our air power, which is one of our greatest advantages, regardless of the platform. If there is a better solution, we should run with it. If not, we should stick to the F-22.

What the problem really comes down to, I would argue, is the increasing cost of aircraft. What the aerospace industry needs to do is determine methodologies to keep a ceiling on costs. As long as aircraft cost several hundred million apiece, or even a billion like the B-2, the numbers purchased will be severely limited, and thus platforms will be flown long after their intended retirement date. One only needs to look at the KC-135, which is now projected as being flown until airframe age reaches 90 years old. Here to arises another problem: the broken acquisitions system at the Pentagon. To see this just look at the KC-X.

Our main priority needs to be to maintain our lead in the aerospace industry, and streamline the process of developing new aircraft to reduce costs and be more competitive. We can't let the defense contractors become so bloated and inefficient as to drive costs up; programs need to be lean and streamlined to maximize capability and minimize cost.

 

[mheslep]

..It would be interesting to see how the economics of buying more Raptors compares with that of maintaining and upgrading decades old airframes.

At 2x to 5x the cost (22/15), I don't think its much of a mystery. The US has successfully maintained the B-52 for 5-6 decades.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2095411&postcount=34

What the problem really comes down to, I would argue, is the increasing cost of aircraft. What the aerospace industry needs to do is determine methodologies to keep a ceiling on costs. As long as aircraft cost several hundred million apiece, or even a billion like the B-2, the numbers purchased will be severely limited, and thus platforms will be flown long after their intended retirement date. One only needs to look at the KC-135, which is now projected as being flown until airframe age reaches 90 years old. Here to arises another problem: the broken acquisitions system at the Pentagon. To see this just look at the KC-X.

Our main priority needs to be to maintain our lead in the aerospace industry, and streamline the process of developing new aircraft to reduce costs and be more competitive. We can't let the defense contractors become so bloated and inefficient as to drive costs up; programs need to be lean and streamlined to maximize capability and minimize cost.

The only way to do that IMO is be firm about killing bloated programs. Contractors get away these prices in part because of the 'risky', 'bad guys are catching up', 'current AF is old can't do it' arguments. IMO opinion these arguments can and should be dismissed for decades to come, otherwise we'll get more gold plated platforms.