News Is the F-22 Raptor Worth the Cost Amid Modern Military Challenges?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ivan Seeking
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The F-22 Raptor program faces criticism for its high costs and perceived irrelevance in current conflicts, as it has not been deployed in Iraq or Afghanistan. Despite this, it has strong congressional support due to its economic impact across 44 states, with taxpayers investing $66 billion for 183 aircraft. President Obama must decide soon whether to continue production or phase it out, a decision seen as a test of his fiscal resolve. Critics argue that the U.S. should prioritize spending on more practical military needs, like drones, rather than expensive air superiority fighters, especially given the changing nature of warfare. The discussion highlights concerns over the military-industrial complex and the need for a balanced approach to defense spending.
  • #61
F-22 crashes in California desert near air base
31 minutes ago

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, Calif. (AP) — The Air Force says an F-22 fighter has crashed near Edwards Air Force Base in the high desert of Southern California...
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmfwSyhmPuqX414lfoKORbnZN9sAD9757L8O0
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Ivan Seeking said:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hmfwSyhmPuqX414lfoKORbnZN9sAD9757L8O0

Dddd-oooooh
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
Cyrus said:
Dddd-oooooh

Re: F-22 Raptor: Do we need more?

At least one.
 
  • #64
Today, on ABC's This Week, Paul Krugman made the observation that the same Republicans who opposed the stimulus package on the grounds that government spending won't create jobs, and some Democrats as well, are objecting to halting continued production of the F22... because it will cost jobs.

Weapons as welfare. Never mind that we see a net jobs gain because of increased production of the F-35s, under Gate's plan.

It is claimed by panel members on This Week that their are, by design, 46 States involved in producing parts for the F22s. This helps to insure that discontinued production of the F22 will affect as many Congressional districts as possible.
http://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7317451
 
Last edited:
  • #65
All politics is local: regardless of what politicians say about national strategy, when it comes to money being spent in their district, they all want it. Yes, that means that Republican politicians are often hypocritical on this issue, while democratic ones are not. Democratic politicians always want spending and pork - Republican ones only want it in their district.
 
  • #66
Nearly every heavy industrial factory (foundries, specialty machine shops, electrical, specialty metals) in W. PA is involved in either some type of military or automotive component manufacturing.

Auto related production has already dropped, significant cuts in defense spending could have a major (Regional) impact on the economies of PA, OH, W VA, MD, and NJ.
 
  • #67
There is a Pratt-Whitney plant in North Berwick, Maine, that produces engine parts for the Raptor, and industry flacks are already complaining about how 250 out of 1400 jobs might be threatened, as if producing engines for a particular airplane was a zero-sum game. That's a small division of a very large company, and they have 2 years or so to make the transition to other products. Still, they're turning up the heat as if disaster was imminent. Predictably, politicians are falling all over themselves to "support the jobs".

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090215/GJNEWS_01/702159893
 
  • #68
lf the US didn't take it upon itself to police the globe, we wouldn't need to spend so much on the military.

Notice I didn't say "national defense," because nowadays the military is used for international offense. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, gulf war one, gulf war two... And I've probably missed some in there.

We need to stop kicking the crap out of 3rd world countries who are no threat to us.
 
  • #69
Jack21222 said:
lf the US didn't take it upon itself to police the globe, we wouldn't need to spend so much on the military.

Notice I didn't say "national defense," because nowadays the military is used for international offense. Look at Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia, Bosnia, gulf war one, gulf war two... And I've probably missed some in there.

We need to stop kicking the crap out of 3rd world countries who are no threat to us.
Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.
 
  • #70
mheslep said:
Ugh. I'm so tired of this big bad US bully line.

Didn't the "Obama Apology Tour" cover this?
 
  • #71
mheslep said:
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."
 
  • #72
Jack21222 said:
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?
 
  • #73
mheslep said:
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.
 
  • #74
What does this have to do with the F-22?
 
  • #75
Cyrus said:
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.
 
  • #76
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
WhoWee said:
If we let our defenses down...and/or lose our military superiority...we will be attacked.

[citation needed]
 
  • #78
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...
 
  • #79
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."
 
  • #80
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #81
Will an F-22 protect us from these people? I don't know.
 
  • #82
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #83
Cyrus said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #85
Topher925 said:
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)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
WhoWee said:
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:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
WhoWee said:
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
 
  • #88
Jack21222 said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #89
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.
 
  • #90
WhoWee said:
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. :rolleyes:

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

Similar threads

News Is the war in Iraq worth the costs?
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
News Bush Administration: My Indictment
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K