| Author |
Message |
|
07763
|
 Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 06:51 PM
|
 
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2009 - 01:52 AM
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
|
| Just curious if they are still getting the 187 planned jets. |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
Sponsor
|
 Posted: May 20, 2013 - 8:22 AM
|
|
|
F-16.net Sponsor
|
|
|
|
|
|
lampshade111
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 07:08 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Sep 22, 2008 - 03:17 AM
Posts: 191
Status: Offline
|
| Yeah, but it still isn't enough... stupid politicians... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07763
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 07:17 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2009 - 01:52 AM
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
|
|
lampshade111 wrote:
Yeah, but it still isn't enough... stupid politicians...
I agree, the government is over ran by left wing nut jobs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wrightwing
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 07:20 PM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Oct 23, 2008 - 04:22 PM
Posts: 2021
Status: Offline
|
| Well technically, there'll be 186 jets, since one crashed. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
sextusempiricus
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 07:27 PM
|
|
|
Banned
Joined: Aug 17, 2009 - 06:26 AM
Posts: 266
Location: Mexico City, Mexico
Status: Offline
|
|
07763 wrote:
lampshade111 wrote:
Yeah, but it still isn't enough... stupid politicians...
I agree, the government is over ran by left wing nut jobs.
Oh, really? Interesting that it was during the Bush administration that production was capped at 183, that Rumsfeld wanted the program ended, and that Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, did as well. Yep, left-wing nutjobs for sure...  |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Elliboom
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 09:10 PM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Apr 05, 2006 - 07:21 PM
Posts: 426
Location: Lincoln, NE
Status: Offline
|
| I hate to throw a wet blanket on this fire, but I actually think 187 is enough. Face it right now we cannot afford as many F-22's as the fighter jocks want. If we go ahead and purchase more than 187 F-22's it will be at the expense of other defense programs that are just as important, if not more important than another 60-100 F-22's. Programs such as the KC-X tanker replacement, or buying more C-17's is way more pressing than additional F-22's. Fighters are fast and pretty, but their cost is bankrupting the defense procurment budget right now. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07763
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 09:11 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2009 - 01:52 AM
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
|
|
wrightwing wrote:
Well technically, there'll be 186 jets, since one crashed.
I thought they are replacing that one. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07763
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 09:12 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2009 - 01:52 AM
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
|
|
sextusempiricus wrote:
07763 wrote:
lampshade111 wrote:
Yeah, but it still isn't enough... stupid politicians...
I agree, the government is over ran by left wing nut jobs.
Oh, really? Interesting that it was during the Bush administration that production was capped at 183, that Rumsfeld wanted the program ended, and that Gates, a holdover from the Bush administration, did as well. Yep, left-wing nutjobs for sure...
The right wing bible thumpers are just as bad if not worse so don't be thinking that I'm one of them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
em745
|
|
Posted: Nov 23, 2009 - 09:39 PM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Oct 18, 2007 - 09:28 AM
Posts: 131
Status: Offline
|
|
Elliboom wrote:
I hate to throw a wet blanket on this fire, but I actually think 187 is enough.
187 is a laughably insufficient amount when you factor in normal attrition over the course of 25-30 years.
Elliboom wrote:
Face it right now we cannot afford as many F-22's as the fighter jocks want.
Oh, I dunno... Seems to me that the US has PLENTY of taxpayer money to throw around.
What's the current "bailout" tab (TARP) again? ~$700 billion? ~$800 billion? (Never mind the Trillions that have been pledged for future bailouts.)
Doubling the order of F-22's would've amounted to a paltry fraction of that bailout tab.
Think about it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beazz
|
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 12:45 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Sep 15, 2007 - 08:19 PM
Posts: 465
Status: Offline
|
|
em745 wrote:
Elliboom wrote:
I hate to throw a wet blanket on this fire, but I actually think 187 is enough.
187 is a laughably insufficient amount when you factor in normal attrition over the course of 25-30 years.
Elliboom wrote:
Face it right now we cannot afford as many F-22's as the fighter jocks want.
Oh, I dunno... Seems to me that the US has PLENTY of taxpayer money to throw around.
What's the current "bailout" tab (TARP) again? ~$700 billion? ~$800 billion? (Never mind the Trillions that have been pledged for future bailouts.)
Doubling the order of F-22's would've amounted to a paltry fraction of that bailout tab.
Think about it.
Throw in the 1.5 trillion for this Obamacare fiasco and I see enough cash for 500 more Raptors with ALL upgrades that can be thought of, 500 tankers, 2500 JSF,s 10,000 trucks for the Army, another 300 bill for the Army for good measure to be spent as they see fit, double the Seawolf production, double the aircraft carrier production to 1 every 2.5 years, 250 bill for the Navy for as they see fit, 250 bil for the USMC as they see fit and still have money left over to literally fund the entire next generation of weapons for all branches of the military.  ) And when it's all done being spent, we will actually have something we can touch and use!! Rather then just simply flushed down some toilet somewhere. Dang that felt good )
Beazz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
07763
|
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 01:02 AM
|
|
|
Active Member
Joined: Apr 14, 2009 - 01:52 AM
Posts: 106
Status: Offline
|
|
Beazz wrote:
em745 wrote:
Elliboom wrote:
I hate to throw a wet blanket on this fire, but I actually think 187 is enough.
187 is a laughably insufficient amount when you factor in normal attrition over the course of 25-30 years.
Elliboom wrote:
Face it right now we cannot afford as many F-22's as the fighter jocks want.
Oh, I dunno... Seems to me that the US has PLENTY of taxpayer money to throw around.
What's the current "bailout" tab (TARP) again? ~$700 billion? ~$800 billion? (Never mind the Trillions that have been pledged for future bailouts.)
Doubling the order of F-22's would've amounted to a paltry fraction of that bailout tab.
Think about it.
Throw in the 1.5 trillion for this Obamacare fiasco and I see enough cash for 500 more Raptors with ALL upgrades that can be thought of, 500 tankers, 2500 JSF,s 10,000 trucks for the Army, another 300 bill for the Army for good measure to be spent as they see fit, double the Seawolf production, double the aircraft carrier production to 1 every 2.5 years, 250 bill for the Navy for as they see fit, 250 bil for the USMC as they see fit and still have money left over to literally fund the entire next generation of weapons for all branches of the military. ) And when it's all done being spent, we will actually have something we can touch and use!! Rather then just simply flushed down some toilet somewhere. Dang that felt good )
Beazz
Too bad people don't want to spend it on that. people have a very small mind. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Beazz
|
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 01:20 AM
|
|
|
Senior member
Joined: Sep 15, 2007 - 08:19 PM
Posts: 465
Status: Offline
|
|
07763 wrote:
Beazz wrote:
em745 wrote:
Elliboom wrote:
I hate to throw a wet blanket on this fire, but I actually think 187 is enough.
187 is a laughably insufficient amount when you factor in normal attrition over the course of 25-30 years.
Elliboom wrote:
Face it right now we cannot afford as many F-22's as the fighter jocks want.
Oh, I dunno... Seems to me that the US has PLENTY of taxpayer money to throw around.
What's the current "bailout" tab (TARP) again? ~$700 billion? ~$800 billion? (Never mind the Trillions that have been pledged for future bailouts.)
Doubling the order of F-22's would've amounted to a paltry fraction of that bailout tab.
Think about it.
Throw in the 1.5 trillion for this Obamacare fiasco and I see enough cash for 500 more Raptors with ALL upgrades that can be thought of, 500 tankers, 2500 JSF,s 10,000 trucks for the Army, another 300 bill for the Army for good measure to be spent as they see fit, double the Seawolf production, double the aircraft carrier production to 1 every 2.5 years, 250 bill for the Navy for as they see fit, 250 bil for the USMC as they see fit and still have money left over to literally fund the entire next generation of weapons for all branches of the military. ) And when it's all done being spent, we will actually have something we can touch and use!! Rather then just simply flushed down some toilet somewhere. Dang that felt good )
Beazz
Too bad people don't want to spend it on that. people have a very small mind.
Yea and I think I need to revise my list. With all the money we actually have we should turn out a new aircraft every year until we have a fleet of 13. Six billion a year for a carrier is chump change compared to the near 3 trillion we actually have.  )
Beazz |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gosmack
|
|
Posted: Nov 24, 2009 - 03:43 AM
|
|
|
Enthusiast
Joined: Mar 29, 2009 - 06:41 PM
Posts: 62
Location: Sioux City, IA
Status: Offline
|
|
wrightwing wrote:
Well technically, there'll be 186 jets, since one crashed.
Well....185 now. Since they are giving me one.
JK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ledblimp
|
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 - 05:14 AM
|
|
|
Newbie
Joined: Nov 04, 2009 - 05:56 PM
Posts: 6
Status: Offline
|
| Actually, Ship 008 crashed at Eddies, Ship 014 at Nellis ( I got to see that one actually) so two down there. Ships 001 through 005 have been retired already ( as I understand it they're still using one for static test though) and 006, 007 & 009 are being used for test only at Eddies so 8 more down and one more ship here in Marietta will be replacing 008 at some point for a total of [Link pending approval] as far as combat aircraft goes that puts us down to 176. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
geogen
|
|
Posted: Nov 25, 2009 - 06:43 AM
|
|
|
Elite 2K
Joined: Mar 11, 2008 - 03:28 PM
Posts: 2804
Location: 45 km offshore, New England
Status: Offline
|
Apparently 124 +/- F-22s are Primary combat aircraft? About 85 jets in fleet are apparently block 35 capable (the actually conceived 5th gen capability, originally envisioned for long-term superiority). The program was never intended nor designed to be killed at 187 (i.e. 85), as it's not a very sustainable long-term hedge/deterrence given increasingly unpredictable variables security-wise. At best, it's a *finger-crosser* fleet size.
Ironically, if JSF F-35 Program was killed at 187 procured units, said total Program costs would be higher per unit, than the F-22. Kinda puts things in perspective..  |
_________________
The Super-Viper has not yet begun to concede.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Search
Register
Private Messages
Forum Guidelines
