Comments on: The F-22: Cheaper Jobs Than the Stimulus, and Military Improvement to Boot http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/ Harangues that just make sense Sat, 20 Mar 2010 19:31:47 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Quote of the Day « Something should go here, maybe later. http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-458063 Quote of the Day « Something should go here, maybe later. Fri, 13 Feb 2009 04:05:37 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-458063 [...] against this thing working is about as sure a deal as you can get - it’s plain wrong, wrong. So we have a stimulus bill that will cost over $800 billion, and will allegedly save up to 4 [...] [...] against this thing working is about as sure a deal as you can get – it’s plain wrong, wrong. So we have a stimulus bill that will cost over $800 billion, and will allegedly save up to 4 [...]

]]> By: SPQR http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457831 SPQR Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:19:37 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457831 That's all fine, Mike, until someone jams their radio links. That’s all fine, Mike, until someone jams their radio links.

]]> By: Rich Rostrom http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457827 Rich Rostrom Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:11:42 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457827 The F-22 has capacities which make it far superior to the F-15 and F-16. It can <i>easily</i> win air battles that would be chancy for the older planes. Four F-22s can execute missions that would require eight to 16 F-16s. If we're going to spend hundreds of billion$, we might as well spend some of it making sure our pilots live, and the other poor dumb bastard dies for <i>his</i> country. The F-22 has capacities which make it far superior to the F-15 and F-16. It can easily win air battles that would be chancy for the older planes. Four F-22s can execute missions that would require eight to 16 F-16s.

If we’re going to spend hundreds of billion$, we might as well spend some of it making sure our pilots live, and the other poor dumb bastard dies for his country.

]]> By: Wesson http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457292 Wesson Thu, 12 Feb 2009 04:04:14 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457292 I sort of need to retract my previous comment. I sound like a retard for opposing the hyperexpensive F-22 when even more ridiculous spending projects are being approved this week. Whatever. It's not my problem. As a nation, we really need to get our spending priorities straight. Spending unlimited cash on everything is not sustainable. I sort of need to retract my previous comment. I sound like a retard for opposing the hyperexpensive F-22 when even more ridiculous spending projects are being approved this week. Whatever. It’s not my problem. As a nation, we really need to get our spending priorities straight. Spending unlimited cash on everything is not sustainable.

]]> By: Wesson http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457281 Wesson Thu, 12 Feb 2009 03:57:33 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457281 F-22 is a stupid project and needs to be canceled. The bottom line is the US can't afford to spend that much money on single sorties. The political equation requires a nearly infinite cost to save the life of a single pilot. Okay, we get that. But $100 million is Way Too Much to pay for an airplane, when much less can be spent to manufacture an unmanned craft to accomplish the same mission. F-22 is certainly the best fighter aircraft ever, for the most physically awesome pilots ever, but come on. One lucky $2 bullet can take these things down. F-22 is a stupid project and needs to be canceled. The bottom line is the US can’t afford to spend that much money on single sorties. The political equation requires a nearly infinite cost to save the life of a single pilot. Okay, we get that. But $100 million is Way Too Much to pay for an airplane, when much less can be spent to manufacture an unmanned craft to accomplish the same mission.

F-22 is certainly the best fighter aircraft ever, for the most physically awesome pilots ever, but come on. One lucky $2 bullet can take these things down.

]]> By: MIke K http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457131 MIke K Wed, 11 Feb 2009 23:00:01 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457131 The F 22 actually has a flight envelope that exceeds a human pilot's tolerance for G force. It might end up as a UAV anyway. Right now, it has been "detuned" in performance so the pilot doesn't kill himself with pulling too many Gs. I'm sure it is the last manned fighter. You could build those Grumman 62-foot-wingspan fighters for a fraction and lose a few if they weren't quite stealthy enough. There are Air Force colonels flying Global Hawk UAVs in Afghanistan from Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson. They go to work for a 12 hour shift sitting at a console. It's not as much fun as zipping around the sky in an F 15 but it sure is nice for the family when you come home after your shift. And you don't have that long flight from a carrier 600 miles away going in and out. The F 22 actually has a flight envelope that exceeds a human pilot’s tolerance for G force. It might end up as a UAV anyway. Right now, it has been “detuned” in performance so the pilot doesn’t kill himself with pulling too many Gs. I’m sure it is the last manned fighter. You could build those Grumman 62-foot-wingspan fighters for a fraction and lose a few if they weren’t quite stealthy enough.

There are Air Force colonels flying Global Hawk UAVs in Afghanistan from Davis-Monthan AFB in Tucson. They go to work for a 12 hour shift sitting at a console. It’s not as much fun as zipping around the sky in an F 15 but it sure is nice for the family when you come home after your shift. And you don’t have that long flight from a carrier 600 miles away going in and out.

]]> By: EdWood http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457120 EdWood Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:41:37 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457120 isnt the f22 supposed to be sort of a finicky prima donna plane anyway? Can we not buy them but give them a less money to develop a better one? isnt the f22 supposed to be sort of a finicky prima donna plane anyway? Can we not buy them but give them a less money to develop a better one?

]]> By: Patterico’s Pontifications » The F-22: Cheaper Jobs Than the … | www.fairs.ca http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457117 Patterico’s Pontifications » The F-22: Cheaper Jobs Than the … | www.fairs.ca Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:34:01 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457117 [...] the original post: Patterico’s Pontifications » The F-22: Cheaper Jobs Than the ... Share and [...] [...] the original post: Patterico’s Pontifications » The F-22: Cheaper Jobs Than the … Share and [...]

]]> By: MIke K http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-457104 MIke K Wed, 11 Feb 2009 22:16:30 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-457104 I don't think the F 22 is a good use of defense spending. I used to work for a defense contractor many years ago (when McCain's A4D was built) and know a bit about the way things go. We need a major program to replace equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan as much of it is worn out or soon will be. Those jobs would be just as good as the Lockheed jobs. If you want to see the shape of aircraft for the future, <a href="http://abriefhistory.org/?p=632" rel="nofollow"> look at this</a>. By the way, if anyone wants to know why Obama wants the census in the White House, <a href="http://www.quasiblog.com/2009/02/commerce-dead-end-or-center-of-the-universe.html" rel="nofollow"> he knows what he's doing</a>. It's not coincidence. I don’t think the F 22 is a good use of defense spending. I used to work for a defense contractor many years ago (when McCain’s A4D was built) and know a bit about the way things go. We need a major program to replace equipment used in Iraq and Afghanistan as much of it is worn out or soon will be. Those jobs would be just as good as the Lockheed jobs.

If you want to see the shape of aircraft for the future, look at this.

By the way, if anyone wants to know why Obama wants the census in the White House, he knows what he’s doing. It’s not coincidence.

]]> By: Steverino http://patterico.com/2009/02/10/the-f-22-cheaper-jobs-than-the-stimulus-and-military-improvement-to-boot/comment-page-1/#comment-456961 Steverino Wed, 11 Feb 2009 17:57:13 +0000 http://patterico.com/?p=22031#comment-456961 Yes, only government...which has been voted in by consumers...who can't be trusted :) The more I think about it, this plan of mine isn't too bad as far as lousy ideas go. Aside from helping out real consumers, it also lets banks shed $800 billion in bad loans, stabilizing both the banks and consumers in one fell swoop. Add a provision that the borrowers who benefit from this bill are not allowed to borrow against their property ever again, and you prevent consumers the untrustworthy consumers from repeating this proplem in the future. Let's get the Republicans behind this: the great taxpayer bailout of 2009. Yes, only government…which has been voted in by consumers…who can’t be trusted :)

The more I think about it, this plan of mine isn’t too bad as far as lousy ideas go. Aside from helping out real consumers, it also lets banks shed $800 billion in bad loans, stabilizing both the banks and consumers in one fell swoop.

Add a provision that the borrowers who benefit from this bill are not allowed to borrow against their property ever again, and you prevent consumers the untrustworthy consumers from repeating this proplem in the future.

Let’s get the Republicans behind this: the great taxpayer bailout of 2009.

]]>