but it's really cool ...

oh and we'll miss you hilzoy. hope to see back gracing the internets some day.

It's really cool, but we don't need more. Let Boeing - in fact require Boeing to - retool the lines, and then maybe we'll buy more to fill the ANG slots we have around the country.

After all, they're pretty, they're fast, they have a great design, just some quibbles on parts used that should eventually be replaced over operational lifetime or twenty to fifty years.

No more making the Air Force pay for Congressional graft.

...[S]omehow Senators from some of the many, many states in which Lockheed-Martin's suppliers are located cannot be persuaded to cancel it.

Perhaps hilzoy was slyly alluding to this fact, but I'm told by friends who work for the Federal government that this work is intentionally spread out over a lot of states for precisely this reason.

From here on out there will ALWAYS be tough budget choices. Congress needs to ask two main questions:

1) Can the threats the F-22 protects Americans from be reasonably addressed by other warplanes, missiles and countermeasures; and
2) Are there other security threats more dire & immediate than the threats the F-22 can address that it makes more sense to spend money on them? I'm thinking of cybersecurity, dirty bomb detection, human intel (HUMINT).

F-22s would probably only be used against the Air Forces of USSR, China and North Korea. North Korea's Air Force is no match for older US warplanes. Russia and China have a large stake in stable relations with the US, so is war likely in 25 years? Probably not.

From a purely utilitarian standpoint health insurance, anti-smoking and anti-obesity campaigns would probably save more American lives in the next 25 years than the F-22.

To create high-tech jobs we should look to IT, health, energy, construction & transportation sectors -- make stuff that creates other stuff that generates jobs & economic activity.

Secretary Gates has made his opposition to the F-22 public. He needs to take the conspicuous lead on this & take heat off the Prez.

There is apoint overlooked in this discussion, and i only became aware of it when I took a breat from Sotomoyor and checked out the Senate floor.

Saxby Chamblis, that American Great Patriot, was explaining to the empty chamber that not only was the F-22 vital to the Air National Guard, but we were going to SELL these things on the open market! Stealth technology and all.

Think of what that will do to our balance of payments. . .

Let's see. A bunch of $350,000 airplanes vs. a public option of healthcare. Hmmmmmmm.

I know! Let the Lockheed Martin and the healthcare industry decide!

I do agree that tough questions need to be asked about the necessity of additional F-22s, and if the answer is no then tough action is needed.

But bringing up scare stories such as the stuck canopy 4 years after the incident isn't a good way to go about it IMHO. High-tech weapons are expensive, maintenance-hungry, and exotic by definition; those not involved in their daily use and maintenance can always point to something that seems off ("OMG! $500k/gal PAINT!! OMG!!!). Hard right-wingers can point to similar stories about the French health care system, yet we in the reality-based world still advocate that the US use France and Germany as health care models. Let's stick to the balance of forces, cost/benefit, and total budget arguments.

> Saxby Chamblis, that American Great Patriot,
> was explaining to the empty chamber that not
> only was the F-22 vital to the Air National
> Guard, but we were going to SELL these things
> on the open market! Stealth technology and all.

The proposed buyers being Australia and Japan. If we can't trust those two allies with the F-22 (which would be a de-tuned export version without the extreme stealth BTW) then we are screwed in any conflict where we would need the F-22 anyway (yes, I am aware of the Japanese propeller-making machine story).

Cranky

But spending on the military doesn't count! That's free money!

Feh. The F-22 is junk; it should be junked.

When was the last time the US lost a fighter aircraft in air to air combat? Has an F15, F16, or F/A18 EVER been shot down by an enemy aircraft?

As long as we have superior command and control via AWACS we could fly old F-5's and win.

Heard part of Saxbe-Chamblis's speech this morning. Would that someone would have the nerve to respond with . . .

"Sir, the purpose of the American military is the protection of this country from foreign enemies! It is not a welfare agency, intended to provide makework for companies favored by particular politicians. Lockheed, sir, has a long and glorious history of success in business and in maintaining the defenses of the United States. They have no need to take charity from the American taxpayer to succeed in their endeavors. Unlike the honorable senator, I will not vote to disgrace Lockheed and its workers by reducing them to public parasites, turning out unneeded machinery at great expense, when they could instead be committing their considerable talents and energies to the production of goods of great worth to the economy and the nation."

Once again, to reiterate the last time F22 was in a thread:

* Each F22 can take on 10 F15 and win;
* We have ~650 planes scheduled to be replaced by the F22;
* These older planes are reaching end of life - we would have to buy new planes anyway;
* We should probably only need 100 F22. Getting any more is probably a waste.

So, don't cancel the F22, but don't buy more than we're already scheduled for.

@ chrenson you missed a few zeros Try $350,000,000 each. As said above you could have provided a whole lot of primary care for the price of the program that is approaching 28 Billion dollars

From Wikepedia
In April 2006, the cost of the F-22 was assessed by the Government Accountability Office to be $361 million per aircraft. This cost reflects the F-22 total program cost, divided by the number of fighters the Air Force is programmed to buy; and which has so far invested $28 billion in the Raptor's research, development and testing. That money, referred to as a "sunk cost", is already spent and is separate from money used for future decision-making, including procuring a copy of the jet. The Unit Procurement Cost was estimated at $177.6 million in 2006 based on a production run of 181 airframes.[14] This unit cost will decrease if total production is higher. This cost includes $3.233 billion already spent on research and development by 2006.[15]

By the time all 183 fighters have been purchased, $34 billion will have been spent on actual procurement, resulting in a total program cost of $62 billion or about $339 million per aircraft. The incremental cost for one additional F-22 is around $138 million;[4] decreasing with larger volumes. [11]

I hope you have noticed that a lot of people on the internet don't want you to quit.

It seems like we'd be building better planes if we had less money to spend on them.

Failure only once every 1.7 hours? Sounds like they've incorporated the improved version of Vista. Where do I get my update?

Question for RoyalBlue_tom

Doe's the F-22 have any capabilities that the F-35 does not?

"hand fitted non-interchangeable parts"

How far better our designs are, today, than in the days of early Guadacanal fighting, where Navy mechanics were reduced to cannabalizing parts from various wrecked planes to keep an Avenger or two flying. But, they flew! These F-22s are starting to sound more like the excellent Italian fighters that could not stand the heat of North Africa. At least with the Hurricanes and the Warhawks, you could keep 'em flying. If you can't keep planes in the air, under any conditions, they are worthless, no matter how technically superior they appear. F-15s still keep flying over the Columbia River, valiently, trying to keep those Washington shoppers from heading to sales tax free Oregon. Neither rain, rain, rain, nor occasional sun breaks deter them. Rain curtailing the hours of a F-22? But, Saxby is so much the Solon - No baggy pants, he.

As others above have already pointed out, the F-22 is actually a pretty good plane, although I'd agree you probably don't need more. Don't be fooled by the "man-hours of maintenance" dodge - those numbers always look scary, and regularly include routine maintenance done every time the thing is even run up on the ground, such as thorough inspections for cracks, etc.... The U.S. Air Force is understandably very careful with airframes that may have to be flung about like leaves in the wind, with valuable aircrew inside. If you saw the man-hours of maintenance required for us to keep a Sea King helicopter in the air, considering its laughably advanced age, you'd never set foot in one again.

That said, the F-22 is an air superiority fighter at a time when U.S. air superiority is not really open to question.

But we could probably build some fucking awesome plowshares if we beat F-22s into them...

@berttheclock
Are you aware that boeing is offering a stealth F-15 at 1/3 the cost of the f-22?

http://www.air-attack.com/news/article/3606

Would make more sense to me - a proven platform , in greater numbers

Royalblue_tom: the debate is whether to stop building the F-22 when the original order is completed or to add additional planes. No one is trying to cancel planes already contracted for.

And that, in a nutshell, is why we are where we are today. Too many politicans view the Federal Treasury as a piggy bank to support jobs in their state/district.

C'mon Hilzoy, even your own postings demonstrate that the country's still nuts, and needs your voice. Please don't quit entirely. Think about continuing in a different format/ with a different schedule.

Your work is just too good to stop entirely.

sceptic,

F-22 is an air superiority fighter. It replaces the F-15 (of which we have about 630 active).

F-35 is a multi-role fighter. It replaces the F-16/F-18/A-10/AV-8B (of which we have about 1250 F-16, 640 F-18, 300+ A-10, 120 Harriers). Don't get me started on replacing the A-10 with the F-35.

Th, yes - my view is that we probably don't need additional F-22 over the 183 - in fact, 100 is probably overkill given their massively superior performance. But given the existing procurement efforts, you won't save much money cancelling now. But additional planes? WTF?

Figures from wikipedia, include all services and ANG. Summary (not including ANG here):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_active_United_States_military_aircraft

Thanks, John R. My hand got tired typing all those zeros.

Hilzoy, after you take a break for a while, please consider doing at least one post - or maybe more of a longform column - per week. Or per month, whatever.

There still arent nearly enough sane people within mainstream political discourse. We need sane, thoughful outsiders doing what they can to penetrate and shape the dreaded conventional wisdom.

Jobs are all very nice, but they are not equal. A job that produces something that doesn't have any payback (a weapons system, especially one never used, for example) is not nearly as good a use of scarce resources as a job that has some utilitarian value. A job similar to making these planes that pays back would be something like making medical instrumentation or making windmills for electrical generation. It makes a lot more sense to invest in something useful because the investment eventually gets paid back so there is no net cost. These fancy-pancy weapons systems, and the F-22 is just one of many, that just don't work the way they should are never going to pay back the billions of dollars invested in them so they are a net LOSS of lots of money.

Lockheed is emerging as an entire public policy problem in itself.

--The company has grown to the point that it is nearly indispensable to the functioning of the government. There are many projects Lockheed is involved with that are so bulky it is very difficult to propose any alternative to this company.

--By virtue of Lockheed's adroit dispersal of contracts, it holds enormous sway over a majority of the nation's legislators.

--Lockheed has become a factory for inventing new technology "requirements" for the government which only it can supply.

--Lockheed has invaded nearly all branches of government, making them dependent on it for continued operations.

--Lockheed has an amazing track record of spectacular failures for which it manages to have taxpayers foot the bill. Because of Lockheed's size and seemingly indispensable nature, there is no commensurate penalty available; Lockheed cannot be dialed out of the contract pipeline based on its history of failure because there is no known substitute for this company.

One of these days, unless Lockheed collapses of its own size and consequent unmanageability, we're going to have to figure out how to "fix" our relationship with this company.

This is a brand new aircraft on the leading edge of technology. Of course its going to have a few teething problems at first the same way the F-15 did when it was first brought online. If Obama wants to limit the numbers as a cost saving measure...fine, but do not cancel the program outright. the plane is needed. I would rather have them sitting in storage if and when the time comes to use them rather than having nothing at all. All these idiots who say the plane is a money pit dont know what the hell they are talking about. Its a stepping stone, an experiment. And I think it succeeded.

Besides...dont you think its replacement is already on the drawing boards,...think along the lines of Terminator as to what it may be like.

Oh, if we are selling this to terrorist nations than I am all for more f-22s. If we can get our enemies to start adopting our money pits we might actually win. Think of what getting North Korea to spend $44,000 every time they launch a fighter would do to their ability to kill people.

f-22 is irrelevant :
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22The+airplane+is+irrelevant+to+both,+and+were+it+to+appear+in+those+skies,+it+almost+certainly+would+set+U.S.+and+allied+forces+back%22&num=100&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-SearchBox&rlz=1I7ACAW_en&filter=0

criticisM of f-22 :
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&um=1&c2coff=1&safe=active&scoring=d&ie=UTF-8&q=%2Bsprey+f22&filter=0&sa=N

The F-22 Raptor is said to be invisible...until it isn't :
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197&stoplayout=true&print=true

f-22 shot down :
http://blogsearch.google.com/blogsearch?hl=en&num=100&oe=UTF-8&um=1&c2coff=1&safe=active&scoring=d&ie=UTF-8&q=f22+%22shot+down+by%22+-117

f-22 articles with comments and replies :
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/f22/index?more=5721794

f-22 shot down by t-38 :
http://defensetech.org/2009/04/20/trainer-shoots-down-f-22-or-what/

f-22 articles with comments and replies :
http://defensetech.org/category/raptor-watch/