ClearedHot

I was not suggesting we were going to purchase 700 (the actual original proposal was 750), I said that was the basis point for the cost when it was first proposed. That decision led to the enormous cost we see today. Actually the administration is quietly suggesting the USAF will get 60 additional F-22's, the President's tune changed when he got "The Brief". Look for movement on the F-22 decision this week, there is a looming decision ($90 Million to continue you the line), that must be decided....like today!

Shack!

Argh...you must all be 12. 700 was the the original buy when were still in the Cold War and the F-22 was called the ATF. The project was supposed to be a 1:1 replacement for the F-15. Regardless, that is what the original cost basis was planned on. If you want to use WOW figures go look at how many divisions and M-1's the Army planned on keeping at that point in time. Funny, I don;t recall an M-1 A2 ever being attacked by an enemy Air Force...

Yes...$350 Million each is based on a buy of 183 and all the sunk costs that have already been incurred. Every new F-22 purchased from now on will cost approximately $140 Million each. Had we completed the originally planned buy of 700+ the the total cost per plane would have been about 12% more than the F-15 in inflation adjusted dollars.

I am not willing to bet...

The "goal" is to have all "combat" forces out of Iraq by the third quarter of 2010...Anything strike you as funny about that statement? Assuming it to be fact, who do you think is going to stay behind and provide the fires portion. The USAF was raped by Clinton and Bush I gets a lot of the blame for creating the scenario. We flew OSW and ONW for 12 years...while the other services enjoyed the peace. Those operations used up 30-40 years of service life on our F-15's, F-16's, Tankers...etc. My prediction is another period of the Air Force carrying the load, without the credit, or more importantly, the funding.

Again slight of hand and typical of your nonsense...war costs are rolled in and they refuse toe tell us the amounts...real transparent. Make you a deal, when the FY10 inflation numbers post, you come back and eat crow followed by a life-time ban.

Just 46 years of history...

An increase less than inflation = a decrease.

Please tell me this is rhetoric... Carter???? He nearly destroyed the U.S. Military and he knew it. Carter himself discovered the consequences of those military cutbacks during the defining moment of his term--the Iran Hostage Crisis. When he asked how many B-52s the Air Force could muster for a strike against Iranian targets, Carter was told "four," and only if the necessary number of KC-135 tankers (for in-flight refueling) were available. Needless to say plans for a long-range strike against Iran were quickly scrubbed. Recent Democratic Presidents have an abysmal record with the military and national security. Both parties can certainly share blame for the 911 attacks, but under Clinton our national intelligence system was gutted, just like Carter did to the military. Carter and Clinton will not get love from me. You mean like how you are distorting the facts??? You mysteriously left out the next line in your quote, so met me help you give a truthful answer... The budget request includes 533.7 billion dollars for the main defense budget, which marks an increase of four percent over the main budget for fiscal 2009. Some war costs were shifted to the main defense budget, Pentagon officials said, but did not offer further details. The defense budget will grow at 4.0%, however, some of the war costs are now rolled into the budget (funny the transparency doctrine does not apply to how much is rolled into)....meaning goodbye supplementals. Take out the war costs and the military is in serious trouble...our equipment is worn out...and we will get less to replace it.

Funny...of all the countries you mention with smaller defense budgets....they are ALL against us, they ALL seek to undermine our influence, and they ALL work together to disrupt our forces, networks, technology.

Yes....and they always consider waivers...

When my old man gave up command of a squadron they gave him a travel pod converted into a working wet bar.

After only two posts you have figured out my background and how the world works? How about I had seven OSW/ONW deployments, a wonderful 120 day trip to Bosnia, as well as 2 X 120 deployments to Korea before there ever was a thought of OEF or OIF. Oh and guess what Einstein, I’ve done the OEF gig as well, from the start…shocking huh. All told, I bet I have more time deployed than you do in the USAF. You don’t like the “poop”, then don’t read it you fucking crybaby. Edit...forgot to at the wonderful vacation in Somalia.

At least herc guys put the gear down when landing in a hole.

I can't, the date is absolute bullshit...the market did not decline until early 2007 and some of us bought a bit later in 2006.

Yeah the Lockheed engineers decide all the UPT drops for the next 10 years...WTF?

Too late, Clinton killed them with NAFTA years ago. My parents are farmers and NAFTA put them out of business. Open and free markets are great buzz words and sound like a great idea to bring cheap goods to everyone, HOWEVER the dirty little secret is that our competitors are not bound by the same environmental, OSHA, or work standards that we are. In the farming area they use chemicals like ethyl bromide which is now severely restricted in the U.S., farm workers in countries like Mexico have zero protection standards which allows Mexican companies to pay them obscenely low wages. Who cares as long as we get cheap produce right….oh wait, that cheap stuff comes with salmonella and a host of chemicals that are just wonderful for the American food supply. The truly ludicrous part of the projected 10% cut is that it will appeal to the masses…those darn defense companies are the evil empire led by people like Cheney who fought a war to make profits…absolute hogwash. The major defense contractors are publicly held companies, when they make a profit that is shared with investors…ANYONE can share the profits by investing via the stock market. Defense contactors are also one of the few areas for high tech or high skill workers in this country today. The so called stimulus program will not create long-term silled worker jobs (exception on the green enegry side perhaps - but that item may be removed), instead we will fund social programs which are not the solution. We are destroying the middle class by outsourcing everything and cutting defense will just make it worse.

Typical FSU stud...

I think he is going to need Billie Baroo!

You do NOT know our capabiliies. Stealth is not the only advantage the F-22 has. I would also venture to guess the only time you have seen the inside of an airplane was as a passenger.

Well played sir...

Cave, if you do not understand a response of Pearl Harbor to the question of why we need this plane and why we need to be prepared, then I can not help you and quite frankly, you have no business posting here. The Numbers... Cave....I know the numbers, you obviously do not. Quoting open source numbers; The United States Air Force originally planned to order 750 ATFs, with production beginning in 1994; however, the 1990 Major Aircraft Review altered the plan to 648 aircraft beginning in 1996. The goal changed again in 1994, when it became 442 aircraft entering service in 2003 or 2004, but a 1997 Department of Defense report put the purchase at 339. In 2003, the Air Force said that the existing congressional cost cap limited the purchase to 277. By 2006, the Pentagon said it will buy 183 aircraft, which would save $15 billion but raise the cost of each aircraft, and this plan has been de facto approved by Congress in the form of a multi-year procurement plan, which still holds open the possibility for new orders past that point. The total cost of the program by 2006 was $62 billion. In August 2007, the United States Air Force signed a $5 billion, multi-year contract with Lockheed Martin that will extend production to 2011, and as of 2008, F-22 Raptors are being procured at the rate of 20 per year. In a ceremony on 29 August 2007, Lockheed Martin reached its "100th F-22 Raptor" milestone, delivering AF Serial No. 05-4100 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; decreasing with larger volumes. If the Air Force were to buy 100 more F-22s today, the cost of each one would be less and would continue to drop with additional aircraft purchases 183 is a ludicrous number driven by politics and political staffers who do not understand Air Dominance. I do not argue the monetary issues of this program (or other expensive programs), but some things are absolutely must haves if we intent to remain a free nation. I would argue we need to find outside the box ways of paying for things we must have. There are ways to make this happen without breaking the bank.