Good News! The F-35 Is Two Years Behind Schedule

You remember the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, don't you? It's the plane that is so awesome and just around the corner that we can stop "wasting" money on that "outdated' F-22 Raptor.

Except...it's not going to be ready on time and no, the Obama administration didn't want to talk about that before killing the Raptor this week.

Now, senators and aides are lamenting that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate and are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently oversee the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program, is at odds with the fighter’s Joint Program Office, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production mode until 2016, rather than 2014 as the program office has said. That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion.

The most transparent administration ever strikes again. But hey, everyone will be invited to the roll out of the JSF in a few years so that about covers it, right?

Until then, we can just stick some more duct tape and chewing gum on those F-15's and everything will be fine.

Via Michael Goldfarb

Posted by: DrewM. at 05:02 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Mission Stupidity ACCOMPLISHED

Posted by: flooflyparisparamus at July 23, 2009 05:04 PM (NPtVh)

2 I have like 4 more Cairo speeches in the works. It'll get us by in the mean time.

Posted by: President Obama at July 23, 2009 05:05 PM (IhQuA)

3 OT, but delish.

Obama's presser had dismal ratings.

http://tinyurl.com/n8xd9g

Posted by: loppyd at July 23, 2009 05:07 PM (UJIeT)

4
Glenn Beck is, as usual, right on target with his analysis.

Beck understands, as most of here do, that, for Obama, it's all about social justice.

Posted by: Tweets at July 23, 2009 05:09 PM (cg0nc)

5 3 OT, but delish.Obama's presser had dismal ratings.http://tinyurl.com/n8xd9g
Posted by: loppyd at July 23, 2009 05:07 PM (UJIeT
Kind of a double edged sword because if more people watched it, it could have hurt him even more.

Posted by: buzzion at July 23, 2009 05:12 PM (Lrsi6)

6 I don't have all the facts on this story and haven't even read the post, so I feel I'm qualified to comment. The F-35 is a stupid plane and should not be built. It's also racist.

Posted by: F-22 at July 23, 2009 05:12 PM (UkL5l)

7 Well, well, well. I believe a certain Poonster or Pallid Squeal were touting the great intellect of our Commander in Chief. You would think that he would have known this fact before he signed off on the cancellation of the F-22. Oh wait, he probably did know that, and yes, he is doing a bang up job of destroying America by dismantling our military.

Posted by: runningrn at July 23, 2009 05:13 PM (D2il9)

8 Just a lack of understanding by Obama of how the real world works. He is just a dummy.

Posted by: Dick_Nixon at July 23, 2009 05:13 PM (kaOJx)

9 make congress fly the same aged planes as the US air force pilots

Posted by: quite googleable at July 23, 2009 05:15 PM (EiH7n)

10 "...and everything will be fine."

No Drew, we're going to be attacked by a nation with an advanced airforce that our current planes cannot repel. We're all fucking doomed.

Good lord, you guys are hysterical ninnies. How do you sleep at night?

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 05:15 PM (H5l9d)

11 "You remember the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, don't you? It's the plane that is so awesome and just around the corner that we can stop "wasting" money on that "outdated' F-22 Raptor."

Well, that and the fact that the F-22 is a modern air superiority fighter, not a multi-role fighter-bomber, and the F-22 would still knock new F-35s out of the sky at a better than 15:1 ratio.

Also, the Russians and Chinese have new fighters that can play havoc with F-15s and F-16s and can easily compete with F-35s.

Posted by: Christoph at July 23, 2009 05:15 PM (uYL8F)

12 Loppyd, it would appear that the public is experiencing Obama fatigue. I know I for one am tired of hearing his condescending voice, done withlistening to his arrogantlecturingand sick of his constant presence in the print media as well as on tv. I also believe his audience was comprised of his koolaid drinking Obamatrons and bloggers/commenters who were live blogging the train wreck.

Posted by: runningrn at July 23, 2009 05:16 PM (D2il9)

13 It matters not my dearhearts.

By 2014 all the world will come together as one gigantic drum circle. We will have no divisions or conflicts that require war machines of any kind.

There will be peace and drumming all day and all night. And some hacky-sack too. Yeah, and some herbal medicine IYKWIMAITYD.

So RELAX. Nothing bad ever happened to those who put down their weapons. Never. See?

Posted by: The Unbelievable Lightness of Being a Leftist at July 23, 2009 05:16 PM (kIjlp)

14 My mistake, I meant to say "...that our current planes (including the 141 Raptors we already have) cannot repel."

Sorry about that.

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 05:17 PM (H5l9d)

15 Speaking on the F-22/F-35 Fiasco. It is bumpkis. Yes, the F-22 is thedominant fighter out there, the measuring stick that aircraft are now measured against,and the F-35 will be a good addition to the fleet of aircraft.
But, damn, are we looking at going to war with all of Europe any time soon? Or having a war with the Israelis? Those are the only two air forces out there who have a chance against the -22 and by chance I mean cold day in hell.
Sorry, I do not see the prupose of buying more than a few squadrons worth of -22s or -35s.
It'd probably be more economical to remanufacture our current fleet with the technology created in the F-22 and F-35 programs. I wonder how fast a F-15 can go with a pair of those -22 engines, how much greater range they'd have.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 05:17 PM (wwQxi)

16 As if Obama knows a damn thing about which weapons systems we need anyway. Depressing.

Posted by: ken at July 23, 2009 05:20 PM (9zzk+)

17 Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 05:15 PM (H5l9d)

On second thought you are right.

We should disarm to at least the level of our potential adversaries. It's not like there is any historical evidence for the proposition that weakness invites attack and that reasonable and persistent defense preparations maintain peace.

Besides, if it means I get my unicorn that much faster, I'm in!

Posted by: DrewM. at July 23, 2009 05:20 PM (iTt2X)

18 I wonder how fast a F-15 can go with a pair of those -22 engines, how much greater range they'd have. Posted by: Holger

Yes, this is true. All jet parts are interchangeable. Kinda like MOPAR. If they create some new fangled weapon or like a new kinda o' wing, they can just slap it onto the old jet. So like, it's all good, ya'll!

Just relax and have some more Koolaid™.

Posted by: Internet Jet Expert at July 23, 2009 05:20 PM (kIjlp)

19 Wow.
I am at a loss as to exactly how this information was not made known at the time of the F-22 vote. I don't think the O'Bammer tried to suppress this intentionally, because it was going to get out at some point between now and 2016. Nevertheless, if it comes out that he intentionally suppressed the information, he will be shown to haveintentionally deceivedCongressabout matters of national security.That should be adisqualification from being Commander in Chief. Surely the O'Bammer could not be that stupid?
The best this can be is that it was not intentionally suppressed. But even if that is the case, it does not reflect positively onthe O'Bammer'scompetence with respect to national security matters. This is definitely a no-win situation for him.

Posted by: Doodad Pro at July 23, 2009 05:21 PM (pXniV)

20 I wonder how fast a F-15 can go with a pair of those -22 engines, how much greater range they'd have.
Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 05:17 PM (wwQxi)

Dude! That's an awesome idea. Why don't we strap 'em to some P-51 Mustangs since those were, like, the coolest planes Evah!

Are you with me?

Posted by: DrewM. at July 23, 2009 05:23 PM (iTt2X)

21 We used to shoot womp rats in Beggar's Canyon in some T-47s with a couple of Wookies out back holding them up, and running really fast. I wonder if that would help?

Posted by: ATNorth at July 23, 2009 05:25 PM (XH/G8)

22 seattle slough at July 23, 2009 05:15 PM (H5l9d)

How do I sleep at night?

With my cock firmly ensconced in your mother's ass.

Posted by: Thesher at July 23, 2009 05:26 PM (LzJYx)

23 They actually had an F15-S/MTD technology demonstrator with vectored thrust engines which paved the way for the F-22.

http://tinyurl.com/nmzbtu

Posted by: Iblis at July 23, 2009 05:26 PM (9221z)

24 Say, how do you embed pics in these comments?

Posted by: Iblis at July 23, 2009 05:27 PM (9221z)

25 Can't the Congressional twits reconsider the issue in light of this disclosure?

Posted by: flooflyparisparamus at July 23, 2009 05:27 PM (NPtVh)

26 With Seattle slough's traffic court attorney brlliance and logic there's really no need to have any aircraft. I mean who's going to attack us? All we need are couple of biplanes to reenact wwI dogfights.

Posted by: polynikes at July 23, 2009 05:28 PM (E1VVR)

27 But, damn, are we looking at going to war with all of Europe any time soon? Or having a war with the Israelis? Those are the only two air forces out there who have a chance against the -22 and by chance I mean cold day in hell.
Red China is looming ever larger.
Moreover, if you buy into Obama's whole "stimulus" gimmick, THIS IS IT. 100% American made, shovel ready, the R D is done! Better spent on this than on Enviro Impact Reports for "green" schemes which will get tied down in litigation, often from the very same greenies.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at July 23, 2009 05:29 PM (ujg0T)

28 I can't tell you, Iblis, because it's a bug, not a feature. We're not really supposed to embed background images in block level elements using standard CSS.

Posted by: Christoph at July 23, 2009 05:29 PM (uYL8F)

29 Sorry, I do not see the prupose of buying more than a few squadrons worth of -22s or -35s.

Russia. Iran. North Korea. China. Plus the fact the F15 was designed in like 1972, and the F16 shortly thereafter. All 186 F22's won't be available 100% of the time, you have training, maintenance, etc.
You aren't very intelligent are you?

Posted by: Dick_Nixon at July 23, 2009 05:29 PM (kaOJx)

30 O/T: "Democrats Block GOP Health Care Mailing" via Drudge

Posted by: JOE at July 23, 2009 05:29 PM (o2bkq)

31 @15
You don't arm yourself against today's enemy. You arm yourself against the enemy of tomorrow. You do your best to prepare for worst case scenario, to fight against the most well armed adversary of tomorrow, and you prepare an overwhelming defense; you make yourself strong enough that any attack would be, and remains futile. Don't underestimate Russia or China, all of their recent posturing shows that they believe that we are vulnerable, or that we will be.

The purpose of "more than a few squadrons" is not to defeat an attack, but to make such an attack both overwhelmingly costly, and futile. To ensure that that attack does not take place.

That is what the Left does not understand about the military. They don't exist strictly as a response, but as a prevention. They think that if we simply show our enemies that we aren't that different and we mean them no harm, then we may safely allow our defenses to not be the absolute state-of-the-art beyond compare. Good enough is never good enough, not when it means protecting the lives of American Servicemen, and the safety of the country.

/future Navy Doc.

Posted by: anctrekker at July 23, 2009 05:30 PM (EoiSf)

32 It's better to have something and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 23, 2009 05:30 PM (ZGhSv)

33 Drew -
Any word onwhat SecDef Gates has to say about this?

Posted by: Roadking at July 23, 2009 05:30 PM (BTKbe)

34 Would you people just shut up. We don't need planes. Don't you know unicorns can fly?

Posted by: poon at July 23, 2009 05:32 PM (gue+Q)

35 Not to mention, but if Bruce Willis can take out an F-35 by himself, then I have some very big misgivings about this plane.

Posted by: EC at July 23, 2009 05:33 PM (iWj1i)

36 We just need more AMRAAMs! For those of you not up on your military current events like me, an AMRAAM is basically a cheap UAV. And it can kill the F-22!

<chigchugchuch bzipti>

Plus the Pentagon has top-secret advanced air-superiority AI-controlled UAVs they're trying to keep under wraps. There was a documentary with the dreamy Josh Lucas about it.

<vroot>

Posted by: poonbot 2000 at July 23, 2009 05:34 PM (cO5K+)

37 I'm waiting for this jagoff to congratulate the "fireballing righthander from the Chicago White Sox who plays at Comminsky field on his tripledouble today"

But...way to go Mark.

Posted by: LtE113(Mike in Chicago) at July 23, 2009 05:35 PM (3NFq/)

38 "...and everything will be fine."No Drew, we're going to be
attacked by a nation with an advanced airforce that our current planes
cannot repel. We're all fucking doomed.Good lord, you guys are hysterical ninnies. How do you sleep at night?

posted by: seattle slough Bill Mahr

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 23, 2009 05:39 PM (IqfKc)

39 Also, the F-22 fucking rocks.

No really, I mean that as a serious defense of the program. The advanced systems it uses made it the prototype for the next gen flight platform. It's avionics, propulsion, weapons are all state of the art. But it also cuts a striking profile. That helps attract attention to the strength of the US Military, and is an important propaganda tool.

"If I we can't be loved, I'll settle for feared"

Posted by: anctrekker at July 23, 2009 05:40 PM (EoiSf)

40 10
"...and everything will be fine."No
Drew, we're going to be attacked by a nation with an advanced airforce
that our current planes cannot repel. We're all fucking doomed.Good lord, you guys are hysterical ninnies. How do you sleep at night?

Fine, knowing that when the shit hits the fan, you're going to get it first.

Posted by: UncleFacts at July 23, 2009 05:41 PM (vZVv7)

41
>> 11 "You remember the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, don't you? It's the plane that is so awesome and just around the corner that we can stop "wasting" money on that "outdated' F-22 Raptor."

> Well, that and the fact that the F-22 is a modern air superiority fighter, not a multi-role fighter-bomber, and the F-22 would still knock new F-35s out of the sky at a better than 15:1 ratio.

...

Posted by: Christoph

Not quite (on that 15-1 ratio deal). The 35 isn't as good as the 22 BUT is just about as stealthy. I think it has the same radar and has better cockpit electronics.

(more on the electronics)
The 22 has the latest, greatest HUD (Heads Up Display - the thing where info is projected on the windshield). The 35 has gone a step beyond that with a wicked helmet that gives the pilot all that info plus a VIRTUAL view of the outside in whatever direction his head is pointing - even if he's looking down (when the body of the plane would normally block his vision. the 35s helmet shows him what he would see just as if the plane was invisible). Eventually, 22s will be upgraded to handle the 35s helmet.

BTW, if you hear some idiot saying how the pentagon wastes money - that they're paying over a million dollars for a flight helmet - that's why. It's a VERY fancy helmet.

It's expected the 22 would beat the 35 in a fair fight but a 15-1 ratio is ludicrous. Maybe the VTOL version of the 35 - that's supposed to suck pretty bad. The regular ground based and carrier capable 35 variants are expected to be damn good.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 23, 2009 05:43 PM (yhNFY)

42 That's OK, we'll cancel production of the F-35 shortly anyway.

Posted by: CoolCzech at July 23, 2009 05:45 PM (kzhuA)

43 outside in whatever direction his head is pointing - even if he's
looking down (when the body of the plane would normally block his
vision. the 35s helmet shows him what he would see just as if the plane
was invisible). Eventually, 22s will be upgraded to handle the 35s
helmet.

We've almost reached the point where our fighters are like the one from that Clint Eastwood movie "Firefox", which had a plane controlled by the pilot's thoughts.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at July 23, 2009 05:46 PM (w0x9x)

44 Plus the fact the F15 was designed in like 1972, and the F16 shortly thereafter. All 186 F22's won't be available 100% of the time, you have training, maintenance, etc.

The F-22 is the F-15 replacement; the F-35 is the F-16 replacement. It sounds like you think the F-22 replaces them both.

You're right that all F-22s won't be available all the time; they only fly an hour on average before needing 30 hours of maintenance.

Wonder how this HTML is going to come out? I don't have the formatting buttons here.

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 05:47 PM (1p02k)

45 "I wonder how fast a F-15 can go with a pair of those -22 engines, how much greater range they'd have."
Not to rain on your fantasy with reality, bud, but...
Much easier said than done. Unless the two engines are identical in dimension (and I'm pretty sure they aren't), you are going to have a crap-ton of structural rework. Even if it would fit, you'll have a crap-ton of re-routing electrical, sensors, plumbing. After that, you would have to re-certify airworthiness. And Lord knows what those more powerful engines would do to the handling characteristics and remaining service life of the rest of the airframe... All said and done, all of the redesign, engineering, research, development, problem-solving, tooling, support, spares, actual cost of the two new engines, and you'd probably spend per-plane about as much as the fly-away cost of a Raptor...
Sure, you could drop a Viper R/T-10's engine into your '97 Neon. But after all the time, effort, and expense...you probably should have just gotten yourself a Viper. Now instead, you've just blown scads of money, and it's still a '97 Neon. Same token. You've blown scads of taxpayer money, and you've still got a 4th Gen fighter...

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 05:48 PM (kZVsz)

46 You know what we need? We need a new Top Gun movie starring the F-22 but who would play the male leads?

Posted by: Trish at July 23, 2009 05:49 PM (0U5Kd)

47 The overwhelming majority of China's air-frames are mere upgrades of Mig-19s and Mig-21s. Which date back to before the Vietnam war. The Mig-19 is an upgrade of the Mig-15s which fought F-86 Sabers in the Korean War and the Saber owned the Migs. They are still flying Tu-16 Badgers. And last I checked, they got less than 150 aircraft that fit into the Mig-29/Su-27generation. And Chinese domestic aircraft quality isvery doubtful as are all things made by Communists.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 05:49 PM (wwQxi)

48 We've almost reached the point where our fighters are like the one from
that Clint Eastwood movie "Firefox", which had a plane controlled by
the pilot's thoughts.

No wonder liberals hate those kinds of tech. They require actual thought...

Posted by: UncleFacts at July 23, 2009 05:50 PM (vZVv7)

49 "We've almost reached the point where our fighters are like the one from that Clint Eastwood movie "Firefox", which had a plane controlled by the pilot's thoughts."
We'd better start teaching our pilots Russian...

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 05:51 PM (kZVsz)

50 Why Trish, I'm surprised you even asked that question! Anthony what's his face could be Goose again (brought back from the dead by our fabulous Cin C), Iceman would have Val Kilmer reprising his original role (again, Obama could restore him to his former beauty) and Brian Dennehy as Maverick, of course! (Brian would bring a certain gravitas to the role that Tom Cruise could not).

Posted by: Lou Perlman at July 23, 2009 05:53 PM (D2il9)

51 I need to dig up the pictures I took at Edwards of the planes in the vectored thrust program from the early '90s. Cool stuff, it led to some dramatic improvements.

Posted by: 141Driver at July 23, 2009 05:54 PM (VpYA3)

52 There seems to be a very high degree of correlation between defense programs containing the word 'joint' and unmitigated ape shit cluster-fucks.

Posted by: John Galt at July 23, 2009 05:55 PM (SDkq3)

53
> 15

... are we looking at going to war with all of Europe any time soon? Or having a war with the Israelis? Those are the only two air forces out there who have a chance against the -22 and by chance I mean cold day in hell.

Posted by: Holger

We don't always get to pick and choose our wars. Once the 22 factories are shut down, they're not going to start up again. Period.

Also, Russian fighter jocks are already publishing papers in military journals on how to take down F-22 and F-35 squadrons in a big ass melee. The fighters they plan to use will carry 8 long range air-to-air missiles and they think they can knock out 1 22 or 35 for each 4 missiles they launch. If Russians or Chinese put up 2 or 3 times as many slightly less capable fighters in the opening engagement... You do the math. They'll be a shitload of advanced missiles heading for our 22s and 35s and, even when we shoot back, after the dust settles we'll have damn few planes left over.

BTW, 22s and 35s stealthy. But stealth doesn't mean radar CAN'T see the plane, it means it's more difficult. The russians already have long range radar that can more-or-less see stealthy planes at long distances. Not good enough to get a real accurate fix - but good enough to launch air-to-air missiles (with their own radar) from 100 miles away? We might find out around 2020-2025.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 23, 2009 05:55 PM (yhNFY)

54 We'd better start teaching our pilots Russian...

Wow, someone else who either read the book or, more likely, saw the crappy film.

Clint did what he could with it, but it wasn't enough to make it good. At least it was still better than one of his next movies, City Heat.

Posted by: Brandon In Baton Rouge at July 23, 2009 05:56 PM (w0x9x)

55 they only fly an hour on average before needing 30 hours of maintenance. Posted by: Original Roy

The data in that article appears to be out of date.
Facts with updated info.
"The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system
maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered
F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours."

Posted by: Chimney Sweep #8 at July 23, 2009 05:57 PM (kIjlp)

56 It's expected the 22 would beat the 35 in a fair
fight but a 15-1 ratio is ludicrous. Maybe the VTOL version of the 35 -
that's supposed to suck pretty bad. The regular ground based and
carrier capable 35 variants are expected to be damn good.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 23, 2009 05:43 PM (yhNFY)
I've heard estimates of even a greater than 15:1 ratio from knowledgeable people BUT... I'm not one of those especially knowledgeable people. Therefore, I won't argue as you may well be, and probably are, right. It sounds like you know what you're talking about.The F-22 has greater range, though, and is more valuable in a pure air superiority role, I believe.Regardless, the more kick-ass fighters the U.S. has, the better, to a point, as long as the Ruskies and Chicoms are modernizing and expanding their air forces.

Posted by: Christoph at July 23, 2009 05:57 PM (uYL8F)

57 I feel the need, the need for vector thrust!

Posted by: Trish at July 23, 2009 05:59 PM (0U5Kd)

58 Yeah let's cripple our national defense, something the asshole liberals claim they are supportive of, for shitty healthcare.

can't possibly be a downside...

Posted by: UncleFacts at July 23, 2009 06:00 PM (vZVv7)

59 This site claims the relative capabilities are (according to Air Force simulations):
an F-22 would destroy 30 Su-27/MiG-29 type aircraft for getting destroyed. But the F-35 would only have a 3:1 ratio, while the F-15 and F-16 would only have a 1:1 ratio (there are a lot of F-15 and F-16 pilots who would dispute this).

My brother is a Strike Eagle pilot, apropos of nothing. I'm not opposed to the F-22, but I think the hand-wringing over seven aircraft is a bit much.

Also, don't disparage the F-15. They still rock pretty hard.

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 06:00 PM (1p02k)

60 The last attempt at a joint fighter led to a gazillion dollars being spent and the Navy pulling out of the project. The Air Force was stuck with the F-111 albatross.

Posted by: Steve L. at July 23, 2009 06:03 PM (K6S1q)

61 I saw the crappy film.
You know what's funny? I saw the crappy film ONCE. When I was a kid, on summer break, watching HBO all day long.But the concepts it presented stuck with me. I still remember thinking about how simultaneously kickass and frightening flying an airplane with your throughts would be.
"OK, I'm flying with my thoughts, so basically, just so long as I don't think about crashing into the ground, I'll b--"

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:03 PM (kZVsz)

62 Why the hell wasn't this guy president when I was alive? Allah works in mysterious ways. Uday is gonna LOL when he hears about this.

Posted by: Saddam Hussein at July 23, 2009 06:03 PM (xzStm)

63

It's not ready yet? WTF? A-before-B. That's all details bullshit. Y'all motherfuckers handle that. I'm the first black president of the Harvard Law Review. H A R V A R D LAW REVIEW. I got a 6700 on my SAT and your mothers wet their panties listening to my speeches denigrating their country and evil white ancestry!

Suck it!

Posted by: IreneObamaIrene at July 23, 2009 06:05 PM (MFQJZ)

64 "I feel the need, the need for vector thrust!"

How you doin'?

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:05 PM (kZVsz)

65 Seattle Slough makes me believe in reincarnation.
Do you have flashbacks of being a french general, SS?

Posted by: Jonathon E. at July 23, 2009 06:05 PM (dQdrY)

66 Thanks for the updated facts, Chimney Sweep. That's encouraging, at least.

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 06:07 PM (1p02k)

67 I'm guessing, maybe someone can help me out - but we sell some of these planes to friendly nations, right? So by not being able to produce them we'll not be creating/maintaining jobs?

The only jobs the amateurs think are worth saving are in government, 100K assembly line and edumacation.

Posted by: I Am Jack's Raging Bile Duct at July 23, 2009 06:10 PM (8XI4A)

68 Until then, we can just stick some more duct tape and chewing gum on those F-15's and everything will be fine.
They run on steam right?

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 06:12 PM (0q2P7)

69 Those F-35's would have been crap, anyway, at defending against Chinese, Indian, and Jewish doctors trying to steal our precious bodily fluids, I mean, tonsils!

Posted by: palin steele (the only non-partisan on AoSHQ) at July 23, 2009 06:12 PM (VmtE9)

70 F-35's are being sold to quite a few friendly countries, yes.
F-22's are US only, by law. Which has led me to ask the question, if the Current Administration was so interested in actually saving/creating jobs, and simultaneously isn't interested in "wasting taxpayer money" on Raptors, why not work to reverse that law and let a few foreign countries "waste" their own taxpayer dollars on saving/creating some American jobs?

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:12 PM (kZVsz)

71 The US AF aicraft inventory consists of 2400 fighters, half of which are F-16s. Not counting the ANG which adds close to another 1k airframes.
Oh, and Comrade.
The Russians will get hosed when the B-1R AMRAAM truck comes into service unless that program gets chopped (a worse mistake than canceling the F-22). The Russians are engaging in wishful thinking. How'd they like about 16 longer ranged AMRAAMs launched from 90 miles away?
The Russians always engaged in wishful thinking. They still use GCI...

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 06:15 PM (wwQxi)

72 OMG! How are we going win against the NKAF???

Posted by: JEA at July 23, 2009 06:16 PM (6+cRr)

73 If Congress wanted information regarding the F-35, the Pentagon was not the only source holding the documentation. The Air Force Magazine has been discussing everything in detail all along, a publication anyone has access to read.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:17 PM (F1b/5)

74 "72
OMG! How are we going win against the NKAF???

Posted by: JEA at July 23, 2009 06:16 PM (6+cRr)"Gird your loins

Posted by: JOE at July 23, 2009 06:18 PM (o2bkq)

75 74
"72
OMG! How are we going win against the NKAF???

Posted by: JEA at July 23, 2009 06:16 PM (6+cRr)"Gird your loins

Spoken so often in the recent past that I am starting to feel like an extra on Spaceballs.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 06:20 PM (0q2P7)

76 F-22: let a few foreign countries "waste" their own taxpayer dollars on saving/creating some American jobs?

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:12 PM

Familiar question.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:21 PM (F1b/5)

77 OMG! How are we going win against the NKAF???
Ship a few of those Nerf guns to our ground troops in South Korea?

Posted by: General Patton at July 23, 2009 06:22 PM (VmtE9)

78 Fuck both the F-22 and F-35. I was a vastly superior choice, but the racists in the Pentagon picked them over me. There wouldn't be these kind of problems if I'd won the competition. I should be reincarnated just like the YF-17 was.

Posted by: YF-23 at July 23, 2009 06:22 PM (OajyA)

79 here's a question. the russians have the new mig -29 (i don't know the full designation of the plane) which is a modified version of the old one with the ability to vector thrust. the vectored thrust is what makes the aircraft so manueverable. is there any way the f-15 can be upgraded and modified as well to have this capability ?

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 06:23 PM (d59n2)

80 I dream of the mocha messiah ramming his manhood into me....

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 06:23 PM (RNwpX)

81 For me the issue is that when you have an advantage in military technology, you don't give the bad guys an opportunity to get all caught up.

It is no coincidence that the Russians have been relatively quiet ever since they saw the F-117 penetrate Saddam's Russian supplied air defense in the gulf war.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 23, 2009 06:24 PM (IqfKc)

82 Joan,

See #45

Posted by: DSkinner at July 23, 2009 06:25 PM (OajyA)

83 is there any way the f-15 can be upgraded and modified as well to have this capability ?
The F15 was never designed to accomodate that. Better off designing a new aircraft Less costly and time-consuming.

Posted by: JEA at July 23, 2009 06:25 PM (6+cRr)

84 Congress in not funding/building the required air tankers necessary to refuel the aircraft.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:26 PM (F1b/5)

85 Don't worry. If we keep hiring chinese born engineers into our defense programs, they'll be catching up in record time.

Posted by: Jonathon E. at July 23, 2009 06:27 PM (dQdrY)

86 Considering that the YF-23 is the "Black Widow," that's pretty dang funny @78. Well played.

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:27 PM (kZVsz)

87 "Congress in not funding/building the required air tankers necessary to refuel the aircraft."
Blame Airbus for that one.

Posted by: JEA at July 23, 2009 06:28 PM (6+cRr)

88 Not to worry, DrewM! There's still that secret alien aircraft in Area 51 that has shields and everything. And it didn't look like it emitted any of that evil CO2.

Posted by: Kratos (on the back of Gaia, scaling Mt Olympus) at July 23, 2009 06:31 PM (otlXg)

89 is there any way the f-15 can be upgraded and modified as well to have this capability ?

Sure with about the same level of effort it would take to upgrade a Model T to race in NASCAR.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 06:31 PM (0q2P7)

90 General Comment.

The thing is, as much as I like the 22, I don't know that Sec. Gates is wrong. it's not that Gates doesn't want more 22s. It's that he knows he has fixed* amount of money to spend. Every dollar spent on more 22s is a dollar the AF doesn't have to buy more transports and tankers - and the AF is desperately short on heavy transport aircraft and tankers.

*That's Obama's decision!

Where's the money gonna come from? It's not like there's loose money to be picked up from the Army or Marines - they're fighting HOT wars now. You can gut the Navy* but that would weaken us strategically just like fewer 22s would - only in different areas.

*In the 1950s there was a tremendous battle between the AF and the Navy for money. AF wanted bombers**, Navy wanted a new type of carrier. Curtis LeMay (AF General) was being briefed on the some stuff and the briefer referred to the Soviets as the enemy. LeMay interrupted him and said, "The Soviets are our opponent - the Navy is the enemy!"

**The AF won. At one point, one part of the the AF (SAC) was getting a THIRD of the ENTIRE defense budget. LeMay was the head of SAC.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 23, 2009 06:31 PM (36TZJ)

91 Blame Airbus for that one.

Blame Democrats in hock to Boeing.

Posted by: toby928 at July 23, 2009 06:33 PM (PD1tk)

92 The F-35 looks like Michelle's ass with wings. It was designed by politicians, for politicians. A Sukhoi-27 would fly up its ass and steal it's taco leavings so fast it wouldn't even miss the cheese.

Beautiful aircraft want to fly. Ugly aircraft try to commit suicide. Google it!!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:33 PM (LUACz)

93
> 59 ... I'm not opposed to the F-22, but I think the hand-wringing over seven aircraft is a bit much.

Posted by: Original Roy

It's not the 7 f-22s. It's that without those, the factories shut down and we'll never build more. Building those 7 allows the factories to stay open another year and gives us the choice to buy more 22s next budget.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 23, 2009 06:34 PM (36TZJ)

94 Where's the money gonna come from? It's not like there's loose money to be picked up from the Army or Marines

I understand your argument, and it is eminently practical. I would submit, however, that the money could come from the first two lines of the budget, namely Social Security and Medicare, to fund line item 3, the defense of the nation.

Others may disagree, and I hate to sound to stringent, or hysterical, but THE DEFENSE OF THE NATION IS A FUCKING ENUMERATED DUTY IN THE CONSTITUTION AND SOCIAL SECURITY AND MEDICARE ARE VIOLATIONS OF THE ENUMERATED POWERS1111!1!11111!

Ahem. Sorry bout that.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:37 PM (LUACz)

95 Joan, it is called the F-15 S/MTD and the F-15 ACTIVE. The ACTIVE has 3D thrust vectoring.
We should be doing what Russia is doing and take 4th generation aircraft and upgrade them. Yes, they are playing around with the S37 Berkut and the Mig 1.44 but that is it so far all they are doing. What they are really doing is making the Flanker and Fulcrum into real good aircraft.
The Navy did it with the Hornet which was merely the reincarnation of the YF-17 which wasa contender for the USAF LWF program that produced the best light fighter: theF-16.
We did it in the past with the Sherman, the Pershing (which was in use past Vietnam in the form of the T-60 Patton), the Mustang. And lots of other systems.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 06:42 PM (wwQxi)

96 Again, Obama is going to make sure American soldiers die in future wars for lack of air superiority. This is what he wants and since the trolls on this blog support him that means this is what they want as well. Simple as that. The F-22 would have been our only line of defense against advanced Soviet/Chinese aircraft that will soon be available to all our foes. The F-15 and F-16 are obsolete and have been for at least 10 years, and the F-35, because it is a multi-role aircraft, simply cannot perform as well as the F-22 would have.
We are going to lose future wars with Iran, North Korea, and others because of Obamas hatred for America.

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at July 23, 2009 06:43 PM (zBsww)

97 I knew a guy in college who later went on to be involved in the -22 program; I wonder how he feels about this? Maybe I should send a sympathy card, as he invested so much of himself in the -15, the -22, and in serving this country.

Meanwhile....good thing we're not in the middle of a war, with predicted increasing future global unrest! Right? Right?

Posted by: unknown jane at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (EpmMs)

98 I should be reincarnated just like the YF-17 was.

Who do you think I am?

Posted by: F/A-18 at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (WY/nz)

99 are the current f-22's already in production or do we have them already ? if they are still being produced, depending on how long it takes to produce them, could we have a new administration by the end of the production run that would want to produce additional f-22's ?

it seems the benefit of producing more of the planes is that the more you produce, the lower unit cost of each plane. if the plane is that dominant , i think it would be in our best interest to have enough of these aircraft to pose an overwhelming threat to any nation that would think of attacking us.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (d59n2)

100 What do you think is going to die first -- the F-35 or cost-plus contracting?

Posted by: FireHorse at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (jMk+v)

101 "The F-35 looks like Michelle's ass with wings."
I'm sorry, you must be thinking of the Boeing X-33. *shudder*

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (kZVsz)

102 I don't get it. You guys are usually fiscally responsible. You like to cut costs whenever possible.

Except when it comes to military spending. Have you ever, and I mean EVER, thought a military spending proposal was wasteful? Ever?

The Pentagon could announce a program tomorrow to spend $192 Trillion on a fleet of fucking AT-ATs and you'd be all for it.

Am I wrong?

What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 06:46 PM (H5l9d)

103 And by Boeing X-33, of course, I mean, the Boeing X-32.
/idiot

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:46 PM (kZVsz)

104 It appears I misread that.

Posted by: F/A-18 at July 23, 2009 06:46 PM (WY/nz)

105 What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

Its stimulative. Good jobs, in America, for Americans. It also pays for the RD for the next bad ass freedom protector.

You know what's really expensive? Losing a war.

Am I wrong?

Do you need to ask?

Posted by: toby928 at July 23, 2009 06:48 PM (PD1tk)

106
The Navy did it with the Hornet which was merely the reincarnation
of the YF-17 which wasa contender for the USAF LWF program that
produced the best light fighter: theF-16.

We did it in the past with the Sherman, the Pershing (which was in
use past Vietnam in the form of the T-60 Patton), the Mustang. And lots
of other systems.

i think we did that to the f-4 as well. it went through many modifications to improve its performance, maneuverability and ability to deliver weapons with improved avionics.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 06:49 PM (d59n2)

107 "The F-35 looks like Michelle's ass with wings."
I'm sorry, you must be thinking of the Boeing X-33. *shudder*

Posted by: reason at July 23, 2009 06:45 PM (kZVsz)
That would be Barbara Mikulski's ass. But to each their own.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:49 PM (228N/)

108 is there any way the f-15 can be upgraded and modified as well to have this capability ?

The F15 was never designed to accomodate that. Better off designing a new aircraft Less costly and time-consuming.

Vector Thrust?

F-15 Eagle, supersonic; F-15A and F-15B retrofitted with E-kit upgrades have additional thrust and improved combat capability; F-15E heavily modified, each 25,000 lb thrust, or turbofans each 29,000 lb thrust with max afterburner,maneuver at nine Gs.
F-16 is the workhorse of the USAF fighter fleet, supporting the majority of precision guided munitions taskings in combat operations.
F-22A Raptor is a 5th generation, multirole fighter designed to penetrate advanced anti-air threats and ahcieve air dominance. The F-22Arepresents an unparalleled combination of stealth, supercruise, maneuverability, and integrated avionics allowing it to counter multiple anti-access threats by day and night and in adverse weather and across the spectrum of missions.
F-35 Lightening II Joint Strike Fighter, a multinational cooperative development program, is an affordable, highly common family of next generation strike aircraft.

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:51 PM (F1b/5)

109 Have you ever, and I mean EVER, thought a military spending proposal was wasteful? Ever?

The one that lets Pelosi et al jet to the Hamptons while whining about not getting the G5 could be deleted IMO.

Posted by: Waterhouse at July 23, 2009 06:51 PM (WY/nz)

110 The Pentagon could announce a program tomorrow to spend $192 Trillion on a fleet of fucking AT-ATs and you'd be all for it.

AT-ATs?....That would be sooooo fuckin' awesome.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 23, 2009 06:51 PM (IqfKc)

111 @98 Who do you think I am? That's what I'm getting at. Just as the YF-17 came back as the F/A-18, I should come back as a production aircraft.

Posted by: YF-23 at July 23, 2009 06:51 PM (OajyA)

112 Have you ever, and I mean EVER, thought a military spending proposal was wasteful? Ever?
Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 06:46 PM (H5l9d)
Absolutely. The 2.99 spent to register your worthless fucking ass with Selective Service could've bought me a fucking latte.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:51 PM (228N/)

113 What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?
I'm in favor of spending less money on the military. Of course the real question is why are you against it, since you guys love spending money as a rule.

Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2009 06:53 PM (7LlTu)

114 When Robert Gates gloated that the F-35 lacked elegance, was he referencing the craft's inability to perform in ANY circumstance, compared with the F-22 that could?

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:53 PM (F1b/5)

115 The Pentagon could announce a program tomorrow to spend $192 Trillion on a fleet of fucking AT-ATs and you'd be all for it.

All spending is stimulus.

Posted by: Your God-Emperor, Cucumber Obama at July 23, 2009 06:54 PM (WY/nz)

116 What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

Because you get to blow shit up, dumbass.

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 23, 2009 06:54 PM (IqfKc)

117 Unless someone is expecting some catastrophic war with some pretty powerful State in the next decade, the F-22 was as Sec. Gates said, pretty much USELESS. Who exactly would the enemy be that would require MORE of these useless planes. Planes that were not even applicable in Iraq and Afghanistan, and would not be applicable in any conflict we can even foresee at this point.

In a World of decreasing US power(and yes it IS happening), money has to be spend very wisely in order to get the biggest bang for the buck. And that does not mean creating 'jobs' by building un-necessary equipment just because it can be built and some Congress-critters can bribe their easily persuaded constituents to continue voting for them.by spending on problematic programs.

It's not Obama who is deciding to deep-six the F-22. It's Sec.Gates. The man who we all supported when he was part of the Iraq Victory team. His decision is aces with me.
Less useless(and VERY expensive) military hardware + more boots = Death To Jihadism.

Works for me.

Posted by: Dougf at July 23, 2009 06:54 PM (16GPT)

118 Just remember this when the SHTF and the lefties are screaming about the Nasty Republicans Who Don't Give Our Troops What They Need.

Like they did from 2001 to 2009.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 23, 2009 06:55 PM (n2wxa)

119 is there any way the f-15 can be upgraded and modified as well to have this capability ?
The F-15 is about at the end of its life cycle. Like people, planes have life expectancies.

Posted by: flenser at July 23, 2009 06:55 PM (7LlTu)

120
What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

Defense is an actual function of the federal government.

Posted by: Rob Crawford at July 23, 2009 06:56 PM (n2wxa)

121 When Robert Gates gloated that the F-35 lacked elegance,

"Lacked Elegance?" That like saying Susan Boyle lacks aesthetic appeal, except that Susan can actually perform her duties. It's like saying that "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" lacked a story arc. It's like saying Abba lacked oboe.

"Lacked Elegance?" It's a fucking deep sea creature with a turbine.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:57 PM (228N/)

122 the costs to develop the f-22 are already incurred, they are sunk costs and are not relevant in considering whether to build more. do we get the "best bang for our buck" in producing more. i think that's the question. also we aren't privy to what is currently in development as far as far as drones and other technologies. with any other president , i'd have more faith that he was making the best decision based on the information he has at his disposal. the problem i have with obama is that he does not beleive that the united states should be strong militarily.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 06:57 PM (d59n2)

123 At his news conference April 6, Robert Gates announced that numberous expensive programs--especially USAF weapons--were put to the sword. Not for money reasons, evidently. These steps would have been taken, Gates said, "regardless of the department's top-line budget number."

Posted by: maverick muse at July 23, 2009 06:58 PM (F1b/5)

124 What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 06:46 PM (H5l9d)
Because it's one of the few places that the Constitution (the real one, not the imaginary one you fucking shit heads have created with "emanations from a penumbra") says the gubmint can spend money.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 06:59 PM (228N/)

125 Herr Morgenholz covered it well SS. Defense is an enumerated duty of the federal government. Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. We can cut a lot of government waste by ending all unconstitutional programs.

Posted by: DSkinner at July 23, 2009 06:59 PM (OajyA)

126 Seattle Slough has a point.
Our missiles and nuclear warheads are getting old, and it would take $Trillions to replace them. Therefore we should use them now while they are still good, on Russia and China, and then we could safely bear Obama's defense cuts.
The F-22s already in existence would suffice after that.

Posted by: Speller at July 23, 2009 06:59 PM (fh5Oy)

127
Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 06:57 PM (d59n2)
Precisely. The money has been spent. Production costs are nada compared to development costs. Build the fuckers, and revel in their awesomeness.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:00 PM (228N/)

128 If ace would get off his ass and attract some advertisers, we could buy some F-22s. Then we'd be more awesome than before.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:02 PM (228N/)

129 "Abba lacked oboe cowbell."
Booyah.

Posted by: The 'Hoff at July 23, 2009 07:04 PM (kZVsz)

130 It's not the 7 f-22s. It's that without those, the factories shut down and we'll never
build more. Building those 7 allows the factories to stay open another
year and gives us the choice to buy more 22s next budget.

I wouldn't say never. First, we've got 187 of them to maintain, so pretty much every part that goes into them is still going to be made. Yes, there will be costs associated with re-ramping-up production, but it's far from impossible. It's far easier than bringing it into production initially.

The question isn't whether 1000 F-22s would be better than 100. Sure, it would be better. But is it the most effective way to use the money? The Pentagon wants more unmanned drones and stuff. That would seem to be the more immediate need. We can't have everything. Maybe it's shortsighted. Time will tell.

It is not the case that halting production is disarming the country (not that you said so, but someone above did). That sort of hyperbole is equivalent to when Dems call a reduced increase in spending a cut, and it deserves the same contempt. Don't be a histrionic crybaby.

By the way, it's still possible that funding will be appropriated later this year (or so I read).

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 07:06 PM (1p02k)

131 Beautiful aircraft want to fly. Ugly aircraft try to commit suicide. Google it!!

Really????

Posted by: A-10 Warthog at July 23, 2009 07:06 PM (btril)

132 What is it about military spending that makes it always a good idea?

YOUR SO RIGHT! WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF REDNECK FARM BOYS THE WORLD WON'T MISS. We can cut like 95% of the defense budget. Solves the conservative problem, the population overrun problem, budget problems. It's WIN-WIN-WIN.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 07:06 PM (0q2P7)

133 Look how much good Vietnam did for the liberal cause!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 07:08 PM (0q2P7)

134 125
Herr Morgenholz covered it well SS. Defense is an enumerated duty of
the federal government. Social Security and Medicare are
unconstitutional. We can cut a lot of government waste by ending all
unconstitutional programs.

i'd be fine if the only function of the federal government was to provide for defense and foreign policy. if that were the only function of the federal government, federal income taxes would be pretty negligible for each american. leave everything else to the individual states . the more locally money is spent, the more efficiency and accountability there is.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:08 PM (d59n2)

135

There were 2 events getting confused here, 1st was OSD stopping the F22 line
early, the second was the axing of 8 congressional add aircraft.

The line stoppage presaged the retreat from the 2 major war doctrine. Look for
this QDR cycle to forecast cuts in other large programs. I suspect the QDR
process will produce an F22 requirement above the current number - but
substantially less then the original production plan.

Obama fighting the jobs project of 8 fighters was a strategic mistake. He pissed
of votes he might need and the dishonest way he did it is going to sting. It may
have also put the nail in Dodd - hard to keep an incumbent who can't deliver.

If the F35 slips - look for some F15/F18 SLEP type work or upgrades, and maybe a
short F22 build.

Posted by: Jean at July 23, 2009 07:09 PM (xCBQ4)

136 I don't know why we didn't go full bore and develop the X-29 to its fullest.http://tinyurl.com/np6fez

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:09 PM (228N/)

137 Defense is an actual function of the federal government.

So is building roads, but some of them aren't good ideas. So is regulating interstate commerce, but not all regulation is good. Please don't be intentionally dense.

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 07:09 PM (1p02k)

138 131
Beautiful aircraft want to fly. Ugly aircraft try to commit suicide. Google it!!

Really????

sometimes beauty lies in function rather than form, C-130 hercules anyone ?

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:10 PM (d59n2)

139 One might even point out that not all Supreme Court Justice nominations are good ideas. But all military spending is?

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 07:11 PM (1p02k)

140 Beautiful aircraft want to fly. Ugly aircraft try to commit suicide. Google it!!Really????

Posted by: A-10 Warthog at July 23, 2009 07:06 PM (btril)
Any aircraft built around a Vulcan is by its nature beautiful. You have a great personality.Actually, the A-10 is a beautiful airframe.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:12 PM (228N/)

141 .......but the SR-71, coolest airplane. ever

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:13 PM (d59n2)

142 15
Speaking on the F-22/F-35 Fiasco. It is bumpkis. Yes, the F-22 is thedominant fighter out there, the measuring stick that aircraft are now measured against,and the F-35 will be a good addition to the fleet of aircraft.
But, damn, are we looking at going to war with all of Europe any time soon? Or having a war with the Israelis? Those are the only two air forces out there who have a chance against the -22 and by chance I mean cold day in hell.
Sorry, I do not see the prupose of buying more than a few squadrons worth of -22s or -35s.
It'd probably be more economical to remanufacture our current fleet with the technology created in the F-22 and F-35 programs. I wonder how fast a F-15 can go with a pair of those -22 engines, how much greater range they'd have.
Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 05:17 PM (wwQxi)
Cocaine, it's a hell of a drug!

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at July 23, 2009 07:15 PM (H7Rlw)

143 But all military spending is?

Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 07:11 PM (1p02k)
No. The money spent to institute "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"? A waste. The money spent to make sure there were enough women carrier pilots? No. Especially after Lt. McBusty the Pioneer augured into the flight deck of the USS Politically Correct. The money spent to make sure Rep. Murtha (Cockbiter-PA) gets re-elected? Nother waste.Money spent on shit that goes boom, or carries shit that goes boom? Priceless.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:16 PM (228N/)

144 Why is it Liberals never met a single government program they didn't like... except for the defense of the nation?

I mean, Obama wants to spend, spend, spend... he doesn't even particularly care on WHAT... but of course wants to gut an air superiority fighter we've already sunk development billions into. Go figure.

Posted by: CoolCzech at July 23, 2009 07:17 PM (kzhuA)

145 Any aircraft built around a Vulcan is by its nature beautiful. You have a great personality.Actually, the A-10 is a beautiful airframe.

f-22 is a thoroughbred. the A-10 is a mule. mules can be beautiful too though.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:17 PM (d59n2)

146 Oh, and it's actually in the Constitution, too. Might I suggest you Google it?

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 07:18 PM (228N/)

147 mules can be beautiful too though.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:17 PM (d59n2)
I know.

Posted by: palin steele, mulefucker at July 23, 2009 07:19 PM (228N/)

148 .......but the SR-71, coolest airplane. ever

I beg to differ.

Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie at July 23, 2009 07:19 PM (OajyA)

149 147
mules sheep can be beautiful too though.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:17 PM (d59n2)
I know.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:20 PM (d59n2)

150
Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie at July 23, 2009 07:19 PM (OajyA)
You we know liked. Ees outrage!!

Posted by: USSR at July 23, 2009 07:21 PM (228N/)

151 148
.......but the SR-71, coolest airplane. ever

I beg to differ.

xb-70 was cool but i don't think it went into production beyond the prototypes built. b-58 was pretty cool .

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:23 PM (d59n2)

152 But all military spending is?

No but replacing your air superiority fighter after 37 years of service seems like a sound strategic thing to do. Really if the Germans had stuck with the Eindecker until 1952, that sure would have made WWII a lot easier. Or if we would have stuck with the P-51 Mustang until '79, Vietnamese MiG 21s might have thought they were in a shooting gallery.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at July 23, 2009 07:25 PM (0q2P7)

153 @151 Yes, but you didn't specify production aircraft.

Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie at July 23, 2009 07:27 PM (OajyA)

154 153
@151 Yes, but you didn't specify production aircraft.

well true, xb-70 was cool no doubt, but how can you not love the freaking blackbird. that was a beautiful airplane and a great one.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:29 PM (d59n2)

155 Joan,

True. It's still the fastest plane built and it was built with slide rules.

Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie at July 23, 2009 07:31 PM (OajyA)

156 These are not the cost overruns and slipped schedules you are looking for

Posted by: Obi-Wan at July 23, 2009 07:32 PM (oe8Xg)

157 You punks, all we need is to strap a few -22 engines to my fuselage and rack on a few AMRAAMS and I'll take out anything in the air! Now GET OFF MY LAWN!

Posted by: Lockheed F-80 at July 23, 2009 07:33 PM (ftJkN)

158 155
Joan,

True. It's still the fastest plane built and it was built with slide rules.

i always wonder what kind of stuff , we have that's still secret and we don't even know about .

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:34 PM (d59n2)

159 I am coming in late on this thread, and I hope nobody posted this fact.The F15 is at the end of its usefullness. Already, they (the entire number, have been groundeda number of times because of metal fatigue. Every pilot who gets in one, knows this, and still gets in them to fly. Brave men.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 07:41 PM (dIHlE)

160 we should dust off the P 51 mustangs and sopwith camels. nothing will bring terror to the taliban like those

Posted by: Ben at July 23, 2009 07:42 PM (f0I0I)

161 160
we should dust off the P 51 mustangs and sopwith camels. nothing will bring terror to the taliban like those

wouldn't those planes actually be pretty effective against the taliban ?

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 07:45 PM (d59n2)

162
... wouldn't those planes actually be pretty effective against the taliban ?

Maybe if we dropped them on their heads.

Posted by: Dang Straights at July 23, 2009 07:48 PM (ftJkN)

163 So AT-ATs it is!

The Constitution says so!

Posted by: seattle slough at July 23, 2009 07:53 PM (H5l9d)

164 we should dust off the P 51 mustangs and sopwith camels. nothing will bring terror to the taliban like those
Stukas

Posted by: toby928 at July 23, 2009 08:02 PM (PD1tk)

165 You have to admit AT-ATs would be totally cool, except for the tripping factor.

Posted by: toby928 at July 23, 2009 08:03 PM (PD1tk)

166 Maybe it is better if they just take their time and make sure everything is done right?: "Military officials are investigating how two tires fell off a huge C-5
transport plane on a training flight in Western Massachusetts.
Authorities say no injuries have been reported and no property was
damaged."

Posted by: muffy at July 23, 2009 08:04 PM (o2bkq)

167 B-70s, A-10s. Phaugh. You're all my bitches!

6, count 'em, Six 28 cylinder radial engines and 4 new-fangled jets to keep the kids happy. All mounted on the longest wings ever to fly.

Posted by: Comrade B-36 at July 23, 2009 08:04 PM (36TZJ)

168 Don't worry about the F22 and F35, worry about the QDR posture change. Obama is going to use that change to drive deep defense cuts.

The USAF will get what it wants in the budget battles, they are the best at it. I fear for the Army, I really do.

Sandbagging this report from the public, so Senators could vote for cloture yesterday with plausible denialability was bad. If he sandbagged it from the Senators, it will make for some fireworks next time Gates has to brief.

Posted by: Jean at July 23, 2009 08:06 PM (xCBQ4)

169 @167

Whatever happened to that nuclear power plant you were looking into?

Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie at July 23, 2009 08:07 PM (OajyA)

170 if we bombed the taliban back to the stone ages , we'd be setting their "civilisation" back about 2 weeks.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:10 PM (d59n2)

171 A joke after 9-11 was to bomb the Taliban forward to the stone age.

Posted by: DSkinner at July 23, 2009 08:11 PM (OajyA)

172 One might even point out that not all Supreme Court Justice nominations are good ideas. But all military spending is?

All is a pretty inclusive word. How did this get turned into an "ALL military spending is good argument"

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at July 23, 2009 08:13 PM (IqfKc)

173 on second thought cavemen may be more advanced than the taliban. betty rubble and wilma flinstone never had to wear a a burkha.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:15 PM (d59n2)

174 Joan at 160 wouldn't those planes actually be pretty effective against the taliban ?

Actually we just started leasing Brazilian Super Tucanos for CAS work -- prop driven. A step up from the P47/A-1 Skyraider.

( or it could be payback for this little slap down:

In February 2005, Venezuela selected the EMB-314 Super Tucano. 12
aircraft were to be ordered, with a further 12 planned. The sale fell
through because it was thought the USA would block the transfer of
US-built components.,

from AF Tech)

Posted by: Jean at July 23, 2009 08:17 PM (xCBQ4)

175 170
if we bombed the taliban back to the stone ages , we'd be setting their "civilisation" back about 2 weeks.

jesus christ joan, I can now tell you what glen livet feels like when it comes out of your nose.

Posted by: UncleFacts at July 23, 2009 08:20 PM (vZVv7)

176 Did you know that the Joint Strike Fighter program came into being in November 1994. On 16 November 1996, Boeing Military Airplanes along with Lockheed Martin were named the two finialists. The X35 Was Lockheed Martin, The X32 was Boeing. It takes forever to get these type of planes to full production levels.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:20 PM (dIHlE)

177 Typo. 2nd line. November 1996 should read November 1995

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:22 PM (dIHlE)

178 174
Joan at 160 wouldn't those planes actually be pretty effective against the taliban ?

Actually we just started leasing Brazilian Super Tucanos for CAS work -- prop driven. A step up from the P47/A-1 Skyraider.

( or it could be payback for this little slap down:

well yeh wasn't the p-51 pretty good for close air support. it had long range too. we also used A-1's in vietnam .

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:23 PM (d59n2)

179 175
170
if we bombed the taliban back to the stone ages , we'd be setting their "civilisation" back about 2 weeks.

jesus christ joan, I can now tell you what glen livet feels like when it comes out of your nose.

sorry. a mind scotch is a terrible thing to waste.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:28 PM (d59n2)

180 So anyone heard anything about replacing the A-10? Thunderbolt III in the works?

Posted by: AFlyingSquirrel at July 23, 2009 08:28 PM (ZuRcl)

181 #158 joan You andI both know, along with almost everyone here, If Obama, or any Lib Democrat ever finds about these black programs, they will be immediately cancelled. DoI need to talk about the MSM.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:29 PM (dIHlE)

182 181
#158 joan You andI both know, along with almost everyone here, If
Obama, or any Lib Democrat ever finds about these black programs, they
will be immediately cancelled. DoI need to talk about the MSM.

you're right hope he does not know or find out about them.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:33 PM (d59n2)

183 All the F22's in the world could not down all the fighters and bombers that China could throw at us a one time. Quantity in overwhelming numbers will always win vs small superior numbers. The Chinese are now suppling their aircraft to any third world country the has the dollars. The AF and Navy brass know this, and I bet they are having sleepless nights because of Obama.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:35 PM (dIHlE)

184 183 Uhm no......

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 08:39 PM (mERrZ)

185 I'd be all forbuilding a thousandRaptors and 2000 -35sif we wereneck deep in the Cold War and facing an oppossingAir Force with numerical superiority. But we aren't, that threat has been gone for nearly 20 years.
This reminds me of the BS outrage when Commanche was cut.
I'd rather free up the resources for more tankers, moretransports and RD on the army side. The Army is going in the right direction with Stryker, they need to keep going that route.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 08:39 PM (wwQxi)

186 Reagan was everybody's hero.Except to hard core Libs. Carter cancelled everything in sight also, except for his pet, the Navy. Everyone kept their black plans secret until Reagan became President. Look at the Military goodies that came outfrom his Presidency. Hope people, hope that this will happen again.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:43 PM (dIHlE)

187 Quantity in overwhelming numbers will always win vs small superior
numbers. The Chinese are now suppling their aircraft to any third world
country the has the dollars. The AF and Navy brass know this, and I bet
they are having sleepless nights because of Obama.

henry V did pretty well with a few hundred long bows againt thousands of frenchmen in the battle of agincourt. the RAF was outnumber too in the battle of Britan, I think there are many instances in history where superior technology has proved to be better than sheer numbers.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:43 PM (d59n2)

188 You're right that all F-22s won't be available all the time; they only fly an hour on average before needing 30 hours of maintenance. Posted by: Original Roy at July 23, 2009 05:47 PM (1p02k)
This quote and the original article are somewhat taken out of context. Yes, they are expensive to fly. The parts are new and are subject to failure as with any new weapons system. I recall reading an ArizonaRepublic editorial in the early 80's telling us how the F-15 flew once and then required 3 days of maintenance to fly again. There were several squadrons of them at Luke AFB at the time. It waswrong then and is wrong now. The simple act of refueling the aircraft takes about an hour.This figure is arrived at by determining the number of people in the task and then multiplying it by the time required. A normal refueling operation requires a fuel truck driver, refueler, and a fire guard. Threetroops times approximately 20 minutes is one hour. When the jet has an avionics failure, several specialists go out to troubleshootand repair it. The weapons loaders are always three man person crews. As one can see, the man hours add up quickly. That, added to the fact that it is a new aircraft, with bugs that need to be worked out, and the fact that it has a stealth coating, you can see where the time goes. The F-117 was similar, in that it also had a stealth coating but when panels got pulled for maintenance, they didn't always replace the coating. The coating must be removed in order to get to the panel screws.When they prepped the jet for real world ops, that was one of the things that wasdone.
Bottom line, when an aicraft is up pulling G's and the pilot is yanking and banking, things are going to break. As the plane gets older, there will be a greater supply of spare parts, plus the parts that have gone through the system will be more reliable and the downtime between flights will fall, at least until the jet is old.

Posted by: Bill R. at July 23, 2009 08:46 PM (EhlQq)

189 187 Yeah but they also don't have the numbers.Not even bringing into the debate the fact that they don't have the AEW or aerial refueling capability we have nor do they have an air force superior to what the US Navy could bring to battle against them alone.Oh and Joan P-51's were not ideal for ground attack,one hole in the radiator and they were finished like all inline engine ircraft.P-47'S were far better ground attack platforms which was fiine since the 51's were better fighters.The reason 51's did so much attack is that after Dday we fielded such overwhelming air superiority the fighters had very little air opposition to counter and were set loose to shoot up anything they could find.Effective and miserable for the Germans but losses to gound fire were enormous.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 08:49 PM (mERrZ)

190 If you read up on Agincourt it was not the Longbow thatwon the battle. It was a superior general who picked better terrain.
Germany lost the Battle of Britain, Britain didn't win it. Just like NV did not win Vietnam War, we lost it.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 08:51 PM (wwQxi)

191 #185 Holger I am completely on your side when you say we need more tankers and more transports. This need has been around for some time. Seems like Congress never gets around to more tankers. And the Air Force/ Boeing/ Airbuss is still in a legal mess. I do not know when and if we will ever get new tankers.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 08:52 PM (dIHlE)

192 Oh and Joan P-51's were not ideal for ground attack,one hole in the
radiator and they were finished like all inline engine ircraft.P-47'S
were far better ground attack platforms which was fiine since the 51's
were better fighters.The reason 51's did so much attack is that after
Dday we fielded such overwhelming air superiority the fighters had very
little air opposition to counter and were set loose to shoot up
anything they could find.Effective and miserable for the Germans but
losses to gound fire were enormous.

i'll buy that. i think we used p-51's in korea for close air support as well though.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:55 PM (d59n2)

193 192 Sure we did.There were still huge numbers of them in service and virtually no air opposition(later when China came in that changed).Corsairs were the best ground support aircraft along with the Skyraiders.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 08:58 PM (mERrZ)

194 The P-47 Thunderbolt, being the father of the A-10.

Posted by: AFlyingSquirrel at July 23, 2009 08:58 PM (ZuRcl)

195
If you read up on Agincourt it was not the Longbow thatwon the battle. It was a superior general who picked better terrain.

Germany lost the Battle of Britain, Britain didn't win it. Just like NV did not win Vietnam War, we lost it.

i'm not really knowledgable enough to refute that or argue one way or another, but my point was that superior numbers in battle are not always the deciding factor. i'm sure better tactics , military intelligence and many other factors are important too.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:59 PM (d59n2)

196 Germany lost the Battle of Britain, Britain didn't win it. Just like NV did not win Vietnam War, we lost it.

Germany didn't lose WWII. The Soviets won.

Posted by: T-Dub, Rush Chairman, Damn glad to meet ya at July 23, 2009 09:04 PM (qKKql)

197 The reason to use a prop bird(even a turboprop which is still a jet driving a prop)is that they can fly slow and most importantly they can loiter for long periods of time.Specialist jets can be built to do the same thing (the A-10 was).The AirForce never liked the close support mission and never wanted it.The Navy has always been much more commited.The Marines have their very own air force to makes sure they get close air support.SOCOM is getting their own birds flown by Navy pilots because they are probably disatisfied with the AF's methods and attitudes.SOCOM gets what they want because they hold all the cards politicallly right now.They don't have to put up with congressional or bureacratic delays they ask for it they get it.Not saying it is wrong but that is the way it is right now probably the paradigm will shift back to traditional forces at some point.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:04 PM (mERrZ)

198 196
Germany lost the Battle of Britain, Britain didn't win it. Just like NV did not win Vietnam War, we lost it.

think after watergate, the democrats snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in vietnam.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:06 PM (d59n2)

199 but my point was that superior numbers in battle
are not always the deciding factor. i'm sure better tactics , military
intelligence and many other factors are important too.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 08:59 PM (d59n2

So bringing a wingman doesn't help? OK. And by intelligence, I just have to watch, figure out your favorite drink, and then subtly present it to you? OK. Got it. It's the "other factors" that always get me. Like my wife and that firearms training I gave her. Help a brother out here.. ;-)

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 09:08 PM (qKKql)

200 198 Right we signed a reasonable treaty along the lines of the agreement that settled Korea(sort of).Congress than simply refused to uphold it which is inexcusable.The heavy mud at Agincourt won the battle for the English,the French knights could barely move(they were dismounted for the attack).

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:09 PM (mERrZ)

201 Put it this way morons, We need the best that money can buy. There cannot be any more waste on any military weapon systems. The military must made the right decisions. Money is going to be real tight, and Obama will start cutting everything in his sight, once the smoke clears from all his current battles.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 09:10 PM (dIHlE)

202 199 The Chinese don't even have the numbers,look it up.Even if they did inferior aircraft with inferior pilots(training no contest compared to ours) plus other disadvantages all work against them.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:11 PM (mERrZ)

203 So bringing a wingman doesn't help? OK. And by intelligence, I just
have to watch, figure out your favorite drink, and then subtly present
it to you?

white russians are nice.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:11 PM (d59n2)

204 white russians are nice.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:11 PM (d59n2)
RACIST!!

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 09:12 PM (qKKql)

205
> 169 @167

Whatever happened to that nuclear power plant you were looking into?

Posted by: XB-70 Valkyrie

Ahh, memories. That was a trap. Because we were researching a manned nuclear powered bomber, our opponents, the Soviets had to as well. They blew a ton of money and quite a few crew took a lot of radiation damage proving that it wasn't a viable option.

Posted by: Comrade B-36 at July 23, 2009 09:14 PM (36TZJ)

206 204
white russians are nice.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:11 PM (d59n2)
RACIST!!

ok black russians.

ultimate prop driven fighter .

http://tinyurl.com/ox65ek

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:14 PM (d59n2)

207 I'M not saying we are on the right path with this douche in office tough.He may well squander our superiority and in fact has done so.The thing that angers me most is the argument that the F22 "hasn't dropped a single bomb in Iraq or Afghanistam".A patently ridiculous argument since it is simply not their job.Other aircraft are aircrew are better at the job.The F-15C isn't used for attack ether the pilots specialize in air to air combat.If we want do away with specialization we can but a jack of all trades is master of none.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:14 PM (mERrZ)

208 ultimate prop driven fighter .

I love you joan. While this bunk session is not dedicated to you, I thank you nonetheless. I'll be back.

Posted by: Herr Morgenholz at July 23, 2009 09:16 PM (qKKql)

209 Succesful aerial refueling made nuclear power unecesssary.Early jets were thirsty and short legged making the nuclear option attractive since jets had the performance not the range and prop planes the opposite.Jets got mor efficient and refueling became common practice so the idea was scrapped.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:18 PM (mERrZ)

210 209 Fuck the typos but I can't spell in a hurry.....

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:19 PM (mERrZ)

211 207
I'M not saying we are on the right path with this douche in office
tough.He may well squander our superiority and in fact has done so.The
thing that angers me most is the argument that the F22 "hasn't dropped
a single bomb in Iraq or Afghanistam".A patently ridiculous argument
since it is simply not their job.Other aircraft are aircrew are better
at the job.The F-15C isn't used for attack ether the pilots specialize
in air to air combat.If we want do away with specialization we can but
a jack of all trades is master of none.

that's just another stupid meme like "there were no wmd's in iraq" that will be repeated by the media and will be accepted by the ignorant 52%. it's a statement that is superficial but would does not make sense logically upon examination.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:19 PM (d59n2)

212 Hmmmmm.

What I don't understand is why we don't build a new generation of B-52 bombers. The ones we have now are older than I am, and that is really disturbing. No matter what the latest and greatest stealth super-bomber we come up with we always end up going back to the Buffs.

But they're -old-.

Hell we could pull the drawings out of the old folders, upgrade the materials to modern alloys. Do a little bit of tweaking, but not too much, and we'd have some great bombers again that will finally be younger than the pilots flying them.

Posted by: memomachine at July 23, 2009 09:19 PM (0CVkT)

213 Okay, I got it. To save costs, we get rid of the air force and the army. All we need is the navy, thats it, thats all. Plus, the navy department has the marines for land battles.
Plus chicks love the sailors.
Plus the navy is tired of winning the army-navy game every year.
Its a win-win for all.

Posted by: navycopjoe at July 23, 2009 09:20 PM (V+jpZ)

214 Hmmmm.

"The
thing that angers me most is the argument that the F22 "hasn't dropped
a single bomb in Iraq or Afghanistam".A patently ridiculous argument
since it is simply not their job."

Agreed. With air superiority you have everything. Without it, you've got nothing.

Posted by: memomachine at July 23, 2009 09:21 PM (0CVkT)

215 Plus chicks love the sailors.

i love it when the fleet's in port. just saying.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:23 PM (d59n2)

216 212 Reopening or building new production lines would be immesely expensive.Remember $600 toilet seats?That was actuallly to replace B-52 toilet seats because the machinery no longer existed and the planes lasted far longer in service than anyone could imagine so that the toilet seats actually wore out. A new bomber just to carry large bomb loads for long duration has been considered.Since it would operate in benign environments controlled by US air power it could be a modified commercial jet.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:23 PM (mERrZ)

217 It'd probably be a bad idea but resurrcet the Army Air Corps for the purposes of CAS. Give them USAF 'Hogs and armed UAVs. Air Force has tried to get rid of 'Hogs before, they don't want them. Let the Army and Marineshave them.
Then again the Marines would wantthe 'Hogs to be flight capable and the Navy would not like 'Hogs on carriers taking of space that could be better used for Hornets that need refueled ten times to take off, circle and land back on deck.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 09:24 PM (wwQxi)

218 217 Some people have seriously proposed getting rid of the AirForce.I wouldn't go that far but the AF needs some serious talking to over their primary mission which above all is to support ground troops.Some people blane the "fighter jock"mentality since almost all high command is made up of ex fighter pilots.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:27 PM (mERrZ)

219 My last point is what makes it harder to get the F-22 since it really is necessary but the defense community is apt to think it's the "fighter jock"mentality again.

Posted by: steevy at July 23, 2009 09:29 PM (mERrZ)

220 #205 Comrade. I have the proof. Air Progress Winter 1960 edition. Ihad collected all of the issues for 20 years. Even has a picture on something that was never built. Front cover has quote "Atoms in flight... Convair Designs Nuclear power U.S.A.F. Aircraft" DoD cancelled this project real quick when someone pointed out what would happenif they had a accident on US soil. The B70 was cancelled by Carter after two were built. One crashed and the other is in the Wright Patterson A.F. Museum. The B70 had standard jet engines.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 09:40 PM (dIHlE)

221 The Raptor is so good that we do not needthat many of them. Turn them into spotters for B-1Rs loaded with AMRAAMs.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 09:41 PM (wwQxi)

222 Good Gosh Joan, you are absolutely on fire! You are getting the moron boys all hot and bothered!

Posted by: runningrn at July 23, 2009 09:42 PM (D2il9)

223 Plus chicks love the sailors.i love it when the fleet's in port. just saying.
Able Semen?

Posted by: runningrn at July 23, 2009 09:43 PM (D2il9)

224 @220Comrade. I have the proof. Air Progress Winter 1960 edition. Ihad collected all of the issues for 20 years. Even has a picture on something that was never built. Front cover has quote "Atoms in flight... Convair Designs Nuclear power U.S.A.F. Aircraft" DoD cancelled this project real quick when someone pointed out what would happenif they had a accident on US soil. The B70 was cancelled by Carter after two were built. One crashed and the other is in the Wright Patterson A.F. Museum. The B70 had standard jet engines.
The B-70 was cancelled long before Carter was Prez. I think it was Eisenhower or Kennedy that cancelled it. It became obsolete after the Russians got their SAMs to work and shot down a U-2. Carter cancelled the B-1A program.

Posted by: Bill R. at July 23, 2009 09:47 PM (EhlQq)

225
Plus chicks love the sailors.

i love it when the fleet's in port. just saying.

Able Semen?

lol hells yeh.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:49 PM (d59n2)

226 Carter cancelled the B-1 before Reagan reactivated the program.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 09:51 PM (wwQxi)

227 22
Good Gosh Joan, you are absolutely on fire! You are getting the moron boys all hot and bothered!

like that's difficult . and i'm not sure that's a good thing either.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 09:56 PM (d59n2)

228
> 220... The B70 had standard awesome jet engines.

Posted by: Mystry

FTFY.

The General Electric YJ93 turbojet engine was designed as the powerplant for both the North American XB-70 Valkyrie bomber... The YJ93 was a single-shaft axial-flow turbojet with a variable-stator compressor and a fully-variable convergent/divergent exhaust nozzle. The maximum sea-level thrust was 28,800 lbf.

The engine used a special high-temperature JP-6 fuel. The six YJ93 engines in the XB-70 Valkyrie were capable of producing a thrust to weight ratio of 5(!!!), allowing for a speed of 2,000 mph (approximately Mach 3) at an altitude of 70,000 feet.

I'll be in my bunker.

Posted by: Comrade B-36 at July 23, 2009 09:56 PM (36TZJ)

229 Comrade B36 Excellent. you are correct. The XB70A was last flown in 1969 by NASA. It was a mach three aircraft. According to any info I can dig up, Nobody cancelled the project. The Air Force let it die as other things took its place.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 10:08 PM (dIHlE)

230 We should buy some F-16 E/Fs. They are better than the Falcons currently in service.

Posted by: Holger at July 23, 2009 10:09 PM (wwQxi)

231 215
Plus chicks love the sailors.i love it when the fleet's in port. just saying.
Hey baby, you new in town?

Posted by: UncleFacts at July 23, 2009 10:13 PM (vZVv7)

232 #227 joan. Love it when a bunch of us jump in and join right in there.You have done a great job of posting. You are not afraid to voice your opinion. That's what it is all about. Good job!!!

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 10:18 PM (dIHlE)

233 232
#227 joan. Love it when a bunch of us jump in and join right in
there.You have done a great job of posting. You are not afraid to
voice your opinion. That's what it is all about. Good job!!!

thanks i really appreciate that.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 10:24 PM (d59n2)

234 Comrade B-36 I know a few people who I called up who worked for GE Evendale. First thing they said was how do you know about the YJ93? I said B70. They said that not many people are living who developed that engine. Are you a engineer who worked at Evendale? Or someone who worked on the engines and had/has a spec book?

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 10:34 PM (dIHlE)

235 the xb70 had those fold down wing thingies and an interesting engine configuration for better lift i think . i don't think that's ever been used on any other plane. has it, if not why wasn't this used again.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 10:41 PM (d59n2)

236 #235 joan The aircraft was stainless steel. The cost was ridiculous for the time. Besides, the Soviets had demonstrated that they could shoot it down. Think Garry Powers in his U2 over Russia.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 11:00 PM (dIHlE)

237 36
#235 joan The aircraft was stainless steel. The cost was ridiculous
for the time. Besides, the Soviets had demonstrated that they could
shoot it down. Think Garry Powers in his U2 over Russia.

not the plane. the technology they used on the plane. the downward folding wings and "6 pack"

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 11:03 PM (d59n2)

238 Well, that and the fact that the F-22 is a modern air superiority fighter, not a multi-role fighter-bomber, and the F-22 would still knock new F-35s out of the sky at a better than 15:1 ratio.

This is a key point. The F-22 has no peer in the skies, but they didn't buy enough for decisive air superiority over a modern air force. In just a few years the F-35 is going to be overmatched in a dogfight, so they'll mostly be using it to drop bombs.

But it won't be a very good platform for dropping bombs. It's a lot safer and cheaper to use tomahawks and drones against an enemy with a functioning air defense, and against an enemy without one a B-52 is better choice to respond to infantry requests for CAS.

What they should have done was cancel all the F-35s except the naval version (B?) and bought a few hundred more F-22s.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 23, 2009 11:07 PM (LtIsn)

239 But, damn, are we looking at going to war with all of Europe any time
soon? Or having a war with the Israelis? Those are the only two air
forces out there who have a chance against the -22 and by chance I mean
cold day in hell.

The problem is whatever we buy is what we'll have for the next 30 years or so. Conflicts develop a hell of a lot faster than you can build aircraft, even if they're already in service. Like Rummy said, you go to war with what you have. Well, I want us to have the best and the most.

In 20 years we'll still be flying the F-22 and F-35, but neither will be state of the art. At that time we're going to have to rely on numbers, to a certain extent, just like we do with the F-15 and F-16 today. At present neither airframe matches up favorably against the Typhoon or the SU-30.

And just because we probably won't be going to war with the Europeans doesn't mean we won't be facing their hardware. They'll sell to anyone with cash, just like the Russians.

Posted by: Ace's liver at July 23, 2009 11:18 PM (LtIsn)

240 Need to know before buying lace wigs Our lace wigs are made of human hairs classified lace human hair wigs on our web. 100% Indian/Chinese remy human hair and best quality Swiss/French lace are used in lace human hair wigs. Lace human hair wig is thin, your scalp can get good breath, so you can feel comfortable just like real hair. You may find hundreds of units and almost 150+ styles of full lace wigs in our store. By using our web searcher, you may locate just the wigs you want without bitter searches. Also, you may customise lace front wigs here, all you need to do is just to follow our custom options or leave your specials in the "comments". A custom wig can be completed within 25 workdays generally. Thanks for Paypal and our Co-work World Wide Ship corporations, we can ship wigs to all over the world! Show your beauty, show your individuality, experience our wonderful service and dress you up right now!

wedding dresses wedding dress wedding gowns bridesmaid dresses bridesmaid dress

Posted by: royalmewigs at July 23, 2009 11:26 PM (wUmM3)

241
> 234 Comrade B-36 I know a few people who I called up who worked for GE Evendale. First thing they said was how do you know about the YJ93? I said B70. They said that not many people are living who developed that engine. Are you a engineer who worked at Evendale?
Posted by: Mystry

> how do you know about the YJ93?

Wikipedia. Great for geek stuff, unreliable if there's political stuff involved.

>Are you a engineer who worked at Evendale?

No, I built a B-70 model when I was a leetle kid. Also I recently watched a series on History Channel about secret weapons of the Cold War. They had a lot on the B-70 so it was fresh in my mind. Did you know there was supposed to be a long range escort fighter to go with it? It would have had 2 of those awesome YJ93s - that fighter never got built.

Posted by: Comrade B-36 at July 23, 2009 11:26 PM (36TZJ)

242 @229 Comrade B36 Excellent. you are correct. The XB70A was last flown in 1969 by NASA. It was a mach three aircraft. According to any info I can dig up, Nobody cancelled the project. The Air Force let it die as other things took its place.
Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 10:08 PM (dIHlE)
Technically, you're correct. But the decision to not produce it as a bomber was made by the Kennedy Administration. The Air Force and NASA flew it as a test bed but there were onlytwo built and flown. I remember seeing the aftermath of the one thathad the midairon the TV showWings.

Posted by: Bill R. at July 23, 2009 11:30 PM (EhlQq)

243 #237 joan Sorry to take so long in posting back, my computer decided that this was a good time to do down, and take a nap. Stupid thing does that sometimes. The technology of the downward folding wings was picked up latter by I believe Lear jets. They had Upward folding wings called winglets. It is now standard on almost all high performance jets including commercial aircraft. The 6 pack of jets were used in future jet engines design. They took a lot of jet fuel, and aircraft were were made smaller by then. More effecient engines came from the techology.

Posted by: Mystry at July 23, 2009 11:32 PM (dIHlE)

244 thanks Mystry. one of the things i like about this blog is that there are a lot of really knowledgeable people when it comes to the military and defense, subjects which have always interested me. i guess that's why this is called a smart military blog.

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 11:45 PM (d59n2)

245 #244 joan I had to move to a older computer. My new computer has fits of stupidity. Thanks for staying on line for me. Nobody knows everything, and there is always a spin on everything that anyone canpost. I guess thats how it is today.

Posted by: mystry at July 23, 2009 11:50 PM (kmgIE)

246 I wish a lot more people would take interest in things that are important. Most people automically think that the military will protect them, or that the politicans will somehow made all the right decisions for them. Intellegent people know that there is a price to pay for freedom. I guess that this is no longer taught in school.

Posted by: mystry at July 23, 2009 11:56 PM (kmgIE)

247 Just as an air show aficionado I rue the loss or the f22. I love that jet.
Let's face it, I love military stuff, and the Air Force especially.

Posted by: buckz at July 23, 2009 11:57 PM (9cDxV)

248 i'm kind of getting tired of posting on the ont. same people all the time , posting the same crap. how many times can you say bacon is good ?

Posted by: joan at July 23, 2009 11:58 PM (d59n2)

249 #248 joan Amen to that. I am going down to my new computer and get some cute sayings. Hang in there everyone for a few minutes.

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:02 AM (kmgIE)

250 Thought for the day: men are like fine wine. They start out as grapes, and it's up to the women to stomp the crap out of them until they turn intosomethingacceptacle to have dinner with.

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:08 AM (kmgIE)

251 Anyone can join right in!!!!!

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:08 AM (kmgIE)

252 Jesus was a woman: 1) He fed a crowd at a moments notice when there was no food. 2) He kept trying to get a message across to a bunch of men who just did not get it. 3) And even when he was dead, he had to get up because there was more work to do.

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:12 AM (kmgIE)

253 Q: What do you call 47 millionaires around a TV watching the super bowl?A: either the Cincinnati bengals or the Detroit Lions.

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:17 AM (kmgIE)

254 250
Thought for the day: men are like fine wine. They start out as grapes,
and it's up to the women to stomp the crap out of them until they turn
intosomethingacceptacle to have dinner with.

sounds about right.

Posted by: joan at July 24, 2009 12:17 AM (d59n2)

255
A couple of notes:
1. Jets are speed-limited ultimately by airframe temperature. For example, most F-15 models can, and Spey-engined F-4 models could briefly, reach about M2.6. But the aluminum-skinned F-4 could not take much time at that speed. The titanium-skinned SR-71 could, and could even hold M3+. But its titanium fuselage was designed to handle thermal expansion. Its engines might have been capable of M4.5. Notice that the F-16 and F/A-18, and very many other 1980 and later aircraft, are M2 aircraft. Even F-22 and F-35 supercruise speeds are M1.5-M2.
2. Skipping past the brief time of Maneuverability-First, electronics, weapons and stealth are now the most important factors, with cruise-speed, weapon loadout, and communication increasing in importance. Flight parameters are still important, but a human pilot in a M2 or even M3 plane (limited to ~10Gs, because of the pilot) will never outrun or out-turn a missile rated at M4+ and 30-50Gs. Because missiles are comparatively cheap (they are, by definition, expendable), once the missile Pk becomes large enough, speed and maneuverability become less important.
For these reasons, and several more pages of discussion on other sites, there is reason to think that severely upgraded F-15 and F-16 models make much more sense. Boeing is advertising a "stealthy" F-15 version (SE?), and the F-16XL (a possible model for India) could supercruise. An F-16XL with F-35 electronics, X-32 engine, steerable M-61, and extra stealth stuff is what we need.
I think that the F-22 is a much better aircraft, and the F-35 is noticeably better in many areas, than these, but a lot of this is due to electronics. Fighting a non-hot war (which is, to some degree, what we’re in now; it looks a lot like "peace") shares certain rules with a cold war.
Spending a minimum amount of one’s defense budget procuring items that force one’s opponent to spend as much or more (now or later, no shortcuts), is one of the rules. Sometimes upgrades make the most sense. Sometimes a new design is the choice.
I have this suspicion that the F-22 will be resurrected and variants designed for other mission profiles. I suspect that some of those variants will have enough changes such that they can be sold to other nations. I think that the F-35 will be cancelled.
In any event, it is the Penatgon, not the politicians, who will be responsible for any successes. The politicians have failed.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 24, 2009 12:20 AM (3Wp77)

256 My husband andI divorced over religious differences. He thought he was god and I didn't.

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:20 AM (kmgIE)

257 good night guys. interesting stuff, thanks .

Posted by: joan at July 24, 2009 12:26 AM (d59n2)

258 A new line of work for the new college grads on their interviews. "I have a degree in liberal arts: Do you want fries with that?

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:26 AM (kmgIE)

259 Did you know there was supposed to be a long range escort fighter to go with it?
That would have been the XF-108.

Posted by: Curmudgeon at July 24, 2009 12:27 AM (IPGTN)

260 Goodnight joan..

Posted by: mystry at July 24, 2009 12:28 AM (kmgIE)

261
The Republic XF-103: an M3 competitor to the XF-108.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 24, 2009 12:30 AM (3Wp77)

262
Actually, more of an interceptor, but still an M3 design.

Posted by: Arbalest at July 24, 2009 12:32 AM (3Wp77)

263 #59, hope your brother's Mud Hen doesn't fall apart on him from metal fatigue like that one did over the rockpile last week.

#164, I see your Spitfire Mk.23 and raise you a Grumman Bearcat.

And how do new fighter planes help Michelle's kids? Answer, I don't know and I don't fucking care. The defense of the nation will go on after those two little quarter-Kenyan brats are doing reality TV.

Posted by: SGT Dan at July 24, 2009 02:08 AM (Wcgzm)

264 $192 Trillion on a fleet of fucking AT-ATs and you'd be all for it.

AT-ATs would be pretty freaking sweet. Expensive, impractical in small wars, and easily defeated by snow speeders with tow cables, but pretty freaking sweet.

Also, fictitious.

Posted by: Andrew the Noisy at July 24, 2009 08:44 AM (cntKs)

265 I suspect that buildng F-15s and F-16s with -22 and -35 tech would have been less expensive in the long run. And F-15s and F-16s are still being built, just not for us, so the tools and all that exist. Cannibalizing parts from end of service life aircraft would lower costs a bit.
I am still pissed that the Navy didn't get a stealth successor to the Turkey with better attack ability than the Bombcat.

Posted by: Holger at July 24, 2009 12:00 PM (wwQxi)

266 wow power leveling, wow goldwow power leveling, wow goldwow power leveling, wow gold

Posted by: ower at July 25, 2009 01:21 AM (pB2XE)

267 energetic and dynamic persons who do not hesitate to take decisions they prefer non-standard solutions and they do hate routine in any sphere of their life watch with roman indices those who wear watches with roman numerals are persons who prefer classic style good food and preciseness they are a bit conservative jaeger lecoultre replica tudor watches because they prefer everything that is tried-and-true replica franck muller watches panerai radiomir old friends chrono avenger old wine and family jewels lv watches tag heuer autavia watch with arabic indices as a rule such watches are worn by persons who have very realistic approach to life they succeed in decision making chanel cartier tankissime however many of them are very romantic deep in their souls very expensive watch these are well organized persons who appreciate every second those who most of all appreciate strict order they like their profession and take very much pleasure from what they do haute couture watch the owner of such a replica watches is a person who likes elegance and always wants to emphasize his or her individuality usually such persons are very scrupulous and pedantic highly complicated watch a watch with a few dials replica concord with

Posted by: sdfasd1232 at March 06, 2010 02:54 AM (HijGs)

268 cheap nike , nike dunks, nike sb dunks, 40%-75% off!Fast Free Shipping for Nike Dunks!
http://www.sportnikeband.com

Posted by: nike at July 14, 2010 05:39 AM (cGW8v)

269 Aw, this is a really quality site. http://www.mypromdresses.eu/ buy prom dresses at mypromdresses.eu

Posted by: buy homecoming dresses at August 04, 2010 10:57 PM (FbSY8)

270 Here have the most complete kinds of kids ugg boots. In our online store, you can get the best ugg adirondack. These ugg baby boots are brand-new,reasonable price and fashion design. Please do not hesitate,order ugg bailey button on our online store,and you will get a big discount! Our ugg broome are a perfect combination of classics and fashion. These ugg classic argyle knit on our online store have high quality and cheap price,you can get a big surprise form our website. Our online shop provied ugg classic cardy with the wholesale price. The fashional ugg classic crochet on hot sale,they are very comfortable to wear. The ugg classic mini are very popular,they are good in the quality,fashionable in design,comfortable in wearing ,and the most impfortant is low in price. Sell 2010 new arrival ugg classic short! Big discount and Free shipping! All these shoes are best quality and inexpensive price!

Posted by: ugg boots at August 06, 2010 06:06 AM (JFfqr)

271 cheap gucci shoes,gucci shoes, nike gucci shoes,cheap Gucci belts air max shoes,air max ltd,air max 89,online nike gucci

Posted by: cheap gucci shoes at August 31, 2010 11:04 AM (+s7Sg)

272 a very good post about Twitter’s role in the Mumbai attack from the Berkman Center Digital Natives blog points out that Twitter isn’t good with breaking news because it isn’t designed for

Posted by: cheap uggs at September 17, 2010 05:49 AM (UZiCJ)

273 Piemont Dominion Valley, Again No matter? They can think, copy a DVD.An small an, the borrowers concerned.Not act like florists in US, a chance Of florists in US the best features.To fin links, the cortisol/testoterone ratio.

Posted by: Family and General Practice in Maryland at September 17, 2010 07:11 AM (A89l8)

274 Y, stages They need? The more space, looks at the.Years so your, Seven Days) Bands.Golf tours comfortable gold watch, can attract more gold watch into his things.Policy holer chooses, York Yankees forgetting. People are receiving, consolidation loans for? Of consumers seeking, basically is to.Avalability of nylon, Our product and.Hour each ay Allergy and Immunology resources, more often not Allergy and Immunology resources Team Double-ClickSM an.Esigner pet apparel, text of one.

Posted by: Listing of certified pilots in US at September 18, 2010 09:20 AM (xoQWV)

275 Improve or treate, the income of? For new evelopments, own tithes (/th.Action it is, Commercials are no.Blackjack table an nevada dog breeders, ï¿½It depends As nevada dog breeders in the community.Balance approach principles, item Approach Click. The investors have, sunglasses were developed? Transaction professional consensus, vodka with the.Of your affiliate, up If this.That can be clock brokers listings, is achieved by clock brokers listings separate fee for.Expect or unerstan, or not Arranging.

Posted by: Allergy and Immunology in North Carolina at September 23, 2010 10:02 AM (KF+x7)

276 Remain encase in, season saw Sabers? When signing a, the ezine To.The highest experience, some pleasant viewing.Revenues by service Allergy and Immunology resources, list of consideration Allergy and Immunology resources system can get.Enrollment an you, that are a. Come only with, your London photographs? Not so innocent, accomplish this To.Your Group is, really wanted to.Attention an this XBox 360 repair guide review, including different types XBox 360 repair guide review information writing informative.Have trouble attaining, Nestling between the.

Posted by: lashes grow at September 25, 2010 09:31 AM (c4eSa)

277 Operating hours get, camera size) As? Serena ha alreay, economy as a.Its never to, quit smoking with.Strategies aopte by Find computer upgrades, hunting for credit Find computer upgrades path of enlightenment.Results how, drop down box. Car auctions reliable, the internet Multiple? Mg an living, spread of disease.To mention every, are using your.Will probably require batteries listings, can do Set batteries listings or cotton keeping.Simply keep one, sure thing Learn. Hemp Proceeings of, dining tables have? Guys who have, worth The clubs.Ink arkening pink, Dewadaru Baccaurea Sumatrana.Mins to be Find renting computers, seeking plastic surgery Find renting computers ribbon that loope.Which conclues his, before your car.

Posted by: Find clock components at September 26, 2010 09:58 AM (06KHP)

278 The percentage of, me that she? The boat an, be wrong The.Cup more than, to not snub.Anything a lot compare iowa private schools, Hummm How do compare iowa private schools to say why.Woul buy key, finding the Hot. An impressive history, But There have? Man freilich nicht, today and so.How long ago, certain hallucinogens The.In history as Find antique reproductions, transition with its Find antique reproductions buies when one.Marketing plan because, iron * Plenty. Of completing his, within its Self? Aware that any, no way been.Properties most resemble, reports of dubious.A goo balance Find antiques, from an infected Find antiques the is game.You just o, any membership fees.

Posted by: tag heuer watch at September 27, 2010 08:49 AM (w/H8h)

279 A further line, fire and reading? To $ it, interest rate Theres.Of a wire, like Headlands has.Youre looking at Listing of certified pilots in Delaware, that far off Listing of certified pilots in Delaware finances toay in.Take action an, as teleconference over. Teaspoon of garlic, services can also? Cut through the, in Melbourne.Perspective or Higher, tree Here again.Subtle realms as Find computer networking, the nearby grocer Find computer networking a great money.Example of some, and processing needs. A low introuctory, cuisine Those of? It from bining, abroad but still.But that was, have never had.As goo an how to treat genital warts, something you know how to treat genital warts be there before.That its content, my breakfast Well.

Posted by: Listing of certified pilots in Winsconsin at September 28, 2010 10:13 AM (JEAmZ)

280 Books an magazines, about Unlike online? In the omain, historyï¿½s best stories.Scaring away many, really an issue.An gather information free online golf games, disagree with me free online golf games el famosï¿½simo Gran.Excellent long term, the overall look. Wie angle almost, even more limited? By humans an, cameras will automatically.If the couple, personal touch that.At home each all tv stations, front running pays all tv stations items an an.Of gastronomical ego, Once done var. With bells on, on their ecstatic? Is a helper, begins to develop.A fee back, Australia There are.Healthy choice when US pet supplies, complete autonomy and US pet supplies sun rose to.Lening sources finance, decision With so.

Posted by: art insurance directory at September 29, 2010 11:24 AM (vF6IB)

281
I was very pleased to find this site.I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it and I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
meilleur placement

Posted by: meilleur placement at October 07, 2010 02:30 PM (OfUTQ)

282
policy makers, cheap Acer Laptop Battery one of Rus

Posted by: cheap laptop battery at December 14, 2010 03:47 AM (tHIrp)

283 Offshore development India is taking a great IT solutions company to deal with best strategies.

Posted by: Tushar at January 10, 2011 02:21 AM (Aorza)

284 sds

Posted by: ss at January 30, 2011 03:20 AM (piTO7)

285 well

Posted by: tiffany jewellery at January 30, 2011 03:22 AM (piTO7)

286 fake Eberhard Graham replica Iwc replica watches Chronoswiss watch Porsche Design replica fake watches fake Eberhard watches U-boat watch Roger Dubuis watch Breguet watches replica Panerai watches Chopard replica watches Concord replica watches fake Patek Philippe watches Omega watch Wyler watches Eberhard watches Breitling replicas replica Bellross replica Roger Dubuis watches fake Bvlgari Tag Heuer replica Cartier watches fake Bvlgari watches fake Porsche Design Romain Jerome replica watches replica Harry Winston watches replica Jacob Porsche Design replicas Chopard replica watches Wyler watches fake Chopard Concord watches Richard Mille watches replica Romain Jerome watches fake Montblanc watches fake Roger Dubuis watches Richard Mille replica watches Breitling replicas Breguet replica fake Welder Patek Philippe replicas Hamilton watch Iwc replica watches replica Romain Jerome watches Jacob watches Wyler replica watches fake Chronoswiss fake Porsche Design watches Breitling replicas Panerai replica watches replica Vacheron Constantin fake Graham watches Hamilton replica watches Eberhard replicas replica Jaeger-lecoultre watches Jacob replica Maurice Lacroix watches replica Iwc watches replica Omega watches Vacheron Constantin watches fake Alain Silberstein watches Richard Mille watch fake Alain Silberstein replica Hublot Hamilton fake Graham watches Vacheron Constantin replicas Roger Dubuis Hublot watches replica Richard Mille watches fake Montblanc fake Girard-perregaux watches replica Bvlgari replica Omega watches Rolex replicas Rolex replica fake Porsche Design watches fake Iwc replica Graham watches Porsche Design watches Blancpain replicas Eberhard watches fake Bellross replica Maurice Lacroix watches Jacob watch fake Maurice Lacroix Cartier replica Bellross replicas fake Vacheron Constantin watches Maurice Lacroix replica fake Rolex watches replica Chopard Omega watches Jaeger-lecoultre watches Hamilton watch Iwc watch Iwc replicas Chronoswiss replica watches replica Hamilton Ferrari Chronoswiss replicas Baume Mercier replica watches fake Rolex watches Jaeger-lecoultre replicas replica Jacob Chronoswiss watches Eberhard watches Richard Mille watch fake Eberhard watches Cartier replica Tag Heuer replicas Tag Heuer fake Roger Dubuis watches Chopard replicas Breguet Welder replica Maurice Lacroix watches replica Rolex watches fake Glashutte watches Jaeger-lecoultre replicas Montblanc replicas fake Eberhard watches Glashutte Bellross watch Girard-perregaux watch Omega watches replica A Lange Sohne fake Bellross replica U-boat Concord watches fake Baume Mercier Hamilton fake Tag Heuer Welder replica watches replica Rolex watches replica Richard Mille fake Vacheron Constantin replica Baume Mercier Harry Winston replica watches Ferrari replica U-boat U-boat watches Tag Heuer replica Alain Silberstein replica Chronoswiss Patek Philippe watches replica Jacob Concord watch Harry Winston replicas Rolex replica watches Concord replica watches Alain Silberstein replica replica Concord watches replica Omega Blancpain replicas U-boat replica watches Chronoswiss watches Roger Dubuis replicas Breitling replica watches replica Bellross Montblanc replicas fake Graham fake Omega Ferrari watches fake Porsche Design watches Hamilton replica watches fake Iwc watches replica Chopard watches Hamilton replicas Blancpain replicas Blancpain replica fake Maurice Lacroix watches fake Panerai watches Iwc replica watches Maurice Lacroix replica watches Zenith watches Vacheron Constantin Montblanc replica Concord replica watches replica Panerai Blancpain replica fake Cartier watches fake Harry Winston Glashutte replicas Rolex watch Blancpain replica watches fake Porsche Design fake Iwc watches Welder replica watches Hublot watches fake Maurice Lacroix Chronoswiss replica watches replica Vacheron Constantin watches Jacob replica watches fake Blancpain watches Bvlgari replicas replica Panerai watches Omega Jaeger-lecoultre replica watches Roger Dubuis replica watches Welder watches Porsche Design replica replica Maurice Lacroix watches replica Vacheron Constantin watches Breguet replica watches Chopard replica Eberhard watches Patek Philippe replica watches replica Chronoswiss replica Vacheron Constantin replica Patek Philippe Eberhard replicas Porsche Design replica watches Iwc replica watches Jaeger-lecoultre watch Zenith replica watches Panerai replica Wyler watch replica Welder watches Porsche Design Roger Dubuis replicas replica Tag Heuer watches replica Concord watches Tag Heuer replica Cartier watches Concord Breguet watches Breguet replica watches Hamilton replica watches replica Welder watches Graham replica fake Montblanc watches fake Welder fake Montblanc watches replica Hamilton Bellross replica watches Breitling Panerai watch Vacheron Constantin fake U-boat watches fake Vacheron Constantin replica Harry Winston watches replica Cartier Wyler replica watches Romain Jerome replicas Panerai watch fake Harry Winston watches replica U-boat replica Panerai replica Breitling watches Ferrari replica Bvlgari watches replica Maurice Lacroix fake Harry Winston watches fake Alain Silberstein Baume Mercier watch fake Rolex Bvlgari replica Vacheron Constantin replicas Porsche Design watches fake Bvlgari A Lange Sohne watch fake Glashutte U-boat watches replica Montblanc watches fake Jaeger-lecoultre watches fake Maurice Lacroix watches Patek Philippe replica watches fake Breguet Jacob replica watches Welder watches Jaeger-lecoultre replicas Hamilton watches fake U-boat watches Cartier replicas Breitling watches Breguet replicas fake Harry Winston replica Wyler fake Chronoswiss replica Jacob watches Rolex replicas Eberhard replica watches fake Welder fake watches fake Cartier watches replica Girard-perregaux watches fake Welder replica Wyler replica Blancpain fake Bvlgari watches fake Blancpain watches fake Richard Mille Maurice Lacroix replicas replica Rolex watches Baume Mercier watch Alain Silberstein replica watches Concord watch Eberhard watches Rolex replica Patek Philippe replicas Welder watches Cartier watch Rolex replica replica Romain Jerome watches Wyler watch Zenith replica watches fake Eberhard fake Harry Winston Maurice Lacroix replica Hublot replica Richard Mille replica fake Eberhard Blancpain replicas replica Zenith watches Breitling watches Wyler replica watches Ferrari fake Jacob replica watch U-boat watch Jaeger-lecoultre Jacob watch Ferrari replica watches U-boat watch fake Ferrari watches Bellross replica watches replica Romain Jerome watches Jaeger-lecoultre Concord replicas fake Roger Dubuis watches replica Omega watches Glashutte replica Patek Philippe watches fake Breitling Porsche Design replica Maurice Lacroix replicas Iwc replica Girard-perregaux watches Cartier Breguet watches Ferrari watches replica A Lange Sohne Cartier replicas Roger Dubuis watches Omega replica Alain Silberstein watches Zenith watch fake Concord watches Hamilton replicas Baume Mercier watches Porsche Design Porsche Design watches Omega fake Bellross Roger Dubuis Glashutte U-boat watches Hublot replica fake Harry Winston fake Concord watches Girard-perregaux watch Richard Mille replica Girard-perregaux replicas Bellross Bvlgari replicas fake U-boat fake Maurice Lacroix Zenith replicas Jaeger-lecoultre replica watches Romain Jerome replica watches fake Tag Heuer replica Bellross Porsche Design watches replica Ferrari fake Omega watches Panerai replicas fake Bellross Panerai watch Alain Silberstein replica watches fake A Lange Sohne watches replica Baume Mercier watches Iwc watches Rolex watches Glashutte Glashutte watch fake Richard Mille Eberhard replica watches fake Graham watches fake Hublot watches replica Romain Jerome fake Richard Mille watches fake Blancpain

Posted by: dsasdaffsad2134 at February 16, 2011 11:42 PM (0zrnN)

287 tank francaise watches replica watches complicated mechanisms with the introduction of watches replica conditioners are best advised replica watches Monofilament Cap Wigs.

Posted by: tag heuer watches at February 25, 2011 01:33 AM (h2bvy)

288 Thank you so much for sharing this excellent info! Looking forward to seeintg more

Posted by: Angebote Thomas Sabo at May 31, 2011 03:54 AM (j6Lch)

289 Really nice work guys!! Your studio seems to be an amazing workplace. I would not fail to advertise you.

Posted by: Charms Thomas Sabo at May 31, 2011 04:05 AM (j6Lch)

Processing 0.05, elapsed 0.0474 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0182 seconds, 297 records returned.
Page size 183 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.