Vetoing the Raptors?

F-22s in Spending Bill May Spur White House Veto

The White House is threatening to veto the 2010 defense authorization bill if Congress includes money for more F-22 stealth fighters.

Last week, the House Armed Services committee voted to spend $369 million to begin buying parts for a dozen additional Raptors.

The administration is also opposed to the F136 alternative engine for the F-35. Congress continues to support its development despite resistance from the Air Force.

Comments

  1. According to Congressman Barney (limp-wrist) Frank (D-Mass) who was interviewed by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News Wednesday the F-22 Raptor is an antiquated relic of the “cold war” since it was designed to fight a land war in Europe against the invading Russians and their hoards of MIGs and Main Battle tanks.

    He and the rest of his Democrat Progressives intend to axe all future monetary allowcations to the Raptor program.

  2. Better than the antiquated F-35, a sub-par plane that without stealth, could be worse than a F-16.

  3. Are they actively trying to undermine the US Military and American interests?

    Oh, right…

  4. Well, the Russians and Chinese certainly seem worried about the F-22, given all the hubbub about domestic attempts at 5th generation fighters. Last I checked, both parties are still looking to acquire new “protectorate” territory. Maybe no one wants a land war in Germany any more, but how many shenanigans are we willing to tolerate in the Caucasus, Central Asian Republics, Koreas, and Taiwan?”

    The F-35A actually isn’t too bad; the on-paper stats can be misleading. For example: it has a similar thrust/weight ratio to a Viper once you burn off a third of the onboard fuel (which would be carried on drop tanks on an F-16). However, I wouldn’t want to bring a B or C model JSF within visual range of more than an equal number of hostiles.

    I don’t know why the Air Force is so irked at continuing the GE engine. Dad flew F-16’s in both the P&W and GE engine versions. He said it was no contest; the GE gave more thrust, didn’t break as much, and pretty much ran itself, while the P&W engine required pilots to keep complicated operation parameters in mind even during fights to avoid compressor stalls and other failures inconvenient to a single-engine jet.

  5. If you read the program specs on the F-35 you find out that it will not even be capable of the air to air combat until 2017 assuming the programing schedule holds firm. Till then you just have a great big target.

    The F-35 is not a fighter. It is a light bomber, which is what we do not need. We have plenty of bomb trucks, but we lack top end fighters. Make a Naval variant of the F-22, build the VSTOL F-35 and sell our allies the F-35. Back fill our second ranks with new F-15’s and bulk up the numbers with UCAV’s.

  6. James that would be great but the reason it won’t happen is the same reason why U.S. Soldiers will still be firing .223 calibre rifles in 2400AD… “it’s too hard/expensive to change it now”.

  7. The F-35 might have been a great platform, but too much went into making the F-35B version.

Comments are closed