$7.2 Billion F-22 upgrade

SamFisher · Dec 2, 2011

KingCheetah said: ↑

Why are some of you saying the F-22 hasn't been used to protect the US? Here we have a F-22 keeping a TU-95 at bay. Do you honestly think there is another fighter in the USAF that could perform this duty?
Click to expand...

Not since we mothballed the P-51 Mustang. Stupid Truman.

Child_Plz · Dec 2, 2011

Deckard said: ↑

That's a Bear of an aircraft, KC! I'm an F-22 fan, by the way. I just wish we'd built more of them. After such an enormous investment that produced what is easily the best fighter in the world, and likely to remain so for a very long time, why build fewer than 200 of the damn things? Stupid.
Click to expand...

Because...
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/07/business/la-fi-fighter-jets-grounded-20110807

The plane takes about 3,000 people to maintain, the Air Force said. The service calculated that for every hour in the air, the F-22 spends 45 hours undergoing maintenance.

Two decades ago, the U.S. government planned to buy 648 of the fighters for $139 million apiece; the cost has almost tripled since then to $412 million, the Government Accountability Office said.

Recently retired Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates ended the purchase in 2009 at 188 planes, only a handful of which are still being built. The $273-million increase per plane translates to $51.3 billion in lost buying power for the F-22 program.
Click to expand...

On a side note, the TU-95 (on the pic next to the F-22) entered service in 1956, and according to the Russians is expected to stay in service till 2040.

Bandwagoner · Dec 2, 2011

Child_Plz said: ↑

On a side note, the TU-95 (on the pic next to the F-22) entered service in 1956, and according to the Russians is expected to stay in service till 2040.
Click to expand...

Communist?

Our B-52's will probably have a longer service life with more flight hours.

KingCheetah · Dec 2, 2011

SamFisher said: ↑

Not since we mothballed the P-51 Mustang. Stupid Truman.
Click to expand...

If you notice in the background the Moon is not attempting any attacks on the US. Coincidence?

StupidMoniker · Dec 2, 2011

KingCheetah said: ↑

If you notice in the background the Moon is not attempting any attacks on the US. Coincidence?
Click to expand...

That's no moon. Oh wait, that is a moon. Never mind.

rhadamanthus · Dec 30, 2011

Very interesting (and long) article on DoD research.

Summary:

The US spends nearly $76 billion annually on defense research and development, an amount that exceeds the total defense spending of any other country except China.

Much military R&D goes not to research but to development and demonstration projects for expensive gadgets based on unsound technology.

Reform of defense R&D could save tens of billions of dollars while increasing support for the basic research that has powered the American economy, from radar to the Internet.
Click to expand...

Highlights:

But much of what transpires in the name of military research and development is not research in the sense that it produces scientific and technical knowledge widely applicable inside and outside the Defense Department. A large part of defense R&D activity revolves around building very expensive gadgets that are often based on unsound technology and frequently fail to perform as required.
There is great room for reducing the overall military research and development budget -- without harming military preparedness at all -- by significantly overhauling its structure. Currently, the Pentagon spends only about 15 percent of its R&D budget, or about $12 billion, on what most reasonable observers might call productive research. That number needs to rise to at least $16 billion to meet the defense and civilian needs of the country.
Click to expand...

Basic research funding is intended to support "fundamental" scientific research that has ostensibly no connection to developing a specific weapon system. This category is the principal source of Pentagon's largesse to universities. And whether the nation should continue to spend huge sums of money in defense R&D, especially at universities, is an issue worthy of debate.

Applied research funds go mostly to government laboratories and contractor facilities. The purpose of this spending is focused research that, unlike basic research, is usually not publicly disseminated.

Development is a catchall budget category that supports weapon-building and testing programs conducted largely by huge defense contractors such as Boeing, Lockheed, and Raytheon.
Click to expand...

What's wrong with structure of defense R&D? As the above graphic illustrates, the total for what is known as the tech base is about $12 billion, compared with approximately $64 billion for less research-oriented activities that receive little in the way of oversight.

One basic problem with this funding structure involves allocation of resources. Program managers do not have much incentive to stay in the research-oriented, tech-base area. Their promotion potential is directly related to the size of the programs they manage, and more funding is always available in the development budget categories. So pure research tends to lose its best managers to development.

Another problem is the use of the rubric "R&D" as cover for what actually are military procurement programs. One of the most egregious examples of such mislabeling is the missile defense program. Most R&D money for missile defense has been consumed in procuring hardware for deployment of largely unproven anti-missile systems at selected sites in the United States and abroad.

Were the missile defense program to be placed primarily in the procurement or production budget categories -- an appropriate designation for the type of activities being undertaken -- the program simply would not survive. It would fail the operational testing that would be a prerequisite before any deployment decision were made or paid for. The missile defense program costs nearly $10 billion a year and has so far produced little useful technology. Since inception, it has eaten up nearly $150 billion, almost all of it spent from the research and development budget. The boost-phase missile defense Airborne Laser program is a quintessential example of the broken research, development, test, and evaluation (RDT&E) enterprise.
Click to expand...

In short, the vast majority of the DoD "research" oft-touted as a justification for even larger DoD investment is primarily just another corporate handout. It's absurd.

ToyCen428 · Dec 30, 2011

GladiatoRowdy · Dec 31, 2011

ToyCen428 said: ↑

Click to expand...

Defense appropriations is the one place where I think a Ron Paul presidency would actually have the impact that he wants.

Forums

$7.2 Billion F-22 upgrade

SamFisher Member

Child_Plz Member

Bandwagoner Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

rhadamanthus Member

ToyCen428 Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

Share This Page

About ClutchFans

Rockets Content

Support ClutchFans!

$7.2 Billion F-22 upgrade

SamFisher Member

Child_Plz Member

Bandwagoner Member

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy Supporting Member

StupidMoniker I lost a bet

rhadamanthus Member

ToyCen428 Member

GladiatoRowdy Member

Share This Page

KingCheetah Atomic Playboy
Supporting Member