Well, for what 1 F-22 can do vs. 4 F-16's the cost is really low compared to jets that we use from the 70's....... The real waste is maintaining these old ass aircraft which break more and more. The goal is, but will not be cleared or passed, is less aircraft which can do more. Newer, sleeker and more efficient.
The F-15c is air to air. So is the 22, though the 22 can hit ground targets too like the F-16. The problem is that the media and some here see the aircraft as: 1 F-22 1 F-16 1 F-15 When in reality 1 F-22 is every much equal to 4 of any jet in the air. However, where the F-16/F-15E shine are in air to ground. This is because of the stealth the 22 offers, which comes at a price of lower payloads.... We need to develop this technology so that in the future, we can do more with less
Well, there is one E-8 that is telling me all of this! He was injured in New Orleans during Katrina when the Jackson Barracks flooded and was undeployable when the brigade last went to Iraq. While they were gone, he was assigned to inspect armories in the state. The half of the guard that was undeployable had duties to perform here, but he consistently found them absent on duty, with knee-high grass, unserviced vehicles, and duties undone. Some of these are people on active duty pulling down regular army salaries. Some were officers, too. There are a lot of minority female guardsmen that are undeployable due to pregnancy, single parent with dependents, health issues, etc. They only joined for the benefits, not the soldiering, and are generally deadwood to the unit. The guard wastes supplies, they have arcane rules that force them to throw away food that would be considered safe to sell you in the grocery stores, and have dozens of armories that they haven't needed since the Cold War. Ask any guardsman, for every straight-up, valuable, deployable soldier, there is another guardsman who doesn't want to be there and probably shouldn't be. The point is that there are places to cut the military budget that doesn't hurt our military capability.
There is just as many examples of this in active duty... Like I said, the force has been taking actions in cutting the waste over the past few years..
First of all, they don't cost $350 billion, they cost 1/1,000th of that. All advanced aircraft require a lot of maintenance, and they haven't seen combat because we haven't needed them yet. They are absolutely deployed and combat-capable.
I can arrange for you to talk with the E-8 here in the La. National Guard that told me this if you need some more clarification. No kidding.
Apologies, I should have been clearer. My point was based more on the fact that perception is always misleading. There are a number of fat asses that I work for, seriously. Though I am amazed at how most of them can outrun me. On the flip side in my unit alone, they have lost 10% of our workforce to people who have failed their PT test 3+ times, also those who have been in trouble. The Force knows it’s an issue. At my first base, you used to be able to pay people to pass you on your PT test. Now they have brought in outside people to test us and they are dicks about it. When from once a year to twice a year and minimum values on every category.
Yep. When the F-22 became operational, they quickly retired the F-117 specifically for that reason--older technology and expensive to maintain. Interestingly, they are in flyable storage at Tonopah instead of at the Davis Monthan boneyard, however. Indeed. The F-22 is also a force-enhancer in that it makes the F-15's and F-16's more effective. Stealth is needed most on the first night of the war. Once enemy air defenses are suppressed, the conventional haulers can operate with more impunity.
I guess I meant less that they were fat, but rather that they were sitting on their fat asses a lot for the $94K that an E-8 on active duty makes.
