Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

No new F-22 jets next year

July 21, 2009 by  

In a 58-40 vote the Senate approved an amendment that proposed to stop production on the newest F-22 fighter jet models.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates deemed the planes to be unnecessary and wanted the next line to be stricken from the 2010 defense budget.

President Obama supported Gate’s stance and declared the spending would have been "an inexcusable waste of money" for it meant less funding for troops.

Those who opposed this decision included Georgia republican Senator Saxby Chambliss and Connecticut’s Democratic Senator, Christopher Dodd, as well as labor unions such as the International Association of Machinists.

Ending production on the F-22, such opponents argued, would hurt, not help the economy and lead to job losses across the country. According to Bloomberg, 70,000 jobs are indirectly supported across 40 states by the F-22′s manufacturing.

There are currently 183 fighter jets in use, with plans to manufacture only 4 more. Instead, the Armed Forces aim to develop approximately 500 of the F-35 planes, CNN reports.

Ultimately, ending production on these fighter jets will cut the defense budget by $1.75 billion.
ADNFCR-1961-ID-19275699-ADNFCR

Personal Liberty News Desk

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “No new F-22 jets next year”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • js del

    I think this is a mistake. The reports I have seen show this aircraft to be top notch. While problems exist, they can be fixed as is the case with the release of all new aircraft and weaponry. We are mistaken to believe the “old world” threat no longer exists. Russia is still our enemy and wants to destroy us. Now, China has emerged as a military threat. The F-22 would ensure air superiority for the U.S. for years to come. Our aging fleet of F-15′s (possibly the greatest fighter jet of all time) will not be able to keep pace with the advances of our enemies. This is just yet another Obama plan to water down our military.

    • Brian Rawls

      The prez dont have any right to say that the police acted stupidly. Look at the shit that he has pulled. lmao! He is #1 stupid bastard in the USA.

    • Dennis Criss

      This is just 1 of many plan’s that Obama will use to Distroy America ( weaking our military ) he has also shutdown our missels in Alaska,everything he doe’s is against America, But what would you expect from a RADICAL ISLAMIC MUSLIM ( Obama ) he just wants to open up the country for his muslim brother’s to move in and take over and they are just look around .

    • Jeff

      What? Fighter Jets a waste of money? These hipocritical liberals are wasting billions of dollars on bailouts that are helping no one. I would be glad to see our money “wasted” on fighter jets for national defense rather than greedy corporate execs who are running American businesses into the ground. Their millions of dollars salaries and bonuses are not satisfactory for them, those poor, poor deprived individuals.

  • Big J

    The F-22 is a fine airplane and we need to keep as many of these as are needed to defend our country. Why are our politicians wasting so much money on useless ships if they are really serious about cutting spending? If the shipyards did not keep getting contracts for the useless ships then they might be more willing to be sure that every ship carrying crude oil was equipped with a double bottom. We can’t really afford more mishaps at sea and we do need the F-22 for our defense.

    • http://jwrcow1@gmail.com John Russell

      When there was ever a time to have a strong defense, its now. Where was quality control to ward this off, if this really is a problem.

      Do we forget so quick about Desert Storm and Desert Shield how our hi tech offense and defense was overwhelmingly superior and saved so many lives from hand to hand combat.

      I just wonder if the F22 is a green plane? Fuel consumption is a biggy these days. The flight experts are suppose to examine these problems from the drawing board to the wind tunnel, to armament, to air refueling and many other areas, let alone combat training.

      When a new plane hits the skies, military check it out and advise for the improvements. The F4 Phantom was a prime example. Many modifications had to be made to get our dollars worth or did we?.

  • Jim

    The F-22 is a fine ariplane, so is the Concorde. Both are a waste of money. The F-22 is made to combat an enemy that doesn’t exist. They cost up to $320,000,000 each. For that money you could by 300 UAV’s armed with hellfire missiles and cruise for terrorists. I’d rather have the Predators. The F-22 is overpriced and totally unsuited for the mission at hand. But it does support a lot of lobbyists and rich dudes.

    • ChuckL

      Jim, We can start with your inflated cost of the F-22. The inclusion of development costs that were spent before production actually started, and included research that is now available for all of our defense aircraft is NOT a LEGITIMATE cost. The actual flyaway cost of new production is at or slightly under $150 million. That is less than half of your stated cost.

      From the July 20, 2009 issue of the Air Force Magazine “Daily Report”,

      Limiting F-22 Force to 187 Is “Real Mistake”: Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, USAF Chief Chief of Staff during Desert Storm and an unabashed and early supporter of Barrack Obama’s presidential candidacy, says the President is wrong to try to stop production of the F-22. “I think it’s a real mistake,” McPeak told FOXNews.com on Friday. “The airplane is a game-changer and people seem to forget that we haven’t had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951 or something like that. It’s been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of [our] guys. So we’ve gotten use to this idea that we never have to breathe hostile air.” McPeak argues that Obama is “doing a tremendous job” but has received bad advice on the F-22. McPeak told Fox News.com: “We do not want to field an Armed Forces that can be defeated by someone simply topping our capability. The F-22 is at the top end. We have to procure enough of them for our ability to put a lid on, to dictate the ceiling of any conflict.” That number, he says, is “some figure well above 200.”

      The studies that Secretary Robert Gates and the Obama use to support their cancellation DO NOT EXIST.

      The F-35 is a ground attack fighter designed to replace the F-16. It is not an air superiority fighter designed to enter very heavily defended air space and obtain total air dominance. That is the job for which the F-22 was designed.

      There has been no major conflict since World War 1, that has been won without Air Dominance, although some have been lost by politicians.

      The F-15 was designed as an Air Superiority fighter. It did its job very well. It had over 100 combat victories without a single loss, but the F-15 is now falling apart in the air without enemy presence. Our choice is to spend about $100 million per F-15 to rebuild them and still have a fighter that is inferior to current modern fighters of other nations, or spend about 50% more to again have the TOTAL AIR DOMINANCE fighter that we had with the F-15 in its day.

      It is interesting to note that if the Democrats had not modified the “Stimulus” program to allow the payment of bonuses, which were apparently used to repay the political donations of Obama supporters we would have the funds for many more F-22s. If the “pork” was reclaimed from the current “Stimulus” packages which are totally Democrat packages, we would have enough funds to build the complete original order of 750 F-22s and most of the originally planned F-35s, which are also needed as the F-16s are also overused and in need of major maintenance a several of them have also fallen apart in training exercises.

      The entire Dept. of Defense budget is less than we spend on welfare for the invaders, or as some call them “illegal immigrants”. We do not even need to consider the rest of the bloated and fraud riddled welfare programs.

      Although the writers of the Constitution were clearly against the federal Government engaging in welfare programs they did not explicitly prohibit them. Perhaps because they did not believe that anyone could ever be stupid enough to let it get this far.

      That may never matter, because if we can not defend our borders from invasion, nor our Constitution from subversion, the defense of the country is meaningless and those now depending on welfare will be allowed to starve or become roving bands of criminals. Does that sound like “gangbangers”?

      • Jim

        It IS a legitimate cost, as that’s what it cost. To say we can use the research in other fields is playing with the numbers to make it look like it’s less expensive. But even if I take your $150 million, then we still get more than 100 Uavs for each F-22 (which does NOT have a mission) and I still prefer the Uavs.

        I would not use the Air Force Journal as as reference, there is an obvious conflicy of interest. Would you feel comfortable using a reference from he socialist workers party?

        To quote $100 million to fix an F-15 is ludicrous. You can’t really believe that number. If it took $10 million it would be too much. Whatever source you used is preposterouos. The F-15 problem is that they are old and wearing out. New wing spars are needed and they don’t cost that ridiculous figure.

        The stimulus package is much more important to our national security than wepaons we don;t need. The F-22 is not needed. Again it is a weapon without a mission.

        We need to be intelligent in the way we spend our defense funds. Stopping the F-22 is a smart move if the money goes towards a useful weapon.

      • Pete N

        JIm, very well said. As a former USAF pilot and navigator, with 15 years in the USAF/USAFR, the 2 planes have different roles. I would also take the F-22 over the F-35. Having 2 engines, is also MUCH better then having just 1 engine.
        Obama is a fool, and this country unfortunately will get the “change” it voted for. Well, maybe not, with ACORN, the vote was a fraud also!!
        I cant wait for 2012, and clean the slate!

  • mindy rodriguez

    this is the only plane we have that can stand up to the planes russia (obama’s friends) is sending to iran (also obama’s friends) and by not manufacturing them obama has succeeded in his plan to make our country weak and vulnerable to another attack!

    • Jim

      This is the most idiotic thing I’ve heard on this site. What is wrong with you people? Obama wants to make the country weak to give it up to his communist friends? This is his plan? I don’t know why I’m relpying to this nonsense. I don;t think you’re really that stupid, but who knows?

      • Norm

        Jim
        Have you been popping those pills again?

      • Norm

        Jim Reply: July 25th, 2009 at 12:44 am
        Comment was intended for you.

        Have you been popping those pills again?

      • Dennis Criss

        Obama is the Mistake he is a Radical Islamic Muslim and he wants to give America to Islam just look at what he’s doing as we speak opening up the border’s for all to come in ALL MUSLIMS TO COME.

        • Jim

          You’re sick

      • Dennis Criss

        I’m sorry Jim what i mint to say is that, “Obama” is the Mistake in America today, and he is a “Muslim” he said so himself, So let’s see he gave $900 million to Gaza for “reconstrustion” lol this money will if not already go to let’s see i got it (Hamas the terrorist group that reigns supreme in the Gaza strip) Obama’s buddy’s, Hamas is dedicated to spreading worldwide jihad, Now here’s the real kicker Obama and his Administration has giving Hamas $1 billion in AID thru U/N Channel’s called (UNRWA) that Hamas controls, this money is coming straight from the pocket’s of you and the American tax payer’s thats rite you and i, i guess America dont need that $$$$, So i’ll say it again Obama is a Radical Islamic Muslim who wants to destroy AMERICA so if you say i’m sick whats that make him ?

        • Jim

          He is not a muslim, he did not say so himself. Stop makinig things up. It’s called lying! You are so full of hate that the spin you put on the “facts” if that’s what they are, will, if followed by more than just a lunatic fringe ensure that none of the problems we have in the world will have any hope of being resolved.

          Since you said it again, I’ll say it again…..You’re sick.

        • Norm

          Dennis Criss

          You can’t cure stupid. At least don’t advertise it.

      • Dennis Criss

        Whatever man good luck with your life, LMFAO

  • Norm

    The F-22 was designed to be the ultimate jet fighter. It was built with only that purpose in mind, and at a time when funding was available provided the capabilities were as advertised. It suffered huge cost growth during its development which was largely due to the fact that it was a very aggressive program technologically.

    The F-35 is designed with a completely different goal in mind. It is an aircraft designed to strike a balance between performance and cost. It will allow us to field an aircraft that will get the job done, without overpaying to buy something that just isn’t necessary. It has the added benefit of being highly exportable. The F-35 will ultimately be the fighter that defines the 5th generation, not the F-22. When the Russians, Chinese, Indians, and other attempt to build a 5th generation fighter, the F-35 will be the standard. A versatile, maintanable, and highly flexible design is what the world needs today.
    The U.S. has enormous budget problems (thanks to BUSH) and to waste money, that we don’t have, on the F-22 is ludicrus.
    For all you F-22 supporters – How about an extra tax on YOU?

    • ChuckL

      Norm,

      The F-22 has already defined the 5th generation fighter.

      The F-35 is not yet into full production and will also be subject to currently unseen cost increases although with the F-22 experience and the fact that the F-35 is a much lower performance aircraft, these increases should be less.

      As for the budget problems that we have, those can be laid directly at the feet of the enormous social welfare programs passed by Democrats. after WW2, the Dept. of Defense had its maximum cost, measured as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product. It was alm ost 15%. That cost has dropped throughout the years reaching a low of just over 3% during Clinton’s moratorium on maintenance of our military hardware, which caused at least part of our current problem. Currently the total DOD budget is at just 5%, while the social welfare programs now consume almost 50% of GDP.

      Much of this is due to the anti religious persons of this country in taking the care of indigent persons away from religious organizations and placing it into the hands of inefficient and fraud ridden government welfare programs. This was done by falsely claiming that any government support of any religious action was unconstitutional. A proper understanding of the American English language however, makes clear that when religion is the question, the Federal Government is actually prohibited from acting. It may only decide on a civil basis. This means that an action by a religious entity that would be acceptable by a non-religious entity must also be acceptable from a religious entity. Any action that is deemed unlawful by a religious entity, must also be deemed unlawful by a non religious entity or an anti religious entity.

      • Norm

        In Context: US military budget vs. other US priorities 2009

        billions of dollars % federal funds budget

        % Current Military Spending 742 30.9%
        Cost of Past Wars 324 13.5%
        Total military percent 44.4%
        Health care 472 19.7%
        Responses to Poverty 284 11.8%
        Interest on Non-Military Share of
        Federal Debt 261 10.9%
        Government Operations 166 7.0%
        Education and jobs 52 2.2%
        Science, Energy, & Environment 60 2.5%
        Non-Military International Programs 37 1.5%

        Source: Budget Chart: President Bush’s FY 09 Budget Proposal, Friends Committee on National Legislation, February 15, 2008

        • Dennis Criss

          Norm,
          I’m not going to go deep into this but check history before you reply.
          This enormous budget problem started under the Clinton Administration when he took office, They called it Fannie Mae & Freedie Mac, Bill Clinton and his staff by 2007 cost you, me and the rest of this Nation ( America ) GET THIS $60 Trillion yes the Clinton Administration NOT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION, Like i said before you reply check your history, And guess what plan Obama is going to use?.

        • Jim

          OK Dennis, where do you get this $60 Trillion? I’d like to see the logic that comes up with that figure.

        • Mike

          Dennis,

          It’s amazing how some people have such negative feelings towards certain people and how they just make stuff up to make them look bad.

          I’m not sure when you were born, but ALL of our existing financial problems are rooted in the early 80s with the Reagan Administration. However much you may have loved the guy, his Administration spent more money than every single Presidential Administration that came before him COMBINED.

          Clinton actually balanced the budget, and if you recall, when Bush entered office, there was a budget surplus.

          On top of Regan’s mess, the Bush Administration actually out-spent Regan … by a factor of two if I recall.

          So seriously … get a grip on reality. Read something other than right-wing propaganda. You MIGHT learn something. I’m not saying go liberal … but there is so many falsehood being tossed around that people are going in circles repeating the same crap. 90% of it isn’t true.

          By the way, I don’t care if you like Obama or not … but to all the people that claim he’s a Muslim, you’re a bunch of idiots. He biological father was Muslim at one point in time, but I believe that was before her was born. The family that raised him was Christian. You’re just afraid either because he’s black or a Democrat. He’s not Muslim. He doesn’t love Hezbollah. He WAS born in the United States, and HAS presented OFFICIAL birth documents. He’s not the Anti-Christ.

          Just think about the worst thing you think about the guy … most likely … it’s not true. If you have problems with his policy … that’s fine. DISCUSS THAT. LET THE MADNESS END.

          • Jud Wulff

            Mike, The only reason their was a surplus in Clintons term in office was because he couldn’t pass a bigger budget because of the Republicans. Remember he lost the Democratic majority. I support having the F-22 because we need to keep our troops safe. Without air superiorty we will be dead. Think China. But then again, they already own us. The Democrats (along with some Republicans) caused the mess we are in. Congress has control of the SEC and they blew it, big time. Now the Democrats want to cut defense like they always do, setting the stage for the next war. With a broke, crippled, disfunctional, USA.

        • ChuckL

          Norm, Your figures match very well with those of the UK Arab who has placed his analysis on the web as facts.

          Let’s just say that his figures do not match Government Budget Office figures. The GBO figures show a much different allocation of funds in relation to the GDP of the U.S. The GBO figures show only a less than 5% of GDP for the Dept. of Defense, whereas the Social Issues require more than 50% of GDP.

          Using funds spent by a given country as a comparison basis is not a valid method because the costs of living in various countries and therefore the cost of production varies with the country involved.

        • Dennis Criss

          WOW What a show good luck gent’s.

  • ChuckL

    The projected production of the F-35 is over 2000 planes. Only 500 of them are for the USAF. This huge projected production is what allows the projected costs to be so low in comparison to the F-22. If the projected F-35 production was dropped to only 200, the cost projections would necessarily increase. The development and production equipment costs would have to be amortized over only 10% of the planes and would make the costs approximately double.

    If this should occur, we would be buying 40% to 50 % of the capability at a cost of 70% to 80% of the cost of the F-22.

    Increasing the purchase quantity of the F-22 would reduce the costs per plane. In one of the previous studies that was actually a study, the minimum “no risk” level was determined to by 487. The number of 381 that was settled upon was deemed to be a “moderate risk” level. Our current number of F-22s is below “high risk” level and is simply “unsafe”.

    • Jim

      You guys just don;t get it. Yes the F-22 is an amazing airplane WITHOUT A MISSION. We need to spend this money of weapons that will actually be used against our enemies, the radical islamist terrorists. The F-22 and even the F-35 are useless in this environment. 1 F-22 is $350 million. A Predator is ~1.2 million. We could do alot better with 300 Predators than 1 F-22. Buying F-22s makes us weaker, not stronger.

      • ChuckL

        JIM,
        You are the one who just doesn’t get it. The F-22 has a great mission. The mission is to preserve the peace. This is done by making it clear to those who would pick a fight with us or our allies that they will lose and lose big. Just matching their capabilities offers a “fair fight”. That is not the correct method to maintain peace. Peace is maintained when a country with overwhelming power says, “NO FIGHTING”, and has shown that it means this, and will if needed back up the demand.

        Lyndon Johnson made it clear in Viet Nam that we did not mean it. He placed territorial limits on our fighting and placed strategic targets “off limits”. He successfully destroyed any will that the American people had to stop the North Vietnamese invasion of South Viet Nam. Harry Truman did the same thing in Korea. These were political losses. They also occurred before we had our first purpose designed air superiority fighter, the F-15. At the “christening” of the F-15, the woman who broke the champaign bottle offered the prayer, “May you reign supreme in your domain.” It did, but its time is past. The F-22 is its replacement.

        The B-36 has been called the most successful bomber of the 20th century, simply because it never dropped a bomb in anger, but only in training exercises. The F-22 could be the first fighter to earn this wonderful accolade, but only if we build enough of them.

        I have a son and a grandson in the U. S. Military. I would much rather spend money in keeping the peace because possible enemies understand the futility of attacking us than have to spend money burying them and many others because we, as a nation, were to parsimonious to prevent the fighting, or actually encouraged it by offering to “fight fair” with equal equipment.

        The F-22 has a well defined mission. In proper quantities, it will succeed. Inadequate quantities will only encourage the bad guys to attack and force a fight.

        As for your UAVs, (or RPVs Remotely Piloted Vehicles, as they should be called) most of these would make good target practice for a P51 of WW2 vintage if we did not have total air dominance of the “battlefield”. The surveillance that they provide can also be done with an F-22, and most likely with an F-35, and of course the U-2, but as you pointed out the drones are much cheaper and there is no reason to use the more expensive option unnecessarily.

        • Jim

          Once again, you don;t get it. Yes, to preserve the peace (If we can learn hjow to do that, which we are not so good at recently). But the mission of the F-22 is air superiority, which is nopt an issue with terrorists. We would have air superiority with my Cessna 172. Everything else you bring up is irrelevant and may be another discussion, but it has no bearing on the wisdom of buying more F-22′s. What’s the target? The Russians have bankrupted themsesves with the new Flankers, and we already have plenty of F-22′s or even F-18s with the right electronics to combat all those, and I guarantee you they won’t be making any more of the super Flankers, because they know we are the only possible combatant and we aren’t going to be stupid enough to fight them, and they’re not stupid enough to fight with us either. Anyway, the only fight we have is with some camel riding extremists, for whom the F-22 is a silly weapon.

          With UCAV’s (which is what they should be called) we can actually have a weapon that is proper to combat our real enemy.

          The F-22 is an amazing airplane, it’s just already obsolete since the mission it was designed for doesn’t exist. Just like a new nuclear sub. $10 billion to go after what? It’s a waste and as such makes us weaker, not stronger since we’re not getting the weapons we need for the war we’re fighting and using the money to make some rich dudes richer.

    • Norm

      For FY 2010, budget spending is estimated at $3.55 trillion. Over half of the budget (56.6%) must go towards Mandatory programs, such as Social Security, Medicare and MILITARY RETIREMENT PROGRAMS. These expenditures are mandated by law, and cannot be changed. Nearly 40% of spending goes towards Discretionary programs. This is negotiated between the President and Congress each year. Nearly half of the Discretionary budget (20% OF TOTAL) is Military allocations. The remaining 4.6% of spending goes towards interest payments on the national debt. (Source: OMB)

      For FY 2008, the President has requested the following:
      The Defense Department Base Budget – $481 billion.
      WoT(non-DoD) Base Budget – $73 billion.
      Supplemental Funding for WoT – $145 billion.
      Total requested Dod/WoT spending is $699 billion, or 65% of total net Discretionary spending.
      Source: OMB FY 2008 President’s Budget

      2009
      Total Outlays (Federal Funds): $2,650 billion
      MILITARY: 54% and $1,449 billion
      NON-MILITARY: 46% and $1,210 billion

      Current Military
      $965 billion:
      • Military Personnel $129 billion
      • Operation & Maint. $241 billion
      • Procurement $143 billion
      • Research & Dev. $79 billion
      • Construction $15 billion
      • Family Housing $3 billion
      • DoD misc. $4 billion
      • Retired Pay $70 billion
      • DoE nuclear weapons $17 billion
      • NASA (50%) $9 billion
      • International Security $9 billion
      • Homeland Secur. (military) $35 billion
      • State Dept. (partial) $6 billion
      • other military (non-DoD) $5 billion
      • “Global War on Terror” $200 billion [We added $162 billion to the last item to supplement the Budget’s grossly underestimated $38 billion in “allowances” to be spent in 2009 for the “War on Terror,” which includes the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan]

      Past Military,
      $484 billion:
      • Veterans’ Benefits $94 billion
      • Interest on national debt (80%) created by military spending, $390 billion

  • Norm

    A few facts:

    US military spending accounts for 48 percent, or almost half, of the world’s total military spending
    US military spending is more than the next 46 highest spending countries in the world combined
    US military spending is 5.8 times more than China, 10.2 times more than Russia, and 98.6 times more than Iran.
    US military spending is almost 55 times the spending on the six “rogue” states (Cuba, Iran, Libya, North Korea, Sudan and Syria) whose spending amounts to around $13 billion, maximum. (Tabulated data does not include four of the six, as the data only lists nations that have spent over 1 billion in the year, so their budget is assumed to be $1 billion each)
    US spending is more than the combined spending of the next 45 countries.
    The United States and its strongest allies (the NATO countries, Japan, South Korea and Australia) spend $1.1 trillion on their militaries combined, representing 72 percent of the world’s total.
    The six potential “enemies,” Russia, and China together account for about $205 billion or 29% of the US military budget.

    • Dennis Criss

      Norm,
      Thats why we are the most POWERFULL COUNTRY in the world and if thats what it takes to keep America the most powerfull country in the world then so be it. Because thats the only thing along with YOU AND I ( the rite to keep and bear arms ) that keeps this country FREE.

    • ChuckL

      Gee, Norm, could this large apparent value be because these countries have the highest costs in the world?

      This really doesn’t matter. What matters is that this spending has kept this country and the rest of the world, relatively safe in this dangerous time. .

      • Norm

        Gee
        Canada and Mexico never had an external terrorist incident.

  • Gary

    Going down the same track. The disarmment of WWI cost 7 million to lose their life in WWII. They used the same reasons to cancel the F15 production. Where was this people when New York City was defenseless during 9/11. The F35 is useless without the F22 to map the battle field in the sky. I am sure the F35 will have lots of problems just like every fighter before it. What would be the cost of losing one of our major cities or several. The right answer is to speed up production to reduce cost and hold off on the major part of the F35 until the F22 is close to the end of production. What would be the cost of losing one of our major cities or several. When they say “WE ARE UNDER ATTACH”, they are two response’s: (1) No fighters available or to far away (9/11) New York City defenseless or (2) F22′s in the air, target’s engaged.

    • http://gma Shirley

      Thanks, Gary – well spoken and the only comments that made any sense.
      Why are there so many people with their heads on the wrong end????

      • Gary

        Thanks Shirley for the support
        Do not adjust your set: 9/11. History channel & Fox News running special today. People jumping from the towers. People running for their life, calling 911 from the top floors burning alive. People screaming for help. Air Defense is in confusion.
        How quick a nation goes back to sleep. Don’t pound your weapons into plowshares yet!!! Oh, I forget, they are trying to do that today.

    • Norm

      Gary/Shirley

      The F-22′s can’t destroy an ICBM or a nuke in the hull of ship in a US harbor. We would be better off beefing up our intel and relying on friends and allies.
      The 9/11 perpetrators were not an army, and without advanced knowledge military hardware was then and is now of no help.

      • ChuckL

        Norm, I agree that we must have better use of intelligence collections, but we did have advance knowledge of the planning of the 9/11/2001 attacks on the Twin Towers. It was Bill Clinton’s decision to not use this information because it could be seen as “profiling”.

        Having the information is meaningless if it is not acted upon.

        • Norm

          Chuckl
          If you know this where is your proof?
          Bill Clinton was also out office for 9 months, where was GW Bush?
          The CIA and FBI gather data not the president so anything Clinton knew was available to Bush as well.
          People who spread unfounded, idiotic, rumors are dangerous.

        • Jim

          Why was it Clinton? My recollection was that he warned Bush and Co. about Bin Laden and the imminent threat and they ignored him becasue he was a democrat. It was ithe Clinton administration that stopped a terrorist attack on LAX. He just missed the right wing attack on Oklahoma City. Perhaps he should have been profiling white males who vote republican as dangerous!!!

          • Jud Wulff

            Jim, Your recollection is wrong. I do remember, Clinton was so upset about Bush winning he said, ” Let them figure itout”, remember all the keyboards missing their “W”, besides, they were in this country before the election and would have hit no matter who would be in the White House.

  • julian

    Well, Australia that happens to be a strong ally of the USA, wanted to buy about 100 F22′s from you guys.

    However the USA won’t sell any other foreign airforce these planes, so we are now buying (and paying for the joint development of)100 F35′s instead.

    So maybe this is the real reason behind this

  • Eric g

    Why dont we buy the new fighter planes from Russia ? The Russians put on quite a show in Banglore India a yr ago . Their plane was estimated to have fighter capabilities of achieving greater than a 10 to 1 kill ratio against any plane than flying . I suppose the 22 will be something like this Russian plane . We wont be able to attack and dismember Russia like we did Yugoslavia , if dont get better fighter planes .

  • Eric g

    Fighter planes could have easily prevented 9 11 , But it was politicaly impossible , Imagine if Bush had ordered three american passenger planes shot down . What do you think the democrats would have said about republican leadership ? The passengers had to overcome the terrorists . Chenny and Bush both would have been impeached and maybe put in prison . This would have ended the republican party for sure . Remember its the party the politicians have to protect first , after themselves of course . About last after self ,party ,state ,country come the american people .

    • ChuckL

      Eric, If Clinton had acted on the available intelligence and its analysis, the Twin Towers incident would never have occurred.

      When are we going to throw out the Democrats (Dumocrats?) that put political correctness and just plain pork issues ahead of national security?

      • Norm

        chuckl
        You are full of s–t!

  • Eric g

    Yes I have often read , the United States spends about the same as all the rest of the World put together on arms or weapons . 5 times Chinia and 10 times Russia . I have long ago learned its not how much you spend that means so much . It is really not always true you get what you pay for , especialy on government projects . Russia after 1999 , saw what happend to Yugoslavia . Some people think Russia manufactured about a equal amount of arms we did last yr , Of course Russia sold their weapons as fast as they could , so this might not be counted as their exspense , if they manufuctured for other countries ? Russia had no choice but to prepare for war , after NATO bombed Yugoslavia . Russia had to make friends with Iran , ater NATO signed up Poland , and color revolutions were started in Georgia and the Ukraine . These were all instigated by US policy , but Russia never considered them friendly moves .

  • s c

    We’ll always have cost overruns, a Congress that should be outsourced, and our military prostituted around the world. Re-start the frickin’ draft! At this rate, we’ll be in the Middle East until Armageddon. B O won’t take our troops out of that part of the world. He’s a designer politician who was created by Saul Alinsky and groups that plan to implode America. On a good day, B O amounts to a size 7 head in a 20 gallon hat. He’s a hired, empty suit. He’s doing his worst to sell out our military to make other nations happy. If we ever get a ‘leader’ who concentrates our forces in the Middle East, we’ll have a ready-made, expendable force that can be ‘removed’
    via WMD. Either find ways to end that Middle East garbage, or bring our troops home, clean out Congress, and start America all over again. While this is still America, flush that stinking Washington cess pool.

  • janet zee

    zounds… whatta X-change! I am with the people who can spell. Thanks to the contributors who resist the rantings of the government paranoiacs. Whatever happened to we-the-people? PEOPLE, WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. “Flushing the stinking Washington cess pool” is not a helpful suggestion…just another cheap shot from what I imagine to be an angry anglo male who likes to beat his chest and grunt.

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.