The Pentagon’s paying out $US7.4 billion for “system upgrades to existing requirements, incorporate new requirements, add capability and enhance performance in the F-22 Weapon System”. Keep in mind, as Thompson points out along with us, that the F-22 is not only defective, but has never fired a single shot in aggression. Not a single combat mission. It’s flown, but never moved a centimetre in the defence of the US. Or to attack an enemy. Or to do much of anything, really, except be grounded repeatedly and fly out of the way of hurricanes.
This money could be spend to buy 74 iMacs for every single public school in the entire US. [TIME]
MotorMouth
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 8:44 AMThe fact that the Raptor has never fired a shot in anger could be seen as proof of it’s power as a deterrent to America’s enemies. I certainly would not want to take one on in a dogfight.
olearymo
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 9:17 AMHmm. Many of Australia’s fighter jets, by that logic, are very, very powerful deterrents.
Steve
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 10:03 AMMilitary spending aims to prepare for your enemy’s capabilities, not their intentions.
“the F-22 is not only defective, but has never fired a single shot in aggression. Not a single combat mission”
Is a real shitty reason to write off anything. It’s the 21st century, not WWII. Modern fighters almost never get into dogfights. The USAF probably could have used box kites in bombing runs the last 2 gulf wars with minimal casualties, considering their air supremacy, doesn’t mean their current inventory is useless.
Besides, the F-22 is not a carrier-based fighter, which greatly limits its use in foreign conflicts. It’s just very expensive home defence and it’s excelled in that deterrance role.
Mike W
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 10:30 AMDeterrance against what? Mexico? Canada? Richest country on earth with crap education, crap healthcare and you defend spending billions on a plane that doesn’t get used.
Osiris Fox
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 12:40 PMGet a grip Mike, Steve is correct. You don’t start developing these things when the enemy invades. That’s kind of too late wouldn’t you say. And yes, a country fill of wonderfully educated and healthy people and all that lovely lie in the sky utopia stuff is great and all, but hardly useful when a bunch of peasants with machine guns and crops dusters can invade and win.
Grow up.
chugs
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 11:25 AMI invested in a stick with a nail on the end of it and I can tell you that since making that massive investment no one has dared to rob me or my house.
Jaezass
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 9:30 AMThis money could be spend to buy 74 iMacs for every single public school in the entire US. [TIME]
Or… help reduce the incredible amount of US debt, in fact they should cut the entire US military budget by 20% and pretty much wipe it!! Oh and I would prefer that the kids just got a decent education, most of them think Australia is a country in Europe??
Josh
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 12:37 PMor buy 300 pc’s for each school… imacs pffft
Osiris Fox
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 12:46 PMWhat makes you think that this current debt issue will remain the status quo?The US was nearly debt free 10 year ago, and I’m sure it can be achieved again in the next 20 to 30 years with the necessary political will. In fact, some debt is healthy. Go read a bit about US treasuries and their importance to the Global economy, they’re actually needed for stability.
Grandadsbum
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 12:58 PMBullshit!
I think you are forgetting a little thing called the global financial crisis!
Clinton was able to do what he did because he had the backing of most of the political parties, Obama had the majority but his party decided not to actually back him for the most part! The US needs to cut back on it’s military budget if it wants to be out of debt any time soon!
Evan
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 11:36 AMUSN nuclear submarines and other nuclear ships have never been used in anger either and they cost even more! Just supports my long held belief that money spent on military matters is money wasted; better to put it into education, health care and alternate energy sources.
Gabriel
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 12:37 PMEveryone knows America has nuclear bombs and would use them if they needed to. Thats more of a deterrance than these fuk-off expenisve planes. A waste of money. Spend it on housing the thousands of people that became homeless during the GFC. USA has this huge military budget to protect it but its biggest threats are its own government and financial institutions
MD
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 6:29 PMGabriel. The “GFC homeless” have homes, just they couldn’t afford the payments. The homes have been built and are now largely empty, waiting people who can now afford the reduced payments.
Gabriel
Friday, November 25, 2011 at 9:58 AMSo they built homes that the homeless can’t afford? Well done. If the government wasn’t so corrupt and sponsored by the financial industry, this whole mess could have avoided in the first place. Is the financial market regulated now? fuck no. Goldman Sachs owns the government. The American people should not have to pay (via government) to house anyone or bail any company out. The executives of these companies get paid enough in a year to house everyone but they keep all their money and continue fucking everyone over again. “We promise we won’t do it again” hahaha yeah right
Rollz
Wednesday, November 23, 2011 at 9:35 PMThe U.S defence force gravy train. I an soooo jealous of all that gravy. Cheeky buggers, they point to all the corruption around the world but don’t notice it flying overhead….. well sort of flying.
TSH
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 10:29 AMWhen NASA’s entire budget is ~$19 billion, and seeing the things they manage to get done, I can only conclude that companies scoring military contracts are exploiting the “bottomless” government budget and massively gouging their client.
US government could appropriate the tech from Lockheed Martin, double NASA’s budget and put ‘em in charge of the F-22 development program. In under a year the planes would be better in every way: safer, cheaper, more reliable, more capable.
<3 NASA ^__^
chugs
Thursday, November 24, 2011 at 11:26 AMfor the money spent on the F-22 NASA could have gotten to Mars and back.
For the same money they could have built a base on the moon.
sigh