F-22 Raptor costs $137.5 million

Okay, I'm not so sure about the "jam prone" M16 thing. Yes, courtesy of bozos like McNamara (or so I'm told) they dropped the chromed chamber and bore that was a feature of the original Stoner design. That with an attitude from the testing (of weapons that did have the chrome) that the M16 did not need regular maintenance led to jams in combat. Another problem was a change in powder from the cartridges originally used.

But what intrigues me is that even if they could replace supposedly bad battle rifles, the rifles do not fufill a similar requirement as the aircraft. And given the change in the nature of air warfare, if you don't keep innovating, you lose. America (USA) learned that the hardway during the early stages of Korea when Russian designed Migs started tearing up the sky.

Whether the Raptor is a good investment or not I cannot really debate without more time looking at it and it's potential adversaries, but I know that you don't fight the next war with the last wars weapons, usually.

xxll_martin_llxx said:

For that amount ($137.5 million), I think I read in the newspaper, that it could replace 137,500 of the jamming-prone M16s and M4s with Barett REC7s, which are more reliable.

137,500 is also the approximate number of troops that the USA currently have in Iraq.

It's madness I tell thee in the fact that the figures are so astronomical. I understand that there would be little point getting an F-22 Raptor made when you don't really see Iraqi's flying around.

Click to expand...

Or you could by hundreds of thousands of school supplies for children who can't afford them or put food on the table for people who can hardly afford to feed their families - especially in the economic downturn... hmm nah, better to fund more war.

xxll_martin_llxx said:

For that amount ($137.5 million), I think I read in the newspaper, that it could replace 137,500 of the jamming-prone M16s and M4s with Barett REC7s, which are more reliable.

137,500 is also the approximate number of troops that the USA currently have in Iraq.

It's madness I tell thee in the fact that the figures are so astronomical. I understand that there would be little point getting an F-22 Raptor made when you don't really see Iraqi's flying around.

Click to expand...

Well, it's that the cost of building a Raptor or the market price? because if USA builds their own F-22's and are cheaper than that, the article is just to make a tendency. Also, i don't think M-16s and M4s are "jamming-prone". M16 it's an assault rifle by excellence, and remains as that in the market since over a decade ago. I can't talk about the M4 because i'm not familiarized with it, same goes to REC7, but M16 is one of a kind, just like Desert Eagle.
With that said, i do agree that there are better things to do with 137.5 millions, specially in today's world.

I actually believe that the M-16 wasn't jamming prone since the middle of Vietnam.

The thing you have to remember is the sheer power that an advanced fighter gives you. I remember seeing the documentaries on the air combat controllers in Afghanistan. The ability to call in air strikes let the resistance fighters steamroll over the Taliban's forces. Having these babies around is a very important aspect of staying strong and keeping Russia and China in check.

Plus...that money isn't disappearing. It's being given to contractors, who employ engineers and marketers and spokesmen and janitors. All the money works its way into the pockets of the workers in one way or another.

Well... I have read that F-22 Raptor is a Stealth Fighter capable of hiding from enemy radars and can give unnoticed air strike. And even one F-22 can survive a dog fight.

But in my opinion, instead of buying these fighter planes for war, it's better to use the funds on buying books for poor school children or building houses for the homeless.

Obviously there is a lot of things that that amount of money could be spent on. Improving transport feeding the starving etc, but there has to be a budget and money divided into necessary places. There will always be an argument that monies could be better spent elsewhere. But when it comes to it your National Security that overrules new roads and shiny coaches. New Gun!? maybe but aviation is the key and ground forces will be cut back in future engagements

leanne1974 said:

Obviously there is a lot of things that that amount of money could be spent on. Improving transport feeding the starving etc, but there has to be a budget and money divided into necessary places. There will always be an argument that monies could be better spent elsewhere. But when it comes to it your National Security that overrules new roads and shiny coaches. New Gun!? maybe but aviation is the key and ground forces will be cut back in future engagements

Click to expand...

Yea... national security...

If you look at these figures: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

I think you can see that the US goes a little beyond "national security".

I'd have some doubts about that list. I find it hard to believe that Israel spends only $13 billion. Their tanks are better than ours at the moment (unless we have a lot more that's still a secret).

It still isn't actually too much of the budget (about 25% or so). We're just a big country with a lot of vehicles and weapons to play with. I also think that a good portion goes to wages. It's all funneled straight into the economy anyway. Defense contractors are usually US based for security reasons.

I'm also sure that the size of our navy has a big impact on the total costs.

do we never learn?

Leanne1974, I do have to disagree with you. Boots on the ground is the prime requirement for "winning" any serious confrontation. We can bomb from the air and/or sea, but if you want a piece of real estate, you have to send someone to actually be there.

Now, a good innovative military is a wonderful thing. And having multiple choices such as Army and Marines with different histories and different ways of approaching things make it more likely that we can find a solution to a particular problem.

I do think a great fighter is worthwhile. But the military is starting to go to the "one size fits all" concept. Wanting to drop airplanes that are designed for close ground support and letting their fighter bombers do that job too. Bad bad choice. Cheaper, yes, because they can stock parts for one plane. But not so good for the pilot and the poor joes on the ground.

As to spending the money better, I am all for spending it on a nice hot fence from the Gulf of Mexico to the Pacific Ocean. Not that I dislike my old southern neighbors, but hey, but I do believe in legal visitors, not border jumpers.

Well, it looks like the F-22 may be out of production pretty soon. U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, announced a 2010 Pentagon Budget that includes phasing out the F-22 completely by fiscal year 2011: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/index.html

myp said:

Well, it looks like the F-22 may be out of production pretty soon. U.S. Defense Secretary, Robert Gates, announced a 2010 Pentagon Budget that includes phasing out the F-22 completely by fiscal year 2011: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/06/gates.budget.cuts/index.html

Click to expand...

Why? F-22 Raptor is such a strong fighter plane. One of my personal favorites. With strong fighting power and stealth capability, how come are they pacing it out? What fighter plane will eventually replace it?

Given the existence as uttered forth in the public works of Puncher and Wattmann of a personal God quaquaquaqua with white beard quaquaquaqua outside time without extension who from the heights of divine apathia divine athambia divine aphasia loves us dearly with some exceptions for reasons unknown but time will tell and suffers like the divine Miranda with those who for reasons unknown but time will tell are plunged in torment plunged in fire whose fire flames if that continues and who can doubt it will fire the firmament that is to say blast heaven to hell so blue still and calm so calm with a calm which even though intermittent is better than nothing but not so fast and considering what is more that as a result of the labours left unfinished crowned by the Acacacacademy of Anthropopopometry of Essy-in-Possy of Testew and Cunard it is established beyond all doubt all other doubt than that which clings to the labours of men that as a result of the labours unfinished of Testew and Cunard it is established as hereinafter but not so fast for reasons unknown that as a result of the public works of Puncher and Wattmann it is established beyond all doubt that in view of the labours of Fartov and Belcher left unfinished for reasons unknown of Testew and Cunard left unfinished it is established what many deny that man in Possy of Testew and Cunard that man in Essy that man in short that man in brief in spite of the strides of alimentation and defecation is seen to waste and pine waste and pine and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the strides of physical culture the practice of sports such as tennis football running cycling swimming flying floating riding gliding conating camogie skating tennis of all kinds dying flying sports of all sorts autumn summer winter winter tennis of all kinds hockey of all sorts penicilline and succedanea in a word I resume and concurrently simultaneously for reasons unknown to shrink and dwindle in spite of the tennis I resume flying gliding golf over nine and eighteen holes tennis of all sorts in a word for reasons unknown in Feckham Peckham Fulham Clapham namely concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown but time will tell to shrink and dwindle I resume Fulham Clapham in a word the dead loss per head since the death of Bishop Berkeley being to the tune of one inch four ounce per head approximately by and large more or less to the nearest decimal good measure round figures stark naked in the stockinged feet in Connemara in a word for reasons unknown no matter what matter the facts are there and considering what is more much more grave that in the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman it appears what is more much more grave that in the light the light the light of the labours lost of Steinweg and Peterman that in the plains in the mountains by the seas by the rivers running water running fire the air is the same and than the earth namely the air and then the earth in the great cold the great dark the air and the earth abode of stones in the great cold alas alas in the year of their Lord six hundred and something the air the earth the sea the earth abode of stones in the great deeps the great cold on sea on land and in the air I resume for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis the facts are there but time will tell I resume alas alas on on in short in fine on on abode of stones who can doubt it I resume but not so fast I resume the skull to shrink and waste and concurrently simultaneously what is more for reasons unknown in spite of the tennis on on the beard the flames the tears the stones so blue so calm alas alas on on the skull the skull the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the labours abandoned left unfinished graver still abode of stones in a word I resume alas alas abandoned unfinished the skull the skull in Connemara in spite of the tennis the skull alas the stones Cunard (mêlée, final vociferations) tennis… the stones… so calm… Cunard… unfinished…”