Lockheed is the main contractor. They sub out some of the wings and tail section to Boeing. Pratt & Whitney make the engines. While the original order for the planes was over 200, I believe that has been cut in half (or more) since that. They usually have 3 engines per plane to make it easier to keep the plane going if an engine needs repair (there's 2 engines in the F/A 22, ones similar to the 1 engine in the Joint Strike Fighter). The F/A 22 project was the project before the Joint Strike Fighter, so a lot of the technology was shared between the projects.
>> ^Yogi:

>> ^radx:
Ria Novosti had an article about it the other day. Didn't expect the US press to pick up up so soon, to be honest.

Well who makes the F-22 Raptor? It's Lockheed Martin right? Built in conjunction with Boeing too huh...hmmm I wonder if the two largest receivers of government military contracts will get a pass in the media.
That is until the horde because too loud to ignore.

>> ^bareboards2:

The very first minute of this report says these planes have never been used in combat.
Why we are risking the lives of these pilots for a training plane? It is seriously nuts.
I think of it as penis waggling. Boys and their toys. Even the pilots said they were happy to fly again at first.
Who in the Pentagon is so invested in keeping these in the air and why? It isn't rational.


Dunno about penis waggling, politicians of all genders are generally of the mindset if we paid for something we should use it no matter how wasteful/dangerous/stupid it is.

That's why so many projects end up going over budgets and never working, because they are too "invested" either corruptly or politically to say enough is enough.

They need a bunch of kids getting cancer or born with birth defects (BP oil spill and all those non-harmful chemicals they dumped in the water *wink wink nudge nudge*), or a school being demolished by a plane falling out of the sky to give them the proof they need to not look like they screwed up in the first place and instead look like they gave it a chance but obviously the people advising them are fools...never the politician or people in charge.....never.

We're talking about the same people who generally promote family values and hetero relationships while they are heading to the restroom for a little rough and tumble with a random dude they just met or whatever other devious example you want to use. Bunch of corrupt mfers basically, who give no shits about you until it makes them look bad when they don't.

>> ^bareboards2:

The very first minute of this report says these planes have never been used in combat.
Why we are risking the lives of these pilots for a training plane? It is seriously nuts.
I think of it as penis waggling. Boys and their toys. Even the pilots said they were happy to fly again at first.
Who in the Pentagon is so invested in keeping these in the air and why? It isn't rational.


Strongly disagree. If we didn't train pilots for this vehicle and suddenly we had a serious need for the it, the voice of dissent would be, "Why didn't we train pilots for a jet that could save our asses in a pinch and that we invested billions of dollars into?"

It's like in Ong-Bak when he's trained in martial arts and then told not to use martial arts. The violence of it is evil, but the threat within and without to forces that would otherwise seek to conquer, are deterred by their presence. If we had a peaceful society where we didn't need to constantly attack the shit out of each other, do we stop training pilots and soldiers? Hell no is the answer. That's the best way to get fucked over by the next big threat.

I also don't believe that we don't use the F-22. Lies within lies. They have an agenda and they don't need to whistle blow on everything surrounding it.

The way I understand it and I havent watched the video yet, is that the F-22 is still experimental it's not finished, it's not a training plane it's just still incomplete. They've been working on this plane for years.

>> ^bareboards2:

The very first minute of this report says these planes have never been used in combat.
Why we are risking the lives of these pilots for a training plane? It is seriously nuts.
I think of it as penis waggling. Boys and their toys. Even the pilots said they were happy to fly again at first.
Who in the Pentagon is so invested in keeping these in the air and why? It isn't rational.

Very interesting, and a very gray-area issue!

All kinds of jobs have guaranteed significant risks associated with them -- mining, oil rigs, Alaskan crab fisherman, etc. If there is some feasible and yes, cost efficient way to reduce those risks then it is pretty rational to expect or hope that it will be implemented. But, sometimes you really do need more data to figure out what if anything can be done to mitigate the risks. And sadly, that might require some level of exposing people to some problem that you know exists, but don't know what to do about yet.

If a coal miner suddenly decides that the risk of black-lung is too much for them to continue, I don't think we should expect the mining company to keep them on the payroll even if they refuse to go into the mine. I hope that these guys get the top brass to think long and hard about whether or not it is necessary to ground all the F-22s again, but I think they need to be ready to accept the very real possibility that the Air Force will tell them "don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out".

Your video, Air Force Pilots blow whistle on F-22 Raptor, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^radx:

Ria Novosti had an article about it the other day. Didn't expect the US press to pick up up so soon, to be honest.


Well who makes the F-22 Raptor? It's Lockheed Martin right? Built in conjunction with Boeing too huh...hmmm I wonder if the two largest receivers of government military contracts will get a pass in the media.

That is until the horde because too loud to ignore.

>> ^kulpims:

wings


Yep, Thanks.

Got in another debate with a hardcore conservative today. Different one this time. I learned some pretty awesome things.

1. If you spend more money on your military, it will always be stronger. No matter what! If you slightly reduce spending on your military while removing troops from conflicts such as Iraq, thereby freeing troops up for other things, your military will still be weaker.

2. Military might is virtually solely determined by number of people in it. China has a better military than the US. In fact, China could successfully land invade the US right now!!! When presented with the fact that China has not even attempted a land invasion of Taiwan because a portion of the US navy is sitting between the two, this was ignored. When I pointed out the US spends multiple times more than China does on military, and therefore he contradicted himself, this was promptly ignored because China apparently also has a better economy than the US, too.

3. When I disputed the proposition that China could successfully land invade the US by pointing out that amphibious assaults require air power, and China doesn't have sufficient aircraft carriers, I was told that air power is not required for a successful massive land invasion. For example, the only thing air power was used for during D-Day was patrols and to parachute some troops in behind enemy lines. They were not required to protect naval vessels carrying troops, nor did they participate in any significant bombings of Normandy. Also, the US successfully invaded Normandy without aircraft carriers, so the fact that China only has one aircraft carrier is irrelevant. I asked how China would get its air force over to the West Coast of the US without aircraft carriers, but that was ignored because an air force wasn't necessary.

4. When I pointed out multiple sources of info showing that air superiority was needed during D-Day, and was specifically sought out prior to even contemplating invasion, and the fact that I have a degree in History, taught it, and my concentration in college was WWI to the present, he responded that he knew more because he was in the navy for 8 years.

In the end, I was accused of thinking I knew more about everything than anyone else, and ridiculed for thinking I knew things because I went to college.

Sadly, this is a true story, and I'm related to this person.

I know there are idiots in every political group, but the amount of ignorance and idiocy coming out of the right these days is staggering, and so many of them are obnoxiously loud and proud about these kinds of views.

tell the air force to get working on the stargate!

First off, thanks so much for the promote!
In the link to the site I found the video on the page comments mainly focus on the Air Force base... heheh

>> ^Sarzy:

Wait, wait... did I hear that right? The base is called the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base?
Best base name ever.

Wait, wait... did I hear that right? The base is called the Seymour Johnson Air Force Base?

Best base name ever.

>> ^moonsammy:

Wait... the Frys dot com hangar at... McClellan Air Force Base? Since when do corporations directly sponsor the military?


You forgot to click the sarcasm box... I hope...

Wait... the Frys dot com hangar at... McClellan Air Force Base? Since when do corporations directly sponsor the military?

Actually Air Force Space Command (AFSPC) has all your base!
They deal with ICMB prevention, space superiority, and cyberspace/telecommunication kill-switches. That's where the money goes these days, not to NASA.

>> ^vaire2ube:

no ordinance just slugs at such high velocity they destroy targets
lasers that can destroy flying objects
mechanical exoskeletons from Alien to help move cargo
the navy has all your base.