F-22: Battle for the Ages

F-22: Battle for the Ages

The F-22 fight is shaping up as a defining event, one that will mark the end of post-Cold War drift and may well shape the future of the US military for a decade. The battle is happening on several levels. Defense Secretary Robert Gates took to the streets of Chicago (where they know how to use bare knuckles…) yesterday afternoon and laid out detailed arguments against the F-22 as well as broader, sweeping arguments for change to the US military that would result in few weapons like the F-22 being built for the foreseeable future.

Gates made his speech against the backdrop of the fight over the Senate amendment to kill $1.75 billion in F-22 funding. The struggle over the amendment, sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, the top two members of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is so close that the Project for Government Oversight (POGO) abandoned its efforts to track the votes.

The country faces “iron fiscal realities” and must choose wisely because “our spending and program priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of today and the growing ones of tomorrow.”

Gates pressed his argument, saying that the “old paradigm of looking at potential conflict as either regular or irregular war, conventional or unconventional, high end or low – is no longer relevant.” That need must drive the military “to prepare for war in a profoundly different way” than we have for most of the last 100 years.

Instead of building the best weapons for a given threat, the US needs “a portfolio of military capabilities with maximum versatility across the widest possible spectrum of conflict.”

And then he dived down to take out the F-22’s supporters. “The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity – whether for more F-22s or anything else – is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk I cannot accept and I will not take,” he said.

He and his team looked at the “right mix” of capabilities to counter likely threats. Gates pointed to UAVs “that can simultaneously perform intelligence, reconnaissance, and surveillance missions as well as deliver precision-guided bombs and missiles.” He pointed to the Joint Strike Fighter, which is “10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated enemy air defenses.” [Our readers will remember that we first reported that F-35 was highly efficient at taking out SAM-300s and their relatives.]

The F-22, by way of contrast, is a “silver bullet” against a very limited range of threats and costs a bundle.

At the next level, Gates is calling senators to convince them to stand with the administration. Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain are reaching out to their colleagues, taking on the arguments of the F-22 supporters point by point.

Then we move to the next level, the largely unseen battles being fought in the capital’s subterranean reaches, the halls beneath the Capitol and the windowless rooms of the Old Executive Office Building. We got a brief glimpse at one part of this from a letter to President Obama written by John Wheeler, former Air Force Secretary Mike Wynne’s aide.

It begins by noting those tribal relationships that matter most in Washington, that he “proudly supported your election and am a long-time Delaware supporter of the Vice President.” A West Point graduate who served in Vietnam, Wheeler notes that he headed the Vietnam War Memorial Fund for a decade. Then he moves rapidly to the main argument, that the country will be ceding air dominance if it does not build more F-22s.

“All pilots of all Services count on the F-22 as the ‘King of Battle’ that keeps all the smaller fighters, UAV’s, helicopters and transports of all the Services safe in the entire battlespace. The F-22 is a kind of “Killer Shark” toward any enemy missiles, UAV’s and airplanes,” Wheeler wrote. Then he moves to the emotional, saying the costs of abandoning air dominance can be read on the wall of the Vietnam War Memorial because “the Navy, Marine and Air Force jet pilots fought a “fair fight” against missiles and enemy fighters” instead of ensuring we were dominant.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

So our military doesn’t believe in the need for “silver bullets” any more. From here on out, we are only going to fund programs that are OK at everything, but not great at anything.

n my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term… [T]here are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy. Air Combat Command analysis, done in concert with Headquarters Air Force, shows a moderate risk force can be obtained with an F-22 fleet of approximately 250 aircraft.

–Gen. John Corley, Commander ACC
June 9 letter to Sen. Chambliss
________
Senator Saxby Chambliss: Under the force planning construct, where we assume that 183 is going to be the number, what is the level of risk that we are taking at 183? Is it low? Is it moderate? Or is it high risk?
General Norton A. Schwartz, Air Force Chief of Staff: I would characterize it as moderate to high, sir.
–Senate Armed Services Committee, May 21, 2009
________
Chambliss: Your chief of staff has stated that the requirement is 243 and he has characterized the risk of only 187 F-22s as medium to high. Do either of you disagree with that assessment by General Schwartz?
Major General Mark Gibson, Director of Operations and Deputy Chief of Staff, Operations, Plans and Requirements, Department of the Air Force: Sir, of course I would agree with the comment of my chief. General Shackelford addressed earlier that the term now is “higher risk,” especially when one looks at sustainment of the fleet with those lower numbers. But I think his recent terminology was in the light of today’s constrained resources. It was an affordable solution.
–Hearing of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, June9, 2009
________
Gen. Richard Hawley (USAF, Ret): The F-22 recommendation rests on an assertion that we cannot afford to equip our airmen, on whom we rely to gain and maintain air superiority, with the best weapons that our defense industrial base has developed. Rather, we, and they, are asked to accept the risk of sending them into the fight with weapons designed for an entirely different mission.
–Hearing of the Airland Subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, April 30, 2009

“zero sum game” ??

If only that theory was applied to all of Barry’s social welfare programs…

Typical leftist, raise taxes and cut the military.

Gates should be ashamed of himself, and from his lame defense of himself, he seems to be aware of his being just a useful idiot for obama.…

“So our military doesn’t believe in the need for “silver bullets” any more”

No, they seem to believe in actually acquiring weapons that will be useful for the wars that we are *actually* fighting. This is known as common sense, and is a useful quality.

Obama and Team Evil will probably win this round. The traitorous weasel is rapidly spending his political capital, though. And slowly Americans are realizing the horrific scale of Obama’s despicable actions. Gutting defense to pay kickbacks to his cronies is sad indeed. Truly, a vile human being.

Total, that is absurd. In fact, thinking like yours is precisely the reason we are in Afghanistan and Iraq today. For example, if our procurement officials had a little foresight, our predator drones would have been armed BEFORE they had bin Laden square in their sights, and the CIA wouldn’t have been forced to do it on their own after the fact when it was too late.

Certainly our main focus should be on current threats, but our dominance in narrow roles such as air superiority is a major deterrent that helps ensure we don’t have to fight those future conflicts wear a weapon like the F-22 might actually be needed in large numbers.

“Total, that is absurd. In fact, thinking like yours is precisely the reason we are in Afghanistan and Iraq today. ”

Oh, crap it is. It took wilful ignorance of the wars we were actually fighting–Vietnam, Somalia, the Balkans–to continue building for a giant conventional war that never came. And yet here we are, nearly 20 years after the end of the Cold War, and we’re still trying to build horribly expensive weapons to fight the Soviets, while neglecting stuff that would help us win in Afghanistan and Iraq.

If you fight 2 counterinsurgency wars, don’t expect the funding for conventional warfare to stay the same as it was while we were at peace.

Total did it ever occur to you that our preparation to fight a large conventional war is part of the reason why we never had to? Weapons like our CBGs, SSBNs, and the F-22 are what keep hostile powers from thinking they can get away with attacking us, which allows us to go into war on our own terms and not our enemies. Even today the F-22 has the potential to act as a deterrent against nations like Iran and North Korea, even if they aren’t large enough to ever call for a massive conventional war.

I would say Total is right on target…Alex your trailin smoke partner.

Total, “neglecting stuff that would help us win in Afghanistan and Iraq.“
What exactly are we neglecting? The fact is we are winning. What we are winning is a mystery though. This administration just wasted a trillion dollars to help our economy “recover” yet we cant spend a few billion more for a robust force of air dominance fighters? Ever heard of the S400 and paid any attention to Russian pipeline politics? According to your rationale the Center for Disease Control shouldn’t waste money on modern and new ways to fight diseases and viruses but should focus on things like the common cold and typhus.

To be fair, there are multiple ways to appraoch this issue with no clear answers. Most of the spending this country does whether domestic or defense is really borrowing;the Wars alone are being payed for by borrowing.

As for systems like the S400 we have both F-22s, (perhaps F-35s), cruise missiles, and unmanned vehicles (which are enemies have no reliable way to defend against) to handle those threats-if the Russains are actually serious about selling S300 to Iran instead of using it as a missile defense bargaining chip.

Stop giving me a hard time I have something important to say.

“Total did it ever occur to you that our preparation to fight a large conventional war is part of the reason why we never had to? Weapons like our CBGs, SSBNs, and the F-22 are what keep hostile powers from thinking they can get away with attacking us”

Actually, I think it was the F-15s that helped us against the Soviets. The F-22 has done nothing in that regard, since the Soviet Union doesn’t exist anymore. Our next nearest conventional enemy is so far behind that it’s laughable. And, yes, I include countries like China, India, and Russia that are used to stoke fears of “Oh my god, we might lost air superiority if their fifth generation fighter actually works in the next decade or if that new super SAM that they talk about is ever built or deployed in serious numbers.”

“What exactly are we neglecting?
What exactly are we neglecting? The fact is we are winning. What we are winning is a mystery though. This administration just wasted a trillion dollars to help our economy “recover” yet we cant spend a few billion more for a robust force of air dominance fighters? ”

What are we neglecting? Have you been paying *any* attention in the last eight years? How about armored Humvees? How about more UAVs? How about ships that can go into the littoral and chase pirates?

The administration’s trying to deal with a depression handed to it by those genius Republicans and two wars handed to it by…wait for it…those genius Republicans. How about we deal with the depression and the wars we’re actually fighting instead of making up imaginary bogeyman to scare ourselves into buying super expensive planes that have never flown a combat mission in Iraq or Afghanistan and can’t even talk electronically to any other plane in the Air Force?

Mr. Wheeler’s reference to the Vietnam memorial wall is particularly troubling given his alma mater and very brief Army and Vietnam experience. Let’s review how many names are on that wall from each service:

Navy: 2555
USAF: 2584
Marines: 14,838
Army: 38,209

Let’s analyze how pilot risk balances out by stopping F-22 now and buying more F-35s/EA-18G (given the zero-sum game):

In the very short air supremacy war:

1) A few MORE lost USAF Airmen from air-to-air and SAM-to-air by flying F-35 instead of F-22

2) A few LESS dead Marine/Sailor pilots from air-to-air and SAM-to-air by flying F-35 instead of old F/A-18

Things that DO NOT BALANCE OUT when fighting the long war for many months where air-to-ground engagement is far more important:

1)More than 187 F-22s/2 Fewer F-35 per additional F-22: MORE dead Marines/Soldiers and innocent civilians due to INFERIOR air-to-ground capabilities

2)80–120 More F-35s/187 F-22: FEWER dead Marines/Soldiers and innocent civilians due to SUPERIOR air-to-ground prowess

Given the relatively low numbers of Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan USAF casualties vs. lost and maimed ground troops, anyone should rapidly discern which aircraft saves the most U.S lives in greater numbers…resulting in fewer names on future walls.

I might point out that 5086 of about 12,000 total helicopters were destroyed in Vietnam resulting in 2709 killed in Hueys alone while flying nearly 10 million flight hours

More OH-58D aircrews have been killed in these 2 wars than most likely would ever be killed in fixed wing combat in future wars against any opponent other than Russia or China. Yet we terminated the near term replacement which was hardly expensive at 1/6th the cost of a V-22 and 1/20th the cost of a 2010 F-22 priced at $250 million (7 aircraft for $1.75 billion).

So should the AUSA cite Vietnam as an example of why it needs far more helicopters than it has now? Should the Army speak of higher risk and inability to adequately support our national strategy? Or are current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan more than adequately making that point…with nobody but Sec of Defense Gates appearing to listen.

BTW, read an Avn Week Defense blog article today that speculated that Russia had spent 40% of its ANNUAL DEFENSE BUDGET trying to improve subs and get their nuclear missile to work…so far unsuccessfully. This is the nation that will field hundred of PAK FA’s? You already saw Secretary Gates compare our numbers of future fifth generation U.S. aircraft vs. China.

Seems to me that those OH-58D replacements and Army UAS are looking more and more like systems that better support our national defense strategy for REAL WORLD conflicts. But that fact gets drowned out by Congressional indifference, and USAF hysterics.

Cole: Buying fewer F-22 will not get more F-35; it will get the same number of F-35, just a little bit sooner.

Hey, people: It’s completely disgusting that we’re starting to use the dismembered bodies of dead soldiers as arguments. I’d like to think that we’re all smart enough to argue this subject without pathetic appeals to emotion. (I half-expect someone to hold up a picture of a puppy and say “IF YOU SUPPORT THE F-22, IT’S BECAUSE YOU WANT THIS PUPPY TO DIE.”)

That said: I do agree that UAV and advanced-VTOL ought to be where our funding and research go. Unfortunately, neither side in the F-22/F-35 debate seems interested in going there.

One USAF F-22: $140 million although I’m inclined to believe that is based on constant OLD dollars

One USAF F-35A: around $70 million in future dollars

40–60 additional F-22s roughly equal 80–120 F-35A in the long run

Does anyone REALLY believe there will be money for 1760 F-35A? And maybe there shouldn’t be because a Marine and Navy F-35 “airbase” is at least MORE DIFFICULT to hit with a tactical ballistic missile.

If you read between the lines, the USAF is also saying: we can’t keep enough F-22s flying due to maintenance so pay for MORE LEMONS THAT COST A LOT MORE PER HOUR TO FLY. Let’s go back to those 40–60 F-22s that represent about 28–42 FMC aircraft at an optimistic 70% OR rate. 80–120 F-35s at an easy 80% OR are 64–96 available air supremacy aircraft…that cost a whole lot less than $50 per flight hour so maybe our pilots get a few more training hours.

“One USAF F-22: $140 million although I’m inclined to believe that is based on constant OLD dollars”

Yeah, it’s running $250 million a pop at the moment.

“Hey, people: It’s completely disgusting that we’re starting to use the dismembered bodies of dead soldiers as arguments.”

If you don’t like the consequences of your actions, you shouldn’t argue for them.

Cole,

Your cost estimates are inaccurate for the F-35. Current day dollar costs averaged out are about 140 Million for an F-22. Recent GAO estimates for F-35 unit cost (Same equation used) are 122 million for an F-25 and we haven’t even bought or tested the thing yet. History shows that the cost should go up. Really though it shouldn’t be a debate between the two but people are making it that. The F-22 is an enabler for the F-35. I wouldn’t expect most people to understand the need to have Air Dominance in order to accomplish all other missions.

Try this link if you don’t believe the GAO estimate (now 1.5 years old and costs have always historically increased.)

http://​www​.gao​.gov/​n​e​w​.​i​t​e​m​s​/​d​0​9​3​0​3​.​pdf

The issue I have with the Defsec policy is that it is contradictory.
If your policy is to divert more funds into things that can help in the current fight then why not cancel both F-35 and F-22?

Considering the Raptor programme has cost nearly $60B and is finally becoming usuable, how is replacing it with a programme that will cost north of $300B and won’t see IOC for nearly 5 years helpful to the current fight?.

FY 2009 Budget Estimates
AIRCRAFT PROCUREMENT AIR FORCE, VOLUME I

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/shared/media/document/AFD-080204–081.pdf

page 43 of pdf
F-35 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2007: $247.450 million (02)
FY2008: $215.035 million (06)
FY2009: $199.489 million (08)
FY2010: $158.546 million (12)
FY2011: $124.580 million (24)
FY2012: $101.726 million (42)
FY2013: $091.223 million (48)
Total Program (average): $083.131 million

page 55 of pdf
F-22 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2007: $136.826 million (20)
FY2008: $137.467 million (20)
FY2009: $146.388 million (20)
Total Program (average): $154.267 million

Numbers are in then year dollars. So the FY2007, FY2008 & FY2009 dollars are the same dollars but the Total Program (average) dollars are not comparable since the F-35 Total Program goes through 2035 where as the F-22 Total Program (in the reference document) only goes through 2009 (it only goes through the 183 F-22s).

Of course if we were continuing to procure more F-22’s the price would still be decreasing & if we were procuring them at more than 20 per year the price would be lower as well. It has been said that if we were to procure an additional 100 (over the 183) that the price would drop to below $120 million.

In other words, the cost of the F-35 won’t reach ~1/2 the $140 million average of the last 60 F-22 until it reaches full-rate production.

If we were to procure a significant number of additional F-22s & we assume that for FY2010-FY1012 the average cost were ~$10 million less than then for FY2010-FY1012 then those F-22’s would cost (average per airframe) almost exactly what is projected (average) for the FY2010-FY1012 F-35s. So cutting the F-22 & buying more LRIP F-35s doesn’t really save much if any money — all it does is buy more high cost LRIP F-35s that actually cost about the same as additional F-22’s would.

Those costs include upgrades (after the fact) as part of the cost of the plane?

So rather than fund an operational twin-engine stealth fighter that’s capable of multirole operation, we’re going to ditch further production in favor of a someday-to-be operational single-engine less stealthly attack jet that’s capable of air-to-air operation, and which may well end up costing as much as the F-22 does, especially if our partner nations lose their enthusiasm for the F-35 and put their money into Block 60 Vipers and Silent Eagles. Smart.

pfcem,
How can your average F-35 cost be $083.131 if the lowest cost (FY2013) is $091.223????

And, there is no guarantee that the obama traitors wont cut the F-35 numbers in future years.

Obama is working hard to make the US a third world power

pfcem, thanks for the data. But all it shows is the obvious that early F-35As cost more than later ones. We have no choice but to pay that higher upfront cost at some point. The total program F-35A average is in future inflated dollars and yet still is about half of the F-22 average flyaway cost.

The USAF cannot afford both accelerated F-35 procurement and continued F-22 production, while funding the war effort, more C-17s, and Congressional stimulus spending. We can’t do anything about the last item, no matter how we feel about it. In addition, Sec of Defense Gates closing spigot analogy illustrates the reality that we probably won’t get Congress to fund 1763 F-35As. So why risk the “quantity has a quality all its own” F-35 airpower aspect by funding too much now when the economy is down…thus risking it becoming more unhealthy, inflated, and more unlikely to fund defense spending?

If we bought 40 F-22 split between both 2010 and 2011 at $150 million each that would be $6 billion unplanned dollars not available for other warfighting needs when you are also buying early F-35s and probably more C-17s. If we buy less than 20 F-22s, it looks like the Senate is saying it would cost $1.75 billion for just 7 aircraft, or $250 million EACH. They aren’t worth it.

If we buy F-35As at the rates you show, then by 2014–2015, when we are still in Afghanistan, we should have F-35s flying there. USAF, Navy, and Marine versions will contribute to both ISR (EO/IR) of routes and surveillance of sites looking across the AfPak border. The F-35 will optimize small diameter bomb support for U.S. troops, with the optics to positively ID targets and avoid civilian casualties. The cost to do that and shows of force with F-35s, will be significantly less than for a F-22, B-1, or F-15E.

Air SuperiorityWONK, pfcem is showing the program average for 1763 F-35A…not the average for the first 100+ we will buy in early production.

Cole,

Do you understand that Air Superiority is required for F-35s to loiter around and use optics to support troops. The last time a bomb was dropped on US troops was 15 April 1953. This proud tradition was not accomplished by paying lip service to Air Superiority.

Good luck finding a target in the middle of an ACM engagement with two AMRAAMs and no AIM-9s.

Z,

Suspect F-35s won’t have much trouble loitering in Afghan or Iraqi airspace. I’m more concerned about DarthAmerica’s comment on F​-16​.net that he has seen F-16s taking off from Bagram with AIM-9s on the wing tips, thus giving up loiter fuel and adding drag to look cool.

In other early air supremacy engagements, the F-35 certainly will carry more than 2 AMRAAMs and has the radar and stealth to use them BVR. It also will carry AIM-9X and have the helmet mounted display system and DAS to make use of them. How will the F-22 use AIM-9X to shoot behind it?

Further would speculate that the Navy built all those Aegis ships and Standard Missiles because they feel they can protect themselves (and others) from air attack by jets and TBM. The Army and many allies have Patriots, THAAD and soon SLAMRAAM to further protect your airfields, and our troops from such attacks.

The Navy and Marines don’t complain that they can’t maintain air supremacy with F-35B/C, EA-18G, and future UCAV. You guys can expedite MQ-X. All services can continue with the air-launched decoy and stealthy cruise missile efforts, not to mention advanced HARMs, long-gliding SDBs, and F-35/F-22 EW capabilities. Simultaneously, your B-2s and 120 deployable F-22s, and hundreds of Joint F-35s will be bombing airfields and SAM radars, making air-to-air and S-300/400 missiles less relevant.

Call me stupid, but seems like there is a whole lot available to fight a very brief air supremacy war that historically, WITHOUT stealth aicraft, has resulted in very few recent aircraft losses. And we haven’t even mentioned that most real-world foes will have small numbers of advanced fighters and double-digit SAMs.

Thanks for the GAO link. I see they averaged 2456 aircraft against a predicted $254 billion in procurement monies so they are rolling in the more expensive F-35B and C in with your A-model to get a $104 average procurement cost…which is probably about $80 million in 2009 dollars.

They are also seem to believe that the same engineers that built the F-22 will suddenly turn stupid on the F-35 despite lessons learned. The GAO, that near as I can tell has never manufactured anything, discounts the greater number of simulation labs (more than the F-22), and are attributing short term costs of a second engine without considering that it may save money in the long run and get P&W to be more responsive.

Finally, on the left side of the GAO study they talk about JSF being a $ TRILLION dollar program consisting of $300 billion R&D/procurement and the other $700 billion being Operation and Support. Just imagine how high those operating costs would be if it was 2456 F-22s at $50K per hour! But of course that isn’t even an option since F-22s:

- Cost too much to field 700 aircraft let alone 2456
– Can’t land on carriers
– Won’t perform STOL (more than once)
– Don’t bomb in support of troops too well

I understand that you and DA think playing video games allows you to understand air combat. So explain how you are carrying an AIM-9X and more than 2 AMRAAMs while still being stealthy? BTW do you really put full faith in the NGC EO/DAS ad video. Animation is one thing, reality is another.

I sure hope were not still in Iraq and Afghanistan by the time they produce an F-35 that can drop a bomb.

I’m done wasting my time.

Z,

Video games! Why not come to Ft Rucker, and check out the high tech CSC/partner simulators that Army helicopter pilots learn to fly on. Then see the other ones all aviation units employ before going overseas to hone their unit training skills.

Considering that the true threat you face is from SAMs, not air-to-air, you can more than adequately train DEAD, BVR, and air-to-ground in a high quality networked simulator with real world terrain and threats depicted. With the F-35 helmet mounted display, simulation would be greatly simplified.

But, that’s OK Z, you boys can keep up your air-to-air skills flying that 10–12 hours a month. Or instead buy F-35s and be able to afford more hours. Hope springs eternal that you may actually get to use those dogfighting skills one day and join the sole USAF pilot still on active duty who has shot down an enemy plane in combat…a brigadier general.

Speaking of DA, I gotta post one of his best replies from F​-16​.net:
=============================================
“Now I’m drafting copies of a letter I intend to send to my Congress person explaining the personnel, equipment, training and support shortfalls that my unit and others suffered in Iraq as a result of misguided Cold War era funding priorities such as the F-22.

Moreover, I’ll explain that I’d like it very much if in my 3rd GWOT tour to Afghanistan, if this time enough things like armor, UAS, spares for vehicles, theater range transports, tankers to keep CAS aircraft on station long enough to matter considering OEF geography and MEDEVAC helos are available so we can promptly end that operation so as to free the bulk of the U.S. Military from the SW/Central Asia region for the purpose of checking Russian resurgence and providing a credible deterrent to nations like Iran and N Korea who see the USA as over extended.

I’ll go on to explain how historically rogue regimes have been highly survivable vs air bombardment but have always fallen when credible ground forces are deployed or available.

I’m going to be sure to mention the trend away from manned fighter combat and the increasing superiority of the USAF/USN/USMC over potential rivals. I’ll make sure I mention also that Russian Air Force combat air craft are hovering around 30–50% MC rate and post-Soviet aircraft production has fallen to the point that they cannot match LM F-35 production rates.

Moreover, I’ll explain that Russia has still not managed to work out a doctrine that effectively integrates air and ground forces and as a results repeatedly bombed decoy or already destroyed targets. Adding insult to injury, the Russian shot down over 60% of their own combat losses through fratricide.

Finally, with regard to threats, I’ll indicate that Russian C5ISTAR caoability and technologies necessary to make 5th generation fighters won’t appear at the earliest until sometime in the latter half of next decade well after F-35 is in full production.

I intend to include declassified photos of some of my M1151’s damaged or destroyed by IEDs. I’ll include personal photos of F-16s with JDAMs taking off from Balad while armed with air to air missiles on wing tips to emphasize the multi mission nature of USAF combat operations. I’ll include some photos of UAS from my camera and finally some photos of my men and unit as a reminder of who gets screwed if the F-22 continues to rob funding while Americans are literally dying of neglect on battlefields.“
===================================
For more of his post and others, check out the F-22 vs. Congress (or something similar) on page 47, and other F-22 posts there.

As for when F-35s will drop a bomb, what’s this about F-22 Increment 3.1 only hitting two targets with 8 small diameter bombs? That certainly helps your air supremacy efforts, now doesn’t it.

Air Superiority Wonk,
What is it that actually motivates someone in Afghanistan to set off an IED or fire an RPG at US forces in Afghanistan?
Somme possibilities that pop in to my head are they want to prevent girls from going to school,
they are afraid that if they do not someone from the Taliban will kill them or one of their family members, the NATO or Afghan Gov. forces are interfering with their Poppy trade, or US tactics have killed to many civilians and have alienated part of the Afghan population, or perhaps they want to reach paradise faster and have been fooled in to thinking that by dieing from the hand of a US soldier he will get there quicker, or maybe it is none of these things.
I really do not pretend to know.
It may not seem relevant to you but if I knew what motivates these Afghan attackers then I think that I could make a better judgment about how many and what type of aircraft are needed in the US inventory.
Do not be shy, humor me. I do not have HIV 1 or HIV 2 either.
Of course I will accept assistance from anyone willing to help clarify this for me.

Well said Cole, looks like we are finally getting the rational pushback for ‘Real World’ contingencies we have needed for quite some time. The GAU-22 25mm gun with which the Lightening will be armed is excellent and substantially more accurate than the legacy 20mm Vulcan found on the Raptor. Perhaps a small detail for some but not those on the ground who are likely to appreciate the increased capability. Also I am aware the gun will be fitted as a ‘pod’ on the Marine version but then again so is the GAU-12 on the AV-8B.

Christ, forget the F-22/35 already, I can’t wait to see the X-45C and X-47B in action. Better stealth and cheaper, the F-22 has nothing on next-gen UCAV’s. In 2 years this discussion will be irrelevant and simply retarded.

The DoD increased the budget for UCAV’s to 10 Billion dollars in ’10 budget. Honestly, the 22/35 will be completely useless in future “big wars”, when you have 300 UCAV’s flying over enemy air-space. Great time to be a computer nerd.….

BuddalovesPaine,

Think 400AD in the same caves they fight us from currently. Adaptation is an asset when you are supporting ground troops that are among the CiviliBan threat that our troops face.

Any AC that supports a squad engaged in this kind of combat has to have versatility in weapon choices, enhanced reception from ground radios, first repeater capable, loiterability and go fast when launched at by a missle.

An A-10 crossed with a mini AWAC mixed with the speed of an F-111 or an Apache Long Bow systems mounted on an elongated airframe made out of 2 mothballed F-4’s.

Chief Houston,
Thank you for your prompt response. Why are they fighting us in the first place? Do they not see the obvious superiority of our society or our we not delivering that obvious superiority to them?
If not why not on both counts? Will Preditor or an F-22 or an F-35 or an F-15 or a Green Beret who has been sent to a special 3 year school to get fully trained as an Islamic Scholar and Psychologist be the best delivery system for this mission?
And as for Protecting our borders from attack by the Russians or Chinese what motives will the leadership of either of these counties have in the next 40 years and what capabilites will they have in the next 40 years should they manage to come up with a motive?
Taiwan, if we do not defend it, are the Chinese then likely to be so emboldened by the appeasement of the US that they will then decide to invade Vietnam or Laos or India or Russia or Khazikstan? Or will Korea and Japan be the dominoes that fall?
Chief Houston, although your name is at the top these questions are for anyone who wants to answer them.

Does this crowd go to bed at 9pm or start drinking at 9 pm?
If no one wants to answer what motivates the “Taliban” for lack of a better term fighters,
can anyone tell me what motivates the deciders in the military to fight the Taliban with weapons that have a kill radius? Is it the desire to save money, or the desire to save US military personnel, or the desire to kill the Taliban members as fast as possible, or some other motive that I have not mentioned? Have these tactics been successful in achieving anything positive? How many years have we been in Afghanistan now? Is there any type of a motive that someone may have overlooked in assessing why the US military leaders have chosen the tactics that they have? If the Generals have been challenged by the Colonels and the Colonels the Captains does that mean that the tactics are the best that can be achieved under the circumstances?
What are the goals in Afghanistan now?
Could Americans in general and Americans in the military in particular have a different understanding of what the goals are than say a Tadjik or a Pashtun, or a Baluch, or a Russian or a Chinese, or an Iranian? If the understanding of America’s goals in the region by non American’s is different than those of American’s does that mean that the non Americans do not have the correct information?
Can F-22s or drones be outfitted with leaflets that will convince others of our good intentions or are they to stupid to ever understand that we are the ones with good intentions, and those who are trying to kill us are the ones with the bad intentions?

Have my questions been a trick? If someone tries to make a conniving, or convincing argument about what is thought in the MIC about the thoughts of their enemies than may provide information to the enemy that is far more valuable than where the location of the next raid or the next patrol will be. Yet if this information is not shared with the citizenry how can they make informed political decisions?
Some one here should consider themselves an expert? Please share your expertise.

Ok, so I think this is by far one of the most interesting debates I have read. The question I have for those posting all these numbers on here especially our mission cap rates got there info from? you see i work on the flight line st lsngley and have deployed with our jets. your mission cap rates are wrong, and from what I have seen and been briefed your costs are also wrong to. The costs are about 5 million more than published, and my mission cap rate at this unit is around 92.253% anybody on this board who goes on and quotes all these numbers about russian capabilities and chinese buildup manpads and the s300-400 systems, well, let me put it this way, until you sit in on briefings with me being given by my intel people than shut it. Your words and numbers are nothing but mere speculation based on poor information. The F-22 is and exceptional jet, all though a pain in the rear, its does what it does incredibly well. Do we need more? I gotta tell you none of us here want any more, only for the fact that if the buy more 22’s as well as the new tanker, and the 35’s, the genreral sentiment is that there wont be any money left for us, and they’ll start cutting back mx again.
raptor01

Raptor_boy,
I cannot understand why you wish to challenge these perfectly inane ramblings with a credible input? Don’t you understand that employing & maintaining complex,high performance fighters is so simple that any goober could do it by merely passing a distance learning course and reading AvWeek regularly?

I thought becuase Lexington and ausairpower said it, it had to be true.

Raptor_boy said: “I gotta tell you none of us here want any more, only for the fact that if the buy more 22’s as well as the new tanker, and the 35’s, the general sentiment is that there wont be any money left for us, and they’ll start cutting back mechanics again.“
=============================================
Raptor-boy, thanks for your efforts in keeping these critical silver bullet aircraft flying. I think your last sentence above about says it all though.

Let’s look at a recent Nellis effort by 525th where a claimed 100% MC rate was maintained for 14 F-22s. Guess I would start by asking where were the other 6 squadron aircraft? Does that mean 100% of the maintainers were fixing 70% of the aircraft while the hanger queens and stripped aircraft stayed at home?

Perhaps that did not occur and it was awesome that those maintainers were able to provide aircraft for 350 of 350 missions. Can that level or even the claimed 70% be sustained for months without working you guys to death?

But beyond that, guess what some are saying is that if they flew 350 sorties at 2 hours per mission, that is 700 hours of flight time. If it is in fact nearly $50,000 per hour to fly those bad boys, that training cost us $35 million.

If it had been 14 F-35As it probably would have cost HALF as much or less. That would mean more money for parts, mechanics working fewer hours on a more maintainable aircraft…and maybe a few more M-ATVs for Soldiers actually getting blown up in Afghanistan, instead of sitting through threat briefings related to unlikely conflicts.

And near as I can tell, flying 350 combat sorties would result in AT LEAST 350 dead enemy S-300s or SU-XX. So if a mere 14 F-22s can do that kind of damage, and we could easily deploy 120 F-22s anywhere in the world…guess I’m not comprehending why we need more F-22s when all those F-35s will be backing them up.

I did see that an F-15E went down in Afghanistan today, and both pilots were lost. What tragic commendable service matched by Army helicopter pilots that went down in the last week or so, and ground troops that are killed nearly every day. So while your threat briefings may sound impressive to you, what they aren’t telling you is how often THEIR aircraft are broke, THEY had engine problems, THEIR quality control, and most importantly.…their poor training. Just imagine what a Soviet or Chinese threat briefing about U.S. equipment must sound like when they hardly get to fly at all…and probably don’t want to!!

Secretary Gates recently admitted to exaggerating Soviet threats back in his day…and I recall we used to think the MiG-25 was a bad a$$ aircraft until someone defected with one from North Korea. Then we never lost an aircraft to a MiG or SU throughout F-15/16/14/18 service…and our aircraft were not even stealthy then and AIM-120D/AIM-9X and AESA radars didn’t even exist.

But thanks again for your service. Joint Service mechanics always get all the work while pilots get the glory. At least in the Army, many mechanics become warrant officers to learn how to fly…which isn’t an option in the USAF, even to fly a UAS.

When the Republicans gained control of Congress in 1994, they tried to kill the Raptor Program entirely-backers of the program had to scrounge up Democratic votes to keep it going over the objections of Republican leaders who were trying to find a way to balance the budget. When the Bush administration took office, they wanted to kill the plane outright as well, but could not for political reasons. They did make it clear, however, as long as they were in power, they were never going to be buying a lot of raptors (this view was independent of the current SecDef). John McCain is co-leading the effort in Congress to prevent the construction of any more Raptors even as we have this debate.

I am curious as to why there seems to be posters on this thread who feel that the decision to fund, or not fund, the construction of more Raptors is a decision based on the liberalism of the Obama administration. Clearly, anyone who voted for George W. Bush was voting against the Raptor, as was anyone who voted for John McCain.

I myself am a big believer in the Raptor, as well as the necessity of its mission. However, reducing the discussion to absurd partisan finger pointing does no good. The only way that there are going to be any more Raptors is if there is a collation built in congress by members of both parties who are willing to oppose the leaders of their parties.

The bottom line is that Democrats Bad-Republicans Good is not a line of reasoning that is going to move anything anywhere.

Cole,
Other than your normal tired & twisted “blame the AF for Army woes”, the meaningless comparisons of 4th Gen fighters and your not so secret desire to be the AF Personnel Chief (and evidently pattern the AF officer corps after the US Army..LOL); was there a point to that perfectly lame posting?

Mark, as you know, 4th-4.5 generation aircraft are all Russia/China have…I thought we were talking near term risk justifying more F-22s

But maybe you meant through 2015 when we will have well over 300 fifth generation aircraft (climbing rapidly) and thousands of 4th-4.5 as they field their initial non-stealth 5th gen and still have 4.5 gen in the low hundreds?

I’m confused, where is this near to mid-term threat and fighter gap you boys are contriving?

World Wide Wrestling Association Federation League or whatever could it be more real than the virtual disagreements among politicians of the Democratic and Republican parties over how many F-22 to build? Every public squabble seems to be theater for that matter.
If you buy in to the WWW AFL concept then I guess that you can continue to enjoy your life as a cell in a large organization (organism).
But if you look at, not behind, the scenes very carefully you will begin to question the dream.
Most people have not and may never arrive at that point. If you have, what do you do in the mean time? Well, attempting to educate others is an important task. The benefits build up very slowly. (The last 2 sentences appear disjointed, forced, and contrived but that is deliberate.)
If you try anything else you could go to prison and for a very long time. So do not worry and be happy. Enjoy the SUNSHINE* while you are at it.
*$$$$$

Air SuperiorityWONK,

The total program average can be $083.131 million if the FY2013 (NOIT the lowest) cost FY2013 is $091.223 million because the cost continues to drop even after FY2013 & a LOT more will be procured each year in later years making the higher cost of comparatively few LRIP airframes less significant.

***

Cole,

No, it also shows that buying more LRIP F-35s costs about the same as buying more F-22s. For ~$130 million (FY2010-2012 average) I’d rather buy additional F-22s & wait to buy the ‘additional’ F-35s later on when they are less expensive (note that it is not buying more F-35s just buying a larger portion of them during LRIP rather than later during full rate production).

It isn’t accelerated F-35 procurement AND continued F-22 production. “They” are using the funds that would/should otherwise go towards additional F-22s & using it to accelerated F-35 procurement. Get it?

F-22s don’t cost 50K per hour. They cost $19,750 per hour (which ain’t bad given that the F-15C, you know the legacy air-superiority fighter in which the last one we bought was in 1986 the F-22 is supposed to replace, cost $17,465 per hour).

You & DA can dream all you want but the F-22 isn’t & hasn’t taken one dime away from the WOT. Quite the opposite in fact. Programs like the F-22 have been “getting the short end of the straw” in order to fund the WOT.

Hey, remember back in 1933, when the Germans weren’t allowed to build or develop military hardware, and long-range high-altitude unescorted daylight bombing was going to be the new paradigm for war?

Interesting how close these are with nearly equivalent levels of production.

F-35 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2011: $124.580 million (24)

F-22 Flyaway Unit Cost
FY2007: $136.826 million (20)

F-22 would seem to be more bang for the buck.

Cole,
My apology.…next to Buddhaloveshummahumma, you are a Pultizer winning genius…for the life of me, I have no idea what that dude is talking about…LOL

“It isn’t accelerated F-35 procurement AND continued F-22 production. “They” are using the funds that would/should otherwise go towards additional F-22s & using it to accelerated F-35 procurement. Get it?“
==================================
pfcem,

The decision was correctly made to rapidly field 5th generation fighters and the EA-18G to support all 3 services rather than just one aircraft for one service that we already had in large numbers with no comparable threat in sight.

The current budget constraints for F-22 should illustrate that no guarantees exists the USAF will field 1763 F-35A eventually. There is truth to the “quantity having a quality all its own” argument. You don’t postpone or slow LRIP which effectively delays F-35 full rate production to squeeze out a few more F-22s.

Why does DoD say it costs nearly $50K instead of $20K? Brief research shows that F-22s burn 20,650 lbs (about 3,000 gals) of internal fuel which according to Ashton Carter costs about $42/gallon when aerial refueled. That is $126,000 for subsequent fuel loads after the initial fuel is expended in supercruise! And of course the maintenance costs are the real expense. What else is DoD including in their cost estimate that you and yours are blowing off?

DD,

Heh remember when you couldn’t take out airfields with TBMs? Where are we gonna park all these additional costly F-22s where they won’t get blown up on the ground? Guess we can always spend $10 billion upgrading Guam…oh wait, what about Kadena?

Remember back in 2000 when the PAK FA was just around the corner and the cost of gas was going to be perpetually high to fund Russian defense spending? And don’t forget the one about UAS will never replace pilots and high speed computers are the size of rooms.

Mark, I googled his/her screen name earlier today to see if he/she was a legitimate dissenter or just a troll.

Recommend that Colin ban. In one post he/she bragged that he had posted on military​.com and that it had not been erased. He appears to be from Germany, and made some seemingly anti-semitic comments in a few diffferent forums, and literally leftist revolutionary comments in others (3 nations should fly to Canada and invade US, plant fake bombs in Germany).

He attributes the Israeli attack of the USS Liberty to U.S. Generals recommending said attack. He also said Al Quaeda might be a CIA plot. In one site, his/her true name is Johanna Schafft who was a communist resistance fighter from Holland who was killed near the end of the war at age 24…guess she must be a heroine to him/her…he/she also went on a feminist site. ;)

Oh I forgot the best part. Budda stands for Benevolent Unique Death Defying Honorable Aliens…but he may in fact be a Buddhist since he posted on one such site.

“Heh remember when you couldn’t take out airfields with TBMs?”

You’re right, we should eliminate short-range combat aircraft entirely. Anything that can’t fly out of CONUS is just too vulnerable. Oh wait, you’re arguing that we need F-35, but don’t those still need airbases? Won’t they be vulnerable to the same TBM that you say will do for the F-22? Oh dear, I’ve gone cross-eyed…

“Remember back in 2000 when the PAK FA was just around the corner and the cost of gas was going to be perpetually high to fund Russian defense spending?”

Yeah, and I remember how back then the North Koreans would never have nuclear weapons and would never have long-range missiles.

Oh, and for another technology analogy: Imagine if someone had said “Nah, we don’t need to build those Pershings, they’re too expensive and we’ll never fight another significant tank-using army anyway, it’s capability we’ll never use, we’ll do fine with the late-model Shermans”. Whoops, then we get into Korea.

Good points, but one advantage of the F-35 is that it splits up our air superiority force between airfield-based, forward sits or small carrier (STOL), and carrier based. Two of those are harder to find and hit with TBM, and have mobile Aegis accompanying them. You also can continue the war with F-35 replacements out of many other smaller distant bases (more range and fuel efficiency) using tankers if the initial attack takes out lots of F-22s.

North Korea has virtually no high quality air defense or airpower so it would be bombs away for F-35s from nearly day one.

Not certain, but believe tanks would not have helped enormously in 1950s Korea with lots of mountains and marshy terrain in many valleys where crops are planted. Have a buddy who was a tanker in Korea.

But agree, that means we need to maintain our ground forces…instead of thinking nukes, Navy, and airpower can do it all.

Cole,
Yes perhaps Colin should ban me. I am surprised that he has not already done so. I clearly do not know what I am doing and I clearly have no inside or expert information to offer. He must really believe in free speech. He may be allowing me to post here out of pity. But looking at it from another angle it could also be just a tactic to cover all of his bases. A kind of, look I worked for the resistance all along, tactic. Of course that may not make any sense at all if there is no resistance.
Is a resistance movement in the US necessary?
After all the US not only allows voting it even allows people like me to post on DOD BUZZ where there is an unlimited space for comments. Americans must be the freest people on earth and the smartest because of it.
Got to go. I have to go back to my cell.

Cole,

THERE IS NO POSTPONING OT SLOWING OF F-35 LRIP!!! It is being ACCELLERATED & with money that woulld/should be used to continue to buy more F-22 AT NEARLY THE SAME COST!

The DOD doesn’t say the F-22 cost $50,000 annhour. You SHOULD know better than to trust the Washington Post on sugh things. BOTH the USAF & the US DOD have issued rebuttles debunking just about every single ‘fact’ in that piece. INCLUDING the fact that the F-22 costs ‘just’ $19,750 dollars per hour.

And stop the BS that we should not buy F-22 because airfields are vulnerable to attack. With that kind of BS thinking we would not have ANY military whatsoever. Anfd the F-22 is no more vulnerable to “airfield attack” than the F-35 or any other ‘tactical’ aircraft.

And sorry but no USAF F-35A will even operate from USN carriers so your BS about the F-35 “splits up our air superiority force between airfield-based, forward sits or small carrier (STOL), and carrier based”.

pfcem, of course I didn’t trust the Washington Post article.

Information from a Georgia Senator Chambliss site (where F-22s are built) is quoted below. Pay attention to the last line of the quote where it spells out the OPERATIONAL cost per flying hour:
========================================
“The total variable cost per flying hour includes: aircraft part repairs (depot level repairs [DRLs]), replenishment spares, consumables, engine parts and aviation fuel. The F-22 FY08 total variable cost per flying hour (17,711 total hours flown) was $19K and the F-15 FY08 total variable cost per flying hour (122,762 total hours flown) was $17K.

Costs included in the VARIABLE cost per flying hour are a SUBSET of total OPERATIONAL cost per flying hour. For the F-22, contractor support is included in both the variable cost per flying hour and the operational cost per flying hour. Contractor costs which meet the definition of a variable cost are included in the $19,750 Variable CPFH, along with appropriate government costs. Other contractor support costs are added in, along with appropriate government costs, to obtain the total $49,808 Operational CPFH.“
=======================================
I also highly doubt they used Ashton Carter’s quoted $42 per gallon for aerial refueling in their calculation of variable cost per flying hour. If a F-22 has 20,650 gallons of internal fuel and the F-35 about 18,000 gals… and one engine…and far less weight, one conclusion is apparent. The F-35 is more easily supported by aerial tankers to fly from more distant airfields that are harder to target with TBM.

How can you keep a straight face and nitpick the F-35A reference when you know full well that the F-35B and C models CAN fly from carriers and forward sites?

Finally, regarding your first paragraph, if you want to spend the same amount of DoD money in FY10, you have two choices:

1) Continue F-35 LRIP as planned/budgeted

or

2) Buy more F-22s

You cannot do both and spend the same amount. The decision was made that door #1 was the preferable DoD option. Congress wants both doors which will mean taking money from somewhere else.

Cole,

LOL.

Play what ever fuzzy math game you want but the F-22 cost $19,750 an hour to operate (vs $17,465 an hour for the F-15C) so despite the purposefully negative impression the Washington Post tried to make of the F-22 it is NOT that much more expensive (~13%) to operate than the F-15C. It isn’t a calculation based on arbitrary values. It is the PAYED operational costs per hour flown.

You havn’t been paying attention. F-35 production for FY2010-FY2015 is to be accelerated to 513 airframes (up from the previous plan for 362 during that time). That’s 151 ADDITIONAL F-35s from FY2010-FY2015. A similar amount of money could procure 120 F-22s (20 a year) during that same time. JUST TAKE THE MONEY BEING BUDGETED FOR ACCELERATED LRIP F-35 PROCUREMENT (again, thats ADDITIONAL procurement) & USE IT FOR WHAT IT SHOULD/WOULD HAVE BEEN USED FOR & PROCURE ADDITIONAL F-22s.

I can keep a straight face because I know full well that the number of F-22s procured will have ZERO effect on the number of F-35Bs &/or F-35Cs procured (even IF the USAF were allowed to alter its F-22 vs F-35A mix & procure more F-22s at the expense of fewer F-35As).

It is probably to late on this thread but no did even try to answer my original questions about the Taliban.

Buddha, it’s WAY off topic but here is the short answer:

1) We didn’t start it. Recall 9/11? And we helped many of these same Taliban leaders after Soviets killed 25,000 in Herat ON PURPOSE during their invasion. Are motives and intentional actions are pure.

2) Pashtunwali and the Durand Line that split 40 million Pashtuns between two countries explains a lot. Personally, don’t understand why we don’t convince AfPak leaders to redraw the borders, let the Pashtuns show they can or cannot stay within said borders, and bomb the heck out of them if they can’t.

3) Many folks we are fighting are not Taliban. They are foreign fighters, local warlords, criminals, and drug runners. Karzai is the mayor of Kabul and everyone else wants their own provincial powerbase and resulting money source. Even Karzai’s brother is reputed to be a drug dealer, and the whole country…federal down to local government is corrupt…because many would starve if they weren’t.

4) We try to help, try to clear-hold-build, but have not had enough troops up until now. Locals don’t trust that we will stick around. We build…Taliban destroys, and kills any NGO and foreign workers trying to help, and Afghans who collaborate.

5) The sole answer is to build a credible Police and Army force so they can do it on their own. But Afghan police are corrupt and Afghan Army troops aren’t there yet. Some allies are responsible for some of this problem but how do you criticize when we need them?

6) Finally, the reason we are there is we cannot risk Taliban/foreing fighter radicalism converting the Pakistan Pujabi majority who have control of nukes. A terrorist with nukes is a container ship nuke blowing up in our port city. Who do we nuke in retaliation??

Cole,
Not bad…you demo decent SA on the FATA and the entire Fustercluck in Af/Pak. Couple of things..the Punjabi and the Pashtu are not “homies”, so I wouldn’t worry too much about any Punjabi “conversions”..that said, this is a miserable problem…something about the graveyard of empires.
One note on a container ship bomb or any nudet in America.…I have not a clue what the current folks in power would do if the US were attacked this way…but if anyone killed several hundred thousand of my countrymen or my family.…my preference for a response would center on the US Air Force in the great tradition of General Curtis Lemay and the ultimate hammer that airpower brings.. If you want to play jihad with me, that’s up to the “muj”…but don’t make any long term plans…if you get my drift…where is it written that the US could not respond with our entire “toolkit”?

Cole,
Yes that was A short answer. I disagree with parts of it but that is not the important for now.
You answered a question but you did not answer my question.
My question relates only to your point number 4.
The Taliban destroys and kills foreign workers.
WHY? I really do not have the answer to that question so I am not in a position to to take issue with whatever you write. Some other people might however.
The question is not way off topic.

*required

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement