Home » Air » Stateside Basing Kept the F-22 Out of the Libya Fight

Stateside Basing Kept the F-22 Out of the Libya Fight

By John Reed Wednesday, March 30th, 2011 11:51 am
Posted in Air, International

Distance kept the United States’ fleet of F-22 Raptors out of the fight over Libya, Air Force officials revealed today after weeks of speculation on the matter.

Had Raptors been based in Europe or the Middle East, they would have been used in Operation Odyssey Dawn to enforce the no-fly zone over Libya, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told the ~~Senate Armed Services Committee~~ Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee this morning.

He went on to say that mission planners putting together the operation together at breakneck speed chose “to use resources in close proximity” to Libya. The entire operation was put together with expediency in mind and therefore aircraft that were already stationed nearby were used, according to Schwartz.

“Clearly, had the F-22s been stationed in Europe in closer proximity [to Libya] and therefore more available, they undoubtedly would have been used,” said Schwartz. “But as this came together fairly quickly, the judgment was made to apply the various tools we had in our toolkit using the resources that were in close proximity.”

The four-star made a point to add that the decision to leave the F-22s home was “not an ad hominem against that weapons system at all; it really was an expedient judgment with respect to putting the plan together and executing it on a very rapid timeline.”

Translation: The move to leave the F-22s stateside shouldn’t be taken as a slight against the Raptors.

The air war has so far included fighters such as the U.S.’ F-16, F-15E, F/A-18G, AV-8B and A-10, Britain’s Eurofighter Typhoon and Tornado, and France’s Rafale and Mirage. All these tactical jets have been working alongside B-2 Stealth bombers, B-1 Lancers, AC-130 gunships and a variety of intelligence and command and control planes.

Air Force Secretary Michael Donley added that the F-22 is optimized for air-to-air combat while the vast majority of operations in Libya have been focused on air-to-ground strikes better handled by jets like the F-15E Strike Eagle and other “bombers.” He added that the mission in Libya has shown the efficiency and effectiveness of the nation’s bomber forces.

Join the Conversation

	momomimamo March 30th, 2011 at 11:59 am the eurofighter don’t (and can’t) bomb the ground… Now the question was simple: why no f-22 in europe or middle east? what is the mission over USA?
	Formula March 30th, 2011 at 12:20 pm What a bunch of BS. I can believe it initially, however, the planning for this no-fly zone did allow ample time for F22’s to deploy to Europe and then deploy from Europe to Libya. This would have been a real good time to test the F22 in a “semi-war” environment.…Libya defense systems are not the greatest, which would also reduce the risk of loosing an F22. Bad call on our defense leaders to NOT use the F22. It would have been nice to see just how good this plane really is.
	STemplar March 30th, 2011 at 12:31 pm People are starting to get it. Short of a war with China, which is a completely absurd notion when you apply reality, there is no mission for these planes. That’s why they haven’t fallen over themselves to install the strike upgrades. What we have is more than up to the job of addressing every realistic need for probably decades. Now of course we need to at the least get new air frames since ours have a lot of hours, but the sad fact even though the 5th generation fans will never admit it is that there is little to no need. The F22 and F35 were conceived for an adversary and theater that no longer exist. People try hard to cast China in the role as a USSR replacement but the undeniable fact is that dynamics between the US and USSR vs. China are completely different. I don’t think we should stop aircraft development, but I do think the F35 is a waste of money we don’t have at this point. I read a piece that scrapping the whole thing and buying new upgraded teen series would be $78 billion cheaper, and I’ll warrant the # would be hire than that since we have no clue about the ultimate cost of the F35. That number makes assumptions about costs associated with the F35, which has done nothing except go up. $78 billion would essentially pay for the NGB, which is something we actually need.
	DensityDuck March 30th, 2011 at 12:37 pm They probably didn’t want to risk having the F22 fly past the International Date Line again…
	Risky Business March 30th, 2011 at 12:41 pm Didn’t use them because if they lost one, any parts would have been sold to the highest bidder for immediate exploitation. Even if they didn’t lose one, the mere use of one in the open invites collection of inteligence. I doubt that, for the forseeable future, this aircraft will ever be used over unfriendly skies unless the situation is so extreme that the benefits outweigh the risks. Gen. Schwartz ‘s statements are to put a (false) “shucks… we just forgot about the F22” spin to things.
	Risky Business March 30th, 2011 at 12:45 pm Oh… the F-22 is NOT optimized for air-to-air combat Mr Secretary. You know that.
	@Earlydawn March 30th, 2011 at 1:07 pm I agree on the NGB, although canceling the F-35 would eviscerate U.S. tac air. Sinking more and more money into aging airframes just doesn’t make sense at this point.
	Aurora March 30th, 2011 at 1:13 pm More likely, they didn’t want to risk an accident or a lucky shot and lose one. Since the tanker award, the aviation/defense media hasn’t had a lot to report. They would have had a field day with this one.
	STemplar March 30th, 2011 at 1:31 pm I’m not proposing sinking money into existing air frames and neither is the point I mentioned. That’s the cost savings from buying brand new upgraded teen series to replace the F35 #s discussed.
	Charley March 30th, 2011 at 1:51 pm Perhaps the USAF should consider basing the F-22 near a theater where their capabilities might be needed, rather than the CONUS.
	STemplar March 30th, 2011 at 2:03 pm Buying brand new teen series aircraft to replace the aging ones instead of F35s.
	PMI March 30th, 2011 at 2:43 pm …and the French would have spent all their time trying to get radar data off the Raptors rather than bombing Libyan tanks.
	William C. March 30th, 2011 at 2:51 pm Which don’t offer much in the way of improved capabilities.
	STemplar March 30th, 2011 at 4:28 pm Against who William? Who are we going to need 1800 F35As to fight? Spin me a realistic adversary. We are more in debt than any other single nation’s annual GDP. We have a group of people at Treasury whose sole job is too arrange to borrow money from overseas, that’s it, that’s all they do. We are spending something like $2 billion dollars a day to simply pay the interest payment on the debt right now and we need to spend $300+ billion on a new fighter that you can’t even propose a likely scenario where it’s capabilities would be needed.
	STemplar March 30th, 2011 at 4:35 pm Needed for what? Our existing inventory of stand off precision munitions would render any other nations air defenses and runways useless in the first day of a real shooting war. What good do some tactical fighters, of completely unknown quality and capability, do for a country being hit with 2000 cruise missiles launched from subs and ships outside their range? Because that’s how we make war, we don’t do this Xbox fly into defended enemy air space scenario. We launch all kinds of stand off weapons from a distance and knock out an enemy’s ability to do anything once we show up. Do you all think it’s a coincidence the USN is already war gaming as if the X47 exists? You couple platforms like that with TLAMs and JASSMs and the NGB and what precisely is there left for tacair to do that it needs to cost $150 million a plane?
	BreakTheCycle March 30th, 2011 at 4:53 pm Why don’t we buy those 800 PAK FA at less cost than the JSF program?? We could save ourselves the costs of developing the jets (use that to buy more national defense elsewhere). Surely then our force of 187 F-22s and 800 PAK FAs could then defeat the 400 Russian & Indian jets. Enough to defeat the Chinese too, right? If not then we could buy J-20s from China. We buy all our product from China anyway, which grows their economy with which they can develop the J-20 to defeat us.. we might as well buy the J-20 then too. Yes I’m sarcastic. You’re an idiot Brad. F-22 was sold to the American taxpayer as dominating the skies. With F-22, and the rest of our defense arsenal, we have overmatch in this area inevitably.
	BreakTheCycle March 30th, 2011 at 4:55 pm Why don’t we buy those 800 PAK FA at less cost than the JSF program?? We could save ourselves the costs of developing the jets (use that to buy more national defense elsewhere). Surely then our force of 187 F-22s and 800 PAK FAs could then defeat the 400 Russian & Indian jets. Enough to defeat the Chinese too, right? If not then we could buy J-20s from China. We buy all our product from China anyway, which grows their economy with which they can develop the J-20 to defeat us.. we might as well buy the J-20 then too.__Yes I’m sarcastic. You’re an idiot Brad. F-22 was sold to the American taxpayer as dominating the skies. With F-22, and the rest of our defense arsenal, we have overmatch in this area inevitably.
	BreakTheCycle March 30th, 2011 at 4:56 pm i like your thinking
	Aurora March 30th, 2011 at 5:38 pm Spot on, PMI!
	BradM March 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm Your insult was uncalled for an reported. I expect an apology for your bad manners!
	Bill H March 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm congress’ budget cut rrestricted the over seas stationing of the F@@
	raul duke March 30th, 2011 at 5:48 pm Is that not what drop tanks and air refuling are for?? I smell something here and I’d bet $$$ its reliability issues, bet on it.
	BradM March 30th, 2011 at 5:53 pm Read this: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/26/world/africa/26… Consider, we have already launched large numbers of stand off weapons and after all those targets being hit we still are using tactical aircraft in Libya and they are still taking ground fire. Post 2015 and into the 2020s I dont think much will change.
	Bill March 30th, 2011 at 5:54 pm Let me see if I understand, you are suggesting that unless we have an imediate need, there is no justification to aquire new updated aircraft? That is outragous and fatal.
	BradM March 30th, 2011 at 5:57 pm The two people, STemplar and BreakTheCycle are “insert what they called me here” ;-)
	Mike March 30th, 2011 at 6:18 pm This is a lot of crap as the F-22 Raptor does have drop tanks and with supercruise could have made the trip a lot easier than other US or NATO fighter jets; the real reason why the F-22 was kept out of this engagement is that there aren’t enough of the F-22 Raptors to waste on a scrimmage like this. The Department of Defense and even Obama knows that by capping production of the F-22 at just 187 aircraft, they essentially flushed the entire program down the toilet and every General who agreed that 187 was more than sufficient should retire as they’re endangering the safety of this country. The F-22 Raptor was kept out of this conflict because they will be needed if there’s a real crisis in the future and the US cannot afford to put so many flight hours on the airframe especially as the Obama Administration has no real idea on what to do as a replacement as they have not opened competition for a UCAV program to replace the F-22 as all we’ve gotten is white noise and confusion.
	Ikon March 30th, 2011 at 6:20 pm Who says they weren’t there and nobody saw them?
	Michael Kern March 30th, 2011 at 6:21 pm I see a lot of reasons why the F-22 was not used but everyone is missing the main point and weakness of the USAF. They don’t OWN enough runways in the world troublespots. The Navy has their own runways that can go to over 75% of the world, they need no permission or request’s for operation rights. Since the Key West Agreement the USAF has been justifing their existance at the expense of the Navy, Army and USMC. Something to be said about those Big Decks we haven’t lost one since 1944 but their has been 100’s of airstrips taken out since then. Start putting the money where it is needed Carrier Battle Groups. You don’t see people at the first sign of trouble asking where the closest USAF Wing is They ask where is the closest Carrier Battle Group the actual Tip of the Spear of the US Military.
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 6:33 pm Seriously? Deploying the F-22 in Libya would have been like using LOX to start a barbecue. Unnecessary, costly, and strategically premature.
	Jeff March 30th, 2011 at 6:37 pm I fully agree with you, this is an A-10 mission with Eagles flying cap and now that we know we have had people in Libya for several weeks/months according to today’s media release about how we currently have boots on the ground (Pathfinders) White Falcons, I would love to see a Iowa Class Battleship spewing Volkswagens onto K.Daffy another dream unlikely to develop (kinda silly actually) but I do love the old monsters
	jeff March 30th, 2011 at 6:44 pm FYI They already have the 5th generation in production in Russia and China, DoD reported that last month {Friendly Note}
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 6:46 pm That’s not even a difficult question to answer. Iran and/or China; and if we’re going against China I want the F-22 facing their air force, and nothing less. It’s more than superior firepower (which it has), it’s the psychological mindset it will afford them should they take us on. I worked on the engine programs for both aircraft, and knowing the capabilities of the fighters, I believe supporting them is far from a waste of money. It is possible to do more with less, in this case, AND return our pilots home safely. For what it’s worth… I no longer work on these programs, but I completely support them.
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 6:56 pm Honestly… that reasoning follows the notion that the US’s aircraft carriers are invincible, and unattackable. Now that China has a missile that will SINK a carrier, does that argument still hold true? I , for one, do not wish to play “catch-up” against foreign aggression. I want to have the upper hand ALWAYS, and NOT have to use it. It’s the concept of a deterrent.
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 7:01 pm BTC, that crack was seriously uncalled for. Disagreement is respectable, but not on that level.
	@E_L_P March 30th, 2011 at 7:24 pm WILLARD They told me, that you had gone…totally insane. And that your methods were unsound. KURTZ Are my methods unsound? WILLARD I don’t see any method at all, sir.
	Blue March 30th, 2011 at 7:35 pm My God! What a bunch of whiners!!! Everything is a conspiracy to you guys. The strange part is that during my 21 years in the service I never ran into such negativity. Wait a minute!!! I am assuming you guys spent some time in the service. You spent so much time being told what to do, where to go and even what to say. This must be payback for you. Da Blue
	raptorx March 30th, 2011 at 8:25 pm none in europe & mid-east because US didn’t buy enough of them. expect use only against highly defended areas on high value targets. Mohamar is a high enough value!!
	veteran March 30th, 2011 at 9:03 pm What are you, a wise guy or something?
	noyb March 30th, 2011 at 9:30 pm typical seaman go play with your boats
	@Crosmobile March 30th, 2011 at 9:31 pm RE: “Now of course we need to at the least get new air frames”… This is an astute observation, and it begs the question: “Why not build brand spanking new F-15 and F-16 Air Frames…Put these proven and economical planes back into production instead of billions to “re-invent the wheel”.
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 10:16 pm How does it beg the question? The proven superiority of the F-22 over the F-16 says it all. Being able to defeat any foe with superior technology and minimum risk to the pilot should be the order of the day. If anyone who complains about the cost had their ass in the chair, they wouldn’t be so quick to spout off about “what’s acceptable.”
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 10:25 pm I also think it’s pointless to throw the United States’ premier fighter against such an inconsequential target. Just because you have a backhoe doesn’t mean you use it when all you need is a shovel to plant the flowers.
	Bob Hunter March 30th, 2011 at 10:28 pm Neither of them supercruise.
	WHAT March 30th, 2011 at 10:34 pm Best comment of the day. You sir, are the real deal — while the rest of the dudes commenting here are just a bunch of armchair generals playing Command and Conquer/Red Alert on their desktop computers while whining about the F-22!
	Static March 30th, 2011 at 11:09 pm “Pearls to precious to wear” — Ben Rich.
	Mike March 30th, 2011 at 11:16 pm You could buy a whole squadron of 22’s for the cost of one B-2, but they flew multiple hops out of Missouri.
	josh March 30th, 2011 at 11:28 pm 21st Century met its match on that one!
	josh March 30th, 2011 at 11:32 pm It takes 186 F-22’s to create a 40 FMC on a good day. Not a question of needing more, a question of needing greater reliability. With an operational cost several times higher than that of an F-15 or F-16, the F-22 is a waste of money for this conflict, assuming it could make it in theater.
	Nicholas March 31st, 2011 at 12:30 am and have them rot on U.s soil and be put to no good use. The Rapters need a little Combat.
	@Earlydawn March 31st, 2011 at 12:32 am What was the Air Force to Navy sortie rate during the Gulf War? What was the Air Force to Navy sortie rate during the 2003 invasion? What was the percentage of ordinance dropped by Air Force “heavies” (B-1Bs, B-2s, B-52s) in both of these instances? Why did the Air Force bring in B-2s to break up the big mean IADS and wreck airbases so the Navy could get some in Libya? Where is your citation for “hundreds of airbases taken out” since 1944, and how many were American? The Navy is just one narrow but refined tool in the U.S. toolbox. You have mobility but not tempo. You exist as part of a team. Get over it. I’m tired of people ripping on the Air Force when the Air Force has provided the majority of punching power in conventional conflicts after (and probably including) Vietnam.
	@Earlydawn March 31st, 2011 at 12:36 am Come to think of it, why are the Marines providing the majority of the non-Air Force punching power? The Growlers are flying out of an airbase..
	William C. March 31st, 2011 at 1:11 am To be honest if we can spend $700 billion on some stimulus where the money just vanished to no effect, I think $300 billion for 2,400+ fighters over the course of many years is a good deal.
	sammy young March 31st, 2011 at 1:16 am Back to reality.…the F-22 wasn’t deployed becasue IT IS THE SECOND BIGGEST WASTE of taxpayers dollars– IT DOESN’T WORK AS ADVERTISED! And the second biggest waste of your tax dollars friends? The Joint Strike Fighter! Another over-priced and under-performing Air Farce bondoggle that after $200 BILLION DOLLARS, only 2 are at Edwards AFB– one for flying (when they can get it airborne) and the other for spare parts! This is all available for you to read at http://www.gao.gov– read ‘em and weep!
	SCPO(SS), USN, Ret March 31st, 2011 at 2:01 am REF: GAO Report # GAO-11-233SP dated March 2011, page 12: “An example of a program that experienced reduced buying power is the F-22 Raptor. Despite a 70 percent reduction in quantities for the program, total acquisition costs have only decreased by 14 percent, due to research and development and average procurement unit cost increases. As a result, program acquisition unit costs for the F-22 Raptor have almost tripled, from $139 million to $412 million per airplane. For the current 188 aircraft program, the $273 million increase per plane translates to $51.3 billion in lost buying power for the F-22 program as a whole.” And from page 140 of the same GAO report, “…there are currently more than 10 ongoing efforts under the reliability and maintainability maturation program to increase maintainability and material durability. The Air Force also stated that the majority of repairs to the low observable system resulted from having to perform other maintenance activities, rather than to address problems with the low observable system itself.” Like I said– it’s a cash cow that don’t work as advertised…
	SCPO(SS), USN, Ret March 31st, 2011 at 2:10 am So, you’re saying we can’t exersize our Consitutional rights and express ourselves. Comrade?
	fxgeorges March 31st, 2011 at 2:13 am There was no need to use something like the f-22 in Libya. Not too mention the cost of maintenance for flying it with zero opposition. Heck the no fly zone could be flown with F-4s with no problems. Think people.
	cover72 March 31st, 2011 at 2:34 am Yeah, sure. Like you did in Yugoslavia/Serbia back in 1999. The first and most important rule of warfare is: “never underestimate your enemy”. You judge possible adversaries based on experiences with what — Iraq, Afghanistan and Lybia. Iraq, that was demoralized country with dictatorship, low nationalism, pretty much destroyed economy and ancient military equipment, aging under military import ban. Afghanistan, Lybia — countries with either no AD at all or very outdated and on the edge of a civil war or in it. And yet, Kaddafi didn’t give up. And at least part of his arsenal isn’t destroyed. Now let me remind you of Yugoslavia. All the NATO with all it’s power was simply UNABLE to find and destroy Serbian IADS system. Not even supress it. Allied jets were forced to fly high and helos weren’t deployed at all from the fear of Iglas in the woods. One thing people like you don’t realize is you CAN NOT COMPARE desert arabs with higly motivated, highly trained, highly disciplined and damn smart europeans or asians. Fake targets with appropriate RCS and thermal image (like Serbians did and Russians project). High tech jammers. GPS jammers. ASAT stuff. Tor-M, capable of SHOOTING DOWN BOMBS. S-300 and S-400 alongside with 2S6 and 9K331M, forming IMPENETRABLE wall of air defenses, which could be only overwhelmed by quantity. You have mentality of pre-Pearl Harbor generals. “Stupid Japs, what could they possibly do to us? We are the mightiest. Look at our warships. Look at our PGM.” In Bible, there is nice saying: pride preceeds fall. Think about that. And think about what will you do if your PGMs loose their GPS guidance, their datalinks are jammed, C4I targets have point defences capable of shooting down those and everything is decentralized, but networked. There are quite few nations with nice stealth detection capabilities (all the major powers plus Czech Republic and any other high tech country who wants, as it is only hard to track stealth jets, not to detect them with few miles precision).
	Mulyadi Rio March 31st, 2011 at 2:36 am If you want to make a “NO FLY ZONE” why sending ground attack Aircraft?
	cover72 March 31st, 2011 at 2:38 am Wow, you’re a CIA spy? Or how do you know, when they just begun their flight tests, which are not opened for general public? Not that long ago, nobody even knew the J-20 physical dimensions and whether it’s mock-up or real. Now, you claim to know their exact performance. You people’ll never stop to astonish me. Btw, think of AL-41. Yes, it was technological demonstator. But look at its core temperatures and compare with F-119. Russians have the same technological capability — they only lack money for their mass production.
	cover72 March 31st, 2011 at 2:55 am For everyone suggesting Raptor deployment to Lybia. You guys basically suggest to send Raptors there with full parade, so Lybians could record precise EM characteristics, radar range and detection capabilities and sell all this to Russians, so they could evaluate that, create better counterparts and develop Raptor-tailored ECM system for their PAK-FA, aren’t you? Wow. Ever heard term “passive EM surveilance”? Another of my favourite sayings goes “those that don’t learn from history are destined to repeat it”. Did you guys know the F-117 was supposed to attack Panama, but was recalled in the last minute? Reason was simple: the plane capabilities and characteristics would be revealed, thus lowering it’s survival chances. Then, it was deployed to Iraq. And there were some people with EM monitoring equipment. After the war, there were another people — analysts, walking through the Iraqui AD logs. And then, Serbians knew precisely what to do to shoot down one of Nighthawks. Yes, there were org faults on the US side. But no tech is invincible. F-117’s biggest assets — faceting stealth and frequency-specific RAM — were also it’s biggest weakness. All the Serbs had to do was detect it’s flight path with long-wavelenght radar (like the ancient P-3) and then position radar recievers other place then transmitters. Bistatical radiolocators, they call it (and yes, Russians were those, who thought of the concept and did the calculations). And then, S-125 with upgraded guidance (my theory: French IR-imaging-systems, as these were sold to the Serbian AD just prior to war) — and Nighthawk down. And precious technology in Russian and Chinese hands. And few years later, Nighthawks put out of service. For EVERY weapon, there is a counterweapon. The only neccessity for that is knowing the weapon you want to counter. Therefore, only a teenage-like mind would like to deploy F-22s when not neccessary. Pros: you guys wanna “show off” your newest fighter. Cons: every adversary would gather tons of data which they will utilize to lower Raptor’s chances of survival in future conflicts. Reality: there is no reason for sending a Raptor in such wars instead of 4th/4,5th gen planes.
	Cwfourjaguar Retiree March 31st, 2011 at 3:01 am Great discussions, as for the F-22 why use it and risk the lose of this advance weapon system when the older fighters will do the job?
	cover72 March 31st, 2011 at 3:01 am Since when do you navy guys trust GAO accountants? Those, who dumped Tomcats as “unnecessary”, delayed new ejection seats for the same reason, wanted to dump SuperHornets for legacy Hornets and now want to dump JSFs in favor SuperHornets? GAOs long-term policy could be described as “we don’t thing we need anything new. We always thing the old technology is enough.” History is full of GAO stupidity — like when they wanted to dump A-10A in favor of A-7. Yes, the same reason: “our tables and numbers show that A-7 is enough and we don’t need a new airplane”. These people are bureaucrats, totally separated from reality. And some would call them liars. So, I really wouldn’t wave too much with their “reports”.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:20 am They don’t own a missile that has been proven to be able to do anything, and it is very unlikely that sinking a carrier is the goal. It’s far more likely going to burst some sub munition that messes up the flight deck.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:22 am The F22 was designed to replace the F15C, not the F16.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:32 am Ummm, thats triple A, most of which is fired without clue one what they’re shooting at. Technically if an adversary has someone still alive looking up with a gun in their hand they have air defense. Probably won’t work too well though.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:35 am You named countries, one your opinion of China is just the fear mongering that dominates procurement now. We are not going to war with China it would be the end of both of our nations economically. That is not realistic, it’s popular amongst those that want to sell high end options for lots of money but it doesn’t pass the common sense test. Iran, please, Iran is a joke.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:36 am We can’t spend $700 billion on wasted stimulus either, moral equivocation is a poor debating tactic and the sign of a lack of a tangible counter point.
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 3:40 am Feel free to re read the first sentence of my second paragraph if I’m not troubling you two overly much with attention to detail.
	Station409 March 31st, 2011 at 3:55 am While I agree that SOME brilliant airframes should simply be built anew to keep the aircraft flyable (read: A-10) it’s naive to think that you never need to modernize a force, even to the point that it EXCEEDS present-day and short-term requirements. The British made that mistake between WW1 and WW2, thinking that bi-planes were all they’d ever need… right up until the ME-109 showed them otherwise. While these aircraft, the F-22 and F-35 are expensive, I don’t think they are a waste of money. HOWEVER, that’s not to say that money is not being wasted on their projects. It is. The same way that politicians waste money on everything they get involved in. And that’s where the problem lies. Everyone is arguing about whether there is a need for future proofing the forces technologically, and about how much each plane, tank, gun etc is costing, but no one is blinking at the amount of money being wasted in these table discussions while the need for new aircraft / tanks etc becomes more and more glaring with each flight hour.
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 4:03 am what are your feelings hurt little kid?
	Dylan J. Seefeldt March 31st, 2011 at 5:39 am Don’t forget the lovely turbo fan A-10: stat check: http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/
	MacGyver March 31st, 2011 at 7:16 am Why send a Cadillac to do the work of a pickup truck. Face it, the F-22 is the show horse and the F-15s and F-16s are tested, tried and proved work horses of the AF. They fly and maintain at a fraction of the cost, and that is really what it is about. F-22s will never be a forward based aircraft, you can’t support them unless you have local depot and contractor support. Get on with the future, like or not UAV.
	freefallingbomb March 31st, 2011 at 8:14 am Part 1 / 2 All your heated discussions apart: Actually here may be a hint of truth about the U.S. Airforce’s INCOMPETENCE to quickly organize a raid anywhere in the World, as the text above says (just one quote, among many others: “But as this came together fairly quickly, the judgment was made to apply the various tools we had in our toolkit using the resources that were in close proximity.”) I remember now that the PREVIOUS U.S. strike against Libya, on the night of the 15.4.1986, was carried out only 10 days after Gaddhaffi’s (alleged) bombing of the “La Belle” nightclub in West Berlin… but the U.S. Airforce had already been training that precise airstrike against Libya since 18.10.1985, even without a casus belli !!!!!! (Continued)
	freefallingbomb March 31st, 2011 at 8:15 am Part 2 / 2 “The actual attack mission against Libya, had been preceded in October 1985 by an exercise in which the 20th TFW stationed at Upper Heyford airbase in the UK, which was equipped with F-111Es, received a top secret order to on October 18 launch a simulated attack mission, with ten F-111s armed with eight 500 lb practice bombs, against a simulated airfield located in Newfoundland, Canada south of CFB Goose Bay. (…) The mission was basically a full rehearsal for a long range strike against Libya.“ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Libya_(19… Just saying… Maybe it really isn’t so much a question if the U.S. Airforce WANTS to use its F-22s abroad or not, maybe the real question really is whether the U.S. Airforce CAN employ its F-22s (outside their normal flight radius) without many years of preparation or not.
	ToldThemSo March 31st, 2011 at 8:39 am Sorry, “believers.” The Stealth isn’t “stealthy.” The great charade, since the mid-1990’s. You would have to have been there to appreciate the military-industrial-political rape of the national fisc. It continues in spades. $$$ is the prime contract’s first priority. Performance is secondary every time, since the contractor controls the DOD and the Congress. Look no further than Ashton Carter’s recent Congressional testimony that it would be risky to punish cheating contractors. No kidding, read it all and weep for your country. And for the believers, review President Eisenhower’s farewell speech to the nation–warning of the dangers to our survival as a nation from an uncontrolled military industrial complex financial drain on the natioin. The F-22 and F-35 are only the most recent boondoggles. Believers, bless them, drink the contractor’s “kool aid” and think that they have knowledge, when they only add to the list of the deceived.
	ToldThemSo March 31st, 2011 at 8:40 am Knowing that there is nothing that will change the poor direction of the institutions, I glide into retirement with a sadness for my country that cannot be adequately expressed. To be blunt, we will all be crying, “I can’t believe it!” when the systems fail under stress and the treasury runs out of money funding systems that don’t work, so don’t matter. From my Boy Scout Days to my Combat experience and my maturation as a professional, THIS is not how the “movie was supposed to end.” Comments from the line…
	Clmech March 31st, 2011 at 8:55 am No reason to risk losing one, and having China or Russia end up with the parts. Prior to Desert Storm starting, all of the equipment was questioned, would the Abrams be able to run in the desert, the A-10 was an antique, the Apache was filled with questions. This always happens with new weapons systems. The other planes we have could get the job done, and there was no reason to risk losing one of the few we have, and have technology get out. That is my totally uneducated opinion anyway, whatever its worth
	Josh March 31st, 2011 at 9:01 am lol, you’re giving the government a lot more credit than I do when it comes to logistics and planning. I don’t think the AF was informed what the plan was until 30 minutes before the first airstrike. I agree though, it would have been good to test the operability at least of the aircraft in a real deployment situation.
	Josh March 31st, 2011 at 9:04 am Be prepared to lose money then. The logistics of moving fighters across the Atlantic isn’t as simple as “just get some tankers”. Air refuelers are in short supply and a lot are already in-theater. Flying them halfway across the ocean to ferry F-22’s over to enforce a no-fly zone that, at this point, is being politically spun as a non-US mission.
	Josh March 31st, 2011 at 9:08 am Try being factually correct on your rants. Where have “hundreds” of airstrips been taken out? Also, like EarlyDawn said… go take a look at who has dropped the most bombs, flown the most sorties, and… oh yeah… who moved the most cargo the quickest. Carrier battle groups are indespensible first-response solutions, but they’re limited in sustained warfare and are only capable of certain mission profiles. So who missed the main point?
	Josh March 31st, 2011 at 9:11 am Ignoring the fact that literally nothing you said has anything to do with the discussion… you’re calling that world you live in reality?
	Galloglas March 31st, 2011 at 9:26 am If you have a winning hand or an ace in the hole ya don’t flaunt it or show it around so your opponents know what cards your holding. The F-22 is a military advanced Jet Fighter why risk giving away all it’s operational charectoristics and capabilities in what is essetintially a gutter fight between various groups of thugs and all at the bidding of the Clinton “fight only when the UN directs” little war. libya is not worth losing one American life and certainly not worth throwing away secret aircraft on. libya is not worth it. never has been, never will be. This is the war that the democrats love one that has the UN tell us when to fight and who to fight under NATO command.
	Fire at will March 31st, 2011 at 9:33 am I’m thinking we’re missing the real point here. OK, the United States military has developed a weapons system that; 1. Can not be deployed rapidly enough to be of “Real Time” use, 2. Has never been true tested and is already in a “non-production” mode, 3. Is the most sophisticated and USAF proclaimed best ever aircraft yet yields to the F15 for real combat, a 40+ year old platform that has stood the test of time. By the way the F15 is STILL in production with many improvements and could possibly remain in production for another 10 years. I must also wonder, once this new F35 comes online…in 2014, I understand 6 years behind schedule, where will the USAF planes be placed…Omaha???? Great defensive strategy when the prairie dogs take up arms. I don’t know but for the last several years the Air Force has been doing much hiding and explaining of their short comings and logistical missteps. No wonder they put a Marine in charge of the F35 development. I think the USAF has lost what it used to have. Personally, if I was in trouble, I’d feel much better if I knew a Naval or Marine Aviator was on their wings coming to help. Can someone closer to the action explain this to me? I heard a rumor a few years back, that to save money and expedite field logistics, the Air Force and Army were going to be reunited as a single force…sounds like that activity needs to be revisited. How about making the “Air” Force the USSF (United States Space Force), give them the satellites and give the Navy & Marines all the fighters, the Army all the bombers. How’s that Mr. Secretary?
	Fire at will March 31st, 2011 at 9:42 am One last comment on the F22, it’s too complex and too fragile for repeated use in a brutal combat atmosphere. Keep a few for night first strike of inelegance and command infrastructure. For the balance of the force, keep it simple, F15, F/A/G18 and a new small close support A/C along with rotor wing support and lift. The F22 is too expensive and complicated for the threats we face. The real covert war is being waged with money and security. Spend the money to secure that effort.
	robertro2 March 31st, 2011 at 9:45 am WHY HAVE THESE A/C HERE AND NOT WHERE THE ACTION WOULD BE,WHO IS RUNNING THIS MILITARY NOW .…..
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 9:46 am Also the A-10 cost less to operate than F-15E, F-16 and F-18 more bang for the buck and they can stay over the combat area longer
	Big Daddy March 31st, 2011 at 9:48 am The F-22 is equiped with in flight refueling.….….eh ? Throw in a couple of C-17’s of parts and, you could fly a mission of 2 weeks or so.….……eh ? There is absolutely no good reason this (exspensive) asset wasn’t used. To gleen actual combat data that is.….…..Unless the Pentagon is keeping the F-22 in reserve. To deter Canada from invading the lower 48.….….….…..
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 9:51 am New Mod to the F-22s Tail hooks and then teach the AF pilots how to land and take off from a carrier, then the F-22 can be deployed to a small problem area like Libya
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 9:52 am Negativity is the Obama and DemocRATs trade marks
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 9:54 am You have to keep Lockheed in the aircraft business
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 9:56 am The Libians would not be doing that, the Russians and Chinese would be there in a New York minute collecting their own data
	old391 March 31st, 2011 at 10:01 am Obama and Generals that want to stay on his good side, notice I did not say Cowtide to him
	knightone March 31st, 2011 at 10:07 am I can’t believe this article and comments completely missed the fact that Canada sent CF-18 fighters and indeed all the way from Canada to participate in bomb attacks on Libyan targets.
	rartost March 31st, 2011 at 10:08 am I agree with old391, the bad guys would be jockeying for position to record the Raptor’s weapons radar, ECM, etc. Save the F-22 for a real opponent, rather than the used car lot of the Libyan AF. The F-117 was to go in and smite Kadafi years ago, but we didn’t want to show the Nighthawk to the Russians. So we sent F-111’s & Navy attack so he got away since he could see them coming. The bombs missed because they had to dodge SAM & AAA. Send in stealth, and nobody would know anything about it ’till it was all over.
	Infidel4LIFE March 31st, 2011 at 11:06 am I know the Rafale needed Super Etendards to laze targets, this surprised me. Mirage 2000 is an attack plane, don’t know much about Eurofighter, but it too lacks precision targeting. Tornado GR4’s are doing most of the work. The F-16 again proves it is needed, but why risk an F-22? NO WAY
	Bman March 31st, 2011 at 11:09 am They are developing a precision ground stike capability with the lightwieght bomb program
	Michael Kern March 31st, 2011 at 11:11 am As I remember it the USAF flew 41K sorties in the first Gulf War and the other 59K was flown by the USN, USMC,RAF, and then throw in all of the Arab States.
	Michael Kern March 31st, 2011 at 11:14 am I am sorry I wasn’t clear in my post the 100 or so airfields was world wide since WWII. I am just stating a stationary airfield is a target. Plus a stationary airfield in another country that restricts operations is a liability not an asset.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 12:05 pm Like it or not, GAO reports are trustworthy. Every federal agency has a chance to review and comment on GAO findings. Your assertions that “GAO wants..” don’t mean anything, because GAO doesn’t have authority to determine acquisition policy. What you call GAO stupidity is the result of DoD stupidity. GAO are the ones that call it like it is. GAO reports are used to help justify terminating the most egregious of programmatic failures.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 12:16 pm who has stated the notion that US aircraft carriers are invincible? oh that’s right, you did. ever heard of a straw man? We have plenty of deterrent capability. Let me explain what will happen if China sinks one of our aircraft carriers: they will be overwhelmingly devastated, regardless of if we have JSF or not. Your business case for the foolish, over-running, over-budget, short-performing has been destroyed. We get better results from alternative defense investments then continuing to throw good after bad in the JSF gobbler.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 12:17 pm CMIC representatives lie their butts off, lead us into foolish programs and policies, never learn from their mistakes, and are not the ones that really pay the price for their mistakes. Deal with it.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 12:23 pm Hey brainiac — since when in the real world do F-22s and F-16s fight eachother?? A Corvette is better than a Mustang but if what you got works well, isn’t it better to have the Mustang plus the additional $40K with which you can make your life better in other ways?? So think abou this: in our current arsenal we’ve got 187 F-22s — that’s great and all, but is it helping us win in Iraq & Afghanistan??
	STemplar March 31st, 2011 at 12:33 pm Sure, better to trust faceless posts on the internet or companies that manufacture items. Forget the fact that the GAO has predicted costs and issues with the F35 better than the company and the DoD for the last 4 years.
	@Earlydawn March 31st, 2011 at 1:29 pm Given that Naval sortie rates are lower than land-based sortie rates, I don’t believe you. Cite sources. I’m also not asking about the Arabs, RAF, or anyone else, so only include them if you can’t find a USN-specific number. You’d still lose on ordinance delivered, anyway. B-52s alone dropped forty percent of all Coalition munitions during the Gulf War. Citation: http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factshee… Again, the Navy is a tool in a toolbox, not the whole solution.
	george March 31st, 2011 at 1:51 pm Y.G.B.M.–I trongly doubt a basing problem was an issue… try an internal non-compatable problem… If you know this airplane.. you may know the answere… Think Comm.
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 2:27 pm All right you asked for it! Double dumbass on you! ;P
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 2:27 pm Who asked you ChiCom spy?!
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 2:30 pm childish. this is why we should disregard your advice on defense acquisition policy
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 2:35 pm It takes a lot more than a day to get a fighter squadron spun up and deployed to Europe. During the first Gulf War in 1990, F-15s arrived in Saudi and it took 3 days for their logistical support (ground crews, fuelers, armament) to show up. They were sitting ducks on the ground until then. Don Rumsfeld said it during the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and got hell for it: “You go to war with what you have.” He was responding to criticism that Humvees were not armored. Hell, they were never intended to be armored! You can’t go to war with tomorrow’s weapons, or with weapons that are not available.
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 2:35 pm We could buy some upgraded F-16s like the ones being offered to India with the latest avionics and AESA radar. We could buy some F-15 Silent Eagles as well. But what we need are fighters capable of defeating Su-30MK1s and other 4+ generation fighters that can defeat F-15s. If the F-16, F-15, and F-18s can be made to be able to beat the Russians, Indians, and Chinese have that arent 5th Generation aircraft thenwe could buy some of them and not as many F-35s. But We should have more than 187 F-22s for when the Chinese and Russians start to deploy their 5th Gen fighters post 2015. Seven hundred and fifty (750) sounds like a good number to me :)
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 2:38 pm You have to design weapons today that you want in 15 years, and you have to order/build weapons today that you want to use in 5 years. It takes a while to build a squadron of F-22s, and Obama has all but shut down future production beyond what hard orders existed when he took office. The F-35 needs a redesigned engine, but Congress in all it’s glory just cancelled the follow-on engine. You pay in the future for short-sightedness today. We are operating today with weapons that Ronald Reagan put in place in the ‘80s.
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 2:41 pm If you follow that logic, we should still be building F-4s and FB-111s.
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 2:45 pm Ignorance raises its ugly head! LOL!
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 2:45 pm I’ve read that there was a test of 5 F-15s vs 1 F-22 and the F-22 shot down all 5 F-15s. So add up the cost of 5 F-15s and compare the cost of 1 F-22. F-22s pay for themselves, we need them too in greater numbers than 186 or 187.
	Mark Fowler March 31st, 2011 at 2:55 pm Most of the aircraft you are attacking are not in the air, they are on the ground. And in order to achieve air dominance, you have to take out Ground-based radars, like Surface-To-Air Missile sites. In fact, the preferred way to attack a SAM site is with a Tomahawk or other long-range standoff weapon. You don’t want to put people over SAM sites, like we did in Viet Nam. A surface attack aircraft like the F-16 can take down another aircraft, no problem. But an F-15 or F-22 Air Superiority Fighter generally has no good way to attack ground targets other than its gun, which requires the aircraft to get very, very close to ground-based weapons. You use the proper aircraft for the job at hand.
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 2:58 pm I tried to take your childish insult of calling me an “idiot” and make a joke of it. You didnt catch the reference did you? That was a feeble Captain James T. Kirk line when he was trying to use curse words in Star Trek IV. ;-) So I will excuse your ignorance petaQ face.
	Mark Fowler March 31st, 2011 at 3:00 pm The FB-111 was a long-range, STRATEGIC BOMBER. Not an air superiority fighter like the F-22, although it could protect itself in an air encounter. It had long legs for the long trip out of the UK to Libya, but still two were lost on that Libya mission, not shot down but down due to mechanical failure, and no place close to land.
	Mark Fowler March 31st, 2011 at 3:02 pm You’re right, we should still be using the P-51 Mustang, because it was the “Air Superiority Fighter” of WWII, and much cheaper to produce than the jets that followed. Your logic is laughable.
	Mark Fowler March 31st, 2011 at 3:14 pm Going backwards: THe Air Force and Army split after WWII so that the USAF could concentrate on 1) Air Superiority, 2) Strategic Bombing and 3) Heavy Airlift. Nearly every administration since Eisenhower has looked at recombining the air services into one air service that is at the call of each of the military branches. The F-4 was the last “Multi-Mode Fighter”, but vastly different variants were created for the Air Force vs. the Navy because the Air Force version, with longer runways to use, could carry far more armament and fuel than the USN variant. Even in Viet Nam, most USN F-4 missions were flown from land because the fighter could carry more bombs when it had a long runway. The FB-111 was actually Carrier Qualified, but never fielded by the Navy because it was so expensive and large — you couldn’t get enough of them on a carrier and the load carrying with internal stores of weapons meant that it took longer to load the bombs or to change the bomb types. The Air Force flew them successfully in Viet Nam and into the ‘80s, rebuilding existing airframes over and over again. The F-35 is again supposed to be the ‘multirole fighter’, and again it is a bad idea. USAF has no use for STOL aircraft, USN doesn’t need STOL aircraft, only the USMC and in some cases Army. But Army air won’t get them, because that’s not their mission. Army air ‘forward deploys’ with the US Army and comes under direct command of the US Army units that they support. Ask any US Army mission planner, he would much rather have US Army helicopter assets than to have to ‘get in line’ to get USAF helicopters, even for things like combat cargo/replenishment. Same true for USMC air operations, they directly support the USMC and have a much shorter chain of command. You build today to counter what the enemy builds tomorrow. It is no coincidence that China has recently deployed a stealth fighter. They see the obvious value of it. The Air Force is doing more with less — still flying C-5s that were built during the Viet Nam war period and B-52s that were built in the 1960’s. They have the smallest force that they have had since WWII, yet are more forward deployed than they have been since the Korean war. You simply can’t continue to do more with less, forever. It is foolish to assume otherwise.
	guest March 31st, 2011 at 3:16 pm They made all the same complaints about the F-15 when it took over from the F-4, yet 35 years later it is still the mainstay of USAF Air Superiority. Somehow they managed to get the bugs worked out.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 4:25 pm are you an idiot or a liar? maybe you don’t understand the word deployed either.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 4:27 pm yep you’re childish alright. my insult wasn’t childish — accurate is a better description. your star trek mastery explains alot.
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 4:29 pm beam you up, scottie
	BreakTheCycle March 31st, 2011 at 4:50 pm it’s insane. it’s like our acquisition strategy is divergent from war winning strategy. the resources poured into the acquisition black hole is money that could be spent accomplishing missions. we are 10 years into GWOT what have we accomplished was it worth the cost??
	imustbeterrorist March 31st, 2011 at 4:57 pm Oh! this is Russian stealth? It is resembled Russian new stealth’s. Fast speed arrived at targeting point and must fire. Competing precision capture the target and shoot. That is massive power the target revenge’s. Fatal shooting and fatality damages making on needed. But this is look like Russian’s, you know? This is resembled Russian’s.
	mustbefatalshooting March 31st, 2011 at 5:02 pm Capture the infrared, jet engine’s and strike the side winder’s mechanism’s, this is propelled fan engine’s logic’s very little infrared ray, it is very difficulty capture the enemy targeting.
	Michael Kern March 31st, 2011 at 5:46 pm Instead of reading “Fact Sheets” read something substancal Try the Gulf War Air Power Survey Summary Report dated 1993. I have no idea where your facts of Naval sorties rates being lower Since JFACC was forced down everyones throats sortie numbers are very convulted and skewed to JFACC’s principal benifactor the USAF. The Sortie numbers I gave you are in this report. As for ordnance numbers do you really want to go there? Granted the USAF tossed an enormous amount of BB’s all over the desert. As for accuracy in HARM’s alone the USAF only had a 28% Hit rate. Those numbers are in the report also. Give it I read I did back in 93 or so.
	Maryam Choufany March 31st, 2011 at 6:08 pm Good day my fellow Americans .THE WIESE MAN is ready to have breack fast in teheran why we are draging our Time ! TIME is in our favore and all UNIVERSE is with us let’s do it,you have the BLESSING of .….…
	ribby March 31st, 2011 at 6:36 pm Mr . Gates does NOT want the F-22 to go and deploy so he can continue this personal grudge that he has with Ex-Airforce generals. He probably told them on their way out the door that they were stopping production at187 and the he would personaly see to it that they stay out of the game,only to sit in a hanger somewhere and collect dust. With the russians(T-50) and now the chinese (J-20)starting to build stealth FIGHTER jets we cannot be so stupid as to shut down the production lines of the worlds best fighter @ 187 . SO, how does this work with stealth , detection ranges are cut down until both advasaries are with in 20 miles from each other, and now mr.gates wants the JSF to out dogfight the T-50 because the F-22s are spread to thin. LET ME SAY THAT , THE AIRFORCE’S MOST IMPORTANT MISSION IS TO KEEP ENEMY JETS FROM FLYING OVER OUR TROOPS AND RAINING DOWN DEATH FROM THE AIR. The Airforce should cancel the F-35 and take some improvements from the F35 (infrared systems & ect..) put them into production on the F-22, then make a production model of the xb-47 (killer drone with expanded payload and tot) Next develope the NGB along with the B-2s plus get some new tankers and the Airforce is good to go.Damm Gates!!
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 6:49 pm Actually, trying to deny the US armed services with F-35s and more F-22s * right now * so that by the time 2020 and after comes around Russia, India, China, and those that buy their 5th generation planes can gain aerial dominance over the USA and our allies; now thats idiotic you idiot! Unless, you are an enemy of the U.S. then I can see why you would take such a position. We dont wantto have only 187 5th generation fighters when in the world there will be over 1000 of them sometime during the 2020s.
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:00 pm I’m pretty sure someone said that about the F-117 over Bosnia. Any weapons system can be vulnerable on any given sunday (borrowing from the NFL adage) if everything falls into place. Then there is the thing that is most likely to “drop” an F-22: gravity, induced by mechanical, systems, or human failure. I wouldn’t expect us to use the thing unless they are looking for some PR in doing so. To justify the project’s expenditures, to cause an enemy to believe we could fill the sky with them at a moment’s notice, stuff like that.
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:07 pm you both have good points but consider your own “tempo vs mobility” may be the most relevant here. First gulf war tempo was the order of the day. Libya, mobility is the calling card. Projection of power at a moments notice is needed, if we need to bomb the whole country back to the stone age those B-52’s will be irreplaceable.
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:23 pm meanwhile, back on planet earth where the price tag off such foolish whimsical ponderings is a real consideration.….
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:28 pm this is true, you then have the politics of us begging for permission to use their country to bomb their neighbors– or who can forget France making our UK based F-111’s fly around their airspace when we attacked their best friend? (other than Saddam, that is, but our enemies are so numerous it’s hard to remember them all.) Hmm I was talking about France, right.….
	BradM March 31st, 2011 at 7:30 pm The more you write the more of an idiot you show yourself to be BTC. One of the definitions of deploy is “to come into a position ready for use”. That’s how I used it. Go back to school and get a dictionary your ignorance is showing idiot!
	Formula March 31st, 2011 at 7:39 pm Right On “Guest”.….the competitive engine for the F35 would have been a great investment for this country. With any luck, we will see it back in the budget.
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:47 pm What he posted is as much nonsense as it is insightful. “The strange part is that during my 21 years in the service I never ran into such negativity“ well of course not because according to your own summary we are told what to do and say. Don’t know what military he was in but from my first day in boot in San Diego it became obvious that grumbling in the ranks over every order we were given would be quietly expected. The smartest recruit among us explained the logic behind it or reminded us complaining about it did nothing toward getting the task before us complete. (ctd)
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:47 pm “this must be payback for you“ assuming he means US paying back our assumed inability to question authority as he probably did for 21 years. I had a brain in 1979 as a recruit, I still have one in 2011 at age 48. Difference being I can’t be placed on my knees with a toothbrush scrubbing grout in the head till secure time for foolishly shooting my mouth off about things I am too ignorant to research. I also have the internet at my fingertips making it more likely I’d be informed enough to know what I was talking about if I did. So surprise, surprise, the most negativity comes from the guy in the ranks complaining about how negative everyone else is. Some things never change.
	batvette March 31st, 2011 at 7:59 pm oh stop, you. you actually know what you’re talking about, that is highly frowned upon you know. to another reply: who cares who would be doing it, the point stands: the more effective weapons in an arsenal are the ones whose capabilities remain veiled. if you’ve missed something it’s that fly in the ointment of generals sometimes showing off the capabilities of expensive hardware to justify the expenditures and keep the programs alive. can’t keep pouring money down a hole just to say “we’ve got the most effective hole on the planet”, and don’t need to prove that time to time..
	SKCS(SS), USN, Ret March 31st, 2011 at 9:52 pm Once again, don’t blame the message– blame the messenger. You must be either in the Air Farce or work for them.…
	Michael Kern April 1st, 2011 at 12:52 am Hey Mark I have pictures of an F-111 with a broken back after it’s CarQual. The F-111 was a prime example of the USAF and Robert Strange McNamara SECDEF trying to force a sub-standard System on the US Navy. Don’t get me wrong the F-111 performed a great job for the USAF and the RAAF But thank God we had Vice Admiral Thomas Connolly that test flew the F-111 and convinced everyone what a PIG it was. The Navy rejecting it had nothing to do with size or loading weapons we didn’t wan’t it because it was near impossible to get it supersonic and it had the handling and landing charastics of a rock. I don’t understand your reference to reduced payloads on Navy F-4’s either The Catapults on an Aircraft Carrier can sling 100K LBS Even a loaded A-3 didn’t come in that heavy.
	Michael Kern April 1st, 2011 at 12:52 am You do make a point about the USAF and their desired missions A/A and Strategic bombing. the problem is and has been since WWII that neither of these win Wars CAS win’s wars ask any ground pounder and lets face it the USAF does not like flying down in the weeds. That is the main reason that the USAF dream of combining all the services Air Assets has never come about. The Army jettissoned the Army Air Corps after WWII because they had no clue what to do with the Senior Generals that had led the highly succesful bombing campaign in Europe. [Come on fess up Ike, MacA, Marshall did not want to deal with the Army Air Corps anymore] After the Key West Agreement the USAF nearly convinced Trumman to get rid of the USMC and it’s air assets [Trumman hated the USMC] and it probably would have happened if the North Koreans hadnt invaded South Korea.
	Michael Kern April 1st, 2011 at 1:06 am A problem with sending in stealth’s is the “Baker” Col Zoltán Dani may have taught everyone operating SA-3’s how to shoot down F-117’s Just like he did in Kosovo. In fact he still has the engine heatshield hanging in his garage from the 117 he smoked.
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 1:33 am Nope. In military aviation, there are “warfare frequencies” and “civil frequencies”. If you’re flying in the time of peace, vast majority of active EM systems are turned off or, at least, operate on entirely different frequencies than during warfare. Same reason — if you used the same frequencies during peace AND during warfare, enemy would gather data during peace and then use a perfect jammer on you during war. This goes for radar as well as datalink modes, certain comms modes etc.
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 1:43 am Cost prediction? Yes. It’s not that hard to analyze economic and manufacturing factors. Performance prediction? Capability comparation? NO WAY. You see, GAO does the same stupid mistake as internet turn-based games. They gather tables and numerical data and look at the world through these numbers. But that couldn’t possibly work: what is the numerical value of survivability? What is the numerical value of good cockpit view? What is the numerical value of relaxed pilotage? What is the numerical value of user-friendly cockpit? GAO attempted to dump the YA-10 Thunderbolt in favor of the A-7 — claiming the A-7 has actually better capabilities. Why? It was in their tables. The A-7 was numerically faster. Fortunately, the AF disregarded that nonsense and during flyoff, the pilots made it clear they want the Hog. Now, what airframe do you think suits the CAS missions better: A-7, or A-10? Go ask the infantrymen in Afghanistan. And then ask them what would they say to accountants if they wanted to take them the Hog support away.
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 1:45 am Ah, sorry. I don’t judge people. I judge their proclamations and opinions — and it pays off. And I judge content/principle, not the form/implementation. Also pays off. By the way, I’m not connected to aviation/mil industry. I write books about military aircraft. Not huge, just like a diploma works, but whenever I dig through the resources and materials I gather, I — sooner or later — run into GAO stupid efforts to cancel ANY new technology, no matter how good it was. Heck, if the DOD went with GAO, they would be still flying A-7s and F-4s. “Why the new planes when they cost money and the old ones could still fly. Look at zee germanz with their F-4ICE — innit proof?”
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 2:07 am Yes. When all the NATO threw it’s power against small European country in the midst of a civil war, with no money to run their cold-war-build military, it was unable to suppress Serbian military, it DID NOT ACHIEVE STRATEGIC AIR SUPERIORITY, it was limited by Serbian actions, it wasn’t proactive as it should be — was merely reacting to what it was ALLOWED to do by the Serbs -, pride of the US technological arsenal was shot down and NATO won only because a total destruction of Serbian economy. Huge success. Way to go. That was 7,5M people/162.Billion GDP Serbia (1998). Now think about 1242M people/1,02 TRILLION GDP China (1998). Or any other not-so-underdeveloped nation. Point of my post was — PGM is not self-salvationable. Yes, they are nice. Yes, they ease the fighting. But apart from that, they could be made into useless flying bricks by any nation with appropriate technology. And any smart nation, stronger than Serbia, would then be able to DENY THE SKIES for the US, if america relied solely on PGMs without appropriate advance in airframes and technology. And the sad truth is that that is exactly where you are headed. What does it remind me of… Oh, i know. VIETNAM. “We have those cool missiles, we no longer need guns”. Fail. Just one question. If PGMs are enough, why don’t you cancel ALL the fighters and bombers? I mean, a civil jetliner with missile store racks could do the same job — AND carry MORE missiles/PGMs CHEAPER. Innit great? [This argument was used on me when I was in my own “all missile” stage of life. Worked like a charm. Or, as they say, “argumentation ad absurdum”.]
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 2:20 am Congress tried to push P-51D with a turboprop as an A-10 replacement in the 1970s. Piper Enforcer was the name. Do you still laugh? Or you do want the troops in Afghanistan to be protected by WW2 airframe…
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 2:40 am Just a quick one for all those “5th gen fighters are useless and stealth is useless”. True, “stealth” technology is not self-salvationable. There are many ways to detect it (long-wavelenght radars, passive combined IR sensors and, if the plane isn’t operating in EMCON, real-time-triangulation-systems like Czech Tamara /not so much a thread, as it was buyed by the US for safety reasons/ or Ukrainan Kolchuga /slightly less capable, but way more proliferated/). And they are ways to even track stealth aircraft — usually based on phase shift (like Zaslons on MiG-31s), specific use of SAR technology or locating transmitters other place than receivers (bistatical RLs or datalinked Su-30s). Still, one advantage remains. Stealth/y plane is harder to hit. Imagine you’re flying the Su-30MKx against Raptor. Due to usage of some technology (see above), you do know it’s dead ahead of you, some 100 miles. And occasionally, you might even see a glimpse of it on your radar. But you have no tracking. And your missile’s effective range is reduced quite a lot. And your missiles self-homing systems are almost useless — so, even with modern fire-and-forget R-77 AAMs, you are FORCED to play it the old way (semi-active homing), fly straight even and paint the Raptor with your radar. Just like they did with Aim-7s or R-27Ps. And you are a sitting duck. On the other side, Raptor could shoot and maneuver as it wishes. If a missile is fired against it, it could easily break it’s lock due to combination of stealth, ECM and supermaneuvreability. And if it decides it doesn’t like the fight any more, it could easily disengage and safely fly away — without being threatened. So — stealth is not a “dragon skin”. It is a TACTICAL ADVANTAGE. No more, no less. But if you have enough of aircraft with such a tactical advantage, you get… STRATEGIC ADVANTAGE. Effective radius of enemy’s IADS has dropped five-folds. Blank spots appear in their radar coverage. Their fighter’s radar capabilities drop — and their effectives with it. You have the advantage. You have the initiative. You have the STRATEGIC AIR SUPERIORITY. You win (with less looses and effort, that is). That’s what 5th gen fighters are about. Think about it. And think whether you want to be the only one WITHOUT such a capability. Think of F-15s instead of that Su-30 and of PAK-FA or J-20 instead of Raptor. Is that what you really want?
	afog April 1st, 2011 at 8:29 am Let’s face it boys and girls, the F-22 has yet to see a battle! Why your asking? Simple really, its way to advanced, the cost is outlandish, and support is highly limited at other locations. The F-22 is nothing but a glorified flying PR toy.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 9:45 am Guess who GAO uses for source data? OSD. Guess who OSD uses for source data? the Services. So when they are reporting that programs in developments are failures, they are synthesizing collective opinion inside DoD, who has right to comment on all GAO findings anyway (usually they agree). GAO is neutral. They are not trying to “cancel ANY new technology” Mr innaccuracy. Their official opinion is that technology development needs to be divorced from system integration in major acquisition programs. This is wise practice in managing investment dollars based on risks and rewards. Do you follow?? probably not. There should be a license required and people should have to pass a stupidity test prior to being allowed to post on the Internet.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 9:47 am “bunch of whiners” this is what King George probably thought of the American colonists. We care about our country and want an end to the waste, destruction of our economy, and systematic stupidity in our defense policies. Deal with it.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 9:51 am I’ve posted my position on F-22 multiple times. We should restart the F-22 line and produce at minimum sustaining rates to maintain air dominance. Get my position right and your facts straight. I’ve patienty tried to explain to you there are multiple ways to gain air superiority than fighter on fighter comparisons, as much as their is multiple ways to lose air superiority even if you have the hottest fighter jet around. Make some new neural connections in your head.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 9:56 am your guys thinking is so narrow and small it is sad. Suppose PAK FA and J-20 get fielded. It takes more than a jet for an enemy to establish air dominance over us. By your guys’ thinking, all we would have to do to maintain air dominance is to just buy the newest developed fighter on the market. I made a nice post above: there are multiple ways to maintain air superiority (even if F-35 is canceled), and there are multiple ways to lose air superiority even if F-35 gets fielded. We need to think what is in the best strategic interests of the United States. We are currently thinking too narrowly about one mission and placing too much faith-based investment on one technological “silver bullet”.
	cover72 April 1st, 2011 at 10:12 am Okay. So — is SuperHornet program a failure? Neither Navy pilots, nor me don’t think so — and yet, GAO tried to cancel the whole program. I’m sure you could find their objections and recommendations on your own. Is A-10 a failure? Would A-7 Corsair have been a better CAS plane? And yet, GAO pressed for A-7 instead of YA-10 and even managed to put these two against each other in comparative flyoff. Just two most blatant examples. And yet, YOU are the one not getting this… But let’s not fall into pathetic “ad hominem” “arguments”, shall we? You possibly didn’t understand by point, so let me rephrase it. Source(s) of GAO data are absolutely irrelevant. The data themselves and their interpretation are the problem. Why? Because there is no way to measure battlefield performance. I said it before, but I’ll obviously have to repeat it — how do you measure user friendliness of pilots workplace? How do you measure intuitiveness of steering? The answer is — you don’t. Because you can’t. And these are just the tip of an iceberg. Yes, you could measure some data — like aerodynamic performance, specific fuel consumption and specific excess power, but the aircraft performance as a whole is like 30% measurable — 70% unmeasurable. And office rats from GAO have no way of EVER understanding these unmeasurable qualities. (just a idea — aren’t you a bureaucrat? That’ll explain it. Bureaucrats always think they could fit the whole world into their tables). As for the statement about “GAO not trying to cancel any new programs” — be so kind and do some research, would you? I did. Hundreds of hours for both of my books. And as I said, GAO was/is always proposing to DISCONTINUE DEVELOPMENT IN FAVOR OF THE OLD TECH. They did it with YA-10 in favor of A-7; they did it with SuperHornet in favor of “legacy” one and now, they are doing it once again with JSF in favor of SuperHornet (which, all of the sudden, is not so bad and so cancellation-worthy). If that isn’t attempt to cancel a program, I don’t know what is. I mind you — I’m not attempting to advocate the F-35. I’m just saying GAO’s views are — apart from their economic evaluations — of no use. And I’m saying it’s pathetic to see how they change their opinion by 180° in the precise moment they’ve lost. According to GAO, SuperHornet was probably the worst navy fighter ever build. But now, when they could use it to bash F-35, it’s perfect and completely sufficient. ALL OF THE SUDDEN. Now that’s just laughable. And if you’d ignore relevant data (GAO’s attitude towards the A-10 and SuperHornet etc., as well as principal problem with their evaluation procedures), once more, I’ll just consider you a troll. Because ignoring facts and insulting others is perfect troll definition.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 11:38 am You are wrong that there is no way to measure battlefield performance. This is in fact the purpose of reqts devleopment, system engineering, & test & evaluation. And in fact, measures of battlefield performance is what DoD uses to justification new programs anyway. So you can’t have it both ways. GAO does Congress’ bidding. They have no desire to see DoD fail. Everyone wants defense, but we want it done in a fiscally responsible way. In fact, if DoD properly managed its acquisitions, there would not need to be critical GAO audits.
	BreakTheCycle April 1st, 2011 at 11:38 am DoD is the one that pushed for EFV, FCS, and notable space acquisition failures. So if their deplorable tactics causes anger in the independent evaluation & auditing community, then this is understandable. What it all comes down to is DoD, OMB, and the President budget, and Congress appropriates. All points of view deserve to be taken into consideration. Sorry if my attack on you came across as ad homenim, fact remains you have not addressed the need to balance risk & reward in defense acquisition investments. Currently, DoD jumps into too much risk, too much promises, and is short on delivery. Independent evaluations have confirmed these patterns over and over again. DoD and its acquisition strategy will have to shift towards rationality. Winning programs like Super Hornet and A-10 will survive. Losers like FCS and EFV will be exposed, lessons learned captured, and hopefully implemented even by smart people such as yourself.
	ToldThemSo April 1st, 2011 at 3:05 pm afog said it all. The supposedly “stealthy” F-22 actually appears as big as a major office building to adversaries. The skins don’t repair, resulting in the very opposite of stealth–huge radar targets. You guys don’t have any idea of what went on at the LO level.…Wow, drink the kool-aid with some vodka when you have to watch the F-22’s drop like flies in combat.… Didn’t any one of you work on the LO issues? Mindless bable about (non-existent) stealth. Pray for the pilots. All will be sacrificed with the cowboys on this listserve “cheering” them all as they go to their death. Don’t any of you know have any LO knowledge or experience on the F-22? Geez. ToldThemSo
	STemplar April 1st, 2011 at 3:13 pm And yet the US has achieved it’s goals, so your rant about how people could stop the US if hasn’t worked yet. So what’s your point?
	STemplar April 1st, 2011 at 3:15 pm Under what circumstances do you envision the US going to war with Russia or China?
	mike April 1st, 2011 at 5:58 pm WHY??!! Libya has NOTHING in its inventory that can’t be DEFEATED by what the US, and NATO allies can throw at them. the Navy and USMC F./A-18s can bomb, then dogfight against the aging Mig 29s, the Rafales can be called in to take oug the Migs too– and with USAF deploying F-16s and F-15s? air dominance. what we need to do is deploy man power on the ground to get Qaddafi OUT–
	top dog April 1st, 2011 at 6:06 pm Thats not what he said at all guest, he said “You go to war with the Army you have”. I always thought you go to war with the Army you NEED. If you are going to quote him, I never liked the guy anyway, at least get it right. One of the reasone the F-22 is not in Libya.….it’s not needed, so why waste the money or asset on an ant hill.
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 1:44 am Why would we waste such an advanced aircraft on such a monkey model mission? Even the Russians have known better than that for more than 30 years!
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 1:54 am Please post data that shows where USAF aircraft have been retrofitted for carrier landing. I wasn’t born yesterday, it takes more than a tail-hook is a modest statement!
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 1:56 am Aren’t you answering Michael’s question? You both sound like you are on the same page!?
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 2:04 am Ha! Good one @E_L_P!!! Reminds me of Willard(1971) and his pet rats! — ‘NO WILLARD NO!!!!’ I loved “Apocalypse Now!” Say — your moniker doesn’t stand for Emerson, Lake and Palmer does it!
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 2:06 am For sure batvette! This is the US ARMY we are talking about!! HA!
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 2:11 am Dang! I was 23 as a recruit in 1979. Guys like you called me “Pappy” in basic! HA! Didn’t you finish high skool! Just given you crap! I’m sorry! }:)
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 3:00 am Shhh! Be quiet! We had ‘em fooled till you come along! Let’em think it is invincible, then when our robots slap them up side the head, they will REALLY be surprised! HA!
	cover72 April 2nd, 2011 at 8:25 am Off course. And planform alignment is nonexistent and Russians and Chinese are idiots, who were fooled in creating their own, completely useless, stealth jets by the US military complex. Very logical.
	cover72 April 2nd, 2011 at 8:27 am Yes, the US did achieve it’s goals. So did the Pyrrhus of Epirus guy. Still nothing? Never mind me, then.
	cover72 April 2nd, 2011 at 8:37 am Super Hornet with it’s 4,8bil. USD development cost looks like quite fiscally responsible to me. Still, GAO “recommended” canceling the whole program altogether as “not needed”. They DID say “legacy” machines could do the job same or better. Reality? New SH airframes have 187% more flight hours than older “legacy” airframes from the last batches — because pilots and mission planners simply prefer the “SuperBug”. Oops. Same for performance. GAO had serious complains, but flight crews soon found out how to utilize strenghts and minimize weaknesses. My third favorite saying goes “There is no such think as a perfect weapon. Every weapon system is inevitably a compromise between cost, accuracy, performance, simplicity, reliability, range, user-friendliness, ruggedness, speed and many more”. Problem of GAO is they always pick the parameters which were given up (in the case of SH, the airspeed and acceleration) and ignore the improved ones (AoA, maneuverability, pilotage, landing speed, extended range). And “recommend” cancellation of the new program and fallback to the old one. For the last 40 years. Now, I do understand there is a need for an opponency. But you couldn’t take the opponency as the whole and only truth — which is exactly what most people do with GAO reports. GAO reports are the “cons”. But apart from that, there are the “pros”.
	Bronco46 April 2nd, 2011 at 9:31 am There are so few of these planes it’s hard to have a significant number of these things based outside the US. If we start scattering them around the world there won’t enough in any one place; and all we accomplish is risking the loss of the technology. These aren’t like B-2 bombers that are used one or two at a time.
	top dog April 2nd, 2011 at 11:06 am What????
	batvette April 2nd, 2011 at 2:50 pm No, left after 11th grade, having been to 3 different schools in as many districts,all that was left for senior year were electives like basketweaving. Got my GED while listening to “Bomb Iran” playing on the radio with the Ayatollah talking about Great Satan on the TV. Unemployment was 25% in my small town, couldn’t get out of there fast enough, and just four years after Vietnam a lot of us were thinking “let’s enlist before we get drafted!”. No regrets. They do like ‘em young, less bad habits to break I guess.
	batvette April 2nd, 2011 at 3:02 pm Not sure what you are implying about the “Stealth” characteristics here. No aircraft is 100% invisible to radar (or any other form of) detection. However the F-22 and other modern designs which utilize the various methods of decreasing radar signature have a liability of only a small fraction of previous designs as far as returned signals. The top aquisition hardware of the world can still detect it under ideal conditions. Lesser equipment, probably not, definately not when you add variables like weather and clutter in a look down, shoot down scenario. The DOD owes it to our service people to give them the best chance of success through technology. As for boondoggles well does the M-1 abrams or F-14 tomcat ring a bell? They were once called that.
	batvette April 2nd, 2011 at 3:12 pm sometimes that’s got its value you know. the russkies always seem to be putting out some top notch aircraft, and aren’t afraid to put them in the hands of our strategic rivals. wouldn’t do well to have them thinking we can be beaten if they only keep trying enough times. so having a “you can’t touch this” toy may well be priceless in keeping the peace. let the workhorses handle the actual work. I think you know all this and may actually be on the same page with the above post, just a little more pessimistic in the way you’re looking at it.
	JCitizen April 2nd, 2011 at 3:54 pm I tried to quit High School so I could go to the ‘Nam, but my parents wouldn’t relent, and the recruiter wouldn’t cheat! I would have been better off for it. Your neighborhood sounds like mine. No regrets here either. Thanks for the rep! :)
	Matthew April 3rd, 2011 at 1:40 am Matthew, I read all the negative and positive comments and found all of them had very much validity. To be truthful I was amazed the knowledge people had and interest of our Navy and Air Force.. Being an ex NATO Air Force fighter pilot and later helping ‘manufacturing all those mentioned planes made me proud reading of the public interest of our war effort in Libya. My only qualm after reading of the Air Force general commenting F 22 fighter jets were to be used air to air combat only, validity of that info would rise lots of eyebrows… And very expensive built with all titanium fuselage. Raptor should be an all purpose fighter jet..
	JCitizen April 3rd, 2011 at 10:09 pm All titanium — don’t think so, maybe the booms, but all modern aircraft are composite now — little bit of this and a littler bit of that, etc., etc.
	Raptor April 4th, 2011 at 12:41 am Wow, you all really believe everything you read????hehehehe
	raiderman April 4th, 2011 at 1:46 am You dont want to sent the F-22 out, the Russians and nips will be reconning it to look for it’s weak points. Keep the technology secret as long as possible. You would be surprised of what’s really out there.
	rich April 6th, 2011 at 11:08 am momomimamo you have got your facts wrong ref the eurofighter which is a MULTI-ROLE fighter jet, get your facts right.…
	BOB April 19th, 2011 at 12:08 am Well people., i really don’t know the true reason for the F-22 Raptor not being sent to Libya. But i can tell you after watching the Raptors practicing everyday. No body in this world will know what hit them it is that fast,just maybe the AIRFORCE is waiting to flex there RAPTOR muscles at the right time cause it will be devastating. Just think i have personally seen them just the F-22 cruzin AND STILL FAST. May Allah have mercy on evil cause the RAPTOR WILL LEAVE NONE. GO GETIN RAOTORs
	Robert A. Fritts April 20th, 2011 at 7:38 pm I’ve done 4 tours in Eastern and Southern A-stan and without a doubt the USAF is the least favoured of the CAS providers. But as for the Marines and Navy patting themselves on the back, most ground pounders prefer Dutch, Italian or French flavours of CAS Most US fast mover drivers are CS. And the Navy/Marine team is only slightly better than the Air Farce, which would put them in the extremely poor catagory. Modern Sensors, heavy armor, long legged Turbo Prop, or as we are seeing exactly what is needed in Libya. Give my troops a few Dutch F-16s or French Rafales/Mirage 2000s anyday, they are in the good catagory..
	Phoenix SEO November 29th, 2011 at 11:01 am The 2011 Libyan civil war(also referred to as the Libyan revolution[) was an armed conflict in the North African state of Libya, fought between forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and those seeking to oust his government.The war was preceded by protests in Benghazi beginning on 15 February 2011, which led to clashes with security forces that fired on the crowd.The protests escalated into a rebellion that spread across the country, with the forces opposing Gaddafi establishing an interim governing body, the National Transitional Council.
	hard money lenders February 15th, 2012 at 2:32 am Buzz Aldrin (born Edwin Eugene Aldrin, Jr., January 20, 1930) is an American mechanical engineer, retired United States Air Force pilot and astronaut who was the Lunar Module pilot on Apollo 11, the first manned lunar landing in history. On July 20, 1969, he was the second human being to set foot on the Moon, following mission commander Neil Armstrong.

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

DoD Buzz

Stateside Basing Kept the F-22 Out of the Libya Fight

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments