The F-22 voting thread

[The Duke]

Recently, the US military excercised a war game with India.  It focused on air to air combat.  US F-15C fighters, a fighter that has never lost a air combat battle took on the newest Russian made aircraft, the Su-30 (part of the new Su-27 family).  A few months before, we did a similar excercise where the F-15C took on the new Eurofighter.

In both excercises, the United States got its @$$ handed to it on a silver platter with a dash of oregano.

The F-15C is no inferior to the top line fighters in service with England, Spain, Italy, Germany, Russia, India, and China.  Presumably, it is also inferior to French warplanes like the Rafale, which are now comparable to the Eurofighter in use with the British, Spanish, Italian, and German air forces.

This marks the first time since the ME-262 that the US isn't flying the world's best aircraft.  But there is an answer.

The F-22 Raptor, the new air superiority fighter designated to enter service with the US Air Force in 2004 in real life can smoke any of these fighters we have to compete with.  The new Joint Strike Fighter, the new all purpose fighter, is also capable of this feat, though it is still inferior to the F-22 in air combat capability.

I would like the Senate to accelerate the developement of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program.  I'd also like a 10-year, $30 billion spplement to the F-22 program that would revie the naval variant of the plane that was cancelled by the Clinton administration.  The total cost would be $4.5 billion per year.  This is a small rpice to maintain air superiority, which we have now lost.

Why expand a cold war style legacy sytem, you ask?  How are Senators supposed to get frightened about the French air force?  Its simple.  How long will it be before cash strapped Russia starts selling the Su-27 to North Korea or Iran?  What assurance is there that Jacquea Chirac will not sell the stealthy Rafale to a country like Iran or Libya?  If this happenned, the US could be at a technological disadvantage with all of our potential adversaries.  Furthermore, if the Eurofighter and Rafale programs, not to mention the new line of Sukhoi fighters, go forward while the JSF program does not, the US will have its aeronautics industry cleaned out as Europe and Russia take over the role of arming our current clients like Japan and Israel.  Millions of jobs are at stake here.

Like my missile defense request, I belive tis is tremendously important, and not overwhelmingly expensive.

[The Duke]

$500 million a year...that seems reasonable.

Once we figure out our income, we can probably allocate this money. So far we only have $1 billion in approved spending. If we can get just $500 billion in income, we might be able to be wealthy nation.

Sorry, that was a typo.  Should be $4.5 billion.  The 4 just didn't register.  Fixed now.

[The Duke]

I'd also like a vote on this issue.

[The Duke]

First, a lot of times it seems that we'll hit some insurgents and they'll claim it was a wedding party.  Weddings in the middle east often have people firing into the air in celebration, and to many this cover story seems feasible after the US actually did hit a wedding party in Afghanistan.

Second, what Ike meant was that we should lament the need to spend money on defense, not that we should question the need.

[The Duke]

Aye
King
Texasgurl
IrishDemocrat

Nay
Akno21

Not Voted Yet
Nation
StevenNick
StatesRights
Harry
Hughento
Migrendel

[The Duke]

We must not allow bureuacratic inefficiency delay funding for our military!  Therefore, I cast a purely symbolic "aye" for this bill.  Throughout America's history, the military has complained of inefficency and delays in legislative efforts to get them the resources they need to protect us.  We must not allow Atlasia to follow the same mold.

I have taken note of your support for the military and I appreciate it greatly.

[The Duke]

Don't bill proposals expire without an explicit extention?  Is this really a live bill any more?

I didn't think so, but the Senate seemed to disagree so why resist.

[The Duke]

Let's not allow this to drop from the page again, okay?

[The Duke]

This Bill needs legislative language:
The F-22 Bill

$4,500 million per year for then next ten (??) years will be allocated to the Department of Defense for the purpose of developing a naval version of the F-22 fighter and to accelerate the development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
This bill needs a Senator to adopt it and to take it into the Senate, it then needs to be given debate time by JFK or the VP. This actually came to a vote last time without legislative language, but since Ernest had left his post by then, I'm not at all surprised.

If anything is wrong with the above terminology, I apologise, I'm not good with military jargon (hence me being AG not SecDef). I would also like John Ford to confirm that the spending package I outline is correct, as it is not explicitly clear in his original post.

Language is fine.  I hope the Senators don't have to vote over again because of this procedural issue.

[The Duke]

I'll support this bill, when/if it comes to a vote. Does a Senator still need to bring it in?

Siege

Yes, could you formally introduce the bill?