The F-22

[MAS117]

I am not sure weather to post this in this board or the Government board, but I want all Northeasterners to see this. There is a vote coming down currently on the Senate Floor regarding the new F-22 fighter. I encourage all Senators to go out and vote in favor of this bill. Atlasia should not be second to any nation. What this thread is about, is a suitation I would liek to propose if indeed the F-22 Bill is passed by the Senate. I would like to propose that half of the overall production of the F-22's be built right here in the Northeast region, which will create thousands of new jobs for our citizens and open up many new factorys. Hopefully, once this bill is passed I can work out the details with the President, Sec. Ford, our favorite unioner Al, and many others to go into more detail and specifics about this. Thank you.

[Hermit]

I too strongly encourage all Senators to vote yea on the F-22 Bill. There is no price too high for the safety of our families and our nation.

[MAS117]

The voting is looking good. I believe 3 or 4 Senators have voted yea already.

[The Duke]

I'm willing to allow half the 180 or so F-22N fighters, both the aircraft assembly and the manufacture of component parts, to be built in the Northeast region, creating jobs for that region.  The remainder of the construction will include the assembly of actual airplanes in California where Lockheed is based, and we are taking offers from Governors on where the second half of the component parts will be put together.

[Jake]

I'm willing to allow half the 180 or so F-22N fighters, both the aircraft assembly and the manufacture of component parts, to be built in the Northeast region, creating jobs for that region.  The remainder of the construction will include the assembly of actual airplanes in California where Lockheed is based, and we are taking offers from Governors on where the second half of the component parts will be put together.

(cough)Southeast(cough)

[Colin]

(Ahem)Northeast(Ahem)

[Colin]

5 yeas on this Act. I am expecting this legislation to pass.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm willing to allow half the 180 or so F-22N fighters, both the aircraft assembly and the manufacture of component parts, to be built in the Northeast region, creating jobs for that region.  The remainder of the construction will include the assembly of actual airplanes in California where Lockheed is based, and we are taking offers from Governors on where the second half of the component parts will be put together.

You want to move the assembly of the naval variant to a different plant than the Marietta, GA plant where the F/A-22 is being assembled in real life?  I can understand spreading out the manufacture of components that are different between the F/A-22 and the F-22N to those areas that are not currently involved in the Raptor program, but moving or duplicating existing facilities involved in the building of the Air Force version would be nothing but a blatant waste of tax dollars.

[The Duke]

I'm willing to allow half the 180 or so F-22N fighters, both the aircraft assembly and the manufacture of component parts, to be built in the Northeast region, creating jobs for that region.  The remainder of the construction will include the assembly of actual airplanes in California where Lockheed is based, and we are taking offers from Governors on where the second half of the component parts will be put together.

You want to move the assembly of the naval variant to a different plant than the Marietta, GA plant where the F/A-22 is being assembled in real life?  I can understand spreading out the manufacture of components that are different between the F/A-22 and the F-22N to those areas that are not currently involved in the Raptor program, but moving or duplicating existing facilities involved in the building of the Air Force version would be nothing but a blatant waste of tax dollars.

Your point?

It is the government.

The Marietta plant, I'd assume, has limited capacity.  Additional facilities would have to be built to accomodate new production regardless.  There is no way that we can build and deliver 180 new warplanes by 2010 (the year the F-14, the fighter theF-22 replaces, is mostly phased out) without new/expanded facilities.

In any case, MAS asked for the facilities and since its not real tax dollars, just fantasy tax dollars, I saw no reason to tell him no on such technical grounds.

If people start posting here saying they don't want the production moved out of Marietta, they can post here.  If enough people post a complaint, I'll set up a poll and see where the public stands.  If the "Don't move the plant" side wins in the poll, the Marietta facilities will be expanded, if not then we'll go ahead and put the plant in the Northeast.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Considering that there is no way to design and test a naval variant of the F-22 in anything under 3 years at best, I don't see how you can hope to build 180 F-22N's by 2010 anyway.  It takes more than just simply putting a tailhook and folding wings on an aircraft to make it carrier capable, despite the unkind thoughts of Air Force generals.  3 years to design is probably a generous timeframe considering the military procurement process, but there was some initial consideration of a naval variant of the ATF back when the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes were being built, even if there has been no funding in that area since 1990.

In any case, the bill as written envisages a ten year programme.  F/A-22 production is currently 3 a month with procurement expected to complete in 2012.  Increasing production to 4 a month (sharing production time with the naval variant once the design phase is completed) and maintaining that thru 2014 instead of thru 2012, would be sufficient to meet the effort of adding F-22N production to the defense procurement priorities and would do so within the ten years the bill calls for.

[The Duke]

Considering that there is no way to design and test a naval variant of the F-22 in anything under 3 years at best, I don't see how you can hope to build 180 F-22N's by 2010 anyway.  It takes more than just simply putting a tailhook and folding wings on an aircraft to make it carrier capable, despite the unkind thoughts of Air Force generals.  3 years to design is probably a generous timeframe considering the military procurement process, but there was some initial consideration of a naval variant of the ATF back when the YF-22 and YF-23 prototypes were being built, even if there has been no funding in that area since 1990.

In any case, the bill as written envisages a ten year programme.  F/A-22 production is currently 3 a month with procurement expected to complete in 2012.  Increasing production to 4 a month (sharing production time with the naval variant once the design phase is completed) and maintaining that thru 2014 instead of thru 2012, would be sufficient to meet the effort of adding F-22N production to the defense procurement priorities and would do so within the ten years the bill calls for.

I was under the impression that a fair amount of effort had gone into designing a naval variant of the YF-22.  After all, they spent a lot of money on the (defunct) Firebolt missile which was the replacement for the Phoenix missile which is only carried by the Navy's F-14s.  We aren't starting from scratch.  While no naval variant was ever built, I can't believe that until 1994 or so, the Navy was developing a variant of a fighter that couldn't deploy from a carrier.  Oh, wait, I can absolutely believe that.

Of course, as the bill states, this is a ten year program not a six year program, which makes the bill's aims more feasible.  Also, as it stands now the Navy was relying on the F-35 to provide a replacement for the F-22 and that enters service in 2008.  So any way you look at it, we'll have a better air-to-air and air-to-ground naval air arm in the coming years than we do today, and with this bill that improvement will only be increased whether the program is complete in 2010 or 2014, and of course it will not be complete until 2014.  The only point I was making by bringing up the fact that the F-14 is gone in 2010 is that Marietta's plant cannot provide planes fast enough unless new facilities are built there, and I believe that remains true.

[badnarikin04]

I feel the need to address this matter.

After reading PBrunsel's State of the Atlas, I'm fairly confident that our president, if more defense is approved, will allocate our forces to his newest project, scaring one of the largest nations on earth into CHANGING AN OPINION.

I was initially in support of defense spending. Defense and law enforcement are the only two things I believe the government has the right to fund. But under an administration that seems to like using military force on mere condemnations, I do not support such measures until I am assured our priorities will be set straight again.

[Jake]

I feel the need to address this matter.

After reading PBrunsel's State of the Atlas, I'm fairly confident that our president, if more defense is approved, will allocate our forces to his newest project, scaring one of the largest nations on earth into CHANGING AN OPINION.

I was initially in support of defense spending. Defense and law enforcement are the only two things I believe the government has the right to fund. But under an administration that seems to like using military force on mere condemnations, I do not support such measures until I am assured our priorities will be set straight again.

So what do you propose.  To let the PRC rattle its saber across the Pacific and insult us.  President PBrunsel and SecDef Ford reacted with measured force.  Notice they didn't order the carriers into the Taiwan Straits.