Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (36002)	7/17/2009 2:09:56 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"The Pentagon" here essentially means Gates. The official position isn't going to be different than his (and Obama's) policy. Sure the support for more F-22s is largely a matter of politics, but so is the support for stopping them. "Override the Pentagon's choice" means "disagree with Obama and Gates". If Gates and Obama wanted to build more than the Pentagon would say it wants and needs them. Which may be correct or not correct in different cases, but Gates and Obama aren't somehow objectively right by default. I'm not as much directly arguing for more of them, but rather arguing against, arguments for not having them that are at best weak if not faulty. The points about the maintenance of the stealth coating also applies to F-35s, as does the high flyaway cost. The points about the total per unit cost, ignores the fact that much of those costs (esp. for the F-22 but also to a lesser extent for the F-35) are sunk costs. "More capable" simply isn't true in most ways the F-35 has lower sustained speed (no "supercruise"), lower peak top speed, lower maneuverability, loads/carries a fewer air to air missiles, is less maneuverable, and less stealthy.