I did, at $300 mil a pop, it's on the chopping block, supposedly because it wasn't designed to fight insurgents.
Our next generation of fighter being axed, probably one the reasons they made the military sign secrecy pledges on the military budget.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaking-news/44462-pentagon-officials-sign-pledges-secrecy-budget-process.html
Just like Carter, Obama will hose the military.
You're looking at this wrong. Unlike Carter, Obama seems to have someone in his ear that knows the very real difference between the "Defense Industry" and the "Military." For example; the "military" needed body armor in 2003. The "Defense Industry" wanted to make F/A-22s. And Obama, unlike Clinton too, seems to understand the difference. Our military can beat insurgencies, ragtag bands of thugs, dictators, and conventional arms...but it can't seem to beat Lockheed Martin, Boeing, or Northrop Grumman. I'll give you another example....
- A new generation of refeuling aircraft was based on outright fraud during Rumsfeld's Pentagon. The Air Force insisted that this program was needed urgently and it involved extremely lucrative deals for executives and longevity contracts. Lobbyist managed to almost convince the idiot politicians that "nothing is too good for our military" until a few investigated more closely. McCain, Gramm, Warner, Lieberman, and some others defended the military from this gross waste of our funds and had the program scrapped.
As for the F/A-22, consider its history and function. Originally the F-22, it was created to dog fight Soviet fighters. After the Cold War, it was redesignated the F/A-22 to imply a ground attack role. Politicians bought off on it (because "nothing is too good for our troops") and it was equipped with a few bombs. The problem with this is that it carries a far lesser payload, burns fuel faster, and in many cases has been treated as too expensive to risk in combat (Our air support in Afghanistan and Iraq has come from good old fashioned inexpensive bombers) Also because of its advanced technology, the Air Force was embarrased over the skies of India in early 2004 when it engaged in war games with the Indian Air Force. We lost. Because we underestimated the Indians, we turned off the part of the electronics suite on each of our fighters to protect classified capabilities. But what was the Air Force's attitude? Train our pilots better? No. As always, their answer was "buy a new plane." And that's exactly what they did with upgrades to the F/A-22. We have cheaper, far more practical and useful aircraft in our arsenol like the A-10. The F-22 is a Lamborghini at a time when we need more pickup trucks.
Rumsfeld promised to transform the military via the RMA (RMA sucks by the way). Not only was it a lie, but it was a pathetic display of ignorance I have ever seen in a SECDEF. A transformation would have had to begin with the outright cancellation of platinum-plated Cold War-era systems such as the F-22 or Virginia class nuclear submarines designed to fight a non-existent Soviet Navy. He declined to cancel a single big ticket weapons system. And this goes back to the first Bush days. And what was the military looking to get in 2003 that seemed entirely out of grasp? Some simple body armor....something the cops of New York City have had for decades. The ignorant critic, protestor, and rival politician used "body armor" as a tool in which to criticize Bush as if we had body armor for Kosovo, Bosnia, Somalia, Gulf War, etc. If they really cared about the troop instead of using him for political points they would have criticized the gross output of money towards unnecessary toys that keep the business dictating the wars they want us to fight instead of the wars we are going to fight.
They may as well invest in laser blasters in case the Empire arrives in our galaxy.
