« The Pentagon NOT holding Halliburton accountable | Main | CDC delaying information disclosure »

Feb 04, 2005



Has old flynn spent too much time in the weight room? What does his sporting prowess have to do with F-22s? Just because somebody goes off the rez please let's not everybody go off in the wrong direction. F-22 love it or leave it? Maybe Mr. Thick Neck should get thicker skin.


dear jack strap
i too must respond to your comment. I was captain on my COLLEGE team that was ranked 4th in NCAA Division ONE competition. Just thought you'de like to know that my neck, is in fact, pretty darn thick.


I have never been cited as a big supporter of the current administration but one of President Bush's proposals from the 2000 election really made me think. The president proposed skipping the next generation of weapons systems and working on the generation after that. The logic was that the DOD encourages incremental improvements of existing weapons systems but that the systems that really promise radical change often take decades to develop and by the time they do they are passe (is that french?.) I hoped that by 2005 we'd have infrantry men with ray guns and all sorts of other cool stuff. No such luck as of yet.

Does the Raptor/Boondoggle really promise anything more than an incremental improvement over whats in our existing fleet? Many experts would agree that our military technology is at least a decade ahead of our nearest competitor and probably 3 decades ahead of the chinese. There will never be a better chance to put resources into doubling or tripling our existing advantage instead of nursing the existing one.

Also we should buy more flags.

Here's a quote from the prez:

In Bush’s words: "We will modernize some existing weapons and equipment, necessary for current tasks. But our relative peace allows us to do this selectively. The real goal is to move beyond marginal improvements to replace existing programs with new technologies and strategies--to use this window of opportunity to skip a generation of technology. This will require spending more--and spending more wisely."


Jack Strap,
Right you are, on the sin of using one word instead of two. We've changed the text accordingly. BTW, I believe it's "They're" instead of "Their" in your sentence, "Their a bunch a nerds who are jealous."

Jack Strap

Forget whether POGO is right about the F-22. They are clearly a bunch of pencil-necked geeks get out much because they don't know a thing about America's real favorite past-time football.
Super Bowl is two words not one. That is the real sin here. I bet they don't have one person in their little cubby holes who ever played competitive sports. No wonder they criticize the F-22. Their a bunch of nerds who are jealous. Losers!


The Military Industrial Complex puppets pushing the F-22 on this site want people to be scared about the unknown. Ooooh China might be plotting something or maybe Russia will rebound. 9/11 anyone? Hello. Terrorist didn't build some high tech plane that out preformed the F-15 and they didn't build 2000 aircraft that overwhelmed our current Air Force. We need a comprehensive national security strategy which doesn't sink billions down some fantasy that the F-22 will save us from every boogey man out there.

Rox Off

Sounds like some of these boys and Bubblegum may be playing too much of that Combat 5

Ace Combat 5 rox

Sounds like a game of Ace Combat 5 (on the Playstation 2) I played the other day! It's boss yo.


I was able to kill all adversaries and accomplish the mission outnumbered 4 to 1. There is no current fielded jet that could accomplish this feat today.

–USAF F/A-22 Pilot After Operational Test Mission (1 F/A-22 vs. 4 Legacy Fighters)

Legacy Fighters are the F-16s and F-15s we've all come to know, so obviously the F/A-22 is able to outperform the fighters it has been designed to replace. There are rumors of another flight test floating around my detachment but being that I can't find any backup for it as of yet take it at face value. In this test 15 F-15s were pitted against the expected standard flight of 2 F/A-22s. Using standard tactics on F/A-22 took up position approximately 30 miles in front of the second F/A-22. The second F/A-22 went active with its radar system and targeted the F-15s, using a data link it passed that information to the first F/A-22 which used the data to target and fire upon the F-15s. When ammunition was expended the first F/A-22 fell back and the second F/A-22 took up its positon as the shooter and switched off its radar. The first F/A-22 turned on its radar and started feeding information to the second which targeted and fired on the remaining F-15s. The test resulted in the destruction of all the F-15s with no losses or damage to the F/A-22s.

Now, I think the F/A-22 fits into the Air Force mission perfectly. The USAF has based its aircraft off of the lessons learned in Vietnam for years now. Several of these principals of airpower include:

1. Air Superiority must be immediate. This means you can never allow the enemy time to reorganize or to set an invisible line your aircraft aren't allowed to cross, thereby giving the enemy a safe haven. The F/A-22 fits this role through its unrivaled air superiority abilities, even against our own fighter aircraft.

2. Air Superiority requires an investment in technology. Self explaintory, you can't win wars if you're behind the curve.

3. Technology has to be Revolutionary rather than Evolutionary. If your technology is simply based off something you had in the past the enemy can simply modify what he countered it with the first time, it's a simple case of an arms race, who beats who and for how long. By making your technology revolutionary the enemy has to do something just as revolutionary to counter it, requiring time and an investment from him, one which he may not be willing to make. The F/A-22 is revolutionary in every sense of the word, it's the first aircraft able to supercruise (which has been simply defined. It's the ability to fly at supersonic speed for a sustained amount of time without using afterburners. To reveal the exact powersetting and for exactly how long and how fast it can go flat out is only going to hand out information potential enemies can use to counter your technology), the first fighter which can lock on and fire on several targets with Semi-Active munitons, and the first true stealth fighter.

4. Vietnam was wrong, large numbers of aircraft with a low lethality can not win a war. The F/A-22 is one of the most lethal aircraft in active service in the world. Supercruise allows for a smaller number of aircraft to hold an area of equal, or possibly greater, size than our current fighters as well as giving the enemy less time to respond if the aircraft is detected.


Was this blog entry linked on some pro-plane or pro-government-waste website?

All these critics seem to have only read this one entry, not checking into the research POGO does on other topics -- or on this topic for that matter. Not that I'm mad that you are here...discussion is good, but it seems like you just got some mass email that encouraged you to come and post a negative comment accusing POGO of not having its facts straight, when you didn't even take the time to review those facts it openly provided you.

Beth at POGO

Bubblegum, your comment is fair. I'm no expert. But Colonel Riccioni is. He is working on a forthcoming report about the F/A-22. Here are few sections from the draft:

"Supersonic cruise fighters need a higher fuel fraction than that of subcruising fighters. It should be at least 32-33 percent and ideally 35 percent and above. That of the F-22 is lower than that of two fair subcruiser fighters, the F-4E and the F–15C, guaranteeing that the claims supercruise in the F-22 are specious. Specious means—deceptively attractive."

"Raptor advocates compare it [the F-22] with the worst supercruiser fighter in our military, the F–15C. The USAF constantly claims that the F–22 has a large supersonic cruise radius, but they lack insight into the subject of efficient supersonic cruise. And never, not even hardly ever, does the USAF quote its real measure—its supersonic radius on a practical supersonic combat mission with standard landing fuel reserves and fuel allowed for high speed combat. Supercruise fighters are a legacy that Col. John R. Boyd and I left the USAF. In summary, The Raptor is not a significant advance in basic fighter performance or supersonic cruise range, despite its expense. It is somewhat stealthy F–15C with advanced avionics and comparable to the latest Russian aircraft."

POGO Denizen

This enlightened discourse has certainly been, ummm, amusing. The strident F/A-22 advocates are certainly to be applauded for their, ummm, stridency? At $240 million apiece and rising, the F/A-22 is an advanced yet unproven aircraft, and increasingly irrelevant in the asymmetrical world of 4th Generation warfare conducted against entities other than the traditional nation-state. First, are blue-suited friends in the USAF were going to build 438 aircraft. Then it was 339. But wait, the damn thing keeps on getting more expensive! USAF's answer? Build less! They got it down to 277 (although GAO estimates 218), and now George W's 2006 budget has proposed further F/A-22 production cuts, possibly by a third. Armored humvees are expensive, you know. Assuming (and all you kids at POGO Blog know what happens when you assume) that George W.'s budget cuts stick, that gets you down to as few as approximately 180 F/A-22's. And what are these Raptors going to replace? The 736 F-15C and -15E aircraft currently in the active and guard fleet. I know what you kids are thinking. For $240 million+ apiece, you should be able to do better than a 1 for 1 exchange. Maybe, but the so-called experts have a term for the fiscal madness. It is called unilateral disarmament, F/A-22 fans. What is going to happen when it comes time to replace the F/A-22? How many F-35's will actually be built to replace the over 1,200 F-16 variants in the USAF fleet? If the military-industrial complex keeps playing their games, there won't be enough money in the budget to buy anything, and this situation will have begun in earnest when the current F-15/16/18 fleet still maintained air superiority, and the American taxpayers and the national interest would have benefited from leapfrogging a generation of fighter aircraft technology and not wasted billions on the F/A-22 boondoggle. Now what was that about K.R.'s bellybutton?


Well, the only problem with that article is it's over 4 years old and was revised less than a year after the F/A-22, then the YF-22, had first demonstrated the ability. I haven't seen anything perform flawlessly on the first run, that's why the call it testing. And the first flight, 21 September 1999, demonstrating the supercruise ability lasted 2 hours and Col. C. D. Moore was quoted as saying that the biggest problem was keeping the fighter under the target airspeed. There have been 5 years of development, and several redesigns of the airframe and engine since then. If you want to point something like that out I'd suggest more recent info.

Beth at POGO

Dear Brown, regarding F/A-22 supercruise, there is a report on our web site that may interest you. According to the report, "The F–22 has not yet demonstrated effective supersonic cruise."
link to report

The report is written by Colonel Riccioni who pioneered the Lightweight Fighter Program and supersonic cruise technology in the 1970s. He was one of the three legendary “Fighter Mafia” mavericks who forced the Pentagon to produce the F-16 to improve the military’s numerical air superiority. He served in the Air Force for 30 years, completed several stints as a fighter pilot and flew 55 different types of military aircraft over his career. He worked for Northrop Corporation for 17 years analyzing and managing aircraft programs, including the B-2 bomber. He defined the operational role of the B-2 bomber with conventional weapons.


The problem with some of these comments on this blog are that they take the fly boys word as the gospel. The reason this is a problem is that our fighter pilots often do not speak freely. I have the utmost respect for our Air Force pilots. They are the backbone of our country’s defense. They are literally our best and brightest, and they have sacrificed much to get where they are today. However, whenever you work so hard to get somewhere you usually don’t bite the hand that feeds you. By that, I mean if you want to keep flying and you want to keep getting promoted, you don’t criticize. You especially don’t “blow the whistle” on something like the F-22. Now add to that, how someday you may want to go work for Lockheed and you have boys with a conflict of interest. So of course the guys flying the plane are not going to be openly critical. That’s why retired fighter pilots usually make the most accurate critics. You should read about Col. Boyd and others like Col. Riccioni and their views on aircraft. There’s a good website you must go to: www.d-n.i.net


I keep hearing people whine about how we spent the money to make a next-generation fighter. Guys here's the plain facts. Most of the fighters we have now (the so called "Century Series") first started testing and flying in the late '60s and early '70s. If they were cars they'd all have historical plates. The military needs a new plane to keep up with what others are developing. The EU has the Eurofighter Typhoon, the Russian Federation has the Su-37 and the Su-47, China and Pakistan are developing the J-9 and the Chinese have the J-10 as their own personal project, and the Israelis are producing the Lavi. If the US doesn't get their own fighters produced we'll be behind the curve militarily. Unfortunately the US is now the front runner of military technology, the days where we were able use the technology developed by other nations is gone, this time we're the ones who are going to develop the technology and others are going to base theirs off ours.


I haven't seen any critical comments on the capabilities of the Raptor here. Just whether we need the plane or not--if we don't, then it should be canceled. You are correct to argue that the US will eventually need a new fighter. However many in and out of the Pentagon think we should leapfrog. In other words we should pour money into R&D while the planes we already have dominate the skies for the next decade or two. Meanwhile we can free up money for the needs we're not meeting now, i.e. bolstering our ground forces.


So it *was* an F22??? Cool! You think you *caught* the
Air Force admitting its agenda? I love their agenda.


I find myself left to wonder how many people here actually know anything about the capabilities of the F/A-22. Do any of you know what thrust vectoring does? How about the F/A-22 being the only aircraft in the world that can supercruise.

Next, for all of you complainin about the failures of the F/A-22, what do you expect from a plane that posseses so many new technologies. Do you really expect anything to perform perfectly right from the start?

And as for the recent crash. Go find me a plane that didn't crash. Many pilots view the F-14 Tomcat as the best air to air fighter currently used in combat for the US. I remember more than a few problems in the development of that plane.

My last point is that I see too many people here that are nearsighted. Sure there may not be any evidence of superior aircraft in developement now, but take some time to think. When new aircraft are being developed, do you really want to be rushing to build a new plane. I guarantee you that would cost even more. The F/A-22 cannot be defeated by any plane in existence today, or any plane that is developed in the next several years.

Don't say something is a waste of money if you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Beth at POGO

FYI, POGO has posted the test results for the F/A-22 done by the Pentagon's independent weapons tester here: link to results

Although there are some high points to the report, for the most part it is not terribly complimentary.

We will likely post the F/A-22 report for 2004 shortly as we've just received it.


A previous respondent wrote: "If someone actually has some useful criticism then they're worth engaging..." Sounds reasonable to me. My question is this: how many of the folks critizing the F/A-22 have actually read flight and test results or even other non-partisan reviews from certified defense specialists? I'll grant you that the plane is not perfect and costs alot, but I would be interested in where you get your knowledge about the plane. And please don't say the GAO...

And to the person that wrote "Using the Superbowl to advertise our weakness as a people (Bullies are really weak) only helps to perptuate our pathology for violence here in the USA." You certainly haven't talked to many pilots in the Air Force if you believe that's how they feel about their work!!


Using the Superbowl to advertise our weakness as a people (Bullies are really weak) only helps to perptuate our pathology for violence here in the USA. Besides that, there is not anything patriotic about supporting corporate welfare. Our Government continues to transfer public funds to the wealthy and privileged through such boondoggles as the F22. When it comes to wasting money the Pentagon has no peer. Keep up the great work POGO!

I think it would do some people some good to...I don't know, actually READ whats on the website? Any mention of groundhogs? No. Any mention of the election? No. Any pictures of Democratic Senators? No. Any pictures of Republican Senators? Yes.


Criticizing the jets at the Superbowl? You idiots are probably the sames ones who are ranting about tax dollars supporting that groundhog in Pennsylvania. It is like groundhog day. You lost the election! Get over it. Again!

the flyn hawyn

I'm confused, because I thought communism was about the government having control of all the money and spending it on itself. So, if POGO is trying to stop the government from wasting money, wouldn't that make them anti-communists? Maybe next time someone unwilling to actually read about the issues in favor of making a snap judegement that assumes the infalibility of the government would do better to call us fascists? Who knows...

pogo "ASSMAN" or "Where The Sun Doesn't Ever Shine" supporter,

Thanks for supporting my thoughts. You're one of the steller examples of the point of what I just wrote about pogo and it's (small) supporters here.

Signed: Anti-pogo

POGO Supporter

let's ignore the troll(s). If someone actually has some useful criticism then they're worth engaging, otherwise we're wasting our time.

POGO supporter

AS*MAN, you should try backing your arguments up with some substance instead of whining like a little dog yourself. Oh wait. You didn't have any arguments, did ya?

I accidentally stumbled across this when searching for news and after reading this and searching through pogo's site, it is easy to come to the conclusion that pogo is an ASS of an orginization! It must be one of those small insignificant groups that barks a whinny bark like a little dog, criticizing everything the Gov't does. If it is so bad, them move the hell out of the country!

In terms of the F/A-22, I'm a huge supporter. Your point that the USAF will be showing it off at the Superbowl to fullfill some agenda...so what??? This pogo org is such an ASS that it is definately not worth the time lending an ear to or supporting in any way shape or form!

Nate Clinton

I'm lost - how is the Super Bowl the "perfect venue" to showcase "air dominance capabilities"? Are they going to show us that the plane can fly (is that all there is to "dominance")? Are there going to be live-fire dogfight demonstrations with MiGs, with Top Gun theme music playing?

ChuckD - brilliant. You're absolutely right: Raptor is too cool a name to lose. Maybe they should use it on an updated version of the flag? f/l/a/g Raptor. Lowercase letters are hip, too, aren't they?


People, People, calm down. The Boys at Lockheed clearly called POGO Communists to get a rise out of them. POGO might be young and idealistic, but they are no commies. Defense contractors can never handle criticism even if it is constructive. They immediately want to turn the debate into Us vs Them or better yet U.S. vs Enemy. Every reasonable person knows the F-22 is a bad program, but the Pentagon has sunk too much money into it to turn back now. Besides, in true Pentagon fashion they have left themselves with few alternatives. There's not much to do now but swallow hard and watch the boondogle fly over the stadium while the American public is dazzled by it's cool shape.

Nate Clinton

Lance, non-profits aren't taxed because they don't make any ... profit.

I understand your cynicism, though, man. Really - why do we even bother getting worked up over things like this fighter plane when everyone just takes the government for a ride in the end anyway? The answer is: this time its the reverse - the government is taking US for a ride.

If they were literally taking me for a ride in this airplane, I might change my mind and start a write-in campaign for Rumsfeld '08. But no! Instead they use my hard-earned money (which could be used to, say, hire a few more teachers or something boring like that) for something that we might not need, and probably doesn't even work! And I don't get a ride!

All I can say is, that plane better have a flag on it somewhere.


(1) I'm sure this is obvious to everyone, exept the homophonetically challenged but waist and waste are two different words. Unless your talking about Rush Limbaugh and his girth.

(2) Suppose the defense department did cancel the Raptor, could we then name something else Raptor? I mean, its a pretty cool name and I'd hate to see it wasted. Perhaps if we changed the name to the F22 Boondoggle we couold then name something else Raptor. Maybe one of those unmanned drones I keep seeing outside my window. Also I like the F/A part of the name, the / is very hip. We definitely need to put the / in the name of more stuff.

Alberto Gonzalez= torture loving right wing nutball
Alberto/Gonzalez= Just a cool guy doing his bit for God and Country, I want to party with you Cowboy


All you nonprfoits suck off the gov't's dime. not to say some don't do good work but why should you be tax exempt,right? like I said, probably you do find more waste (sorry, ok, i made a tupo before) in the gov but everyone siphons off the treasury somehow, sooner or later. so maybe chill out sometimes like with theis f22 thing.

Nate Clinton

Personally, I'd rather waste my waist than consider POGO a waist. Let me guess: K.R. is the belly button! Too bad the government doesn't fund POGO... you'd all be using $80,000 toilets and could afford that Hummer you've been talking about incessantly.

Furthermore, as a real American, I think the government should be spending _more_ on flags. I don't see enough flags! Where are the flags? Here's my proposal: we start a national collective flag-making operation where everyone contributes all their income and we all share the burden of flag-making, each according to his or her abilities. Then we sell them to each other and use the revenue to buy (a) more flags and (b) food rationed by a centralized government system. Everyone has a share. Communism is defeated forever at the sight of our flags!

We're in a flag crisis! By 2018, there will more flags used than we currently make every year. Collectivize patriotism, before we run out of flags and can't conquer things like the moon anymore.


Umm Lance, "POGO does not accept gifts from corporations, government agencies, or labor unions." (from POGO)

Lance F.

how muich money does the government spend to subsidize nonprofits like POGo or americans For Tax Reform? You could consider that waist.

THE Real American

Hey, love this blog or leave it.


Real American

You Commies probably complain about the amount of money the government spends on flags! You complain about everything to do with America.Why don't you just merge with the ACLU and avoid the duplication.

The comments to this entry are closed.