Deseret News | Hill AFB is finalist to land new F-35s

Reader comments
Hill AFB is finalist to land new F-35s

JAMMER | 10:53 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

First off, I am greatful that this aircraft is coming to HAFB because that means I will have a job working on these hangers. But this fighter is a "close strike fighter." A lot of good it will do if someone attacks our country or we have to help defend another. The F-22 is what the government needs to focus on. It's better than the F-35 and has the same, better and more capabilities than the F-35. Seems to me that the "administration" needs to get their priorities in order. The Air Force wants the F-22 more than the F-35. And you can only blame Obama, not the Bush administration for this one.

Bnick | 10:59 a.m. Oct. 29, 2009

Sounds like a great pick up for Hill and the surrounding areas to make sure HAFB stayus open. Congrats to all invovled.

What do I have to do . . . | 12:22 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

. . . to get a USED F-16 to defend my neighborhood just in case the F-35s don't fit the bill?

Comments continue below

Re: JAMMER | 12:35 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

i couldnt agree with you more!!! this is definitely obama to blame!!!...of course...i had a bad burger earlier today and i blame obama for that as well...

Real Threat Assessment | 1:31 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

It will be 2018-2020 before any foreign fighter aircraft becomes a potent matching threat to either the F-22 or F-35, the only 5th generation fighters currently in existence. That would be the Russian Sukhoi PAK FA, which is in full-scale development. The first test flight has not yet even occurred. The very first production aircraft will not become operational until sometime between 2015 and 2017.

It will take Russia several years (well into the 2020s) before they match the 187 total F-22 aircraft that will be built. Until then, no other country will match the capability of the F-35, let alone the F-22. By then the U.S. will have commenced full-scale development of the 6th generation fighters that will replace both the F-22 and F-35 fighters.

My Opinion: The F-22 was built to replace the F-15. It was the correct decision to stop F-22 production at 187 aircraft. The F-35 is being built to replace the Air Force F-16 and the Navy/Marine F/A-18 fighters. We should use those originally planned F-22 funds to accelerate the F-35 production run.

F-35 | 1:34 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

The F-22 is a fabulous warplane, but it fills a need that no longer exists. There is no country with whom we will need to defend ourselves with an air superiority craft.

For the cost of a single F-22 we can purchase and operate numerous drones, which are much more valuable in our present and future conflicts.

The F-35 is a versatil and more affordable option than the F-22 for a manned aircraft. It has capacities which exceed any forseeable requirement. It has the ability to take off/land from carriers or short runways which significantly increase deployability. It is more affordable to produce, operate, and maintain than the F-22.

I anticipate that our current aircraft will be the last manned military aircraft (both the f-22 and the f-35 can, by the way, be operated remotely). 20 years from now, all branches of the armed forces will have converted to primarily unmanned aircraft.

sandyshoes | 1:51 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

maybe you better read more reports on the F-22. Obama didn't ask for it to be cancelled. It costs too much to maintain and has and may never see combat. Rusts in the rain, etc, etc. Look up the reports on it. Don't just trust your local news. Even you that said you would work on it. You ought to know better.

BobP | 1:58 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

I would seel my soul, well maybe, fro a chance to fly one of those.

Astroturf | 4:21 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

Obama? The Air Force pushed to cancel the F-22.

Beauty Pagent | 5:08 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

I'm not sure I want to think about Rob Bishop in a swimsuit or an evening gown.

Anonymous | 7:30 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009

That is one sweet ride right there!

Whoo hooo!

Astroturf is Wrong | 4:30 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

The Air Force didn't cancel the F-22. Obama and his Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates did. In fact, Gates was almost psycho about it, so much so that that was the real reason behind his firing of Air Force Chief Michael T. Mosley, who was well known for lobbying Congress on the essentiality of the F-22. The current AF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, testified in front of House Armed Services Committee last May on the record and said his professional judgement was that "243 F-22s was the right number, " and that only building 187 as Gates wanted would result in "high risk" to our national air plan in war time. But the left-stream media, which is in the tank for Obama and is typically anti-defense anyway, let it slide. The outgoing Commander of AIr Combat Command, General Corley, issued a scathing letter before he left reiterating the high risk that Obama/Gates have embraced. Gates' main issue is F-22 is "expensive." So, Obama needs money to shift to pay Community Organizers, like ACORN - which got $5 billion in th so-called Stimulus bill. THose are the facts, Astroturf. Get real.

Yeah, | 5:50 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Yeah, that was pretty much the dumbest metaphor ive ever heard...it makes you wonder, what is he doing in his spare time?? Watching swimsuit competitions?

awsomeron | 5:52 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

It appears that I got the Wrong Plane, shows how much I pay atention to anything Obama does or says.

In reality I do, everything and intently, I just got the Numbers switched.

I am happy for Hill AFB this will bring more people and more jobs and help secure the community $ wise. It will keep High Quality Officer and Enlisted People in the area.

It will also make Hill AFB a prime target in the event of a War. which it most likely already is.

Amen to Astroturf is Wrong | 7:22 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

There are several corporations here in Massachusetts that used to manufacture components for the F-22 but were shut down by Obama / Gates so wake up and pay attention.

Anonymous | 7:44 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Re: Jammer

How on earth does an article like this turn into a diatribe against President Obama?

Himself | 7:46 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Acorn got 5 billion? Does anyone really believe that?

Where | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

can I get one? So long Interstate 15.

The F-22 is AF PORK! | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

The F-35 is going to be the long-term aircraft. It is supportable outside of the U.S. Other services and other friendly Countries are buying it thereby reducing its cost. Bush’s administration was the first to attempt to kill the F-22, because it is not sustainable. It is one dimensional and the AF has higher needs. Sorry, if your job is based on the welfare system of the F-22, but it needs to die as quick death.
The F-22 is a one-dimensional PORK project. It is similar to the Army’s Crusader Field Artillery system. It is designed to be constructed in 48 of 50 States to guarantee that congress wouldn’t stop the pork. None of the other services are buying it, because it is unsupportable outside of the U.S. It is a fine example of the Fighter Jock Generals running the Air Force into the ground.
It is all about support and the AF’s support aircraft are two generations older then the F-15 that are being replaced. Put the money into the true work horses in the AF — THE SUPPORT FLEET!

Mosley fired by Bush | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Air Force Chief Michael T. Mosley was fired because the AF Fighter Jock Generals didn't pay attention to its strategic mission. You know, remember those tiny weapons that helped deter the Soviets? The nukes. They weren't scared of our fighters.
The AF shipped a nuke cap to Tiawan and didn't know it until, THEY REPORTED IT TO US! The real bombs were transfered across the U.S. and everyone thought they were dummies.

Give me a break.

Airpower | 9:05 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Anyone arguing that the F-22 is "pork," is not grounded in reality. Yes, Moseley was ostensibly fired over the nuke issue, but the real reason was F-22 lobbying which angered SecDef Gates who opposed F-22. Calling them "fighter jocks" while cute, belies your biases and displays your total misunderstanding of the use of Airpower in today's fights. To see Russia and CHina fielding 5th Generation fighters this year and next should cause some pause. Yes, Al Queda may not have fighters, but aggressive nation states 15 years from now (who will they be??) will. China and Russia sell to anyone, including Iran and North korea. Validated military requirements showed a need for a minimum of 243 F-22 aircraft. Gates stopped at 187 (actually 186 since one crashed and no replacement). Airpower is always the first thing considered in any major military operation and is what we, as a nation, have begun to take for granted. Yes, we may be smugly secure right now, but the F-22 decision has repercussions 15 and 20 years from now. It is highly capable and a tremendous force multiplier. And Gates (a non aviator) was wrong.

MIke | 10:47 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Why do they need an environmental impact study? What a waste of time and money. We all know jets make noise, especially small, powerful fighter planes. Big deal. I personally don't see why we even need to replace the perfectly capable F-16. It does a variety of things and is quite possibly the best fighter/bomber since the P-47 Thunderbolt, and the best fighter since the F-86H Sabre Jet.

Jack Fids | 11:04 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

The A-10 is a GROUND SUPPORT & ATTACK Aircraft, NOT a Bomber.
PLUS
Davis_ Monthan and Luke AFB's in AZ are also still under consideration for the F-35..as of 6PM last night according to the USAF Spokesperson on TV. As for the F-22...it is overpriced, under performing and cannot fly in rain least the paint peel off and then it is w/o ANY stealth features what so ever, meaning it is worthless in combat.

JAMMER | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 30, 2009

To Annnymous: the reason why it's against Obama is begause he and his administration pulled the plug.

To MIke: The F-16 is so out dated, it's not even funny. Both the F-15 and F-16 are post-Vietnam and Korean War technology. There was a need for a new fighter.

I have a hard time justifying selling our own military equipment to other countries, regardless if they are "friendly" or not. I do admit, the F-22 is expensive, bat thats the risk i am willing to take to know that I will be free. I would feel better knowing we have something that the rest of the world can't purchase. I was always told to beat your enemy, you need to be 2 steps ahead of him. The f-22 was our step. Wait till china and russia get there fighters in fleet. We will be wishing we had mor F-22's.

RE: Airpower | 12:16 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Check the AF GO records. There are very few GO’s in the AF, especially 3 and 4-stars, that aren’t from the fighter community. The people that run the AF are the logistics, transporters, services… The AF has GO pilots running DLAs and other support commands. The pilots don’t really interact with the support bubbas until they are an LTC AND a squadron commander. The pilots are not qualified to run anything outside of a flying command. The Fighter community is currently running the whole AF.

Air Superiority is ONE of the AF’s Missions, and it does it well, but if the AF doesn’t invest in the whole mission, there will be no tankers (1950s airframe), AWACs (1960s), or support infrastructure to support ANY aircraft traveling further then a tank of fuel. For an F-22, that would mean going from here to the west desert and back. The F-22 can’t be supported outside of the US.

Invest in a multi-mission AC (F-35) that all of the services want, kill single mission AC (F-22), and put the savings in the support fleet.

RE:Jammer | 12:28 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Bush attempted to kill the whole F-22 program. It isn't what the country needs. It is pork. The AF planned it to be pork and survive. 48 of 50 states are involved in its construction, so that the congress couldn't lose its pork.

The F-22 is part of DOD's "job's program" and the congress' porkbelly system.

Bush, Gates and Obama are right. Kill some of the pork and eat some other white meat.

RE: Airpower | 1:07 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Agree, one of the first considerations in war is airpower AND SPACE(the high ground). Look at our past actions and you will see that the service that first provides airpower are the Naval services and they are buying F-35s.

They are also updating their refuellers, EW, ECW and recon birds. The AF can learn a lot from the other services on how to fight a war. The other services can learn a lot from the AF on how to influence the Congress.

The AF needs to get involved in the war and quit playing political gamesmanship.

No Threat Yet | 1:31 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Re: Airpower | 9:05 a.m.

"To see Russia and CHina fielding 5th Generation fighters this year and next should cause some pause."

Not correct. You need to read "Real Threat Assessment|1:31 p.m. Oct. 29, 2009" above. Russia is the closest but their first operational 5th Generation fighter will not become until 2015 at the earliest. Russia's first flight test has not even occurred. It will be 2018-2020 before any foreign fighter aircraft becomes a potent matching threat to either the F-22 or F-35.

Senator Hatch | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Have you complained yet about federal spending? It is different isn't it when the pork comes to Utah...

Great | 3:58 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

I'll sleep alot better knowing these multimillion dollar toys are being flown around for someones entertainment. I'm sure my neighbor with cancer will feel alot better too. He can't get decent treatment and may die soon but he'll feel better knowing the evil Ruskies or Chinese or some other boogeyman can't get him.

JMT | 9:20 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

Right now we could take the Vietnam era F-4 Phantom II, digitize it and completely outclass what the Russians have to offer, which is the SU-30/33. Fact is, most of those planes are not even flyable.

Democrats are into complete and total welfare. Republicans are into complete and total warfare. Americans get stuck with the bill.

This is like the Navy pushing for a brand new combat cruiser up until last year, to destroy Soviet cruiser squadrons that haven't floated since 1991.

Eisenhow, no right wing wack, warned us of the Military Industrial Complex. He was right on the money.

Reagan and so many others have warned us of the welfare State.

In any case, we fiddle with fancy airplanes while America's freedom is washing down a revolutionary Bolsheviks drain. We have turned over currency policy to the IMF and the G-20. What this means is that nothing else matters. We are no longer a free country. We are no longer a free people. Sadly, we're not even close to smart to enough to realize this.

Now Obama plans to sign the Copenhagen Treaty. We are done for. Put a fork in it.

Anonymous | 9:54 p.m. Oct. 30, 2009

JMT,

Right on the money.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Lm Otero, Associated Press

The Lockheed Martin Joint Strike Fighter, shown being unveiled in 2006, is a next-generation fighter jet meant to replace the aging F-16. The F-35 Lightning II can carry both bombs and missiles.

Gallery (4 photos)