F-22 debate open

[EtherealN]

sinelnic,

 

#1 is not strictly true. It is true that the US (like pretty much all other countries in the world) use what could be called imaginary money in that new money can be created out of nothing. However, this is not "free", because whenever money is introduced that does not equate to real growth in the economy it causes inflation, which decreases the value of all pre-existing money - including money the government holds in reserve and all the money (of that currency) held by all private individuals, institutions and corporations within the country.

 

Indeed, part of many countries' economic policy is that they deem a certain amount of inflation to be desirable, with the objective of stimulating private individuals to consume their paychecks rather than put them towards savings, which is hoped to stimulate the economy. However, they also often realize that too much inflation is also bad. For this reason they cannot create an unlimited amount of money just because they want to (the germans tried to pay the reparations for WW1 through this method, and the result is well known - there was a very real cost associated to this "free" money).

 

Also, having too much fun with inflation can cause serious issues with the trade balance and place the whole country in a very bad economic situation no matter how many and how good guns they have.

 

My own opinion about what would have been the better (if any) thing to spend that one trillion would be foreign debt. The People's Republic of China holds more than half a trillion dollars in US bonds, and there's more countries out there that the US might not want to owe money. Someone being greatly in debt to you is a very real position of power, and the US can't just say "nah, who cares, won't pay you" because then they'll completely destroy their credit rating.

 

Now, I don't really know if I would personally say that it would be better to seek to pay off that debt than develop the F-22. First of all, the F-22 is a program that has been ongoing for a long time, the money is already spent, and it's very difficult to judge what difference it would have made. And since I'm also not privy to briefings at the Pentagon I have difficulty saying how badly the F-22's are needed for security and if that would trump the problem of owing money to the PRC and other potentially hostile powers.

[sinelnic]

sinelnic,

 

#1 is not strictly true. It is true that the US (like pretty much all other countries in the world) use what could be called imaginary money in that new money can be created out of nothing. However, this is not "free", because whenever money is introduced that does not equate to real growth in the economy it causes inflation, which decreases the value of all pre-existing money - including money the government holds in reserve and all the money (of that currency) held by all private individuals, institutions and corporations within the country.

 

Hi EtherealN. What you describe about money supply is absolutely true, but applies when the money is good only within your own frontiers. Now, up until very recently, the only currency you could use to buy oil -the prime raw material of any economy- was dollars. So, imagine you are, say, Argentina, and want to buy oil because you don´t have enough: first you have to get some dollars, because the fake ones you print are not really good enough to fool the arabs. So in order to get dollars, you have to sell something to the US. Since the US has no interest whatsoever in your lousy currency, you have to sell them an actual thing, probably something that took labor or at least has some intrinsic value in it, say, food.

So the actual transaction is, you send food to the US, and they send you back "paper". In fact, actually they just modulate an electronic signal to let you know that you can come by and collect your paper any time you want.

 

So, extrapolating, if country A wants to perform any economic transaction with country B, whoever those countries are, they need to do that using US dollars, so the US is basically profiteering (i.e. getting free stuff) from every commercial transaction in the world. It is far more complicated than this, but the general idea is true. The US main export is Dollars, hence the debt.

 

With the irruption of the Euro the story changed and as Asia develops its own currency this will no longer exist, but since about the vietnam era the US has been effectively subsidized by the world.

 

Hence the US can freely "print" much more money than your average country because the US dollar operates(d) as the global de facto currency.

[EtherealN]

Not quite. It is true that the Feds have a lot wider margins than most other currency issuers because of the international nature of the currency, but all that actually gives you is a greater pool of money that spreads the effect. You do not gain any kind of immunity from the effects of issuing more money.

 

Your trade example is also too simplified, since you ignore the role of financial institutions as middlemen in transactions. A more down-on-earth example would be that until the DVD version of DCS:BS was released the only way I could get the game was through using dollars (well, or flying to russia, but for the sake of the argument we ignore that one). I never got any dollars though, yet I still got the game. How? Simple, I gave some SEKs (that's so funny) to my bank, who happened to have dollars, and they gave dollars to ED.

 

All you really need to manage such a transaction is someone, that for some reason, wants your currency. The reason in the case of my transaction was that the bank makes some money through charging me more SEKs than the dollars were worth.

 

And no matter how international the currency is, the main influence on the value of the money is still the area that uses them the most - and that is the US in this case. An absolute majority of dollars are in circulation in the US, not the rest of the world, just like there's Argentinian money over here. I can go down any bank day, without making an appointment, and walk out of there with Argentinian money. Now, I may be unable to use it in stores, but I have actually used not only SEK, but also NOK, DK, ISK, dollars, euros and rubles in regular department stores, gas stations and so on here at home. The modern reality is that all currencies that have any semblance of stability get accepted at most places with a concentration of either traffic or people - they'll just add a handling fee.

 

But the value of what I get for the dollar will be impacted over here by the overall dollar availability just like SEK availability will have an impact on what I get for the SEK. More dollars available = easier to get hold of dollars = less SEK spent per dollar.

 

Anyway, this thread was about the F-22, not the pitfalls of imaginary money, so let's not derail too far. :P

[sinelnic]

Of course its not unlimited... but to settle in the middle, the true cost for the US economy of the F-22 program bar any profits from it, is many times smaller than what an equivalent project would have truly costed in any other country in the world, adjusted for economy size. That was my point, I stand by it.

 

Anyways I´d much more like to discuss my second point... if there´s any information on the subject I´d be more than happy to absorv it...

[Vekkinho]

Let's just put it this way:

 

There's no reason for having too many F-22 in the fleet, Russian 1st gen stealth is yet to happen and IMHO Russian stealth technology lags >20 years behind US.

 

So when Russian PAK-FA finally gets airborne we'll count decades before quantity allows an IAP of PAK-FAs to be formed. Look at the Su-32/34 case, I first saw it back in early 90s when I was just a teeneage punk, I'm a mid aged punk now and there's like 5 of them operational in total.

 

By the time PAK-FA goes operational and first PAK-FA wings get created I'll lose all my teeth.

 

By that time man piloted aircraft would be a thing of the past and F-22 will be dispalyed in museums of the world...

 

Just my 2 cents that say that PAK-FA isn't a Raptor's main adversary, in fact I can't see one hence the number of Raptors needed is ery questionable...

[mikoyan]

My view of the problem is that the US military needs is an aircraft that can deliver close air support with modern weapons without being too expensive. Unfortunately jet-fighters are getting very expensive even for the US. I guess that what they need is more a-10 and some aircrafts like the supertucano. We have been very successful using the supertucano against terrorist groups, because it can deliver laser guided bombs and can operate at night with the night vision goggles; it is relatively cheap; easy to operate; can land in short runways or roads and has modern avionics; that is why we haven't acquired something equivalent to our neighbors (venezuela) su-30, which to us would be an overkill.

 

Part of the problems is that the US Air force wants to have the best equipment possible thus expensive aircrafts. It is the same problem we have in Colombia, we have an aging fleet of aircrafts, we want f-16s, but f-16 are expensive and the congress (US Congress)wont approve it, then; we choose the grippen, which is even more expensive, and again the congress (this time colombian) congress wont approve it; but what we truly need is a turboprop airplane like the Tucano.

One thing is what we want and another thing what it is needed.

[Pilotasso]

Pak FA will be built by india and exported to others, its not like a lone russian adventure anymore. Besides no one wants parity. If its operators cant match quality theyll go for quantity thats for sure.

[GGTharos]

Blah, blah, blah.

 

Try something from a source that has a clue to call 'remarkable' or 'amazing' or whatever your nitpick of the day is.

 

http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp

 

;)

 

First meaning:

Remarkable - worthy of notice, worth noticing or commenting on

Amazing - causing amazement: so extraordinary or wonderful as to be barely believable or cause extreme surprise

 

They are not synonyms in this context because pretty much everybody on this thread has known for long time that the F-22 program was canceled. Thus, the news bit was not amazing at all. But it was remarkable, worth noticing or commenting on.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

The fact is the program is canceled GGTharos, for well know reasons, some of which were mentioned by Rachel in her report. Spending our treasure on weapons system we don't need makes us more vulnerable.

 

BTW, your source of info comes from the "Air Force Association"? "The Air Force Association (AFA) is an independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization ...". The report you quote is not signed by anybody? GGTharos, are you the author of the report? This looks like a blah, blah report to me.

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP!

 

Blah, blah, blah.

 

Try something from a source that has a clue to call 'remarkable' or 'amazing' or whatever your nitpick of the day is.

 

http://www.afa.org/edop/2009/edop_7-13-09.asp

 

;)

[topol-m]

"Ex-Lockheed engineer claims F-22 tech 'defective'

Associated Press

 

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_F_22_LAWSUIT?SITE=TXHAR&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

[GGTharos]

Read the last few sentences.

[topol-m]

I have. But the court not Gresham has the last word :D

[GGTharos]

Such is the truth :D

[159th_Viper]

Such is the truth :D

 

"Truth........?

 

You can't handle the Truth! Son, we live in a World that has Walls. And those Walls have to be guarded by Men with Guns. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a Greater Responsibility than you can possibly Fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that Luxury. You have the Luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while Grotesque and Incomprehensible to you, saves lives...

 

You don't want the Truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at Parties, you want me on that Wall. You need me on that Wall.

We use words like Honor, Code, Loyalty...We use these words as the Backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a Punchline.

 

I have neither the Time nor the Inclination to explain myself to a man who Rises and Sleeps under the Blanket of the very Freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said Thank You and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a Weapon and Stand a Post.

 

Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!"

 

 

:P

[GGTharos]

... I just want my F-22!!!

[Pilotasso]

your a marine viper?

[topol-m]

"...I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while Grotesque and Incomprehensible to you, saves lives..."

 

"Santiago" - that has to be a codename for F-22. Its death saves lives :D

"Grotesque and Incomprehensible existence" - that has to be the codename of F-15. It saved a lot of lives - and took others :D

 

 

"I suggest you pick up a Weapon and Stand a Post."

 

And now i`m really starting to imagine GGTharos standing post with an AK-47 in his arms. :D

Edited November 14, 2009 by topol-m

[GGTharos]

"Santiago" - that has to be a codename for F-22. Its death saves lives :D

"Grotesque and Incomprehensible existence" - that has to be the codename of F-15. It saved a lot of lives - and took others :D

 

That grotesque existence you speak of is probably the F-4. ;)

 

Or perhaps, a Su-15? Who's to tell.

 

And now i`m really starting to imagine GGTharos standing post with an AK-47 in his arms. :D

 

I prefer an M16!

[159th_Viper]

your a marine viper?

 

Negative. SADF 1989-1991

[Wilde]

Even if it was true, the guy must be stupid. If he was such an idealist he should have sued LM 13 years ago. Because now the US have spent the money and there's no real way back. What's his point?

[tflash]

Well, I guess we wont be seeing F-22 over Belgium soon:

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_F22_100409w/

 

Good to know our horrible autumn weather includes anti-stealth air defense for free! :D

[GGTharos]

I guess you're right, since they don't deploy there ... but if you read the rest of the article you might find it has nothing to do with the weather and nothing to do with stealth ;)

[tflash]

That's the real problem: the F-22's got fixed, but the Belgian wheather is still lousy ;-)

[Vekkinho]

Well, I guess we wont be seeing F-22 over Belgium soon:

 

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_F22_100409w/

 

Good to know our horrible autumn weather includes anti-stealth air defense for free! :D

 

:doh:

I expect better than that for a 150mil US$!

[topol-m]

Now would be the perfect time for GGtharos` response :D

Start counting: 1...2...3...