View Full Version : Stop the F-22??
Our tax dollars at work - and so it goes... ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Stop the F-22
Sarah Jaffe, The Nation, 14 Jul 2009
As symbols of the overinflated military budget go, the F-22 takes the cake. The Washington Post recently reported that the jet costs $44,000 an hour to fly (in addition to its $350 million price tag) and requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it spends in the air. Military experts agree that the F-22 is outdated and unnecessary. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has called the plane a "niche silver-bullet solution," and has urged President Obama to veto any bill that continues reinstated funding for the jet.
The F-22 was designed in the 1980s to fight presumable Soviet fighter planes that had yet to be developed, and has suffered since its inception from flaws and budget overruns. It has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan. There is even a lawsuit, recently reopened, alleging that Lockheed Martin, producers of the jet, has knowingly supplied defective F-22s to the Air Force since 1995.
In a Washington Post op-ed, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz wrote:
This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.
We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.
Yet Congress seems determined to keep manufacturing the jet despite Gates' recommendation to cancel the program. The House approved a measure to spend $400 million on the F-22, and the Senate is expected to soon vote.
Both the United Steelworkers and the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers are appealing to lawmakers to keep production going in order to save jobs but there are cheaper and less bellicose ways to provide manufacturing jobs for American workers than building planes we don't need that hemorrhage cash. The problem is that the military budget is such a sacred cow that Secretary Gates' four percent increase in his budget was spun as, essentially, a cut that would open America up to terrorist attacks.
That's why the full Senate is taking up the issue of the F-22 this week, after the Armed Services committee voted to spend $1.75 billion more on the jet. The votes are, for once, not split along party lines--Senator John McCain is an ardent opponent of the jet, while staunch Democrats like John Kerry and Edward Kennedy are on the F-22's side. But Lockheed has done a good job of spreading the money and jobs around--more than 40 states have F-22-related jobs, and 58 percent of Lockheed's political contributions go to Democrats.
Under President Obama, we have a chance to cut some of the waste from the military budget and redirect that money to critical healthcare initiatives and for programs that will provide more jobs at less cost.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/actnow/451557/stop_the_f_22
longrange1947
07-15-2009, 06:02
Interesting, 400 mil for a 350 mil each bird. That shoudl really fund alot of nothing. :munchin :D
So We are short 1 plane ?
Typical Political Sacred Cows....
Have I mentioned lately I hate Politicians, almost as much as Ex-Wifes.... Almost....
rubberneck
07-15-2009, 08:21
Lockheed won the JSF contract and is in production with the F-35. At 60% of the cost of the F-22 the Air Force could field more F-35's for the same amount of money with no job "loss" for Lockheed.
Somehow I get the feeling that the F-22 is this generations version of the Seawolf. Both offered a quantum improvement over our current systems but both are frightfully expensive and our current systems are still better than anything we are likely to face in the next 30 years. Like the Seawolf the Democrats will probably manage to keep the F-22 alive even if the Secretary of Defense doesn't want it. I wonder what you guys could do if Congress was to find a couple hundred million dollars to add to your budget.
Dozer523
07-15-2009, 08:54
It's all marketing and who the marketer is.
We would not EVEN be HAVING this discussion if AFCHIC was in charge of selling them to "Fur-in-ers" :D Heck, She talked me into TWO C-17s! (She said they'd "look great with a red, white and blue bow at Christmas time". . . and she threw in the up-graded seatcovers and there is a rebate! :p)
From the category of "No one asked me, but..."
In the absence of a credible threat with advanced technology systems, next generation platforms should be treated as "proof of concept" research and development projects.
Long ago, I'd have rebooted the A-10 project. (IMO, the Air Force would not be having its current identity crisis if it took more seriously close air support.)
I'd have kept at least one Iowa-class BB in service. (Sometimes, seeing the whacking stick is as important as the whacking itself.)
Is it wise to have tactical aircraft that are geometrically more expensive than most of their targets?
I'd bet QPs could do some good with $350 million.
I'd have kept at least one Iowa-class BB in service. (Sometimes, seeing the whacking stick is as important as the whacking itself.)
Concur - MOO - Mighty Mo belongs in Pearl Harbor - the Alpha and Omega of our WW2 experiences - but the Iowa or Wisconsin should still be the flagship of one of our fleets - tradition and continuity is a powerful image to use against an enemy such as al Quaeda. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
rubberneck
07-15-2009, 17:17
Concur - MOO - Mighty Mo belongs in Pearl Harbor - the Alpha and Omega of our WW2 experiences - but the Iowa or Wisconsin should still be the flagship of one of our fleets - tradition and continuity is a powerful image to use against an enemy such as al Quaeda. ;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
What about the New Jersey?;) Of the four it was the most decorated and in service the longest.
What about the New Jersey?;) Of the four it was the most decorated and in service the longest.
Not Heartland of America enough for me - YMMV. :rolleyes:
richard's $.02 :munchin
Not Heartland of America enough for me - YMMV.
Jonathan Utley's An American Battleship at Peace and War: The U.S.S. Tennessee ISBN-13, 978-0700604920 does a nice job of discussing what I consider one of the modern navy's six public relations victories: codifying the fleet as a symbol of America. This effort was greatly advanced by the decision to name battleships after states.
The hijack continues. Utley paid a terrible price for one of the few bad decisions made by the editors of the Modern War Studies series. His work was published to look like a coffee table book.:confused: His school was wary of the book because of its appearance and it was not considered seriously in his bid for a promotion.:eek: (MOO, it is first rate.)
/end thread hijack
Roguish Lawyer
07-15-2009, 19:19
What about the New Jersey?;) Of the four it was the most decorated and in service the longest.
I was just on board -- it's a museum in Camden, NJ now. Definitely worth the trip across the river for anyone who makes it to Philly.
rubberneck
07-16-2009, 07:23
I was just on board -- it's a museum in Camden, NJ now. Definitely worth the trip across the river for anyone who makes it to Philly.
I got to spend a night on board the NJ two months ago with my son's boy scout troop. I doubt it will be an experience that he will ever forget.
Richard, as a guest here I am always mindful of what I say and to whom. With that I mind I will simply say this, the Battleship New Jersey is every bit as important to our nation's history as any other battleship regardless of what state she is named for.
Lets keep it simple folks
The Iowa in the Pacific and the New Jersey in the Atlantic.
Richard, as a guest here I am always mindful of what I say and to whom. With that I mind I will simply say this, the Battleship New Jersey is every bit as important to our nation's history as any other battleship regardless of what state she is named for.
Obviously, my glib remark hit an unintended nerve - for which I apologize - it wasn't meant to do so. However, regarding the Iowa Class of BBs - the Iowa and Wisconsin are the two the USN maintained in best condition of readiness under the National Defense Authorization Act and on the Naval Vessel Registry - and the Wisconsin and Missouri were the last two BBs to fire in support of military operations (GW1).
My support would be to either recommission the Iowa - the flagship for that class of BBs, the last being maintained, and the only one which is not a museum ship - or the Wisconsin as the last of the active BBs to perform its mission. ;)
On another note - I can only imagine the levels of political maneuvering which would occur if we ever sought to bring this about. :eek:
FWIW - I've visited the Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas (the oldest of the BBs) - and always marvel at the emotions one cannot help but feel when walking their decks (or above them in the case of the Arizona) and amongst their spaces.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
........FWIW - I've visited the Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas (the oldest of the BBs) - and always marvel at the emotions one cannot help but feel when walking their decks (or above them in the case of the Arizona) and amongst their spaces.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Since you brought it up - The USS North Carolina has opened up many more decks for it's tour. Hitting the long trail through it's decks will wear a VFOG out.
rubberneck
07-16-2009, 08:51
Richard I apologize for taking your comment personally.
Richard I apologize for taking your comment personally.
Your reaction was not atypical of someone who takes pride in the heritage of their community. :lifter
And some attempts at humor go over better than others. ;)
As to the topic - my vote goes to BB-61 USS Iowa whose nickname BTW is "The Big Stick" - perfect!
Richard's $.02 :munchin
longrange1947
07-16-2009, 10:40
Since you brought it up - The USS North Carolina has opened up many more decks for it's tour. Hitting the long trail through it's decks will wear a VFOG out.
That is a fact. :D
Also watch very closely the route as it is very easy to miss some of the newly opened sections when you are gawking at all the stuff below decks.
It looks like the savings of the F-35 are not going to be realized any time soon.
Source is here (http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003175295).
Report: F-35 Work Falls Behind Two More Years
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff
An internal Pentagon oversight board has reported that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program is two years behind schedule, according to multiple congressional aides familiar with the findings.
Talk of the program’s problems comes amid intense debate over the future of another fighter plane, the F-22. Defenders of the F-22 argue that continued production is vital to national security.
The White House and some lawmakers who favor halting the production of any new F-22 warplanes say the F-35 will fill the gap and meet the nation’s combat aircraft needs.
Senators and aides now lament that the Pentagon oversight panel’s more pessimistic view on the F-35 program was not publicly released during the F-22 debate. They are calling for more open disclosure of the problems with the development of the F-35.
The Pentagon’s Joint Estimate Team (JET), which was established to independently evaluate the F-35 program, is at odds with the Joint Program Office, which runs the F-35 program, the aides said. The oversight panel’s calculations determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016, rather than 2014, as the program office has said.
That’s assuming there are no further problems with the program, which has already faced cost overruns and schedule delays. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) said the delay could cost as much as $7.4 billion. The discrepancy between the Joint Estimate Team and the Joint Program Office was noted in a March report by the GAO, but it received little attention at the time.
“In every parameter and in every respect, the Joint Program Office’s projections were always a hell of a lot rosier than what the Joint Estimate Team found,” said one Senate aide who was briefed on the findings.
Sen. Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., who has often criticized the F-35 program and has called it the “Joint Strike Failure,” said his attempts to get internal Pentagon data on the program have often been rebuffed.
“They are wrapped so tight on that F‑35,” said Bond, who added that the Pentagon is so invested in the program that it is loath to release negative information, especially during a debate over Air Force funding.
“They bet too much on the F-35. It’s too big to fail,” Bond said. “It’s like Citigroup.”
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said there is no delay in the completion of the first production aircraft, which is due next year, but he said more testing is needed to determine whether full production would be able to begin on schedule.
“The JET is not the gospel. It is but one view, albeit an important one, of our testing program,” Morrell said. “The program office has a very different view. The truth is that we don’t know which will prove to be correct, but there’s no reason to believe our testing regime will result in the kind of delays the JET is predicting.”
The Joint Estimate Team’s report was given to congressional committees last year and was not hidden or suppressed by the Pentagon, Morrell said. He said it is now being dredged up by F-22 supporters.
Moreover, the Pentagon has the ability to fund increased testing to make up for any potential delays, he said.
The administration has requested billions of dollars more than last year to hasten the production of F-35 test aircraft, Morrell noted, saying that the program’s success depends on the funding.
John R. Kent, a spokesman for the F-35’s main contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., said that, despite the estimate team’s findings, there has been no change made to the official F-35 production schedule.
Cheryl Limrick, spokeswoman for the F‑35 program office, said the “JET analysis is grounded in past performance of other legacy fighter programs and does not fully acknowledge proactive F-35 management steps.”
Air Superiority
Administration officials and senators repeatedly touted the F-35 program as the best bet to preserve U.S. air power superiority and as a primary reason to cap the F‑22 program at 187 planes. The Senate voted for the cap, 58-40, on July 21.
“If properly supported, the F-35 will be the backbone of America’s tactical aviation fleet for decades to come,” said Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in a July 16 speech at the Economic Club of Chicago, “if — and it’s a big if — money is not drained away to spend on other aircraft.”
Experts said Gates’ efforts to pressure senators to end F-22 production would have been hurt had the Joint Estimate Team’s findings been widely known.
“If this information had been part of the debate over the last couple of months, several Democrats, many of whom switched their votes at the last minute, would have been much harder to persuade,” said Tom Donnelly, director of defense studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
Any delay in full production of the F‑35 would affect the entire fighter fleet, Donnelly said, because the F-35 is meant to take the place of so many planes, including the F-15, F-16 and F-18.
Although the Senate voted to strip the defense authorization bill (S 1390) of funding to procure F-22s beyond 187 planes, the debate over the plane is sure to resurface when the House and Senate move their fiscal 2010 draft Defense appropriations bills. “The F‑22 debate is not over, so the administration’s credibility on the F-35 could really be hurt by this information,” Donnelly said.
Even senators who were fighting to save the F-22 referred to 2014 as the Pentagon’s official estimate for commencing full production, although there were hints that it might change.
“The F-35 was scheduled to begin construction in 2010. Since then, of course, it has been pushed back four years to 2014,” Sen. Christopher J. Dodd , D-Conn., said during floor debate. Dodd, an F‑22 supporter, added, “There are some rumors that this date may be pushed back even further.”
A delay in F-35 production could have international implications as well, because several allied countries are tied into the F‑35 program and are depending on that plane to contribute to their defense structures.
“Customers such as the United Kingdom, the Air National Guard, the Marine Corps and others are on very tight schedules because their current equipment is rapidly aging out,” said Douglas Birkey, director of government relations for the Air Force Association. “They need the F-35 as a backfill.”
Delays Attributed to Design Changes
The Joint Estimate Team reports internally to the Pentagon and includes representatives from each of the military services.
After extensive evaluations that included site visits and meetings with the program’s contractors, the team determined that added delays were caused by ongoing complications with the engineering and design changes to the plane, as well as software problems, Senate aides said.
The team’s findings were based on data from September 2008, and the next report won’t be available until at least October, likely well past consideration of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations and authorization bills, the aide said.
The GAO reported in March that delays to the F-35 program schedule, as noted by the Joint Estimate Team, could add as much as $7.4 billion to its cost, and the Defense Department’s desire to accelerate production could cost an additional $33.4 billion,
F-35 “development will cost more and take longer than reported to the Congress last year,” the GAO report stated, adding that the Pentagon wants to accelerate procurement “despite cost and schedule troubles.”
Appropriators are dubious about speeding up F-35 production and have already reduced the president’s request for F‑35 procurement by $530 million in the House Defense appropriations bill, shifting much of that money toward research.
“This is a cut because we think they just can’t spend the money [that they requested],” said Rep. John P. Murtha , D-Pa., chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. “They’ve got to do a better job of oversight.”
It's all marketing and who the marketer is.
We would not EVEN be HAVING this discussion if AFCHIC was in charge of selling them to "Fur-in-ers" :D Heck, She talked me into TWO C-17s! (She said they'd "look great with a red, white and blue bow at Christmas time". . . and she threw in the up-graded seatcovers and there is a rebate! :p)
Wow, I go away for three weeks, and this is what I walk into when I get back. ;) Now if the Qatari Government agrees to buy 2 more C-17's then maybe I can start my own franchise!!!
Obviously, my glib remark hit an unintended nerve - for which I apologize - it wasn't meant to do so. However, regarding the Iowa Class of BBs - the Iowa and Wisconsin are the two the USN maintained in best condition of readiness under the National Defense Authorization Act and on the Naval Vessel Registry - and the Wisconsin and Missouri were the last two BBs to fire in support of military operations (GW1).
My support would be to either recommission the Iowa - the flagship for that class of BBs, the last being maintained, and the only one which is not a museum ship - or the Wisconsin as the last of the active BBs to perform its mission. ;)
On another note - I can only imagine the levels of political maneuvering which would occur if we ever sought to bring this about. :eek:
FWIW - I've visited the Alabama, Arizona, Missouri, North Carolina, and Texas (the oldest of the BBs) - and always marvel at the emotions one cannot help but feel when walking their decks (or above them in the case of the Arizona) and amongst their spaces.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Just came across this thread.. thanks for posting that picture Richard. I've been on the Alabama and the North Carolina... and am in awe of those ships. There is nothing that says "we care" like a battleship named after a state with 16" guns and armor that all but the largest anti-ship missles woudl bounce off of, steaming offshore.