Congress squanders tax-dollars on F-22’s

Published on July 17th, 2009

Posted by Eideard in Business, Politics, economy

Saying he “didn’t molt from a hawk into a dove on Jan. 20, 2009,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized Congress on Thursday for trying to push more F-22 fighter jets into the Pentagon budget than he and President Obama say the country needs.

“If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?” Mr. Gates said in an acerbic, sometimes withering speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. “It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.” From his point of view, that means overbuying weapons for wars the nation is unlikely to fight…

To the consternation of the Pentagon and the White House, liberal Democrats like Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts have said they support the additional planes, arguing that their production can help preserve jobs in districts across the country.

In response, Mr. Obama reiterated a threat on Monday to veto next year’s military spending bill unless the extra planes are removed. Mr. Gates went to Chicago to reinforce the message. “The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto, and it’s real,” Mr. Gates told the club…

Although Mr. Gates focused much of his speech on the F-22 and other programs he wants to cut back or scrap, like a new presidential helicopter — he said it would allow “the president, among other things, to cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack” — he also made his larger argument for changing the way the Pentagon does business…

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia who has led the fight for the plane, said in an interview this week that the F-22’s strongest support had come from veteran senators in both parties who want continued American air superiority. “That is what resonates,” he said.

Mr. Chambliss said the concern about losing military jobs had also been important, particularly for senators who are “on the fence.” Lockheed Martin Corporation assembles the plane in Mr. Chambliss’ home state, in Marietta, and uses suppliers in 44 states.

Mr. Gates, in speaking to reporters, said with some exasperation that “the more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do,” adding: “It’s just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem.”

Gates nailed these bought-and-paid-for political hacks.

55 users responded in " Congress squanders tax-dollars on F-22’s "

Subscribe to this post comment rss or trackback url

# 1 soundwash said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:37 am

“Gates nailed these bought-and-paid-for political hacks.

Oh..and like Gates is not a bought and payed for hack himself??

get a clue, will ya?

-s

# 2 Uncle Don said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:49 am

These planes are needed as the aging fleet of F-15’s, F-16’s, and F-18’s (yes, there is a navalized version of the F-22) are simply too old and clunky for the long term — and Mr Obama needs to wizen up and ignore the price tag argument.

Wiping out the enemy’s A/F quickly and effectively means more time for the guys on the ground to get their work done and have the war over sooner. The F-22 can accomplish that better than the mish-mash we have now.

# 3 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:57 am

How about we cancel the stimulus and spend that money on these planes?

# 4 jbenson2 said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:58 am

Where is the similar outrage when it comes to the pork barrel bribes used to buy Democrat congressm votes?

http://bit.ly/Z5Ne3

# 5 lmj335 said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:11 am

Just wait until someday when ground troops are denied air support because there are no planes available. The first ones screaming will be these bleeding heart liberal like Eideard.

# 6 Angus said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:12 am

I pray for the day that a Democrat understands the idea of Economies of Scale. The reason each unit is so expensive is becuase of the previous cuts. If the government was in charge, the xbox 360 would still be $400, and no longer in production.

A prime example is the Seawolf and Virginia Subs. Seawolves were stopped by congress because they were too expensive, and the Government designed the Virginia class to be a cheaper alternative. Ultimately Each Virginia class will end up being more expensive than the boats they were made to replace, because of development costs, reduction in production numbers, and cost overruns.

Another thing to note is that airframes are built of aluminium, and have a limited lifespan. Eventually, we’ll see a series of crashes involving F16, F18, ior F15, and we’ll have to ground the whole fleet of that respective airplace. Why do you think we don’t have F-14s anymore?

# 7 nadrew said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:13 am

#2 is correct.
buy the planes! air superiority not jobs.

# 8 Somebody_Else said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:15 am

We can build something like five F-35’s for the cost of one F-22. The F-22 is an interceptor with some ground attack ability strapped on. We don’t need lots of interceptors, we need stealthy strike fighters (F-35’s).

The F-22 does have longer range, better filling the role of the old F-117, but the Navy and Marine variants of the F-35 can be launched from aircraft carriers and remote locations. The F-22 is Air Force only.

# 9 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:16 am

No, people like Eideard are the ones that denied air support to the South Vietnamese after the North violated the Paris Peace Accords. Any screaming would be for political benefit.

# 10 Kingcodez said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:17 am

The IAF has the best pilots and the best kill rates using their shoddy old F15s. The IAF teaches their guys to basically run up to the enemy and dump on them with their missles or cannons.

The USAF IIRC teaches their guys to engage at the maximum range possible. So like 100 miles away.

What does having a F22 matter vs 10 F15s, when they all carry the same missles?

Sure, have a huge wing of F22s for the risky missions, if we have to blow something up but don’t want anyone to know it’s us, show off our planes, ect.

But also carry a shed load of F15s, and just strap the best missiles on them. If one of them gets nailed by the enemy, so what, it didn’t cost much. If an F22 got nailed in the same situation, then F me you just lost a whole crap load of money.

Who are they fighting anyways? Russia has 3 awesome planes, China has 400 shitty planes, 2 phenominal ones, and everyone else is our ally, and has F22-equivalent planes. Are we gearing up to go to war with the UK or the EU or something?

Take that money and give it to the damn Marines so they can get rid of those huge Vietnam-era mobile radio packs.

Make a space born laser satelite that heats up the enemy plane’s fuel tanks, and makes the thing explode. Don’t tell anyone about it, and only use it if there’s a massive invasion on american soil, or if you see Osama.

# 11 Improbus said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:38 am

All this wrangling over money will be moot when what money we do have will be worthless.

# 12 Mr Diesel said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:40 am

Wiki-Under the Navalized Advanced Tactical Fighter (NATF) program, a carrier-borne variant of the F-22 with swing-wings was proposed for the U.S. Navy to replace the F-14 Tomcat, though the program was subsequently cancelled in 1993. A two-seat F-22B trainer variant was planned, but was cut in 1996 to save development costs./Wiki

The F-14 was retired after they became too expensive to fly and not because they have aluminum airframes.

If people knew a little more about aircraft they would know the airframe could possibly fly for a hundred years. Anyone ever hear of the b-52? Approaching 60 years now.

# 13 Lalas_EFO said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:45 am

#2 “…Wiping out the enemy’s A/F quickly and effectively means more time for the guys on the ground to get their work done and have the war over sooner.”

Right… ‘cos that’s what’s happening in the Afghanistan and Iraq fronts… the war is getting over sooner…

How about using the money to foment peace and not war and seeing what happens? How about stop spending on ammo and start spending on technologies that free the US from needing to give this guys attention?

I don’t know, but look from here in Brazil, this seems like a better approach.

# 14 Ranger007 said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:51 am

#11 “All this wrangling over money will be moot when what money we do have will be worthless.”

Agreed

You do have to wonder (after the government has spent untold hundreds of $billions – $trillions? – in the past year or so) what difference will this make?

# 15 bobbo, spoting the unstated assumption said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:53 am

gee, looks like if we stopped going 9000 miles away and invading countries of little to no threat to us, then these or any other planes aren’t even needed–at all. Further, what would be the air superiority threat from foreign countries if “we” stopped selling them air superiority weapons to begin with.

Any feeling here for the morass the military/industrial complex has made for us?

No feeling at all??????

S – U – C – K – E – R – S

aka dipshit average American Voters, gung ho for stupid and God wrapped in a flag with a corn dog.

# 16 Fat_Anarchy said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:56 am

I don’t know why you are all so keen for us to spend money on these planes. They are not needed at the moment, and are a waste compared to other things the money could be spent on.

Firstly, there is no immediate threat in the world to maintain such a massive defensive force. We are spending at cold war rates. There is no other country who are even a threat, and those that are are so small compared to the USA, that its like using a sledge hammer to break a walnut.

Secondly, those countries that are any sort of threat are not enemies who use conventional weapons like planes, and tanks and giant army battalions etc etc. They are smaller guerilla fighters. This mindset of having maximum firepower is not necessary anymore. Its because of this we find ourself launching cruise missiles worth $100,000 each into Iraq to blow up some little mud huts worth a few hundred bucks.

History also shows, that if there does become an immediate threat, the country is pretty good at rapidly building machines of war within a very short time. Look at the sudden increase in war production when the USA joined WW2. It only took about 6 months and they were able to match the other big players, and helped to win it. Why spend all this money on these planes that are just gonna sit there doing nothing too substantial until they too become too old to use.

Until there is any immediate threat in the world, I say scrap them. The wars we are fighting at the moment are clearly not going well, despite vastly superior firepower. Focus needs to be put onto intelligence, rather than more expensive planes and stuff. Its the same with Vietnam. We already overshadow the next biggest military force by several times. Is it really necessary to spend even MORE on it? I don’t think so. It’s fine as it is.

# 17 Rick Cain said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:12 am

Do we honestly have any enemys these days? Other than defenseless arab nations who greedily hold OUR oil underneath their lands?
The F-22 was just another cold war circle jerk project and should have been killed.
Reagan resuscitated the horrid B-1 bomber and now we have a bunch of substandard B-1’s which do 2nd duty behind the superior B-52.

We need a pragmatic eye when we purchase military hardware. Its not a big penis contest, its military procurement.

# 18 krwhite said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:16 am

“We aren’t fighting any wars, we never do, no one threatens us” — That’s because we overspend on our military budget. Changing that changes the outcome. I liken this to a sports player getting cocky, and deciding he doesn’t HAVE to train, right? What happens to that cocky athlete?

I’d rather throw money at defense and have our enemies think twice. I doubt anyone would think about cost if these planes actually diverted war.

In this case, it pays to insure the country, you do it with your family obviously.

It’s the spearhead of our attack, and enables the rest of our forces to move with less engagement. Removing the spear head makes our men & women of the armed forces a lot more vulnerable to attack. In an offensive scenario, it benefits us in that way. Of course, there’s also less change of an offensive scenario because it exists.

# 19 Dallas said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:32 am

Times are tough. Military can settle for a sled and a box of crayons until things get better. Maybe next year we can buy them an F22

# 20 joaoPT said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:48 am

#2,#8

The last full scale wars USA was/is, were not “necessary”, neither to get the job done, nor as a showoff exercise…
In fact, the more US ups the ante, the more the “traditional” cold war foes get nervous…and, after all, who’s gonna be a threat to US anyway? Russia? China? yeah… and loose the best market in the world to sell their goods… really clever…

# 21 god said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:50 am

What a flock of 19th Century gits. I’m surprised you aren’t screaming for another battleship or two to counter the Taliban threat to the Hudson River.

Air superiority? Har! You already have Hot Air Superiority.

# 22 RIWRI said, on July 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

It is obvious people like #2 have no clue what the F-22 was built for. Its a plane without much use and a lot of maybes down the road. The wars we are fighting today have little use for an air superiority fighter. The planes will mostly sit around and be used for training. Besides it too expensive to possibly lose one.

The F-35 is the plane that will be our day to day ground attack fighter.

Put the money into defense where we need it, not in big show piece programs just to help local politicians.

# 23 The0ne said, on July 17th, 2009 at 12:09 pm

I’m pretty sure we haven’t use the F-22’s or any similar fighter jet in the previous wars and won’t be able to anytime soon?

# 24 Somebody_Else said, on July 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm

#20
That’s exactly my point. Unless we go to war with China or Russia in the near future the F-22 is a waste of money.

If we’re going to build anything we should build F-35’s. Its a multirole strike fighter that we can actually be put to use in smaller scale conflicts while still being useful if a full-scale war ever did break out.

# 25 sargasso said, on July 17th, 2009 at 12:56 pm

All said, I would really like to see a remake of “Top Gun”. Like, Tom Cruise, shooting down the entire Al Qaeda Airforce in an F-22. Throw in Iron Man, too.

# 26 bac said, on July 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

#24 — I agree. Putting money into the F-35s and missiles would be more bang for the buck right now.

Even putting more money into UAVs would be better.

# 27 SparkyOne said, on July 17th, 2009 at 1:10 pm

it’s only dollars

# 28 Tonsils out said, on July 17th, 2009 at 1:14 pm

Well, the F22 is the best idea to compete with the Rafale which is going to be recognize on the market. This is also an economic situation to remain first fighter seller against the bloody French, look at what they managed to do with Airbus…

# 29 RTaylor said, on July 17th, 2009 at 1:22 pm

Joint Strike Fighter, designed for the all in one airframe. That was the problem. If no one else noticed Europe makes some reasonable priced good fighter bombers. Now we have a strategic asset that can’t fly in the rain because it has to be repainted. Congressional Districts buy weapon programs, not the Pentagon.

# 30 sargasso said, on July 17th, 2009 at 2:14 pm

#29. “Now we have a strategic asset that can’t fly in the rain because it has to be repainted”, and is already obsolete. Introducing, the Saab Gripen NG.

Gripen – http://bit.ly/3YDNf

# 31 chuck said, on July 17th, 2009 at 2:18 pm

#25 – you don’t need any F-22s or Iron-man to take out the entire Al Qaeda air-force.

They don’t have an air force. The only weapons they have they got from the CIA, or whatever they could scrounge from the battlefield after the Russians left Afghanistan.

Iraq had an air-force, which was completely destroyed on the ground.

Iran has an air-force. They’re don’t fly outside Iranian air-space because they will get shot down immediately.

# 32 green said, on July 17th, 2009 at 2:49 pm

I have a monorail for sale that will meet all your military needs.

# 33 Ron Larson said, on July 17th, 2009 at 3:01 pm

I’d like to see us focus on drones and unmanned, high performance attack aircraft. I think those will be far more effective in the future.

# 34 MikeN said, on July 17th, 2009 at 3:15 pm

>Unless we go to war with China or Russia in the near future the F-22 is a waste of money.

Having a stronger arsenal makes them less likely to provoke a war. If they feel that the US is weaker militarily, then they will feel less constrained in their actions.

# 35 canucklehead said, on July 17th, 2009 at 4:16 pm

I’m not an American, so you guys can spend your tax dollars however you want, but do you realise that 21 cents on the Federal tax dollar is going to the military?
http://tinyurl.com/mc2g9c

The per capita Federal tax burden is about $8500.
http://tinyurl.com/5arl7n

The last time I checked, the US mainland had not been invaded since, what, 1812?

So, for a family of four, you are spending $34,000 per year to keep places like Iraq “safe”.

Me?, I’d rather have free health care.

# 36 Mr, Fusion said, on July 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pm

Still fighting last years war? How about, still fighting three wars ago.

The last time, as far as I can remember, an American fighter shot down an enemy plane was during the Viet Nam War.

The F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-18 Super Hornet all still have quite a few years left in them. Those airplanes can match ANY fighter any other nation can put up.

Rick (#14) made an excellent point about the B-1. The same may be added about the B-2. It is so secret it can only be flown from a base in Missouri. For targets in the Middle East that means no landings and no crew changes for up to 28 hours. The same pilot flying on Meth while sitting in shit and piss soaked diapers.

Each hour of flight requires 119 hours of maintenance. Each plane cost almost $4 Billion to purchase.

# 37 Somebody_Else said, on July 17th, 2009 at 6:10 pm

#36

The B-2 has also flown missions out of Guam and Diego Garcia, actual per-aircraft construction costs were ~$500 million each ($2 billion each when you factor in research costs), and they have a toilet onboard. Best not to talk shit when you don’t know what you’re talking about.

The B-1 and B-2 have strategic capabilities that the B-52 can’t match. The B-1 is arguably unnecessary now that the Cold War is over, but the B-2’s range and stealth are still incredibly valuable.

If we had actually built the 150-200 that we planned rather than 21 they would have been a lot cheaper to build and maintain and we could have phased out both the B-1 and the B-52.

# 38 jescott418 said, on July 17th, 2009 at 6:41 pm

This is just a expensive way of keeping American’s working. Just like the bailouts for Chrysler and GM. Just gave the union workers a few more weeks of pay on the tax payer’s. Never did stop the bankrupcies.

# 39 Cap'nKangaroo said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:13 pm

#35 The last time the US was invaded was in 1942. The Aleutian islands (which is part of Alaska) of Attu and Kiska were invaded by the Japanese. It took about a year to retake the islands.

# 40 Uncle Patso said, on July 17th, 2009 at 7:46 pm

Military procurement seems seriously broken. That $4 billion ($500 million? — still too much) plane started out as a new kind of dart until the defense contractors got ahold of it. Even with the current high price of gold, the B-2 costs approximately as much as the same weight of gold.

As for those who insist Gates is full of it, a question occurs to me — why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

# 41 Traaxx said, on July 17th, 2009 at 8:30 pm

Yes, you dip, we need the planes. It’s a little late to build them when you go to war.

What do you want to spend the money more welfare, that never ends. Health Care for all the illegal immigrants to so they can drop the living wages of Americans. You are so full of it Edieard.

So why is the ‘Confederate Air Force’ emblem there. You are such a racist NAZI, judgmental and bigoted.

Whatever………………

Traaxx

# 42 deowll said, on July 17th, 2009 at 9:58 pm

The plane is great in a way but 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying times seems more than a lot extreme. The price serious limits the number of machines any nation can afford maybe to point of not being able to control the air space against a major player.

The other fact is that remote control/robotic machines have so many advantages over these machines it’s pathetic. We can also use cheaper more reliable platforms. It’s the electronics and weapons platforms that matter.

# 43 Rick Cain said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:44 pm

These days our enemies wear sandals and carry RPG’s. The F-22 is rapidly losing its justification for existience in these slow burn insurgency conflicts.

# 44 Glenn E. said, on July 17th, 2009 at 10:46 pm

I like how the Pentagon comes off blameless. But I’ll bet they make a “conservative” order for a plane. And then steer their contractor buddies to the “right” congressmen, to get those numbers hiked upward. And then act as if “Congress forced us to have planes we didn’t want”. But they always seem to know were to put them. And have as many pilots needed to fly them all. I’ve never heard of an air base that complained of having a jet fighter or bomber surplus. Have you?

So I suspect that the Pentagon under bids. And then allows certain congressmen to take the credit for bumping up the contract, to where they really wanted it. And then everyone wins.

# 45 Glenn E. said, on July 17th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

Just think, it won’t be long now before Hollywood cooks up a few features to showcase these aircraft in. I read that the V22 Osprey was already featured in the 2007 “Transformers” movie. So much for secrecy and “need to know”. This all gets tossed out the window when there’s some budget promotin’ or recruitment boostin’ to do. I once saw the SR71 in a scifi film, a year before it was declassified. Way to go Texas film board.

# 46 joaoPT said, on July 18th, 2009 at 2:10 am

#44
Right on the money:

You can’t build a cheap plane or else you wouldn’t have the budget to spend on the payoffs you’ll need to spread around so you can build them in the first place…

(read with a Jersey/mob accent)
“Yeah…a coat of paint…aaaah…that’s a…one mil…per plane, yeah…special paint.You know…Just say’n.
Unless you want all those Arabs knockin’ down you penthouses…Just sayn’…your call…
And…aaaa…here’s a little “incentive”…ahhh…take the wife to Paris…”

# 47 brian t said, on July 18th, 2009 at 3:00 am

Perhaps some of those tax dollars could go in to educating people in to the correct use of the apostrophe in English? You never use the apostrophe to indicate a plural. It might be used in a plural, but not because it’s a plural, for another reason such as to indicate possession. Example: “the sisters’ skirts’ hems were dirty”.

If you could convert “F-22’s”, “RPG’s”, “American’s” and so on in to sound, it would be the sound of nails dragging down a chalkboard. Ow …

# 48 RTaylor said, on July 18th, 2009 at 3:51 am

Traaxx

The wing emblem used isn’t the symbol of the real Confederate Air Force. The CAF is a great organization that restores and flies old war birds. The CAF has nothing to do with the ideology of the former Confederacy of the American Civil War. It began as a joke name. If you have the fortune of seeing a WWII Era aircraft flying, more than likely it’s one of theirs.

# 49 Mr. Fusion said, on July 18th, 2009 at 7:47 am

#40, Uncle Patso,

why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.

#41, traaxx,

Oh geeze, I thought Uncle Pat gave me a good laugh with the honesty. You are just rip roaringly stupid which I find extremely hilarious. How can someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic pretend he does? And I bet you did it with a straight face too. And indignation.

# 50 Winston said, on July 18th, 2009 at 8:01 am

“Just wait until someday when ground troops are denied air support because there are no planes available. The first ones screaming will be these bleeding heart liberal like Eideard.”

Ground support against WHOM? What _real_ current or future adversary has the capability to even put a tiny dent in a USAF that has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,286 are fighters, an Army that has over 1000 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters alone, a Navy with 3700 aircraft and Marines with both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

Stop buying the BS propaganda. The Cold War is over, so if we need to build anything, it isn’t hardware appropriate for a huge Cold war adversary.

# 51 Winston said, on July 18th, 2009 at 8:07 am

“why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.”

Yes, that IS funny! When has a HUGE mechanism of a cold war military industrial infrastructure carefully spread out among congressional districts EVER put a continuation of their business above the taxpayer’s interest? I mean, the bank bailouts you and your kids just paid for (with money borrowed from Japan and China) PROVE that business people always have NOTHING but YOUR best interests at heart.

Christ…

# 52 Somebody_Else said, on July 18th, 2009 at 9:07 am

#40
“Military procurement seems seriously broken. That $4 billion ($500 million? — still too much) plane started out as a new kind of dart until the defense contractors got ahold of it. Even with the current high price of gold, the B-2 costs approximately as much as the same weight of gold.”
____

Like I said, the high cost ($2 billion per B-2) is because we put a ton of research money in and only built 21. Manufacturing and maintenance costs would have been significantly lower per aircraft if we had build 200.

Regardless, I think the B-2’s capabilities are worth its high cost. I can’t say that about the F-22. Bombers and strike fighters are useful, interceptors aren’t.

# 53 RTaylor said, on July 18th, 2009 at 3:28 pm

Even if the Cold War went hot, a bunch of interceptors would have been damn useless with MIRV’s raining down on cities. It ended up being a war of economies, and the USSR went broke first.

# 54 Tom said, on July 18th, 2009 at 7:34 pm

Nah Taylor,

It could more than likely have been a conventional war with Warsaw Pact if the cold war had went hot. And even if it went nuclear, you would have needed interceptors to engage enemy bombers. So don’t knock the necessity of an interceptor.

# 55 Rick Cain said, on July 19th, 2009 at 10:32 pm

Russia demonstrated you can open a can of major whoop ass for pennies on the dollar. Just ask the Georgian president Sakkashvili.

Our military may cost as much as gold, it doesn’t seem to be worth its weight in it.

Leave Your Reply Below...

Comment Moderation is Active, so if your comment doesn't
show up immediately, please don't submit it again.

Special Deals 4U

25% off eHarmony subscription with code EHTECH
12-percent discount forever with code TECH
10-percent discount and free month using TECH10
10-percent or 30 dollars off weekly car rental!
Get 10-percent discount on car rental!
Discounts on domain names!