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.
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.
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.
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?
#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.
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.
#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.
it’s only dollars
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…
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.
#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
#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.
I have a monorail for sale that will meet all your military needs.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
#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.
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.
#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.
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?