Support for the F-22, and other boondoggles

[Guest]

[Jimmy]

"The VFW continues to call on Congress and DOD to ramp up production of the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to provide the Air Force and other services an aircraft to maintain global air supremacy." VFW Washington Weekly

The F-22 (most expensive jet fighter ever built) is a Mach-2 stealth aircraft designed (in the 1980s) to counter a fighter that the USSR never built. There is no threat to "global air supremacy."

The threat is from insurgents, not from the Russian or Japanese militaries, although the Pentagon, and the VFW, hasn't caught on to that yet.

The A-10 Warthog is a close-support aircraft designed to loiter over battlefields and assist ground forces in eliminating formidable targets. (production cancelled) High speed, high altitude fighter-bombers are not as good on such missions. In Afghanistan, especially, the Air Force regularly inflicts heavy casualties on innocent civilians, in part because it tries to attack ground targets with the wrong aircraft.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."  Eisenhower farewell address

I understand Ike wanted to use the term, military-industrial-congressional complex but changed it to be politically correct. It belongs back in there. SecDef Gates wants to remove funding for the F-22. Congress put it back in the $106 billion "supplemental." The USA can no longer permit such irresponsible spending.

Doesn't the VFW like Eisenhower? The VFW seems very supportive of the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex. Does it receive donations from defense contractors? 

[easingwr670]

In case you were wondering, Ike died quite a few years ago. He has nothing to do with today's conflicts.

[Jimmy]

Yah, Ike is gone. Our loss.
While some rate Eisenhower as a mediocre president, the current occupant and those who compete for the position would have been no match.

Ike warned us and his advice was ignored. Taxpayers pay for that, over and over.
Are our current conflicts for our national security or for the security of the defense industries?
Whatchagonnado? 

[Jimmy]

 In what is shaping up as one of the most consequential battles of his six-month-old presidency, Barack Obama finds himself in the trenches alongside his former Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, fighting hard to end production of an advance fighter jet that much of the defense establishment considers a wasteful boondoggle.

"We do not need these planes," Obama wrote in a letter to McCain and another ally, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, earlier this week. "To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide out troops with weapons that they actually do need."

And he has strong backing from his defense secretary, Robert Gates, who was appointed to that post by none other than President George W. Bush in November 2006.

In speaking out on the issue, Gates has become increasingly caustic about opposition to closing down the F-22 production lines.

"It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual," he told the Economic Club of Chicago Thursday, adding that "the more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do. It’s just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem."

The F-22 has been a primary target for those forces that have long argued that the Pentagon has spent far too much on sophisticated and costly conventional weapons systems developed during the Cold War for use against a global military rival, such as the former Soviet Union.

Other such systems that the new administration has sought to curb or eliminate include a fleet of new VH-71 helicopters; several unproven missile defense programs; the Navy’s DDG-1000 Destroyer, the C-17 transport plane, the Army’s Future Combat Systems, the Virginia class submarine, and the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, with projected savings of tens of billions of dollars.
(How many of these wasteful boondoggle programs does the VFW oppose?)

Even with those cuts, the total U.S. military budget – not counting the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – would still come to 534 billion dollars next year. It represents a four-percent increase over current year spending, as most of the savings would be passed along to weapons and equipment, such as remote-controlled Predator drones and "up-armored humvees", Washington has found to be more relevant to unconventional warfare against adversaries such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Those kinds of foes represent the kind of "asymmetric" threats that the U.S. military is more likely to face in the short and medium term than the possibility of conventional war with a major regional or global challenger, such as Russia, China, or even Iran, according to a growing number of military analysts in and outside the administration. Even then, proposed 2010 defense budget is weighted heavily toward to conventional weapons systems.

But big defense manufacturers, which have reaped enormous profits from the more-advanced and expensive hi-tech systems, have been mobilizing to prevent the proposed cuts. Already in anticipation of changes, the three biggest companies – Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman – boosted their multi-million-dollar lobbying budgets by between 54 percent and 90 percent last year.

[dmh1566]

Any idea what our military commanders have to say about these projects?

In what is shaping up as one of the most consequential battles of his six-month-old presidency, Barack Obama finds himself in the trenches alongside his former Republican rival, Sen. John McCain, fighting hard to end production of an advance fighter jet that much of the defense establishment considers a wasteful boondoggle.

"We do not need these planes," Obama wrote in a letter to McCain and another ally, Senate Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin, earlier this week. "To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide out troops with weapons that they actually do need."

And he has strong backing from his defense secretary, Robert Gates, who was appointed to that post by none other than President George W. Bush in November 2006.

In speaking out on the issue, Gates has become increasingly caustic about opposition to closing down the F-22 production lines.

"It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual," he told the Economic Club of Chicago Thursday, adding that "the more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do. It’s just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem."

The F-22 has been a primary target for those forces that have long argued that the Pentagon has spent far too much on sophisticated and costly conventional weapons systems developed during the Cold War for use against a global military rival, such as the former Soviet Union.

Other such systems that the new administration has sought to curb or eliminate include a fleet of new VH-71 helicopters; several unproven missile defense programs; the Navy’s DDG-1000 Destroyer, the C-17 transport plane, the Army’s Future Combat Systems, the Virginia class submarine, and the V-22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft, with projected savings of tens of billions of dollars.
(How many of these wasteful boondoggle programs does the VFW oppose?)

Even with those cuts, the total U.S. military budget – not counting the cost of ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan – would still come to 534 billion dollars next year. It represents a four-percent increase over current year spending, as most of the savings would be passed along to weapons and equipment, such as remote-controlled Predator drones and "up-armored humvees", Washington has found to be more relevant to unconventional warfare against adversaries such as the Taliban and al Qaeda.

Those kinds of foes represent the kind of "asymmetric" threats that the U.S. military is more likely to face in the short and medium term than the possibility of conventional war with a major regional or global challenger, such as Russia, China, or even Iran, according to a growing number of military analysts in and outside the administration. Even then, proposed 2010 defense budget is weighted heavily toward to conventional weapons systems.

But big defense manufacturers, which have reaped enormous profits from the more-advanced and expensive hi-tech systems, have been mobilizing to prevent the proposed cuts. Already in anticipation of changes, the three biggest companies – Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Northrop Grumman – boosted their multi-million-dollar lobbying budgets by between 54 percent and 90 percent last year.

[ShapeShifter]

The F-22 is a pretty cool high tech fighter. Who cares how much money we spend anymore,we are currently printing as much as we need.

[Jerry P3150]

I just spent two days and nights at Langley AFB, VA.  In those two days, I only saw twp F-22's take off.  They sure were pretty birds, also the too numerous to count F-22's on the ramp were nice also.  At least I can see where my tax dollars are going instead of the other social 'feel good' programs that exist with the new administration.

[Jimmy]

Any idea what our military commanders have to say about these projects?

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wants to kill the F-22 program. Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen wants to kill it. The secretary of the Air Force and the Air Force chief of staff both want it dead. Sen. John McCain -- who knows something about air combat -- is crusading to stop this massive boondoggle.
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/opinion/s_634382.html

This article goes on to detail some problems with the F-22.

[Redmaxx 7546]

Pretty expensive.

[Jimmy]

Yes, it is the most expensive fighter plane there is anywhere, and that is saying something. It was designed for a war we aren't fighting. It takes away from our current needs. It has nothing to do with national defense. It has everything to do with getting Congressmen reelected.

[dmh1566]

Isn't the F22 a pretty capable air-to-ground platform, in addition to air-to-air?

I haven't heard any military commanders complain about the program. Have you?

[Jerry P3150]

The F-22 is expensive! It does have air-to-ground capability, but at a costs 339 Million each, no Commander is ever going to deploy this jet anywhere near the potential of a "golden BB' to shoot it down.

[Redmaxx 7546]

It looks like the funding was cut for it.

[Jimmy]

Isn't the F22 a pretty capable air-to-ground platform, in addition to air-to-air?

I haven't heard any military commanders complain about the program. Have you?

The F-22 was designed to be a supersonic air superiority plane. It is a stealth design and it has to fly high and fast. The Warthog would be great for air support at much less cost, but they cut production of that plane.

Pilots call high-maintenance aircraft "hangar queens." After three expensive decades in development, the plane meets fewer than one-third of its specified requirements.
The weapons don't work. The stealth coating can't withstand rain or blowing sand. Even the cockpit canopy has failed repeatedly. On any given day, barely 50 percent of the aircraft already deployed are in shape to fly.

An enemy wouldn't have to down a single F-22 to defeat it. Just strike the high-tech maintenance sites and it's game over. The F-22 ain't going to operate off a dirt strip with a repair tent.

I answered about military commanders in message #7.

[dmh1566]

I can attest to the A-10s capabilities and I agree that sometimes keeping it simple is better. We need to look at the threats/enemies we'll likely face in the future and gear or forces accordingly, while remaining ready for any possible threat/enemy.

I agree 110% that there is a lot of waste. Example, the state-of-the-art extreme cold weather gear we were issued prior to heading to Iraq. Nobody took this stuff out of the packages, we hauled it there and turned it in when we returned. This stuff is issued to every service member deploying and somebody is getting rich...

I could go on all day about wasteful spending and it is something that needs to be addressed at all levels of the government and military. In the case of the F-22, if the military says they don't want, or need, it...scrap it. Too easy.