What do you think of F-22 decision?
The F-22 Raptor fighter jet, assembled in Cobb County by 2,000 workers, will not be an ongoing enterprise for Lockheed Martin Corp., the Pentagon said Monday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Defense Department would complete its contract for 183 of the fighters and add four more, bringing the total to 187, before stopping the purchases.
Was this a wise budget decision for the country? What will be the impact on Cobb County and metro Atlanta?
accessAtlanta Partner Sites
Sections
Advertise on accessAtlanta.com »
Reach the audience you want by advertising on accessAtlanta.com
Join the Access Atlanta Network »
Advertisers and Publishers, expand your reach by joining the Access Atlanta Network.
Tell us what you think about the site
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement | About our ads
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
204 comments Add your comment
Jackie
April 6th, 2009
2:34 pm
Still the same old crap out of Washington. Drop defense programs, yet continue to doll out money for condoms in high school and a broken welfare program. Great, so now we can count on a generation of kids expecting hand-out and limited means of defending our country. Thanks Gates!
PappyHappy
April 6th, 2009
2:38 pm
Well folks, how do you like this ‘CHANGE’??
Fair is Fair
April 6th, 2009
2:39 pm
Welfare is welfare, whether defense contractor or not. The fact of the matter is parents were buying body armor for their sons in Iraq while we spend 180 million per copy on a plane that hasn’t flown ONE combat mission in seven years of war in Iraq & Afghanstan.
If it would have been operational and flown some missions, it might have been justified. Can’t cry you don’t have a ride while a shiny new luxury auto with zero miles sits in the garage.
Southern Beale
April 6th, 2009
2:42 pm
I support the decision, we spend too much money on weapons as a nation. We’ve amassed a massive arsenal, and of course we look for ways to use these new toys. However, the unfortunate reality is that this decision will cost people jobs. This is the inevitable result of our war economy: an economy based on manufacturing weapons, maintaining a large military, and waging war. Now is the time to transition away from a war economy and to a new economy, one based on green energy technology. Hopefully the transition period will be as painless as possible and those folks who once made fighter jets can put those skills to use elsewhere.
Rojer
April 6th, 2009
2:46 pm
Exactly right S. Beale. Well said. Time to end the war economy and put our effort toward something positive.
Joe
April 6th, 2009
2:46 pm
It’s really going to hurt Lockheed and Cobb County. The county depends on a lot of revenues from people and workers in that area. That’s going to put a lot more people in the unemployment lines. AND no it was not a wise move from Mr. Gates. There is a lot more budget cuts that could have been done before this.
F-35 on the way
April 6th, 2009
2:48 pm
Smart decision. F-22 is designed to take on only a limited number of threats. Sec. Gate obviously has access to the intel briefings that in effect state that the “usual suspects” of Air superiority threats are at least one generation behind. Case in point; look at when we developed the F-15 and how long they’ve stayed in service. Same with the F-16. We haven’t “underprovisioned” a US fighter since taking the guns off the F-4 in Vietnam(for which we had a workaround).
F-22 is overbuilt, and assumed that China/Russia would create world class stealth air-air fighters. Not while the Chinese are holding $2T of devalued dollars in their treasury and Russian oil is $50/barrel.
F-35 is much more applicable to the missions we now face; STOVL for missions in bad territory without nice, long Edwards AFB runways.
This potential was discussed 8 years ago; shame the Georgia politicans didn’t get with the program and retool.
Even better, what about creating a local manufacturing industry (cleantech anyone?) not dependent on DOD handouts???
Southern Beale
April 6th, 2009
2:49 pm
I’d love to know where all of these high schools are that doling out free condoms. Jackie is the third conservative I’ve heard spout that line in the past week, so I guess it was a hot topic on Rush or Hannity recently. But no one has mentioned *where* these high schools are where they hand out condoms like candy. Certainly not where I live. Advocates For Youth’s website says there are 418 public schools in the U.S. who give out condoms, while WikiAnswers says as of 2001 there were 26,407 public schools in the country. 418 out of 26,407? Once again, you’re getting hysterical over nothing.
Paul Katz
April 6th, 2009
2:51 pm
A big reason we don’t see a ton of air-to-air combat these days is because we have the best fighters in the air; another country would be foolish to send their aging MiGs (or repropositioned F-16s) against an F-22.
Make no mistake though, fighters from other countries that can go head-to-head with our F-22s are only a few years out. At that point, having 300+ of them would be a good idea.
Rob Lopez
April 6th, 2009
2:52 pm
It’s about time we got rid of projects that don’t win wars. The individual Soldier, Marine, Sailor and Airman are the ones who win wars. This high priced aircraft won’t give the service member on the ground what he needs. We need more attach helicopters and A-10s. The F-22 is built for wars we will never fight. We already have the most outstanding Air Force and there is not a country that is even close. Build things for the guys on the ground not projects that keep Congressmen and Senators in office. Stop trying to get rich off our Armed Forces.
The Truth
April 6th, 2009
2:53 pm
Money for a Green Economy? LOL!! The sad part is people don’t realize that the private sector is already investing a lot of money into R&D for ‘Green Technologies.’ The government doesn’t do anything effectively except for protect the country; therefore, that is all it should focus on. Leave everything else to private industry where it will be done better!
F22 Man
April 6th, 2009
2:59 pm
The election of the Draft Dodger Saxby Chambliss killed the F22 program.. Does anybody think our 2 Socialist Senators have ANY political pull. On the bright side Saxby was able to save direct subsidities for nonfarmers making over $250,000, so we know where his loyalities lie.
Southern Beale
April 6th, 2009
3:00 pm
“Leave everything else to private industry where it will be done better!” — yes that worked so well for the BANKING industry, didn’t it? Can’t wait to see healthcare in another 10 years, too. If you want to line the pockets of a bunch fat cats at the very top, by all means, keep privatizing.
Jim Pritchard
April 6th, 2009
3:02 pm
Thanks a lot, AJC. Your hopey-changitude idiot president is halfway to Jimmy Carter already. Don’t expect any tears to be shed when your worthless rag goes bankrupt, either.
Phil
April 6th, 2009
3:05 pm
If any of you are surprised by Gates and the other Socialists, shame on you. This is their agenda and no one can stop them. They can take the money they save from the FA-22 and give it to ACORN. The evil ones will do their thing until we vote them out of office.
Finish What You Started
April 6th, 2009
3:09 pm
Bad decision. Cancelling a project at midpoint is a waste of all the development effort and cost that went into this aircraft already. You spend billions and then cancel with only 187 aircraft to be constructed. The raptor is an incredible machine, but with this limited number of them, it is almost a novelty to have it in the Air Force. The time to cancel the project was during the concept stage – not halfway through production. Eventually, the unit cost would have dropped to something similar to the F-35 (which everyone seems to believe will be cheaper) for a much more cabable machine. The only reason the F-35 will continue is because of the contracts to sell it to other countries, not because its a great aircraft. They should have kept the F-22 line open and finish what they started (something in the order of 350 Raptors). Then reduce the total number of F-35 for the USAF by a couple of hundred aircraft, but continue to sell the F-35 to foreign nations as planned. It would not have cost any more, but it would have made a much stronger Air Force against future advanced threats.
howard
April 6th, 2009
3:12 pm
Keep in mind that in was Republican President Bush who appointed Gates as Secretary of Defense with the blessings of Republican Senators and these same Republican Senators urged President Obama to continue his appointment. And, further, keep in mind it was President Bush (at the urging of VP Cheney and previous Secretary of Defense “Dumbfell” ) who got us into our long drawn out nontraditional war that is, in part, causing us to shift spending priorities withn the military.
Bye Bye
April 6th, 2009
3:13 pm
Hey Finish What You Started,
Why do we need more? Can’t shoot down what you don’t put in combat…. Since we don’t use them in wars, they should last quite a while!
professional skeptic
April 6th, 2009
3:14 pm
Just listen to all the republicans whine and complain about Pentagon’s decision to stop funding the F-22. Cheer up! If you think about it, all it really amounts to is just another blow to transportation funding. Y’all should be dancing in the streets!
bill135
April 6th, 2009
3:15 pm
The budget still exceeds the total military spending of the next 25 biggest military budgets in the World – maybe that’s why we aren’t keeping up in health care, energy and transportation to name a couple of areas. All we need is another off budget supplemental appropriation and we will outspend the entire rest of the world on military once again.
MOAB
April 6th, 2009
3:16 pm
Wow. Based on the “extended” logic of the Lib Peaceniks on this board, we should scrap our entire Nuclear Arsenal. After all, we don’t seem to be using a lot of Nukes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Q: Why is it Libs can’t see beyond their next welfare check? A: Mental Disorder.
rustylynn
April 6th, 2009
3:19 pm
I like how the AJC emphasized that this was Gates’ decision in the headline, as they continue to cover for Obama. In a related story, B. Hussein Obama is in Turkey assuring his “deep appreciation” for Islam.
Karen mother of 2 soldiers
April 6th, 2009
3:21 pm
Yes, it was the right thing to do and should have been done long ago. It is obscene that hundreds of millions can be spent on ONE piece of machinery that hasn’t even been shown to be reliable in combat and yet it took years to spend a couple of thousand on each vehicle to prevent deaths from IEDs. The priority that would put the value of a machine, which does include income for civilian builders, over the life of soldiers is wrong. Maybe now there can be better personal equipment for each soldier. The nature of war has changed from large-scale battles to more upfront and personal. How the Army is outfitted needs to reflect that.
Finish What You Started
April 6th, 2009
3:21 pm
Bye Bye,
Typically countries need fighter aircraft for defence and as a deterent. The F-15 was in service since 1974, but wasn’t deployed by the USAF in combat until 1991. So they weren’t “used” for the first 17 years of service…think they were a waste of money too? The fact is, there has not yet been a reason to use the F-22 in combat. But what about 10 or 20 years from now? The Air Force aircraft are aging and need to be replaced.
Chris Dunn
April 6th, 2009
3:23 pm
The objective when one gets into war is to win without losing planes and pilots. Termination of the F-22 will force the US to use older technology aircraft (the F-35 has a different role than the F-22) and therefore increasing the risk to those planes and pilots.
It’s odd that the same liberals who get upset over soldiers’ deaths don’t want to spend the money to protect them.
bill135 – I’m pretty sure that you do not know what you are talking about with respect to other countries budgets. Are you telling us that countries that refuse tell the truth with respect to human rights are going to give the world their real budget numbers on defense spending? Right……………
Hayden Zeke
April 6th, 2009
3:24 pm
It was just corporate welfare. Good riddance. Put the money into a national healthcare system. Republicans, if you’re still scared, put another layer of plastic and duct tape on your windows, you Chicken Little twerps.
Nicko
April 6th, 2009
3:25 pm
We all want to be safe, go home, and not think about what those men and women are doing to protect our freedoms. But still we have these cry baby liberals who want us to stop spending money to ensure our freedom, and instead give it to “the people” because they know what they are doing. Welfare is not going to pull us out of the recession, and neither will stopping this production line. Too many people will lose their jobs all over the country, because the Air Force doesn’t want to hold their end of the bargain. The F-35 while a great fighter it will be, will not be able to match the F-22 in any combat situation. Yes they are cheaper, but they are not the same. Some day these fighters will reach there full potential, and Obama and the Military are going to kick themselves in the butt for ending it’s production!
JAQ
April 6th, 2009
3:25 pm
War economy! Bet you got a an “A” in your marxist theory class. What a load of crap. There is not a shred of real evidence to support such a silly notion. It’s only supportable in the hot house you and your liberal democrat friends inhabit.
No way that this was a Gates decision. Obama made the choice.
Jack
April 6th, 2009
3:26 pm
Good! Now we’ll have more money to bail out foriegn banks and flush down the GM hole. Who needs actual hardware when we can watch our tax dollars evaporate into nothing?
William Bailey
April 6th, 2009
3:26 pm
I can’t believe we are seeing these things happen before our eyes and yet think this will be for the good in the end. We are laughed at behind our backs by all of these foreign leaders who know that in ten years we will be broke from our president’s decisions. We will all loose our country because of a foolish and selfish dream of a powerful man.
My2Cents
April 6th, 2009
3:27 pm
Georgia needs new leadership… this “I’m a Republican just like my mama and my papa” mentality is causing the state to become IRRELEVANT to the rest of the country.
Get Real
April 6th, 2009
3:27 pm
You Republicans thought we’d just be building planes for wars forever? LOL. Why build an F-22 when we can build an un-manned aircraft that can do the same thing? When was the last time there was any air-to-air combat anyway? Lockheed just got behind in technology, just like GM and Chrysler. But I bet you all think the autoworkers should lose their jobs right. As long as its not in your backyard, you don’t care. And thats the problem with this country, Democrats and Republicans. The truth hurts.
AmerkFlack
April 6th, 2009
3:27 pm
Well, my thoughts are:
The raptor has some issues. And its very expensive. I read at the library, a periodical, some air force mag. It explained that the F-15 EAGLE is going to now be retrofitted for Stealth Technology. F22 Raptor was to replace the Eagle. So, this makes sense. Go with what works and can be done within means. F-35 should stay in production/testing.
I agree….let private sector take care of business. Govt needs to worry about protecting its citizens.
Whats next obama? Scrap production of our air craft carriers? What will be your excuse? “Its not WWII anymore!” Unreal.
Ross
April 6th, 2009
3:28 pm
Finally some sanity! The F-22 is under-powered and under-performing high-tech junk that relies on a hopeless quest – stealth combined with battlefield durability – to achieve air superiority. Given that we have superb stand-off weapons already, what is needed, according to experience and simulations, is close-in fighting ability and ground support – meaning lots of simple and capable airplanes over the targets all the time – instead of a few of these turkeys, we put three times as many F-18s and F-15s and A-10s on the targets with unstoppable force! Of course they are going ahead with the F-35 but there is some hope now that we’ll be rid of that one as well. This is the first sanity I’ve seen from the Pentagon in a long long time.
-drl
AT
April 6th, 2009
3:28 pm
MOAB, you Hannity loving blowhard! Have you actually done any of your own research on this?!? Only in an ultra right wing state could this be made political. This fighter is insanely expensive to maintain even after it’s built and it is not ideal for fighting today’s wars. But hey if Hannity tells you it’s true then it must be. The bubble Southerners live in is scary.
Sarcasticus
April 6th, 2009
3:33 pm
Boy there are just so many of you who are so knowledgable about national defense and air-to-air combat. I am awed by your knowledge.
AmerkFlack
April 6th, 2009
3:33 pm
I do agree that these days, more kids these days (12-14) know how to properly put on a condom and know more about sex than who the 1st, 2nd or 3rd president of the U.S. is. I am sure, though, they know who the 42ns president of the U.S. is
YOU GEORGIANS LOSE!!!!
April 6th, 2009
3:37 pm
You guys voted for McCain, you thought you were still gonna get some love??? LOL. It ain’t checkers, its chess. And you lose! This is nothing but a pork project anyway. How many sorties has this plan flown over Iraq or Afghanistan? Spending $180 million on one plane that doesn’t fly, while parents were buying and sending their kids body armor in Iraq. If Lockheed were building this plane on Michigan Avenue in Chicago, you people would call it pork. What are Johnny and Saxby doing for you? They should’ve seen this coming years ago, even when Gates was Bush’s Defense Secretary. I didn’t see all this complaining when Forts Mac and Gillem were put on the chopping block. Get new leadership, or learn how to play the game. Obama knows where his bread is buttered, and it ain’t in Georgia. This was nothing but fat, and he cut it.
Finish What You Started
April 6th, 2009
3:38 pm
The F-15, F-16 and F/A-18, as cool as they are, are obsolete – just ask any Red Flag aggressor pilot who has to take on an F-22. If an F-22 has 6 missiles, it will down 6 F-15s…simple as that. Sukhoi is currently building its T-50 prototypes which will be more than a match for any of these legacy fighters. The current Su-27 is already superior (maybe) to the F-15. The Air Force has to evolve or loose that air supremacy that makes the guys on the ground feel a lot safer and have come to relie on. There nothing political of personal about it, it’s just hardware.
YOU GEORGIANS LOSE!!!!
April 6th, 2009
3:38 pm
Sarcasticus @ 3:33, I’d ask you what is there really to say about a plane that costs this much and hasn’t done anything.
AmerkFlack
April 6th, 2009
3:39 pm
Why do people think, when one (like me) supports the war, weapons, etc etc —- I must be a product of RUSH and HANNITY? Or, ANN COULTER?
Before you make judgments, think about what you say. Some people have beliefs that are not out of a commentators mouth. But, the word “blowhard” sounds juvenile and makes you look uneducated. Or, do you sound like/are a product of Al Franken? “Im smart enuff, good enuf and, gosh darn it, people LIKE ME!” Or, Keith Olberman?
Hayden Zeke
April 6th, 2009
3:40 pm
You know we heard this same crap about the B-1. Carter killed it and St. Ronald Reagan revived it. It never flew a mission and got relegated to the National Guard.
Ross
April 6th, 2009
3:40 pm
Sarcasticus, and MOAB, the RAND corporation determined that, in Taiwan invasion scenario, our F-22s and F-35s would “be clubbed like baby seals”. But I suppose the RAND Corporation are all, like me, a liberal peacenik.
-drl
Carrie
April 6th, 2009
3:42 pm
My Dad might be out of a job now, along with thousands of other men and women. I’m starting to wonder if that “change” Obama was talking about was just a bunch of smoke being blown up my hind end.
MikeS
April 6th, 2009
3:44 pm
I would love to hear from Union members now looking forward to unemployment. You reap what you sow.
Ross
April 6th, 2009
3:45 pm
FWYS, that’s horsesh*t. The F-18 and F-15 are the pinnacle of aerodynamic battle platforms – they are extremely durable, relatively easy to maintain, can out-turn any human’s endurance, can carry a huge arsenal, can fly in all weather, and have unbeatable raw performance (climb, speed, etc.). You can only solve some problems once. These problems are solved – nothing will ever defeat a full squadron of F-18s or F-15s – they are too good and too many to fight. This problem is solved – combined with the A-10, there is NO NEED to solve the problem of air superiority over and over again.
-drl
guy
April 6th, 2009
3:46 pm
dont let the facts get in the way of a good story…
DoD budget FY 09 -$513 billion excluding iraq/afghanistan costs
DoD budget FY 10 – $534 billion excluding iraq/afghanistan costs
they are increasing the military budget by 20 billion, just making cuts to weapons systems such as the raptor that arent exactly useful when going door to door or cave to cave. its a refocusing of efforts to match the current global situation. if anything they are giving MORE $$ for equipment for troops on the ground.
romyoh
April 6th, 2009
3:47 pm
Seems to me Georgia’s congressional delegation – mostly Republicans — will have little impact on getting the funds reinstated. Maybe we should have elected a Democrat to the Senate the last time around. That way, Georgia has a seat at the table no matter which party is running the show.
Shawn D.
April 6th, 2009
3:49 pm
Yes, it’s obvious that “boots on the ground” is what ultimately win wars. For the last 60 years, those “boots on the ground” have had the benefit of having air superiority. Don’t know what that means, huh? It means being free from enemy air attack. No air superiority = more troops unprotected and/or resupplied, more aircraft shot down, more POWs and KIA, worse intel and surveillance.
All of you folks who opine that the F-22 is a “Cold War relic” and is built for the last war fail to realize that Iraq and Afghanistan ARE “the last war.” You are expecting every war to be exactly the same as things are now, which is what critics have often derided the military for. Russia and China are ascendant and their weapons (which they will not argue about developing or selling) already surpass the bulk of our aircraft.
A distressing number of you show the lack of logic Gates used when commenting that the F-22 hasn’t been used in Iraq or Afghanistan. First, it hadn’t been deployed to operational units when those theaters started (and I’m sure Y’all would have complained about fielding an “untested” system then), and Y’all would have complained about “wasting” an expensive aircraft. We haven’t used submarines or ICBMs in Iraq or Afghanistan — should we get rid of those, too?
My2Cents
April 6th, 2009
3:50 pm
Carrie I’m sorry to hear about your Dad… I wouldn’t blame Obama for wanting to clean up the stinking mess that was left behind by 8 years of Republican games.