The F-22 fighter has outlived its mission

President Obama, with the support of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has threatened to veto the 2011 defense spending bill if it contains money for the F-22 fighter, which is assembled in Marietta. Obama, Gates and most defense experts without a monetary interest in the issue believe that the F-22 was conceived during the Cold War as a counter to the Soviet Union and a next-generation fighter it was projected to build. The Soviet Union no longer exists; that fighter never came close to being built.

In the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the F-22s already on the flight line have never flown a single mission. It is an extremely expensive weapon without an obvious mission.

Nonetheless, committees in both the House and Senate have decided to court a veto by putting money into the appropriations bill to build more F-22s. (Sen. John McCain, a former fighter pilot himself and ranking minority member of the Armed Services Committee, voted against additional money for the F-22 in committee and has promised to help lead a floor fight against the expenditure.) The decision is clearly driven less by national defense needs than by a desire to keep military contractors happy and taxpayer-funded jobs flowing. (At Lockheed’s Marietta plant, most of the jobs now devoted to the F-22 would be saved by ramping up production of the less exotic, less fragile and less expensive F-35 fighter jet, a workhorse of a plane capable of multiple missions.)

Wasting billions on weapons we don’t need hurts the country, and starves the defense budget of money better spent on actual necessities. The effort to save the F-22 is a triumph of selfishness over patriotism.

180 comments Add your comment

clyde

June 29th, 2009
8:18 am

O.K.-I agree.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
8:18 am

Not to forget the F35, Democrats in the House and Senate (those are the guys who fight against evil corporations, remember?) are also leading an effort to require, at a cost of billions of dollars, an additional ’spare’ engine (made by a different manufacturer) in case ’something’ goes ‘wrong’ with the F35 engine that will ‘require grounding the entire fleet.’

I hope this is one national security issue the president doesn’t change his mind about.

Turd Ferguson

June 29th, 2009
8:20 am

“The decision is clearly driven less by national defense needs than by a desire to keep military contractors happy and taxpayer-funded jobs flowing.”

Stunning…”Keep taxpayer funded jobs flowing…” Isnt that what Obama and the Dems are all about?

ByteMe

June 29th, 2009
8:27 am

Turd: considering the number and breadth of Republicans voting for the additional wasted funds, you might have to reconsider your thoughts about Obama. I know it’s going to be hard for you, so good luck!

Peadawg

June 29th, 2009
8:30 am

“The Obama White House left open the possibility Sunday that the president would break a campaign promise and raise taxes on people earning less than $250,000 to support his health care overhaul agenda.”

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/sharedgen/ap/US_President_And_White_House_Advisers/US_Obama_Health_Care.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

LOL WOW!!! How many more promises is he doing to break?

Redneck Convert

June 29th, 2009
8:31 am

Well, we need the jobs here and if the military don’t want the F22’s I say put them up for bids. There’s lots of people here that would want one and it’s for sure the cops couldn’t catch us if we decided to speed up a little bit in one. And if one breaks down, well, people would die of envy if they drove by and saw one up on cinder blocks in your front yard.

Besides, the F22’s are for National Defense. Now I’m all for cutting these guvmint welfare programs and this health care boondoggle. But us Conservatives beleive National Defense is diffrent. I don’t begrudge a single billion bucks spent on anything for National Defense. So what if the military says they don’t want them? Well, they don’t decide what the military needs, us taxpayers do.

So keep the jobs right here in GA and keep making the F22. That’s my opinion and it’s very true. Have a good day everybody.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
8:31 am

Darned Republicans. Always ready to fight for more taxpayer dollars to spend on unnecessary military expenditures. Yet, they beetch and groan about spending taxpayer dollars to keep folks employed here in the USofA so these folks can spend their money to keep other people employed here in the USofA, etc. I think Boehner’s expletive-laden description of the climate change legislation is slightly mis-placed. He needs to be looking in a mirror.

Scooter

June 29th, 2009
8:32 am

I think Gates is more worried about the defence of the country than political gain. I would trust him on this issue!

Mrs. Godzilla

June 29th, 2009
8:33 am

turd lemonade….

two neo cons in one!

Redneck Convert

June 29th, 2009
8:36 am

Well, no lemonade for me, Mrs. G. Somebody on here done ruint that for me this 4th of July.

lovelyliz

June 29th, 2009
8:38 am

What’s in the best interests of Marietta may not be in the best interest of the USA as a whole.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
8:39 am

Peadawg

I can see why many hate being interviewed on Fox. Watched one of the White House gurus on the Fox chat show this morning. Said cap n trade would cost the average family only 50 cents a day. An interviewer asked how people can reconcile that with Pres Obama’s pledge for no tax increase on the middle class (she did not say ‘gotcha’ she said “how can people reconcile this?” so that proves Fox has a bunch of partisan attack dogs, right?).

Anyhow, the Obama spokesman did not answer the question (for about the fourth time).

She kept to her mantra “Cap n Trade is a jobs program… cap n trade is a jobs program…”

Seek 8:32

[[Darned Republicans. Always ready to fight for more taxpayer dollars to spend on unnecessary military expenditures.]]

The House speaker is Hoyer. I think he’s a Democrat. The Senate Majority is Reid. I think he’s a Democrat….

Oh, if that was you sometime yesterday who posted the link to the Environmental Defense Fund on past cap n trade successes, thanks.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
8:40 am

If Lockheed wants to keep on building F-22s, then they just need to get more aggressive with their efforts world-wide. They should sell a few, really cheap, to Japan and then offer them to North Korea and see where it goes from there. I’m sure that they could keep those few Georgia boys gainfully employed with virtually no effort whatsoever and do it without our tax dollars. Why, they could even offer to equip Iraq with an entire air force and do it via a “plane-for-oil” program.

TW

June 29th, 2009
8:41 am

Not to mention the underlying ‘governmental natural selection.’ With the likes of Saxby and Isakson (not to mention the band of nutcases we send to the house) representing us as a bunch of dumb as dirt morons, I would expect very few decisions to go our way as long as the White House continues to endorse ascending IQ.

Besides the fact that funding the F22 is no different than a farm subsidy, it would only increase the length of the line at the next Palin rally down here…yee-ha :)

Perhaps the state of Georgia could sign a contract with the Springer Show?

Mrs. Godzilla

June 29th, 2009
8:43 am

Redneck Convert

If you splash some vodka into that lemonade, would it neutralize the fecal matter?

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
8:44 am

Paul.

As you noted, I started my statement with “Darned Republicans”. Hence, the lack of a listing of “Darned Democrats”. I just naturally assumed that there would be a more than ample supply of bloggers to cover that aspect and sure enough…anyway, you’re welcome for the EDF link.

Rightwing Troll

June 29th, 2009
8:46 am

Well… considering the fact that we got this here recession goin on and all, and also considering the fact that Lockheed is in Marietta and Marietta is in Cobb and Cobb votes Republican 100% of the time, I say the F-22 is a very important project for Cobb republicans so to the peace-lovin-surrender-monkey in the whitehouse I say go pound sand… Keep the F-22 fighter project and we probably need 2 backup F-35 engines per existing plane and for every new plane built, it’s a matter of national security obviously.

ken

June 29th, 2009
8:48 am

The B-36 and B-58 never dropped a bomb. But they were there just in case. Also, the Russians are building the SU-3MK for export.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
8:53 am

If you splash some vodka into that lemonade, would it neutralize the fecal matter?

While alcohol is known for its ability to destroy bacteria, it likely, in small does, would not make fecal matter more palatable. Perhaps, a blender.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
8:54 am

Oops, that should be “…in small doses…”

Paul

June 29th, 2009
8:57 am

Seek

Sometimes, if I don’t check the moniker, it gets real tough around here to decipher what’s a serious comment and what’s tongue-in-cheek sarcasm!

Ample supply? Well, with the exception of one or two, I don’t believe you’re gonna find many on the Left acknowledging Dems are in the pocket of the defense corporations. Let alone criticizing them for it.

Ken

We have almost a couple hundred F22s and they’ve been in the operational inventory for years. If the B36 and B58 never dropped a bomb, I’m content with a couple hundred F22s never doing what they were designed to do. I think spending billions for a few more is overkill.

mike

June 29th, 2009
9:02 am

Jay –

Remember yesterday when you asked for evidence of a liberal calling any who voted against the recent energy bill a traitor? Paul Krugman does just that this morning:

“But 212 representatives voted no. A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases.

And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/opinion/29krugman.html?ref=opinion

Bosch

June 29th, 2009
9:05 am

Good morning bloggers. I trust your weekends were great. Mine was.

Anywho, first Michael Jackson, now Billy Mays the OxyClean guy. Sigh. It’s a sad day indeed.

I thought we’d already covered this – F22s need to be gone. Are they still arguing about this in Congress? Don’t they have anything better to do?

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
9:06 am

Sometimes, if I don’t check the moniker, it gets real tough around here to decipher what’s a serious comment and what’s tongue-in-cheek sarcasm!

Sarcasm! Is that what you were posting? By the way, I tried it with tongue in cheek and I found it to be quite difficult to form certain letters, especially “R’s”.

Ample supply? Well, with the exception of one or two, I don’t believe you’re gonna find many on the Left acknowledging Dems are in the pocket of the defense corporations. Let alone criticizing them for it.

True. But, that lack of lefties selling out their own is more than compensated for by righties selling out their own as well as selling out lefties.

mike

June 29th, 2009
9:06 am

Jay –

Here is another example of liberals calling Democrats who don’t stick to party lines “traitors”:

“Health-Care Activists Rightfully Target Traitor Democrats

Ceci Connolly, the WaPo staff writer tries her best to make this tactic from the base of the party out to be a bad thing – or the old “Democrats in disarray” meme – but, this is exactly what Democrats needed to do and should do more regularly.

This sell-outs are precisely why legislation gets watered to to an almost unrecognizable form – doing little or nothing of its original intent.

These f*****s aren’t real democrats, they’re corporatist democrats – conservadems – and the very reason republicans were able to remove almost all banking regulations and consumer protections over the last 20 years or so.”

http://thejoshuablogs.blogspot.com/2009/06/health-care-activists-targeting-traitor.html

I guess these folks would be called the Democrat Basij…if they weren’t liberals, that is.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
9:11 am

Well, it is just a good thing that the Democrats voted to keep that faux Republican, Saxby, around for another term. Otherwise, the Republicans would have had a fighting chance at stopping some of this wasteful expenditure of taxpayer dollars on worthless cold war relics and we would not want that to happen.

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:11 am

O.K., jay, this is where…

you need to give Rummy his due ’cause

he sought to cut the F-22.

Poetry in motion.

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:12 am

Gawingnut

June 29th, 2009
9:16 am

I’m not a Harvard educated lawyer, and I wouldn’t admit it if I were. But the local peasants & serfs in my little town know that when defense contractors are busy fullfilling defense contracts, many people are employed, and the local economy is dramatically better. Remember all the screaming about closing military bases that weren’t needed? Bad for the economy. Warner Robins comes to mind.

So I posit this to all you pundits out there who seem to know a great deal about defense department needs: Isn’t building a plane that never fires a shot better for a recession than cancelling the contract?

Think about it while you’re working the drive thru window at Hardees today. You might surprise yourselves.

Soothsayer

June 29th, 2009
9:20 am

DB, Gwinnettian

June 29th, 2009
9:22 am

O.K., jay, this is where…you need to give Rummy his due ’cause he sought to cut the F-22.

I must have missed where President Bush similarly threatened to veto any measure funding it.

Soothsayer

June 29th, 2009
9:27 am

Kamchak

June 29th, 2009
9:28 am

Bosch

It was a game of two halves—we won the first one….

mini me-me

June 29th, 2009
9:33 am

Is corporate (military industrial complex) welfare, better than other forms of welfare or social programs?

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:34 am

DB suffers from BDS.

First, and most important, Rumsfeld appears willing to abandon the nation’s two-war strategy. That strategy, a mainstay of President Clinton’s overextended defense policy, required that the United States have the military forces to fight two wars nearly simultaneously (for example, a war with Iraq and North Korea). Yet even during the Cold War when a rival superpower could have orchestrated trouble in two regions at once, the United States never fought two wars simultaneously. The Soviets never took advantage of U.S. involvement in conflicts in Korea, Vietnam and the Persian Gulf to attack U.S. vital interests elsewhere.

They didn’t then but Putin sho ’nuff is now.

DB, Gwinnettian

June 29th, 2009
9:42 am

DB suffers from BDS.

Because I mentioned Bush? Whatever, Stratfor Wifey.

Later, all. Try not to push anyone down a flight of stairs.

Wes

June 29th, 2009
9:43 am

Jay,

Is there any way that our representatives might limit the sprawl on these programs? I count at least five states that are involved with this program. Throw in the congressional delegates, and there isn’t any way our reps can separate national security from maintaining employment for their constituents. I’d like to think that just demanding that contractors consolidate the work might result in economies of scale and fewer conflicting influences.

yabba dabba-doo

June 29th, 2009
9:43 am

Seek- those countries aren’t gonna buy these planes at the same price our govment will pay. They will actually want to pay a fair and reasonable price. So no deal.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
9:44 am

Turd Ferguson

June 29th, 2009
8:20 am

Just until we’re out of this economic crisis. Wait until next year. Can you believe austerity?

Paul

June 29th, 2009
9:46 am

Bosch

Not Billy Mays?!!?

He was 50, too?

How old are you, again?

Seek 9:06

[[that lack of lefties selling out their own is more than compensated for by righties selling out their own as well as selling out lefties.]]

It’s a seller’s market! With plenty of sell-outs!

g’morning, @@

Rumsfield came in advocating not just cutting the F-22, but stopping it. And just about every other high-tech system then on the boards.

No wonder Democrats couldn’t stand him!

(Seek: how was that for sarcasm?)

I see your 9:22 made the point. Care to guess how many Rumsfeld-haters are gonna bother to read the link? Can’t upset prejudice, now, can we?

jokerman

June 29th, 2009
9:47 am

Seek and ye shall Find … Yes, John Bonar of Ohio called the “Climate bill a Pile of Sh*t, but what would one expect from the same clown who thinks global warming is caused by cow manure?

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:48 am

Bosch

June 29th, 2009
9:49 am

Kamchak,

Tell me about it. I recorded it and watched it when I got back from Atlanta last night (I already knew the outcome thanks to my boys), but good lord – it’s like they were on an adrenaline high and then crashed. But I’m still proud of the team – and we finished ahead of the Iberians (still a good on AmVet!).

Bo Chambliss LOBBYIST

June 29th, 2009
9:53 am

GET OFF SAXBY”S BACK, when you elected him you knew he worked for the Lobbyist not Georgia. Saxby is getting top dollar for YOUR vote rest assured.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
9:54 am

mike

June 29th, 2009
9:02 am

“And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn’t help thinking that I was watching a form of treason — treason against the planet.”

Against the planet, not their country.

There are plenty of liberals and liberal groups opposed, but they aren’t party hacks.

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:55 am

Paul:

I was listening to some guy who collaborated with Rumsfeld on his biography (unauthorized). I had no idea he was so successful in business ventures. A couple of callers got to ask questions. Examples:

“Rumsfeld was instrumental in bringing Aspertain (sp?) into the marketplace. Does he feel guilty about all the people who died of brain tumors due to Aspertain?”

Another:

“I heard Rumsfeld was at the Pentagon when it was hit September 11. He was in the back. A lot of people are saying that Rummy was in on the attack. Is that true?”

Geez! Liberal moonbats…..attracted by shiny things.

Jay

June 29th, 2009
9:55 am

For the record, @@, we at the AJC edit board lauded Rummie for that stance and supported it, much to the consternation of some local folk.

And Mike, surely a person as resolutely evenhanded and just as yourself — the most resolutely evenhanded person to ever post on a blog or perhaps even walk this earth — must recognize that calling someone a traitor to the planet differs in oh so many ways from calling them a traitor to their party.

Or not.

Normal

June 29th, 2009
9:59 am

Isn’t building a plane that never fires a shot better for a recession than cancelling the contract?
———————-
GAWINGNUT: Not if you can build more of a cheaper plane that might actually have a mission, just like it says in Jay’s post.
————–
The Nimitz Class Carriers are coming to a close also. Start building a smaller, cheaper CV, and build more of ‘em. Give the NK’s more to think about…

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:00 am

Gawingnut

June 29th, 2009
9:16 am

Wouldn’t it be better to invest in projects that create jobs and benefit mankind? Which is what Obama is trying to do. Time will tell if it pays off.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
10:00 am

So, now the Republicans are bragging that Rumsfeld “sought” to cut the F-22. Wow. Perhaps, I should brag that I “seek”. Then again, Republicans do love their rhetoric, especially if it sounds real good and fits on a bumper sticker.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:02 am

Soothsayer

June 29th, 2009
9:20 am

Surely they’ve realized that by now.

Matt

June 29th, 2009
10:02 am

So what about the Chinese and there ability to build an advanced fighter? Anyone worried about that at all?

jokerman

June 29th, 2009
10:03 am

Paul the B-58 lasted only 9 years in the Air Force’s inventory . During the course of it’s existence 26 B-58 aircraft were lost in accidents, 22.4% of total production. Not much of an impact for a very expensive airplane.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-58_Hustler

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:05 am

jay –

“And Mike, surely a person as resolutely evenhanded and just as yourself — the most resolutely evenhanded person to ever post on a blog or perhaps even walk this earth — must recognize that calling someone a traitor to the planet differs in oh so many ways from calling them a traitor to their party.”

All ad-hominem sneering aside, of course you will split hairs to explain why liberals are nice and conservatives are a bunch of meanines. That kind of silly partisan stance is your bread and butter.

I notice you ignored my second post from a liberal about “Democrat Traitors”. Guess you figured that a wall of ad-hominem attacks wasn’t enough to address the point. Not surprising.

Just remember: conservatives are bad, liberals are not bad. Is that a reasonable summary of your philosophy? It’s just like your peer Rush’s world view, just reversed.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

June 29th, 2009
10:06 am

Transformers got it wrong! Obama wouldn’t have put the military on the Decepticons! (read democrats here) he would have sent Michelle (read Fugly here) to speak with them. The device wouldn’t have been in the pyramids, but the Temple mount! We don’t need a military, we aren’t going to fight anyone with Barry!

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
10:07 am

So what about the Chinese and there ability to build an advanced fighter? Anyone worried about that at all?

I’m sure worried. The last thing we need is the Chinese using stealth technology to bombard us with yet more “Made in Taiwan” labels. At least we get to “assemble” some of the stuff over here. Isn’t that comforting.

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:09 am

Jay –

“Max Baucus is a TRAITOR to Democratic values…

….Nelson, Max Baucus, Chuck Schumer, Arlen Specter, even Ron Wyden, and every other Democrat who genuflects before corporate power, has betrayed Democratic values.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×5626968

How can this be? Doesn’t Democratic Underground know that only conservative Basij members accuse folks of “betraying party values”?

getalife

June 29th, 2009
10:09 am

I will go with Gates over McPathetic on all defense issues.

Funny, when the President goes fiscal con, the cons will still attack him.

Hypocrites.

AmVet

June 29th, 2009
10:09 am

I said back during Ronnie Raygun’s reign that the vast percentage of those people employed at General Dynamics, Boeing, General Electric, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and United Technologies Corp should get real jobs. Doing something that really mattered instead of feeding off the military-industrial complex’s very large teats…

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:09 am

mini me-me

June 29th, 2009
9:33 am

Well, it does supply the dignity of work if you don’t examine too closely.

@@

June 29th, 2009
10:10 am

For the record, @@, we at the AJC edit board lauded Rummie for that stance and supported it, much to the consternation of some local folk.

I didn’t ask, but good for you, jay.

So what happened to your “record” since then? Did the needle get stuck?

Normal

June 29th, 2009
10:10 am

Good morning Gandalf! Bless your heart…

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:11 am

Jay –

Why don’t you search for “traitor” on Democratic Underground? It returned over 23 thousand results from their own site. Now to be fair, the tolerant liberals there call Republicans and Democrats both traitors, despite your silly protestations that only conservatives call folks traitors.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:12 am

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:34 am

And then along came ‘W’. Talk about being overextended.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
10:12 am

@@

Incredible comments.

I’ve posted before – there was doubt Rumsfeld would last as SecDef once the Pentagon and Industry closed ranks against him. Except for the likes of McCain, I’d bet Republicans were nearly as opposed to his defense cuts as Democrats are now.

Given we have a Dem Congress and administration, if Democratic constituents and party activists will tell their reps they’re fed up and don’t think local interests are a good enough excuse any more, then maybe we’ll make progress where a Rep Congress and administration wouldn’t.

Heck, Rep Barney Frank and Bill O Reilly just agreed on Defense cuts to fund health care reform. Anything’s possible!

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:13 am

getalife –

“I will go with Gates over McPathetic on all defense issues.”

Well, I guess you are giving Bush credit for his personnel decisions.

todd

June 29th, 2009
10:14 am

F22’s haven’t flown a single mission in afghanistan because they didn’t have an airforce. if the us has to face a country with an actual airforce and us pilots start dying i’m sure you will hear everyone screaming for this plane.

extremerightwing

June 29th, 2009
10:14 am

Jay, China would love you as they are in the process of trying to develop stealth technology. You may not want to admit this, but China is our next major threat.

getalife

June 29th, 2009
10:15 am

mike,

Yes, Gates was a good choice and has done a good job.

Rummy, not so much.

kitty

June 29th, 2009
10:16 am

You know who is leading the fight to keep this unnecessary airplane in the budget, don’t you? Our own Senators, Chambliss and Isakson. Pork is only pork when it isn’t in your state and if I hear one more Republican yell that term at someone else, I may send them a ham.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:20 am

@@

June 29th, 2009
9:48 am

On that we can agree.

I received this in a fw’ed e-mail recently:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article18568.htm

clyde

June 29th, 2009
10:20 am

Mrs. G,
A good redneck would be putting homemade ’shine in his lemonade.

Seek and ye shall find,

A good redneck wouldn’t be thinking small doses either.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
10:21 am

TNGelding 10:12

As @@’s link stated, for years the taxpayers and Congress gave the Pentagon billions so they could fight two wars at once. Wars. Not major regional conflicts. Not peacekeeping operations. Wars. Involving all the services to a high degree. Not mostly the Army and Marines. With a few rotations by the Air Force. Pretty much leaving out the Navy. Wars. Big ones.

And our military is broke after a couple years of Iran rotations. With way less people in Japan than in Afghanistan.

Overextended? Sounds like more years of poor planning, protecting service interests and not being willing to change because they’ve got way enough money to stay comfortable and not make changes.

Rarely – rarely does the military change unless there’s a budget cut. Even then they strongly resist structural changes, instead opting for ‘just cut everything the same percentage.”

md

June 29th, 2009
10:22 am

“it may be GE leading the way”

Really? The same GE that owns NBC with the Apostle Immelt that sits to the right hand of the annointed one? The corporation that stands to gain the most if the annointed one gets cap and trade passed? That GE? Who woulda thunk it?

william Crews

June 29th, 2009
10:23 am

Jay
We haven’t used our Nuclear subs either, does that mean we shouldn’t build them either. It’s a good thing that you dont work on Aircraft, because if you did, you might have some understanding of them. If you had some insight into the world of aviation you would know that most of our country’s inventory of fighter aircraft particularly in the Air force are over 20 years old while the rest of the world is updating their fleet as we speak. If you had thought your article through before hand, you would have done some research on China. They are modernizing their Air force and their Navy faster than any nation on earth. They are spending billions on offensive weapons systems and have already surpassed us as a military superpower. But you would know this if you did some research. Russia is again updating and producing some of the most updated fighters ever built, but you would know this if you did some research. Jay, Most people who are to the left will believe what you have written because they are not in the know on the subject, they depend on you to get the facts right and you have failed in that regard.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:23 am

Matt

June 29th, 2009
10:02 am

Just the brass at the Pentagon.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
10:24 am

TN Gelding

Prior post: make that “with way MORE troops in Japan than in Afghanistan.”

todd

[[F22’s haven’t flown a single mission in afghanistan because they didn’t have an airforce. ]]

Neither does Iran.

AF flies lots and lots of ground support missions with their fighter planes.

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
10:25 am

Well, if Lockheed would just hurry up and sell a lot of planes to a lot of our enemies, then we would have a need for a lot of planes to use against a lot of our enemies just in case a lot of our enemies started to use a lot of their planes against a lot of our planes or vice versa. And, the same thing goes for tanks and ships too. And guns.

md

June 29th, 2009
10:26 am

On topic – the argument is about jobs, and the ATL doesn’t need any of those, so cut the plane. If we go to an actual war, it will be brought back and nobody will really care because the draft will have put them all on the frontlines.

Gandalf, the White! (!)

June 29th, 2009
10:29 am

According to Transformers, Air Craft carriers are obsolete, let’s get rid of them too! Sell them to China or North Korea maybe? That what democrats do! Barry will turns us all into allies soon enough, much like the SOB FDR made friends with Stalin! Patton should have been President, not Truman!

I Report :-) You Whine :-(

June 29th, 2009
10:29 am

It is an extremely expensive weapon without an obvious mission.

The Klinton democrats thought we didn’t need to spend money on defense either, so our soldiers went into Afghanistan and Iraq without the proper body armor, vehicles that were not mine resistant and all sorts of other primitive technologies, how many of them died because of this?

Do the democrats care about dead soldiers, they didn’t then because they had Bush to blame, even if it wasn’t his fault.

One has to honestly wonder if the democrats really care if our soldiers are thoroughly protected.

how2fish

June 29th, 2009
10:29 am

Same thinking got us into WWII no money for tanks, weapons, new planes etc..Any idea how having the BEST fighter plane on the planet is a bad thing..we lose so many less men and women when our weapons and weapons systems are better than our foes…but by all means blame Bush etc.

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:30 am

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:13 am

It was a political decision after the huge GOP losses. He stuck with him far too long. Why was he chosen in the first place?

zeke

June 29th, 2009
10:31 am

The problem with your opinion and that of Gates and Obama is this! Sure, the F22 has not played a significant role in Iraq and Afghanistan, but, that is only because neither enemy has a reliable air force! Our great enemies still and in the future will be Russia, China, and possibly, India, Venezuela and others! Russia and China are full throttle researching and designing fighters to match or exceed the F22! Then what do we do without air superiority?? THE F35 IS NOT THE ANSWER TO THAT PROBLEM! THE F22 IS!

Gandalf, the White! (!)

June 29th, 2009
10:31 am

EXPAT: Transformers is a good movie! Check it out! IT even has Barry in it! (as the chief Decepticon!) just kidding, but he is in it! Amazing!

Col H

June 29th, 2009
10:35 am

If your sons or daughter ever fly agianst N. Korea you will thank those defense minded Amercans who support the F-22.

Normal

June 29th, 2009
10:35 am

Yeah, Gandalf, Patton would have been a great President except he was dead…

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:38 am

todd

June 29th, 2009
10:14 am

Hopefully any country with a sizable air force has the good sense and judgment not to use it.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2008/02/3246746

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f22/

Seek and ye shall Find

June 29th, 2009
10:42 am

Well, since a little expenditure on a worthless plane is good, why not spend a lot of taxes on all kinds of worthless weapons and put everyone to work, for the government, like the Republicans here are obviously arguing for. Bigger government payrolls. Work for everyone at the taxpayer’s expense. Sounds like fun. So, where do we get the money.

Les

June 29th, 2009
10:44 am

I work at Robins Air Force Base, the sustainment center for the F-15 fighter. I can tell you one thing, the Eagle is old!!! The F-15 was built in the early 1970’s and is now outclassed by more modern aircraft such as the Russian SU-30 Flanker. The F-22 was intended to replace the F-15 much like the new Virginia class submarines are now replacing the older Los Angeles subs. Ooops, the Virginia’s haven’t fought in Iraq and Afghanistan either! Guess we need to stop making them as well.
Just because a weapon system isn’t presently being used in Iraq or Afghanistan doesn’t mean that it’s not important to national security. Even the new Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) hasn’t served in Iraq or Afganistan, but the government is buying them too.
Other countries see the value in the F-22 and prefer it to the F-35. Indeed, the F-35 is designed to be more of a strike aircraft rather than a true fighter. Countries like Japan and Australia want the F-22 over the F-35, but we won’t sell it to them.
Ayatollah Obama and the Liberals in congress want to spend billions of our tax dollars to purchase banks and auto manufacturers, but they don’t want to spend a dime to buy the best fighter in the world.
Jay Bookman, in this country you have the right to be wrong. But please, don’t abuse the privilege.

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:44 am

TnGelding:

“It was a political decision after the huge GOP losses.”

Actually, it wasn’t political at all. Bush had made the decision to fire him before the elections and many Republicans were mad at him for not doing it before the election, which would have helped politically.

“He stuck with him far too long. Why was he chosen in the first place?”

Probably the same reason why Lincoln stuck with McClellan for years before he replaced him with Grant. Presidents make incorrect hiring decisions and make changes later. Don’t you remember several of Obama’s aborted Cabinet appointments?

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:45 am

Paul

June 29th, 2009
10:21 am

The bureaucracy at the Pentagon is suffocating.

I don’t think they had planned on anyone recklessly placing ground troops in two hostile environments.

RB from Gwinnett

June 29th, 2009
10:45 am

I see the city of Atlanta just voted to raise property taxes to close it’s budget gap. With nearly 10% unemployment, people not getting raises at work, hours being cut, etc. the city figures they’ll pass their budget problems off on the people and make it their budget problem instead. And what can the people do about it? Nothing. Bend over and suck it up, people, cause you’ve created a government that feels it has the power to take as much of your money as it wants for whatever it wants to spend it on and there is NOTHING you can do about it.

I suspect the federal government will be next at the trough. Beyond the Cap and Tax plan.

I wonder if the American people will ever get fed up enough with this crap to risk their lives for it the way our ancestors did and the way the Iranians are doing or will they just drift into socialist mediocraty like europe has done?

RW-(the original)

June 29th, 2009
10:45 am

mike

June 29th, 2009
10:45 am

getalife –

“Yes, Gates was a good choice and has done a good job. Rummy, not so much.”

Hey, we agree on something. How about that.

Normal

June 29th, 2009
10:46 am

Look y’all, the Soviet war doctrine was build them cheap and build thousands of them..tanks, planes, ships, then take them out and overwhelm the enemy with superior numbers and firepower. Sure, technology is good, but it can be defeated if its systems are overloaded. What good is a plane that can target six enemy planes, when there are hundreds flying against them. It was the same “overload” doctrine that they would have used against our Carrier task forces. We would have killed alot of them, but and a big but, they would have got us. Last I looked, we don’t have star trek shields to protect us…Just sayin’

getalife

June 29th, 2009
10:47 am

Off Topic.

Madoff sentencing:

Like a good mobster, he did not snitch out his friends and family.

He should get the max to set an example for the rest of the Wall Street crooks.

Paul

June 29th, 2009
10:47 am

Now look here, Seek (10:25), that post was wrong in so many ways because –

what? sarcasm?

nevermind –

Report/Whine 10:29

I’ll offer our soldiers went to war without the items you cited, not just because of the Clinton Administration (when the need for such items would have had to have been developed for use in time for Afghanistan) but because the Pentagon bureaucracy did not foresee their need, resisted the missions that made such need necessary and made conscious decisions to spend the money on (and promote the program managers) of other, ’sexier’ systems.

how2fish

[[Same thinking got us into WWII no money for tanks, weapons, new planes etc.]]

No money for weapons? If trillions aren’t enough, how much is?

Col H 10:35

Colonel Hackworth? You’re dead. And even though you were the highest decorated living veteran, you fought against such weapons and called for cutting the defense budget by about half, remember?

TnGelding

June 29th, 2009
10:48 am

RB from Gwinnett

June 29th, 2009
10:49 am

I’m going to guess one of our liberal friends here is either writing or thinking of writing a stupid “you want police and fire service but don’t want to pay for it” post as if those are the only things the city spends money on.

BTW, I called the DeKalb county police 3 times about a theft at a home I have in Decatur and they never called me back. If that’s the service I’m paying for then, no, I don’t want to pay for it. My money is better spent on a Glock.