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.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
180 comments Add your comment
getalife
June 29th, 2009
10:51 am
mike,
Again, as a proud Independent not blinded by partisan bs, I call em like I see em.
The best thing to happen for w’s legacy is obama.
With every crime covered up, with every bushie he keeps and with every w policy he uses, this helps w’s legacy.
cons should thank obama for that.
Gandalf, the White! (!)
June 29th, 2009
10:51 am
Nermal: Idiots (read liberal here) like you rarely have any facts straight! So let me assist you! Patton Died December 21, 1945, Truman took office April 12, 1945. If Patton were president, it’s doubtful that he would be riding a jeep in Gemany that fateful day. See! Someday Nermal you might get out of your mommies apron and begin to think all by you little bitty self!
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
10:53 am
Paul
June 29th, 2009
10:24 am
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
10:54 am
I am 100 percent in favor of letting the Republicans spend all their time building weapons and spending all their money paying for them and sending their kids off to use them in as many wars as they want to fight and fund. Have fun with that.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
10:55 am
Patton is dead too! I’m just devastated.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
10:55 am
TNGelding 10:45
[[I don’t think they had planned on anyone recklessly placing ground troops in two hostile environments.]]
RW-(the original)
I see a new thread topic….
[[Justice Ginsburg, writing for the minority: "white firefighters "understandably attract this court's sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them." ]]
No kidding! No one else received promotions because they froze all actions pending the outcome!
Normal 10:46
(from wikipedia, so I can’t vouch, but it is sourced to AF materials)
During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22s of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises.[9] In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22. This was followed with the Raptor’s first participation in a Red Flag exercise. 14 F-22s of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force. Further, no sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force.[91] When their ordnance was expended, the F-22s remained in the exercise area providing electronic surveillance to the Blue Forces.[92]
I think an issue at this point is, are billions spent for a handful more the best use of limited dollars, or would those billions have more of an effect elsewhere?
Well, considering they were given money for decades for two wars at the same time, and given every year they go through these long-range, all-seeing planning exercises to see where the next big threat is, I’d say most of those bureaucrats are pretty darn incompetent.
And I’m being kind -
Curious Observer
June 29th, 2009
10:57 am
Yes, the Russians are famous for mass-producing weapons, but let’s not forget that no armor was a match for Russia’s T-34 tank during World War II. The invading Germans were so impressed that some advocated simply copying its design as the next generation German tank. So in addition to thinking of Russia’s weapons quantities, we ought to be considering the quality of its weapons too.
AmVet
June 29th, 2009
11:01 am
Who knows? Patton may have made a good US President. Gawd knows the last decent president the cons had was Eisenhower…
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:04 am
I Report
You Whine 
June 29th, 2009
10:29 am
Clinton’s directive on regime change in Iraq specifically prohibited the use of U.S. ground troops to accomplish it. It was Bush that ordered the troops into battle ill-equipped and ill-prepared because he tried to do it on the cheap. The Pentagon had the proper equipment, just didn’t use it. Rummy could have waited until he had what he wished.
http://crooksandliars.com/2006/12/15/remebering-rumsfeld-you-go-to-war-with-the-army-you-have-not-the-army-you-might-want-or-wish-to-have-at-a-later-time/
godless heathen
June 29th, 2009
11:04 am
If Lockheed would figure out how to power them F-22s on solar or wind power, we’d all be building them.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:04 am
TNGelding 10:53
That was then, this is now.
Seek 10:54
[[I am 100 percent in favor of letting the Republicans spend all their time building weapons and spending all their money paying for them]]
D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S control Congress, the authorization committees and are in charge of spending the money and putting through this stuff.
Sure, the R’s go along, but this issue is squarely in the D-E-M-O-C-R-A-T-S’ lap.
oh, more sarcasm.
Nevermind.
Again.
TN Gelding
I trust you picked up that after I addressed you in the previous post, you had to go clear to the end to the last big paragraph to find the correct information?
Sorry ’bout that -
mike
June 29th, 2009
11:04 am
getalife –
“The best thing to happen for w’s legacy is obama.”
Two points of agreement! Maybe we should move in together
Normal
June 29th, 2009
11:06 am
Paul, you bring up a good point about the exercises, but that’s what they were, controlled exercises. We both know that war, once started, is rarely controlled. Just as an example: When our air force first met up with the ME-262 jet fighter in WWII, they devised a way of beating the superior aircraft by following it home and shooting it down as it tried to land. Not very sporting, but effective. In war, ANYTHING can happen…and does. One on my favorite sayings about war is this: When your attack is going as planned, you’re about to be ambushed…Just sayin’…
——————-
GANDALF: About Patton, it wouldn’t have mattered…He never would have taken the job. But I will say that one of our greatest presidents was General Eisenhower…
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:07 am
how2fish
June 29th, 2009
10:29 am
It’s not a bad thing until someone comes along and launches preemptive strikes against imaginary foes. We have a strong military so we WON’T have to use it.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:10 am
zeke
June 29th, 2009
10:31 am
“Great enemies?” We won’t have any if we conduct our foreign policy properly.
I Report :-) You Whine :-(
June 29th, 2009
11:11 am
Aahhh, yes, your little racist-
COURT OVERTURNS SOTOMAYOR; SIDES WITH WHITE FIREFIGHTERS
eewww
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:13 am
TNGelding 11:04
[[Clinton’s directive on regime change in Iraq specifically prohibited the use of U.S. ground troops to accomplish it. ]]
I don’t think so.
http://www.iraqwatch.org/government/US/Legislation/ILA.htm
[[The Pentagon had the proper equipment, just didn’t use it.]]
That is just so wrong on so many levels -
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:14 am
TNGelding 11:10
[[“Great enemies?” We won’t have any if we conduct our foreign policy properly]]
So Pres Obama isn’t conducting our policy properly regarding Iran and N Korea? Or Russia? Or Venezuela (oops, you said ‘great’ – sorry).
AmVet
June 29th, 2009
11:16 am
I don’t know much about this woman that the Uppity One nominated to sit on the bench.
But what little I know I don’t like. Apparently she’s NOT a terrorist coddling baby killer.
OK, gotta run and help pay for the occupation and the bailouts.
Be excellent to each other…
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:17 am
Normal
True enough. But the Pentagon process is supposed to be one of “what do we need? how much is enough? what’s the risk of doing or not doing?”
Again, I’ll offer spending billions more on a handful of additional F22s is not the best bang for our bucks. Billions of buck.
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2009
11:17 am
“When your attack is going as planned, you’re about to be ambushed…Just sayin’…”
I think I’ve heard this same thing, only worded differently: “if the enemy is in range, so are you”
Doggone/GA
June 29th, 2009
11:18 am
“But I will say that one of our greatest presidents was General Eisenhower…”
He was also our last bald President. Maybe there’s a lesson in there somewhere.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
11:18 am
I am 100 percent in favor of letting the Republicans spend all their time building weapons and spending all their money paying for them…
A statement of [one of] my beliefs, Paul. Feel free to use it as one of your own too. Peace.
Grad student
June 29th, 2009
11:20 am
How can F22 be a relic and it is the ONLY Fifth Generation stealth fighter in PRODUCTION?
Are we planning to always fight insurgents. I do not think so.
The Airforce wants 380 and only has 140 so far. Saying the decision by Gates represents the forces is incorrect.
Getting rid of F22’s while making it illegal to sell these jets to our allies is not right in my opinion.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
11:21 am
By the way, what ever happened to all those “open-armed” Iraqis just waiting for their liberators to show up. Oh, wait a minute. There was a problem with the translation. It should have said that they were “openly armed” and waiting for us.
thomas
June 29th, 2009
11:22 am
off topic-
looks like the high court did not agree with nominated judges discrimination policies either. See where high court overruled a decision made by the nominated judge, and surprise it was the high court saying that he rrule of law is wrong and that she indeed did engage in reverse discrimination.
But we all know Bookman has serious issues admitting that he is wrong so don’t look for an article from him on it.
Just for the record it is ok to be wrong but yu have to be able to confess to it. When you are able to admit fault this is when you can be taken seriously Mr. Bookman.
Kinda how you tried to split hairs with Mike earlier, but even when he showed you on numerous occasions how your statement was wrong, you sit back like the elitist you portray yourself to be and said nothing like hey maybe I overstated things. But no, youjust go on acting like you are never wrong how about this one.
You said the Judge was not a racist or a discriminator. Well the court today said she is by saying her ruling was.
I am sure you will show how they did not say this, but even though you do not think so, some of us are ALMOST as smart as you and your lying, misleading ways.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:27 am
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:13 am
That wasn’t the directive. I’m having trouble finding it.
The humvee, for example, wasn’t designed for what it was/is being used.
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0307/032607nj1.htm
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:29 am
Seek 11:18
Thank you! I shall use it freely to make myself look good. If someone comes up with a slam-dunk counterargument, I shall then say “you need to talk to this blogger named Seek at Bookman’s blog…”
Grad Student
The AF wants the number they have. Buying more will make less available for other programs.
When the F-22 was first developed there was an Air Force Chief of Staff name of Ron Fogleman. F-22 advocates wanted hundreds to replace the F-15. Later on in their arguments they began repeating the line “the F-22 is twice as capable” to which Gen Fogleman responded “then we need only half as many.”
They stopped using that line. It was really funny coming from the AF’s top military guy, himself a fighter pilot.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:33 am
mike
June 29th, 2009
10:44 am
It was a political decision, he just delayed announcing it. Too bad Rummy wasn’t aborted.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:34 am
TNGelding
I agree completely the Humvee wasn’t used as designed. I understood you to say the Pentagon had the equipment they needed, just didn’t take it with them. That’s what I disagree with.
Army resisted any kind of urban warfare missions. Resisted any kind of insurgency missions. All military still had pretty much a traditional mindset. Whenever programs came along that might address some of this, they weren’t funded will and the program guys were not promoted the same as the guys working on the ‘better’ programs.
That’s why we retrofitted Humvees with armor – cause we had no capability to make them that way straight off the production line.
It wasn’t so much a blame Bush and Rumsfeld issue. The Pentagon bureaucracy was operating the same as it always did. It frankly didn’t matter if Bush or Kerry or Gore would’ve been Pres. We still wouldn’t have had armored urban warfare vehicles at that point in time.
Normal
June 29th, 2009
11:34 am
DOGGONE, Another favorite of mine is, “Never fire your weapon unless you have to, it will draw unwanted attention…
————–
I always thought bald was smart. I think when I was asked if I wanted brains or hair, I made the wrong choice…Just sayin’
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:43 am
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:04 am
From wiki:
In 2002, Iran with the co-operation of Ukraine, successfully started the manufacture of the Iran-140; a licence-built version of the Antonov An-140 transport aircraft. Simultaneously, Iran began construction of two 100% domestically-produced fighters, upgraded using technology from the F-14 Tomcat and the F-5 Tiger II. The fighters have been named the Azarakhsh and the Shafaq.
Since then the country has also become self-sufficient in the manufacture of helicopters. The country claims that it is capable of producing the old U.S. AH-1 Cobra gunship. Additionally, Iran also produces Bell Helicopter Bell 212 and Bell 206 helicopters in serial production. These are known respectively as the Shabaviz 2-75 and the Shabaviz 206.
Gawingnut
June 29th, 2009
11:47 am
Normal: Nimitz class carriers are coming to their life’s end.
Trouble is, the F-22 is NOT for the Navy. It is not a carrier based plane.
As for building planes that “actually have a mission,” which ones don’t?
Pete
June 29th, 2009
11:48 am
With the deployment of the most advanced Russian anti-aircraft missile systems (maybe s-300?, similar to Patriot missile) to Iraq now and possibly others later, the stealth capabilities of the F-22 might well be needed in the local flare-up situation that the pundits are saying it is overkill for.
For those that keep saying sell it overseas, Congress/DoD won’t allow it. For those that say the F-15 is the answer, we retired the F-14 Tomcat because the airframes couldn’t be kept airworthy after 30 years. For those that say the F-35 is the answer, don’t you want to have a plane that is better than what everyone else is using? The F-22 has consistently cleaned the clock of any and all fighters sent up against it in Red Flag type exercises even against normally insurmountable odds. Remember what a game changer the F-117 stealth fighter was in the wars it was used in?
I just keep remembering that saying about bringing a knife to a gun fight. I want the US to always have the biggest and best gun in massive depth so we are not on the receiving end!
Just my $.02 and now I go back to lurking.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:52 am
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:34 am
But they might have had the good judgment not to put troops into hostile environments ill-equipped.
todd
June 29th, 2009
11:53 am
William Crews is right on with his comment about submarines. Just because you aren’t using a weapon doesn’t mean it’s not necessary. However, I do believe that Air Craft Carriers are obsolete. They would be the first targets taken out in any conflict at great loss of life and resources. If you think you can maintain a huge halo around one of these dinasaurs in time of war you are sadly mistaken.
Mark
June 29th, 2009
11:53 am
Bookman has outlived his mission as well. He, like the F-22 should retire.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:55 am
Pete
June 29th, 2009
11:48 am
THANKS FOR THE INPUT.
Grad student
June 29th, 2009
11:55 am
We are fighting large countries right now but they are uncivilized. F22 is the only defense when you talk about China, North Korea, Iran..
we can not plan our attack for the level of opponent we are fighting.
Using this backward thinking 99.9% of gun owners should get rid of the gun they had because they have not used it in defense.
Defense is a just in case sometimes and not always a need right now. If you believe different then go turn in your gun when you go home and make sure the boogie man is not waiting.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
11:58 am
todd
June 29th, 2009
11:53 am
REMEMBER THE RUBBER RAFT?
http://www.marinelink.com/Story/ShowStory.aspx?StoryID=4031
Nothing but a floating grave yard.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:58 am
TNGelding 11:43
What are we talking about? If it was the state of Iraq’s air force when we invaded, I still take the position that, regardless of all the papers and forecasts and whatnot, we could roll over them pretty easily. Which we did.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
12:01 pm
TNGelding 11:52
I sure hope so. I really do, but unfortunately, if there’s an area where the Pres and his advisors think we have to commit and someone says ‘you know, we don’t have all of or the best equipment we could use” I’m pretty sure what they’re gonna hear is
“you go to war with the military you got.”
Ironic, ain’t it?
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:01 pm
Paul
June 29th, 2009
11:58 am
You said Iran didn’t have an air force.
I finally got caught up. Time to get some nourishment.
me
June 29th, 2009
12:02 pm
Um… Air superiority in any conflict IS a mission; and a very important one. Go back and read some books….. Is it our highest priority right now? NO, but the budget must include $ for this program to continue albeit on a smaller production…
mini me-me
June 29th, 2009
12:02 pm
TnGelding
If just find it “interesting” that people who are complaining the loudest about the current administration’s stimulus spending don’t seem to mind one bit when they are the one’s being stimulated by an outdated DOD program.
I feel for the people who will lose their jobs if the F-22 fubding is cut, but just as when some similar happened to my father who worked for the DOA, you have to learn to deal as best you can when your program is no longer necessary.
Formernavalaviator
June 29th, 2009
12:04 pm
The F-22 is essential to our national defense and 187 are too few to spread around the world. Considering that 30-40 will be used for training back in CONUS (continental U.S.) and another 20 will be down for maintenance, that leaves 127 to cover the world. Not enough. We’ve taken for granted air superiority in every campaign and we’re going to keep several hundred F-15 Eagles in service that started flying when I was in kindergarten. That is a whole lot of not good. The Chinese have advanced Su-30 and J-10 fighter planes which are better than our F-15s and F-16s. Add to the fact that if we have to fight the ChiComs, they’ll outnumber us and you’ll see the absurdity of buying just 187 Raptors. The F-35 is not designed for air superiority and does not have the missile load or the agility of the twin-engined Raptor. It’s a stealthy bomb truck, a jack of all trades, master of none.
Just because the F-22 isn’t useful in this war, doesn’t mean that it won’t be useful in a more conventional conflict. Not every war we fight in the future, Jay Bookman, is going to be an asymmetrical war. We will fight against a peer competitor at some point and having too-few Raptors and old F-15s to hold the line in air superiority will not work against well-armed foes with planes better than our F-15 and F-16.
This is just more liberal carping about disarmament so they can render us vulnerable while they spend the “peace dividend” on subsidizing indolence and taking over health care. I’d much rather have my dollars spent on more Raptors. At least some smart folks get some good-paying jobs and we get to be well-defended rather than having a bunch of social parasites sitting around doing nothing waiting for the 1st and the 15th of every month for the government check.
lovelyliz
June 29th, 2009
12:05 pm
I’ve been around the military for most of my life and seen them come and go. As the mission of the military changes, so do what it needs and will fund.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:06 pm
mini me-me
June 29th, 2009
12:02 pm
Well, it does seem like a bad time to be cutting back, but I hope to see a different thought process coming out of the White Huse for fiscal year 2011. The F-35 shuld take up any slack at Lockheed. The F-22 still has enough orders for a couple of more years.
Grad student
June 29th, 2009
12:07 pm
My masters is in AERONAUTICAL SCIENCE. What factual basis do you call the F-22 OUTDATED. IT IS THE ONLY…. THE ONLY…. again… THE ONLY
5th Generation fighter in Production.
IT can fly faster with out after burners than any other fighter.
IT has a 200-1 kill ratio…
How is this outdated when NOTHING flying can touch it. Where do you get your information?
Normal
June 29th, 2009
12:08 pm
Gawingnut
June 29th, 2009
11:47 am
—————-
Didn’t say it was, but I do know they were talking about a Naval version at one time…
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:10 pm
The plane is fine, it’s the mission that has changed. Unless you think China has visions of empire?
lovelyliz
June 29th, 2009
12:19 pm
Ask my sister’s ex who worked with P-3C’s. Sometimes you have to go. It would be nice if we had unlimited funding, but we don’t. The F-22 can have all the technology in the world, but if we are fighting missions that don’t require such then the F-22 may be a program who’s time os not now.
RGB
June 29th, 2009
12:23 pm
“Wasting billions on weapons we don’t need hurts the country, and starves the defense budget of money better spent on actual necessities. ”
Oh, so your concern is one of fiscal responsibility. You have no credibility on this issue. Your president Obama cut the missile defense program by nearly 50% despite the increasing threats of North Korea and Iran. Democrats never met a military capability they didn’t want to cut. How can you even think that one person will believe that Obama’s motive is fiscal responsibility given the fact that he has placed this country on a train wreck path to economic ruin?
Having weapons systems such as the F-22 help ensure that we don’t encourage attacks from rogue countries by being weak and vulnerable. Plus, the F-22 is a “shovel ready” project as well. Don’t you people like “shovel ready” projects?
By stopping or reducing the F-22, the missile defense program, the Airborne Laser system, and others, Obama and the Democrat Congress are virtually guaranteeing that we will be attacked (and/or Israel or other countries that, before Obama, were considered our friends).
Incidentally, the Wall Street Journal has sound editorial in today’s edition on page A12. They make use of elements such as research and logic which can really be a good thing.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:30 pm
Can we afford the F-22 or the F-35? Not until we get our fiscal house in order.
http://www.bluesforpeace.com/lyrics/war-no-more.htm
JCM in Marietta
June 29th, 2009
12:30 pm
Lockheed has built some amazingly useful and complex aircraft such as the Connie, P-38, U2, SR-71, C-130, C-5, and L-1011. I’m partial to both Lockheed and Marietta, but when I step away from my biases and ask myself if an expensive manned next generation air superiority fighter is necessary for our national defense, my answer is NO. Our existing F-15’s and F-16’s are still capable aircraft. Next generation aircraft are shifting away from manned vehicles. Our existing and future conflicts will likely be more asymmetrical, and not against other large nation states with bleeding edge air superiority technology. I’d like to see Lockheed Martin retool, and repurpose their resources towards more civilian applications such as air and ground transportation infrastructure, and greener technologies.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:33 pm
Man wasn’t meant to fly.
oldmac
June 29th, 2009
12:40 pm
Hey Jay, how about the big headlined article about Obie breaking his “no middle class tax increase” pledge as it applies to the health care grab. When can we expect that? Guess not. I guess since it only applies to those that work for a living and not those that vote for a living, we should not expect it anytime soon. I can already hear the “I didn’t vote for this BS” crowd getting restless.
KJ
Col H
June 29th, 2009
12:44 pm
Freedom is not free and I am willing to pay for the modern systems that will protect our young mem and women who fly these aircraft. Going against the modern Russian build antiaircraft systems in N. Korea and Iran without stealth capability is deadly. We can spend our money on social programs or we can protect America and American fighting forces.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
12:46 pm
Col H
June 29th, 2009
12:44 pm
We ain’t got any money!
Paul
June 29th, 2009
12:53 pm
TNGelding
Interpret that in the same sense I’d mean it if I was talking of going to war with Bolivia. Just a dismissive term. Like saying someone has no brains. Don’t need a CAT scan… well, maybe for some we would… Just normal blog confusion –
formernavydude
[[The F-22 is essential to our national defense and 187 are too few to spread around the world.]]
That’s why they won’t be spread around. Just like the B-2.
But those Air Force guys with the stars on their shoulders who are responsible for running things think it is.
[[This is just more liberal carping about disarmament ]]
SecDef Gates is a Lib who wants to disarm? wow….
I see it says ‘former’ – I wonder, retired? As far as ‘taking over health care” it seems you and yours did pretty good with the most socialized healthcare system in the US – that of the military. Amazing why so many want to deny their fellow citizens that which they received for no ($$$) cost themselves.
[[At least some smart folks get some good-paying jobs and we get to be well-defended rather than having a bunch of social parasites]]
Welfare’s welfare, whether you’re working for Boeing or picking up trash on a county road.
lovelyliz 12:05
Congrats! An excellent point. Trouble is, the last to recognize the change are all too often in the Pentagon protecting their programs and rice bowls.
Grad Student
[[IT has a 200-1 kill ratio…]]
Wow, the great statements just keep on comin’.
Lessee, we have 187 F22s. They kill 200 enemy fighters for every one they lose… lessee.. 200 times 187…. six, carry the one…. ummm
WOW! Our F22s will take down 37,400 ChiCom jets before the last one’s lost.
Uh, do the ChiComs have 37,400 fighter jets? The Russkies? Venezuelans?
JM
June 29th, 2009
1:01 pm
I find it odd that this article calls for the closing of a weapons platform that is ‘no longer needed’. I think this type of prognosticating should be left in better hands, like the Air Force oversight that have resigned or threaten to resign because of the necessity that the F-22 represents.
This type of logic is the same reason we are having to cannibalize and scrap in an effort to fight effectively in the Middle East. Prudence dictates that we should plan for war or at best try to deter it. The F-22 represents that deterrent, it is short sightedness that gets the Pentagon into issues. In an effort to do patch work on today’s problems we sever what funding and projects we have that prepare for tomorrow’s threats. If we scrap this mission critical air superiority fighter, we have nothing to take it’s place. The F-35 is not a replacement it was and is designed to work in tandem with Raptors that deliver air superiority. This could turn out to be a very vitriolic and circular logic, we aren’t in a conflict that demands traditional air power so why would we ever need it in the future. Dangerous thinking. Threats are always looming and our Nation and it’s Military demand that we have the ability to fight these threats if needed. My trust is that this narrow view will be erased and we’ll have some enlightened thinkers about why this project in particular is so vital to our Nation’s prolonged safety.
Reality
June 29th, 2009
1:07 pm
Think about this: The business of people in the pentagon is primarily the defense of this great nation. They say enough F-22’s already. Should we not trust their judgment. I know I’m in no position to argue with them about the best ways to defend this great nation and neither is anyone else who’s commenting here pro or con. Could you imagine if the populace gets to decide who staffs the pentagon?
Ken Stallings
June 29th, 2009
1:08 pm
Bookman, your column is written from a singular point of view. The debate isn’t about the worthiness of the F-22 but the fact we are squeezed. We are fighting a two-front war on a peacetime military budget and the situation is forcing extremely difficult decisions.
The mission of the F-22 is very much alive. That mission is air superiority. Rather than take quotations out of context, it would help your effort Bookman, if you made an effort to understand the mission.
You are clearly no expert on military missions. The role of the F-22 is to sweep the skies of enemy aircraft, to prevent our ground forces being attacked by them. That’s a mission as vital today as it has ever been. And it is not a mission one can carry out effectively with aircraft so old as to be de-rated from maneuvers required for dogfighting because the airframe is too old!
There are several nations we aren’t exactly friendly with who have air forces capable of attacking our ground units and cities. North Korea, Iran, Russia, China are just a few. Cuba has a significant air force and it was just announced that Venezuela is using its oil revenues to purchase hundreds of Russian fighter aircraft.
Hugo Chavez just threatened to use his military to invade Honduras to assert his desires to solve a coup in that nation. Connect the dots Bookman! The world isn’t the peaceful place it was declared to be when the Bush, Senior and Clinton administrations declared a “peace dividend.”
The issue isn’t cost of a single F-22 either. Compare and contrast costs of an F-22 to a civil airliner. A Boeing 777 cost about $365 million a copy, which is more than the cost of a single F-22. Considering the increasing threat of ground-to-air missile systems, a steath aircraft is essential now to survive in combat areas of the future. It is foolish to presume the only battle we will fight in our lifetimes is against low-technology terrorists. There are plenty of capable air forces out there we may need to fight.
The issue is purely one of political and economic priorities. Our nation, for better or for worse, has embarked upon a massive degree of social welfare programs. And in return has driven our debt ratio into the stratosphere. Accordingly, we have decided to keep defense spending during a time of war lower than we’ve ever attempted to fight a war in the past.
Therefore, we are not mobilized to fight this war on terrorism. We rely upon a very small number of people to fight for us, and now we’ve decided we cannot afford to pay for new and highly capable equipment. So, we force them to fly fighters over 30 years old, that are literally breaking up in mid-air from airframe fatigue. I invite you to research the example of an F-15 that broke up from normal maneuvers.
One final point, if we as a nation do not realign our priorities, and enforce the notion that able-bodied adults have no choice but to work hard and well for their keep, then we will destroy ourselves in a mountain of debt and forlorn ambitions. We are trading our future for social guarantees than can truly be assured only with individual responsibility and honest work ethic.
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
1:10 pm
Oh, what the heck. Just tell Gates to keep the F-22s if they mean that much to you Republicans and have him cut his budget elsewhere. Let’s see, I suppose you could start with healthcare for vets and vests for soldiers and bullets for their guns and that sort of stuff. After all, we don’t have any money to spend on these things unless you Republicans are willing to raise taxes or something.
Paul
June 29th, 2009
1:20 pm
JM
[[like the Air Force oversight that have resigned or threaten to resign because of the necessity that the F-22 represents.]]
Do you happen to have any names?
Grad Student: I was not poking fun at you, just used the kill ratio to address those who said we didn’t have ‘enough.’
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
1:31 pm
Ken Stallings
June 29th, 2009
1:08 pm
Able bodied adults that are mentally capable are not receiving welfare in this country and the men never have.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
1:32 pm
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
1:10 pm
And you know raising taxes, and actually paying for our government, is out of the question.
lovelyliz
June 29th, 2009
1:53 pm
Do we need it given our mission and it’s capabilities?
Can we afford it?
Can something else currently in the arsenal do the job as needed and for less $$$$$?
Seek and ye shall Find
June 29th, 2009
2:02 pm
TnGelding,
And you know raising taxes, and actually paying for our government, is out of the question.
Indeed. And, any good tr8ter can attest to that as well.
The TRUTH from Sec Gates
June 29th, 2009
2:50 pm
The F-22 was designed for aerial combat while the F-35 would focus more on ground targets and is meant to be cheaper.
Lockheed Martin, the nation’s largest defense contractor, has said it is reviewing the changes proposed last week by Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates.
Shortly after the announcement by Mr. Gates, Lockheed’s chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, said in a memorandum to employees that while some of the recommendations were disappointing, “I embrace Secretary Gates’s call to put the interests of the United States first — above the interests of agencies, services and contractors — and I will support him in every way.”
The shift in thinking about the F-22 was detailed in an op-ed article on Monday in The Washington Post by Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. Norton Schwartz, the service’s chief of staff.
Before the announcement by Mr. Gates, both had fought hard for the F-22, saying the Air Force needed it as a hedge against Russia and China and even a possible war with Iran. They had advocated buying 60 more of the planes, which would have brought the Air Force’s fleet to 243. But in their essay, Mr. Donley and General Schwartz wrote that “the time has come to move on.”
The two said that as defense spending becomes constrained, and Mr. Gates shifts money to troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, budgeting “has increasingly become a zero-sum game.”
They said it would cost $13 billion for 60 more F-22’s. Yet, they added: “Much rides on the F-35’s success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production.”
Mr. Gates had said last week that he supported plans to build more than 2,400 F-35s. Industry officials said the essay laid to rest any doubts about where Mr. Donley and General Schwartz stood.
Mr. Gates and his predecessor, Donald H. Rumsfeld, had tried to halt production of the F-22 during the Bush administration, only to find that previous Air Force leaders continued to support it.
Saxby Chambliss LOBBYIST
June 29th, 2009
2:53 pm
The TRUTH from Sec Gates June 29th, 2009
2:50 pm
Saxby can’t let the truth get in his way, he has Lobbyist to make happy, to hell with the needs of the USA.
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
3:18 pm
The TRUTH from Sec Gates
June 29th, 2009
2:50 pm
They supported it because Bush supported it.
But it’s like this with shutting down any major weapons system, Congress wants to keep the money flowing into their districts.
Adam
June 29th, 2009
4:10 pm
really?! last time i checked most all of our planes were developed during the cold war like the f-15 and the a-10. What makes the f-22 any different. How can you expect that the next war we have to fight will be like Iraq or Afghanistan. we need to be prepared. The f-22 is the best of the best for air combat. check out the su-37. just a guess but we may have to fight those in the near future and i would rather be sitting in an f-22 rather than an f-15
TnGelding
June 29th, 2009
6:18 pm
Adam
June 29th, 2009
4:10 pm
With the strength of our military we shouldn’t “have to” fight any wars. We have weapons so deadly and inhumane we can’t use them and a foreign policy so inept and selfish we can’t completely rule it out. Hopefully Obama and Hillary can change that, but I seriously doubt it. It’s too ingrained in our arrogant superiority.
Parsecwalker
June 30th, 2009
12:29 am
The approach to take in buying fighter jets is like buying “insurance” as it’s something you hope you’ll never need or use, but remember this, it’s too late to buy once you’ve got into an accident or have a pre-existing condition. One thing to remember is that while it is true that the USSR is gone, Russia remains and they are killing themselves in attempting to build their own version of the F-22 and once they do so, Russia will be selling their fighter jets to all our friends in China, Iran and Venezuela (maybe even a couple of freebies to North Korea). Another interesting note is that once you shut down a fighter jet assembly line, you won’t be able to re-start for years so while you’re flying F-35s and Predator UAVs; the Russians will be flying fighter jets nearly equal to the F-22. For those that think the US is saving money in buying F-35s, it was reported in the Wall Street Journal that the Pentagon gave $3.1Billion to Lockheed to build 14 F-35 fighter jets as this comes to over $221.4 million each.
Saxby Chambliss Draft Dodger/ COWARD
June 30th, 2009
7:09 am
I just do what the Lobbyist tell me to do. Got to go, playing golf today. Yes I did vote to cut spending on VA hospitals 3 times, they don’t have any Lobbyist to to play golf with.
Why Cancel the F-22? « New Wars
June 30th, 2009
3:20 pm
[...] Cancel the F-22? 2009 June 30 tags: F-22 raptor by Mike Burleson This one sentence at Jay Bookman’s blog sums up the reason to cancel the hyper expensive and underused F-22 Raptor: In the current wars in [...]
Knows more than you
July 1st, 2009
8:17 am
JAY,
Excellent research on this. You restated everything every other paper has been fed about this program. Way to “go it alone” and actually do some research on the mission of this aircraft and it’s capabilities. That is some hard hitting journalism.
The truth is that the overly used term “cold war era aircraft” is a lie. Was the idea of this aircraft thought up in the late 80s? Yes. But to say that it was solely designed for fighting the russians over Europe is ludicris. That’s like saying that all people born in the 80s are only good for big hair and Nitendo. This aircraft far exceeds any capabilities of any other aircraft in the US boarders. It IS necessary to have more than “a couple hundred”. Here is why:
If I hand you a leatherman and tell you that you can only use the pliers, you would deem it a cumbersome and unnecessary tool. However, if I tell you that you can use it for all 46 functions that it can do and whatever else you can come up with then you will find it irreplaceable. The F-22 is a leatherman. It is more than a Russian superjet counter measure. It can see things that the AWACS can’t. It can get to locations faster and undetected better than a B-1, B-2 and all of our other ’stealth’ aircraft. It wins dog fights against F-15s and F-16s. It has proven itself to be more adaptible to any and all missions than any other aircraft.
So, I ask you this: If you could get a leatherman, why would you chose to buy the individual tools that do the same job?
I think it also important to note that you, nor is anyone on this blog, a war analyst. So, saying that you don’t think we need a weapon for a war that hasn’t occured yet is a bit arrogant and ignorant. The same people said that we didn’t need the F-16. Thank GOD we never listened to those people or the gulf war would have been all but lost. Also, for the person who said that we should “trust Sec. Gates”. Do your research. This guy didn’t engage any war experts about the future of war before he made these budget cuts, and he is 200% for the Global Hawk program. A program that is millions of dollars over budget, has yet to be used in war, needs a new engine and crashes if it gets a cross signal from another global hawk location. yeah, he’s really got “america’s security as his best interest”. No, he is just as politically driven as the rest of them.
Remember what Regan said, “Trust, but verify”. Do your research people!
Radical Redneck
July 1st, 2009
1:12 pm
What about this: If we build the F-22 to the point the Air Force says it is required, and that enables us to establish total air dominance over any current or foreseen battlefield airspace, then why would we need the (ever-costlier) F-35?
Could we not then flesh out our Air Force with upgraded 4th-gen fighters to achieve the “quantity” portion of air supremacy? The concept of an all-stealth air force no doubt enables a great many breathless thoughts about what we can achieve in the future, but we also have many other military needs that need to be addressed.
Peter
July 1st, 2009
6:00 pm
People, please ask yourself this question when debating weapon systems for the brave men and women who put their lives on the line for the political leadership we voted for. Would you want your son or daughter flying a F-22 or F-35 against the latest Russian Jets? Projections kill ratios against the Russian jets are 3:1 for the F-35 and 20:1 for the F-22.