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
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
Whoopsee!
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has presented the preliminary findings of his secretive defense review to President Bush. If initial press leaks are any indication, a 21-gun salute is in order. According to senior defense officials, Rumsfeld may go after some of military services’ crown jewels–despite opposition from the kings of the Pentagon’s bureaucratic fiefdoms.
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
I’m going to make a forecast: Over the next couple of years, U.S-based companies will begin to realize that they made a big mistake relying so heavily on off-shoring.
Ironically—or perhaps not so ironically—it may be GE leading the way, just as GE and Jack Welch led the massive offshoring wave to India. Here are excerpts from a speech by Jeff Immelt, GE’s CEO, in Detroit last Friday.
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
Ah, Bermuda. Pink sand beaches. Charming pastel cottages and kelly-green golf courses. Tiny storefront “headquarters” of major global corporations.
For years the archipelago, along with its Caribbean siblings the Cayman Islands and British Virgin Islands, has played host to companies seeking favorable tax treatment. But rising concerns about a U.S. crackdown on tax havens have a growing number of companies rolling up their beach blankets and decamping to far less sunny shores.
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
If the green-dominated federal government is going to block both solar and wind power development here in the desert Southwest — at the same time it blocks new oil and gas leases on millions of acres of God-forsaken desert scrub — what’s America’s energy-hungry economy going to use to replace coal and nuclear and natural gas in the years to come? Hamsters on treadmills?
Hamsters on treadmills?
That an apt description of congress.
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
OFF TOPIC
But anybody falling for this “veto” Kabuki dance is severely deranged anyway.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that white firefighters in New Haven, Conn., were unfairly denied promotions because of their race, reversing a decision that high court nominee Sonia Sotomayor endorsed as an appeals court judge.
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
william Crews
June 29th, 2009
10:23 am
http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
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.
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.