Signs of a deal in the works over F-22 spending
We’ll know more after Secretary of Defense Robert Gates addresses the topic this evening in Chicago, but it looks like we may have a compromise brewing in Congress over increased spending for the Marietta-built F-22 Raptor.
The Associated Press just moved the following:
Despite adding money for two programs that the White House has said will result in a veto of the defense spending bill, a key House Democrat said Thursday he’s confident the legislation will avoid that fate.
“We’ll work it out,” John Murtha, head of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, told reporters following a markup of the bill. “In the end, the bill won’t be vetoed.”
The panel included $369 million as a down payment for a dozen more F-22 fighter jets, and $560 million for an alternate engine for the Joint Strike Fighter, both actions which the White House has said will lead to a veto.
Murtha’s optimism, which comes after a Senate committee also recently added F-22 funding in its version of the bill, sends a signal to the administration that Democrats want to engage in a compromise negotiation on the fighter jet issue, industry analysts say.
Any concession won’t mean buying 20 more planes, but perhaps ordering fewer jets over several years to gradually close the production line, said defense consultant Jim McAleese. The outcome must be perceived as in line with Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ goal of shifting resources to the Joint Strike Fighter.
Murtha believes lawmakers will be able to persuade the White House to add money to buy spare parts for the F-22 and complete an initial batch of presidential helicopters that President Barack Obama has said are not needed.
Obama has repeatedly threatened to veto a defense spending bill that includes money for the F-22, built by Lockheed Martin Corp., if lawmakers succeed in their effort to buy more planes beyond the 187 requested. Republicans and Democrats representing districts with jobs tied to the program are fighting hard to keep the F-22.
Any compromise will have to bridge both party and ideology. Many out there would like to characterize this as a fight between hawks and doves, between conservatives and liberals. But the following is from a post on the blog operated by the Cato Institute:
If Obama is serious about getting a handle on the enormous federal budget deficit, confronting Congress over the clear wastefulness of the F-22 is certainly a good place to start.
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2009 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
43 comments Add your comment
RGB
July 16th, 2009
7:58 pm
F-22 supporters should tell Obama they want to start a “New Tuskegee Airmen” corp of pilots. They could recruit ACORN “workers” as pilots and characterize it as “the Air Force’s best pilots flying America’s best and most technologically advanced aircraft.” They could double their appropriation request and make sure ACORN gets half of the loot. The remainder would be spent buying the F-22s.
Obama would be all over it. Guaranteed.
Littlebird
July 16th, 2009
8:08 pm
And, if the F-35 runs into serious techical problems in its test program? Interesting.
CATO, I’d like to get you in the plane of your choice and I’ll have a F-22! Then we’ll see who is wasteful.
SteathyAircraft
July 16th, 2009
8:17 pm
Very cool F-22A Raptor (and B-2 Spirit) photos: http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200905.htm and http://chamorrobible.org/gpw/gpw-200907.htm
Bcrusin
July 16th, 2009
8:31 pm
Cant wait till the libs start in on the chat, they love to throw figures out there that they gather from other people that dont want the A/C to be built therefore talk smake about sand and rain and what ever else they can make other bed wetters believe. In fact , the Airplane is doing well, for something that has never been done before on this scale and test pilots that go up against it are shaking thier heads wondering what happened to them. Thanks you Saxby and Lockheed for providing a wonderful product that will keep our country safe and the pilots that fly them
Bcrusin
July 16th, 2009
8:33 pm
some one said yesterday and I want to repeat it…. What did we get when Barry Obama bailed out AGI for 10 times the amount that this airplane cost…..
Fried Chicken
July 16th, 2009
8:38 pm
the story about 1.6 hours of flight to 33 hours of maintenance is another BS Statement, There have been deployments already to guam and Japan…..I believe it takes longer then 1.6 hours to get to Japan..
Bobbsey
July 16th, 2009
8:53 pm
When will the boys quit making toys for WWII and grow up and face the realities of the 21st century world?
This kind of strategic thinking is the same as the French with their falsely confident Maginot Line defense. By thinking in the past, you have lost the future.
gayle
July 16th, 2009
9:03 pm
Why do we need a quarter billion dollar plane to fight men in caves? The fear mongers (Saxby, Johnny, et al.) need to realize that the F-22 was designed on a 1981 Air Force RFQ – the people, countries and weapons we are fighting today were not considered at that time.
This cave-think mindset is the kind of planning that had the United States’ top line fighter, the F-4 Phantom 2, getting shot down in Viet Nam by planes and pilots vastly inferior because our plane was designed without a gun.
It’s that same kind of backward thinking that will perpetuate the F-22 when the money could be much better spent on weapons systems like UAV’s, CUAV’s and the F-35 – things that really will save our troops and help keep us safe. The only thing that Saxby and Johhny want to keep safe are their jobs.
td
July 16th, 2009
9:31 pm
Do you all really think our enemy is going to be the Taliban in 5 to 10 years? If you did then you knew Osama was going to attack us in 1990 and you are a trator for not letting us know. The Chinese, Russians and North Koren’s all have aircraft that we will need the F-22 and F-35 to fight. Who thinks we may have to face one of those nations in the future?
Copyleft
July 16th, 2009
9:32 pm
There’s no doubt that the F-22 is a jobs-and-money boondoggle.
It’s undeniable that there’s no legitimate need for it, and that it has no mission.
And it’s clear that it’s a typically bungled, overcomplicated defense-contractor type project prone to breakdowns and hideous maintenance costs.
And it’s equally a given that none of that will matter to military-spending defense-budget socialists, who just want to blow stuff up and excuse it by chanting “national security.”
Fortunately, the empire-builders are out of power now… so there’s a chance we can make some SENSIBLE spending decisions. (Yes, like the stimulus package.)
John
July 16th, 2009
9:39 pm
gayle, you are clearly out to lunch on this. I don’t see what the F-4 in Vietnam has to do with this. In fact the issue you point out about the early F-4s, i.e. B,C,D versions were due to excessive faith in new technologies like missiles. By analogy UAV’s are the new tech that we could have excessive faith in today.
The point about 1981 ATF RFI in no way reflects that the F-22 have a tech freeze at that time. There were similar studies of a multirole fighter (MRF) in 1991 that clearly was in the train of official thought that leads to the F-35. Furthermore there is no way in which in an overall since the F-35 is more advanced than the F-22. The both represent fifth generation technologies that are optimized for two different missions. The F-22 is the kick the door down plane and the F-35 is the one that follows up and strikes the ground targets.
Frankly, I don’t care what the motivations of the politicians are only that they vote the right way. You also seem to forget that they are joined by Senators Dodd, Kennedy, Inouye, and Lieberman.
The F-22 is the best fighter in the world!
John
July 16th, 2009
9:45 pm
Copyleft, you aren’t really against the F-22. You are against the U.S. military.
gayle
July 16th, 2009
10:03 pm
Clever comment, John – but your data is not entirely accurate. The F-4 Phantom 2 was designed to fight BVR dogfights – beyond the range of guns, so none were included in any version of the plane. It had nothing to do with missile technology, it was simply that designers were told there would no longer be close quarter dogfights. The fact that all of the Phantom’s successors were built with internal guns is an indication of the errors in the Phantom design.
The only gun the Phantom ever had was one built into a external wing or fuselage pod – no Phantom ever had an internal gun.
As brilliant as the engineers and planners might be, none of them have the gift of clairvoiance to know what the threats and demands will be when the weapons system they are designing finally goes into service.
The real problem with this plane is the fact that is was well over 20 years from drawing board to initial deployment. The other problem is that the plane was designed to involve a maximum number of contractors in the maximum number of states so that when it came time to kill the line and move on, it would be politically difficult to do so.
Cheney killed the Navy’s A-12 in the 90’s before that plane was ever built. It’s been done before and I hope that Obama listens to his Secretary of Defense and Pentagon brass and does the same to the F-22.
RGB
July 16th, 2009
10:12 pm
“Why do we need a quarter billion dollar plane to fight men in caves? ”
ANSWER: Because the F-22, on an undetected basis, can drop bombs on men who live in caves.
Glad you’re spending your time laser-focused on issues related to military weaponry, gayle. Now go fix me a sandwich.
gayle
July 16th, 2009
10:30 pm
Will that be crow, RGB? And while you’re waiting for your sandwich (it could be a long wait) tell me why the bombs can’t be dropped by the F-15E or F-16 or F/A-18? Or perhaps you need your nourishment before you can think?
The Oddball
July 16th, 2009
10:32 pm
RGB, we already have much cheaper planes that can drop bombs on men in caves.
There is no Russian or Chinese plane in the air or on the drawing board that can match what we already have. The F22 is an incredible machine with no enemy and none in sight. SecDef doesn’t want it (you don’t see that every day) and we can’t afford it. We need to spend that money on more practical things.
I spent eight years in the Army watching generals and defense contractors pimp for unneeded weapons by waving the flag and claiming the Russians were ten feet tall. It cost us a fortune, and we ended up with underarmored Humvees. Wise up.
The Oddball
July 16th, 2009
10:33 pm
Oh and by the way, RGB, the F22 isn’t intended as a ground attack platform. It’s being sold as an air superiority platform.
Timus
July 16th, 2009
10:35 pm
Just as long as they stop charging the tax payers $100 million more per plane than what they initially bid!!!!!!
John
July 16th, 2009
11:12 pm
gayle, ready the F-4 was never really a dogfighter. It was really an interceptor designed to shoot down bombers that might attack the Navy’s aircraft carriers. When the Israelis got the F-4 and they had the F-4E verious with a gun, they basically used it as an attack aircraft. They used their Mirage and Kfir fighters to dogfight. Back in the 1960s the missile really weren’t that effective. By the 1980s that had all changed of course.
As I pointed out the real through put time on the F-35 if you go back the MRF is quite long too! I can assure you that the F-22 is very capable against all other fighters. No problems like the F-4 in Vietnam. Actually it was designed to make sure that doesn’t happen to us.
Fred
July 16th, 2009
11:45 pm
I guess some of you weren’t paying attention to the fact that Russian S300 anti-aircraft missle batteries have been deployed to Iran. The S300 is as capable, if not more capable, as the Patriot. There are possibly other areas it has been deployed to that I’m sure I don’t know about. I am far from advocating war with Iran, I simply use that as an example of where the F-22 might be used against some nation/state that we might not otherwise consider as a capable foe. You build weapons to the best of your ability to master the worst case, not the best case. Given that, I think I want the F-22 available is sufficient numbers to give us the edge no matter what. Again, Iran is mearly used as an example only. But consider if North Korea launched a nuclear tipped missle at Alaska or Hawaii. If I were a pilot, I would certainly want the F-22 instead of an F15,F16 or F/A18 when I got the mission over North Korea!
Just my $.02 and of course, your milage will vary.
Winfield J. Abbe
July 16th, 2009
11:51 pm
Most Americans want these meaningless wars, which only make more people hate America, stopped immediately. This is why most of them voted for Obama. These wars began under Bush who lied about them. Obama(whom Captaim May describes as Bush in Black Face) is betraying Americans by continuing them at a cost of billions of printed dollars per day not to mention the lives lost and injured. America has enough destructive power to blow up most of the planet now. Our cowardly and ignorant senators and non representatives have not studied history or listened to the wisdom of former five star general Eisenhower in 1959 ( warning of the military industrial complex) or the earlier General Smedley Butler warning the war is a racket. All they care about is narrow, selfish financial interests and money forced from the taxpayers for their petty projects. In fact there is a very persuasive argument made by Captain Eric H. May and others that 9/11 and other attacks were made by our own CIA and other secret agencies in Israel and England in order to “justify” these meaningless geo-political wars. How would we like it if Iraq and Afghanistan were fignting wars here on our soil? Is it any wonder most peoples of the world hate us despite all the money we give them every year? End these meaningless wars now. And end the unnecessary and wasteful production of this plane. And state your true name, address and telephone number before you make propaganda comments. How about accepting some responsibility for a change?
Marty
July 17th, 2009
12:55 am
Here is a few facts about the F-22 that it seems the political leaders and I use that term very loosly, are not telling the people. The F-22 is the most advance fighter in the world today. It has a kill ration the can not be matched by any other fighter present or past. They took the Raptor to Red Flag and its kill ration against all fighters was 144 to 1. Next fact is both Russia and china are currently building their version which will be in flight in the next few years. If you think these to countries are not an enemie you are only fooling yourself. IF a run at Iran or North Korea is need there is NO other aircraft that can get thru the air defenses undetected than the Raptor. To say we don’t need the Raptor is an outright lie. I built the B-2 with Northrop and when they killed that program they said we don’t need this cold war relic. Today they are wondering what to do about a long range bomber in the near future. Now those are all facts. No fabrication at all but most of you will never hear the truth because most of the trash in Washington is after the money from the F-22 for their own social programs. If we don’t keep our defense up you may be speaking Chinese or Russian sooner than you think.
Sowega
July 17th, 2009
6:09 am
“I believe it takes longer then 1.6 hours to get to Japan.”
Someone doesn’t understand statistics. It’s an average rate of how much time the thing is in service compared to the time spent deadlined, not the maximum time the thing can fly.
Spin it how you want to, but the F22 is not that great on the performance/value scale. I bet the only thing worse is the space shuttle, and hell–for practical purposes, they’re ALL prototypes.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for stuff that can bust the asses of our enemies and ruin their day. I just like it when said ass-busting equipment is super reliable and a good value.
Ga Values
July 17th, 2009
6:30 am
Well the LOBBYIST are posting about how we need to waste this money but the real experts, Gates and the Joint Chiefs say we can spend the money better on things we can actually use. Personally I trust the Generals. Like ole Saxby said about the surge let’s trust the Generals.
Frog legs
July 17th, 2009
6:47 am
Ga,
gates didnt want this AC when he was in the Bush Admin. And which Joint chief Doesnt want it? I’ve listen to several different joint chiefs and they do want it.
dmac
July 17th, 2009
6:59 am
The F-22 has never been used. Not once. How’s that for wasteful government spending.
Let’s say, I attended a car show and saw a really cool proto-type of some new sports car. I then tell my wife and she rightly complains that our budget is tight and that I already have a car that works and is reliable. Finally, I convince my wife to let me buy it. I get a loan from the bank and purchase the car. Over the next few years, the car sits idle in the garage, but still requires expensive routine maintenience. I then go to my wife, again and tell her that owning just one of these cars isn’t good enough, I need more. Again, she foolishly caves in to my wasteful spending. Now I have two cars that I never use. I’ve had to build a second garage to house them. Well, you get the picture.
Game Face
July 17th, 2009
6:59 am
The statement of RGB (Dated July 16, 2009) illustrates the ignorance that is rampant among “out out touch” US citizens that attempt to make humor at the expense of the effects of segreation in America. To set the record straight Mr. RGB bigot, the New Tuskegee Airmen are an actual fact. They are the men and women (black and white) that graduate Tuskegee University and serve in the as officers in US military as pilots . If you are competent enough to do research for example, you will learn that they 1. finished at the top of the class in Pensecola (thats the only way you become a Naval Fighter Pilot Tail Hooker) flew during F/A-18C’c, E’s, &F’s droppin and poppin JDAMS during OIF, and OEF, became F/A-18 flight instructors, and F/A-18F west coast demo pilots. So lets put that poor taste tounge in cheek joke to rest thinking that being a “Tuskegee Airman” will get more F-22’s sold, because being a “Tuskegee Airman” sure is not helping my Boeing stock or Boeing sell more F/A-18’s in the obama administration by due to your Saviors GW Bush appointee Gates recomendation. PS I would like you to repeat that comment to any one of the OIF/OEF vets who flew over there face to face…as would you do the typical thing and not make eye contact when one looks you in the face. Man UP!
John Murtha USMC
July 17th, 2009
7:22 am
Gates has been on the losing end of several votes already in his fight to end production of the costly F-22, and Murtha, as chairman of the House defense appropriations panel, could yet prove to be an important ally toward reaching some accommodation.
Given White House veto threats, the chairman freely admits Gates has the upper hand. “If they say they are going to veto and we don’t have the votes, we’re going to have to get rid of the damn thing,” Murtha said. And his primary concern is less the plane than protecting Connecticut allies, like House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson, whose district has a major stake in building engines for the F-22.
The bill includes $369 million for advanced procurement of 12 F-22s — money that can help keep the engine line open and matches what has been recommended by the House Armed Services Committee. But late Wednesday, Murtha had told POLITICO he would go as low as $236 million, and said Thursday he only adjusted the number back up for fear it would be seen as a “token” sum.
“I don’t want to look too frugal in my old age,” he laughed.
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates
July 17th, 2009
7:47 am
Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made an impassioned case Thursday for terminating the F-22 program after production of 187 planes, as the Obama administration sought to blunt a bipartisan push to add money to the defense budget for the fighter jet.
“If we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision — reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff — where do we draw the line?” he said in a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago. “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?”
In recent days, House and Senate lawmakers from both parties have defied the White House and put money back into the $680 billion defense spending bill to keep the F-22 production line open, prompting President Obama to threaten a veto. It is not clear whether F-22 backers have enough votes to keep the program going. “It looks pretty close,” Gates told reporters.
For Gates, the Lockheed Martin F-22, which has been in development for almost three decades, has become a potent symbol of why the Pentagon needs to change the way it prepares for future wars. The high-tech aircraft was designed to counter Soviet jets in the waning days of the Cold War. Today, no U.S. adversaries have a plane in development that can match it or the F-35, which the Pentagon plans to deploy over the next decade.
China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, when the United States will have more than 1,700 F-35s, Gates said.
The defense secretary warned that any effort to add planes to the budget would rob dollars from more pressing weapons programs that are needed for the conflict in Afghanistan or for battles with future adversaries unlikely to challenge the United States in a major conventional war. He singled out the threat posed by extremist groups such as Lebanon’s Hezbollah, which “currently has more rockets and high-end munitions — many quite sophisticated and accurate — than all but a handful of countries.”
The normally staid Gates became especially animated Thursday describing his frustration with lawmakers’ efforts to keep building F-22s. “The more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do need,” he told reporters, his voice rising. “It is just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem.”
Even if Congress acquiesces on the F-22, Gates warned, the Pentagon has to do a better job of setting realistic goals for its weapons programs.
“We must break the old habit of adding layer upon layer of cost, complexity and delay to systems that are so expensive and so elaborate that only a small number can be built and are usable in only a narrow range of low-probability scenarios,” he said.
The REAL GodHatesTrash, Superstar
July 17th, 2009
7:51 am
If Osama and the ‘tare-ists’ learn how to fly at Mach 1 or better, then these contraptions might be a good thing to have. Until then, they’re expensive overkill, a welfare program for Cobb County trash.
Ga Values
July 17th, 2009
7:52 am
Frog legs
July 17th, 2009
6:47 am
You must be a very important man to have direct contact with the Joint Chiefs and for them to tell you different things than they have writen in several published opinion pieces in national papers. We are lucky to have someone of your importance on this blog but I’ll go with Gates & what the Joint Chiefs have published.
John
July 17th, 2009
8:14 am
Let’s take on some of the false issue even you defense critics should be able to understand. The most obvious one is that it hasn’t be “used” in Iraq. The Air Force said OK we’ll send a unit over their and the Sec. Gates wouldn’t let them because he said it would be too provocative to neighboring Iran. The F-22 is ready for combat and will be used if their is a major contingency like a North Korean attack on South Korea. Anyway the planes are not idle but are in very active training programs in the squadron that have been equipped with the F-22.
As far as the 1.6 hours between failures, first I don’t know that is the real number. But, it’s not that different for fighter aircraft. This doesn’t mean that the plane at that point is out of action. It is as someone mentioned above a statistical issue. There is redundancy in the critical systems. I also believe that a maintenance action included false alarms on the built in test. Also, consider that after a flight there can be more than one squawk. Also, these numbers represent is a ratio of flight hours to the number incidents (including false alarms). With new programs this will improve as the system matures. The new F-35 will soon being going through many of the same issues that the F-22 already has experienced during the last few years.
As far as the experts go, I’d differ to those Gen. Corley who is in charge of the Air Combat Command. He has sent a letter to the Senate differing with Gates. He says that he needs more F-22s. He’s an operator rather than a member of the procurement business. This probably means he’ll never be promoted again by the way. This is certainly not a more save his job.
Bobbsey
July 17th, 2009
8:19 am
The issue is not that we have NO F-22s. The issue is that we have enough F-22s.
Michael Donley, the Air Force secretary, and Gen. Norton Schwartz, the service’s chief of staff.
July 17th, 2009
8:19 am
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.”
Conservative Taxpayer
July 17th, 2009
8:22 am
China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, when the United States will have more than 1,700 F-35s,
John
July 17th, 2009
9:07 am
We’ll have 1700 F-35s like we have 130 B-2s or 750 F-22s? What happens when all the problems come out about it? This aircraft has a lot of promise but it is very early in its test program. It way to early to bet everything on it. At one time the F-111 was going to do every mission but it turned to be good at only a few. Gen. Schwartz and Michael Donley hit that there is a lot of risk in the article as well. Don’t forget the comment that says 381 F-22s would be low ris and 243 F-22s is medium risk. Then what is 187? It seems to imply hight risk. Gates fired Gen. Mosley over just this issue and he know he will be gone too if he doesn’t toe the party line.
I think the operation commander Gen. Corley is far more credible because he just kissed any chance of promotion away by taking the stand that we need more F-22s. At only 187 we have eliminate sqaudron already in formation or reduce the number of aircraft below the current 18 which already low. The 243 number would give us enough to keep the sqaudron we have, the training units, the planes that are sent to the depot, and have attritions spares for long life cycle.
Zell Miller
July 17th, 2009
9:09 am
CHICAGO (AFP)–U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates pledged Thursday to fight lawmakers over his proposed cuts to the F-22 fighter program, saying it was a test of efforts to reform entrenched military spending.
“It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual,” Gates said in a speech in Chicago. He said President Barack Obama would make good on a threat to veto a defense budget that includes money for new F-22 Raptors.
“The president has drawn that line. And that red line with regard to a veto is real,” Gates said.
The Obama administration has proposed capping production of the F-22 at 187 jets, meaning only four more would be built.
But a bill drafted by the Senate Armed Services Committee would fund an additional seven F-22s at a cost of $1.75 billion.
Speaking to the Economic Club of Chicago, Gates described the issue as a crucial test of whether military spending could be reformed and the defense establishment weaned away from habits of the Cold War.
“If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?” he said.
The F-22 Raptors, equipped with radar-evading technology and built by Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Boeing Co. (BA), cost about $350 million each and have been in development for decades.
The Air Force had proposed building nearly 400, but Gates concluded the expansion was excessive, especially given the slow development of rival fighter jets by potential adversaries such as China.
Gates argued the U.S. jet of the future is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which he said is more versatile and better at knocking out enemy air defenses.
The administration’s proposed $663.8 billion defense budget for fiscal 2010 scales back some major weapons programs while bolstering funding for unmanned aircraft, helicopters and other resources for counter-insurgency campaigns like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The budget represented a modest increase over defense spending under former president George W. Bush, despite critics’ claims that the administration has slashed military spending, Gates said.
The military budget “adds up to about what the entire rest of the world combined – friend and foe alike – spends on defense,” he said “Only in the parallel universe that is Washington, D.C., would that be considered ‘gutting’ defense.”
Gates acknowledged that previous administrations have struggled to rein in Pentagon spending and encountered stiff opposition from lawmakers and their sponsors in the defense industry.
But he said “the stakes today are very high” with the country at war in an increasingly volatile world.
The Snark
July 17th, 2009
9:23 am
All you people who are so afraid of China — whose entire defense budget is less than ONE TENTH of ours, and who has exactly zero aircraft carriers — might consider the fact that China’s economy is almost entirely dependent upon the USA. Do you really think they want to shoot at us?
John
July 17th, 2009
10:53 am
As far as Obama goes, if we can get the F-22s I want him to veto the defense bill passed by his Democrat dominated Congress. That would make him look really weak on defense! As far a China and the other countries go I just don’t want them to see oppportunities.
Dawg80
July 17th, 2009
10:59 am
I’m all against pork, but even from my left-of-center perspective, this is a good use of money — much better than the trillions spent bailing out Wall Street and just a fraction of the money spent bailing out Motor City.
Bill
July 17th, 2009
1:49 pm
Gayle, before you write “facts” such as “the only gun the Phantom ever had was one built into a external wing or fuselage pod – no Phantom ever had an internal gun” please take to time to read about the F-4E. I’m sure there are thousands of links on google or and search engine. The F-4E, if you’re too busy to look, had a 20 mm M-61 built into the nose.
dmac
July 18th, 2009
8:31 am
In the scheme of things, the F-22 is symbolic. If we can’t kill this useless project, we will never put a dent in the ever-growing congressional military industrial complex.
It seems like every other week, Chambliss has a press release about the F-22. He rarely addresses our current debacles in Iraq or Afghanistan. What are our needs NOW! Where was Chambliss when our Humvees needed upgrades? Where was Chambliss when our kids needed helmet liners? Where was Chambliss when these kids were forced to served extended and repeated tours. Chambliss is a fraud and this debate is all about Lockheed and campaign contributions and not about what’s best for our country.
John
July 18th, 2009
9:59 am
So up libs think buy more old (even more cold war era) F-18s is a better idea? That what Gate & company want to with the money.