Obama, Gates win on F-22 fighter jet vote

[cal04]

Source: Roxana Tiron

The Senate on Tuesday gave president Obama and Defense Secretary Robert Gates a victory in the bitter fight over Lockheed Martin’s F-22 fighter jets.

The Senate voted 58-40 to strike $1.75 billion from the 2010 defense authorization bill that would have funded seven more F-22s than what the Obama administration wanted. The Obama administration wants to cap the F-22 fleet at 187 planes.

Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.), the leaders of the Senate Armed Services Committee, sponsored the amendment. They both are opposed to funding more F-22s, but Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) won narrow approval for his provision to add $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s. Lockheed builds the planes in his state.
One key vote in support of more F-22s was missing on Tuesday: Sen. Edward Kennedy, who is still out with health issues. But Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), who has also been struggling with health issues, showed up to vote no.


Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) made a major turnaround by voting to strike the fighters after saying he would vote no.

Read more: http://thehill.com/business--lobby/obama-gates-win-on-f-22-fighter-jet-vote-2009-07-21.html

[lindisfarne]

1. It's amazing it took so long - Chambliss's amendment completely ignored the Air Force's needs.n/t

[B3Nut]

2. It was a transparent example of bringing home pork.

I feel bad for the people who build that machine, and it is indeed a gorgeous aircraft, but that money is better spent elsewhere. Chambliss is just trying to score points with the people back home...then again, what congresscritter doesn't in reality?

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[karynnj]

4. It is very tempting at a time where all the states are suffering

In those states, it will raise unemployment and increase the difficulties of the state.

[zipplewrath]

5. You might be surprised

I've been on more than one canceled program where the overwhelming sentiment was "thank god they canceled this turkey". One can get assigned to engineer really poorly thought out systems. As hard as a company may try to explain the unneeded expense that some features cost, the government can insist upon them anyway. Rumor had it that this was happening on the Presidential Helicopter Program. "Nice to haves" were being added that were running the cost through the roof, mostly so the Marines could fly him around more, instead of the airforce.

[24601]

59. No disrespect intended, but it's not the Air Force's needs - it's

the nation's needs. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to raise an army and maintain a navy. This inherently means making macro-level decisions about personnel and equipment.

In this case, I happen to agree that the USA already has enough F-22s. Every dollar spent on WW-III weapons systems is a dollar not available for today's requirements.

[karynnj]

3. This is great news - I am aware that jobs will be lost,

but it really makes no sense wasting money. I hope the Senate will help by funding needed things that might be able to use the same facilities and workers.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

9. ...and that can generate as many jobs or more. Hopefully. -nt

[Optical.Catalyst]

46. Congress needs to cancel the whole F-22 program and transfer the money to clean, renewable energy

Give the defense contractors the opportunity to bid on green energy contracts. Boeing may not like having to operate in a truly competitive environment, but the country as a whole will benefit

[SpartanDem]

6. I'm glad they decided not to waste this money

on a plane nobody wanted it's rather sad that stopping was so difficult.

[jody]

7. Obama wins and USAF pilots lose. n/t

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. When money is moved from point A to point B, somebody is going to lose, no matter where A and B are.

[heliarc]

18. I'm fighting for a world where we don't need USAF pilots

to fly F22s They are very skilled and I hope they find work flying airplanes for industry or running humanitarian missions...

Good luck to them

[Pavulon]

22. Your best commercial pilots are not pick up crews

they learned their trade in the USAF. Guys who comment " i have never seen so much ice on a wing before" right before they crash are not products of that program

[heliarc]

45. So the USAF can retool their operation to train our commercial pilots then.

Fuck the macho bullshit that puts bombing people before helping them.

[Hawkowl]

58. HA!

You've obviously never flown with a fighter pilot before! Very good pilots, very quick studies, but when your aircraft can fly at FL600, you don't see a lot of weather.

[Kolesar]

28. Yay! With you all the way

well said

[proteus_lives]

63. Utopians.....

exist because working for real solutions is too hard and scary for some people.

[Renew Deal]

19. As far as I've seen the problem is with the F22 specifically

And there is support for newer aircraft. Besides that, 7 obsolete planes won't make a difference to pilots.

[fujiyama]

21. Yeah because Obama and Gates want to see AF pilots fail

:sarcasm:

Spare us the BS right wing talking points.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. Why does Obama hate the troops?

:crazy:

[davepc]

8. So we wasted billions on the F-22 and at the end of the day still have a 30 year old fighter fleet

The old F-15s and F-16s need to be replaced by SOMETHING. They can't fly till they fall out of the sky when the airframes fail.

[jody]

10. Why bring up "An Inconvenient Truth" like worn out airframes! n/t

[bemildred]

12. I'm sure someone would be happy to sell us brand new fighter jets.

We already outsource everything else.

[bahrbearian]

15. The F-22 air frame is already failing.

[FarCenter]

17. F-18s? F-35s?

[Posteritatis]

20. Isn't the JSF slated to replace the F-16?

I'm pretty sure the original idea was that the F-22 replaces the F-15 and the F-35 replaces the F-16 and half of the rest of the planet's aircraft.

[ieoeja]

27. They cancelled seventeen F-22s to build thousands of F-35s. So you have it exactly backwards.

Purchasing these seventeen jets would have meant a delay in replacing the fighter fleet. So rejoice and be happy!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

34. Thousands?

The F-35 is in an unrestricted climb to $100,000,000 a piece, and at that price the massive export sales that were supposed to further economize the project just won't happen.

I would be astonished if more than a couple hundred F-35's are built.

[Zynx]

33. There are better alternatives than the F-22.

[IDFbunny]

36. The F35 should have been scraped instead.

Too small, so payload is small and range is short. An expensive asset to rely on one engine, especially an assault aircraft.

[anonymous171]

61. I'm all for replacing our old fleet.

I just want to make sure it isn't replaced by an bunch of overpriced pieces of shit.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

13. If I wanted 194 toys and Mom said I could have 187 only, I'd throw a hissy fit too.

No, wait, I'm not a spoiled child, I wouldn't.

[jody]

14. If USAF doesn't need the F-22, then why does Israel need them?

Israel hopes Congress will lift F-22 ban

[ieoeja]

26. You mean the USAF won't have F-22s? I thought they were still getting 187?

[Mudoria]

16. This money will be better used for the F-35 which will be in production soon

[tocqueville]

31. the F-35 is still basically a prototype and the F22 has serious flaws

that has a long way to go before being a "standard type" like the F16, F18 etc... besides the idea was to make it a joint venture for many countries, but the cost and the rules for purchase (in reality even friendly countries would rent from Lockheed with plenty of caveouts regarding use suited for local purposes, risking an embargo on spare parts) have made several countries putting the deal on ice (Norway, the Netherlands, even the UK etc...) probably increasing the cost furthermore. On the F-35, I sense a big flop coming. Regarding the F22, it's plane that would be very useful in case of a major conventional war against Russia or China, but a war not likely to happen... and if it does happen the F22 won't be the decisive factor.

anybody aware of this ?

Former F-35 worker sues Lockheed, alleges software lapses
By Stephen Trimble

A newly unsealed lawsuit accuses Lockheed Martin of developing corrupt and possibly dangerous software for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter flight control system and then lying about it to the government.
Sylvester Davis, former software lead and software product manager for the F-35 flight control application at Lockheed Martin, has filed the False Claims Act suit in US District Court for the Virgin Islands.
Davis' lawsuit recommends to the court that Lockheed should "immediately" stop developing software for the F-35 to "avoid further waste" of resources and the "serious risks" to F-35 pilots.
"The software contains substantial corruption," says the lawsuit, "which has multiplied significantly the risks that the software will not operate as intended."

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/article.aspx?liArticleID=329819&PrinterFriendly=true

and :

The fight over the future of Lockheed Martin’s F-22 Raptor just got a lot nastier. While Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Congress fuss over whether to buy more of the $150 million-a-copy jets (not counting development costs), allegations have surfaced of serious and surprising problems with what is widely considered the world’s most capable fighter. One former Lockheed Martin engineer has sued the company in federal court, alleging that the company knowingly applied faulty stealth coatings to the Raptor’s skin. And today, The Washington Post connected the stealth-coating allegation to a series of Pentagon tests between 2004 and 2008 that revealed problems with the jet’s skin, requiring “frequent and time-consuming repairs.”

The lawsuit filed by engineer Darrol Olsen, who was fired in 1999 for unrelated reasons, claims he “witnessed Lockheed commit fraud regarding the F-22’s stealth coatings. Specifically, from September 1995 until June 1999 when he left Lockheed, Olsen “witnessed Lockheed order and use coatings that Lockheed knew were defective.” Olsen — described as “one of the top materials and process, composites and low observables engineers in the stealth technology industry” — first took his findings to Lockheed officials, but was told to “stay out of it,” according to the lawsuit. He turned to noted Lockheed whistleblower Mike DeKort, for help filing suit.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/whistleblower-alleges-major-shortcomings-in-stealth-jet/

[KoKo]

24. We have to cut back and more F-22's than are needed are part of that.. Good News!

[IndianaGreen]

29. We don't need the F-22, and we don't need the F-35 either!

There is a lot of shit we don't need in the Pentagon. We do need Single Payer, HR676.

[sutz12]

30. I know this might cost a few jobs, but this is classic pork.

To force the AF to take planes they say they don't need, and incidentally would have to support in their budget for years, is ludicrous.

Good move, overall.

[tocqueville]

32. Buy Rafales instead... as a replacement for F16

1) they can outperform F16s "20-1" (tested in the US Red Flag) without using active jamming or the new MICA missile
2) they are already operative on US carriers
2) they are combat proven and give close support to US troops in A-Stan
4) they are cheaper than the F-35

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6113968&mesg_id=6113968

of course it will never happen....

[Wednesdays]

35. K&R

:kick:

[mfeher1971]

37. Peace is the only answer...

...and I say this as a lover of fighter jets. But the time has come to make due with less resources. We have reached a point in our sociopolitical history where Eisenhower's farewell address portent about the military industrial complex has bankrupted this country. It needs to stop. There are billions of dollars needed in fixing up what's left of America, starting with its infrastructure.

During the Depression, no one seemed to be calling for increased weapons spending. My history may fail me here, but collectively, the government recognized the proper priorities and took action.

As someone who has spent time in the defense/government contracting industries, I'll offer up a few observations:

1. Most of these multi-contractor huge government programs are corporate welfare for people who are, by and large, not technically competent to be working on them in the first place. The amount of waste, fraud, and abuse is staggering to behold on a daily basis, and if you, the taxpayer, were given a tour (a real tour) of such a program, you'd be appalled.

2. Crappy software is written all the time and nothing is done about it. It's the same paradigm as why roads are often created as they are - with planned obsolescence and a short half-life. It's a quality mindset. If the roads were built perfectly to last as long as possible (and this could technically be done), there would be no need for that state bureaucracy known as the DOT. But they need jobs too, so goes the conventional wisdom.

3. It's high time this country stopped its strangulation by the defense-industrial interests. We can't seem to get reasonable health care for everyone (shh, that's soshalizm, according to the wingnuts) but by God, we need not one, but TWO of the most advanced pieces of weaponry every designed. For what, I ask? Who in the heck are we targeting with these things? Right, our imaginary enemies...and for the record, long ago the real war ceased to be military. Oh sure, that light show shocks and awes the Toby Keith crowd, but the real war is, and has been for some time, globally economic. The Chinese own us, and so does India, and yet everyone's too busy crying over a dead pop star to care about real (read: "boring and complicated") issues.

Mike

[MadMaddie]

38. I don't know why anyone would defend this purchase

The Pentegon didn't want the additional planes. This was being forced on them.


<snip>
Minutes after the Senate vote, the Pentagon issued a statement praising it.

“Secretary Gates appreciates the careful consideration senators have given to this matter of national security,” Geoff Morrell, Gates's spokesman, said in a statement. "He understands that for many members this was a very difficult vote, but he believes that the Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual when it comes to the F-22 or any other program in excess to our needs.”
<snip

[dipsydoodle]

39. US Senate halts F-22 jet funding

Source: BBC News

The US Senate has voted to end funding for the F-22 fighter jet programme.

The vote was welcomed by US President Barack Obama, who had made cutting the programme the centrepiece of his defence budget.

The move was opposed by some lawmakers, who feared it would lead to job cuts. Our correspondent says it represents a small victory for the US president.

Mr Obama argued F-22 jets, designed in the 1980s for use against an enemy with an air force, were no longer useful.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8162106.stm

[Fearless]

40. Good. It was plain stupid to begin with.

[Dappleganger]

41. Excellent news.

[hunter]

42. There's a lot more on my list of things I'd cut...

But it's a start.

Now, let's get the people who would have been working on this working on public transportation and non-fossil fuel energy sources.

[progressoid]

43. Great. But don't stop there.

The defense budget is bloated beyond belief.

And then we can tackle that disaster known as No Child Left Behind.

[Cha]

44. Byrd showed up!

Bless his heart!

[Heidi]

47. US Senate halts F-22 jet funding

Source: BBC

The US Senate has voted to end funding for the F-22 fighter jet programme.

The vote was welcomed by US President Barack Obama, who had made cutting the programme the centrepiece of his defence budget.

The move was opposed by some lawmakers, who feared it would lead to job cuts. Our correspondent says it represents a small victory for the US president.

Mr Obama argued F-22 jets, designed in the 1980s for use against an enemy with an air force, were no longer useful.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8162106.stm

[The_Casual_Observer]

48. It's about time.

[Donnachaidh]

49. heh -- Saxby Chambliss is probably sweating over this

Lockheed Martin is in his district. His usual crowd of dittoheads will be giving him shit over this. Can't think of a better way for him to enjoy his August recess :rofl:

[Rhiannon12866]

50. K&R. Saw Barney Frank on this tonight, Rachel Maddow, I think.

He said that Gates is for eliminating the F-22 and that these planes were designed to fight the Soviets, require 30 hrs. of maintenance for one hour of flying time and have never fired one shot... And that this large cut from the Defense budget could pay for health care. But he worries about it getting through Congress because this program was set up to build parts (hence jobs) in several states so their representatives would back the plan and may not be willing to give up the jobs in their districts. :shrug:

[lindisfarne]

51. Dupe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3979257

[Heidi]

53. I've already alerted on myself.

:hi:

[ProudDad]

52. Well -- $2 billion down

$798 billion to go...before that stupid bullshit war machine is "right sized"...

It's a start -- although not a done deal yet...still has to get through the House...

[Optical.Catalyst]

54. It is time to cancel the whole program, and moth ball the existing planes

The F-22 is an unnecessary boondoggle. It is a Cold War era dinosaur with no mission in the modern world. The F-22 program is in the top ten useless money transfers from the United States Treasury to the wealthy defense contractors.

[Sherman A1]

55. Agreed & Well Said

This was a useless project from the start. It might be a really cool airplane and I could even understand building a few as technology testbeds, but it's time is long since past as a useful addition to our defense.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

56. The US is avoiding the same mistake the UK did with the Eurofighter

Like the F-22, the Eurofighter Typhoon is an air superiority craft designed for the Cold War era, and it's proving to be an expensive paperweight. The RAF desires ground attack capability and pilots are mourning the loss of the Tornado, while vintage Harriers are kept in service for this role until the F-35 arrives.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

57. Good job by the Senate!

The F-22 is such a capable airplane--speed, sleath, and being able to take out anything in the air now and for years to come--you don;t NEED a whole lot of them. 187 is more than enough, and I'm glad they gave sorry ass Chambliss the finger by voting no :bounce:

[ohio2007]

60. That leaves a lot of pork that can be stuffed into the F35 price tag "underestimate" of cost overrun...

Two-Year Delay for Joint Strike Fighter (Updated)

The Obama administration’s apparently successful campaign to end production of the F-22 stealth fighter hinged on at least one very big assumption: that the newer F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would more than make up for a curtailed Raptor fleet. “It is a versatile aircraft,
less than half the total cost of the F-22, and can be produced in quantity with all the advantages produced by economies of scale — some 500 will be bought over the next five years, more than 2,400 over the life of the program,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said in a speech in Chicago on July 16.

Problem is, Gates’ assertions might be wrong, if one recent internal Pentagon report holds true. The Joint Estimate Team “determined that the fighter won’t be able to move out of the development phase and into full production until 2016,” CQ’s Josh Rogin noted. The F-35 program office has promised full production in 2014, ramping up to around a jet per day.


snip

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/report-two-year-delay-for-joint-strike-fighter/

[mvd]

62. Very good

:thumbsup:

[newsish]

64. But Without the F22s, How Will We Defeat Cobra Command?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEhweR1Ju1Y