Fate of F-22, 2,000 jobs to be revealed on Monday

[UpInArms]

Source: Atlantic Journal Constitution

The fate of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet, assembled in Cobb County by 2,000 workers, should be revealed Monday when Defense Secretary Robert Gates unveils “a fundamental shift” in U.S. military priorities.

The Pentagon is alerting key members of Congress this weekend about plans to shrink spending on expensive weapons systems, including the technologically superior F-22. Gates, no big fan of the stealth fighter, will lay out 2010 budget priorities at the Monday afternoon Pentagon press conference.

“These are not changes to the margins,” Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell told reporters Friday. “This is a fundamental shift.”

Morrell offered no details. But Gates has recently made clear that high-tech weapons better suited for Cold War battles aren’t top budgetary priorities while low-tech conflicts continue in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Pentagon has contracted to buy 183 F-22s from the Lockheed Martin Corp. More than 140 have been built. Each plane costs a minimum of $150 million but adding in research and development expeses over 20 years can more than double the price. Current orders would keep the Marietta assembly line open until late 2011.

Rob Fuller, a Lockheed Martin spokesman for the F-22 program, said Saturday it was “premature” to speculate on what Gates will recommend.

But the recession, which has slashed five million payroll jobs, could prove the F-22’s savior. Roughly 25,000 workers in Georgia, California and Texas supply parts and assemble the jet fighter. President Barack Obama might be loath to endanger any more jobs.

Read more: http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/cobb/stories/2009/04/04/f_22_raptor_marietta.html

[NOW tense]

1. Dump them. n/t

[HowHasItComeToThis]

29. STOP THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL EXTORTION

[ShortnFiery]

2. God Bless *pretty weapons* of death and destruction! - Jesus wants us to kill some more in his name.

:crazy:

[FarCenter]

3. Combat radius 471 miles -- It's 675 miles from Karachi to Kabul

Where would you base them for use in Afghanistan?

Even if you could put them on an aircraft carrier just off shore, they could barely reach the southern border of Afghanistan without refueling.

[RoyGBiv]

7. FWIW ... that's actually an improvement

The F-16's combat radius is somewhere around 350 miles. The Harrier, which is what the British are using, has a combat radius of 300 miles.

Combat radius generally refers to a typical combat operation profile's maximum range without the use of in-air refueling or drop tanks. But we use in-air refueling and drop tanks.

[TroglodyteScholar]

52. It's not an improvement over the F-15E

Just because they're ancient doesn't mean they can't still play with the big boys. The Strike Eagle can top 750 nm.

[RoyGBiv]

62. True ...

The F15-E is quite a machine.

Wasn't arguing positively for the F-22, FWIW, just noting that the combat radius comment needed some context.

[bdab1973]

67. Your comparison is a bit off...

FIRST point:

The F-15E STRIKE Eagle (I capitalized part of that title for a reason) isn't optimized for air superiority. Go ask any F-15E pilot if their version of the airplane is as capable in the air superiority role as the lighter F-15C, and they'll admit that it's not (I know a couple F-15E pilots and one F-15C pilot, FWIW). The F-15E has a longer range because it's MISSION is to STRIKE (remember the name?) targets deep into enemy airspace. The F-15E is more of a fighter-bomber than a true fighter. It has Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) to increase it's fuel load (another reason it's not as nimble as the C model)...ladening the F-22 with CFTs would take away from it's air-to-air capability, and doctrine has tanker orbits close to the CAP orbits anyways.

SECOND point:

You speak of how the F-15E may not be ancient, but it can still hang with the new airplanes. Sort of...first off, the F-15E is so different from the other F-15 models it's a completely different qualification and AFSC within the Air Force (ie, a C-model pilot can't just jump in and fly an E-model, and vice-versa). The majority of the F-15C/D models were made from 1978-1984. The majority of the F-15Es were made in the mid- to late-1980s (1985-1989), and a few attrition birds were bought into the 1990s when production ceased. The F-15Es have lower overall wear because they are not flown as hard as the F-15Cs, and they are newer and have the benefit of beefier structural builds to handle the increased weight of bombs that the F-15C models didn't carry (The C-model is not equipped to carry bombs of any type, although they have been tested to do so).

The primary issue with the F-15 fleet isn't so much technological as it is about AGE...physical age. The airplanes are simply wearing out and falling apart. A few of them have already suffered in-flight structural break-ups already, and it's only going to get worse.

I've read some people say "hey, the F-15C only cost like $30 mil to build, let's build those instead of the F-22". True, anything could be built I suppose, but to simply build new F-15Cs to USAF specs (the export aircraft currently being built are way-dumbed down versions) would cost much more than people think...probably closer to 50% to 66% of the cost of a F-22. So we'd still be paying a bunch of money for an aircraft based on 30-40 year old technology. It doesn't make sense, because although new-build F-15s could make it another 20-30 years, their technology would be so outdated by 2030-2040, other nations would be laughing at us. As it is, the Euros are putting the EF-2000 in service, and they cost almost as much as the F-22 does. Russia already has aircraft being developed that will approach the F-22 in capabilities. The F-22 will keep our nation ahead on defense for the next 20-30 years easy. The F-22 is very much the next-generation F-15...the F-15 was so good, it lasted three going on four decades, which is very long for a fighter. The US got their money's worth from the F-15, and they will get their value from the F-22 as well.

[The Second Stone]

15. refueling in mid-air is standard

and these have a longer range than other fighters.

[spag68]

16. Rapter

Yes, it is a technological wonder. The thing is, what good would it be in Afghanistan anyway? Matched up against horses and riders with 50 year old rifles you could do just as well with a 25 year old Mooney. In fact the old single engine prop plane out fitted with a 50 cal. would do much better. Or how about the unmanned predators? Thousands of them could be had for the cost of on F-22.

[Hobarticus]

20. Not the Raptor's mission...

That mission is air superiority. Not likely to encounter too many horses at 60,000 feet. Just sayin'.

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

50. They are an Air Superiority Fighter.

Not really an air to mud machine. Sure, they can SAY that it can do air to mud, but saying ain't doing. The thing was designed to control the airspace over a theater of war, so other planes could safely do air to mud.

It is really a stupidly expensive welfare project for the Air Farce, which has increasingly become a stupidly expensive branch of the armed forces. Not to mention a wholly-owned subsidiary of The James Dobson Ministries, with a little of the Einsatzgruppen thrown in for piquancy.

[fortyfeetunder]

4. This would be devastating to many.

The program has provided jobs to contractors in nearly all 50 states.
A program termination would mean more folks in the streets. Imagine that!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

6. it would be cheaper to just pay them not to work for life

That to continue funding Reagan's anti-Soviet erections

[ohio2007]

47. welfare roles have swelled to millions already this year

tens of millions will be on "assistance" watching soap operas.

thats not a solution imo

[ShortnFiery]

8. How many *innocents* do their bombs kill? Is it worth it? ... jobs making killing machines? nt

[Joe the Revelator]

17. Some of you are so mellow dramatic

Give it a rest, take a breath, and understand that all countries need SOME defensive weaponry, and that keeping people working during a recession is a good thing.


or you could just go back to wringing your hands.

[ShortnFiery]

18. NO, I will not give it a rest when our Nation is the #1 Arms and Weapons dealer.

We deal in DEATH and it is vile. :thumbsdown:

[Joe the Revelator]

19. Won't somebody think of the Children!!!

Seriously, I think that your priorties are misplaced when you'd rather put a couple more 1000 people back on the street during the worst job climate of our generation because of something that will never ever change. The US will continue to produce weapons. Any country without a death wish would do the same thing.

[ShortnFiery]

21. I guess "the children" of The Middle East who are being blown to "kibbles and bits"

by our not so "smart bombs" from drones and air strikes are NOT AS IMPORTANT as blessed American jobs?

No, you can't win this argument on moral grounds. :thumbsdown:

[Joe the Revelator]

23. Oh I guarantee you I can

The blame for "the children" of the middle east rests squarely on the backs of George Bush's administration. The country is better off having technology like the F-22 under the steady hand of an Obama administration then without it. The 2000+ people who help make the airplane are also better off having their jobs.


Save your cliches and moral outrage for someone else. I'm sure you wouldn't be talking about "moral grounds" if it were your friends who would be losing their jobs.

[ShortnFiery]

24. Then you are wrong. We are all American Citizens - it's time to put the MI Complex in check.

We don't need to spend 515 Billion Dollars every year on The Pentagon's latest machines of Death and Destruction. That's not counting the cost of the ongoing occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Many people are losing their unemployment, don't cha think that even HALF of the Pentagon's chump change, say 250 Billion could have went a long way at retraining Americans for GREEN Jobs or anything else that doesn't have to do with KILLING?

[Joe the Revelator]

43. Alright pal.....you sit in front of your computer singing kumbiya, pretending that we don't need

airplanes, and I'll deal with reality and say that GA needs those 2k jobs.

[Trajan]

83. While I support your motives and agree about needing 'defensive' weapons

Some might think the current crop of American fighters to be sufficient ....

I would also note: In the past, these types of hardware were produced with union labor, but it is my understanding that Georgia is a 'right to work' state .. Is it true that the F22 is produced in NON union shops that pay less in wages and compensation than other states that support union workers ?

I have been personally affected by the movement of good paying UNION jobs to less beneficial NON UNION jobs in the South ..... More or less an 'outsourcing' of well paid jobs to the authoritarian south ....

I began my aerospace career in 'well paid' Southern California, where well paid union jobs have disappeared to right to work states like Georgia .... Should I care if they kill F22 ?

Really; Might that money be better spent elsewhere ?

Just wonderin .....

[Hobarticus]

84. Very good point...eom

[bdab1973]

98. The "current crop" is not sufficient

They are around 30 years old. Several have broken up in mid-air. Lots of problems with age, and it's not just the fighter fleet...most of the C-130s and tankers are 40-50 years old, and also having airframe stress issues.

[fortyfeetunder]

28. Agree, it's all about moderation

the production run is about 20% of what was originally planned. So cutting it won't save money as there are maintenance and operation costs....

[rollingrock]

9. Why can't these weapons-of-death producing factories be conv

to make solar panels, windmills, and high-speed trains, for example while re-training the workers? it would create far more jobs without the obscene costs to the taxpayers,
while producing an end product that is actually useful and beneficial to the public.

[Blue_Tires]

13. makes too much sense...

and although it doesn't get noticed as much as it should (because all their deals are behind closed doors), the war machine/military contractor lobby is by far more powerful than the others combined...They will make sure the gravy train keeps rolling for years to come...

[OwnedByFerrets]

10. Put them to work building things that HELP people, not kill them.

[iamthebandfanman]

32. i actually dont have a problem with the production

i just dont want to have to ever use them.

[Career Prole]

5. Synchronicity?

I lost my job at Lockheed Martin when I was laid off after months of sweating and worrying because the U.S. finally nixed Pakistan's Peace Gate IV F-16 purchase because of intelligence we had that Pakistan was developing a nuclear weapon (which unlike Iraq, didn't come from the bush administration and ended up being accurate). Now it seems Pakistan's our BFFE and we funnel them military aid.

I ended up repairing printing presses instead and wound up at a newspaper where I'm sweating out a lay-off again because despite being one of the profitable papers our parent corporation put us up for sale to "pay down debt" and so far no buyers in sight and given the economy, none likely.
The newspaper our parent corporation decided to keep is the one you linked to in your post, the Atlanta Journal Constitution.
Small world, ain't it? I don't like the F22's chances any more than I like my own in this economy.
:shrug:

[RedCloud]

11. Turn green America. Jobs you can be proud of.

The military budget and its overpricing is what has hurt a huge chunk of our economy.

[pasto76]

12. Good

But Gates has recently made clear that high-tech weapons better suited for Cold War battles aren’t top budgetary priorities while low-tech conflicts continue in Afghanistan and Iraq.


Never saw a Raptor in my time in Iraq. I saw F16s and Apaches.

150 million each? woulda bought a WHOLE mess of body armour for my guys. Instead of recycled Vietnam era flak vests.

[trthnd4jstc]

14. How About Global Peace, Ending All Nationalistic Imperialisms, A Global Democratic Republic.

End the Tyranny of the Rich over the Rest of Life. Support Life, Love, and Liberty. Legalize Freedom. End Exploitation. Begin Fair Trade. Work to Educate All People. Provide a means to end all unplanned pregnancies. Place All War Criminals in Prison. Make it a Felony for any governmental official in any country to work for private aims. Force Governmental Workers to Serve the Whole of the Population of the Peoples of the Planet.
World Peace. World Prosperity.

[Mr. Hyde]

27. How about putting the bong down? nt

[Fumesucker]

30. That was the most original insult I've ever heard...

You must have cogitated for hours to come up with something that unique..

:eyes:

[Mr. Hyde]

34. It wasn't really an insult. Just a point. Don't be so uptight.

[Fumesucker]

36. Yeah, right...

Anyone who wants us to become better and more moral is a moron smoking a bong..

Don't be so condescending.

[Kolesar]

42. That was an insult...eom

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

51. Brilliantly played, sirrah.

nfuckingT.

[trthnd4jstc]

72. Hey Cheese Whiz, I do not do any drugs including Coffee. How about You not being an A$$?

[Mr. Hyde]

73. Oh, so you're naturally naive then. Good for you. nt

[trthnd4jstc]

77. Naive. The Fact is that the way things are being done do not work for the vast majority of anyone

else on this planet. Disagreeing with me is one thing. Calling me names is basically excessive, unneeded, and you are behaving as a bully. I have done a lot to work on many issues, including helping to get the SALT 2 treaty signed. I worked on several presidential campaigns, as well as other congressional campaigns. You call me naive, and say quit smoking the bong, and you do not even know me. I have spent many thousands of hours working on improving our world. Leave me completely alone. You have no right to be an A$$ to me.

[DallasNE]

22. This Should Not Be Looked At As

A jobs program. The same money used elsewhere can create a whole lot more than 25,000 jobs. We already have weapons that are so expensive that they can't be put in harms way and the F-22 would fit in that category. This should be looked at on the merits and if that is the case they will pull the plug on the F-22. Besides, I question the 25,000 jobs in the first place as that would be some kind of assembly line.

[FreakinDJ]

25. Would be Great if "Fundimental Shift" meant No More Contractors

Find it hard to beleive the Military saves money hiring the likes of Haliburton

[Mr. Hyde]

26. Why would we spend money on our defense when there's so many poor bankers in need of our assistance?

[Fumesucker]

31. These are union jobs to a big extent..

Disclaimer: My son in law is an aircraft mechanic who works on the F22 and I benefit from that by not having to worry where my grandchildren's next meal is coming from among other things.

A great many of these jobs are union jobs with high pay and excellent benefits for "blue collar" work. I put "blue collar" in quotes because what my son in law and a lot of the other workers on the F22 do is extremely skilled work, far more so than what a lot of supposed "white collar" workers do.

Moral dilemma: Support union members making a good living with good benefits or support breaking down the military-industrial complex?

I have an additional moral dilemma in this particular case: My son in law's next line of employment opportunity is as a law enforcement officer. I personally think the police in America are to some extent out of control and I also think that being a cop changes a lot of people for the worse.. I would prefer my son in law remain an aircraft mechanic than become a cop, not so much for safety reasons as for psychological ones related to his mental state.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

33. You can only ride the union jobs boiler plate so far,

Should Enron have been allowed to continue sodomizing California just because there were union members under their roof?

[Fumesucker]

35. I guess you missed the part where I mentioned it was a moral dillema for me?

Good jobs for blue collar workers are become ever more scarce, what is going to replace them?

Should everyone who is not an executive be reduced to bare subsistence levels?

[CRF450]

37. People, the only death and destruction this plane will do is...

Is shooting down another aircraft that poses a threat to us. Its an air superiority airplane to replace the f-15 Eagle. Its not going to be shooting ground targets or civilians. Sheesh:eyes: Pretty soon a bunch of our planes are gonna be falling out of the sky due to age, then who are you gonna blame?

[depakid]

38. it's always impressive to see the knee jerk stupidity on the left

Every time I even come close to thinking that progressives are somehow inherently more intelligent than Republicans, all I have to do is click on thread this one.

[Joe the Revelator]

44. It blows my fucking mind and embaresses me to be affiliated with people....

who can't use logic if their life depended on it. Its the same problem with the far far right.

[Hugabear]

54. So I take it you would favor INCREASING the defense budget?

You know, so we can provide more jobs for people to develop new and improved killing machines, which we can then turn around and sell to other countries?

[Joe the Revelator]

55. blah blah blah "killing machines" blah blah blah

When you use such silly rhetoric, this is really all I hear.

[Hugabear]

57. Oh I'm sorry. Would "air show flying machines" be better?

What are these planes designed to do? KILL. And how many of these machines will wind up in countries like Israel, where they WILL be used to kill other people?

[Joe the Revelator]

58. ah, so this is all about your irrational hatred of Israel

Good to know, i can put you on ignore now.

[Hugabear]

59. It's about us selling military hardware to countries who use it on innocent people

And currently, Israel just happens to be the biggest example of that.

[Joe the Revelator]

60. You have a funny definition of "innocent"

But you also have your agenda...so by all means, keep spewing your bullshit.

[bdab1973]

63. The F-22 is not for export...

it has technologies that the Israelis (or anyone else for that matter) would certainly exploit. Israel may be our "ally", but they will do what's best for them in the end, even if that means selling info to the Chinese, etc (which they have done).

[Hobarticus]

81. The F-22 is forbidden for export by law. eom

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

123. Know the facts before you post.

[CRF450]

94. Care to explain why it should be scrapped then?

And post something intelligent.

[Romulox]

112. Right. Anyone who disagrees with you is STUPID! (PS: Thank GAWD it passed!)

:rofl:

[bdab1973]

120. It didn't "pass"...it wasn't a bill sent to Congress...

The decision to halt purchases of the F-22 was a recommendation by the Secretary of Defense to the President. It still has to go through Congress to "pass". So maybe there is some validity in that statement you attempted to refute.

[Romulox]

121. It's a reference to the dismissive attitude the poster used toward anyone who opposed the TARP.

Nice how you went straight to nasty without bothering to gather the facts though! :hi: :rofl:

"The decision to halt purchases of the F-22 was a recommendation by the Secretary of Defense to the President. It still has to go through Congress to "pass". So maybe there is some validity in that statement you attempted to refute."

[Hobarticus]

80. Well, truth be told....

Both the F-15 and the F-16, meant to be air superiority weapons, have been used as ground attack platforms.

Now, some may see this as rank hypocrisy, saying that this airplane is meant for an air superiority role while its predecessors are used in ground attack....some may see this as a way to extend airframes beyond their usable years and original missions, thus increasing their capabilities without having to develop expensive new aircraft to cover both roles.

[provis99]

39. kill the F22, the J35, and the retarded Seawolf program

Do we really need more Cold War weapons? What the hell do we need new attack submarines for? Somali pirate speedboats? Fer Chrissakes, with all the money that was wasted on these Pentagon white elephants, we could have employed hundreds of thousands of people to fix the entire country's infrastructure.

So if you whine that these idiotic military programs protect a few thousand union jobs, think of the HUNDREDs of thousands of union jobs that were not created because of these crappy programs.

For those that whine old fighters need to be replaced, the $300 million that each F22 costs could have bought 20 brand-new F16s instead. The military is HURT by these stupid programs, not helped.

God, its bad enough the military industrial complex runs everything, but why do people have to be so damned stupid as to defend it?

[bdab1973]

103. What's the J35?

[LanternWaste]

125. Most likely a typo referring to the F-35...

Most likely a typo referring to the F-35, another A2A aircraft which will have its own production numbers increased (think Gates said by a factor of 2) to make up for the newer cap on the -22 production.

[bdab1973]

129. Yes, I know what the F-35 is...I was being sarcastic

I'm an Air Force pilot so I'm familiar with both aircraft. The F-35 is NOT the same as the F-22. The F-35 is being optimized for the air-to-ground fight, versus the air superiority role. It does not have the same long range ability to intercept targets like the F-22.

[LanternWaste]

133. Just getting my info from Jane's

Just getting my info from Jane's-- I'm sure you believe you know better.

Just a head's up-- we have a sarcasm tag that's useful when one wants to be, well... sarcastic)

[bdab1973]

134. I doubt that Jane's said...

that the F-35 is as capable as the F-22 in the air superiority role. As for me "believing I know better", it's not me that says those things...that's what I'm hearing from friends who fly fighters.

[NutmegYankee]

110. Seawolf is a dead Program!

It was replaced with the Virginia Class submarine designed for post-cold war missions, like spying off coasts and launching special ops forces underwater. Hence Virginia Class isn't a cold war weapon.

[Kolesar]

40. Obama should spend federal money in the swing states, not in Republican Georgia

If he wants to create or protect jobs anywhere.

My thesis is that weapons-spending is inflationary and does not spin off additional jobs into the economy, unlike automobiles, food, furniture, schools, etc.

[Joe the Revelator]

45. Is this really how you think about your country?

I mean seriously, re-read your post and, using your observer self, point out they places where you start using that old right wing standard of "fuck those who don't agree with them...fuck them in the eye"

[IndianaGreen]

75. FRAK Jesusland!

I think that's what the poster meant to say, and I agree.

[Joe the Revelator]

85. You're in Indiana, right?

If so, you don't really have a lot of room to critique Georgia.

[NeedleCast]

101. Jesusland

Didn't Iowa, one of the core "Jesusland" states just pass a law allowing gay marriage?

How'd that work out in "progressiveland" California?

[IndianaGreen]

106. It was the Iowa Supreme Court, not the legislature

and the homophobes are going to push for a constitutional amendment.

[Hugabear]

41. These are jobs that I will be GLAD to see lost

I have no problem seeing people in these military-industrial corporations, whose sole jobs are to design new ways for the US to bully the rest of the world.

[Joe the Revelator]

46. Its sad that you feel that way

I guess that their families should suffer because you are crazy enough to believe that America should have no defensive weaponry at all. Please understand that every country who wants to remain a free country needs to have airplanes that protect its airspace. Our job is to elect leaders who won't use them unjustly to "shock and awe"

[ohio2007]

48. .until that person relizes the breadwinner in the family ( next door) gets a pink slip

from cottage industry fallout. The motor city downfall is a prime example of what is sweeping the nation yet congress ( and many here ) see no problem providing "corporate welfare".....

[Hugabear]

53. Oh please.

We have MORE than enough weaponry to simply "protect our airspace". When was the last time our country was seriously threatened by a foreign power? How many times since WWII have we been in danger of losing our freedom? Why must we continue to spend billions of dollars to produce new and improved lethal killing machines?

[Joe the Revelator]

56. First of all "lethal killing machines" is redundent

second of all, you're naive. Third of all, the reason we haven't been "threatened" by a foreign power is because of our " lethal killing machines".

I'm not saying send all the money in the budget to GDP, I'm saying there is no reason to kill 25k jobs because people like you want to wring their hands about how gosh darn dangerous airplanes can be.

[bdab1973]

66. It took 20 years to develop the F-22

20 years is the going pace these days for developing a new weapon system. It's not because corporations are too slow, it's because Congress has a habit of slow-rolling these programs to the point where they actually cost MORE in the long run than if they just funded it over a few years.

The problem lies with the AGE of the current fighter fleet. If they cancel the F-22, it will take a very long time to actually fund and field a new modern air superiority fighter (one that DEFENDS airspace rather than bombs stuff on the ground), and by that point the current fleet of F-15Cs will be unserviceable and unsafe to fly. I think you're confusing the role of the F-22 with that of other tactical fast jets...the F-15C and F-22 have one mission...defend airspace, and that's it. The only "killing" that would be done is shooting down enemy aircrews. If there is ONE aircraft that shoots weapons that I think would actually fit the role of the US military becoming more defensively-oriented, it would be THIS one.

[LanternWaste]

126. The F-35 can readily stand in the stead of the -22...

"If they cancel the F-22, it will take a very long time to actually fund and field a new modern air superiority fighter"

The F-35 can readily stand in the stead of the -22 as an air to air fighter/interceptor. And the -35's cap level has been increased to make up for the decreased cap of the -22.

[bdab1973]

128. F-35 and F-22 don't have the same capabilities

If they did then that would be a bit redundant, don't you think? I'm glad we've got all these armchair fighter pilots around here, who obviously know better...

[LanternWaste]

132. They are both advanced air to air fighters.

They are both advanced air to air fighters. You seem to advertise you knowledge of what is better alos. Six of one half a dozen of the other it seems.

The -35 is quite bit less expensive, hence its relatively reduced operational ability, and the increase for its budget.

I'm simply getting my information from Jane's and SecDef gates. If you wish to contest it, call them 'armchair pilots' (in addition to yourself and everyone else posting on this thread...) :eyes:

[bdab1973]

135. You're making a lot of assumptions...

"If you wish to contest it, call them 'armchair pilots' (in addition to yourself and everyone else posting on this thread...) "

I'm not an armchair pilot...I've flown for the military for approximately 14 years. Perhaps your brief scan of Jane's has bought you the same amount of experience, but I doubt it. The F-35 is a capable short-range fighter, but it's primary role is air-to-ground, hence why it's replacing both F-16s (which do about 50-50 air vs ground), A-10s and AV-8s, as well as supplementing the F-18 Super Hornet. While some people see having two fighters as overkill and redundancy, they don't grasp the concept of having one fighter that primarily serves as a CAP and another that primarily serves as a strike aircraft. The CAP has a limited role in ground attack (or no role at all as is the case with the F-15C), but it's far and away better at killing aerial threats than anything out there. Meanwhile the strike fighters may be capable of air-to-air fights, but it's primarily intended for fighting their way in or out of a strike scenario. They are generally NOT optimized for long-range aerial engagements. Look at it as more along the lines of self-defense or short-range air-to-air.

The various models of aircraft exist to fit specific roles, not just to provide something else "cool" to fly.

[bdab1973]

65. These people are mostly average Americans like you and me

You act like everyone on the assembly line of Lockheed Martin is a CEO or something...

[Hugabear]

76. There are good jobs, and there are bad jobs. IMHO, this is one of those bad jobs

There are certain professions that I just have a hard time feeling any sympathy for. For instance, would you feel any remorse if Blackwater were to shut down, and all Blackwater employees lost their jobs?

[Hobarticus]

82. Maybe some of that self-righteousness can feed some families...

Maybe you should feel grateful that you have options available to you, unlike others who may see such jobs as literally the best game in town to feed their families with, and have little time to wring hands over the navel-gazing and perpetual moral outrage others can indulge themselves in.

[Joe the Revelator]

86. I guess your job consists of making rainbows and sunny days

The rest of us will continue to produce things that the country can use.

[bdab1973]

95. Very poor analogy...

Blackwater is a group of mercenaries, essentially. The F-22 production line exists to build front-line fighters for our military. There is a difference, and if you can't see it then perhaps you should hang around some Blackwater guys, then go hang around a USAF flying squadron.

By the way, I fly for the USAF, and I'd wager that the people I work with have done more than you have in helping folks globally.

[harun]

116. Average Americans don't build weapons of mass destruction.

[bdab1973]

119. How is the F-22 a "weapon of mass destruction"...really?

It's an air superiority fighter, designed to shoot down enemy airplanes. It has demonstrated the ability to carry a single bomb, but it does not normally employ air-to-ground ordinance.

Nukes, chemical weapons...things designed to kill thousands or millions all in one swoop...those are WMD. But an air-to-air fighter? Please.

[LanternWaste]

127. And yet I see little defense for the jobs lost on this thread...

And yet I see little defense for the jobs lost on this thread...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3820092

[Red1]

49. The Only Reason

we might need it is if we've already compromised the design with out enemys.
Hell, thats the only way the competition has kept up like they have....give those guys some "hints" over the last 40 years (ie. secrets). How else can this country justify the military budgets it does,,,if the bad guys are flying old fighters?

Kill the f#^$ program...and pray that some day the country gets wise to what the military really needs to be doing and what not. Its kinda expensive when you have the neocons spending billions only to have a liberal admin come along and whack the program.

[gratuitous]

61. Well, these don't qualify as jobs anyway

I thought it was a Republican article of faith that the government didn't create jobs. So the designers and assemblers of these overpriced, needless death machines didn't have real jobs anyway. So we suddenly freed up $300 million apiece for each of the 40 unbuilt jets. I'd say that unspent $12 billion could be used for retraining.

[bdab1973]

64. The numbers you present are incorrect...

Accounting for the entire program cost (research and development, which has already been spent), then at 183 units the F-22 would cost $300 million apiece. The actual UNIT cost (the cost of each aircraft without all the R&D rolled into it) is more like $130 million...still expensive, but not out of line of other front-line fighters being produced (Europe's EF-2000 is about $100 mil apiece, France's Rafale is about $75 mil apiece...and the F-22 is far and away better than either of them).

The $12 bil you cite would have to account for the R&D funds that were already spent years ago.

[gratuitous]

78. Okay $5 billion

Although I strongly suspect $12 billion, when figuring in all costs will be closer to the mark. It's still a pretty good chunk of change that would be spent far more wisely and sustainably on just about anything else, as the last of these death machines remain overpriced and unneeded.

[JVS]

68. Let us beat swords into plough-shares rather than forging more swords for the sake of forging.

[bdab1973]

69. That's being naive...

[JVS]

70. Ok. Then I'll be a hard ass realist: Fuck em! Their shit ain't worth it and they can go to hell.

Happy?

[Joe the Revelator]

88. Now you're just being a dope

[tammywammy]

71. I hope it doesn't get cut

I know quite a few people that work on the F-22 project in Ft Worth and they're hard working blue collar people.

[IndianaGreen]

74. We don't need the F-22

These workers should be shifted into more pressing matters.

[Joe the Revelator]

87. Such as?

Defensive airplanes are always a good investment.

[bdab1973]

97. Yeah!

Well said...great plan. Soooo...what's the plan and how would you implement it? And then how would you fix the problem of our Air Force flying 30+ year old airplanes?

[IndianaGreen]

107. Moot point. Bob Gates has decided to concentrate on the F-35

The F-22 assembly line will be shut down.

[ngant17]

79. The F22 is a titanium-based military aircraft

The Pentagon's F22 has 42% titanium in all structural materials by weight and its composite materials are 24% by weight.

Although titanium is considered a strategic material by the U.S. government, Russia is the world's largest producer of titanium. VSMPO-Avisma has 29% of the world market share.

I'm guessing that the Pentagon can't win this race, the numbers are in Russia's favor, the Kremlin will counter the challenge from the F22 with a faster, better and cheaper version, one that will turn the F22 into an obsolete pterodaktyl.

It makes more sense from a purely capitalist perspective to organize economic joint ventures with Russia in the civilian sector, instead of trying one-upmanship and fueling more wasteful military spending. Indeed, this was exactly what JFK was trying to do in Oct. 1963 with his proposal for a joint moon mission with the USSR.

I hope Pres. Obama gets a clue and starts downsizing the US military-industrial complex ASAP and increases joint ventures with Russia in the civilian high-tech fields such as the aircraft and aerospace industry.

[depakid]

90. Australia has huge titanium reserves- and would also like to purchase the F-22

-which would shore up defenses in the Southern Pacific through one of the US's most trustworthy ally (and unlike Isreal- an ally very unlikely to impart the technological advantages to others).

It's a win/win situation that would keep the line open at least for a time. All it would take is Congressional approval.

[bdab1973]

99. Note it said "structural"

Those are the load-bearing parts of the airplane, which actually isn't the vast majority of the airplane. While the F-22 probably uses more Ti than other airframes, it's a lot less than you think.

[DerekG]

89. Fate of Death Star, 8 million jobs to be revealed on Tuesday

We gotta build that super-laser, you stupid peaceniks!

[Thrill]

91. Obama kept Geoff Morrell as the spokesman there?

I'm a bit surprised. He's really arrogant and snobby. No biggie, I just didn't think he was someone Obama would keep.

[Thrill]

92. Hold on a sec. I thought the Repukes said the Government can't create jobs?

[midnight armadillo]

93. Why not just buy some Eurofighter Typhoons?

Or Dassault Rafales?

Cheaper than F-22's, and newer than F-15's.

[bdab1973]

96. There's a number of reasons...

1. We've already spent billions developing the F-22. It's in production...quitting now is flushing all that R&D money down the toilet.

2. An EF-2000 costs nearly $100 million...and has half the capability of the F-22.

3. If we're going to spend $100+ mil apiece per airplane, why give all that money to the EU, who is not only ordering hundreds of their $100 mil fighter (over 700 orders), but subsidizing their whole aerospace industry (mil and civilian) and positioning it to steal the aerospace business from us the same way the Japanese took the auto business.

So basically, you're saying it would be smarter to waste the billions already spent and mothball the greatest fighter on the face of the planet, then spend 2/3s of the cost on European fighters that will effectively damage our own aerospace industry while boosting the EU's industry...great idea.

[Hugabear]

100. Here's a radical fucking idea...

If we MUST have fighter aircraft, then why not simply build more of the old versions? Is there some magical reason why we can't simply keep producing the same thing, instead of spending billions to research fancier planes, and then billions more to build those?

After all, if these are meant primarily for defensive purposes, there really isn't a threat to the United States right now. If, on the other hand, these really aren't meant for defensive purposes - if they're meant to continue subjugating foreign nations, maintaining our empire, etc, then I suppose we might just need fancy new toys.

[bdab1973]

102. What a great idea!

I'm sure no one has thought of that before...

[Joe the Revelator]

108. When you have NO idea what you're talking about, its best to just shut up

I mean, do you realize how long R/D on any new aircraft takes? The length of time between conception to production? I don't think you realize that once we're passed by the rest of the world as far as technology goes, its already way too late.

[Thrill]

104. Sounds like he's only going to buy 4 more of these

[hunter]

105. These are people who could be designing and building wind generators and similar machines...

We don't need these planes. Why not design and build something like electric cars or tractors that run on locally generated wind or solar power?

I'm afraid I know what the problem is however -- the actual value of things that have an ordinary day-to-day purpose is easily determined. You can measure how much electricity a wind generator makes, but you can claim anything you like about the value of a jet fighter, and send some of those taxpayer dollars spent building it right back to the politicians who procured them.

Oh no, the trees have all been chopped down, the earth is salty and infertile, and everybody is starving! Hurry, hurry, we must build more temples to the gods of war! The Chinese are coming! The Russians are coming! The French are coming!

What a scam.

[ShortnFiery]

109. "What a scam."

Yes, more like "a racket." ;) :hi:



War Cover-up
Top U.S. General on Cover-up of Forces Behind War (World War I)
http://www.wanttoknow.info/warcoverup

That war is a racket has been told us by many, but rarely by one of this stature. Though he wrote the landmark book War is a Racket in 1935, the highly decorated U.S. General Smedley Butler (two Congressional Medals of Honor) deserves to be heralded for this timeless message, which rings true today more than ever. Below is an engaging two-page summary.


WAR IS A RACKET – by General Smedley Butler

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. In the World War a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted huge gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

[bdab1973]

114. There's so much I could say about this post...

One of those things would be that it's a gross over-simplification. Sure, fire the people building these things and then hire them back building wind-drive tractors. Except there aren't any designs or technology for wind-driven tractors...or demand for them either. Let's just build stuff just to say we built it. More solar panels! Except not everyone can plaster their homes with the things, so they sit in warehouses, unused and unsold. Sure, I'm betting the engineers can develop your wind-drive tractor in a few days, and then get the suppliers lined up a couple days after that....and then the production facility will be complete by the end of the week...really...these things take years to develop. Years that those workers you speak of will be looking for a job.

Second thing is your description of the environmental situation. I'm an environmentalist, but I'm also a scientist by education (BS in Environmental Geology). It gets me really upset to see people like yourself (I call folks like you environmental fuzzies) overstate the situation and blatantly make stuff up to scare the public. It ALWAYS backfires, because then you have Repubs and others jumping all over pointing at the sham and shoddy science. NO, all the trees aren't going to be chopped down and the Earth isn't going to turn into a brine lake because we built F-22s...

[hunter]

115. I've got myself a fancy university environmental science degree too.

Very respectable. Not fuzzy at all.

F-22s are a waste of energy, and a waste of human effort. Axe 'em.

Kill the Air Force too, and disperse their sorry assets among the Army and Navy.

Eventually whittle the military down to the Coast Guard, the Merchant Marine, and the Army National Guard.

It'll happen sooner or later anyways, whatever I think, whatever you think, but it will be a lot easier on the nation if we do it with foresight and planning, and not let it play out as a consequence of profound economic collapse and chaos.

Our United States empire depends on easy oil. No easy oil, no empire. But maybe we can prevent the U.S. itself from becoming too rotten, although it is already getting pretty frayed around the edges, just look at Detroit...

[bdab1973]

118. Thanks...

"Kill the Air Force too, and disperse their sorry assets among the Army and Navy."

I'm in the Air Force and fly C-130s. I was in the Army for 7 years as well, and they are too infantry-centric to worry about running air assets. I suppose you consider flying aid to Pakistan after the earthquake in 2005 and relief flights to New Orleans as examples of our "sorry asses"...

Besides, you missed the point of my post...there's nothing gained in lying to the public about all the trees being cut down and the Earth's soil being ruined with salt...it's simply very far from the truth. If you believe in spreading that kind of nonsense, then you're a very poor scientist and undermines the efforts of real environmental concerns.

[hunter]

122. Heh. Air Force. Hunter's radar is always on.

So how much did it cost the American Public to deliver all those goods to desperate people? Let's do some simple math: Divide the entire Air Force budget by tons of relief supplies delivered, and what kind of number do you come up with? Something that boggles the mind, I'm sure.

Nothing against you -- damn near everyone in the United States does various things for honorable reasons, and with the best intentions -- but the environmental, economic, and political consequences of ordinary American life are quite wretched and getting worse.

Human beings will strip the land and sea bare when they are hungry. You can see the damage done in places like Haiti from space. When wealthier people eat all the fish the fishermen become pirates. When societies collapse people commit atrocities -- they hack one another apart with machetes, they rape women, they burn children. It happens every day, and it's not the sort of problem you solve with a super expensive fighter jet. I doubt there is any real problem to be solved with a super expensive fighter jet.

Anyways, Australia is already suffering climate change, and big swaths of China are too. Here in the U.S. we are just waiting for the doctor to tell us the really bad news. It's hard to imagine what we'll do when faced with Murray-Darling Basin sorts of droughts. Places like Las Vegas, or Phoenix, or Southern California will get ugly fast.

The fundamental structure of our military has been obsolete since Japan surrendered in 1948. In comparison to Mother Nature's Reality Hammer the U.S. military is an entirely insignificant force.

[bdab1973]

124. Great job, pat yourself on the back...

for being a condescending arse.

I'm sure those people in Pakistan that we delivered that stuff to (many, many sorties worth) didn't care how much it cost, because the truth is no one else was going to bring it to them. Next time you need rescuing, maybe we should do a cost-benefit analysis prior to launching the helicopter. I'm sure you'd appreciate that, being an environmentalist and all.

[hunter]

130. Where I hang out it'll probably be a Coast Guard Helicopter.

Maybe Navy.

Heaven forbid an ordinary fisherman or motorist or (gasp!) undocumented worker from China walking down the street in worn out shoes gets me out of a jam.

I do understand your love of the Air Force, but there is much in this thread that demonstrates exactly why it is so very difficult to kill military programs of very limited or even negative utility.

By my own calculations we could cut military expenditures 90% and it would greatly improve our national security. The way we're headed we'll be shutting down like the Soviet Union did and closing bases in other nations. We'll be saving face by claiming we weren't needed there any more, or that the locals didn't want us anymore, or they got better deals from other nations, but the underlying truth will be that our empire is crumbling and part of the reason for that decline will be all the economic resources we burned up on military misadventures and useless military hardware.

[bdab1973]

136. Coasties have a great mission...

I tried to get into the Coast Guard but I didn't meet the minimum time requirements, so I went Air Force.

I'd agree that our military is entirely over-used, and it's only gotten worse since 1990 and the Gulf War. I would like nothing more than to trim our overseas bases to only a joint NATO installation, and perhaps a joint Japanese/Korean installation. For what it's worth, we're not the only nation with overseas bases, in fact the German Air Force has two squadrons of fighters based in the US. The geopolitics of how our military is used is beyond this discussion, however.

The F-22 is the future of our air defense, like it or not. That decision was made many years ago, and to simply can it and walk away means a lot of people have to fly very old and worn out fighters that honestly are struggling to keep pace with the current batch being produced overseas. I know, you'll argue that I'm wrong, but I'll believe friends who fly F-15Cs over any random poster on an internet message board any day. Those guys know exactly what their jet is capable of and they make a living studying the capabilities of the enemy jets. And for those who argue that no one can touch us, think back to the 1930s...everyone then thought that major warfare was dead...no one thought Japan represented a serious threat...everyone downplayed them saying they wouldn't dare go to war...same with the Germans, at the time they had a much more democratic government and they had been neutered militarily after WWI. In only a decade, everyone's assumptions were turned upside down, and the problem is militaries can't change as rapidly as economic and geopolitical situations can change. In 1939 when war broke out, our military was in a pretty sad state, mostly because people felt we were untouchable. And in fact the mainland was still untouchable, but it still didn't prevent the outbreak of the most tragic conflict of modern history.

While I'll agree that we need to stop nation building, stop policing minor conflicts around the world, and reduce our global presence in areas that we don't have really solid diplomatic ties, we can't afford to let our forces decay into the world's largest military museum. As Sun Tzu wrote, it's better to sweat in peace than bleed in war. He was specifically addressing the concept that if you maintain a ready stance, other nations are less likely to fool with you, and if they do, you won't get shwacked coming out the gate, like we did in 1941 and 1942. It's truly amazing that we weren't knocked out of the war those first two years...

[harun]

111. Healthcare, not warfare.

[RebelOne]

113. Well, the only good thing is

that since I work right down the road from Lockheed in Cobb County, that's 2,000 less people I will have to deal with in traffic. Should be smooth sailing back and forth to work.

[Political Heretic]

117. It would nice if defence budget reform included *transitional assistance for workers*

Anyone know if anyone is talking about this?

[fujiyama]

131. I'm glad the administration

at least made it a point to keep defense spending below 4% of the GDP. Even that's too much IMO, but any defense cuts are welcome.

But Gates sounds smart and this administration is listening to the ground commanders for what is needed - and what is not.

The F-22 sounds like it has some cool technology, but I've gotta wonder if much of that makes sense in a world where our primary enemy is one that straps crude homemade bombs to themselves and targets civilian centers...We all know it doesn't. Yes, we may have some conflict with NK or Iran down the road, but our current fleet could manage. Our Navy is unsurpassed anyways and will be for quite some time. I suppose a conflict with Russia, China, North Korea, or Iran is possible (or even Pakistan for that matter), but those countries would be incredibly stupid to get in a fight with us. And I don't see this administration making the provocative moves of the Bush administration to ignite such a conflict.

Look, we spend more on defense than maybe the next 10 or more countries combined. I just don't see a need for so much money being flushed away.

We face threats in the world, but I'd rather spend money be used for actual ground intelligence - difficult grunt work - in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and elsewhere. As far as I know, we still face a shortage of skilled Arabic, Urdu, Korean, Chinese, and Farsi speakers. Even money on training agents would be better spent than ultra hi-tech weaponry used to shoot down other aircrafts in some fantasy dogfight (when the hell did we last have one of those anyways?). We could also use a lot of the money on a host of different purposes - perhaps combating AIDS and other infectious diseases, which threaten stability in many countries. As a Senator, Obama also has done some good work in tracking down nuclear materials that could be used in dirty bombs. We need money in areas like that. And of course, we all know about energy security and its importance. Hell, even our information security could be beefed up. These are actual smart defensive measures.

We need to strengthen global enforcement of nuclear material trafficking, and we need the world on our side. Throwing money away at yesterday's conflicts is a distraction from threats we really face now.