Obama Wins On Halting F-22s, More Fights Loom

[Purveyor]

Source: Associated Press

(04-22) 15:15 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Obama administration has chalked up a quick victory in its drive to kill an expensive jet fighter better suited for the Cold War than Afghanistan, but more skirmishes with job-rich defense contractors and their allies in Congress are just over the horizon.

With billions of dollars and thousands of high-paying jobs at stake, a top Pentagon contractor and its allies in Congress are battling to maintain production on another military aircraft targeted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Boeing Co. is optimistic of winning billions of dollars for giant C-17 transport planes and F-18 fighter jets not requested by Gates, preserving jobs at assembly plants in California and Missouri. Boeing is pressing to add the planes to President Barack Obama's $83.4 billion request to fund U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Gates quietly won the first skirmish with another contractor when Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday it is accepting Gates' decision to stop production of over-budget F-22 fighter planes.

The Pentagon chief staked his credibility on moving away from some big equipment purchases for conventional wars and instead gearing the Defense Department's buying plans to the smaller, lower-tech battlefields the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/04/22/national/w135634D72.DTL

[baldguy]

1. Good

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ

[Chemical Bill]

2. Somewhere, long ago...

I read that defense jobs give less bang for the buck than any other government spending. If it's jobs that the corporate media wants, they should applaud infrastructure spending. Funny how the watchword in this is "high paying jobs", and the stimulus bill gets the "taxes" noose around it's neck.

Bill

[bemildred]

3. Defense companies charge astounding amounts for "overhead, G&A, and profit". nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. That is mostly due to the accounting structures and other extra costs associated with defense work

It was scary when I looked into it a few years back

[bemildred]

24. Exactly.

I used to do that. I was just pointing out that it's very cost-inefficient. But I saw markups over "cost" well over 100% all the time. Like 85% "overhead", 16% "G&A", and 10% "fee". And that was when they were trying to "cut costs".

Aside from that, large proportions of the "work product" that results is useless for it's stated purpose. I used to work in software development for the DOD, and large projects costing hundreds of millions of dollars would routinely result in a tape on a shelf in a warehouse somewhere, and that was it. With documentation, it was a shelf of binders somewhere. I was always proud when I was involved with something that was actually used.

[Locrian]

6. its not just the jobs that are less bang for the buck

Its what you GET out of it.

Defense builds bombs. Fighters. Tanks. Etc. Using them only comes in war time or "training" for war. So you really dont want to actually have to use them.


Building bridges, water tanks, roads, libraries etc not only benefits the worker it benefits ALL WHO USE what is built.

[Chemical Bill]

11. So you think that those explosions are a waste of money?

You could have a point. :hi:

Bill

[knixphan]

13. Seconded!

:hi:

[ProudDad]

36. The figure is about 1/3 the "bang for the buck"

"defense" spending is a social sinkhole, NOT a jobs program...

[HopeHoops]

4. The F-22 wasn't even proposed until it was clear the cold war was history in the making.

It is one of the best examples of "Pentagon doesn't want it but Congress assholes want the pork" in history.

[ohio2007]

5. 90,000 jobs...saved

[Optical.Catalyst]

7. President Obama has only halted production of the F-22, he has not yet killed it

The next step is to put all the ones produced into mothballs and proceed to forget about them. End the waste of money now.

The Strategic Missile Defense system needs to go also. Too much money on a 60 year old pipe dream. End the waste of money now.

The Next Generation Bomber has also been put on hold.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/NGB042209.xml&headline=USAF%20Bomber%20Grounded%20by%20More%20than%20Budget&channel=defense
Let's not even get into wasting any more money on manned bombers for the Air Force.

The DDG-1000 Zumwalt Destroyers need to just be stopped right where they are. Pay the contractors for the work they have done, and end the program today. End the waste of money now.

The Reliable Replacement Warhead (nuclear) should never see the light of day. Kill the RRW. End the waste of money now.

[Zech Marquis The 2nd]

16. they won't mothball the F-22

The main reason--exactly what would the affected fighter squadrons have to use? You can't expect them to bring back some old f-15s which are going on 35 years old--and 35 years for any modern jet fighter is like 60-70 for people.

I hate wasted money in the DoD and defense contractors as much as anyone here in DU, but if you mothball the F-22, you need to replace with something that won't fall apart in mid-air. If the Air Force were smart, you'd think they wouldn't mind having some of the newer super Hornets--now those are really good jet, and a hell of alot cheaper than the F-22. They even have a new variant, the EA-18 for electronic warfare. New C-17s is another very good investment too.

Next Generation bomber??? :wtf: is that? That's a new one to me...

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. Next Gen Bomber is the B2 replacement

[razors edge]

21. The F-22 is 18 years old.

That makes it a almost 40 years old in your portrayal of dog years vs reality. I wouldn't want to go poke holes in clouds at mach 2 in a 40 year old plane either, especially one with the limited flight hours and testing of the F-22.

I'm 45 years old, (107 in layman's years) I worked on F-4 Phantom J/S models in the 80's and I'm not aware of a single US engagement involving a newer aircraft that demonstrated a tactical advantage for our side that was attributed a newer aircraft having an ability the F-4 didn't have.

Enlighten me.

[Angleae]

30. The F-22 *design* is 18 years old.

The oldest F-22 is 6 years old. The youngest F-15C or F-15D is 24 years old.

[Posteritatis]

41. More to the point, the F-22 *concept* is 18 years old

I rather imagine that that oldest F-22 was built exclusively with 1991-vintage technology.

[razors edge]

44. On 23 April 1991 the USAF ended the design

and test flight competition by announcing Lockheed's YF-22....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor

The fact that it took 12 years to get them into production only proves we have a problem.

My point is pretty simple, the F-15s were expensive as hell, and there is nothing out there that would threaten a good design no matter how long it were in service, up to a point. The Sherman tank wasn't the best, but it did the job until something better came along and production was simple and fast. Battlefield tactics using high numbers have their advantages.

The B-52 is slated to serve 100 years, something no airframe could do without proper service.

Do the design work on computers, work a proto now and then, keep the pipeline of production requirements and innovations open to manufacturers and don't commit to anything until you know the environment you need to work in. Keep the ability to retool on short notice, and save a shitload of cash in the process.

But what do I know?


PS: sorry I took so long to reply, work has been a real pain.

[ProudDad]

37. No more than 60% of those turkeys

are operational at any one time anyway.

Losing the rest would be no loss except to the few sterioded out individuals who get to play with them. Just give them video games...

[Old Michigander]

8. No Money For Arms

The government will not have enough money to pay for an army, navy and airforce while paying ever increasing interest on the debt. Something has to give. They have to either repudiate the debt or gut the military.

[jmj217]

10. Or get rid of Social Security.

They can have it. I don't want it.

[neverforget]

12. You can give me your SS.

[Johnyawl]

15. If they get rid of SS, then they have to stop collecting SS payments...

...and the government will be even more broke then they are now.

(SS is running a surplus at the moment, which the government has been spending on things like the F-22. I mention this only because a comment like yours coming from a low count poster usually indicates a a lack of depth in knowledge.)

[jmj217]

23. Thanks

I'll admit I am a novice to the topic. I thought I knew more than I did. Thanks for the feedback and exposing a misunderstanding on my part.

[razors edge]

27. Thats amazing.

You seem to think that funds the Federal government holds for SS are somehow separate from the debts they owe.

And in the same post you say those funds are being spent on defense, not what they were taken for.

Sort of like how the bonuses to AIG or Citi execs didn't come from funds given to them by the treasury?

Do you think your savings account or 401K would be ignored if you had to declare bankruptcy?

[Iowa]

29. Don't listen to right-wing propaganda...

According to best estimates, FICA taxes alone will cover projected SS expenses until roughly 2017. At that point SS will need to begin liquidating the treasury securities in the Social Security trust fund. Those bonds were purchased with workers' money for that very purpose. Between now and 2041 (32 years from now) benefits can continue as they are, utilizing incoming $ from paycheck withholding plus securities in the trust fund (starting in 2017). It is not until 2041 that the trust fund will be exhausted. However... it is projected that the Social Security system will STILL be able to provide benefits at 78 percent of existing benefits after 2041. So... even if NOTHING is done, best estimates are that the Social Security system will be able to continue as we are until 2041, with a reduction in benefits to 78% after that. And that's if NOTHING is done to shore it up. It's not nearly as bad as the right-wing would have you believe.

Here's the rub. There are exploding deficits and debt. The plutocracy is raiding the treasury with their wars about nothing, massive bank handouts, corporate bailouts, no-bid contracts, military-industrial-complex hand-outs, welfare to drug companies (i.e. no-bid Medicare part-D), and the list goes on and on. It is their intent to steal everything they can (with the help of complicit politicians in BOTH parties) even if their greed literally bankrupts the country. They aren't just stealing our money, because their money-grab involves borrowed money... they are stealing our future and the future of our children.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the Social Security system that can't be fixed with some tweaking. It's not Social Security you should reject - it's corporatism and corruption in government. Social Security is a well run organization, it is working as it should, it serves a very noble purpose, and it deserves our support. Comments like yours are precisely what the fat-cats wants to hear. All working people should stand together against them, and in support of Social Security. And when the politicians and their corporate handlers start banging the drums about Social Security (and that day will come), we need to remember how eager they were to dole out trillions to protect their banker friends from losses that were caused by their own incompetence and greed. They had better not even THINK about stealing assets in the trust fund, or nickle-and-diming retired workers to pay for their massive giveaways to their banker buddies and other corporate welfare recipients. It's OUR money in that trust fund and they steal it at their peril.

[Patchuli]

32. You must not have been paying

for the past 37 years into SS LIKE I HAVE. I'll take your's if you don't want it, suspicious NEWBIE.

[ProudDad]

38. How magnanimous of you

Since I was in a business for 42 years that had a habit of laying people off at the drop of a stock ticker and finally outsourced my jobs, I'm damn grateful to have it.

I'd be glad to have yours too.

[rollingrock]

9. But overall defense spending has gone up by 4% over Bush's budget

they are playing shell games.

[Chemical Bill]

14. Well...

Bush had the war spending off-budget, so his budget looked smaller.

http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0719-24.htm

President Obama is spending much less than Bush on defense, But President Obama is actually admitting the amount he spends, so it looks like much more to a corporate media trained observer.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/02/26/bush-aide-blasts-obama-budget-criticism/

Bill

[rollingrock]

17. Thanks for the info

but how much is sending 30,000+ more troops to Afghanistan going to cost us?
is that included? it's got to be a pretty penny. how long are they going to be there, a year, 5 years, 10 years? it's an never-ending blackhole.

[Chemical Bill]

18. I hear you there.... n/t

[Posteritatis]

42. Moving two divisions is pocket change alongside some of the weapons programs (nt)

[ProgressiveProfessor]

22. Are you talking about the top line or the top line plus supplemental and congressional adds

It makes a huge difference

[ddss75]

25. congressional oversight process is the problem

I know a guy that works for Lockheed, he told me that a lot of money goes through the bidding process. Congressional oversight committees require that multiple companies bid for the same job, while at the same time they maneuver to make sure that some of the components are built in their districts. So the companies are forced to hire lobbyists to grease congressional skids, then disperse building to different states so that the congressmen can boast how they bring jobs to district. He said that is why it takes a decade to field a new weapons system. Congressional oversight is important, but at some point the tail starts to wag the dog.

[ddss75]

28. not to mention

i am in favor of tightening expenditures, but why throw all of the money spent on research away just to cut costs. air superiority is something that you cannot put a price tag on during a war.

[fujiyama]

33. Air superiority against whom and what threats?

It's stupid to waste money on constantly preparing for conflicts of the past. We're most likely not going to be dogfighting anyone in the near future. And for all the hoopla made about potential future conflicts with China and Russia (or their proxies), even that is remote at best assuming we don't have lunatics at the helm like Bush.

Plus, in many cases, I think our research is proving to be redundant among the different branches. I don't think halting the production of one fighter will make a difference.

[Thothmes]

43. That was the argument

of the Roosevelt administration in the late 1930s. That why our torpedo's didn't work and our aircraft were ineffective against the latest Japanese and German military aircraft.

[ProudDad]

39. What war?

The only "war" we're engaged in at present are two illegal occupations based on lies and phony "intelligence" and the desires of a monomaniac (cheney) and an insecure, low grade frat-boy (bush) to display their "authority".

Who the f*ck needs 'em...

If we were decent world citizens (which I grant Obama is trying to be some of the time), and dealt with resource depletion by changing our "lifestyle" and equalizing resource distribution instead of stealing resources from the rest of the Earth, we wouldn't need a big f*ckin' war machine -- larger than the rest of the world combined!

[depakid]

26. Congress would do better to sell some F-22's to the Aussies

(who have no incentive or geopolitical reason to pass on the technology) rather than getting into this pissing contest and shutting down the line at this point.

[ProudDad]

40. I'm sure that the Aussies

are more interesting in their survival since they're already in the era past peak oil and global warming.

They'd probably rather have the $187,000,000 per copy to work on their efforts to survive their new climate of perpetual drought than a bunch of useless airplanes...

[Jefferson23]

31. Go Obama, I love it.

[jody]

34. Hopefully congress will do its job and keep F-22 production going. n/t

[ProudDad]

35. Wanna' fix the "economy", solve Global Warming and Peak Oil

Wanna' build a sustainable, humane society.

Wanna' be a good world citizen instead of the world's bully...

Cut the FUCKING war department budget by at least 75%

This "cut" in a useless airplane is a drop in the ocean...

On edit: while the overall war budget is ACTUALLY increasing -- even taking into account the bush off-budget "wars".