U.S. doesn't need even more F-22s

[babylonsister]

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/1670603,CST-EDT-open17.article

U.S. doesn't need even more F-22s

July 17, 2009

BY U.S. REP. MIKE QUIGLEY


New threats call for new strategy. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have taught us that the weapons of the Cold War are not well-suited to the asymmetric challenges our nation faces around the world.

But the recent House of Representatives defense authorization bill suggests that some haven't learned that lesson. It allocates funding for 12 extra F-22 fighter jets beyond what was requested by President Obama. These 12 unrequested jets, which cost $140 million each, come on top of the 187 F-22s already provided for in the bill. The president is so concerned by the inclusion of the unrequested F-22s that he has issued a preemptive veto threat.

Are these extra F-22s necessary for our national security?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates doesn't think so. He has been a vocal opponent of funding the 12 extra F-22s, stating "there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187" and that the idea of not buying 12 extra F-22s imperils our national security is "completely nonsense." He also observes that "we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater."

By cutting the extra F-22s, just think what the approximately $1.75 billion saved could provide for our troops: body armor, armored tanks and the unmanned drones that are effective in Iraq and Afghanistan and keep our soldiers out of harm's way. Every dollar spent to build more F-22s is a dollar we can't spend in these more vulnerable areas.

But the costs don't stop at building the jets. The Defense Department says that the hourly cost of flying the F-22 exceeds $50,000, almost 167 percent of hourly operating costs for the F-22's predecessor, the F-15. Apparently the F-22's radar-absorbing metallic skin is vulnerable to rain, and the jet requires 33.8 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight time.

Is the F-22 worthy of our enormous investment? The answer is clearly no. We have to overcome institutional inertia, stop spending more and start spending smarter. Our taxpayers and our brave troops on the front lines deserve it.

[Captain Hilts]

1. And it's time to get rid of the Air Force. If they can land on a carrier deck, make them Navy,

if not, they can remotely direct UAVs or shoot rockets into space.

[babylonsister]

2. I'm sure that will 'fly'. Why not get rid of the Navy? I imagine Gates

isn't even considering that suggestion.

[Captain Hilts]

3. Actually, military people are talking about seriously re-vamping the Air Force.

The Navy provides a much more versatile weapons platform than having to establish the air bases and flyover rights that the Air Force often requires for deployment.

A friend of mine who works in the Pentagon was talking to me about this.

Are you sleeping better?

[madrchsod]

4. it`s a plane with no mission.

the days of fighter jets engaging in a dog fight ended with the Vietnam War. unless we are going to engage the chinese or russian`s in their airspace or ours it`s not needed.

[depakid]

8. Other nations fly Chinese and Russian aircraft

and will be using advanced air defenses. Kind of a classic case here if fighting the last war(s).

[Enthusiast]

5. I recommended this thread

As soon as I did, my recommendation was gone. Are there that many DUers in favor of the F-22? Just what in the hell is going on here?

[TreasonousBastard]

6. How many states and Congressional districts make...

parts for this thing? How many district jobs is a Congressman willing to lose if the contract is cancelled?

This has been the strategy of defense contractors for years-- spread the work around and make it so difficult to cancel a program that it just lives on by inertia, burning vast amounts of money as the years go on.

I have no idea what the eventual answer is, but it seems well known that cutting the Pentagon's major projects budgets will have little or no effect on "national security." Re-election and job security is another matter.

[depakid]

7. Better hope that the US- or its allies don't have to go up against newer front line aircraft

If the Quigley wanted to do a strategic and economic win/win- he's get Congress to approve the sale of some of these air superiority aircraft to the Australians, and shore up defenses in the south Pacific, without risking technology transfers to potential adversaries.