Fights over the F-22 engulf Senate, House

[babylonsister]

Fights over the F-22 engulf Senate, House
By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 07/19/09 01:20 PM


The Senate is kicking off next week with one of the most contentious issues engulfing the fiscal 2010 defense policy bill: whether to include money for more F-22 fighter jets and ultimately draw a presidential veto.

The Senate may proceed to an amendment sponsored by Sens. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) and John McCain (R-Ariz.) as early as Monday but more likely on Tuesday that would strike $1.75 billion for seven additional F-22s from the bill.

The vote on the amendment is expected to be extremely close, according to several congressional sources, and could very well be a cliffhanger for the Democratic leadership which faces a splintered majority on the issue of whether to fund more F-22s, which are built by Lockheed Martin.

The debate on the F-22 amendment was temporarily suspended to allow the Senate to take up hate-crimes legislation that Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wanted to see attached to the bill. Even though senators had a reprieve from the debate over the F-22, the backstage push and pull did not stop.

more...

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/fights-over-the-f-22-engulf-senate-house-2009-07-19.html

[spanone]

1. prediction...rethugs wrap themselves in flag and make democrats look weak on terrorism

:shrug:

[babylonsister]

3. A lot of Dems are fighting for this to appease the

weapons industry that contributes so much to them. I wish they'd find a conscience.

[spanone]

10. you'd think 600 billion a year would keep them happy?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

2. This thing is a total waste of money.

Just like the Osprey.

[Statistical]

6. I woldn't consider it a total waste of money.

Will we fight any wars in the next 50 years. Sadly the answer is yes.

Controlling the skies leads to controlling the fight. The F-22 eats other planes and gives us complete control of the sky.

Obama struck a good compromise. We aren't scrapping the F-22. We aren't destroying the blueprints, and demolishing the machines used to build them. We have already built 141 plus another 46 are funded for 2009 before funding stops in 2010. 187 planes in total.

The Republicans act like stopping production will leave us defenseless. 187 generation 5 air superiority fighters that completely outclass anything else on the market. It allows us to retire aging more expensive to maintain planes. There is no need other than pork to build anymore though. If somehow in 2025 China or Russia are becoming militants and building large fleets we could always resume production then.

The F-22 / F-35 combined will replace almost 4 different fighters (F-15, F-15 strike, F-16, F-18) and a total of 18 variants. By replacing all those different fighters (with different parts, and requirements) with 2 modern fighters one air superiority, one multirole it reduces costs and increases uptime.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

8. If they aren't caught on the ground for their 33:1 service cycle

The nazi's could have dragged out the war in Europe another two or three years if their wonder jets could fly for more than an hour once or twice a week and there were more than a dozen or two airworthy at any given time. A Spitfire could take out an F-22 if it happens to be grounded.

And how the hell is the F-22 and F-35 going to replace all those variants when a grand total of 187 F-22's are being built and the probability of the F-35 ever being built in the numbers conceived is zilch. ~2500 F-35's was based on a unit price of $30 million not $85 million and whatever the fuck the lift-fan version winds up costing.

How many significantly upgraded F-15's, F-16's and F-18's could have been procured for the $100,000,000,000 that has been flushed to date on only the development of the F-22 and F-35?

Frankly I will be astonished if this country still has a greater ability than Peru to project force in 2025, or even a functioning federal government.

[Greyhound]

9. We already have global air superiority several times over.

We currently have a force of over 2,000 aircraft that have never suffered a single loss in combat in the decades they have been in service. We could, should the need arise, beat the combined air forces of the rest of the world.

The F-22's only redeeming feature is a vary high "cool factor" for the boys that love to play in/with very expensive toys that they don't have to pay for. And we already have more than the number that might conceivably be required in a war with one of the very few nations that could even possibly mount a challenge in this area.

Bottom line; This is just another huge welfare check for defense contractors.

The future of air combat is in unmanned craft, and instead of wasting precious resources building another over-priced, maintenance intensive delivery platform that has to conform to the limits imposed through hauling bags of live meat. We should be preparing the real next-generation of combat aircraft.

[FarCenter]

12. Manned aircraft have inherent low performance

Due to the G-forces that the pilot can withstand.

The key to air defense is killing the AWACS and tankers with long range, highly manuverable missiles. Take them out and fighters don't really matter.

[Greyhound]

13. Exactly. This notion of manned combat aircraft is simply a relic and source

of graft for the MIC.

There have been unmanned, reusable, craft capable of taking any manned craft out 100% of the time, on the drawing board for decades. They are resisted because they are too efficient and too cheap and therefore the potential thievery is too limited.

[bemildred]

4. That's better than lemming-like conformity, I'd say. nt

[crickets]

5. Don't just strike the F-22 funding from the bill.

Set aside that $1.75 billion to help pay for decent public option/single payer HEALTH CARE. There's a nice chunk of change for affordable health care right there.

[Cali_Democrat]

7. Barney Frank says it best.....

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/weaponized-keynesianism/

[A HERETIC I AM]

11. The Military budget is truly the "Third Rail" of politics in this country.

Social Security and Medicare be damned, if you cut the funding for that airplane or missile or Bradley Fighting vehicle, it will mean jobs in my district!

I remember a debate I heard a while back that concerned social programs. There was a representative from either Sweden or Norway who, in a counterpoint to the American suggesting that "we just can't afford those types of programs" (a paraphrase, not a quote) said "Well, we choose not to have a massive military with bases all over the globe. That's how we afford these things."

The American was basically left speechless at that point.

I wish I could find a YouTube vid of the event.