House Less Willing Than Senate To Give Up On F-22

[babylonsister]

House Less Willing Than Senate To Give Up On F-22
By Josh Rogin, CQ Staff


The congressional fight over the F-22 fighter moves to the House on Wednesday as appropriators continue their drive to save the program over President Obama’s objections.

The House Appropriations Committee will vote on its version of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, which emerged from subcommittee with $369 million worth of F-22 funding, enough to purchase advance parts for 12 planes.

House members of both parties are standing behind their effort to save the F-22, despite the Senate’s decision Tuesday to strip its defense policy bill (S 1390) of $1.75 billion for the fighter.

House supporters of the aircraft argue that the administration and other critics of the fighter will be more amenable to their chamber’s provision for two reasons: It is more frugal than the Senate’s version, and it allows both sides to save face by postponing a final decision on the plane’s fate.

“The Senate vote was discouraging, but there’s still a possibility with this advance procurement money that the line can remain open,” said Phil Gingrey , R-Ga., whose district includes some assets of Lockheed Martin, the plane’s lead contractor.

more...

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?parm1=5&docID=news-000003172607

[Dappleganger]

1. Veto, here we come.

[Statistical]

2. Oh the classic "parts" scam....

The House Appropriations Committee will vote on its version of the fiscal 2010 defense appropriations bill, which emerged from subcommittee with $369 million worth of F-22 funding, enough to purchase advance parts for 12 planes.

The F-22 has a build cost of about $137 million so $239 million is barely enough for 2 planes.

So what is the scam? Well they govt buys parts for 12 planes. For example it buys 12 engines. Now what is the only thing you can build with an F-22 engine?

So in 2011 or 2012 once the engines are built the govt has 2 choices:
a) build 12 planes w/ the 12 engines at a cost of another $900 million+
b) scrap $239 million worth of useless parts

Of course Congress ends up buying the planes. Anyone voting against it looks like an idiot.

The $239 is a beachead to even more defense spending.
When I worked at Northrop Grumman the advanced orders were seen a guarantee the product would be bought it would just take some time.

[derby378]

4. "I had a guarantee military sale with ED-209"

"Renovation program! Spare parts for 25 years! Who cares if it worked or not?!"

[derby378]

3. Our military pilots deserve the best...

...and if throwing more money at the F-22 doesn't serve the needs of our pilots. scrap it and bring on the F-35.

[Statistical]

5. It isn't an issue of best it is an issue of role.

The F-22 is hands down the single greatest air superiority fighter ever developed.

Multiple blue on blue engagements (simulated combat w/ friendlies playing both sides) have shown this.

Hwoever the F-22 is a specialized aircraft. It does only one thing very well and this is anhiliating an enemies airforce.

The F-35 is a multi-role fighter. It is good for virtually everything.

It can handle air superiority but the F-22 is far more capable in that role. High speed, super cruise, ability to fire over the horizon and tiny radar cross section means a wing of F-22 would likely destroy a large force before the enemy force even knows they are in danger.

Remember Obama & Pentagon don't want to get rid of the F-22. We already have 176 built or paid for, they simply don't want to purchase any more.

[Hawkeye-X]

7. While F-22's are nice..

But do we NEED more pre-Cold War planes?

Enough is enough. Time to cut 90% of DoD's bottomless pit budget and it WOULD still be plenty - we spend WAY too much in defense and not enough in everything else.

Hawkeye-X

[Dogmudgeon]

6. What we need ...

... is a system for the fair and beneficial distribution of federal contracts -- like a Civil Service for "pork".

With proper planning, it would be able to reduce or eliminate a large number of problems.

I have no nope for a complete 100% cure, but it isn't necessary. Once enough lobbying, favoritism, and money are de-coupled, the system would become a manageable (if large) exercise in wonkery. Again, like the Civil Service.

Is this plausible? Possible? Are there better proposals?

--d!