Home » Air » NGOs Want F-22 Whacked

NGOs Want F-22 Whacked

By Colin Clark Wednesday, July 8th, 2009 4:28 pm
Posted in Air, Policy

Two of Washington’s best known taxpayer groups have written the Senate calling for the end of the F-22.

The Project On Government Oversight and Taxpayers for Common Sense wrote a letter calling for elimination of the F-22s that were added — over the objections of Sens. Carl Levin and John McCain, the top members of the Senate Armed Services Committee — to the 2010 draft of the defense authorization act. I have visions of Levin waving the letter at Sen. Saxby Chambliss and telling him the “people have spoken.” OK, Levin is more likely to ignore the letter and argue that Congress should heed Gates and the White House in times of budgetary peril, but it’s a nice image…

In the letter the two groups say that Congress would have to use “smoke and mirrors” budgeting to procure a fighter that Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants to cut and the White House has threatened would attract a veto if they are included in the final authorization bill.

“Considering the extraordinary budgetary pressures our country is facing, wasting billions on unneeded weapons is unconscionable,” Ryan Alexander, president of Taxpayers for Common Sense said in a press release. “The Senate needs to step up to the budgetary plate and finally ground this multibillion-dollar boondoggle.”

Join the Conversation

	Alex July 8th, 2009 at 4:51 pm Any chance this group has said anything about Obama’s healthcare and/or C&T plans? Doubt it.
	Phillips July 8th, 2009 at 5:36 pm POGO and Taxpayer’s for Common Sense both have done no analysis of the situation, apart from the serious fiscal ones. One reads their pieces and laughs.
	Jason July 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm Alex, you think that is bad, they are already talking about a third “stimulus”! Yeah, the fist two worked out so well. I’m glad these guys have virtually no clout and decision making abilities, just a liberal talking point group. They get their news from the Daily Kos and Politico. With congress ratings at a new time low for the year, November 2010 couldn’t come soon enough…
	coastal seminole July 8th, 2009 at 9:22 pm lol, Jason and Alex. Do you two have a backgorund in economics? Sure does not sound like it. I will make this easy for you. Bush wasted 8 years by doing 0% on the domestic agenda, now Obama has to spend to correct the Bush errors. Obama does not enjoy spending our money. So what wing nutt teabagger will the GOP prop up in 2010, hahahahahaha, hopefully Palin. At this rate the GOP wont see the light of day for ther next 25 years, and for good reason.
	Drake1 July 8th, 2009 at 10:41 pm Bush’s mistake was fighting 2 simultaneous wars, letting Congress spend like a drunken sailor, spending himself(drug benefit), and not once again rasing taxes to pay for the wars and spending. I’m also tired of hearing the Obama has to fix the mess argument since Bush is now history. As far as I’m concerned Obama is the Democratic version of the past Adminstration.
	Daniel July 8th, 2009 at 11:00 pm ya you gotta spend a bunch of money to help American manufactures outsource everything duh.
	coastal seminole July 9th, 2009 at 12:30 am Ya know Drake, you could very well be correct. We shall see. Obama needs to put Bush and his cronies under the microscope and he has not, same old story. Look. This started with Regean and regeanomics, then we have Bush SR, Clinton and Bush II. Plus the GOP had control of the senate for a dozen years in this time frame, they did nothing and sold us out. FACT: before Regean the USA was #1 in exporting goods and #1 in lending of monies. By the time Bush II was out of office we were the #1 importer of goods and the #1 borrower of monies in the world. Can you see the shift????? The GOP has earned the right to never again gain power, imo.
	Alex July 9th, 2009 at 2:38 am coastal seminole, I’m going to venture a guess that you have no idea what you are talking about. That is like saying the Yankees won the world series 4 times while Clinton was in office, but they haven’t won it since, so it’s all the republicans fault they haven’t won again. Nice to see that you are drinking the “Bush spent so much that he has forced OBama to spend 3x as much to fix it!” Koolaid. Surely you must see how idiotic you sound. I suggest if you are going to make ridiculous claims, you should at least substantiate them with some facts. I know you can’t, but I’m telling you anyways so you don’t embarrass yourself next time. I would love to debate this, but I won’t waste my time making you look like a fool here since this is not the place for an economic history lesson.
	Jason July 9th, 2009 at 10:15 am Micheal Moore, is that you? I know why Micheal hates the DoD and conservatives, it’s because he can’t even see his own peni*. God, I would love to lay the pimp hand of justice on Micheal Moore. Can’t do it however, I would never go to France.
	wily witch July 9th, 2009 at 10:16 am Ticks!
	Jeff Razer July 9th, 2009 at 11:18 am It’s frustrating that the comments lately always boil down to “Stupid free-spending Democrats!” “Stupid Republicans got us into this!” “Nuh uh!” “Uh huh!” Stop the finger-pointing and have the kind of insightful conversations that we’re used to seeing here. In my honest opinion, the F-22 is nothing but a fun toy anymore. It’s a way for the Air Force to say “Hey, look, we have the coolest gadgets and most advanced fighter in the world!” Beyond a status symbol, what good is the F-22? We can’t afford to field it in any numbers that would make a difference in the skies of a modern battlefield. And it’s too advanced for a limited engagement, wasting millions per plane in advanced technology that isn’t needed in the current conflict styles we’re engaged in. Yes, potentially someday we could go to war with China and have to face off against Suhkois. But again, are less than 200 F-22’s seriously going to make a difference in a war of that magnitude? Not when we’re fielding 3k+ F-35’s. In Vietnam the U.S. made a mistake of assuming that all wars would be nuclear conflicts. Fighters weren’t designed for dog-fighting, they were designed to shoot down bombers. When faced with superior dog-fighters, the U.S. took heavy losses until they could adapt to the situation. Vietnam showed that you need to prepare for all possible fights. You can’t always assume you’re going to be fighting a Super Power, you need to prepare for the people who you actually will be fighting. Again, we’re preparing for China and Russia and are ignoring the true likely battlefields. We’re spending billions on F-22’s when what we need isn’t the coolest and baddest dog-fighter. What we need is a capable dog-fighter (see also: F-35) and advances in group support air craft. I’m not saying we need to cut military budgets. I’m saying the military needs to start spending the money where it’s needed. Stop getting distracted by shiny things
	Jason July 9th, 2009 at 11:28 am Yeah! It’s getting better by the day… http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html Good day, gents.
	Drake1 July 9th, 2009 at 12:32 pm This pretty much sums up the U.S. predicament. http://www.cfr.org/publication/19666/funding_us_counterinsurgency.html?breadcrumb=%2F “The problem is that the United States is now waging two real wars against actual opponents who do not fight like Hezbollah in 2006 or Croatian separatists in 1991. The future is one thing–the present is another. The young Turks overproject today’s demands into the future, but they get today’s demands exactly right. And today’s wars are extremely demanding. If the U.S. military does not remake itself to maximize effectiveness in counterinsurgency, it could easily lose one or both of today’s conflicts with potentially grave consequences. This means the U.S. military may have to transform itself twice. To avoid defeat in today’s wars may require a more thorough conversion to the needs of counterinsurgency, going beyond training and operations (which are already heavily oriented to counterinsurgency) to weapon acquisition programs, military service budget shares, and even the promotion priorities we use to shape the officer corps and its skills. But the military that results will not necessarily be suited to the demands of the postwar world. Those demands could require a second transformation.“ _______________________________________________ It’s impossible to cover all bases with the lack of revenue now available(unless of course you want to borrow more money). The best we can do now is hedge our bets until the wars are over, over revenue increases.
	Alex July 9th, 2009 at 1:30 pm Jeff, the Raptor is the ultimate support fighter, you might want to learn a little more about it before you call it a useless toy in today’s battle field.
	Josh July 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm Jeff, I agree with you on some of your F-22 statements. It is too expensive to field in large numbers, thanks to tons of delays and the fact that now it takes us 20 years to develop a combat ready fighter. However, the F-35 is not the solution either, and for the same reasons you mentioned caused problems for us in Vietnam. Just like fighters of that generation, the F-35 has gone back to the BVR dream world and is not a true dogfighter by today’s standards. If you google F-35 infamous RAND report, you will find very disturbing simularities between top brass thinking of today and Vietnam era brass. They have forgotten the lessons learned, and are back on their technology will win in the skies of the future kick. In a simulation against Russian SU-30 and 35’s, the Russians described that it was so easy to kill the F-35 “it was like clubbing baby seals!” With our F-15’s/16’s/and 18’s falling behind at a rapid pace, we need a new F-16/18 style competition for a true dogfighter that can actually be put into service rapidly, and we can afford the right numbers of. Right now the F-22 is our only fighter that really stacks up against the new Russian planes, and we can’t afford them. I just hope the top guys get this fixed before it takes a kick in the butt like Vietnam. We don’t have the production cabability that we had in those days to be able to afford learning that type of lesson, the hard way, again.
	Grant July 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pm Jeff, you say that the Raptor is useless, but you bring up the mistakes that came about during the Vietnam era of aviation. “Vietnam showed that you need to prepare for all possible fights.” This statement alone should make it clear that we DO need the F-22 for what could happen. We want to be prepared for anything that could come our way. Putting faith in one aircraft to do everything comes off a bit ignorant of both history and what could happen in the future. The F-22 was made to be a air superiority fighter, but is still capable of accomplishing other roles including ground/electronic/intel. The simple fact is that the F-22 can make a big difference without needing numbers on its side to win a battle. If the spending is what people have a problem with, maybe we should be focusing on why we’re spending $3,000,000.00 on a celebrity funeral, or why we’re bailing out companies that couldn’t hold their heads above water, before we go cutting programs that could leave us potentially crippled during wartime in the future.
	sw614 July 9th, 2009 at 5:29 pm One problem with the F-22 has been touched on, too many who know little call it a toy for the USAF. We have hundreds of F-15s in the fleet that are aging out and need to be replaced. I have never heard any cries we do not need them, but yet we do not need a replacement. Compared to the F-15C, the F-22 can do more with some strike capability. Until the F-15E, the motto for F-15 units was not a pound for air-to-ground. With the current F-22 decision we are being told that air superiority is no longer a major concern. That worries me. The F-35 will probably be a good multi-role acft, but in an air-to-air role, it is not in the same league as the F-22. We can not buy everything just to a curren conflict standard. It is shortsighted to not have some ‘next war itis’ in your planning. Heck, a lot of systems we are using today came from that type thinking. SecDef Gates and his underling Young have never liked the F-22 and the OSD denied permission to the USAF to deploy limited number to SWA. When people say it is not in the fight, take a look at why.
	Ray Strauss July 9th, 2009 at 9:33 pm Forgive me if I somewhat disagree to statements previously made. It appears to me that many of your comments are derived from those much younger than I. A little history lessons for those whom have never been exposed to the screams of War. A little history from myself, born in Germany during WWII in 1943. Seeing bombs raining down on our towns, family and friends. Comming to USA in 1948 with my mother and brothers to see the Statue of Liberty in the distance of our arriving ship. I joined the USAF because I was a PROUD citizen at age 17. I loved my country the USA and hoped to serve her well. As it worked out after graduating at 17, my USAF career started and went with total respect and honor to our Nation. Seems that many people loose their honor and respect for monetary purposes and not the gains which can be given to the front line soldiers who stand front and center in the face of Enemies of the USA. What does it take for those whom have never faced battle to understand that whatever technological advantage can be provided is a LIFE SAVER… I have personally went through the Cuban crisis; fought in the VietNan War in 1967/1968 and retired from the USAF as a Squadron CMSGT. Yet My Life did not end there. After retirement I went to work with Pratt & Whitney; aa company of UTC which builds jet engines. Yes, one might say that I was interested in continuing with a company that was only out to make money as the usual capitalistic society. W I worked as the Logistic Manager for the F-22 Program for several years. Starting with the first aircraft at Edwards AFB, until the last. The USAF needs to make the F-22 a replacement for the many F-15’s that have matured thru their given life span. Aircraft have a predicted structural life. In the case of the F-15, that is expiring rapidly. The F-22 is more than a capable replacement. Yes the cost seems a lot over the willing spending cap. But I can tell you from first hand experience; it is at least a 1 for 10 replacement of the arthritis riddled F-15 Yours to all that care to listen; CMSGT Ray Strauss (RET)
	Steve July 9th, 2009 at 11:10 pm yea coastal…all the trained economists, academics, regulators, auditors, sure caught this in time eh? Personally, I am sick of the outright influence and corruption of Congress…they and the earmarks, they and debt to campaign donors. Our asshole congressman actually had the audacity to ask for $250K to repair the windows on an “old money” club. Members whose net worth is the realm of unbelievable. Meanwhile back at the homesless tent city in Seattle that keeps getting evicted and moved by city govt. Now they need social services. Fraud. No one in their right mind would attack the USA…ask any US General if they would trade places with any Armed Forces in the world?
	Daniel Russ July 10th, 2009 at 9:44 am WaPo has a devastating story about the F-22s problems that have popped up over the last decade and how contractors have fought to hide the facts. Also, up to 20 hours of maintenance for every single hour in the air, and RAM that fails and has to be repaired after every flight. This is not just fighting for jobs. This is gaming the system, and outright corruption. In fact the article discusses how parts for the F-22 were contracted out to 40 states so before we even knew the performance of the plane congresmen were fighting for the jobs. Aviation Week quotes former JCS General Myers as saying that the Sukhoi-30 series of aircraft outclasses our top line F-15J. If that’s the case, then we have to remove special interests from bidding process and get back to the days when we were concerned with the right plane for the country, not for Lockheed or a small town that manufactures parts for it. Period. Here is the link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020_pf.html Also, another reminder that I am not the “other” Daniel since a few of his comments have sent people flying over to my blog to rant. Happy to have the attention. Daniel Russ Civilianmilitaryintelligencegroup.com
	Tony Conner July 10th, 2009 at 10:00 am The F-22A was designed to out class any proposed fighter on the drawing board 20 years ago. The situation has changed and now the F-22A out classes all fighters in existence for the next 20 years, but the Air Force mission has changed in the mean time. The DOD wants UAV operators, not fighter pilots. The F-22A is now considered an expedible program at 187 aircraft.
	Drake1 July 10th, 2009 at 12:39 pm I had a hunch the bomb doors were related to that crash. They were having loss of power problems prior with flying with the bay doors open– a very damning report that sums up all the the problems form the start to the present.
	Michael DeKort July 10th, 2009 at 3:51 pm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html It’s all here. Any congressman who votes for this thing after reading this article should be brought up on the same fraud charges Lockheed faces. Once you are aware of a problem, do not come clean about it and choose to continue down the same path you are committing fraud. I would rather see those workers get retrained, given money to get them by for a while and for us to buy proven equipment. Heck just hand them the money. This plane will not perform long enough in combat to be effective. We will lose a battle or even a war if we depend on this as our primary air-to-air fighter. A slightly less qualified plane that stays in the air is better than having a potentially excellent plane sitting on the ground. (I say potentially excellent because the plane’s stealth capability and flight performance are significantly compromised by know flaws).
	L Puig July 11th, 2009 at 10:00 am “the stupid shall be punished…!” that’s what an old chief petty officer used to say in the boat to us, and this short sighted analysis of “everything is ok now, and we do not need anymore F-22″ is as short sighted as in the 1990’s when we butchered the military and the intelligence agencies just before 9/11 for budget considerations, aka political stupidity! you plan for the wars we may get into in the future, NOT the wars we are in right now folks… and the F-22 is the weapon system we NEED to keep the russians and chinese “in check” for years to come… failure to do that could be a grave mistake in years to come…! oh well, your choice!
	Rhyno327 July 11th, 2009 at 12:53 pm Sell the F-22 to our allies, keep the line open, and focus on the war we are fighting NOW.
	ReconTeam July 11th, 2009 at 3:58 pm Focusing on the war we are fighting NOW doesn’t mean we should ignore our capabilities to fight conventional wars. This type of thinking has cost lives before and will cost lives again if we forget this. The people saying there is no threat to justify the F-22A are wrong. The Russians are exporting advanced Su-30 and Su-35 variants everywhere, the Chinese continue to expand their military, and you can’t keep a 30+ year old F-15C flying forever.
	Steve5699 July 11th, 2009 at 4:37 pm The actual per plane cost of the F-22 decreases drastically when multiples are ordered. The reason that they have cost so much to date is because R&D and design changes are factored in. Spread that cost over many examples and the cost per example decreases to an acceptable number. We can’t wait for twenty years of development for a new stealthy fighter. The F-22 has the radar signature of a small bird.
	cvn July 11th, 2009 at 7:40 pm Cut welfare to obama voters and PROVIDE for the common defense. The war on poverty is a failure…get out of the ghettos now!
	Reno July 12th, 2009 at 9:58 am Military spending is welfare of the rich corporation with nothing else to do.. This aircraft doesn’t provide for any common defense of this country because no other country will attack us here..
	zapho2002 July 12th, 2009 at 10:36 am While I agree that the F-22 Raptor is the ideal replacement for the F-15 Eagles that are currently grounded because they are so old that they have started falling apart in the air also the RQ-1 Predator is not I repeat not a fighter it is a long range reconnaissance craft as for the very new F-35 Lightning II I do not believe it will do very well in a modern dogfight the Raptor need to be made more durable not more stealthy of course here is an idea to solve all of the money problems that everyone here seems to complaining about why dont we just surrender and let the enemys of freedom take over then we wont have to think about how much freedom is really worth and how much it costs to keep it personaly I dont care how much the USA spends on its military just so long as they keep me safe from those that wish to take away my freedom
	ReconTeam July 12th, 2009 at 4:17 pm Welfare of the rich corporations Reno? The welfare of the rich corporations is the literal welfare money Barack is handing banks and businesses that would collapse without it! At least we get something back from our money from General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Or Boeing. The F-22A is a feat of engineering that will ensure continued American air superiority for years to come if we give it the support and production it deserves. Course these days twisted liberal idealism comes before the reality of national defense.
	Sig July 13th, 2009 at 2:42 pm Josh, where did you read about the simulation that led the Russians to state that their Su-30s were killing F-35s like clubbing baby seals?
	Chief Houston July 13th, 2009 at 6:59 pm Guys, I know you want to wax political both pro and con for our administration, but, please use this valuable resource to communicate ideas to solve problems related to the articles. Lord knows we all want to win our wars with the best equipment, personnel and price, but it is up to us to make it happen.
	Slim July 15th, 2009 at 6:21 pm Um…wouldn’t it make sense to produce one fighter…the F35 Joint Strike…for all branches to use and train on? Wouldn’t this cut costs and make maintaining easier??? Pilots can’t let go of fighters, but we haven’t had a dog fight since Vietnam and we won’t. Drones and close air support is the new combat. It’s plotics and pet projects and business as usual…if the taxpayers knew how much we waste in the military they would be up in arms and should be…we can’t manage money!!!
	Shencobalt July 15th, 2009 at 6:45 pm Well, it has been proven on this page, the left wingers (Democrats, in case you are one and don’t recognize the word)apparently never went to school or skipped a bunch of it. They not only don’t spell correctly, they really don’t know anything about the way the Government is suppose to run. Look it up, you might learn something!!!
	Hilary C. July 15th, 2009 at 7:11 pm “Where’s the birth certificate?”
	pat Z July 15th, 2009 at 8:37 pm No Backing the military, No Backing the constitution No Backing the Eligibility Requirements No Backing the War – Backing the Sodomy movement Backing the Abortion movement Backing Socialism Backing Communinism in Honduras Backing giving up the US Dollar for the EURO Backing the Government control of private companys. — Firing Private company CEO’s Firing Military members in Private Companies that question his eligibility. Firing the Inspector General because the report “Made him look bad“ – No this is not Putin, or Stalin. —- Military is suppose to serve and protect against all Enemys foriegn and DOMESTIC. —– Sounds like time for a COUP! ——– And you wanted CHANGE ? and you got MORE! — All this in a matter of a few months.
	pat Z July 15th, 2009 at 8:54 pm coup is wrong word.. it should be something like, “could remove hime from office” instead. Coup is too much.. it is saying a complete overthrow of gov.. That is just too wide. It is a lack of character that is the problem
	Jeff July 15th, 2009 at 10:09 pm If you think we can do without the F-22, just terminate the project and see how long it takes for another 911. Our country needs to remain strong and without projects like the Rapter, … (well, you figure it out).
	Frances July 16th, 2009 at 9:31 am Carl Levin was my state senator and I had an issue that needed his attention! That as of this day could cause an aircraft incident and put pilots lives in harms way. Him and his office chose not to do anything about it. We need issues like this taken care of to keep our Air Power strong as ever whether it be the F-22 or the other old dilapidated aircraft. Air Power is more important as it keeps our ground troops safe from harms way. Look at Desert Shield/Desert Storm. How many soldiers were killed because of a strong Air Power? While were blaming Bush, How about blaming other presidents from Jimmy Carter to Current President?
	Marion July 16th, 2009 at 11:06 am I guess NGO stands for : No Good Outfit, No Good Organization, either way, evidently they are against all Military Procurement Policies. The American Citizens DO NOT need, ANY Organization that is against the Military, trying to tell our Procurement Agencies what the Military needs or don’t need. Thank You for your time ( TSgt., USAF Retired ).
	d miller July 17th, 2009 at 1:50 pm i too an a retired military member and went through the end of vietnam and the ford and carter “lean” years. #1,there will always be special interests that want the newest “toys” as touted by the “military/industrial complex”. wars are not won just by the “turn and burn jocks” it’s won by logistics! if you can’t get there “firstest with the mostest” you lose. the gulf war was a fluke, hussien could’ve rolled over the 82th AB into Saudi as a speedbump before the A-10’s arrived. yes,the 15’s are aging, but that doesn’t preclude upgrading them with newest avionics,engines and weapon systems,strengthening the airframes with carbon fiber overlays,etc. after all, the contractor used “out of spec” parts during assembly, they should be made to foot the bill! but the whole picture is, we’re not prepared to fight any major wars by concentrating on these “bush” wars. and it was after WW2 that belief that future wars would be nuclear,not conventational,korea screwed that idea.

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

DoD Buzz

NGOs Want F-22 Whacked

Join the Conversation

Recent Comments