Home » Air » Murtha Raises Gates 12 F-22s

Murtha Raises Gates 12 F-22s

By Greg Grant Thursday, July 16th, 2009 11:49 am
Posted in Air, International, Land, Naval, Policy, Rumors

UPDATED: F-22 Vote Likely Late Monday; Rep. Dicks Admits “Very Uphill Battle,” Notes “No Way We’d Have Votes to Override Veto”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates will not be pleased with the House Appropriations defense subcommittee mark-up of the 2010 defense appropriations bill. The $636.3 billion mark is $3.8 billion less than the amount requested by the Obama administration; but it’s what powerful subcommittee chairman Rep. John Murtha added that will truly gall.

Murtha added $369 million for advanced procurement of 12 more F-22 Raptors, a program the administration wants to kill; added $485 million to “operationalize” five VH-71 Presidential Helicopters, another program the administration wants to end; $560 million more to continue development of a second engine for the Joint Strike Fighter; and $674 million was added to buy 3 additional C-17 lifters.

Murtha said he was mindful of Obama’s threat to veto the defense bill if more money was added to buy more F-22s but he believes some kind of agreement can be worked out and that it won’t come to a veto. At least he wants the administration to consider the advanced funding, which Murtha said he just added yesterday, to maintain a production line that can turn out spare parts or replacement aircraft. He believes “in my heart” Gates will eventually prevail, but he at least wants the administration to consider lawmakers concerns and vowed to work with the White House. Murtha said he believes the decision to stop the F-22 buy at 187 aircraft did not come from Gates, rather it came from the White House.

The Air Force’s higher number for F-22s was based on fighting a two front war, the two Major Combat Operations planning construct that is being jettisoned in the QDR strategic review. Murtha said lawmakers would go with the higher figure until the strategy is officially changed. On the presidential helicopter, Murtha said he expected the Obama administration would “see the wisdom” of getting something out of the money already spent on the program.

Colin Clark spoke with Rep. Norm Dicks at an Aerospace Industries Association Lunch after the markup and Dicks conceded that F-22 supporters faced a “very uphill battle. There’s no way we’d have the votes to override a veto. If the president is firm on the veto we’ll have to take that into account” as the bill moves to the House floor or to conference, when House and Senate lawmakers hammer out the final bill. President Obama has made the administration’s position on the F-22 abundantly clear, most recently in yesterday’s Statement of Administration Policy. If you read the SAP’s F-22 language, there is no waffling: “As the President wrote in his letter to the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee on July 13, if the final bill presented to him contains this provision, the President will veto it.” And that sentence is underlined, lest anyone think it just political boilerplate.

On the JSF, Murtha included $5.6 billion for 28 F-35 Lightnings (14 short take off and vertical landing variants for the Marines; 4 carrier variants for the Navy; and 10 conventional variants for the Air Force), $532 million above the request. The Marines also came off well with the V-22 Osprey, a program Murtha favors, with $2.6 billion for 30 MV-22 and 5 CV-22 Ospreys.

Former Marine Murtha said he warned Marine Corps commandant Gen. James Conway that the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle program is on thin ice, though he is giving the service time to come up with something. He said the vehicle’s flat bottom and aluminum construction made it too vulnerable on modern battlefields.

Murtha also provided $1.7 billion to buy 18 F/A-18E/F Super Hornets, $495 million and 9 aircraft above the request. An additional $108 million above the request was included for future year buys of F-18s. Also, $1.6 billion will go to buy 22 EA-18G Growler electronic attack jets.

“I have said for the past few years that we must not narrowly focus on the wars of the present, and that we must prepare our Armed Forces for both current and future, unconventional and conventional conflicts, Murtha said. “This legislation represents that balance, and I’m proud of the direction it takes us.” The aerial refueling tanker is “my biggest priority,” Murtha said, and $440 million was provided for tanker development and language was included that allowed DOD to either sole source or dual source the buy and encourages DOD to buy more than one aircraft per month.

Murtha’s version of the defense bill includes $15 billion for 10 Navy ships, 2 above the administration request (1 DDG-51; 1 SSN-774; 4 LCS, 1 more than the request; 2 Intra-Theater Connector ships, 1 more than the request; and 2 T-AKE Auxiliary Cargo ships). This is the first time 1992 that the shipbuilding account was funded for 10 or more ships.

Murtha’s committee essentially went along with the administration’s decision on the reprogramming of the Army’s Future Combat systems program, although $211 million was cut due to “excessive termination liability.” The subcommittee believes the Army should buy more Stryker wheeled vehicles, and boosted the administration’s request by $225 million to $614 million, although the subcommittee did not tell the Army how many to buy. Murtha did cut $1.9 billion from the administration’s request for MRAP vehicles, providing $3.6 billion, because additional money was provided for the MRAP buy in the 2009 emergency supplemental.

Additional program decisions:

• C-130: $903 million for procurement of 5 C/HC?MC-130J and advanced procurement of 20 more.

• C-27J: $319 million to buy 8 JCA.

• MQ-9 Reaper: $489 million for 24 aircraft.

• Wideband Global System: $627 million for the satellite system, $425 million above administration request.

• CH-47: $847 million for 26 Chinook helicopters.

• UH-60: $1.3 billion for 79 Blackhawks.

• MTV: $966 million for medium trucks, $193 million below request due to schedule delays.

• JTRS: $876 million for continued development.

• DDG-1000: $539 million for continued development.

How do you feel about this issue?
Let your public officials know how you feel.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

Join the Conversation

	Drake1 July 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pm Murtha said he was mindful of Obama’s threat to veto the defense bill if more money was added to buy more F-22s but he believes some kind of agreement can be worked out and that it won’t come to a veto. ========================================== The Democrats know their President well– a true pushover.
	cvn July 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pm Murtha may have Slandered the USMC … but at least he is fighting for more procurement…
	chris July 16th, 2009 at 2:24 pm Muthra is a corrupt SOB, but at least he’s pro-American and wants a strong military. I respect the midwestern union bull Democrats (even if I think their union corruption is bad economic policy). It’s the far left anti-American Democrats like Obama that just disgust me. Liberals like Obama and Pelosi don’t think America should have a dominant military. Hell, Obama can’t even praise America for winning the Cold War. Obama thinks the Cold War was just a pointless wankfest between two white, racist imperialist powers (aka USA vs USSR) fighting over who got rule over the oppressed third world.
	Drake1 July 16th, 2009 at 2:43 pm It’s not procurement, it’s pork.
	jimbo July 16th, 2009 at 2:48 pm No pork is what i call the “stimulus” package.…. that piece of SH*t was full of hidden worthless programs for memebers of the house and senate.… then states used the money to pay of debt intstead of create jobs.… the whole program sucks and only puts us in deeper debt, wout stimulating anything except money hungry senators on the hill.
	Charley A. July 16th, 2009 at 2:55 pm Adding money for a second engine source makes sense, and we can always use more airlift so the C-17 add is a wise buy. But kill the F-22 already. The ones we have are not being used properly, are far too expensive, and most importantly are not as stealthly as people want to believe. Spend the money on the F-35, and to develop a new long range twin-engined manned naval interceptor.
	Drake1 July 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pm If you want to talk about domestic spending you need to find another site. This comes from the man who wanted to split the tanker deal down the middle-it’s all pork to this guy. He wouldn’t be in office as long as he has if he didn’t know how to spread the favors around.
	jimbo July 16th, 2009 at 3:31 pm and if you want to talk about pork… go to you local home depot hot dog stand..
	Tom July 16th, 2009 at 5:19 pm If the pork-a-holics in Congress were to stop authorizing money for G.E’s JSF ‘alternate engine’, the F-22 program would realize some financial relief. NOBODY has yet proven the benefit of funding a second JSF engine. Remove politics, corruption & greed and the program dies.
	Stephen July 16th, 2009 at 7:04 pm Is that 2nd engine a qpq to the Brits/RollsRoyce to keep them in the F-35 stable?
	L Puig July 16th, 2009 at 8:13 pm yep…they are “very wise” in Washington.… let’s kill the missile defense systems like the ABL and the GMD specially NOW that we have lunny countries like North Korean WITH nukes and launching missiles every week like it is the 4th of July.… yep, “very wise” people indeed.…lol!
	Cole July 16th, 2009 at 8:31 pm L Puig, check out Wired — Danger Room, for a transcript of Sec of Defense Gates speech today in Chicago. Reference your area of interest, he stated: “In fact, where the threat is real or growing – from rogue states or from short-to-medium range missiles that can hit our deployed troops – this budget sustains or increases funding. Most of the cuts in this area come from two programs that are designed to shoot down enemy missiles immediately after launch. This was a great idea, but the aspiration was overwhelmed by the escalating costs, operational problems, and technological challenges.” “Consider the example of one of those programs – the Airborne Laser. This was supposed to put high-powered lasers on a fleet of 747s. After more than a decade of research and development, we have yet to achieve a laser with enough power to knock down a missile in boost phase more than 50 miles from the launch pad – thus requiring these huge planes to loiter deep in enemy air space to have a feasible chance at a direct hit. The 10 to 20 aircraft needed would cost about $1.5 billion apiece plus tens of millions of dollars each in annual operating costs. The program and operating concept were fatally flawed and it was time to face reality. So we curtailed the existing program while keeping the prototype aircraft for research and development.” Believe this speech will bring budget changes in Congress or assure no veto overide.
	Bambooviper July 16th, 2009 at 8:38 pm Murtha DID NOT Slandered the USMC, he told the truth that people did not want to hear about a few Marines and the acts they commeted. Big difference! Murth is one guy that backs the military and the Vets, here he maybe be wishing but if I know Murth, he will end up getting some of it for the military. Ask for a lot and settle for what you wanted in the first place. Murth is alright in my book. BV
	Joe July 16th, 2009 at 10:40 pm 369 Million.……they need to give that to the U.S. Army to improve U.S. Army’s way of lives!!
	Julie July 17th, 2009 at 12:32 am I don’t know why it is so important to shut down F-22 production when firm allies are willing to pay double the current asking price for export (Downgraded) fleets. Mmmm Unemployment going through the roof. Potential taxes on sales. Double the current price. Whats the downside?
	Jock Williams Yogi 13 July 17th, 2009 at 9:12 am Credit where credit is due. Murtha may in other respects be a jerk but at least he is supporting a stronger military –even though it may be “pork” for his district. People condemn the F22 because it is not fighting in Afghanistan. I would like to remind them that tanks did not fight in the Battle of Midway –but proved pretty valuable elsewhere. In terms of combat readiness we need to think worldwide and two wars ahead. Sadly we usually seem to plan one war back! Jock Williams Yogi 13
	Tenn Slim July 17th, 2009 at 9:48 am ALL As I follow this, The Senate also has a McCain opposition to the F22 funding process. It was always difficult to get funds for this program, from day one. Every cycle the LM and USAF folks had to battle the Congress. Cold War aircraft development always is difficult to fund. HOWEVER, the F22 is unique. Truly a bird for now and far into the future of aircraft development. The Avionics alone has spawned our Ipods, Cell Phones and who knows what else, in the NON defense world. end Semper FI
	Phillip Smith July 17th, 2009 at 9:52 am Let’s just gut the military. There is nothing but third world countries out there and they can not hurt us. The current Administration beleives to be true. Does anyone remember what happen to the US Military after WW1. We gutted the Army and Nanvy and was blind side on 7 December 1941. If we do not keep up a strong Military, we may as well lay down and die. Beleive it or not 90% of the countries out there would love to see America gone for ever. GOD BLESS TO ALL SOLDIERS, SAILORS, MARINES AND AIRMEN AND WOMEN. GREAT JOB EVERYONE.
	Gary July 17th, 2009 at 9:59 am Bingo, Julie.
	Colin Clark July 17th, 2009 at 10:20 am Stephen, Congress, taking its cue from the famous great engine war during the F-16, has pushed and pushed to ensure a second engine is built. The idea is simple: provide competition so a better engine might be designed (so far reports indicate the competitor engine for the F-35 — the F-136 — may be doing just this) . The Pentagon has opposed this from the beginning but there is a kabuki aspect to the military opposition. Since the military knows that Congress will put the money in the budget regardless of what it does, that “frees up” money to put in other places…
	Drake1 July 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am Not sure you can call spending the money where it is currently needed –fighting two wars, gutting the military. When these conflicts come to some sort of closure, the money will be redistributed accordingly.
	Paul July 17th, 2009 at 12:19 pm Murtha only supports military procurement when it lands in his district. In the 90’s he threatened to kill the AEGIS Program when one of his hometown contractors filled to win a bid. He could care less about the military. If he really cared about national defense he wouldn’t be wasting taxpayers money on what amount to a private airport.
	War Pony August 9th, 2009 at 11:05 pm “$369 million for advanced procurement of 12 more F-22 Raptors” (YES!!!!) … = $30.75 mill per bird. Anyone on the F-22 threads saying $100+ millions per should refigure their math, and consider not contributing further! Lead, follow or get out of the way!
	Jack Mehoff August 10th, 2009 at 3:58 am Murtha did slander the Marines at Haditha. Opening his fat mouth without the facts, it’s why he’s being sued. It’s back stabbing scum like Murtha who only “support” the military when it fills their pockets. How many of you remember the fat scumbag being nailed in ABSCAM? He’s the best politician money, and foreign money, can buy. Democrats will see us into slavery as long as they are allowed to serve as taskmaster and tax collector.
	Jeff Razer August 10th, 2009 at 12:06 pm Advanced Procurement = Down Payment. It isn’t the total cost of the plane. The $339 million cost per plane that gets thrown around now and then is the cost-per-unit of the currently planned Raptors. This number is artificially inflated because it includes ~$28 billion for R&D. The planes themselves (parts + assembly + QA) cost ~$34 billion for 183 fighters, for a cost of ~$186 million per plane. As more planes are produced, the cost per unit comes down. This is due to streamlining of production, the reduction in engineering force with designs being set, etc… According to Air Force budget estimates, the incremental cost for one additional F-22 now stands at ~$138 million. This does not take into account maintenance costs, but it’s hard to nail down the annual cost of maintaining an F-22. So yeah, it’s still $100+ million per plane, but it’s not as high as some of the estimates flying around.
	pfcem August 10th, 2009 at 4:27 pm Jeff Razer, Not quite. Advanced Procurement is the procuremnt of parts/systems which need to be procured in advance in order for the weapons system to be completed efficiently. Otherwise you would end up with incomplete (in this case) F-22s waiting for parts/systems thoughout the production process leading to significantly greater production time & cost.
	War Pony August 10th, 2009 at 5:58 pm Thanks Jeff. Standing corrected here.
	roland October 12th, 2009 at 8:46 pm Keep in mind the Chinese already have 1,300 MIG jets
	stephen October 12th, 2009 at 9:52 pm All of which have a range of what? @ Roland.
	Trophy October 12th, 2009 at 9:55 pm Um, not 1,300 MiG’s. But a combination of licensed Sukhois, MiG’s and domestic fighters. The MiG’s are of the older variety, the MiG-21 and the Sukhois are Su-27’s. As much as I love the F-22, that’s a weak and invalid argument.