More

Obama Defense Contractor Battle Only Just Begun: AP

ANDREW TAYLOR   04/22/09 07:15 PM ET   AP

Defense Contractor

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has chalked up a quick victory in its drive to kill an expensive jet fighter better suited for the Cold War than Afghanistan, but more skirmishes with job-rich defense contractors and their allies in Congress are just over the horizon.

With billions of dollars and thousands of high-paying jobs at stake, a top Pentagon contractor and its allies in Congress are battling to maintain production on another military aircraft targeted by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

The Boeing Co. is optimistic of winning billions of dollars for giant C-17 transport planes and F-18 fighter jets not requested by Gates, preserving jobs at assembly plants in California and Missouri. Boeing is pressing to add the planes to President Barack Obama's $83.4 billion request to fund U.S. military and diplomatic efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Gates quietly won the first skirmish with another contractor when Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday it is accepting Gates' decision to stop production of over-budget F-22 fighter planes.

The Pentagon chief staked his credibility on moving away from some big equipment purchases for conventional wars and instead gearing the Defense Department's buying plans to the smaller, lower-tech battlefields the military is encountering in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That means uprooting programs that have been carefully seeded across the country to maximize political support _ and feed the parochialism that drives many of Congress' actions on buying weapons and equipment for the military.

For example, final assembly of the F-22 fight jet occurs at Lockheed Martin's plant in Marietta, Ga., but it relies on parts contributed by some 1,000 suppliers spread across 44 states.

Obama wants the war funding bill on his desk by Memorial Day. But first it must wend its way through Congress, where old-guard lawmakers like Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., are poised to go to bat for Boeing. They are likely to add about $4 billion for 15 of the giant C-17 cargo planes that have been ferrying heavy equipment and troops since 1991. Gates is recommending killing the program after currently funded planes have been built.

"We have enough C-17s," he said earlier this month.

Boeing has launched a newspaper advertising campaign targeting lawmakers touting the C-17: "Model Program: On Cost, On Schedule," reads the ad.

"We need strategic lift," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif. "And incidentally, there are a lot of jobs, obviously, connected for my state, which now has over an 11 percent unemployment rate."

About 5,000 people work at the plant in Long Beach, Calif., with 25,000 more employed by suppliers spread across 43 states.

Last year's war funding bill contained 15 C-17s, and supporters are confident this 15 more this year is already a done deal.

Boeing is expanding its focus to seeking additional F/A-18 Super Hornets for the Navy, assembled in St. Louis at a cost of about $60 million each. It touts the F-18 as a less costly alternative to the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter favored by Gates and built by rival Lockheed _ and a timely solution to a current shortfall in tactical fighters.

Gates appears, however, to have prevailed in a defining battle over the F-22. The fighter was designed in the 1980s to guarantee air dominance over enemies like the Soviet Union and China but has attracted enormous criticism for its expense and because it it is not suited to the combat situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bringing F-22 production to a halt is central to Gates' effort to refocus the military away from super-expensive weapons that aren't suited to the conflicts the nation is likely to face in the future.

The administration had seemed to invite a battle over the F-22 by asking for four of the planes in Obama's recent war request, giving F-22 backers an opening to press for additional planes.

But their efforts took a salvo earlier this month when the two top Air Force officials wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post in which they came into line with Gates, agreeing to drop a bid for 60 additional planes.

Lockheed is instead focused on ramping up production of F-35s at the Marietta plant, along with production of two cargo planes.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has chalked up a quick victory in its drive to kill an expensive jet fighter better suited for the Cold War than Afghanistan, but more skirmishes with job-r...
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration has chalked up a quick victory in its drive to kill an expensive jet fighter better suited for the Cold War than Afghanistan, but more skirmishes with job-r...
Filed by Stuart Whatley  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 41
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:47 AM on 04/24/2009
Um..maybe i'm stupid but how about build some deepspace vehilces a space shuttle replacement and some moon vehicles so we can start exploring space..like kennedy wanted..oh what 50 years ago.....war war war..aint good
10:18 AM on 04/24/2009
"...Lockheed Martin Corp. said Tuesday it is accepting Gates' decision to stop production of over-budget F-22 fighter planes..."

How magnanimous of them !
07:24 PM on 04/23/2009
It's long past time to put the Pentagon contractors on a nonfat, no sugar diet. Do it now, please.....
01:54 PM on 04/23/2009
Without the Raptor the United States will be weaker in the long run. With the new generations of MIG's that are being built other world powers will have a advantage over us. A F-18 will have no change against a future MIG. The MIG would fly 10000 ft. higher ,and it's wepons range would be 20 miles longer.
02:33 PM on 04/23/2009
If we keep wasting money like this, we will have nothing left to defend, and no money for fuel or weapons, so the planes will be moot.
03:11 PM on 04/23/2009
The F22 is VITAL. without air dominance, you cannot win a ground war.

Even rebuilt F15's won't be sufficient to ward off next gen MIGs.

Even at it's zenith, the F18 would have had little chance against a MIG.

The Chinese and Russian design bureaus are not going to stop designing and fielding the 5th generation fighters.
03:16 PM on 04/23/2009
What you are really arguing for, is a replacement for the F-14 Tomcat, whose role was
fleet air defense. The AF-18 is primarily an attack aircraft, that is a pretty good fighter
as well. Last I heard Raptors can't land on carrier decks.
01:01 PM on 04/23/2009
If the defense budget was cut in half the US would no longer have deficit problems and would still be the dominant milary power in the world. It is insane to keep up traditional military spending. The industrial military complex is running the entire country into the ground!
01:45 PM on 04/23/2009
you can say that again. Almost every week the Tucson Daily Star reports that Ratheon has received another multi million dollar contract. They sure haven't been hurt by the economy. It clearly shows the priorities in our country. I am hoping that Obama will change that.
12:58 PM on 04/23/2009
Let me get this straight. Manufacturing offensive weapons must be protected at all costs but let car manufactureres fail???
03:12 PM on 04/23/2009
When GM can make something comparable to a B-2, then we will talk.
03:28 PM on 04/23/2009
When Northrup can make something comparable to a Prius, then we will talk.
09:08 PM on 04/23/2009
B-2 would have been cheaper if it had been made out of solid gold. They produced just enough so every major air museum could get one.
12:53 PM on 04/23/2009
From what I can gather, the F-22 Raptor is a outstanding plane, but it took far too long to
develop, and is way over budget. We need to spend some R & D money on compressing
the design cycle, and finding less expensive ways of manufacturing. The US is not the
world leader in manufacturing technology, and it shows.
09:09 PM on 04/23/2009
better be outstanding for 300 million plus dollars each.
10:38 AM on 04/24/2009
We've tried compressing the development cycle. It's called parallel development. I haven't been on a weapons system program yet where it worked. There is too much rush to release into production now. Many weapons systems are bought full on without proving they can really do what the contract called for without changing the definitions (cheating). The B-1 was delivered with it's defensive avionics were unusable so after paying the original contractor fully for faulty equipment the DOD then hired someone else to spend millions to fix it. This is not unusual.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
11:49 AM on 04/23/2009
That is why Eisenhower wanted to call military-industrial-complex military-industrial-CONGRESSIONAL-complex but dropped the "congressional" at the last minute. This situation exemplifies the utter corruption of "our" Congress.
11:24 AM on 04/23/2009
We're not alone in this: the Dutch don't want to continue to be on the hook for the F-35 either. Today they are balking at spending money on the first two test prototypes that could lead to an expenditure of 6.2 B Euros on the remaining 85.

http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2221329.ece/Fighter_jet_puts_pressure_on_Dutch_coalition
09:10 PM on 04/23/2009
the price has doubled since the program startup, now each low cost fighter will be over 100 million each.
11:06 AM on 04/23/2009
They need to stop talking about defense spending in terms of jobs.
Defense spending should be just for that, ie, what do we need for defense.
Once that is determined, then you can decide who gets the contracts to fulfill the requirements.
Right now it is upside down. Hopefully, Obama and Gates can get that fixed.
12:41 PM on 04/23/2009
I couldn't agree more! And you may be surprised to hear that I currently work for one of the big 5 defense contractors. I don't want to lose my job more than anyone else does. But I'm also retired military and never stopped caring that the men and women of the armed services get the right tools that they need to do their job. You simply cannot make defense spending decisions based on jobs. If that means I have to seek other employment, then so be it.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
HerbTee
Obama in 2012...Liz Warren in 2016.
12:54 PM on 04/23/2009
Ditto on everything you said Sassafras6...from another military retiree and a senior systems engineer with one of the big 5 defense contractors.
05:21 PM on 04/23/2009
Thank you for your service.
One thing I harp on a lot is that the Constitution says this government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. Never once does it say this country is to the benefit of the companies or businesses.
Point is, businesses are allowed to operate in this country for the benefit of the people, not the other way around. The government needs to keep in mind who they work for.
11:06 AM on 04/23/2009
Lets just build giant pyramids instead.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:26 PM on 04/23/2009
A really, really big one in, say, Oklahoma. You know, around 69,898 sq mi?

Sorry, Oklahoma, but someone needs to make the sacrifice, but think of the jobs!
10:44 AM on 04/23/2009
Of some interest, maybe around these parts, is that with not too much
fanfare the 'redundant' jet engine that was to be built by GE for the F-22
is *now* to be put in the F-35. Now the two planes have substantially
different roles, but the F-35, being (relatively) much cheaper seems
the better deal for 'consumers'. At least for the moment.

Also, note there was interesting op-ed by a 'former Marine' to the effect
that the Air Force, having no 'vital' role in Iraq or Afghanistan, should be
disbanded. Air Force officials immediately took exception. One might
ask if the Marine Corps, being the Army branch of the Navy, is not also
redundant. Toot alors!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/21/opinion/21kane.html
03:14 PM on 04/23/2009
The engines in the F-22 and F-35 JSF were ALWAYS the same engine. The F-22 has 2 (like the F-15) and the F-35 has one (just like the F-16).
04:20 PM on 04/23/2009
Pratt/Whitney & GE are always in competition to build jet engines. P/W won
the competition for the two-engine F-22. GE, ironically, with Rolls-Royce,
has a contract to build an 'alternative' engine for the single-engine F-35.
10:37 AM on 04/23/2009
...so, the manufacturer tells the consumer what they MUST purchase...huh?