Don't Kid Yourself -- The F-22 Lives

Defense Secretary Gates held a press conference today and laid out his plans for next year's budget. America's arms spending will increase. But it won't increase as fast as it might have. That's why the headlines say "MAJOR CUTS." Defense Secretary Gates ordered four more F-22 fighter-bombers, today, in the budget he presented. But he said he won't order any the year after that, in the budget he won't present until 2010. This is why the headlines say "GATES KILLS F-22."

The budget is being cut in the sense that it's going up. The F-22 has been killed in the sense that we've appropriated all the money we need to keep building them until we have to think about it again.

The good news is that we're calling bad news good news.

We have 183 F-22s. (The world's most expensive fighter aircraft. And one that's never fired a shot in anger, except against Iron Man, and I'm pretty sure that was CGI, and even there, Iron Man won.) Obama wants four more.

The money for the planes will come out of the 2009 war supplement, because the F-22 has never been used in war.

William James would call it the moral supplement for war.

Keeping the F-22 alive while claiming to kill it gives its friends in congress twelve months to come up with new reasons to build more.

As aerospace analyst Richard Aboulafia explains:

"It was a surprise but just enough of a tactical victory to keep the F-22 going and allow political pressure to be brought to bear."

But let's say the F-22 should someday die, I mean for real. Not only would it leave America pathetically vulnerable to attack from Iron Men, it would also be a devastating economic blow to Lockheed, who builds it, and whose shares have barely tripled since September 11th.

The comforting news is that they also build its replacement, the F-35.

Today, Gates announced he was doubling orders for the F-35 from 14 in 2009 to 30 in 2010, at a cost of $11.2 billion.

And Lockheed's stock rose 8.9%.

Here's the thing about headlines about defense spending "cuts": It's like what Mondrian supposedly said about the neon lights of Times Square: "How beautiful! If I only couldn't read English."

Comments

[MaDmOnKy]

Its sad but true, if you want peace you have to prepare for war..

[rad21]

America's defense budget is more than the defense budgets of the rest of the world put together. And we supposedly ae a peace-loving Christian country.

Thanks for pointing out our lies, something that our free (establishment) press never tell us. We have been so accustomed to believing in our own truths ... er ...lies.

[D-Driller]

We are a peace-loving Christian country? Don't liberals believe we are a secular nation? Which one is it?

[indyleftist]

The Ministry of Truth, which concerned itself with news, entertainment, education and the fine arts.
The Ministry of Peace, which concerned itself with war.

[D-Driller]

Thanks, Chris, for this post. I, like many, had also been under the impression that these advanced fighters had been "canceled", so it is good to know that we are continuing to build them, and hopefully ensure our military superiority into the 21st century and beyond. I also like your jibe about fighting Iron Man - I agree! Seriously, if only it were that simple. Some of the main problems we have as a nation is our short attention span and our seeming inability to believe that anything "bad" can happen to us. Even after two world wars and the 9/11 tragedy, there are still people in this country who can actually say, with a straight face no less, that "There will never be another world war" or "We'll never need advanced weapons like these". That amazes me, since those same words have been uttered after every major conflict, and, lo and behold, another one unfortunately comes down the pike, and catches us unprepared. The continuation of this project also is an opportunity for President Obama to "create or preserve" some jobs here in the US. SInce little of the stimulus was actually earmarked for infrastructure upgrades or repowering America, at least here we can continue to work on aerospace technology.

[Allen J]

Actually, you bought the military-industrial complex propaganda hook, line and sinker. See, we already spend more on our military than the rest of the world does combined. Combined. Did that sink in yet? Yes, we can handle future military conflicts, even if we cut our military budget in half.

We also have these cool things called the UN and NATO, you might've heard about them. After WW2 we set out to create institutions to prevent tyranny in our world. If a legitimate threat exists in the world these institutions are in place to band together and eliminate the problem. That's why

A) They helped us in Afghanistan.
2) They didn't want to help in Iraq.

Get it? Legitimate vs. Illegitimate? So don't talk about how we need to spend more than the rest of the world combined on military matters, or else we won't be prepared. We will be, unless our goal is simple imperial dominanation. The UN and NATO are there to ensure preparedness.

And regarding jobs, each F-22 costs $130+ million to create. How many jobs do you think that could create if we put the money to actual good use? It's stupefying that when our health care, schools, infrastructure, etc. are all failing so miserably, the military contractors just have to roll out some patriot slogans and drum up fear against foreigners and suddenly, it makes sense to ignore all our actual problems and funnel money into high tech nonsense.

[D-Driller]

Good points, Allen. Let me reply to your four paragraphs, and get your feedback.
1. We have no idea what another major conflict will cost, so saying we can handle it with half of our military now is premature. As you know, after every war, we have cut our military, only to have to ramp it up drastically again. Particularly WWII - we had rationing in this country it was so bad.
2. Indeed, I have heard of them, thanks. Interestingly, many of the nations we expect to have trouble with in the future, like China and Russia, are in the UN. Will they send troops to fight themselves? No New World Order here, sir, please.
3. The war in iraq WAS legitimate under UN resolutions. i was personally against it, but you are the one who brought it up.
4. We are in agreement here - the stimulus indeed should have actually stimulated something! However, it doesn't seem to be doing that. I would rather employ engineers to build advanced aircraft than to help bankers or some of the other silly "earmarks". Personally, i think a trillion dollars could have gone a long way to re-power America (that's alot of wind turbines...), instead we are getting a few upgraded roads, and, what, some small municipal projects? Not enough for me, sir - we can do better than that.

[Yermammy]

Your one of the few people that can make me grin when I want to cry. Thanks, Chris. Knocking em dead, per usual. Take care.

[MajorKong]

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed.

This world in arms in not spending money alone.

It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.

The cost of one modern heavy bomber is this: a modern brick school in more than 30 cities.

It is two electric power plants, each serving a town of 60,000 population.

It is two fine, fully equipped hospitals.

It is some 50 miles of concrete highway.

We pay for a single fighter with a half million bushels of wheat.

We pay for a single destroyer with new homes that could have housed more than 8,000 people.

This, I repeat, is the best way of life to be found on the road the world has been taking.

This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron."

So which left-wing hippie liberal peacenik said this? Jane Fonda? Barbara Streisand? Michael Moore?

No, it was Dwight D. Eisenhower. Supreme Commander Allied Forces in Europe and President of the United States.

[flatus]

But on the other hand, the sarcastic, wise-a$$ one, if it were not for war, this sex-happy species of ours would have overrun this planet long ago.

[martinchill]

the comments are nothing more than "jet fighters rule!" versus "militarism is for morons".

great post, chris - as always.

[iblogleft]

Actually it is about priorities, economics, jobs and national defense.

[martinchill]

like i said...

it's clear you've spent years formulating intellectual reasons/ju­stificatio­ns for spending billions of dollars on killing machines.

so we got the microwave oven and velcro along the way - still spent way too much for 'em.

[Rule Of Law]

I love it. This has turned into a debate over which airplane is the better killing machine, and the entire point of the article--the useless waste of our dollars on pentagon toys--has been washed over.

All of you armchair jet jockeys can sit in your bunkers and argue the 22 vs the 35 vs the whatever and miss the point that the MIC and the Wall Street banks ARE the enemy, and they've just about taken your last dollar from you while you play little boy war games!

You've all lost the war already, the enemy has taken the country, and you are all prisoners. It was a war fought without a shot being fired. And you sunshine patriots stood by while it went down. Heckuva job, cold warriors!!!

[RevMetheus]

I thought the point of the article was that our media has no idea how to even present the facts, let alone actually search for them out in the real world?

[Rule Of Law]

Looks to be more than a little of both to me...

[Yermammy]

Right on, RoL. Good to read you. Been a while.

[MrJoyboy]

HuffPost's Pick

It's like our government is buying an expensive alarm system to protect a house that is being hollowed out by termites.

[watchTVgetSTUPID]

Our whole military is about to fall down just like what happened to the Soviet Union ... and for the same reason, the economy. Our economy has been hollowed out by Bankster Looters on Wall Street and by wholesale transfer of our manufacturing base to China.

[MrJoyboy]

Obama should heed the old maxim that the more things change the more they stay the same.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

Bill Maher recently questioned "when we signed up to be an empire."
The US military has been the enforcement arm for corporate multi-nationals for at least the last 120-years. Corporate multi-nationals are by definition imperial.
The British East India Company corupted the 18th century British government­/military.
It's not hard to understand when you listen to the wailings of congressmen bruised by military budget cuts as to what forces "sign us up" for empire.

[Rule Of Law]

finally, some sense!

[luzcannon]

Oh, you made my day, both of you! Readers!

[sposton]

They are trying to confuse us with specifics. We are spending almost as much as the rest of the world put together on our military. Are we reducing the overall expenditures? No, we are not! This makes all of this talk nothing worth listening. We haven't had any truth coming our from military-i­ndustrial-­complex since they changed the name from "war" department into "defense" department.

And why are we spending so much on military? To make us safe and secure, of course! But could we make ourselves even more secure by doubling our military budget? The simple fact is that our military budget has very little to do with our security. Until we realize this simple fact they will continue robbing us blind. As long as we accept lies they will tell us other lies like we don't have the money for health reform, energy plans, education, whatever. It isn't that we don't have the money but that we are willing to spend it on useless war making machinery.

[Christober]

Yeah and then we should turn all the guns the military has into flower pots. We can use the air force to give free travel to the poor and the navy as well. We should do this because everyone knows our military budget has little to do with our security. In fact, our military has little to do with our security....right?

[sposton]

I am not anti-military because I think what we are spending is obscene. I don't believe in BS binary choices. You either do this or that - that's for children and morons. Surely we are a nation mature enough to discern what is insufficient, what is sufficient and what constitutes obscene expenditures for our national defense.

To advocate for reasonable defense policy is to turn each gun into a flower pot? You completely ignore the fact mentioned in my comment that we spend almost as much as the rest of the world combined. Do you believe we must spend this much to keep us free and secure? If we spend less we would endanger our security? Would we be safer if we double what we currently spend?

Your reaction is not one from a free person but from a person who has been influenced by ignorant American militarism, the idea that is utterly antithetical to most everything that is worth protecting in American traditions and experience.

[Rule Of Law]

Still don't get it, do you?

The Bankers are the enemy. And all the jets and army guys in the world are no dammed use against them.

[Rule Of Law]

"fact is that our military budget has very little to do with our security."

Yes! But try to pry the toys out of the hands of the boys who still take their latest issue of Soldier of Fortune into the john with them as soon as it arrives.

[sposton]

I agree it is the militaristic mentality that now prevails. It is how we define patriotism nowadays.

[RoveRoveRoveYourBoat]

...the F35 is not a replacement for the F22, please get the facts right.
The F22 is meant as a replacement for the F15 and the F117.
The F15 will not be obsolete for 20+years.
The F117 has already been retired /replaced by existing early F22s
180+ F22s are enough!
The F35 is a replacement for F16, F18 and VTOL Harriers.
F16s and F18s will not be oblolete for 20-years too.
The F35 is also an export fighter for all world airforces/ navies.
F35s are redundant, just churning up the industrial war-monger swindlers.
If our future was not based on oil, strong-arming oil producers and policeing our foreign oil routes would be less important, our military being the enforcement arm of the multi-national corporate empire.
The more pressing outrage concerns the privatization of Federal administrative tasks to Lockheed, though no bid croneyism. They currently do all the administrative work of the federal government, cutting every check the federal government writes.

[iblogleft]

I love it when politicians become aviation experts....

If you look at the facts, and be realistic, it would be stupid to halt production at this point, unless we have built enough to fulfill the aircrafts role, or at least supplement older aircraft.

All other requirements aside, this aircraft has already paid for itself in the form of super cruise aircraft engines. They allow the jet to travel faster than the speed of sound without the massive waste of fuel that a normal aircraft would have to use afterburners for.

The same technology will save us billions in fuel in commercial aviation in the future. The defense department is already working on getting these jets to run on bio jet fuel as well.

Should we build more? Only if we need them to replace older aircraft. Should we stop in the middle of a production run, and halt what's left of our insanely small high tech manufacturing ability? Absolutely not. The same technology that builds turbine blades is one of the few areas in the world of manufacturing that we are still ahead in, and there are a dozen other technologies that could open future ECONOMIC growth for the future of our country and JOBS for our people.

[ResistanceisFutile]

It is amazing how people rationalize irrational behavior.

We must crush our country's military machine and spend our wealth in more worthwhile endeavors.

[iblogleft]

How would you rationalize spending 50 billion dollars on a production line and the technology behind it, then dumping it?

[MajorKong]

Supercruise is nice from a "gee whiz" point of view but most air combat takes place around 400 knots which is cornering velocity of most fighter planes. Supersonic speed is rarely used because it seriously limits your turning ability.

It's also nothing new. The BAC Lightning had supercruise capability back in the early 1960s.

[iblogleft]

The lightning was not able to fly supersonic in level flight without afterburner, to my knowledge. There may have been a variant that could do it without stores.

The f-22 is meant to intercept bombers and fighters at as long a range as possible. The F-22's ability to super-cruise gives it a massive advantage over fighters that need to be refueled before they can get to the target.

I was pointing at the technology that will be introduced into the commercial market in the coming years.

People fail to understand some basic rules of technology. We have two avenues to great technological advancement, war or space. These technologies will drive our future employment, and economy. Until we get to a point where war is unthinkable, it must be a part of the equation.

[MajorKong]

"I love it when politicians become aviation experts"

Since presumably you ARE an aviation expert - how many hours of jet time do you have in your logbook? What type ratings do you hold?

[iblogleft]

None. But I did received the highest grade ever achieved in my aerospace engineering class, and I stayed at a holiday inn express last night.. :-)

I understand this is not a popular subject for Democrats, and I do understand how much money we waste in our defense spending. I aim to point out that this program is in production, the money is spent (the vast majority of it). We should aim at programs that are not in production that are eating up money better suited to other areas.

[TheBurdicks]

We are fresh out of money. Especially for the total waste of military spending.
Delete all of these, and all other related, weapons of mass destruction.
In this 21st Century Interconnected world, there is zero residual threat of a conventional military attack on the U.S. There is almost zero risk of conventional military attack on any nation by another. In fact, the only conventional military attacks on another nation in this century have been the insane, and probably illegal, wars instigated by the U.S.
In the 21st Century, there is no rationale for a conventional military. There are only issues of criminal activity (including terrorism) and police response. At the most, we need small, mobile, highly trained, well equipped, special forces military units integrated with a unified, sophisticated, high tech intelligence gathering network.
End the long ago lost wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, and Terror.
Bring every one of our servicemen home from abroad.
Close all bases and dismantle our entire conventional military.
These are nothing more than stone age relics.

[bsween]

great idea you will be the first coward crying when the terrorists attack us again if you think they arent trying to plan something you are a fool maybe you and reid can hide in the desert and surrender together

[ResistanceisFutile]

It was your own Bush Government who took the towers down.

[agrund]

We already have the most powerful military force in the world. Didn't seem to stop Bin Laden, did it? Why? Think about that for awhile. Perhaps something other than jet fighters are needed.

[RevMetheus]

So lets spend our military budget on anti-boxcutter tech and planes that will intercept jumbo jets, not bombers and fighters...

[stop the politics]

If we did as you suggest, it would not be long until we are taken over by a foreign nation. We have peace because the other nations realize that it would be futile to attack us (the damage would out weigh the benefit). For point of illustration, why in the world would China want to pay us for anything, if they could acquire it free? If we did not have a strong military, China would view us as a cash cow set for a hostile take over. I used China as an example, feel free to substitute it for any other nation in the world with a decent sized standing military. Without the strong national defense (defense being the operative word, not offense) we would be at the mercy of other nations.

Your thoughts are great in an idealized world, but not in reality. Look at the US, people take things that don't belong to them all the time. One of the strongest deterrents to crime is the police force. One of the strongest deterrents to keeping other nations from taking our possessions in our conventional military forces.

[MajorKong]

The question is, how much do we need to be a credible deterrent against any likely adversary? None of which are really capable of projecting power in this hemisphere.

Even the Soviet Union, in their heyday, did not really have the capability to mount a large scale invasion of the United States. They were, and still are, primarily a continental power.

Yes, they could have nuked us into oblivion, but they just didn't have the logistical capability to supply a large force halfway around the world.

The Chinese can't really project power much outside their borders and it's going to be a while before they can.