|
||
Save the Pitiful F-22
If there's one thing that makes me madder than pork-filled make-work programs, it's shadowy netroots pressure groups that just want to get rich off big government. Who's with me?
Which is why that anonymous "Protect American Jobs / Save the F-22 Raptor" ads on Drudge -- and every other political website to the right of LOLcats -- make my free market blood boil. Someone is spending a lot of money to gin up a petition to save history's most expensive fighter plane. I'll bet it's ACORN.
Actually, I don't know who preserveraptorjobs.com is, and they're not saying, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turned out to be Lockheed-Martin.
Lockheed-Martin builds the F-22, a plane designed in the early 90s to fight the planes the Soviet Union didn't build in the late 80s. We've spent $65 billion dollars on it and it's never fired a shot in anger. President Obama has until March 1st to buy more or shut it down.
Whoever preserveraptorjobs.com is, they've got deep pockets. Their ad seems to pop up beside every online news story that even mentions the Raptor, which can't be cheap, but then, neither is freedom.
Did I say freedom? I meant JOBS! Read the ad: The F-22 is all about JOBS! "American jobs." "Specialized jobs." "Well-paying American jobs." "Well-paying specialized American jobs." Forget what the plane does -- or in the F-22's case, doesn't do -- the government's job is to give people jobs! They can take our lives, but that can't take away our JOOOOOOOOBBBBS!!! Sign this petition.
Yours,
John Maynard Keynes
c/o The Military Industrial Complex
Here's some of the ad:
Act Now!Production of the world's most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-22 Raptor, is in jeopardy. Your help is needed to urge the Obama Administration to save more than 95,000 American jobs and more than $12 billion in national economic activity.
Ask Questions Later!
There's no source given for either of these numbers. But according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 647,000 people work in industries where at least a fifth of the products are related to defense production, which would mean that roughly one out of seven Americans who work in the defense industry works on the Raptor. This is unlikely.
Last month, in a letter to Obama from 44 Senators arguing for more Raptor money, the number of jobs was only 25,000. I guess they've been hiring. Maybe they're working on the website.
Keeping the production line of this model aerospace program open is not another bailout; rather, it simply requires that the new administration release funds already authorized by Congress to continue a successful program.
This is the kind of slippery copywriting that's probably more appropriate for the Franklin Mint than public policy. (You pay nothing. We simply release funds already authorized from your MasterCard.) And it's not a bailout because we say so. And what does "successful program" mean in the context of a plane that's never been used? It takes off and lands. Is that a success? I flew to Syracuse for New Year's; am I a success?
By law, President-elect Obama must decide whether to continue the Raptor program during his first weeks in office. Please sign the petition to send the message to Congress that Obama must approve continuing the Raptor program, and send a letter to the White House urging the Administration to preserve F-22 Raptor production to protect American jobs, our economy, and national security!
Over seven trillionty-gillion jobs are at stake.
--
The worst thing about trying to sell the Raptor as a welfare program is that the plane has so many other things going for it.
Even though it's the biggest, fattest, heaviest fighter plane ever made, it's surprisingly nimble. Or maybe it's just surprising that it flies at all.
It's made out of titanium and carbon-fiber composites, and employs a "honeycomb sandwich construction" for its skin panels, which sounds delicious.
It's built with super-secret stealth technology. The F-22 is invisible to radar, except when it switches on its radar to aim its weapons, opens its bomb bay to fire them, or turns.
Subsystems for the F-22 Raptor are made in 44 states. Its wings are made in Seattle. Its engines are made in Connecticut. It's assembled by Lockheed Martin in Georgia and Texas. After Lockheed stopped making its previous stealth fighter, the F-117, in Burbank, it paid $33 million dollars for exposing workers to toxic solvents, epoxies and primers. It paid $60 million to city residents for poisoning their drinking water and $265 million to remove perchloroethylene and trichloroethylene that leached into the groundwater and soil. So you can't really say the communities that make the Raptor will have nothing to show for it. They may have kidney problems, brain damage and cancer.
Finally, there's a perfectly good reason the Raptor has never been to Iraq, and it's not because it's a useless fat turd. You're thinking of Jonah Goldberg. The reason we've never used the Raptor in Iraq is it doesn't work in places where there are wars.
According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, there's just too much radio interference. To quote the man in charge of Air Combat Command, Gen. Ronald E. Keys:
"We didn't anticipate there was going to be this level of jamming. Every patrol is out there with personal jammers. We've got lots of airplanes that are also jamming. At the same time, we've got people trying to listen [to insurgent conversations], a lot of it on the same or overlapping frequencies."
The jammers he's talking about are the ones the troops use to disable roadside IEDs. So the F-22, at $351 million a pop, is an excellent plane; it just doesn't work over a battlefield where one side is using booby traps activated by TV remotes and electronic garage door openers.
So Iraq is out. And anyplace else with TVs, radios and cars.
Also according to Aviation Week:
(A) possible vulnerability in the stealth fighter's legendary electronic surveillance system--located in the leading edges of the wings and vertical tails--became apparent during operations by the first operational squadron flying in the Chesapeake Bay area. The strong radars on nearby Navy ships were overwhelming the delicate sensors.
So it also doesn't work around warships.
I take it back. Maybe they should emphasize the jobs.
F-22 Raptor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
F-22A Raptor Home-The Site of the 21st Century Fighter
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Lets Be Fully Honest At 351 Million Each It Is A Huge Waste. The F-22 Was Actually The Second Best In The ATF Competition Even When Northrop's Was Hindered By The USAF Mandating It Not Use Thrust Vectoring Engines. The USAF Decided In The F-22 Because They Thought Boeing Could Produce It And Place It In Operation Faster Which Is BS. Now Fast Forward To Today The Airframe Is Not Versatile And Is Only Suited For Air To Air Combat. Where 20 Years Ago That Would Be Fine But In Todays World And Economy Multi Role Is The Answer Which Even The New Budget Does Not Even Do That Well It's Ground Attack Payload Is To Small. The Short Coming Was All Do To The Stealth Component Of It. The Smart Thing To Do Is Reduce The F-22 Purchase To 1/5 The F-35 To 1/4 Then Restart The A-10 Production Line Which It's Original Unit Cost Was $3 Million Dollar Yes Only $ 3 Million.
-Sarge
Let's get real my friend, just because the media reports that the cost of the plane is 351 million each does not make it so. The media also reported that Japan has backed out of buying the F-22. Seriously!!! Japan never had the opportunity. They wanted to more than anyone else but they NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY!! If you want to make quotes about the cost of the plane, make true statements. The cost of the plane is 128 million. Why do you trust what media reports? I can see where you do. And let's be honest, if we didn't spend the money here in the US, on US built product, I'm sure our gov't would waste it on aid to ILLEGAL aliens, medical coverage for those too lazy to work, interest free loans to foreign business men, keeping murders and child molesters alive in prisons, or some other stupid ideal that doesn't even benefit the American People!! Get real. At least Americans get a benefit from this! And restart the A-10, the flying death trap! Give me a break. Show me one pilot who has flown an F-22 who would settle for an A-10, and I'll show you a complete liar.
Speaking as a Raptor fan, it's outmoded. The technology is twenty or more years old. The F-35 generation of planes will replace it soon. Obama won't buy any more Raptors.
The comment that we don't use it in Iraq because it doesn't work is just plain dumb. We don't use it there because the foe has no Air Force, Army, or Navy. You can't use a fine surgical scalpel to cure a blight.
Obama is looting Military spending. The money will not be moved to the F-35.
Spoken like a true "fiscal conservative".
Can't loot anything when we're broke. There's nothing left to loot.
Well, you go where the money is...
On the bright side The F22 does kill people. American marines, children with toxic drinking water, Whoever else could use an extra Billion $ or so...
Look at the senators who support this mess and look at who gives money to their campaigns and you will find the people behind the F22 support group.
Kill the plane not the Marines!!!!!!
Lost the F-22.
Put the A-10 back in production.
Spaghetty-
Don't 'We' get it? -We meaning taxpayers.
The 'Warthog' ain't sexy enough. But sure as hell does a job.
Isn't interesting that the F-22 'Raptor', the B-36 'Peacemaker', the B-58 'Hustler', ...... were real cool and ended up being totally useless?
Don't forget the XB-70.
And isn't 'Star Wars' just the sexiest thing ever?
IMaybe I'm odd, but I always thought a well-done job was the sexiest thing ever :P
I think they should use the money to take better care of the veterans and the active duty soldiers. They are the ones who actually do work in the war zones,no matter what the conditions are. This would make us a stronger and safer country.
What happens when you build the most expensive fighter ever for missions already covered by the more bang for the buck super B Hornets—it gets folks across the world scratching their heads, wondering just how far out of touch the Pentagon is with spending formulated by a flawed military doctrine. Make no mistake about it the arms race crippled the Soviets—yet even in the face of such recent history, the US continues to build elephants for swatting flies.
The F22, like the Virginia Class Nuclear Submarine, is designed around the concept that America will have to defend itself against vast, massed formations of hostile squadrons of airplanes and fleets of ships. Why would any nation or alliance of nations waste the money and resources the build up such a force when America can be lured into wildly spending upwards of a Trillion dollars responding to an attack that cost the price of 19 airline tickets and some box cutters?
The F22's supporters site the mythical "Chinese Threat" as the reason for it's continued production.
Why would the Chinese want to attack us? They already own us. The Corporations sold America out to the Chinese years ago when they relocated all their manufacturing plants there.
America has enough weaponry already to give any comer all they can handle and in the event we do get overwhelmed, "Spin Up The Nukes", they'll back down.
My hat gets tipped to the Weapons Manufacturers, however, for the brilliance of spreading component production across the widest swath of States and Congressional Districts. Assures maximum allies against any potential cut in funding.
The headline is a bit misleading.
It's not a question of IF the F-22 is going to be built. It's already been built and it's already in service.
The only question at this point is how many more are we going to build?
Hopefully Zero
"...at $351 million a pop, is an excellent plane; it just doesn't work over a battlefield where one side is using booby traps activated by TV remotes and electronic garage door openers.
So Iraq is out. And anyplace else with TVs, radios and cars."
I want Chris Kelly for some sort of cabinet-level position.
I think I'll sit, er, perch this one out.
This plane is insane. It would be far better to create jobs by building things we could use and especially things that would make us more efficient and better off in the future, eg, green tech, electric grids and lines, etc.
I'm not so worried about defense against a major army as I am in creating something to defend. This country gets more and more like Russia ( and I have spent much time there) every day.
I think quite a few readers could benefit from studying the policies and ideas of Dwight Eisenhower. Most people view him as a soldier who became president, but this also made him very aware of the danger corporate interests and the growth of the military-industrial complex posed to the ideals of our nation.
"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. "
...at last. Logic.
Don't lose sight of technological advancements that are gained out of projects such as this.
The N@zis had the first Fighter Jet........... ummmm they didn't win,
the ME-262 wasn't the reason they lost that war...
They lost because of the lack foresight on their leaders. Had they introduced the me 262 a year before they would have dragged the war on for years.
Guys, I dont mean purely weapons technology. Lots of military technology research has civilian spin offs.
Are any of those "technological advancements" useful for the civilian economy, or for making the world a better place? And how do they compare with the technological advancements we'd have had if the engineers and aircraft designers and rocket scientists who were working on this had been doing something _useful_ instead, like designing better solar power systems or more efficient passenger aircraft engines or cleaner coal burners or better wind turbines or radar systems for civilian air traffic control?
Leaving aside what those engineers could have done for the civilian economy, it seems like this was a lousy design, and they could have at least been working on technology that the _military_ would have found useful. So far, the big technological advancements seem to have been lessons about "Next time you design a fighter plane, make sure you can use it near a land war or naval war", which are really only useful if you junk this warplane and design a new one. At least the Space Program gave us Tang and freeze-dried ice cream and helped a bit with satellite TV; this one's more along the lines of the WKRP bit about "I swear, I thought turkeys could fly!"
So when Russia sells the Su-35 to India, China, Malaysia, Venezuela, etc., which it most certainly is going to do, will all of these detractors still consider the F-22 to be a white elephant?
I want to hear someone reconcile their opposition to the F-22 with what is actually happening out there in the real world.
Yep, the N@zis were sitting around saying the Americans are making P-51s, we need V-2s and Fighter Jets, FYI V-2s were the first ballistic missiles used in warfare. The N@zis with Air Superiority Weapons never achieved Air Superiority.
When you educate yourself you'll see why, and then you will understand why people that understand history and modern warfare are against the F-22.
Price Tag, Price Tag, Price Tag.
It's not worth it.
dude cut it with the n-azi thing...study the subject, and get your information from books-not the history channel
Doesn’t your keyboard have a "z". lol
Maybe, perhaps, a better argument is the Tiger Tank vs. the Sherman.
Great tank, almost indestructible, but not many were built. In the open field, one could nock out a whole squadron of Shermans, but they didn't always fight in the open field.
This was a real situation. The Tiger is akin to the Rapture. The Shermnn was akin to the F-18, or F-4 even.
My high school ran a money raising drive during World War II where they raised enough money to buy the U.S. Army Air Corp one P-51 Mustang. The plane was displayed in front of the school, and many years later a picture of the plane in front of the school was still hanging in a display case some where.
These days, all they could raise is a tank of gas for an F-18.
Anyway, the movie Independence Day showed that the F-18 could shoot down technology much more advanced than the F-18 (tongue in cheek).
The only country you listed that we're even likely to fight is Venezuela and I can't imagine them buying more than a handful of SU-35s.
I can't find any supporting documentation regarding this radio interference problem (except for radio controlled model airplane F-22's). From where are you getting this information?
Do you really need it, just answer Chris's question as to why the F-22 is not being used in any theater.
Think of it this way, at one point the Iraqis were shooting down American Helicopters with front loading Muskets.
Now imagine if they manage to throw a rock or poor some sand on Lockheed Martin's 1/3 of Billion dollar jet.
Do the math
The aircraft does not cost 1/3 of a billion. Maybe 60 million but not as much as your thinking. Yes the f-22 should be shut down. It has not done anything to defend the U.S. The next generation of aircraft called the f-35 is soon to be going mainstream and start building full time this year. I know I work on them. It does not make me a know it all I just have a closer perspective.
The reason I need it is to check on whether or not Chris Kelly knows what he's talking about, or is he just a joke writer for Bill Mahr that thinks he can say anything he wants on the Huffpo and have it taken as fact. Clearly the need for the F-22 is debatable, but the merits of the debate, from what I can tell, is about necessity and cost, not that a cellphone can totally screw up it's radar.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
