The Senate is locked in a heated debate on the future of the F-22, the Air Force's 5th generation fighter plane. It is the most advanced air-to-air combat fighter plane in the world, and at $350 million per plane, it is also the most expensive. President Obama is threatening a veto if any additional F-22s wind up in the Defense Authorization bill, leaving both sides of the issue locked in hand-to-hand combat trying to eek out the necessary votes. This has become an entirely politicized debate when what we need is thoughtful analysis based on risk assessment and the overall best interest of U.S. national security.
The Defense Department feels strongly that it is time to end production of the F-22. According to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, "The Department of Defense has determined that 187 aircraft are sufficient, especially considering the future roles of Unmanned Aerial Systems and the significant number of 5th generation stealth F-35s coming on-line in our combat portfolio". Michael B. Donley, the Secretary of the Air Force and Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the Air Force recommend that, "the Air Force not pursue F-22 production beyond 187 aircraft" after having "reviewed this issues from multiple perspectives" including "emerging joint war-fighting requirements... and overall tactical aircraft force structure."
Veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are not lining up to support continued production of the F-22, especially since the F-22 has never flown in either war. According to Jon Soltz, Iraq War Veteran and Chairman of VoteVets.org, "The funding for these F-22s is wasteful and takes money away from equipment we do need, plain and simple...The question for lawmakers is this -- do you value contractors more, or our troops more? Because that's what they're voting on."
Of course, principle manufacturer of the plane Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors have been active on the debate and contributed $780,000 to individual Senators or their Political Action Committees since the beginning of the year. The manufacturers' primary argument is the need to maintain jobs. Secretary Gates estimates that F-22 production yields roughly 24,000 jobs. Compared to the $65 billion the U.S. taxpayer has spent to date on this program, it can hardly be touted as a cost effective jobs creation program. The F-35 program, also administered by Lockheed Martin, currently employs 38,000 people. According to Secretary Gates, more than doubling F-35 production in FY2010 will mean adding 44,000 American jobs next year, bringing the total F-35 workforce to 82,000. The planned ramp-up of F-35 production will more than offset job losses due to ending production of the F-22.
This is not a partisan issue. The charge to end production of the F-22 is being led by Senators Carl Levin (D-MI) and John McCain (R-AZ). But both parties like to support any and all defense programs to tout their bona fides on national defense. Stymieing the Defense Department's efforts to better align its budget with today's actual security threats is counter productive. According to Secretary Gates, "If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s beyond what has been requested, it will come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense priorities -- and require deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more critical for our Nation's defense."
The Senate needs to heed the advice of our civilian and uniformed leaders in the Defense Department and end production of the F-22. Since Gates has drawn a red line on this, if the Senate overrules him, it will be hard for him to be an effective Secretary of Defense during the rest of his tenure.
Lawrence J. Korb, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, served as assistant secretary of Defense in the Reagan administration. Krisila Benson is the Director of Business Leaders for Sensible Priorities.
We need to keep the assembly line for F22s humming, even at a minimal level. This way we can be in a position to replace battlefield losses. We need to keep skilled workers challenged, working on upgrades and improvements. We need to maintain our manufacturing base. If we make a commitment to stay ahead, our enemies will always play catch up. If we get complacent, our enemies will simply combine their efforts and double their budgets for air superiority fighters. Before you know it we will be suffering a costly battlefield humiliation instead of preventing a genocide.
In 1999 President Clinton had the F117 stealth. In 2009 President Obama has the F22 Raptor. Who knows, maybe President Obama will need the F22 to try and prevent the next Darfur. I don't think anyone on this forum wants to see President Obama suffer defeat in the air because we quit while we are ahead.
In 1999 President Clinton used the US Military to prevent a genocide in Kosovo.
Clinton "used a large-scale air campaign to destroy Serbian military infrastructure." The key to air superiority at the time was to use the F-117 "Stealth" to take out the enemy's air defenses. For example, "the F-117 comprised only 2.5% of the American aircraft in Iraq yet struck more than 40% of the strategic targets". During the Kosovo war, one of the Stealth aircraft was shot down by a Colonel Zoltán Dani. He used an impressive adaptation of an "obsolete" long wave radar system to help him target the aircraft. It is believed the stealth technology fell into Russian hands. The Russians now have their own stealth aircraft, the "Su-47 Berkut". This aircraft is more maneuverable than the Raptor, so if the Russians manage to neutralize the Raptor's stealth advantage, we are in trouble.
By the time the first F22 Raptors became available, there was no aircraft that could challenge the F22. That is why people talk as if a fleet of 187 is invincible and assume the F35 could fill the gaps in numbers. However, the biggest mistake that can be made is to underestimate our enemies. The Su-47 Berkut and the new Chinese J-XX are expected to best the F35 and challenge the F22.
[Continued]
The DOD should invest more money in dominating the information environment by resourcing tactical units with cutting-edge technology for desktop publishing, social media access, and well-trained translators.
Tech-wise, we've already got the world's most advanced military. But a lot of that tech is of little use tactically. It's just graft wrapped in the flag.
Now kill the F-35 too.
The second greatest threat to America’s security is our runaway military-industrial complex, which wastes hundreds of billions of dollars each year on weapons we don’t need (such as the F-22 and F-35) and operating unnecessary bases in more than 100 nations. We need to rewrite our Constitution to bring the military-industrial complex under control and put tough restrictions on the president’s ability to deploy troops abroad.
Unless these measures are taken within a decade or so, America will collapse economically and quickly decline as a global power while better-managed nations move to the forefront.
The House and Senate sees defense projects as home district works projects (a.k.a. pork). If the military was making gold plated monkey statues its guaranteed at least one senator would be fighting to keep gold plated monkeys rolling off the assembly line.
I suggest any bill contain provisions that workers in the defense industry be paid no more than auto workers in the same kind of jobs. This is taxpayer money we are talking about and, since there is little competition, that is the way to go. Also there should be a cap on executive pay for any firm selling to the government. No big salaries and bonuses at taxpayer expense. Finally, money spent for lobbying and PACs should be taxed at the highest rate possible. Taxpayer money again.
The "socialism" here (or "cronyism") is industry leverage over contracts. As a fiscal conservative, I object.