It is sometimes easy to overstate the significance of a fight over a particular weapon system. But in this case I think it is fair to say that this is a huge victory for Obama and Gates and is a big step forward toward instituting a strategic shift within the Pentagon.
The Senate resoundingly supported an amendment from Senators Levin and McCain 58-40 to strip funding for the F-22. The margin of the victory is shocking given that just last week, Levin pulled the amendment for fear of not having enough votes. But in the last week, Gates and Obama went for it. Obama stuck his neck out and threatened the first veto of his presidency. Gates lobbied aggressively, highlighting the opportunity costs of keeping the F-22 and tying it to his ability to grow the ground forces by another 22,000.
But this fight was more than just about the F-22. It was also about whether the Pentagon would be able to institutionalize the lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan and finally move out of the Cold War strategic mindset that still dominates. Gates has sought to institute a strategic shift within the Pentagon, focusing on developing a more balanced force that is not only capable of fighting conventional wars, but is capable of doing the full spectrum of operations. The military has begun to transition toward this new outlook -- moving out of the mindset that labeled stability operations as "operations other than war" and that has focused on big ticket conventional items.
Yet Congress has -- and will always have -- a more parochial focus. Where big ticket items are protected at all costs -- whether or not they make strategic sense. Therefore the odds that Congress would go along with Gates and Obama did not look good. The F-22 is an amazing plane, by far the best fighter in the world. It was being built in 46 states and the defense industry was out in full force in the midst of a severe recession fanning fears that 100,000 jobs would be lost if the plane was scrapped.
But the F-22 -- despite being cool -- has little utility. It was designed to fight the next generation of Soviet fighters that were never built and comes at tremendous cost. It has not been used in combat missions in Iraq or Afghanistan, since the plane only has one real function -- fighting other fighters -- something that the cheaper and more versatile F-35, which is being built in large for the Navy, Air Force, and Marines, is more than capable of doing. So the Raptor is expensive, unnecessary, and its roles are duplicated by another more cost-effective aircraft. It is the prime example of a big weapon system that does little to enhance our security. Conservative KT McFarland even said, "The only thing we should do with the F-22 Raptor is rename it -- The White Elephant."
So Obama and Gates drew the line in the sand on the F-22 and told Congress you are either with us in moving in a new strategic direction or you are against us and for business as usual. So what makes this such a big victory is not that Obama and Gates "won" but that they got the Senate -- by killing the F-22 -- to back their strategic shift centered on building a more balanced force.
The YF-23 from Boeing was a superior platform in nearly every way. FIrst, the YF-23 met all program requirement where the F-22 did not. The F-22 lacked on the stealth requirements (IR signature) and combat radius requirements. The YF-23's un-refueled combat radius was over 850 miles while the F-22's is less than 500 miles. The F-15E's combat radius is 790 miles. The F-22 is mildly more maneuverable than the YF-23 but the YF-23 was much faster, both meeting requirements on both metrics.
The YF-23 was built on technology developed for the B-2 program and used existing components of the F-15 program. Consequently, the YF-23 cost significantly less than the F-22, sub $100 million and had a lower radar cross section and met IR stealth requirements.
Much of the costs savings on the YF-23 were design driven but a good deal came from the fabrication locations. Boeing and Northrop were going to use existing fabrication facilities located in California and Washington.
Lockheed Martin chose to fabricate the F-22 in 40 states. Consequently, the F-22 is chosen to replace the F-15.
Problem is, the Foxbat turned out to be nothing like was sold to Congress to get them to continue to approve funding for the F-15. Sure it was fast, but it couldn't turn and it wasn't at all "stealthy" even given the infancy of that technology at the time, and it was heavy and the engines were good for only about 250 hours before needing to be scrapped. In other words, it was cr@p.
So, until it was retrofitted to be able to conduct air-ground and anti-ADA missions - at great cost to the tax payers (but great profit to the contractors!) - it was a weapons system with no known enemy.
Done ...?
Ok that much money was just paid or accrued in interest on our debt towards the proposed $23.7 Trillion that the "Reagan Revolution", cost us...!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That sounds familiar:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Joint Vision 2020 Emphasizes Full-spectrum Dominance
WASHINGTON, June 2, 2000 – "Full-spectrum dominance" is the key term in "Joint Vision 2020," the blueprint DoD will follow in the future....
Full-spectrum dominance means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations....
The joint force must win over the full range of conflict, be prepared to work with allies and cooperate with other U.S. and international agencies. Adversaries will not stand still. They, too, have access to many cutting-edge developments in information technology....
Joint Vision 2020 addresses full-spectrum dominance across the range of conflicts from nuclear war to major theater wars to smaller-scale contingencies. It also addresses amorphous situations like peacekeeping and noncombat humanitarian relief. Key to U.S. dominance in any conflict will be what the chairman calls "decision superiority" -- translating information superiority into better decisions arrived at and implemented faster than an enemy can react.
The development of a global information grid will provide the environment for decision superiority....
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=45289
The "last war" is the one in which we are currently engaged. The Russians are designing and gearing up to build their advanced aircraft, as are the Chinese. Both are looking to sell these aircraft, and Kim Jong Il will buy as many as he can. After all, he's a dictator and does not have to answer to the suffering of his starving nation!
Semper fi
We can't afford the empire we already have, and you morons want more war toys? How many people could have decent lives just from the money spent on fuel for these obscene machines?
The arms race is itself a crime against humanity. How many hospitals and universities and parks and libraries and schools could we have built by now with just the trillion or so dollars Iraq will eventually cost?
"Organizers calculated the war's cost as of Wednesday at $134.5 billion and are adding $177 million per day, which comes to $7.4 million per hour or $122,820 per minute."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-26-iraq-war-clock_x.htm
And that was 5 years ago!
To date, $915.1 billion dollars have been allocated to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The national, state, and local numbers we provide are based on the total approved amounts through the end of Fiscal Year 2009.
In addition to this approved amount, the FY2010 budget shows a $130 billion request for more war spending. This would bring total war spending in Iraq and Afghanistan to more than $1 trillion.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
But I disgree that the F-22 is an amazing plane. It is not. It is not "the best fighter in the world," or the "most advanced fighter in the world" as is often quoted in the media. It is a failure. Not just because it costs $350 million a copy, but that it requires 30-40 hours of repair work for every hour that it flies. There are major problems with it "stealth" coatings, its computers, its fragile structure. It is a flying lemon. It was rushed into production to lock in support not because it was ready for the troops to use.
peace
kev
Here is a critique of theF- 22 designer of the F-16.
More outrageous Pentagon and congressional waste.
http://www.niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ask_this.view&askthisid=00197
Semper fi
"Now, would newspaper print anything that wasn't true?"
-Pippin
And likewise, the same rule applies to Air Force press releases as well, particularly those involving aircraft types which the service so desperately longs to acquire, and becomes progressively panicked by the prospect of being denied the exact number that they originally hoped.