The F-22 Kills Jobs

It's down to the wire in the battle to keep the Senate from adding $1.75 billion to the Pentagon budget for more F-22 fighter planes, and the proponents of more flying pork are running out of arguments.

At $350 million, the F-22 is the most expensive fighter plane ever built, by a long shot. It has not been used in Iraq or Afghanistan and is not likely to be used in any future conflict. If by some miracle a mission is found for the aircraft, the U.S. Air Force will have 187 of them, even if another dime isn't appropriated to build more F-22s. The F-22 is a maintenance nightmare, needing 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight, and costing almost $50,000 per hour to operate.

So, what argument do F-22 advocates have left? Jobs. But even here, their claims don't hold up to scrutiny. Lockheed Martin's original claim of 95,000 jobs sustained by keeping the F-22 program going was so fraudulent that they decided to take down the Web site -- preserveraptorjobs.com -- that was used to trumpet those numbers.

Now the debate revolves around a lower number, the alleged 25,000 in jobs involved directly in the production of the F-22. This number hasn't been documented either, but it might be in the ballpark for the number of jobs tied up in the program now.

But even this lower figure somehow suggests that 25,000 jobs will be lost if Congress doesn't immediately pony up another $1.75 billion (or more) for additional F-22s. Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, F-22 assembly is scheduled to continue through December 2011, even if there isn't another dime spent on the program. So stopping the funding for the program now will have very little job impact for over two years, during which time alternative employment options can be developed. Second, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates's budget calls for increases in systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter that are produced in many of the same facilities that now make F-22s. So even after the two year period, there is likely to be an ongoing flow of Pentagon contracts to most of the places involved with work on the F-22.

Last but not least, funding the F-22 will cost more jobs than it will create. According to a 2007 study by economists at the University of Massachusetts, military spending creates fewer jobs than virtually any other form of government activity, from a tax cut to education to mass transit to energy efficiency. Spending $1.75 billion on F-22s instead of a tax cut would cost 4,000 net jobs; spending the same $1.75 billion on F-22s instead of mass transit would cost nearly 20,000 net jobs.

The F-22 debate should be about what we need to defend the country. By that measure, the program should already have been terminated. But if the proponents of this unnecessary boondoggle want to use jobs as their argument of last resort, we should at least look at the full picture. Spending more on F-22s will kill jobs, not create them.

Comments

[CCreformer]

Peter Goon--
The issue, with the relatively high cost, is not necessarily the high cost itself. From my understanding, it has more to do with the durability and usefulness of the F-22(I don't think many of us would be having this conversation if the fighter was considered to be worth its excessive maintenance costs as well as initial investment--after all, it is the most advanced fighter jet of our time). Facts such as prevalent rain damage(and the ensuing maintenance costs), or the plane meeting only 7 of the 22 key performance requirements (agreed to before we were supposed to buy it), or that the plane only flies, on average, 1.7 hours before having some sort of critical failure, etc--These are serious concerns. It just doesn't make sense to spend money buying a plane that, for all of its considerable and highly advanced abilities, is such a maintenanc­e/performa­nce nightmare--please read the following http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

Imispgh's Post is the most frustrating of those I have read to this point. It seems as though this plane's makers have knowingly tried to cheat our government. That fact is compounded by the F-22's glaring flaws(mentioned before). It baffles the mind as to the incredible influence of these defense contractors. -- http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=5305393

Our Military doesn't want these planes and yet, our Congress has chosen to force feed them...

[Peter Goon]

CCreformer -
The devil is in the detail which, sadly, the general public and the Congress don't get to see.

You only get to see what the Media and, moreover, the senior officials in the Pentagon and Administration want you to see.

There is a problem with the coatings used on the F-22, sure - but technologically these are relatively easy to fix, but this will cost. As to who should pay these costs, that now appears to be a matter for the US legal system.

However, the problems with the JSF design are far more basic and can't be fixed.

Follow this link and you will get some idea of these problems:

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-190209-1.html

Regards,

[imispgh]

There is a $9B F-22 False Claims Act lawsuit filed against Lockheed Martin relative to the F-22. It can be found here
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/ex-lockheed-engineer-sues-lock.html
It demonstrates not only the major design problems with the aircraft (especially the coating) but it shows Lockheed used chemicals the government directed it not to use. In some cases the illegal chemicals were smuggled in through employees personal mail.
These congressmen and senators need to know that saving jobs is not worth all costs. Take the money and spend it on something that actually works and isn’t connected to fraudulent activities.
As for the F-35. There is a recent FCA filing in that case aa well. The fraudulent claims in this case involve system software that is not safe and does not meet the government guidelines for software engineering or safety.
http://www.f-16.net/news_article3635.html

[Peter Goon]

William,

On one thing we do agree -

"The F-22 debate should be about what we need to defend the country."

This task should not be limited to looking in the rear vision mirror or just to the end of one's nose but rather out to 2015, 2020 and beyond.

The multi faceted and deep analysis required has been done by experts with the requisite skills, knowledge and wisdom.

Such analyses have determined that America needs the capabilities of 500+ F-22 Raptors. Many who have been gagged in the Pentagon agree with these analyses.

At this production number, the unit cost should fall somewhat below $110 million per.

Some of the supporting analyses can be found on the Air Power Australia website at www.ausairpower.net

This website was established to provide a balance and counter to the sophistry and spin emanating from the artisans of 'a total indifference to reality'.

The aim of the website is to encourage critical debate and enable people to inform themselves and, thus, be in a position to make informed judgements. Then, hopefully, encourage our political leaders to make informed decisions on what is right and what is best, rather than who is right.

[Peter Goon]

. . . and then there is the JSF.

You might want to take a look at the amount of money the Hon Robert Gates intends to spend on the JSF Program - makes any cost overruns on the F-22 Program look like a mere stumble!

The other thing worth noting is the the F-22 is already about 3 times more capable than the JSF will ever be.

Also suggest you be wary of the tawdry catchcry that the F-22 is old technology while F-35 is the latest and the greatest.

You will note that both aircraft are claimed to be 5th Generation Fighters, yet one has full spherical broad bandwidth stealth, high agility and high speed, acceptable growth margins, high service ceiling, large weapons load and super-cruise, while the other does not.

As quite a number of senior colleagues in the Pentagon and Defense Industry have said - "One needs to understand the gravity of the F-35 "ploy", to trust what is not proven while you throw away what you can trust.... this is pure folly".

Hopefully you will find the following of some interest -

http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-NOTAM-190209-1.html

. . . and, after reading this, are prepared to ask the hard questions.

Good luck. America's going to need it.

[Peter Goon]

William,

You have fallen into the trap of sophistry and spin set for young players and those who have been misinformed.

The F-22 does not cost $350 million. The bulk of these dollars have already been spent in the design, development and testing of the Raptor. That is, the bulk of these dollars are a 'sunk cost'.

The price of an F-22 today is around $140 million and is at this cost level because of the small production number that has been approved.