White House threatens veto over defense systems in budget
posted at 12:14 pm on June 26, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
While Congress and the White House throw trillions of dollars away on failed stimulus packages and massive overhauls of the health and energy sectors, one billion dollars in defense spending has drawn the first Obama veto threat. Jake Tapper reports that the inclusion of money for the F-22 and an alternative engine for its competitor F-35 fighters may get a presidential bounce for the entire defense budget:
Congress and the White House appear headed for a collision. The White House this week threatened to veto a defense bill if it includes military spending that Defense Secretary Gates outlined as wasteful and unnecessary. The House passed the $680 billion bill with those provisions Thursday, by a vote of 389-22.
Specifically, President Obama opposes the inclusion of $369 million in the bill for more F-22 fighter jets and $603 million for development and procurement of the alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Program.
If the final bill presented to the president contains either of those provision, a White House statement released Wednesday threatened, “the president’s senior advisors would recommend a veto.”
Um, seriously? For the record, the combined total of these two programs amounts to:
- 0.13% of Porkulus
- 0.14% of the defense bill
- 0.0972% of what Obama claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.075% of what the CBO claims ObamaCare will cost
- 0.024% of what ObamaCare will actually cost
Bear in mind that Porkulus (mostly) and ObamaCare (entirely) don’t concern themselves with responsibilities given to the federal government by the Constitution. National security, however, is the federal government’s primary responsibility. Robert Gibbs says that these and other projects in the defense appropriation are not “necessary spending,” which is why the bill will draw Obama’s first veto — as well as giving Obama an opportunity to posture at the expense of Congress.
If Obama wants to start saving billions of dollars, let’s cut the spending on programs which the federal government has no business funding in the first place, and then get rid of the pork-barrel projects in Porkulus that will damage our economy with burdensome debt. When we’re done shedding all of those, then we can start looking at national defense.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
It’s amazing how so many Libs think national security just happens magically and will always be there just because we weren’t attacked yesterday.. as if such things don’t require constant investment and upgrading.
Yakko77 on June 26, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I’ll ask once again who we need to establish air superiority over? The only threat we face currently that can match us in the air is China. While the F15 and F16 are getting old the C130 is much older and still flying well, as is the AWACS and a number of other airframes we have.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
The appearance of weakness in terms of air superiority makes it more likely that the people on the ground will get shot at. Sure, we shouldn’t neglect the technology used by infantry, but don’t fall into the trap that every war will be like the last one. Given the lead up times on production now a-days, its entirely possible that we won’t have enough time to just pop them out when the need arises.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:10 PM
jake and elduende,
Your mutual civility and thoughtful interchange today reminds me why I really enjoy some of the comment threads here at Hot Air.
I also thank you for all the good insights.
marybel on June 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
You assume that (A) anyone in government actually cares about the enumerated powers, much less the Constitution as a whole, and (B) that the American people actually know or care what the enumerated powers are or how to find them.
If “conservatives” truly cared, they’d fight for legislation, not candidates. They’d fight for ideas and make use of those in office at the time. This would be the wake-up call for politicians who no longer answer to constituents. For example, why aren’t “conservatives” fighting for the “Enumerated Powers Act” (H.R. 1359/S. 3159)? We need to call attention to and stand behind such proposals and their sponsors.
Send_Me on June 26, 2009 at 1:11 PM
If your dad’s still with us give him a big salute and thanks for his service from me. :)
chemman on June 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
The only serious problem with that argument is the implied but unsupported assumption that the type of war we are dealing with is the only type we may need to be prepared for in decades to come.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 1:12 PM
I can’t agree with that. We are talking about fighter planes. What is keeping the insurgents down is the knowledge that they are being constantly watched by UAW. We just changed the ROE in Afghanistan exactly because air strikes were causing too much collateral damage.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Russia has the planes.
Also, air superiority are different animals than cargo planes. Think about the difference between a NASCAR racer and a full sized pickup. Which is built to last?
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:13 PM
100% wrong, you are convienently forgeting the 1st Gulf War, but thats ok facts just don’t matter do they! As for potential threats, if you don’t know who they are you need serious help.
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM
That China can match us in the air bothers me in itself.
What about China + Russia? Seems unlikely, but we had a bad habit last century of getting caught unprepared for war. And we (and our allies) paid in blood.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:14 PM
Irrelevant. You are getting stuck in the idea that we will be in a steady state conflict with ‘insurgents’, and only insurgents for the next few decades. You are also leaving out the fact that, the weaker our military in general looks, the more resources are going to go to provoking us by funding said insurgents.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Yes, the entire strategy in Korea is based on the plan that the air force can keep the north from advancing to easily until we are able to bring in the ground troops, but with only 10 divisions in service and 4-5 tied up in the ME who are we going to send?
I am retired Army and fairly sensitive to the need to have more and better equipped soldiers on the ground because eventually we need boots on the ground to win any war.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:16 PM
Love the “plan for what’s happening today” National Security Policy being touted here.
As if the F18 magically appeared when we needed it.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
2. Obama could not care less about the security of this country. He thinks that engagement and being liked by other countries will take of that.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 12:51 PM
.
What defines engagement by addressing the ramping up of our defences? Obama in so much has defined himself to be weak. Around the world, foreign governments are ramping up their defences. China, Russia, North Korea, Australia etc… Obama’s veto sends a weak (dove) message abroad. America will be in a world of hurt when and if comes such an attack. He knows it and will treat this crisis to gain even further power by invoking marshall law. Nothing to stop him really, because of this ultimate inviolable crisis. He is counting on it. Face it folks, He hates America and all that it is. It fits well into his scheme of remaking America.
.
Prepare yourselves ——–
.
Americannodash on June 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
We don’t need the F-22 right now. But we will probably need it in the future, and you can’t just run down to your local FighterJets-R-Us and pick some up. We’d better make sure we’re ready to fight a strong opponent, because peace is not guaranteed.
We’re at peace with China, and hope to stay that way. But if it comes to war, we’d better be ready.
tom on June 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
You are unhinged or just plain dense.
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM
Submit the bill on paper. If we keep it off Obama’s teleprompter, he’ll never read it.
djaymick on June 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
A very good point. I think we can safely skip a generation this time around, but no more. Russia and China are starting to worry me.
I’d argue for more production of Predators and the like for close, quick, relatively cheap support of infantry for the wars we’re fighting now, while focusing air power’s efforts toward R&D for the next generation of fighters.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Seriously.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:18 PM
Agreed–absolutely. But equipping the military shouldn’t be an either/or proposition, where we have to weaken one branch to keep the other(s) up to snuff. And certainly not in a budget the size of this one.
I don’t know about the F-22, just speaking generally.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Can’t have a civil discussion?
Who won the 1st Gulf War? Air power alone or sending in the ground troops? Did air power win the Vietnam war, or the Korean or even WWII.
I think any serious student of military history knows they did not. They were a great supporting effort but they cannot on their own win.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Thank you Marybel. Hey Jake if you’re still around, did you guys ever hit MaGuires while you were based at NAS Pensacola?
elduende on June 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
Of course we need to have the best equipped solidiers on the ground. I’m not arguing against that. They also need to have the best support in the air. It shouldn’t be a zero-sum calculation, unless the entire federal budget is being considered, in which case there is a lot of mostly useless crap that can be cut in trade.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 1:20 PM
That thinking is only wrong because people are omitting the other half of the sentence – “…and prepare for what may come tomorrow.”
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
But that F-35 engine emits CO2 and contributes to global warming!
Of course, with a 389-22 vote, the House could easily override the veto. Would Obama risk such a slap in the face from a Congress controlled by his own party, for a measly 0.14% of the defense budget?
Earth to Obama: You are President, not a dictator.
Steve Z on June 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Why, what makes you the expert on the military?
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:21 PM
Thanks chemman. He is, retired and living next to Langley AFB… home of the First Fighter Wing and its 27th Squadron of F-22s as well as two squadrons of F-15s. I grew up on bases around the country, and the sound of fighter jets was such a background given I never realized how unbelievably awesome America’s air power is. When I go back to visit the folks, I find myself running out of the house every time I hear a jet overhead… the sound of freedom.
I’m not an expert in military aviation or warfare tactics, so I can’t eloquently debate the merits of the Raptor vs. the F-35 vs. unmanned airplanes. But I can tell you the this administration is blatantly hypocritical about its spending, and its agenda is overwhelmingly dangerous.
300MM was initially allocated to resod the National Mall, for chrissakes.
byepartisan on June 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
True, until the Chinese and Russian 5th Gen fighters begin to be exported world-wide in large numbers. At that point, our air superiority is toast – and so are the ground-pounders the F22 would have protected.
The Air Force wanted 360+ but were forced by Dems to settle for 189.
The F35 is not a replacement for the F22. The F22 is in production and vastly superior to the 4th Gen, still-in-testing, obsolesent F35. See the F-22 v F-35 Comparison Chart available on line in various places.
Unmanned aircraft on the order of the F22 are a pipe dream, and even if they were to be made, are hugely vulnerable to EMP warfare and anti-satellite strikes.
By cutting the F22, not only are irreplaceable skills and workers lost, but so are 90,000 jobs.
More eviseration of US military capabilities… good work for US hatings Dems and their Great Leader (All Hail) and Messiah (Peace be on Him).
When the next major war begins, you will wish we had boatloads of F22s.
Friendly21 on June 26, 2009 at 1:22 PM
I don’t think anyone here would argue for air power alone. But China’s numerical superiority on the ground has to be balanced somehow, and air power is one way to do it.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:23 PM
When the next war begins you’d wish you’d have those and more than 10 measly overstretched Army combat divisions.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Wow the textbook USAF answer to virtually every question posed.
I will repeat what I’ve posted before. Robert Gates and the DOD said that this expenditure was wasteful. Maybe there are other DOD priorities that are more important- like finding the funding for this new Cyber Command sub-unified combatant commander.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Along the lines of what Yako77 said,
Am I mistaken, or wasn’t Barry’s (and Gates’) response to N. Korea’s threat to shoot a missile at Hawaii, that we would “shoot it down” with a missile defense system?
Am I mistaken again, or didn’t all of the Left (including the MSM) mock missile defense systems in general back when SDI was proposed by Reagan? (calling it “Star Wars”, saying we would “weaponize space” with a defensive system, etc).
So, isn’t Barry avoiding genuinely addressing the threat posed by N. Korea, by relying solely upon a weapon system that he (had he been in Congress back then) would have not only voted against, but would have mocked?
I guess what I’m asking is: How long will it be before future leftists are relying upon the defense systems that Obama now wants to cut in order to avoid real engagement with America’s enemies?
(Or, before they manage to blame Republicans {Bush} for our not having the defense systems that would allow us to avoid real engagement with our enemies?)
Eyas on June 26, 2009 at 1:24 PM
Marybel,
Over the years I learned so much from people on sites like HotAir. In a single thread you can exchange (or simply read) so much thoughtful information. It really is the value of site like this one.
The trick is being willing to listen as you read.
I discount reaction – and look for thoughtful perspective.
People are so smart – it’s a shame our government fails to remember that fact on a daily basis.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Obamadefense – Barely ready to fight the last war… unless we need more funding for Obamacare.
Yakko77 on June 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Air power was the dominant factor in the Pacific in WWII, so much so that everything else amounted to securing airstrips.
In Korea, the fact that China through a million solders into the battle, yet remained immune from attack made all the difference, and air power could have been decisive in winning Vietnam if we were actually interested in winning. Yes, you do need people on the ground to come in and mop up at the very least, but that doesn’t mean you should be so caviler in dismissing the importance of air power.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
I’m in China, so I hope peace is maintained. If not, I hope there are plenty of F-22s in the air. As “tom on June 26, 2009 at 1:17 PM” said, you can’t just buy a bunch more when you suddenly realize you need them.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Agreed.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Now that’s what I call perspective.
Well done – thanks for the post – GREAT points you make.
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 1:27 PM
Oh, there are people here doing just that. The so-called fighter gap is a serious issue but it is just one of many out there. The DOD budget is flat-lined which (without anticipation of supplemental spending and factoring in inflation) is actually a decline in the DOD budget.
highhopes on June 26, 2009 at 1:28 PM
The only thing thats uncivil is your perspective. I’m stunned that a ex-grunt fails to grasp the reality and lethal effectiveness of the combined arms doctrine we practice and execute.
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 1:29 PM
If we have to face a hostile nation sailing carrier groups and landing combat troops, it will have to be with the equipment we already have. It takes many years to produce fighter jets.
If the kinds of battles we have now, air support is essential. Bombers and close air support make good targets. They can only safely be used when you own the skies, and that requires fighter jets.
Do you trust this administration to decide the right number of fighter jets to build, knowing their real heart is in social[ism] programs?
tom on June 26, 2009 at 1:30 PM
American military dominance does have many facets, but air superiority is a major part of it. The ability to control the air space over a battlefield is crucial to our success and always has been.
Airplanes do not have a short design cycle. They always take 10-15 years. Do you realize the F22 was first conceptualized in 1981 and the RFP was placed in 1986? First delivered in 1991. That’s a while ago folks.
The reason we win the air war is because we see far into the future and plan for the kind of war we think we’ll be fighting. Killing programs that are needed (if you think the F22 frame is old, imagine what the F15 and F18 frames are. Not to mention the F14 and most of the transports.) is just short sighted.
We need the F22 as a replacement and consolidation fighter for the F15 frame. It’s just normal progression.
So Obama getting pissy about 369 million dollars on something we NEED is just ridiculous, especially when he just dumped BILLIONS of dollars down a black hole in GM and Chrysler, to name just two.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Regarding enemies, and potential enemies abroad . . .
This past election is a reminder of just how quickly political winds and alliances can shift. Israel lost her closest ally almost overnight.
If Europe and/or Russia falls peacefully to Islam, with military intact, we’re in trouble.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:31 PM
As an AF weanie myself, I have no arguments with your position here. Hat trick to jazz_piano for beating me to it. Ever since Carter we have been funding one branch (usually the AF) at the expense of the other branches. We should fully fund the needs of all of the branches but especially the feet on the ground types. We need a larger ARMY, NAVY (Includes MARINES here) and AF. We can not continue to fight these types of insurgencies with the limited manpower the Military is restricted to right now.
A salute and thanks for your service from me.
chemman on June 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Way to defend Omerica, Mr. Precedent.
The House can certainly override a veto, what about the Senate?
darwin-t on June 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I’m hoping they enlist Chinese nymphomaniacs for ground troops. If so, I look forward to a ground assault. Otherwise, maintain air superiority, please.
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I wish we had more divisions right now. Forget waiting until the next war begins.
jazz_piano on June 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
I believe the F-14 has been retired from service already.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:35 PM
True…2006, but still used by other countries – and given our proclivity to resurrect certain planes in war time, possibly still us.
Maybe the A10 was a better example.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 1:37 PM
I have actually served in the ME and have seen fist hand what we need and what works. It’s great to have some airpower overhead – makes you feel good. But most of the time there is no target big enough to actually engage. Combined arms in the ME is the two guys on either side of you.
In another war we need the F22 but people seem to react with Pavlovian insticnt to any cut in military spending. Lots and lots of spending is driven more by the need to keep constitutions happy in the US then the need of the soldiers.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:38 PM
I can distract the nymphomaniacs in the Chinese army. I have years of training and combat experience. Please just focus on the others and let me do my job.
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Current C-130’s are being phased out and replaced by the new J-Model C-130. While it’s still the same plane at first glance, the planes are a) brand new, b) considerably faster, and c) far more advanced internally.
Besides the fact that you don’t establish air superiority with a C-130.
Though they sure are great for air support of the ground troops once you have that air superiority!
tom on June 26, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Let me be the first to thank you for your service in covert ops.
thomasaur on June 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Actually, I think the only other country that flew F-14s was…Iran.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Agreed on the Pacific theater but not as dominant in the Western theater. I am no disparaging the need for Air power, but on its own it does not win wars. I know the Air Force has been trumping this since they were created but it never has actually worked.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Next war? I think we need more than that right now.
Unfortunately that’s going to become ever harder to fix unless the draft gets reinstated and there ain’t no way in hell that’s gonna happen. Not now, not for 3.5 more years at least.
Of course you’ll get some who want to sign up simply because the civilian economy is in shambles (I’m considering it for this reason), but that won’t even come close to fixing the problem.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 1:41 PM
Agreed. We should have never cut the military after we won the cold war. The peace dividend was a mirage.
I react badly to people mindlessly parroting the line that any military spending is good. I have seen too much waste to actually believe that.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
It’s not about who we have to establish air superiority over right now. It’s about who we’ll have to establish it over in the future. The game isn’t static.
One day soon we’ll be making fighting satellites. Someone, somewhere is already working on one, if they haven’t already finished it.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
You are not describing “war in the Middle East”, but “war against counties that can’t afford a real air force”.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Okay, you have me on that one.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:45 PM
Let’s say we have enough F-22s now.
But then a WAR happens, and a number of them are destroyed?
Any idea how long it takes to build a 5th Generation combat jet?
Especially if the production line has been closed?
I say we err on the side of caution. More F-22s please.
pseudonominus on June 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
If we took some of the military budget and increased the pay to those serving in uniform, enlarge the military so they don’t get deployed every 18 month we could easily raise another 3-4 divisions. We could also improve the military housing (especially on Army bases its in horrible conditions) and provide better care to the family left behind once a soldier deploys.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:46 PM
I don’t think anyone is arguing that “any” military spending is good. We’re arguing the value of the F22’s in the budget. You want to patrol wasteful spending, I suggest you start with Obama’s budget, stimulus and TARP. I don’t consider something that we need to be wasteful, given that it’s a mere drop in comparison to the domestic policies we don’t need but are being forced upon us.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 1:47 PM
Which is everyone except China and Russia
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
We haven’t fought a declared, total war against a near-parity opponent since the creation of the Air Force.
Also, strategic bombing and close air support were big deals in the European theater.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:48 PM
I’d be all for that. We pay a pittance to those who defend our lives, compared to people who defend astroturf on a field or metal hoops on a basketball court.
Sadly, I don’t know if we could even THINK of getting such ideas passed with our current Congress.
Dark-Star on June 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM
yes. Very much indeed.
Loxodonta on June 26, 2009 at 1:49 PM
With one exception-he heartsAir Force 1.
Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2009 at 1:50 PM
Everyday I think…there is no way Obama can do anything to make me hate him more…and every day he proves me wrong once again…
ladyingray on June 26, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Which of course don’t exist
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I think a number of countries have better air forces than China — they just are currently on our side. Still, Iran has more of an air force than Iraq had, and there are probably some other not-so-friendly states with enough air power to endanger our strike fighters.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
CAS yes, I think the fact that Germany reached its peak production in 1944 kind of argues against Hap Arnold’s strategic bombing campaign.
All of this is not a matter of exclusion but giving the appropiate piece the correct weight. Had we taken some of the resources invested in the US bomber command in the Army we might have ended the war in 1944.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:52 PM
I know, we can hand out candy to every bum in the country but we pay those we protect us almost nothing.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Well China owns us now, that’s why GW and Obama kiss their butts all the time.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:55 PM
As someone who has no military experience, I rely on the views of people who have. I want our national defense systems to be a strong as necessary to keep us safe and deter international aggression. Yet, I also want fiscal responsibility.
Loxodonta on June 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Actually we did defeat Japan in WWII with air power. Especially at the Battle of Midway. And later, it was the “air power” delivered by two B-29s that convinced Japan to surrender.
Del Dolemonte on June 26, 2009 at 1:56 PM
I think there is a lot of argument, as well as a number of unknown factors on that.
I can say that we would have been a lot better off if we had not blown off the guy that latter designed the Russian tanks.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Obama to Earth: “I won!”
belad on June 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
That’s only half of WWII and I already conceded the point that in the Pacific Air power was dominant.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Let me be the first to beg you for a job in covert ops.
Daggett on June 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM
It’s a simple bit of clear-cut evidence of just how committed Obama is to hamstringing America’s ability to project power in the future. Crushing the economy and castrating the military are two important steps towards his dream of a “post-American” world. It just turns out that, thanks to the efforts of Cuomo, Dodd, Schumer, etc., the former objective can be rushed into implementation without the American people realizing what’s going on than the latter. That part of the sabotage requires a bit more incrementalism.
Blacklake on June 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM
Yes I agree. The other issue with pure airpower is also projection. If anything we need more carrier based aircraft, that way we don’t have to kiss up to allies like Saudi Arabia and beg them to let us use their airfields to protect their butts and we don’t have shed as much bold as the Marines did in the Pacific capture airfields.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:00 PM
This is correct. There have been more than one instance of an F-15 Eagle breaking up in flight due to metal fatigue. They are getting old.
The second point that cannot be overstated, is that the F-35 is meant to replace the rest of our current fleet of aircraft.
It is NOT supposed to be F-22 vs. F-35. They are meant to work together.
The F-35A, for the US Air Force, and possibly allied countries like Australia, Isreal, SKorea and Japan, is meant to replace the F-16 Falcon. It operates from conventional airfields just like the F-16.
The F-35B, for the US Marines and the Royal Navy/AF of the UK, is the vertical takeoff variant, and meant to replace the AV8 Harriers in the US and UK.
The F-35C, for the US Navy, operates from aircraft carries, and is meant to replace the original F-18C-D Hornets, giving the Navy a low radar cross section strike aircraft.
The F-18E-F Super Hornet has already replaced the F-14 Tomcat for combat air patrol, and fleet defense. It is versatile enough to do long range strike also, but is not as resistant to radar detection.
The idea that we must choose between the F-22 and the F-35 for the same job is a ridiculous false construct by politicians, who want the funding moved to other defense programs, or moved out of the defense budget for social programs.
I agree with Ed. If we can throw trillions of dollars at everything under the sun, supposedly to “save jobs”, then we sure as hell can save the jobs of the F-22 production line workers, without sacrificing the F-35 program, or the various programs for our ground troops.
Another factor not being talked about is that the F-22 and the F-35 both take advantage of new materials and new digital technology so that they are easier and cheaper to maintain than the older airframes, especially as the age makes them require more and more maintenance hours per flight hour.
You can tackle missions with far fewer planes and pilots with a new fleet of these awesome aircraft. See the comparison of the B-2 Spirit. It can do all by itself what used to take more bombers and an escorting anti-air defense package of aircraft, as recently as Desert Storm. Things have advanced so far since then.
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
I saw a Chevy taxi in Shanghai for the first time ever today. They are invested. Does that mean China is no longer a potential strategic threat to be planned for?
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 2:03 PM
That makes me nervous, too. The F-22 is only as useful as your airfields, and I haven’t seen evidence of a competitive carrier based air superiority fighter in the works.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 2:05 PM
While we all defend our alma maters or turf, the point (reality) is that w/o top shelf weapons systems and personnel we invite conflict and the resulting needless death of Americans. Effective Deterrence is not only limited to theoretical strategic conflicts; tactical deterrence is the actual frontline. Keeping any potential enemy back on his heels second-guessing and worrying about our capability keeps our folks alive.
dmann on June 26, 2009 at 2:06 PM
I was under the impression that the F-22 was actually quite expensive to maintain, compared to other craft.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 2:08 PM
+1
Amen. But deterrence can’t be proven or measured in any real sense. No one tells you they were going to attack but didn’t since you have the spiffy new plane. Therefore, it’s an easy target for budget cutting. Hence, the argument here.
Thunderstorm129 on June 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM
“Better,” perhaps, but that ignores the geopolitical matter at hand. China’s air assets are large in number and consistently increasing in quality, and they aren’t encumbered by a need to project their power across the globe to achieve the short-term strategic objectives they may seek to pursue. Taiwan, Japan, and virtually every other country of the western Pacific is within spitting distance of its home bases. If China were to move against Taiwan, the critical factor wouldn’t be the quality of China’s own forces, but the quality of the forces the US could quickly project half-way across the world to counter China’s enormous quantity of assets. In this particular case I think there’s a meaningul argument to be had as to whether any number of F-22’s, B-2’s, or aircraft carriers would prove to be enough. But comparing the two countries’ (or, really, any two countries’) forces asset-to-asset is a meaningless exercise. The intended employment of those assets is a vital part of the equation.
One thing’s for sure, though: China is very aggressively improving the quality–both in terms of technology and training–of both its naval and air forces.
Blacklake on June 26, 2009 at 2:09 PM
We’re a small, elite, but non-covert force that could easily be overwhelmed, even in peace time. Still interested?
DarkCurrent on June 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Agreed. If our defense policy remains to be able to fight to major conflicts at the same time and have a couple of asymmetrical low intensity conflicts then we are very badly prepared indeed. If something happens we have to pay in blood for our lack of preparation now.
Obama sees the military budget as a pool of money he can use to fund his social agenda.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:12 PM
The same thing applies to the helicopter fleet. The 40+ year old helicopters require a whole lot of maintenance per flight hour, something like 16 to 1, than the newer designs that use composite materials and more long lasting, reliable turbine engines.
Heard much about the V-22 Osprey lately? No you haven’t, because the Marines deployed it to Iraq and it has been very successful. That shut up the politicians who have spent years trying to kill that program off, because they wanted the money for something else. It’s a leap forward in capability over the helos it replaced.
The US Air Force took delivery of a Special Operations Command version of the V-22 with terrain following radar and various other top secret avionics for getting our SOCOM operators in and out of very dangerous places.
It was worth the development for this breakthrough aircraft.
It can take off and land anywhere a helicopter can, but carry twice the payload twice as fast three times as far.
That’s what the American Defense industry does, it produces amazing technical breakthroughs to keep us ahead of any potential adversary, as long as dipsh!t politicians don’t ruin everything for their own pet projects.
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 2:14 PM
Hence my point that we need more carrier based planes. We also should not quietly pull out of Japan and move more of the fighter wings to Korea – they don’t do much good sitting over here.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:15 PM
Well, that’s good news.
I thought they had killed off the V-22. Glad to see that it’s demise was exaggerated.
Count to 10 on June 26, 2009 at 2:17 PM
That is one of my main points. Depending on who is more senior in the committees that decides the funding one project gets priority over another based if the company producing the equipment is in their home state. The military budget should be more black-box so that so we can make sure we actually get the stuff we really need.
dpierson on June 26, 2009 at 2:21 PM
jake-the-goose on June 26, 2009 at 12:42 PM
ladyingray on June 26, 2009 at 2:22 PM
submitted before I was ready…
…jake, were you at the Citadel when Marc Buoniconti got hurt? I was at that game.
ladyingray on June 26, 2009 at 2:25 PM
I believe the most expensive thing about maintaining these low observable aircraft is the radar absorbent coating.
The engines and other systems have been designed much better with lower maintenance hour per flight hour in mind.
Modern composite materials lengthen life of the airframe under high-G stress over time. The metal fatigue and corrosion issues inherent with all aluminum airframes are all but eliminated. That is thanks to carbon composites and titanium, and new advanced aluminum and steel alloys.
The performance of the F-22 is a big leap forward.
This plane can accelerate to around Mach 1.5 and maintain that supersonic cruising speed without touching the afterburner switch. This increases fuel efficiency and range, and reduces transit time to and from the target.
Also, the thrust vectoring ability gives radical maneuvering abilities for air to air against other super maneuverable aircraft, the most prominent being the Sukhoi SU-37 from Russia, which is being exported to whomever can write the check.
Brian1972 on June 26, 2009 at 2:27 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »