Saying he “didn’t molt from a hawk into a dove on Jan. 20, 2009,” Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates sharply criticized Congress on Thursday for trying to push more F-22 fighter jets into the Pentagon budget than he and President Obama say the country needs.

If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right?” Mr. Gates said in an acerbic, sometimes withering speech to the Economic Club of Chicago. “It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.” From his point of view, that means overbuying weapons for wars the nation is unlikely to fight…

To the consternation of the Pentagon and the White House, liberal Democrats like Senators Edward M. Kennedy and John Kerry of Massachusetts have said they support the additional planes, arguing that their production can help preserve jobs in districts across the country.

In response, Mr. Obama reiterated a threat on Monday to veto next year’s military spending bill unless the extra planes are removed. Mr. Gates went to Chicago to reinforce the message. “The president has drawn that line, and that line is with regard to a veto, and it’s real,” Mr. Gates told the club…

Although Mr. Gates focused much of his speech on the F-22 and other programs he wants to cut back or scrap, like a new presidential helicopter — he said it would allow “the president, among other things, to cook dinner while in flight under nuclear attack” — he also made his larger argument for changing the way the Pentagon does business…

Senator Saxby Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia who has led the fight for the plane, said in an interview this week that the F-22’s strongest support had come from veteran senators in both parties who want continued American air superiority. “That is what resonates,” he said.

Mr. Chambliss said the concern about losing military jobs had also been important, particularly for senators who are “on the fence.” Lockheed Martin Corporation assembles the plane in Mr. Chambliss’ home state, in Marietta, and uses suppliers in 44 states.

Mr. Gates, in speaking to reporters, said with some exasperation that “the more they buy of stuff we don’t need, the less we have available for the stuff we do,” adding: “It’s just as simple as that. It ain’t a complicated problem.”

Gates nailed these bought-and-paid-for political hacks.




  1. chuck says:

    #25 – you don’t need any F-22s or Iron-man to take out the entire Al Qaeda air-force.

    They don’t have an air force. The only weapons they have they got from the CIA, or whatever they could scrounge from the battlefield after the Russians left Afghanistan.

    Iraq had an air-force, which was completely destroyed on the ground.

    Iran has an air-force. They’re don’t fly outside Iranian air-space because they will get shot down immediately.

  2. green says:

    I have a monorail for sale that will meet all your military needs.

  3. Ron Larson says:

    I’d like to see us focus on drones and unmanned, high performance attack aircraft. I think those will be far more effective in the future.

  4. MikeN says:

    >Unless we go to war with China or Russia in the near future the F-22 is a waste of money.

    Having a stronger arsenal makes them less likely to provoke a war. If they feel that the US is weaker militarily, then they will feel less constrained in their actions.

  5. canucklehead says:

    I’m not an American, so you guys can spend your tax dollars however you want, but do you realise that 21 cents on the Federal tax dollar is going to the military?
    http://tinyurl.com/mc2g9c

    The per capita Federal tax burden is about $8500.
    http://tinyurl.com/5arl7n

    The last time I checked, the US mainland had not been invaded since, what, 1812?

    So, for a family of four, you are spending $34,000 per year to keep places like Iraq “safe”.

    Me?, I’d rather have free health care.

  6. Mr, Fusion says:

    Still fighting last years war? How about, still fighting three wars ago.

    The last time, as far as I can remember, an American fighter shot down an enemy plane was during the Viet Nam War.

    The F-15, F-16, F-18, and F-18 Super Hornet all still have quite a few years left in them. Those airplanes can match ANY fighter any other nation can put up.

    Rick (#14) made an excellent point about the B-1. The same may be added about the B-2. It is so secret it can only be flown from a base in Missouri. For targets in the Middle East that means no landings and no crew changes for up to 28 hours. The same pilot flying on Meth while sitting in shit and piss soaked diapers.

    Each hour of flight requires 119 hours of maintenance. Each plane cost almost $4 Billion to purchase.

  7. Somebody_Else says:

    #36

    The B-2 has also flown missions out of Guam and Diego Garcia, actual per-aircraft construction costs were ~$500 million each ($2 billion each when you factor in research costs), and they have a toilet onboard. Best not to talk shit when you don’t know what you’re talking about. 😉

    The B-1 and B-2 have strategic capabilities that the B-52 can’t match. The B-1 is arguably unnecessary now that the Cold War is over, but the B-2’s range and stealth are still incredibly valuable.

    If we had actually built the 150-200 that we planned rather than 21 they would have been a lot cheaper to build and maintain and we could have phased out both the B-1 and the B-52.

  8. jescott418 says:

    This is just a expensive way of keeping American’s working. Just like the bailouts for Chrysler and GM. Just gave the union workers a few more weeks of pay on the tax payer’s. Never did stop the bankrupcies.

  9. Cap'nKangaroo says:

    #35 The last time the US was invaded was in 1942. The Aleutian islands (which is part of Alaska) of Attu and Kiska were invaded by the Japanese. It took about a year to retake the islands.

  10. Uncle Patso says:

    Military procurement seems seriously broken. That $4 billion ($500 million? — still too much) plane started out as a new kind of dart until the defense contractors got ahold of it. Even with the current high price of gold, the B-2 costs approximately as much as the same weight of gold.

    As for those who insist Gates is full of it, a question occurs to me — why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

  11. Traaxx says:

    Yes, you dip, we need the planes. It’s a little late to build them when you go to war.

    What do you want to spend the money more welfare, that never ends. Health Care for all the illegal immigrants to so they can drop the living wages of Americans. You are so full of it Edieard.

    So why is the ‘Confederate Air Force’ emblem there. You are such a racist NAZI, judgmental and bigoted.

    Whatever………………

    Traaxx

  12. deowll says:

    The plane is great in a way but 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying times seems more than a lot extreme. The price serious limits the number of machines any nation can afford maybe to point of not being able to control the air space against a major player.

    The other fact is that remote control/robotic machines have so many advantages over these machines it’s pathetic. We can also use cheaper more reliable platforms. It’s the electronics and weapons platforms that matter.

  13. Rick Cain says:

    These days our enemies wear sandals and carry RPG’s. The F-22 is rapidly losing its justification for existience in these slow burn insurgency conflicts.

  14. Glenn E. says:

    I like how the Pentagon comes off blameless. But I’ll bet they make a “conservative” order for a plane. And then steer their contractor buddies to the “right” congressmen, to get those numbers hiked upward. And then act as if “Congress forced us to have planes we didn’t want”. But they always seem to know were to put them. And have as many pilots needed to fly them all. I’ve never heard of an air base that complained of having a jet fighter or bomber surplus. Have you?

    So I suspect that the Pentagon under bids. And then allows certain congressmen to take the credit for bumping up the contract, to where they really wanted it. And then everyone wins.

  15. Glenn E. says:

    Just think, it won’t be long now before Hollywood cooks up a few features to showcase these aircraft in. I read that the V22 Osprey was already featured in the 2007 “Transformers” movie. So much for secrecy and “need to know”. This all gets tossed out the window when there’s some budget promotin’ or recruitment boostin’ to do. I once saw the SR71 in a scifi film, a year before it was declassified. Way to go Texas film board.

  16. joaoPT says:

    #44
    Right on the money:

    You can’t build a cheap plane or else you wouldn’t have the budget to spend on the payoffs you’ll need to spread around so you can build them in the first place…

    (read with a Jersey/mob accent)
    “Yeah…a coat of paint…aaaah…that’s a…one mil…per plane, yeah…special paint.You know…Just say’n.
    Unless you want all those Arabs knockin’ down you penthouses…Just sayn’…your call…
    And…aaaa…here’s a little “incentive”…ahhh…take the wife to Paris…”

  17. brian t says:

    Perhaps some of those tax dollars could go in to educating people in to the correct use of the apostrophe in English? You never use the apostrophe to indicate a plural. It might be used in a plural, but not because it’s a plural, for another reason such as to indicate possession. Example: “the sisters’ skirts’ hems were dirty”.

    If you could convert “F-22’s”, “RPG’s”, “American’s” and so on in to sound, it would be the sound of nails dragging down a chalkboard. Ow …

  18. RTaylor says:

    Traaxx

    The wing emblem used isn’t the symbol of the real Confederate Air Force. The CAF is a great organization that restores and flies old war birds. The CAF has nothing to do with the ideology of the former Confederacy of the American Civil War. It began as a joke name. If you have the fortune of seeing a WWII Era aircraft flying, more than likely it’s one of theirs.

  19. Mr. Fusion says:

    #40, Uncle Patso,

    why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

    This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.

    #41, traaxx,

    Oh geeze, I thought Uncle Pat gave me a good laugh with the honesty. You are just rip roaringly stupid which I find extremely hilarious. How can someone who knows absolutely nothing about the topic pretend he does? And I bet you did it with a straight face too. And indignation.

  20. Winston says:

    “Just wait until someday when ground troops are denied air support because there are no planes available. The first ones screaming will be these bleeding heart liberal like Eideard.”

    Ground support against WHOM? What _real_ current or future adversary has the capability to even put a tiny dent in a USAF that has 5,573 aircraft, of which 2,286 are fighters, an Army that has over 1000 AH-64 Apache attack helicopters alone, a Navy with 3700 aircraft and Marines with both helicopters and fixed wing aircraft.

    Stop buying the BS propaganda. The Cold War is over, so if we need to build anything, it isn’t hardware appropriate for a huge Cold war adversary.

  21. Winston says:

    “why should I believe that random posters on a public blog know better than the combined minds of the Pentagon and the Secretary of Defense?

    This is so true I’m laughing my tail off.”

    Yes, that IS funny! When has a HUGE mechanism of a cold war military industrial infrastructure carefully spread out among congressional districts EVER put a continuation of their business above the taxpayer’s interest? I mean, the bank bailouts you and your kids just paid for (with money borrowed from Japan and China) PROVE that business people always have NOTHING but YOUR best interests at heart.

    Christ…

  22. Somebody_Else says:

    #40
    “Military procurement seems seriously broken. That $4 billion ($500 million? — still too much) plane started out as a new kind of dart until the defense contractors got ahold of it. Even with the current high price of gold, the B-2 costs approximately as much as the same weight of gold.”
    ____

    Like I said, the high cost ($2 billion per B-2) is because we put a ton of research money in and only built 21. Manufacturing and maintenance costs would have been significantly lower per aircraft if we had build 200.

    Regardless, I think the B-2’s capabilities are worth its high cost. I can’t say that about the F-22. Bombers and strike fighters are useful, interceptors aren’t.

  23. RTaylor says:

    Even if the Cold War went hot, a bunch of interceptors would have been damn useless with MIRV’s raining down on cities. It ended up being a war of economies, and the USSR went broke first.

  24. Tom says:

    Nah Taylor,

    It could more than likely have been a conventional war with Warsaw Pact if the cold war had went hot. And even if it went nuclear, you would have needed interceptors to engage enemy bombers. So don’t knock the necessity of an interceptor.

  25. Rick Cain says:

    Russia demonstrated you can open a can of major whoop ass for pennies on the dollar. Just ask the Georgian president Sakkashvili.

    Our military may cost as much as gold, it doesn’t seem to be worth its weight in it.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 4025 access attempts in the last 7 days.