Home  »  General  »  Gates Shoots Down Raptor

Gates Shoots Down Raptor



Apr 6, 2009 21 Comments ›› Chuck Biscuits

f22-raptor-flight

Gates Calls for Cuts to High-Tech Weapons Programs
Defense Secretary Robert Gates announces a broad range of cuts to weapons spending, saying he plans to slash programs ranging from a new helicopter for the president to production of the $140 billion F-22 fighter jet.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended a broad range of budgetary cuts to high-tech weapons programs, including production of the F-22 fighter jet.

In a move that won mixed reviews from lawmakers on Capitol Hill, Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a “fundamental overhaul” in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

He called for production of the F-22 jet to stop at 187 jets. The U.S. military has 183 jets in service now, so just four more would be funded as part of the fiscal 2009 supplemental budget if President Obama approves the recommendations. The planes cost $140 million each.

Lockheed Martin has already warned that ending this production would result in the loss of more than 90,000 jobs.

Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would also be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon’s most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army’s $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

To fight new threats from insurgents, Gates is proposing more funding for special forces and other tools.

“In many ways, my recommendations represent a cumulative outcome of a lifetime spent in the national security arena — but above all, questions asked, experience gained and lessons learned from over two years of leading this department, and in particular, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Gates said.

He said his recommendations would “profoundly reform” the way the Defense Department does business.

“We must re-balance this department’s programs in order to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies,” he said.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the 2008 GOP presidential nominee, said in a written statement that Gates’ plan was a “major step in the right direction.”

“It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow,” he said.

But Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., in YouTube video posted on his Senate Web site, said he was “very disappointed” Obama was preparing to cut back the military budget in a time of war, while he’s increasing spending everywhere else.

“I can’t believe what we heard today,” he said. “Right now we have our men and women in uniform, in harm’s way, and we hear an announcement we’re gutting … our military.”

Inhofe and five other senators sent a letter to Obama opposing what they called “deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles.”

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon’s spending since 2001.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a “staggering” figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

FOX News’ Justin Fishel and The Associated Press contributed to this report.


  • GRIZZ

    FUCK YOU GATES.Now I know why the fraud kept you on.You just made the list

    • ROB (FLINT89)

      Do you really think he had a choice? Obama basically said we’re cutting spending…you decide what you could go without. We all know this was coming. We all know how much Obama listens to his generals.

      As for cutting the spending on the F-22. I don’t like it, I mean there will be a shit load of out of work people, and you don’t throw jobs out of the window to improve the economy.

      Militarily however, the only possible future major threats in say the next 100 years will be China, India, and Iran. Plainly put, we’ll have ample warning if they even come technologically close to matching our fighters now. Hell even the new JSF and the older F-18′s and F-16′s can knock just about any aircraft the chicoms can throw at us.

    • That one dude

      Well first of all, it’s my opinion that we have enough of those planes. They aren’t used for dogs fights in the sky, they are a stealth plane with a payload of a couple rockets and minimal defense system gatling gun. Seriously, these planes cost $140 mill each and we are going to have 187 of them at the total sum of : $26,180,000,000 trillion, OK. That is a riduiculous some of money and its being spent on 187 f-22′s? Your bitching about that? Please, that’s ridiculous, these things cost more than a F-17 nighthawk and we have had and used them in more engagements. The SR-71 blackbird was the fastest plane ever built by man and it cost $33 mill. That plane is way faster and stealthier than the f-22 and they only had 33, cause they realized thats all they needed. Plus, the officials already stated they are going to be spending more money on special ops. I think putting money towards specials ops units goes a long way because they are ground units. Ground units win wars, plain and simple.

    • GRIZZ

      All of this may be true.I base my opinions on this matter partially from bro in law. Ex Navy F-18 pilot.Not on any personal exp. :beer:

  • Birdddog

    Fire up the B-17′s

  • solomonpal

    The threat is not Afghanistan you dumb fucks !!!IT’S CHINA, IRAN, NORKS, RUSSIA and O’BAMBI

  • ROB (FLINT89)

    But Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., in YouTube video posted on his Senate Web site, said he was “very disappointed” Obama was preparing to cut back the military budget in a time of war, while he’s increasing spending everywhere else.

    The Good senator is guilty of plagiarism…I’ve said the exact same thing countless times. :beer:

  • KBoomr113

    I’m not too happy. The idea is to be technologically far superior to even our closest allies. Thats what being a super power is all about and thats what the F-22 brings to the table. 187 Raptors isn’t nearly enough to provide an effective deterrent around the world. Plus, the more you build, the lower the per unit cost gets. I recommend buying another 200. Also another 300 C-17s and 400 new 767 tankers. Plus the 2,400 F-35s. Oh yea, a new medium range bomber also. That is the cost of maintaining air superiority and flexibility of combat operations. It puts americans to work in high paying jobs also.

  • Sixchuter

    I’m in agreement. Eliminate the F-22, and build the F-23 instead. :smile:

  • Shaun

    “That is the cost of maintaining air superiority and flexibility of combat operations. It puts Americans to work in high paying jobs also.”

    Those are all things the administration doesn’t want for American & Americans.

  • NMPatriot

    It’s a double edged, we have already spent huge sums of money to develop these planes, which are the most technologicaly advanced fighter planes in the world, so lets put them in service. The down side is the tremendous amount of money involved in the aquisition.
    I am in favor of purchasing a limited number of the planes, maintaining our current stock of nuclear weapons, and not fucking with our military.

    This is just another example of the Statists desire to reduce our military strength, and put our country further at risk.

    NMP

  • Phil Byler

    The larger problem is that Air Force planes are getting old and older. We are still flying the B-52.

    The F-22 was the replacement for the 1970s era F-15. If we don’t build more F-22s, we will have old F-15s that are increasingly prone to the problems that older planes have.

  • falconfixer

    Guys, I work in a U.S. Air Force Depot maintenance facility and I can tell you from first hand experience that 1. Terrorists are not the last enemy we will ever fight. 2. The cost to maintain a 30, 40, and up to 50+ year old airplanes is EXTREMELY costly, not to mention dangerous. Does anyone here remember that video of the firefighting C-130 when the wings broke off? Well I can tell you that it WILL happen to one of our C-130′s in Iraq or Afghanistan with a couple hundred Marines onboard, and then there will be HELL TO PAY! We are literally putting patches on top of patches on these old airplanes. I wonder if Obama wants to drive around in a 50+ year old presidential limo, or fly around in a 40 year old Air Force One?

    • Phil Byler

      Your comment is well stated, and the problem is why I made mine.

      Yes, we need a larger Army and Marine Corps and expenditures for counter-insurgency actions. But we also need newer Air Force planes, which do project American power.

      What we don’t need is much of the current deficit pork barrel spending for which Democrats are responsible.

    • GRIZZ

      :beer:

    • GRIZZ

      :beer: One for you too phil

  • Steady

    So I guess Barry is fine with losing all the jobs associated with the F22 program. Marxist scum!!!!

  • IP727

    If gutless gates had testicle one, he would never have signed on with this marxist turd in the first place.

  • charlie

    GREAT NOW THE RUSSIANS WILL HAVE THERE FIGHTER FIRST FUCKING ASSHOLE’S

  • Reloader449

    Uh, ThatOneDude may not be a math major. Isn’t 187 times $140 Mil actually $26 Billion, not $26 Trillion?

    Another math solution: There is nothing more expensive than war (referring to World War such as WW1 and WW2.)

    The Raptor is difficult for most civilians to discuss, let alone make decisions regarding. This plane has capabilities that are hard to comprehend. Each one is a Mini-AWACS at 60,000 feet; Each one replaces many pilots, crew and maintainers because fewer tankers, real AWACS, other fighters and support aircraft are not needed; Each one can do things beyond the scope of this discussion, and well beyond the abilities of any other aircraft that has ever flown.

    One area of capability is Radio Frequency emmission, as in scary abilities the results of which are sent directly to those Special Forces troops you seem to prefer.

    Ask them if they want a Raptor overhead, and I mean in URBAN warfare, as well as conventional in places such as the Fulda Gap.

    Checked the price of any other jet fighter lately? Today, in the 21st Century, not in 1970 or 1960?

    Building fewer of them makes them even more expensive- the engineering is done and THAT comprised the main cost. Each additional aircraft built is very little compared to the entire effort to produce the plane in the first place.

    This is why the Founders created a Republic. If every single swinging dick in a Democracy has a say in every decision, no matter how IGNORANT they are of it, we … are … doomed.

  • Doctor

    Well said Reloader.

    First, 26 billion is only a drop in the bucket compared to all of the spending that has gone on in the few weeks. Second, how can you put a price on national security and freedom?

    Some people might say that we don’t need the Raptors because there isn’t a conceivable conflict to require the jets right now. The reason there isn’t a major air battle on the horizon right now is because of our unquestioned air dominance. Guess what? If we start cutting back on Raptors, our air dominance might not be so iron-clad. Then what happens? Threats that wouldn’t dream of attacking us right now suddenly become emboldened and decide they are a match for us. People don’t remember what it was like to have enemies dropping bombs on our troops. The last time we had iron fall on our troops was in 1953. We have had air dominance since then. Can you imagine what would be going on in the desert right now without air dominance? It would only take very simple airplanes to drop bombs on our troops. Ground based defense? Not possible everywhere the troops are. The only perfect solution is to make sure the enemy can’t even launch an airplane because it would immediately be shot down.

    It is unquestionably a wise choice to spend money on Raptors that will guarantee our air dominance for the future even if we never have to fire a shot. What is better, overwhelming force in our favor to ensure nobody attacks us or slightly less force and now we must fight to ensure our safety and freedom. What will we save with fewer Raptors? Money? What cost are we incurring by saving money? American lives are the cost! And in the long run, it might be even more expensive fighting a war that could have been avoided had we continued to assure our air dominance.

    Here’s a good analogy. You wouldn’t get rid of all the firemen in an city just because there hasn’t been a fire in the last 30 years with no conceivable chance for a fire in the future. You have to keep your “insurance policy” current!

    F-15s, F-16s and other fighters are getting old! We need to keep up with the future. Emerging threats are catching up with our aging fighters. Even if threats aren’t quite as capable, there is going to be a time very soon where our fighters are going to fall out of the sky again. Ring a bell? F-15s breaking in half?