No Fly Zone: Senate Denies Military Funding For F-22

July 21st, 2009 (43) Posted By Erik Wong.

f35

FOX News:

WASHINGTON — The Senate on Tuesday voted to strip money for seven additional F-22 jets from a $680 billion defense bill, after President Obama threatened to veto the entire bill if the money remained.

The 58-40 vote was a win for the White House and, for the moment, prevents Obama from using the first veto of his presidency. The president considered the $1.75 billion addition to the defense bill a waste of money.

But the fight to fund additional F-22 jets is far from over. Because the House passed a version of its defense bill including additional funding, the subject will come up in negotiations to reconcile the two bills.

Obama on Tuesday thanked the Senate for approving the amendment that he says will “better protect our troops.”

Obama said he rejected the notion that the country has to “waste billions of taxpayers dollars” on outdated defense projects.

“That’s why I’m grateful that the Senate voted against an additional $1.75 billion to buy F-22 jets that military experts and members of both parties say we do not need,” he said at the White House. “At a time when we’re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money.”

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Defense Secretary Robert Gates applauded the Senate’s vote.

“He understands that for many members this was a very difficult vote, but he believes that the Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual when it comes to the F-22 or any other program in excess to our needs,” Morrell said

Gates has said that the Pentagon has enough of the $140 million jets to meet operational needs. But for many lawmakers, the F-22 means thousands of jobs for their state or district, and resistance to ending the program has been fierce.

The F-22 amendment stripping the funding only needed a simple majority to pass, or 51 votes, meaning no horse-trading for votes was necessary to reach the more difficult threshold of 60 votes often used for controversial legislation.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., told FOX News that he did not fight for a 60-vote threshold because the support is either there or not. He called the vote “significant” but held to a glimmer of hope for a compromise.

Lawmakers from states that would benefit from manufacturing the jets wanted the money pumped into the aerospace and defense industries. Gates had countered that the money would be better spent on ensuring that the military has the tools it needs to fight the unconventional wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the top Republican on the panel, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sponsored the amendment to take out the F-22 money. But strong resistance emerged from lawmakers, particularly from senators representing states where the plane and its parts are made.

According to Lockheed Martin Corp., the main contractor, 25,000 people are directly employed in building the plane, and another 70,000 have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a supporter of the program, said there are 1,000 suppliers in 44 states.

Supporters of the program also argued that it would undermine the nation’s security to terminate the F-22 when China and Russia are both developing fighter jets that can compete with it.

The Senate took up the F-22 issue last week, but then put it aside to deal with two amendments having nothing to do with defense. On Thursday senators voted to adopt a major expansion to hate crimes law, and on Monday they turned to a proposal allowing people with concealed weapons permits in one state to carry their weapons into other states. A vote on the gun law was expected Wednesday.

Its sponsor, South Dakota Republican John Thune, said the permit holder must respect the concealed weapon laws of the state he is visiting, such as bans on firearms in certain locations. There would be no right to carry concealed firearms in the two states that do not allow the practice, Wisconsin and Illinois. The measure is backed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 additional F-22 fighters. The House Appropriations Committee last week endorsed that spending in drawing up its Pentagon budget for next year. It also approved $534 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that Obama, backed by the Pentagon, says is unwarranted and would subject the entire bill to a veto.

The defense bill authorizes $550 billion for defense programs and $130 billion for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other anti-terrorist operations.

Jihadi Killer Radio Hour
Follow Pat on Twitter
  • http://twitter.com/ArchInfidel ArchInfidel

    “Obama on Tuesday thanked the Senate for approving the amendment that he says will “better protect our troops.”

    Obama said he rejected the notion that the country has to “waste billions of taxpayers dollars” on outdated defense projects.”

    Are you SHITTING ME?!!?

    Our troops are better protected?!!?! WTF

    OUTDATED?!?!?! :gun: :evil: This is the most advanced plane in the world!?!

    • Jeff

      But the plane does nothing. It has gone on ZERO combat missions. 3 1/2 years since it was first built and none of them have gone on a single combat mission. It is of no use to us in Iraq and Afghanistan. The only function it has is air to air. There are no conflicts that require an air to air fighter at the moment and if it arose we have plenty of F-22s along with numerous other craft.

    • http://twitter.com/ArchInfidel ArchInfidel

      Thats bullshit Jeff and you know it.

      Wow cause we dont use something right now means we will never need it?? We havent used any nukes in the last 60 years either but I think we might just still have a need for them.

      Drink a little more koolaid you leftist scum.

    • Jeff

      Wow, the stupid it hurts.

      We already have nukes…we don’t need anymore. Why would we pay to build more when we don’t need anymore. Same argument for the F-22. We have them and we do not need anymore.

  • RojoNixon(God-Fearing American Patriot)

    Wrong picture. That is an F-35.

    • RojoNixon(God-Fearing American Patriot)

      Or was that the point?

    • http://twitter.com/ArchInfidel ArchInfidel

      I dont think so since Obama says “It also approved $534 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that Obama, backed by the Pentagon, says is unwarranted and would subject the entire bill to a veto.”

      This poser in chief is undermining the F-35 now too. :gun: :evil:

  • Double Tap

    Obama wants this country to be completely indefensible from any attacker. First kill the current projects, de-fund the military, withdraw from all conflicts like a frightened dog and then we will be open to attack from all who would care to do so.

    If Obama had his way, all the children in school would learn how bad the military is and how having any sort of military or means of self defense is hateful. Just roll over and submit to your enemy and pretend they are your friend… Oh, wait. He is already doing this. Never mind.

  • dadeo

    It’s because only white people could pass the test required to fly it.

    • vonKamrath

      :lol:

  • cocorico

    don’t worry a new Mars attack project is on, that will compensate the unemployment for the raptor

  • Scoot

    Is he going to stop funding for the troop’s guns next? :roll:

    I say we downgrade Air Force 1 from a jetliner to a Cessna.

    • CPLViper

      Screw that … tie his stupid ass to kite and tell him to get a good running start.

    • Scoot

      …off a cliff. :mrgreen:

    • ZenDraken

      O doesn’t deserve a Cessna.

  • Scoot

    “Obama said he rejected the notion that the country has to “waste billions of taxpayers dollars” on outdated defense projects.”

    What’s his fucking excuse for wasting TARP, Omnibus, and Stimulus funds then???

  • AFITgrad86

    Here’s the dirty little secret .. if you terminate production on a major system then the govt has to pay ‘termination costs’ to the contractor because the termination is for the convenience of the govt.

    If you come back three years later and try to restart production there are huge start-up costs to get the production line going again.

    If you add the two of those together they far exceed the cost of a minimal production run across the next three or four years for the express purpose of keeping the line open.

    Oh yeah … we won’t even go into the improved capability of the military with the new system or the thousands of high paying jobs it would save etc….

    It’s really all about Obama catering to his far left supporters and the dollars (1.75 Billion) is insignificant when viewed in the light of his “stimulus” efforts … keeping the line open is a far better (and more cost effective)use of the money than anything else I can think of …

    • ZenDraken

      Even if we don’t need any more F-22s, at least we’d be getting something of value for the money.

      Plus F-22s are really cool, while shovel-ready projects are just boring.

    • Jeff

      F-22s are cool but so far that’s all they have proven to be. They are fun to watch at airshows but when you go into the maintenance and cost of an F-22s it quickly becomes uncool.

    • Sully

      Cuz Barry and His mouthpiece rags TIME and NEWSWEEK say so.
      Jeff is woozy from their kool-aid.

    • ZenDraken

      Jef: All fighters and other new sophisticated aircraft have jaw-droppingly high maintenance rates. The rates get better over time as the bugs get worked out, but 20-30h maintenance for every hour of flight time is not unusual.

    • Jeff

      Zen: I understand that the more complicated and aircraft is the more work it needs to maintain. The F-22 is right near the top. It is just impracticable because the F-22 is not being used for anything. They go on test flights where a simple thing such as rain basically destroys the stealthy paint on the craft. There are a lot of things that can be improved on the F-22 but my point is if the F-22 is barely being used to do anything why pay for any more? Especially considering the large cost?

  • Giorgi

    hey anti-raptor people: the world is stocking on some Su-27/30/32 series of fighters witch are technically close to the latest F15s… what kind of argument is “its not being used”??? – its an air-superiority figher – u dont have one, and the enemy holds that air-superiority. and the 190 or so so-far procured ones wont paint a picture.
    the other side of medal is, i believe, that there is a general push for the F-35 fighers, who are suppose to become worldwide workhorse and to take a role of the F-16s. maintenance costs and other “points” are superceded by the corporate interests and lobby. if there was prudence in the axing of the F22 rpoduction line for sake of saving costs, u could at least make an “export” version for Ausies and the Japan, and maybe Brits if they show interest for it.

    • Jeff

      We have about 190 F-22s, with how highly touted this fighter is it seems more than enough when we are not in conflicts with anyone that has the newer Su type fighters. We will also always have an advantage in pilot training which is one of the big factors in how effective a fighter can be in combat. The fact of the matter is we just do not need more F-22s right now. They are costly and are not being used. If they ever have to be used 190 or so are already there, along with the rest of our air fleet. If more need to be produced it probably won’t be a problem because an event where we would need to have more would probably mean another world war.

      There is an export version being sent to Japan. I remember a thread here talking about that and how a couple people got angry we would send a couple stripped down F-22s to Japan.

    • http://twitter.com/ArchInfidel ArchInfidel

      Wrong again Jeffy, we have a policy to not export any F22′s, any version. And make up your mind, they are now highly touted, I thought you said they were bullshit??

      Yes we need more F22′s we have 187 to replace over 500 planes. WAKE UP

    • ZenDraken

      The F22

    • ZenDraken

      (sorry ’bout that key fart)

      The F22 isn’t really needed now. It’s meant for whenever we get into a major conflict 10 or 20 years from now. And there will be no way to build new ones then.

      As an example: Look at the F-15. It was built in the early 70s, but wasn’t really used in combat until Gulf War 1.0 in 1990-91. Even then, with six months of prep time, we could not have manufactured new F15s in time for the war.

    • Jeff

      I never said they were BS. Just because I do not think we need more does not mean I think they are an awesome fighting craft. The simulations where one F-22 can take on 30+ aircraft is amazing and the maneuverability is outstanding.

      We are not getting rid of the F-15s and F-16s and other craft for a long time. The F-22s were meant to replace them but times have changed from when the F-22 was first thought up and designed. We just have no need for any more of them right now.

      I am probably mistaken about the exports. I am just trying to remember that thread where it came up and I can’t find it again.

  • Phl Byler

    This is a mistake. We need the F22 to maintain our air to air supremacy (which the F35 won’t do) and to replace aging Air Force aircraft. We just don’t have an immediate need for the F22 in Afghanistan and Pakistan. We will, however, have the need for the F22 at some point in the future.

    Secretary of Defense Gates, most of the Air Force brass and Senate Republicans are going along with this decision because of budgetary pressures. With hundreds of billions spent on nonsense, there is nothing left over to build the number of F22s that we really need. So Gates, the Air Force brass and Senate Republicans are prioritizing, rightly spending money on more Army and Marine personnel and hoping the F35 will fill the future need for high performance aircraft in current conflicts.

    The ugly fly in the ointment is that Obama and the Democrats don’t intend to build many F35s either. Their plan is to kill the F22 and then kill the F35.

    • Jeff

      We have maintained air supremacy in every war since the end of world war 2 and right now there really is no challenge to that. Yes Russia and China have advanced aircraft and they are being sold to some countries but we will always have air supremacy. There is very little threat of losing that and not having new F-22s does little to change that.

      The reasoning for the cutting the budget is sound in terms of money. We just don’t need the F-22 in a war against Iraq and Afghanistan. And the ones we already have can hold their own if needed.

      Your last comment is a bit disheartening. The F-22 is basically killed. Barring some major conflict with a major power more F-22s will probably never be produced. However, the F-35 should stay on track. A multi-role craft has a lot more value to us now than a strict air superiority fighter.

    • Phil Byler

      Sorry, Jeff, but I don’t buy your rationalization. We need to replace over 500 1970s vintage aircraft. The number 187 does not cover the need. We will end doing what we still do with the B52: fly old aircraft and face increasing costs and number of crashes associated with flying old aircraft. Further, the F35 does not serve the role of the F22.

      Not buying more F22s now is a mistake because it is short sighted. I acknowledge the budgetary “logic” of prioritizing higher priority military needs, but I disagree that those budgetary pressures justify killing the F22. We are going spend hundreds of billions on pork that will be pure waste and won’t stimulate the economy; building more F22s would keep America strong and would be stimulating to the economy. The budget pressures, however, are only going to get worse, particularly if Obamacare and cap and trade pass.

  • Eddie from Cali

    Better to have it and not need it to need it and not have it. :gun:

  • Double Tap

    Jeff, you are nothing but a troll. You have no idea what you are talking about in any of your dumb-assed comments above. I bet you thing those neat little foam airplanes you by at the toy store are just fine to defend against our ever growing list of enemies. I bet you also think we should just give up on all technology and buy it from the Russians, French, Japanese, Koreans, and anyone else with a bullshit copy of our old technology. You don’t understand government contracts, economics, maintenance costs, or anything else.

    • Jeff

      And in the rambling nonsensical response, where do you prove to have more knowledge than me? If I do not understand, enlighten me. Or will you excuse yourself from explaining yourself because I would not understand.

  • Xavier

    “We have about 190 F-22s, with how highly touted this fighter is it seems more than enough when we are not in conflicts with anyone that has the newer Su type fighters.”

    LOL, so as long as we don’t get in a fight with a country with newer Su fighters we should be good. :roll: How long before the enemies of the world figure this out and buy a bunch of newer Su fighters.

    “I am probably mistaken about the exports.”

    As well as a great many things, to include the importance of the F-22.

    “but we will always have air supremacy.”

    Let us all know when your pipe dream is over. Just like Freedom, air supremacy is not something that is free. If we stop perusing the weapons systems needed to ensure air supremacy then we will eventually relinquish it.

    Your argument (as I posted last time) is essentially lets save some money today so that we may loose the battle tomorrow.

    I completely understand the idea of cost to benefit analysis but when your performing such analysis with the Freedom of the U.S. & your life, I believe the analysis is flawed & deadly.

    • Jeff

      Even if we fight countries with the advanced Su craft, the F-22 was meant to take on those fighters and win. So no, it would not be a problem unless it was a full blown world war which is so far from a possibility.

      Air supremacy is not free but with a fleet of F-15, F-16 which have proven more than enough in the conflicts we have been in, and our fleet of F-22, F-35 and numerous other craft…our air supremacy will not be truly tested for a while. No we should not just give up on new tech but its not the end of the world to focus those efforts on other projects.

      Air to air combat is not a huge concern at the moment which is all the F-22 can do. F-35s fill multiple roles. Also, our drone programs are a much more important project. They are far more useful in the wars we are fighting than the F-22

      Pouring resources into projects that are not needed is always a problem and should be plain and clear when it needs to be fixed. The F-4 Phantom for Vietnam was only designed to carry missiles. That was a big screwup and was fixed when a cannon was added on later models. Higher tech and advancements are not always the way to go when they prove ineffective or are not needed at the time.

    • Sully

      And there you have it folks, the Dem/RINO idiotic view on air superiority and economics as expressed by someone who has done nothing more than parrot a TIME article ad nauseum.

    • Giorgi

      and you know what, fellas, ok I understand – new president, new politics, bla bla…but why in the hell would they stop the F-22 production and wont order more 4th generation fighters like the F15s with modern avionics to counter the SU planes… but hey, some might say – who needs that?! as a top argument i’ve heard for stopping the F-22 production is that the US wont fight an air-to-air combat any time soon.
      this is a dumbest thing I’ve ever heard.

  • Charlie of New Jersey

    Let’s have the Libs drive around in 30 year old cars to match with the Air Force flying around in F-15s and F-16s. At least it will be fair….

  • charles

    i will now screm and punch my wal FFFFFFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCCCCCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKK OBBBBBBBBAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMAAAAAAAAAAAAA

  • DuddlyDoRight

    If I were to attempt to accomendate for all my costumers with a full glass of milk everyday an did good and kept the minimum amount of stock, fine right? wrong.. What the hell do YOU think happens when i finally get that long dreamt of lunch rush an i didnt accomendate for it with EXTRA stock~! BAM~! to bad to late~! you only get one chance.
    It’s your life!! And i wouldn’t risk the safety of my families well being anymore so then i would want to take away from my best friends table~!. This is a serious topic that eventually effects everyone, period in our country.
    Our nations economy, our future wellbeing, safety.. As for air superiority.. *shakes head* i have seen alil of wait we got on the tables so pretty soon it’ll be futile to even consider an airstrike when we have military technology that can litteraly take out a numerous amount of aircraft with little margin for error. My point is once it starts where an when does it end. our healthcare, our national defense, O.o
    IF we can’t come to an agreement soon as a whole towards OUR nations best interest this nations going out sad. Simple commensense, make a long term goal, global, national, statewide.. stick with it ya know looks at japans and chinas transit alternatives.. thats what we Should be doing, helping ourselves an those who don’t bring a boomstick to dinner :cry: Out.

  • RojoNixon(God-Fearing American Patriot)

    The argument that the F22 is an air to air only platform is busted. From the Raptor fact page on AF.MIL: “The Raptor performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground missions allowing full realization of operational concepts vital to the 21st century Air Force.” Read more here… http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123013572
    But of course, we’re not using it for anything are we?
    Go back to Berkley Jeff.

  • Xavier

    “Air to air combat is not a huge concern at the moment which is all the F-22 can do.”

    Obviously you have done your research, NOT! What you have done is clearly demonstrated your stupidity. No sense for us to present logical arguments when having a discussion with someone of your brainwashed condition.

    “Higher tech and advancements are not always the way to go when they prove ineffective or are not needed at the time.”

    You mean when you prove them ineffective, through your logic? And the kicker, technology is not the way to go when it is not needed at this time. :shock: I recommend you forfeit your personal technology (to include the PC you use to post at this site) since you apparently can’t comprehend the impact of your own statements.