PDA

View Full Version : Showdown Over F-22 Funding



CK Sooner
7/17/2009, 05:56 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/17/senators-try-head-white-house-showdown-f-funding/

An unlikely duo of senators plans to make a last-ditch attempt next week at heading off a showdown between the White House and Congress over funding for fighter jets that the Pentagon doesn't even want.

Against the advice of the Defense Department and President Obama, the Senate Armed Services Committee last month approved an additional $1.75 billion for seven extra F-22 fighter jets in the defense spending bill.

But Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., the chairman and ranking member of that committee, are trying to strike that money before the bill gets anywhere close to the president's desk. Obama has threatened to veto any legislation that includes money to buy more F-22 jets beyond the 187 requested.

The Levin-McCain amendment could represent the last chance to avoid a showdown with the White House. And passions are high on both sides.

"We have to deal with the decision of the Armed Services Committee ... to add F-22 planes, which uniformed and civilian leaders of the military indicate they do not want and do not need and we cannot afford," Levin said on the Senate floor.

McCain accused F-22 backers of trying to commit millions in taxpayer dollars for the sole purpose of creating or saving jobs.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., who pushed for the extra jets and whose state would lose at least 2,000 jobs should the cap be imposed, said the debate is not just about job losses.

"This is a debate about the national security of the United States of America," he said. "It is regrettable the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders."

A vote is expected Monday on the amendment to the defense bill, after Levin temporarily withdrew the provision Wednesday so that the Senate could first address a hate crimes bill. The Senate voted Thursday to attach that legislation, which would extend federal protections to people attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender, as an amendment to the $680 billion defense spending bill.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid supports the Levin-McCain amendment, but is struggling to whip up the votes to push it through.

On the House side, lawmakers also voted to add a $369 million down payment for 12 additional F-22 jets, in defiance of the White House.

"I don't want to see the (production) line shut down," said Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee. "If you're going to be prepared, you better not shut down the line."

Murtha predicted the F-22 addition would make it through committee, but said there could be a similar confrontation in the full House if someone puts up an amendment like the Levin-McCain measure.

Obama and Gates have taken an increasingly firm tone against Democrats and Republicans trying to push F-22 jets on the military.

"We do not need these planes," Obama said in a letter to senators Monday, pledging to veto a bill that doesn't follow his guidelines.

"It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual," Gates said during an address in Chicago Thursday. "The president has drawn that line. And that red line with regard to a veto is real."

If Obama vetoes the defense bill, it would be the first veto of his presidency. It is unlikely Congress would have enough votes to override.

CK Sooner
7/17/2009, 05:58 PM
"This is a debate about the national security of the United States of America," he said. "It is regrettable the administration needs to issue a veto threat for funding intended to meet a real national security requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed military leaders."


*sigh*

JohnnyMack
7/17/2009, 06:04 PM
Politicians protecting their constituents? You don't say.

GottaHavePride
7/17/2009, 08:06 PM
Still. The military has said they don't need the seven (or twelve, or whatever) extra F-22s, so why should we pay for them? I mean, we're already getting 187 of them right? No way in hell will we ever deploy that many at one time anyway...

JohnnyMack
7/17/2009, 08:10 PM
Did you ever see Independence Day?

CK Sooner
7/17/2009, 08:12 PM
Did you ever see Independence Day?

We only need one with Will Smith piloting it.

stoopified
7/17/2009, 08:17 PM
We only need one with Will Smith piloting it.Actually I think Randy Quaid is THE MAN.After all he brought down the MOTHER SHIP.

SoonerStormchaser
7/17/2009, 09:18 PM
Even I don't think we need them.
We need new bombers...tankers...AWACS (even it it's a UAV) and other **** because we should not still be flying around planes that are older than teh hawt wife. Hell, even the last AWACS to come off the line is my age...

MojoRisen
7/17/2009, 10:00 PM
Sell em to the Arabs, they can compete with Iran's arsenal and become a little less nutural in there own defense.

reevie
7/18/2009, 09:48 AM
Japan wants them bad. Isreal and Australia have expressed interest in buying them, but a 1997 law forbids oversea sells. However, there are some in Congress working to over turn that ban so Japan can buy them.

walkoffsooner
7/18/2009, 11:59 AM
I know a x crew chief of a f22 he says there junk

CK Sooner
7/18/2009, 02:19 PM
I know a x crew chief of a f22 he says there junk

I thought they were suppose to make us the most powerful fighting force in the air for the next 20 years.

StoopTroup
7/18/2009, 02:27 PM
Even I don't think we need them.
We need new bombers...tankers...AWACS (even it it's a UAV) and other **** because we should not still be flying around planes that are older than teh hawt wife. Hell, even the last AWACS to come off the line is my age...

Still it's cool to see a Propeller driven plane hook up with a Jet...

You two are like a Museum. :D ;) :pop: :hot:

Half a Hundred
7/18/2009, 05:30 PM
Even I don't think we need them.
We need new bombers...tankers...AWACS (even it it's a UAV) and other **** because we should not still be flying around planes that are older than teh hawt wife. Hell, even the last AWACS to come off the line is my age...

BUFFs are slated to last for over 100 years, and I don't see any reason for them not to, as long as they are well maintained. I can't think of any possible platform that can perform their mission any better, so why waste the money on new bombers when you can keep the old ones in top condition for much less? Same on the support/logistic aircraft - if the needed improvements can be placed on the same airframe, why reinvent the wheel?

The only reasons anyone would want us to keep producing the F-22 are either from a pure science standpoint (let's see how far we can push things), or a constituent economic benefit standpoint. Beyond that, the mission nowadays is much different than the Cold War climate that originally conceived the design parameters of the F-22. Even in that context, I still think it was rather silly to create a $200 million aircraft that would likely be vaporized within 2 hours, particularly when the existing airframes did their job with distinction and were easily adaptable to new technology.

Tulsa_Fireman
7/18/2009, 05:53 PM
BUFFs are slated to last for over 100 years, and I don't see any reason for them not to, as long as they are well maintained. I can't think of any possible platform that can perform their mission any better, so why waste the money on new bombers when you can keep the old ones in top condition for much less? Same on the support/logistic aircraft - if the needed improvements can be placed on the same airframe, why reinvent the wheel?

1) What's a BUFF?

2) I thought I'd read somewhere on here from one of the many airplane ******-*******s that the stresses of flight over years cracks and strains the metal to the point that it simply isn't safe to fly anymore. And if we have the option to build an old airframe or develop and build a newer piece of equipment that will do everything we want it to do and more, wouldn't we want to go with the latter?

Half a Hundred
7/18/2009, 07:08 PM
1) What's a BUFF?

2) I thought I'd read somewhere on here from one of the many airplane ******-*******s that the stresses of flight over years cracks and strains the metal to the point that it simply isn't safe to fly anymore. And if we have the option to build an old airframe or develop and build a newer piece of equipment that will do everything we want it to do and more, wouldn't we want to go with the latter?

1. B-52. Stands for Big Ugly Fat F***er.

2. Economies of scale. It's much easier to build something that has already had the R&D costs recouped and can be built at essentially materials and labor cost (which have fallen due to better production techniques) than to have to sink millions, if not billions in development.

Metal can be refurbished, particularly for a subsonic aircraft such as the B-52. While that can be an issue for our fighters, replacement with composite materials can significantly extend the projected life of an aircraft.

Jerk
7/18/2009, 09:21 PM
A couple billion for acorn, no problem.

A couple billion for the most advanced fighter ever made? uh oh.

Half a Hundred
7/19/2009, 01:35 AM
^^ what does that have to do with anything?