- ‹ previous
- 980 of 8795
- next ›
Barney Frank to F-22: Drop Dead
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has authored an amendment that would remove funding for the extra F-22s that the House Armed Services committee slipped into the defense budget authorization bill last week, his office has just confirmed.
Here's the story so far: at around 2.30 a.m. on Wednesday last week, a bare majority of lawmakers on the committee voted to take $368 million allocated for environmental cleanup of defense sites and re-route it to buy parts for the F-22, thus committing the Pentagon to an extra 12 planes. Frank's amendment would reverse that maneuver.
Frank is one of the few reliable voices on the Hill in favor of dramatically reducing military spending: earlier this year he called for the defense budget to be slashed by 25 percent. (The Obama administration declined to follow his advice.) It's too early to tell whether his amendment can overcome the deep congressional support for the F-22—first his proposal has to make it through the Rules Committee, which gets to decide which amendments to the bill will come up for a vote. That will probably happen late Wednesday. We'll keep you posted; in the meantime, you can check out our ongoing coverage of the defense budget here.
UPDATE: On a conference call on Tuesday afternoon about the amendment, Frank was in fine caustic form:
On the F-22: "This will probably be the only combat the F-22 has ever engaged in or will engage in."
On his fellow lawmakers who are keeping it alive:"I'm struck that so many of my colleagues are worried about the deficit but apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money."
Frank was very blunt about the significance of the F-22 to Obama's promises to clean up Pentagon waste: "If we cannot hold the line on this, it's very bad news for holding down excesses in military spending."
UPDATE II: Frank's amendment failed. So the F-22 stays in the House version of the bill.
F-22
I agree with trying to hold down military and all expense but the F-22 is a worthy replacement for or F-15's as the worlds premier air superiority fighter. Because of its stealth and maneuverability it is far superior to the F-15 or any other aircraft even under consideration world wide. The next fighter in line will be the F-35 but it is basically designed to be a strike, not air superiority, fighter. The F-22 is about 500 mph faster and can go 400 miles further than the F-35. This is not to say the F-35 is a poor aircraft but it will not give air superiority and it is not designed to do so. If we ever get to the point we arn't in control of the air in a hot situation it will be time for every America to get out their hip boots.
Shorter version
but it's sooooooo cool!
Agreed. There are plenty of
Agreed. There are plenty of weapons procurement boondoggles (like the DDG-1000, which even the navy doesn't want), but the F-22 isn't one of them. Articles in MoJo citing the "true cost" of an F-22 (including R&D, maintenance and training) are deceptive: the R&D has already been spent, and all planes, like the F-15's which the F-22 replaces, require maintenance and training. So the correct question is what's the cost difference between acquiring more F-22's or instead retaining more F-15's. And the aging F-15's are, like all planes as they get older, are having more and more maintenance problems (that's why airlines buy new planes even when their old ones are still serviceable - the total cost is less due to reduced maintenance requirements).
You're also right about the importance of maintaining air superiority. I'm no hawk but that's one thing the US can't afford to loose. It's been the key to our military effectiveness since WWII, and is not a cold war relic. It's questionable how the F-15 would fare against the Su-35, and the Russians aren't always picky about their customers.
MoJo's Rachel Morris would have far more credibility on the important issue of Pentagon waste if she were more discerning in her criticisms, rather than assuming all weapons programs (or at least the ones Gates doesn't like) are costly boondoggles.
Lastly, the idea of Barney Frank being frugal with the taxpayer's money is a joke. Is he afraid that the F-22 will take taxpayer money away from his pals in the finance industry? His only interest is in making sure the dollars go to his preferred special interest.
By the time it is taken out
By the time it is taken out of service, some time between 2030 and 2040, the F-22 will have destroyed (with weapons it carries itself, in air-to-air combat) fewer than 10 other combat aircraft. You heard it here first.
But as I understand it the
But as I understand it the DOD don't want the F22's so isn't this just a case of bad Pork?? It's a project that's been plagued with cost overruns. (http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/07/27/the_f22_money_pit.php). By the way who exactly are we going to be fighting with this F22?? Not Osama Bin Laden that's for sure. Are we going to war with some superior power that I haven't heard about?
Who voted for it?
Somehow I expect the F-22 will be built in the home districts of those reps who voted for it. I'd love to hear them argue this issue with Gates (who knows a thing or two about it).
Will these same 'conservative voices' argue we can't spend any money on health care reform because it's too expensive? I can hardly wait.
We need a Senator to kill it.
already a lame duck, I’d
tagged as:- solution
- result
already a lame duck, I’d call for his head. It's time to get Albany out of NYC's hair forever. The House of Lords up there is to volatile and capricious when it comes to all NYC matters. Just this week...a little corruption and a midnight defection, and BOOM, the Republicans are the majority party! And Paterson's admission of "lust in his heart" for lobbyists is beyond the pale. Perhaps it's time fortiffany jewelry
tiffany and co
NYC to secede from NY State, and reform as a city/state under the federal banner...and maybe jettison Staten Island while we're at it. We could be like Hong Kong with bagels! For now, I urge New Yorkers to act locally and vote out every city councilperson who voted for the extension of term limits, and, if there is a Santa Claus, hand old Michael