An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The F-22 Cancellation Aftermath: Secretary Gates into the Lion’s Den

f22_tn_5

In April of this year, Defense Secretary Robert Gates recommended several military budgetary cuts, including for the production of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet to stop at 187 aircraft, which means that only four more F-22s will be produced.

It was a move that drew a firestorm of criticism from Congress, the military, the military aerospace industry and the military aerospace community.

The move, however, wasn’t unexpected.

Secretary Gates had already tipped his hand as, for years, he has been forcefully arguing against the F-22s as “Cold War relics.” In an article he wrote in the January/February 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs the handwriting was clearly on the wall.

In a post in February, I commented on Gates’ intentions towards “A Balanced Strategy [and]—Reprogramming the Pentagon for a New Age.”

On July 21, 2009, “in a dogfight almost to the end,” as the Washington Post reported it, Congress scrapped the F-22 program.

Well, the debate—the acrimony—hasn’t stopped.

In a post in August, I described some of the debate in the aftermath of the decision, including the views of one person who applauded Gates’ decision.

In “Meet the ‘New’ U.S. Air Force,” military correspondent David Axe gave us an early assessment on what the F-22 cancellation and other Gates’ military budget decisions meant to U.S. air power:

The “new” U.S. Air Force that Gates is creating will be the most capable the world has ever seen, because it will balance conventional fighter jets for state-on-state war, with lower-end capabilities optimized for battling insurgencies — plus a huge, diverse fleet of flexible aerial drones. These forces will blend into a seamless whole for defeating “hybrid” threats that combine high technology with insurgent tactics.

Axe concludes: “You’d have to be nuts, or in the pay of fighter manufacturers, to label this force a ‘crisis,’ as Grant does.”

Axe is referring to Rebecca Grant and her article, ”The Turning Point,” in the August issue of the on-line Air Force Magazine.

In her article, Grant claims that Gates’ decision to halt production of the F-22 and to cut the maximum production of the F-35 multirole fighter is resulting in the Air Force ”trying to figure out how to do what it has never done: Accept into its aircraft mix a large number of less capable legacy forces.”

Also, “Gates has used as his rationale the 2008 National Defense Strategy, shaped largely by himself and vigorously opposed by all the service Chiefs because of its acceptance of risk in the field of major conventional war.”

Grant, who starts her strong and lively critique of Gates’ decisions with a stinging ”A year ago, USAF had a fully funded modernization program. That program has unraveled,” concludes with an equally forceful “Now clear for all to see is the fundamental result of a decade of Pentagon decision-making: For the first time since the years before World War II, the Air Force has failed to re-equip itself.”

Rebecca Grant is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute and president of IRIS Independent Research. She has written extensively on airpower and serves as director, Mitchell Institute, for the Air Force Association.

The Air Force Association (AFA) is a large and influential independent, nonprofit, civilian education organization promoting public understanding of aerospace power and the pivotal role it plays in the security of the nation. Its membership, open to all, includes many active duty and retired generals, and fighter pilots.

The reason I go into such detail about both Ms. Grant and the Air Force Association is that tomorrow, Wednesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, will go into the lion’s den—the Air Force Association–and address his harshest critics.

According to U.S. News & World Report:

[Gates’] decision to speak at the group’s annual conference came as a surprise to some in the community, who expected Gates to ignore the invitation and sent representatives instead. But a Pentagon official said that Gates wants to address his recent moves and also boast about the efforts of the Air Force in Afghanistan and Iraq. “It’s an opportunity for him to talk about all the Air Force has done, most of it unheralded,” says an associate. “He also wants to explain his decisions to those most impacted.”

The upcoming appearance follows a pattern by Gates of taking on his most hostile critics, something he also did this month when he spent 45 minutes being interviewed by al Jazeera.

I am quite sure that one of his harshest critics, Rebecca Grant, will be there.

It should be an interesting event. Stay tuned.

  • Leonidas
    Just for perspective

    Auto industry bailout = 73 Raptors

    Stimullas Package = 5519 raptors
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Just for additional perspective:

    Bush's tax cut program for the rich = 10,000 F22 Raptors (using the lower production cost figure)

  • Leonidas
    Bush's tax cut program for the rich = 10,000 F22 Raptors (using the lower production cost figure)


    Mind if I ask where you got your figures from, not saying they are wrong but just want to know the source.

    For even more perspective the top 1% pay more income tax than the bottom 95% Those evil rich bastards.
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/24944.html
    http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/...
  • Father_Time
    The obvious perspective: No economy, No raptors.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    The production cost figure I used for an F-22 is $135 million

    The estimates of the total cost of the 2001 and 2003 Bush "tax cuts for the rich"---if not allowed to expire until 2010--range from a low $477 billion to a high of $2.11 trillion. The most often cited figure is $1.35 trillion, ergo 10,000 F-22 aircraft.

    Now your figures and calculations, please

    Thank you
  • Don Quijote
    War in Iraq = 22,000 Raptors.
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Now, that is a perspective I hadn't considered, DQ. Short, poignant, to the point, and--via the link--inclusive of supporting data.
  • Don Quijote
    The real question Mr Rodriguez, is how many Raptors could we buy with all the money we are pissing away in Afghanistan?
  • Father_Time
    Don Quijote--

    Today, you are my hero.

    Tax Breaks for the Rich = 6,000 Raptors.
  • Father_Time
    Wasted money becaue Joe Wilson is a Richard-Head = 2 Raptors
  • Leonidas
    I inquired where you got your figures from not the amount. Was more interested in the source.

    My figure for the F-22 came from wiki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-22_Raptor
    Unit cost US$142.6 million (2009 flyaway cost)

    The stimulas price tag of 787billion is widely reported here is one source
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_...

    The auto industry bailout figures were from here
    http://www.right.org/bailout/wiki/index.php/Aut...
  • Leonidas
    War in Iraq = 22,000 Raptors.


    Share it with the Kurds.

    P.S. No doubt much money was wasted in Iraq I agree, but I am not against the war, just against the wastes that occured by poor management of it.
  • Leonidas
    Those evil rich! How dare the top 1% get away with paying only more than the 95% at the bottom! Why they should pay more than the 99% at the bottom, evil bastards!

    *rolls eyes*
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    Wrong place for reply to Leonidas

    See further down
  • D. E.Rodriguez
    OK, here are mine:

    http://www.ctj.org/html/gwb0602.htm

    $477 billion

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/08/washington/08...

    more than $1 trillion over the next decade.


    $114.6 billion in 2004 alone.



    http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/study-bu...


    The tax legislation enacted under President George W. Bush from 2001 through 2006 will cost $2.48
    trillion over the 2001-2010 period.



    http://epi.3cdn.net/0974dad8645a9d3216_5tm6bnxq...



    In 2001, the federal • budget was in surplus by $281 billion (2.8% of GDP). Further, the CBO estimated surpluses would continue through 2010 in their baseline projection. In 2009 the most recent forecast is for a federal budget deficit of $1.67 trillion (11.9% of GDP) — though further economic

    deterioration may increase this total.



    Of this $2 trillion • reversal of fortune, almost half (42%) was due to legislative changes made prior to 2009

    (the Bush-era tax cuts explain about a third of these legislative influences), while only 7.6% can be accounted for by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of...

    2001 tax cuts impact

    $1.35 trillion



    2003 cuts and later

    The Congressional Budget Office(CBO) has estimated that extending the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts (which are scheduled to expire in 2010) would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade,



    http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/politics/G...

    George W. Bush wanted a $1.6 trillion tax cut, but due to lack of Senate support only pushed through a $1.35 trillion tax cut program aimed at the rich and upper class.
  • DLS
    "Those evil rich!"

    Envy and resentment will do that.

    The only complication will be that as "the rich" moves ever downward to broaden the tax base and raise the tax take, it will run into the ever-rising definition of "the poor" in the case of S-CHIP, Medicaid, etc., if the Dems had their way with these, too. Bonus question: What happens when these levels reach and pass by each other? How will the "overlap problem" be resolved? (Surtax on "super-rich" won't do it.)
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC