Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Chambliss, Isakson show their priorities
The Columbia County News-Times ^ | August 12, 2009 | Tom Crawford

Posted on 08/12/2009 3:48:16 AM PDT by Pan_Yan

If you are trying to figure out what your congressmen really believe in, don't focus on what they say - look closely at what they do when it comes time to vote.

A good example of that involves Georgia's two senators, Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, and their approach to spending about $2 billion of your money.

The two senators, especially Chambliss, have worked hard this summer to take nearly $2 billion out of the defense budget and earmark it for the building of more F-22 fighter jets at Marietta's Lockheed Martin plant.

...

Here are some criticisms of the F-22 that come not from left-wing commentators, but from weapons experts and Pentagon analysts:

- The F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour it spends in the skies. It costs nearly $50,000 an hour to fly one, which is much higher than the cost of the jet it is supposed to replace.

- The F-22 is a "stealth" fighter that is supposed to be hard for radar to detect. Its radar-absorbing metallic skin is the main cause of maintenance problems, including problems flying in rainy weather.

- In the period from October 2008 to May of this year, only 55 percent of the F-22s deployed have been available to fulfill their missions guarding U.S. airspace.

- The F-22's radar-absorbing canopy has been a source of problems, with a stuck hatch imprisoning a pilot in 2006. The canopy doesn't last more than 18 months because it loses its strength.

- Canopy visibility for the F-22 also declines quickly and the canopy has to be refurbished at a cost of $120,000 after an average of 331 hours of flying time rather than the stipulated 800 hours.

(Excerpt) Read more at newstimes.augusta.com ...


TOPICS: Georgia; U.S. Senate
KEYWORDS: chambliss; f22; isakson

1 posted on 08/12/2009 3:48:16 AM PDT by Pan_Yan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
All this is an endorsement of these two for their constituents. Who benefits? Their districts. Who gets more money? Their districts. Regardless of what people in the other 433 congressional districts believe, these reps are responsible for money and jobs in their districts.

If you want congressmen booted out, you need to show their districts why they should be booted, not why they should be kept.

2 posted on 08/12/2009 3:58:41 AM PDT by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
What a stupid article.
This fool is actually suggesting that the stupid, wasteful, moronic, open to corruption and fraud cash-for-clunkers program, should be supported at the expense of the superb F-22 fighters which guarantee American air supremacy for decades to come?
What is he smoking?
3 posted on 08/12/2009 4:03:28 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
What a stupid article.
This fool is actually suggesting that the stupid, wasteful, moronic, open to corruption and fraud cash-for-clunkers program, should be supported at the expense of the superb F-22 fighters which guarantee American air supremacy for decades to come?
What is he smoking?
4 posted on 08/12/2009 4:03:35 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Quiller

Actually, Chambliss and Isakson are senators, not representatives.


5 posted on 08/12/2009 4:04:58 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

The fiscally wise thing would be to can both programs.

Please don’t tell me that 191 F-22’s is a make or break difference over the current 179.

Republicans are as guilty as the Democrats when it comes to handing out (corporate) welfare.

Sorry, Defense Spending IS NOT A G/D JOBS PROGRAM!!!


6 posted on 08/12/2009 4:06:39 AM PDT by Boiling Pots (Angry Mobster)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: The Pack Knight

Yes, and we could use about 98 more just like them!


7 posted on 08/12/2009 4:07:01 AM PDT by Redleg Duke ("Don't fire unless fired upon, but it they mean to have a war, let it begin here." J Parker, 1775)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Quiller
I don't think they necessarily need to get booted. Both of them are fairly reliable conservative votes. But unfortunately they fit right in with their colleagues in the senate. There's a famous picture of the two of them yukking it up with Kennedy and Chertoff as they worked on the amnesty bill together several years ago. Chambliss loves pork. He did in the house and kept right on truckin when he moved up. Isakson let a reporter this week talk him into calling Governor Palin’s ‘death panel’ comment “nuts”. In 2008 Chambliss got what should have been a wake up call when a large chunk of his base voted 3rd party and he had to win a runoff. Isakson might need a reminder of that next year.
8 posted on 08/12/2009 4:07:27 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (There are no moderates on the SCOTUS. Either the founders wrote it or they didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan

I’m not completely sold on the F-22, but at least it’s the sort of thing our government is SUPPOSED to be spending money on. “Cash for clunkers” is nothing but bribing voters with their own money.


9 posted on 08/12/2009 4:09:29 AM PDT by The Pack Knight (Duty, Honor, Country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Chambliss loves pork. <

So do voters, actually (when it's their OWN pork, that is.)

10 posted on 08/12/2009 4:10:40 AM PDT by Quiller (When you're fighting to survive, there is no "try" -- there is only do, or do not.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe
What is he smoking?

He's a journalist. He can't help himself.

These guys are in one of the safest states for a republican in the country. They should be leaders for conservative values and integrity. Unfortunately, they go native and then try to buy their votes like all the others.

11 posted on 08/12/2009 4:12:31 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (There are no moderates on the SCOTUS. Either the founders wrote it or they didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Boiling Pots
I am not worried about job programs.
I am more interested in this country getting enough F-22’s to guarantee our air supremacy in case get into a nasty war with armed to the teeth countries like North Korea, Iran or China.
We need those F-22’s.
0bama squanders $1.3 Trillion on Pork in just 7 months, and he claims he is “saving money” by cancelling $2 billion in F-22 orders? That leaves a massive $1,298 Billion he's squandered on ACORN, saving some mouse in Nancy Pelosi’s district, rewarding various loony left outfits that helped him win, and every kind of pork known to man. Who's fooling who here?
Gimme a break!
12 posted on 08/12/2009 4:15:01 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Since you mentioned it and I had it from the other thread on these my esteemed Senators.


13 posted on 08/12/2009 4:17:15 AM PDT by doodad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
I commend them for voting for the F-22’s which I strongly support.
And commend them even more for voting against the stupid cash for clunkers program. That's what conservatives should be voting like. Strong on defence, and strongly against stupid programs like cash for clunkers. It's really so annoying that 0bama has wasted $2 billion on cash for clunkers, at the expense of the superb F-22's.
14 posted on 08/12/2009 4:20:47 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SmokingJoe

How accurate are the criticisms of the F-22 in the article? I know the author just cut and pasted them from somewhere else, but the program seems to have some real detractors on both sides of the political spectrum.


15 posted on 08/12/2009 4:31:05 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (There are no moderates on the SCOTUS. Either the founders wrote it or they didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
How accurate are the criticisms of the F-22 in the article? I know the author just cut and pasted them from somewhere else, but the program seems to have some real detractors on both sides of the political spectrum.

Accurate, but possibly with some misrepresentation. For example, the AH-64 Apache helicopter gunship requires about 30 hours of labor hours per flight hour as well, and I think the F-15 is higher. While 55% of the force is available to guard US airspace, since there are a "limited" number of F-22s that may be a factor of not having enough to cover Air Defense patrols, training and testing.

The F-22 is a revolutionary capability that uses bleeding edge technology. It *is* going to be expensive. Very expensive. The question is whether the advantages conveyed by the technology are worth the expense.
16 posted on 08/12/2009 4:39:30 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
Left wing talking points.
You can find something to criticize about any weapons program if you have a political agenda.
What matters is, there is no fighter anywhere on the planet, that can hold a candle to the F-22’s. It blows everything else out of the water, and gives this country an unassailable lead in air supremacy, which of course is something that the communist in the White House can't stand.
17 posted on 08/12/2009 4:40:30 AM PDT by SmokingJoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
The F-22 is a revolutionary capability that uses bleeding edge technology. It *is* going to be expensive. Very expensive. The question is whether the advantages conveyed by the technology are worth the expense.

And that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? We have the same issue with the submarine Seawolf. It's a huge leap in technology over it's predecessors, but it's also extremely expensive, which is why they only built two. My question isn't how effective is it in combat, but how often can it make it to combat? I seriously doubt that the Seawolf and Jimmy Carter will be able to maintain a very good op tempo later in life since so many of their parts are unique to that class. And the brunt of the load will continue to be carried by Los Angeles class subs since they aren't building the new Virginia class at nearly the rate the old boats are being retired. Are we looking at the same issue with the Raptor?

18 posted on 08/12/2009 5:12:34 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (There are no moderates on the SCOTUS. Either the founders wrote it or they didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pan_Yan
And the brunt of the load will continue to be carried by Los Angeles class subs since they aren't building the new Virginia class at nearly the rate the old boats are being retired. Are we looking at the same issue with the Raptor?

Not really. Even with worse-case attrition we'll probably always have at least 150 Raptors. For the last decade or so we've had less than 100 B-1Bs, B-52s, F-117s (which, admittedly, used a lot of off-the-shelf parts), E-2s/C-2s, EA-6Bs and the like. We have only 20 B-2As. So it's not really an apples/apples comparison - we (USA) have LOTS of experience operating what could be considered "silver bullet" aircraft inventories.

The issue that arises is whether the alternative ends up being less expensive. The Seawolfs were never intended to be a true "replacement" for the entire LA class, but more of a compliment/partial replacement. When the Seawolfs turned out to be so "expensive" a decision was made to truncate the class at three (Seawolf, Connecticut and their half-sister Carter) and move to a cheaper design, the NSSN which is now entering service in numbers as the Virginia Class.

Yet the VA Class isn't all that much cheaper, even when inflation is factored in and certainly when development costs are factored in as well, than the Seawolfs. Would the US have been better off just continuing with the Seawolf class, which would have resulted in more in-service boats - today - than Seawolf + VA classes combined?

The "alternative" to the F-22 may be longer in-service dates for the F-15 in the interim, but in the long-term it's the F-35. From a multi-role perspective, the F-35 is the be better aircraft, since for air2ground it can carry 2000lb class weapons internally (the F-22 can only carry up to 1000lb class weapons). But it'll definitely be inferior from a pure air2air perspective. And my guess is that even built in numbers (over 2000 are planned) it'll end up being pretty close to the F-22 on a flyaway cost basis.

Personally, I think the solution to this is to export the F-22 to a limited number of allies. Specifically Japan (which is practically begging for them) and Australia (which has expressed an interest). Not only would that get more aircraft out there, but into the hands of allies that are facing the most-likely common threat that the F-22 would face (ChiComs), the USAF can then do what it has done with the F-15E (which had its procurement capped at a relatively low number as well) ... tack additional aircraft onto the foreign orders in order to further grow the force.
19 posted on 08/12/2009 8:41:15 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
The Seawolfs were never intended to be a true "replacement" for the entire LA class, but more of a compliment/partial replacement.

The Seawolf was a bridge to the Virginia class. The Seawolf is the last of the cold war systems. The Virginia was supposed to be the post cold war system - smaller, cheaper, slower, deeper. Unfortunately what was on the original drawing board got bigger and more complex each step to the contract being signed. At the same time the Virginia was being designed we were accelerating the decommissioning. The USS Baltimore was only in service 16 years and it's reactor was at the most reactive time in core life when it went to the yard.

Thanks for the info on the F-22 and F-35.

20 posted on 08/12/2009 8:54:04 AM PDT by Pan_Yan (There are no moderates on the SCOTUS. Either the founders wrote it or they didn't.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

However, if all 750 F22s were built then the cost would fall to $70 millon per - and further still if export to Japan, Autrailia and Israel were permitted. See “The F-22 - Why Does This Surprise You, General?” on FR.


21 posted on 08/14/2009 8:57:53 AM PDT by PIF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
GOP Club
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson