Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

GOP control of House could revive the F-22 fight
AJC/Political Insider ^ | 11/13/2010 | Jim Galloway

Posted on 11/13/2010 5:47:29 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld

The takeover of the U.S. House by Republicans could prompt a revival of the fight for additional funding for the Marietta-built F-22 stealth fighter, U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey said Friday.

U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, a Republican from Marietta. AJC file “This isn’t just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country,” Gingrey said in a telephone interview.

But Gingrey conceded that concerns over spending and the federal deficit could make the funding battle a difficult one. The planes have a price tag of $120 million each. “We would have to look at it with a very, very sharp pencil,” he said. “It would take some negotiating.”

Suggestions from the debt commission, made public this week, may hold some possibilities A three-year freeze on federal pay and a 10 percent reduction of the federal workforce “are things that really get me excited,” the Marietta congressman said.

(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.ajc.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; US: Georgia
KEYWORDS: aerospace; airsuperiority; bridgetonowhere; f22; f22raptor; georgia; raptor; ronpaul; usaf; uscongress

1 posted on 11/13/2010 5:47:32 PM PST by ErnstStavroBlofeld
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Not the first time a Republican has put the Defense of the Nation a Priority


2 posted on 11/13/2010 5:54:50 PM PST by reefdiver ("Let His day's be few And another takes His office")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

It would free up some money if they freeze all federal workers salaries for as many years it takes to make them paid like the private sector.


3 posted on 11/13/2010 5:55:17 PM PST by omega4179 (Quem deus vult perdere, dementat prius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

@ 120 mil/each, that’s almost two birds for each day Obama traveled overseas.


4 posted on 11/13/2010 5:55:32 PM PST by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your Change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
I strongly support Defense.
I love the F-22.

But we need to cut spending. Now is NOT the time to find things that Obama cut and say "Let's bring that back! It's only a few billion!!"

We have nukes. If a war starts while we take a hiatus from strong defense spending, I say we use 'em.

5 posted on 11/13/2010 5:56:25 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

At least one assembly line for the F-22 has already converted to the F-35. I’m sorry, it is a nice aircraft, but we need to let it go.


6 posted on 11/13/2010 5:58:51 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

F-22=JOBS... its that simple.

Cut spending elsewhere, like the department of education, the post office the department of redundancy, department...


7 posted on 11/13/2010 6:01:06 PM PST by The Magical Mischief Tour
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
"But Gingrey conceded that concerns over spending and the federal deficit could make the funding battle a difficult one. The planes have a price tag of $120 million each."

The cost of Obama's trip last week would have funded 16 aircraft.

8 posted on 11/13/2010 6:05:37 PM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Just ground Mooo-Shelle saying no more trips period! You can buy 24 aircrat over the next two years with the trips she didn’t get to take shopping and touring at our expense. / sarc


9 posted on 11/13/2010 6:07:51 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
It would free up some money if they freeze all federal workers salaries for as many years it takes to make them paid like the private sector.

All federal employees? Including the military?

Besides I think that the idea is to cut spending and reduce government, not switch current spending from one area to another.

10 posted on 11/13/2010 6:11:57 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jet Jaguar

Ping.


11 posted on 11/13/2010 6:11:57 PM PST by Army Air Corps (Four fried chickens and a coke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
F-22=JOBS... its that simple.

What about those who say the Department of Education and the Post Office = JOBS. It's that simple for them, too.

12 posted on 11/13/2010 6:13:56 PM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: The Magical Mischief Tour
F-22=JOBS... its that simple.

"Jobs" are a terrible reason to build the F-22. We might as well pay people to dig ditches and fill them back up again if that's the reason.

National defense, on the other hand, is a perfectly valid reason - and the *only* valid reason - to build them.

13 posted on 11/13/2010 6:18:53 PM PST by xjcsa (Ridiculing the ridiculous since the day I was born.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: omega4179
I'll jump on that bandwagon - federal unions and their liberal puppet masters love the idea of wealth redistribution, so let's give 'em what they want: public sector/private sector income parity. Let's see how appealing that gummint GS position is in 2020 when they get hired on at Walmart's 2010 employee wages.

"But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away, for his name is Obama."

14 posted on 11/13/2010 6:26:16 PM PST by Viking2002 (2012 - NO PRISONERS! NO QUARTER!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Army Air Corps

Good news.

Thanks for the ping.


15 posted on 11/13/2010 6:38:16 PM PST by Jet Jaguar (*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

The F-22 could be kept alive WITHOUT undue cost, if Congress would allow LM to sell it to our NATO allies, and Japan and Korea.

CommieCrate Congress deliberately prohibited F-22 exports, even to our most trusted allies. Why?


16 posted on 11/13/2010 6:46:51 PM PST by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: J Edgar

The technology in the F-22 is too sensitive. We cannot sell it.


17 posted on 11/13/2010 7:01:10 PM PST by ClearCase_guy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Russia is proposing to develop their 5G fighter jointly with India, so a lot of the technology is going to be out their.

If you are talking avionics and flight control, these components can be made vanilla version for export.
It seems possible that a cost reduction program could also help take the bite out of cost.
I’m just suggesting, since I haven’t worked on F22 and don’t know any relevent details.


18 posted on 11/13/2010 7:17:57 PM PST by J Edgar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer
The F-22 is stealthier, is a better fighter and has longer range than the F-35. The F-22 is operation, the F-35 is not. The F-22 is pretty much the same price as the F-35A. The Russians are developing a fifth generation fighter and the Russians and Chinese have very good 4.5 generation fighters.

72 additional F-22s, upgraded to latest standards would be very useful.

19 posted on 11/13/2010 7:20:29 PM PST by rmlew (You want change? Vote for the most conservative electable in your state or district.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
The planes have a price tag of $120 million each.

Price per generally depends on how many you make. The B-2 was (1980) $2 billion per only because they cut back from 132 to 22. The unit cost excluding development ($39B) was only (1980) $400 mil. The $40 billion "saved" then and added to the deficit would have been almost entirely recouped in inflation now and the planes would be available for decades more against China.
20 posted on 11/13/2010 7:20:56 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
What about those who say the Department of Education and the Post Office = JOBS. It's that simple for them, too.

And I AGREE with them. The Post Office and Schools should be PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS with no government involvement anymore. Sell them off.
21 posted on 11/13/2010 7:26:11 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
A deal and a compromise should be made. If the Department of Defense can expeditiously and quickly conclude this war, then money will be available for F22’s and F35’s. If the war drags on as the stalemate that it clearly is, then no money will be available.

The AF has purchased enough F22’s for the time being. We can't put more eggs into that 500 million each basket. Instead of stimulus spending I would have much preferred the money be spent on defense, but now we are out of money to spend and cuts are necessary.

22 posted on 11/13/2010 7:26:51 PM PST by Tea Party Reveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rmlew
I'm not going to disagree with your technical details, I am sure they are correct. And I am also concerned about the budget cuts and how to keep our technical edge in space, military and other high tech areas. But there are some overriding concerns.

The national debt is killing us more effectivly than any foriegn military can right now. It is our number one national security issue. The focus needs to be on cutting the debt.

The congressman feels he can "pay for" the extra F-22s with cuts to other programs, but there are two problems with that. The first is that if he actually attempts this, then the movement to cut earmarks and pork is dead already, because if he gets his pet project brought back from the dead, then all cooperation is off the table for other cuts to anyone else's pet project. Second, if he can pay for this project with budget cuts in other areas, then we can also not spend the money at all and reduce the deficit even more.

23 posted on 11/13/2010 8:05:49 PM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

How do military salaries and benefits stack up against the private sector? I don’t know, but as an anecdote, the people I’ve known who were in for a while seemed to be doing quite well vis-a-vis their neighbors. The GI Bill could certainly be too generous. Our servicemen are (generally) great folks, but in the current environment they might also be overpaid, just like any other government employee.


24 posted on 11/13/2010 8:17:27 PM PST by Trod Upon (Obama: Making the Carter malaise look good. Misery Index in 3...2...1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
All federal employees? Including the military?

Jimmy Effin' Peanut Farmer did it to me when I was in the military.

Double digit inflation, our dollar plumeting, making living in Europe even more unaffordable, and good old Peanut D!ck says "let us set the example by holding the line on military wages."

25 posted on 11/13/2010 8:31:28 PM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

The F-22 will be in the next Congressional budget like I’ve been saying for over a year now...since I’ve known the Dims would lose Congress.


26 posted on 11/13/2010 8:41:12 PM PST by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

$120 mill sounds a little low. The numbers I’ve heard that Rand has put together have stated that to restart production and build another 75 planes would come in at over $200 mill per copy. Heck, a guy can spend a day seeing India on that kind of money.


27 posted on 11/13/2010 8:57:04 PM PST by bereanway (I'd rather have 40 Marco Rubios than 60 Arlen Specters)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Vince Ferrer

we need to keep it on the back burner for the time being with the understanding that it will be produced again some day. perhaps they can call it the phoenix then ? It’s the baddest fighter jet of all time and it’s ours. You don’t let that go. You improve upon it.


28 posted on 11/13/2010 9:34:45 PM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Tea Party Reveler

I wonder how much money we would have for F22s if we pulled out of Korea? Japan maybe?


29 posted on 11/13/2010 9:39:37 PM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: RC one

The US needs to have a presence there to deter North Korea and China.


30 posted on 11/13/2010 10:47:46 PM PST by ari-freedom (Islam is at war against America, while America is at the mall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld

Unfortunately, thanks to the Democrats and Obama... the F-22 production line was shut down.

So to get it back up and running would cost quite a chunk of change... on top of the cost of each extra fighter.


31 posted on 11/13/2010 11:04:21 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Viking2002

Well, a starting GS-1 makes $17,803 (pre-tax).

That’s pretty close to Wal-Mart wages already.

Here’s the 2010 GS pay table:
http://www.opm.gov/oca/10tables/pdf/gs.pdf


32 posted on 11/13/2010 11:08:30 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Trod Upon

Here is the 2010 military pay chart. Mind you, this is for people whose job is to potential *DIE* for you.

http://militarypay.defense.gov/pay/bp/paytables/Paytable_2010.pdf

(the table shows monthly salary, not yearly)


33 posted on 11/13/2010 11:13:29 PM PST by gogogodzilla (Live free or die!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

Honestly in the grand scheme of things our fighting forces are of 2ndary important to our nuclear arsenal. If we can’t preserve and upgrade our stockpile and their delivery systems(missiles) it really won’t matter what fighter jets we got.


34 posted on 11/14/2010 3:27:42 AM PST by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
And I AGREE with them. The Post Office and Schools should be PRIVATE SECTOR JOBS with no government involvement anymore. Sell them off.

So why should we resume production of the F-22 just because it means jobs? Shouldn't the private sector be generating those as well?

35 posted on 11/14/2010 6:08:26 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
We have nukes. If a war starts while we take a hiatus from strong defense spending, I say we use 'em.

Yeah, but the UFO guys keep switching them off or retargeting them in the silos; Ours AND the enemy's.

36 posted on 11/14/2010 7:07:34 AM PST by InternetTuffGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ErnstStavroBlofeld
If obama and the dims are correct and the United States is a declining power, then we don't deserve to have the finest aircraft and the world's best weapons systems. The Chinese do.

Canceling the F-22 and eventually building the lower performing, lesser capable F-35 only makes sense. We should surrender our superiority now, rather than use it when we need it, like the good little one world progressives we should strive to be.

After all, why have an assault weapon when a slingshot will do the same job? Besides, assault weapons make people feel uncomfortable and that's just wrong. Haven't learned anything from the lessons our history has tried to teach us?

37 posted on 11/14/2010 7:28:49 AM PST by GBA (Not on our watch!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
So why should we resume production of the F-22 just because it means jobs? Shouldn't the private sector be generating those as well?

The private sector does not buy F-22s.
At least, not without a great expansion of the 2nd Amendment.
38 posted on 11/14/2010 7:59:01 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

Just noticed your user name. heh heh


39 posted on 11/14/2010 8:01:12 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide
The private sector does not buy F-22s.

So...it's up to the government sector to create jobs by buying weapon systems that the Pentagon may or may not need?

40 posted on 11/14/2010 9:19:53 AM PST by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

It is up to you and me to see that the government stays prepared.
Nobody knows what we need until the war breaks out.
Right now we don’t have enough of anything for any war.

And I wouldn’t mind having my own F-22 :-)


41 posted on 11/14/2010 12:05:27 PM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (REPEAL WASHINGTON! -- Islam Delenda Est! -- I Want Constantinople Back. -- Rumble thee forth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

We’re broke. We have to make choices. I would choose to leave Asia and use the savings to focus on the middle east and the F22. South Korea can defend itself. If they’re worried about defending themselves, we have lots of weapons they can buy to help. We’re wasting money and resources in Korea. I would further suggest that neither is it in our economic interest “to deter North Korea and China”. The more agressive they become, the more weapons we sell.


42 posted on 11/14/2010 12:12:53 PM PST by RC one (WHAT!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: RC one

1) we’re not that broke
2) North Korea already has nukes but we should focus on a bunch of cave dwellers in Toyota pickups?
3) We don’t need the F22 to fight the taliban. The F22 is to deal with countries with a developed air force....such as North Korea and China.


43 posted on 11/14/2010 2:39:50 PM PST by ari-freedom (Islam is at war against America, while America is at the mall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: gogogodzilla

First off: You need to add in a *lot* of other benefits beyond basic pay rates to get an accurate picture of real compensation. Second: It’s a voluntary force. Nobody out there now lacked the opportunity to consider the risks and do their own cost benefit analysis. Where can you get a better deal right out of high school? And third: Nobody’s dying for me in the Middle East—I’d call them all back tomorrow rather than waste any more blood and treasure on that cesspool. When we pull out, as we eventually will have to, they’re going to run right back into despotism.


44 posted on 11/15/2010 10:40:17 PM PST by Trod Upon (Obama: Making the Carter malaise look good. Misery Index in 3...2...1)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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