Obama Threatens to Veto His Own Defense Bill Over F-22 Funding

[disorderlyvision]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/13/obama-threatens-veto-defense-f-funding/


It's not every day that a president threatens to veto his own defense spending bill.

But that's the rare position President Obama finds himself taking after senators made an 11th hour addition of $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22 fighter jets whose price tag has ballooned to about $350 million apiece.

The fifth generation fighter jet has been overtaken by the newer F-35, critics argue, and Obama wants to keep with the recommendation of former President George W. Bush and cap the purchase at 187 jets.

The president's not alone in opposing the change. He's also got the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, and his former GOP rival Sen. John McCain -- a war hero himself -- on his side.

But with jobs on the line, other senators are putting up a fight for the F-22.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state would lose at least 2,000 jobs should the cap be imposed, pushed for the seven extra F-22's to be built.

"While the administration is emphasizing winning current conflicts, its stance regarding the F-22 does not adequately account for other kinds of threats," Chambliss said.

But the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time and costs the taxpayer about $44,000 an hour to fly, according to confidential Pentagon test results.

"This plane has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan -- the two wars that we are in," McCain said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to senators Monday to express their dismay at the 11th hour addition.

"We strongly believe that the time has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress sends legislation to the president that requires acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond fiscal year 2009, the secretary of defense will strongly recommend he veto it," the letter said.

Gates earlier said the insertion of more money, into the already $680 billion defense budget, for F-22s posed a "big problem" for him.

Analysts say it would be unprecedented for a defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs to urge the president to veto their own defense bill.

But they, and Obama, have made clear that they view such expenditures as wasteful.

"We do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress," Obama said in a letter Monday to senators.

Meanwhile, another last-minute potential showdown is brewing that could stall the defense bill.

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., told FOX News she plans to introduce an amendment Tuesday that would halt the enforcement of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation for 18 months.

"We are losing some of the best and the brightest when we need them. We have two wars, we have Afghanistan, we have Iraq, we have missions all across the world right now that need the best and the brightest, and I think we shouldn't be limiting ourselves," Gillibrand said.

The amendment would halt the Defense Department from removing any openly gay members of the military from serving for the next 18 months while the administration and the Pentagon review the policy.

[Reason]

I love how no one comments when Obama actually does something good.

[FrankRep]

The F-22 Sets a New Defense Industry Standard for Government Waste (http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5110)


Karen Kwiatkowski | John Birch Society (http://www.jbs.org/)
14 July 2009

A new standard has been set with the F-22 — a standard for government waste by design. The Washington Post reports “The Premier U.S. Fighter Jet has Shortcomings (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews)” with the Washington media’s typical understatement and lack of reflection when it comes to assessing the utter idiocy of the defense spending process.

The F-22 is not now, and has never been, a necessity for American defense. It is not even a necessity for American offense, or for maintenance of the American empire overseas. But the F-22 is critical to the continuation of Lockheed’s gravy train on the backs of millions of increasingly burdened taxpayers in the 50 states.

To understand the history of the F-22 is to recognize a well-known story of defense system acquisition. A decade ago, Ivan Eland wrote for the Cato Institute that the F-22 Raptor should be sent to Jurassic Park (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5027), noting, “The Raptor was intended to combat two futuristic Soviet fighters that were never built.”

Congress, the Pentagon, and Lockheed Martin have missed some important milestones, and not only with the expensive F-22. They apparently missed the peacefull collapse of the Soviet Union over 20 years ago. They apparently didn’t notice that the only enemies the United States has fought since then haven’t had air forces at all, much less a fighter jet capable of air-to-air combat. Wise voices at Cato and elsewhere have continued to make the point that the F-22 is a white elephant—but like the original white elephant, the F-22 is a gift from Congress to the supplicating defense establishment—outrageously expensive to buy, exorbitant to maintain, and utterly useless.

Strangely, the many F-22 shortfalls that U.S. taxpayers will be required to fund in the coming decade include the jet’s inability to operate as designed when it rains and to be used for more than an hour and 40 minutes before experiencing a critical failure. Not being able to fly may actually be a good thing, as the F-22 has an operating cost per hour almost twice that of its F-15 predecessor, at nearly $50,000 an hour.

In retrospect, we should have bought a real white elephant for each member of Congress, each time they voted to fund the F-22. A visual reminder of the magnificent waste would have been far more beneficial to the security of our country than the F-22, and very likely just as intimidating to any potential enemies. Who, by the way, must be chuckling at our defense predicament vis-à-vis the F-22.


Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D., is a retired USAF Lt Col.


SOURCE:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/5110

[Sandman33]

I love how no one comments when Obama actually does something good.

Thats because he's NEVER done anything good worth commenting about.

[Golding]

I love how no one comments when Obama actually does something good.I'll comment.

It is a good thing Obama is vetoing his own bill.

[ctiger2]

He should Veto his position as commander and chief.

[FrankRep]

It is a good thing Obama is vetoing his own bill.

Obama should veto his bills more often.

[Danke]

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It’s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22’s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.

Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.


Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.

Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.


Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.


Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.


Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today’s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft’s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn’t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today’s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF.


F-22 and Chicago Rules
Airforce Magazine editorial produced in full since link is not permanent. In response to recent Washington Post smear.
Chicago Rules: Have you noticed the strangely heavy outbreak of bad F-22 news recently? The timing is convenient for F-22 foes; they face a do-or-die Senate vote this week, so any negativity is welcome. The bad news started Thursday, when USMC Gen. James Cartwright, JCS vice chairman, told a Senate panel about a new Joint Staff-led study--heretofore unknown--validating DOD's plan for 187 F-22s (not 243, USAF's requirement). Next came a punch from US theater commanders; as General Cartwright told it, they didn't want more F-22s as much as they wanted more EW versions of the Navy F/A-18. On Friday came a tiresome Washington Post gut job, titled, "Premier US Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings" (more on which below.) Among the story's sources: "confidential Pentagon test results," "Pentagon officials," "internal [Pentagon] documents," "The Defense Department," "a Defense Department critic of the plane," "other skeptics inside the Pentagon," "Pentagon audits," "two Defense officials with access to internal reports." Hmmm. Do you think DOD might have planted this story? Others have watched this spectacle and drawn their own conclusions. Weekly Standard blogger Michael Goldfarb on Friday posted a story noting how Pentagon leaders have been spanked by Congress on the F-22 recently. "So what does the White House do?" asked Goldfarb. "It goes on offense." It's what happens when you are not winning the argument on the merits.

The F-22, Bagel and a Smear: The Washington Post's putative exposé of the F-22 and all its shortcomings, printed on its front page Friday (and picked up as gospel by various wires and blogs over the weekend), was riddled with inaccuracies, according to the Air Force, Lockheed Martin, and our own investigation. The Post said only 55 percent of the F-22 fleet is available for missions "guarding US airspace," but as we reported recently, the F-22's combat air forces mission capable rates have been climbing slowly but steadily, and inlate June stood at 62.9 percent, according to Air Combat Command. On Friday, Lockheed Martin, maker of the F-22, said in a statement that the MC rate "has improved from 62 percent to 68 percent from 2004-2009 and we are on track to achieve an 85 percent MCR by the time the fleet reaches maturity," or 100,000 hours, which should take place next year. The company also said that the mean time between maintenance--the number of hours an F-22 flies before it needs service--rose from 0.97 hours in 2004 to 3.22 hours in Lot 6 aircraft. The Post claimed a figure of 1.7 hours. Direct maintenance man-hours per flying hour have dropped from 18.1 in 2008 to 10.46 in 2009, "which exceeds the requirement of 12," the company added. The Post used out of date figures from 2004-2008 when the rates were higher because the F-22 was a new system. The Post also trotted out the old school criticism of stealth that it is somehow "vulnerable to rain," but the company noted that the F-22 is "an all-weather fighter and has been exposed to the harshest climates in the world--ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida and Guam--and performed magnificently." The information quoted by the Post "is incorrect," the company said flatly. While the Post led its piece saying that the F-22 costs more to fly per hour than the F-15 it replaces, it didn't say whether it had factored inflation or fuel prices into that cost and neglected to point out that the F-15 has no stealth coatings to maintain. An Air Force public affairs spokeswoman said the Post did not contact the service for comment on the story before publication. The F-22 passed Follow-On Test and Evaluation Testing in 2005, and in FOT&E II, in 2007, USAF's test and evaluation outfit rated the F-22 "effective, suitable, and mission capable," despite the Post's claims that it "flunked" those evaluations. The Post attributed most of its information to unnamed Defense Department sources.
--John A. Tirpak

And the Air Force's Take: The Air Force also objected to the Washington Post's loose interpretation of F-22 statistics, and the paper's portrait of the fighter as overly expensive, unreliable, and ineffective (see above). Generally, according to USAF's analysis of the article, the Post either used outdated data or exaggerated problems that have long since been corrected. The Post quoted a variety of F-22 glitches from Government Accountability Office reports issued seven years ago, when the F-22 was still in development. In a four-page rebuttal provided to the Daily Report of 23 claims the Post made in its hatchet job on the F-22, the Air Force dismissed the Post's claim that the F-22's stealthy skin maintenance issues are somehow due to rain, and the service said that the Post was wrong in saying the trend is that F-22 has gotten harder and more costly to maintain. "Not true," the service said. The rates "have been improving." The Air Force said the Raptor's cost per flying hour is not much greater than that of the F-15--$19,750 vs. $17,465--and the F-22 is a far more powerful and capable machine. The Post had claimed a cost of more than $40,000 per flying hour. Likewise, whereas the Post claimed the fleet had to be retrofitted due to "structural problems," this claim is "misleading," USAF said. Lessons learned from a static test model were applied to production of new aircraft and retrofitted to earlier aircraft; a normal part of the testing and development process. One problem the Air Force owned up to: The F-22 canopy's stealth coatings last only about half as long as they're supposed to. The service said the program has put some fixes into play and "coating life continues to improve." The Air Force also confirmed Lockheed's contention that the mission capable rate had risen over the years to 68 percent fleetwide today.

DOD Plays a Card: The Gates Pentagon has been having a tough time showing how a force of only 187 F-22 fighters will support America's long-standing "two-war" strategy. So--presto!--OSD has solved that and other force planning problems by cutting the strategy itself. In Senate testimony late last week, USMC Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the JCS, said, "the strategy that we are laying out" will be "a departure from the two-major-theater-war construct." DOD opines that it can get by with forces sufficient for only one big conventional war. The numbers of fighters we have, the general went on, "probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two nearly simultaneous peer competitors. We don't see that as the likely; we see that as the extreme." Ipso facto, 187 will be enough. The DOD position is not universally accepted. In a July editorial, AIR FORCE Magazine Editor in Chief Robert Dudney noted the dangers of abandoning the two-war strategy, which has survived every big defense review since 1993. The big problem to be faced can be phrased as a question: Will a President, armed with a force sufficient for only one war, ever take action, knowing that doing so would leave the US naked to a second aggressor in some other part of the world? This is what in the trade is known as "self-deterrence." It would be a huge and perhaps fatal blow to the US practice of global engagement. Every President, Defense Secretary, and JCS Chairman since 1990 thought it was too big a risk to take. Congress will be certain to make its own view known. Stay tuned.

[FrankRep]

U.S. Senate Votes to End Production of F-22 Fighter

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axONLEwy7W2s

[jmdrake]

Does this mean that Obama will have to veto his much beloved anti-first amendment "hate crimes" bill in order to kill the F-22?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0709/25133.html

[NYgs23]

So he's vetoing it over an extra $1.75 billion? Drop in the bucket for him. Penny wise and pound foolish apparently.

[HOLLYWOOD]

So he's vetoing it over an extra $1.75 billion? Drop in the bucket for him. Penny wise and pound foolish apparently.

BINGO! Here's the Winner! NYgs23

Okay, inside the DC Beltway 101... slide of hand, misinformation, disinformation, and diversions, etc...

The F-22 is being replaced by the F-35 Lightening JSF and yes, it's built by the same manufacturer, Locheed Martin.

So they cut $1.75 BILLION and ADD $246 BILLION... lol!


here's the link if you want to read the F-35 budget, but as you can see... the Military Industrial Complex grows more and more each year.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL30563.pdf


The F-35 program is the department of Defense’s (DOD’s) largest weapon procurement program in terms of total estimated acquisition cost. Current DOD plans call for acquiring a total of 2,456 JSFs for the Air Force, Marine Corps, and Navy at an estimated total acquisition cost (as of December 31, 2007) of about $246 billion in constant (i.e., inflation-adjusted) FY2009 dollars