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

Skip to comments.

Pentagon to end F-22 production
The Hill ^ | April 6, 2009 | Roxana Tiron

Posted on 04/06/2009 10:52:31 AM PDT by jazusamo

In a blow to Lockheed Martin, the Pentagon has decided to purchase to end funding of the F-22 fighter jet.

The decision by Defense Secretary Robert Gates will rouse widespread opposition in Congress and is likely to bog down the 2010 budget approval process, with F-22 supporters maneuvering to secure more money.

The Pentagon will fund four of the radar-evading stealth fighters in the upcoming 2009 emergency war-spending request, but those additional aircraft will do little to keep the production line in Marietta, Ga., open beyond 2011. Lockheed Martin is the main contractor for the F-22, each of which costs about $140 million.

Gates announced the decision at a press conference on the Defense budget on Monday afternoon.

No money will be requested in the fiscal 2010 budget, congressional and industry sources familiar with the budget briefings told The Hill. Gates has been making calls to the chairmen of the congressional defense committees.

The final F-22 of the 183 currently on order will be delivered at the end of 2011. Building another four would keep the line open for only a few months beyond that end date.

Lockheed Martin and its subcontractors, including Boeing, in recent weeks have stepped up their campaign to keep the production line open. They argue that 25,000 people work directly for the 1,000 suppliers of the F-22 in 44 states, and another 70,000 indirectly owe their jobs to this program.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: 0bama; 0bamaisfailing; 65grendeldotcom; aerospace; agenda; airdominance; bho44; bhodod; defensespending; f22; gop2010; idiocracy; ignoranceisstrength; lockheedmartin; palin2012; raptor; rookie; secdefgates; usaf
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 501-506 next last
To: traderrob6
Pardon me if this has already been answered but how many F-22s do we presently have on inventory.

Not sure. If I had to guess I would say about 40.

201 posted on 04/06/2009 12:33:35 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Thunder90

Are you serious?! The F-35 is going to be cut too?! Not too surprised, quite frankly, but this is not good for my job prospects. Oversaturating the market with fat old AE’s. Oh god. I think you guys’ blame should be placed on Gates more than Obama, though.


202 posted on 04/06/2009 12:33:53 PM PDT by TheBeholder1805 (wowzers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: hattend

203 posted on 04/06/2009 12:33:53 PM PDT by WVKayaker ( Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. - Arthur C. Clarke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 194 | View Replies]

To: 5thGenTexan

Very good point. I saw that in last night’s pre-release and blew a fuse over Sen. Chambliss basing his argument on jobs alone.


204 posted on 04/06/2009 12:33:57 PM PDT by papasmurf (Trow da' bum out!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Steelerfan

It is disastrous that we could be forfeiting our air and naval superiority for Obambi and his socialist programs. There are just too many in our country looking for the free handout and don’t believe our freedom comes at a price.


205 posted on 04/06/2009 12:34:32 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

believe me I have insight on the Russians and they do have a military which can still function and they are building up their military right now.


206 posted on 04/06/2009 12:34:54 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide
and the F-22 is superfluous to our War on Terror.

If you served then you might know that the military is for protecting the United States. You might also know that the United States has more enemies and potential foes than just some mideast terrorists. If you ever took an oath to protect and defend the United States you might think about that and try to be less petty with the inter-service rivalry. They Air Force's job is to do their job, and not to 'care about the other services'.
207 posted on 04/06/2009 12:37:08 PM PDT by TalonDJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

No I was involved with intel so when you say Russia and China are not a threat and that Russia does not have their air power then you are way wrong .

I’ve worked with them , seen how they work and believe me they are still a threat

they are building their military right now and you think we should not keep up

Now sure if you are all serious in your posts but I will however read your past history to see


208 posted on 04/06/2009 12:38:11 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide

No I was involved with intel so when you say Russia and China are not a threat and that Russia does not have their air power then you are way wrong .

I’ve worked with them , seen how they work and believe me they are still a threat

they are building their military right now and you think we should not keep up

Now sure if you are all serious in your posts but I will however read your past history to see


209 posted on 04/06/2009 12:38:18 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 200 | View Replies]

To: AirForceMom

Hugs. This effects my future husband’s income, drastically. We’re just the little people. I’m self sufficient, but what about his kids, and his sister who is in a nursing home cerebrial palsy whom he supports. And his other sister and her family... .

None of whom are on welfare, none of whom are on the government’s dole.


210 posted on 04/06/2009 12:38:44 PM PDT by hoe_cake (" 'We the people' tell the government what to do, it doesn't tell us." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GBA

I may be a year or so off on when production will be ready. I apologize for not having all the facts. Most of what I read about the F-35 was last year and I’m going off my memory here. I’m just very wary of any defense project when it’s biggest defense is that there are a lot of jobs at stake. You might be right, but I’m going to hold my powder until I read more about this. There have been many times in the past when weapons systems have been forced on services for bad reasons. Remember the Sgt York? If not, read about stupid weapons systems that we should have never spent a dime on.


211 posted on 04/06/2009 12:38:44 PM PDT by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: papasmurf

To you civilians, we in the military (I’m retired now) know that the U.S. Air Force generally performs very poorly in joint operations. It’s not that the Air Force isn’t good flying airplanes all by themselves in the desert, it’s that they nevery communicate well with the other branches.

It’s not classified, but in the mid-1990’s while enforcing the “No Fly” zone in Iraq and Air Force F-16 shot down two Army helicopters carrying 22 of our men. No one cares? The AF guys just say “Shit Happens” and flies on? That’s how it seemed to go down.

My question is? Can’t the idiot pilots in the Air Force operate their IFF buttons? Are they than unconcerned about the other services?

I also remember watching a replay of footage shot from an AF cockpit during Gulf War One where an AF hotshot blasted an Army transport vehicle and then, after the fact, said “Uh oh, I sure hope that wasn’t one of our own.”

All, repeat I say ALL, of the flying duties handled by the U.S. Navy, which flies at least as many hours as the Air Force. The Air Force personnel are routinely getting soldiers killed by friendly fire because they just aren’t interested in the other services and they don’t want to be.

That’s why I said the Air Force should be limited to testing new aircraft in the desert where they won’t hurt American soldiers.

Got it now?


212 posted on 04/06/2009 12:40:00 PM PDT by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 198 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide
I just think the Air Force doesn’t care about the other services and the F-22 is superfluous to our War on Terror.

You tell that to the ground grunts who have come under air attacks because we lost air superiority in some future war.

213 posted on 04/06/2009 12:40:10 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Red Steel

We’ll never lose air superiority.


214 posted on 04/06/2009 12:40:45 PM PDT by Professor_Leonide (I said to the young man who showed me a photo, "Who can ever be sure what is behind a mask?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

To: Ramius

A lot of that R&D effort went a long way towards helping get the F-35 Lightning into the air in a rather short time span. By this, I mean the conventional version of the F-35, not the carrier or jump-jet variants.


215 posted on 04/06/2009 12:40:46 PM PDT by Stonewall Jackson (Put your trust in God; but mind to keep your powder dry. - Oliver Cromwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: east1234
That sounds so DU; illogical, simple minded, and defeatist. What makes you think a war with China turns into a nuke fest? You really think the leaders of China want to rule over radioactive waste?

What the heck is defeatist about being realistic about the likelihood that a full scale military confrontation of two massive nuclear powers would rapidly escalate into a full-blown nuclear war? Do you really think that the Chinese leaders are sane enough to withhold their most potent weapons at the very moment they're going down to defeat? They would have nothing to lose, since they would be dead or defeated either way.

What's really simple minded is the belief that full scale war between nuclear powers could ever be conducted with some medieval-style code of honor or enlightened self-interest that would keep nuclear weapons from the battlefield.

216 posted on 04/06/2009 12:40:48 PM PDT by tyke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: GBA

just read this posters past posts since he just joined and my word, he talks about that WW 2 was wrong and gained nothing, that the he describes the show thrower is the poor shoe thrower who got 3 years jail for it


217 posted on 04/06/2009 12:41:40 PM PDT by manc (Marriage is between a man and a woman no sick queer sham--- end racism end affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: hattend
Hope that the new president in ‘12 restarts the line (ala Reagan and the B1).

Amen to that and we sure as heck better have a new president then!

218 posted on 04/06/2009 12:41:47 PM PDT by jazusamo (But there really is no free lunch, except in the world of political rhetoric,.: Thomas Sowell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Professor_Leonide
We’ll never lose air superiority.

Oh, ok. /sarc

219 posted on 04/06/2009 12:42:11 PM PDT by Red Steel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 214 | View Replies]

To: flowerplough
Remote Piloting looks to be able to soon relegate many stand-off “weapons platforms” like the F-22 and B-2 to standby duty, and ready reserve

Remotely piloted and auto piloted are wonderful weapons systems. They are cheap, precise and they do not put a friendly human at risk. Their problem is .....

They rely upon satellites. Satellites that may suddenly disappear in a real shooting war. Of course the F-22, B-2 and all those smart bombs also rely upon satellites.

220 posted on 04/06/2009 12:42:20 PM PDT by Jeff Gordon (I don't trust Obama with my country. Do you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 181-200201-220221-240 ... 501-506 next last

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