Another Day, Another $678 Million Stealth Jet Wrecked

House Less Willing Than Senate to Give up on F-22

Of course they are. Parts for the plane are probably manufactured in each of the 435 districts and jobs will be lost. Why don't they use the $1.8 billion for a job training program that costs $20K per person (if 90,000 jobs are lost nationwide)?

58-40!

I'm in shock...

The Senate voted Tuesday against continuing production of F-22 fighter planes, backing President Obama’s high-stakes decision to end the program.

The vote was a major victory for the White House and makes it unlikely, though not impossible, for the F-22 to survive.

Following the vote, the Pentagon reacted: “Secretary [Robert M.] Gates appreciates the careful consideration senators have given to this matter of national security and he applauds their bipartisan support to complete the F-22 program at 187 planes. He understands that for many members this was a very difficult vote, but he believes that the Pentagon cannot continue with business as usual when it comes to the F-22 or any other program in excess to our needs. Today’s vote is an important step in that direction and the Secretary looks forward to working closely with lawmakers as President Obama’s budget is debated in the coming months.”

White House gains momentum in F-22 fight

It’s a fight some Democrats would argue that Obama was foolish to make, raising the stakes unnecessarily with early veto threats. But the F-22 termination is Gates’s signature issue in changing the Pentagon budget.

At noon today we will finally see the outcome. Will the Senate vote to spend almost two billion dollars on F-22s that the DoD did not even request? It is nice to see Sen. McCain once again battling pork and leading the anti-F-22 wing of the GOP. It is also disgusting that Sen. Saxby Chambliss, the man who received five deferments during Vietnam and crucified Max Cleland - a Vietnam veteran who lost three limbs - as soft on defense during his first Senate election, is once again all for buying anything a defense company creates so that he can seem strong on defense, something he obviously wasn't very into during his formative years and has been trying to make up for during his political career by supporting the war machine wholeheartedly.

F-22 Showdown; National Guard Officer on Joint Chiefs of Staff?

Secretary Gates (pbuh) said at the Economic Club of Chicago on July 16, “If we can’t get this right, what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing defense business as usual.”

Hopefully, President Obama will back him up with a veto if need be, like he says he will.

On another note, why on earth should the National Guard Bureau get a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff? Are we permanently federalizing the entire National Guard? Who will they represent; the Soldiers and Airmen that are currently federalized (there isn't a such thing as a Navy National Guard... wouldn't that allow for more influence of the Army and Air Force on the president?) Here is what CQ wrote:

Give the National Guard more clout inside the Pentagon by giving the National Guard chief a seat on the Joint Chiefs of Staff and budgetary power to buy equipment for domestic missions. The measure, by Christopher S. Bond , R-Mo., would also hand to governors tactical control of federal troops responding to an emergency inside their state or territory

Now if the government could scrap the Joint Strike Fighter like the article alludes to and prosecute Sen. Dodd for his scandalous actions so he shuts up about defense industrial complex jobs, we could be in business...

Defense Bills Defy Obama’s First Veto Threat

Among the things the Senate Armed Services Committee voted for that the administration didn't want are:

1. 7 F-22s
2. Development of an alternative engine in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
3. 9 extra F-18s
4. A 3.4 percent salary increase compared to a 2.9 percent increase requested by the administration - this is how the pork proponents will undoubtedly pitch their plan. "We are for a bigger pay increase, you aren't!"

1st Quarter Financials

Lockheed's profits were down 8.7 percent in the first quarter. They claimed it was because they had higher pension expenses, but I am willing to bet it had something to do with Secretary Gates' (pbuh) attempts to tighten the Air Force's budget belt (e.g. Joint Strike Fighter, cap on F-22 purchases). Or, perhpas the restriction on the use of non-competitive contracts has something to do with it.

Pension Costs Hurt Lockheed Profit

Northrop's first quarter profit rose almost 50 percent.

Northrop's Profit Rises Sharply

Raytheon posted a 14 percent increase in earnings.

Raytheon 1Q Earnings Climb On Broad Sales Growth

Boeing's earnings dropped 47 percent...

Boeing Shares Up Despite Earnings Miss

Saab, who makes parts for both Boeing and Airbus, also took a loss.

Defense Firm Saab Reports Q1 Loss, Cuts 300 Jobs

Gates Seeks Sharp Turn In Spending

Bravo, Mr. Secretary, bravo! Gates has effectively put Congress and the military industrial complex on notice by calling for many of the exact things I have advocated for on this blog for almost a year. Dana Milbank says it best in his article "Pentagon Chief Calls for Cuts; Congress Opens Fire" when talking about the F-22:

The F-22 Raptor fighter can cruise at speeds greater than Mach 1.5 without afterburners. It is virtually invisible to enemies, carries two 1,000-pound missiles and can turn on a dime.

But there is one foe the F-22 was not designed to defeat: Defense Secretary Bob Gates.

By pitching a pared down defense budget, Gates has put the pressure on Congress to approve his recommendations. Gates can argue that he is supporting the troops in combat now, not the defense industry always looking for big government contracts promising to leap ahead over generations of military technology. More MRAPs are needed now and Gates is asking for them. More destroyers, F-22s, and FCS equipment is not needed now, and Gates is axing them. How about that? The U.S. is already spending more than the next top 25 countries' spending on defense combined. Finally, we have a defense secretary who understands that this is a problem.

This budget can also lead to more acceptance of the military in society. Today many veterans go from one insular organization, the military, to another, the defense contracting industry. Because of this budget, perhaps instead of leaving the military and going to work for a defense contractor, good military officers will again be a force in corporate America, just as they were after World War II. They can serve our country in corporate America. Today's corporate America needs military officers with the work ethic and morals to improve industries that have little to do with the military (e.g. automobile industry, financial services industry, etc.). How about a lieutenant general retires and becomes an executive at General Motors, rather than an executive at L-3? Shocking.

Thank you, Mr. Gates. Bravo! Share

Support For Lockheed Joint Fighter is 'Very Strong," Gates Says

The pricetag of this project - $298 billion - will probably double once a contract is signed and suddenly a new technology is developed that absolutely must be added to the F-35. This is one of the many reasons why the bottom-up defense appropriations process must be changed. Instead of the Secretary of Defense telling the service secretaries what their budgets are, at the DoD the Secretaries of the Army, Air Force, and Navy, tell the Secretary of Defense what they budgeted for. Then, minimal cuts are made and the DoD budget, second in size only to the Social Security budget, is given to the president.

Although Secretary of Defense Gates has done a great job and fought the Air Force on numerous occasions, his support for the Joint Strike Fighter goes against all of the reform he has been preaching. The Joint Strike Fighter is the epitome of Air Force excess. Less than three years ago, the F-22 Raptor, which the F-35 is supposed to replace, entered service (December 2005). Now the same company that developed the F-22 (Lockheed Martin) is pitching the F-35 to the Air Force and is gaining traction. At a time where there are two wars going on, emerging near peer competitors with inferior MiG based aircraft, and a flailing economy, the F-35 does not seem to be the correct use of government money. To top this off, what are the chances of air to air combat happening anytime soon? Perhaps we should be focusing on the emerging threat of cyber war or other possible forms of war as we leap into the Fifth Generation?