Know Five Things

The Senate Monday will take up consideration of whether or not to spend $1.7 billion on building more of the controversial F-22 fighter jet next year. Here are the basic facts:

1) Not Built For Today’s Wars

• The United States already has 187 F-22s on hand or on order — a number more than adequate to deal with any likely contingency.
• The F-22 jets were designed for dogfights against Soviet-era fighter planes.
• They have never been used in either the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.
• Also, there’s a problem with the plane’s “skin,” the critical coating that absorbs radar rays. The problem: It’s “vulnerable” to rain. [Washington Post]
• And the “plane’s million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy has also caused problems, with a stuck hatch imprisoning a pilot for hours in 2006 and engineers unable to extend the canopy’s lifespan beyond about 18 months of flying time.” [Washington Post]

2) Needless and Expensive

• Congress decided to end production of the costly F-22 Raptor fighter jet at 187 planes after a debate on the 2009 supplemental war budget earlier this year.
• Shortly after, the House Armed Services Committee stripped $369 million for environmental cleanup from the fiscal 2010 budget to fund an additional 12 F-22s. (But, since each F-22 costs approximately $150 million, the real cost to American taxpayers would be closer to $2 billion.)
• The Senate Armed Services Committee went a step further, providing $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s.
• A new Pentagon study shows the F-22 needs 30 hrs maintenance for every hour it flies, bringing hourly flying cost to $40K. [WP]

3) The Effect On Jobs

• Currently, 24,000 workers are directly employed in producing the F-22 for Lockheed Martin. This number will be reduced to 11,000 by the end of 2011 when the economy is expected to be on more stable ground. However, these losses will be dramatically offset by jobs created by the increase in F-35 production. [CAP]
• The F-35 program, also administered by Lockheed Martin, currently employs 38,000 people. According to Secretary Gates, more than doubling F-35 production in FY2010 will mean adding 44,000 American jobs next year, to bring the total F-35 workforce in that year to 82,000.

4) The Military Doesn’t Want It.

• Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, 2008: “The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater.” [Time]
• In April 2009, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called for ending production of the F-22 with “a blueprint for reorienting U.S. military purchases that calls for more to be spent on immediate battlefield needs and threats while eliminating programs designed in the Cold War-era and those exceeding budget estimates.” [Bloomberg]
• Muddying the waters, however, are some who are still pressing for the planes. On June 9th, Gen. John Corley, head of the Air Force’s Air Combat Command, sent a letter to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R., GA) saying, “In my opinion, a fleet of 187 F-22s puts execution of our current national military strategy at high risk in the near- to mid-term...To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.” [WSJ]

5) Why Congress Won’t Quit It

• In a “surprise move” last month, the House Armed Services Committee is trying to re-add $369 million to the Pentagon’s budget for production of the F-22 jet. [WSJ]
• The plane is constructed of parts from suppliers in 44 states, which means it has strong support from Congress. [Associated Press]
• In January, 200 members of the House and 44 members of the Senate signed letters to President Obama urging him to extend the $62 billion F-22 program. [NY Times]
• An administration ally: Sen. John McCain (R., AZ). According to the Boston Globe, “When the full Senate takes up the defense bill this week, McCain plans to lead an effort to reverse the decision in committee that would add $1.7 billion for 12 additional F-22s next year.” [Boston Globe]
• In June, the White House said it may veto any legislation that contained additional funding for the F-22. Last week, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley reiterated the promise, saying, “The administration…has been very clear that if additional F-22s come through the congressional process that would be grounds for a potential veto.” [WSJ]

Additional Resources

“A Jet Even the Military Doesn’t Want.” Lawrence Korb and Krisila Benson, Center for American Progress, 07-09-09. [CAP]

• Excerpt: “...The F-22 is the most capable air-to-air fighter in the Air Force inventory. Yet it has only limited air-to-ground attack capabilities, which makes it unsuitable for today’s counter-insurgency operations. In fact, the F-22 has never been used in either Iraq or Afghanistan. It was designed to fight next-generation Soviet fighters that never materialized, and, as Defense Secretary Robert Gates has noted, it is nearly useless for irregular warfare....”

“A dog fight Obama seems bound to lose.” Boston Globe, 07/12/09. [Boston Globe]

• Excerpt: “...The ultimate fate of the F-22, however, has wider implications for defense spending, according to military specialists and congressional specialists. If the plane continues to be produced, they predict, other weapon systems that Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates has recommended cutting back could be revived as lawmakers are emboldened to push for their own pet projects...”

“Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings.” Washington Post, 07-10-09. [Washington Post]

• Excerpt: “‘It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure’ that jeopardizes success of the aircraft’s mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist threats.”

Play Audio Clips

• Rep. Barney Frank (D., MA), press call, 06-23-09: “President Obama, with good support from Secretary Gates, has made it clear he’s ready to take on the notion of open-ended military spending and I am of course struck that so many of my colleagues who are worried about the deficit apparently think the Pentagon is funded with Monopoly money that somehow doesn’t count.” [Audio, :23]
• Rep. Barney Frank (D., MA), press call, 06-23-09: “We have a very odd economic philosophy in Washington called Weaponized Keynesianism. It is the view that the government does not create jobs when it funds the building of bridges or important research or retrains workers, but when it builds airplanes that are never going to be used in combat, that is, of course, economic salvation.” [Audio, :40]
• Rep. Barney Frank (D., MA), press call, 06-23-09: “By the way, as i look at it, this is a major assault on the President’s effort to control spending...this will probably be the only combat the F-22 has engaged in or will engage in.” [Audio, :10]
• Rep. Barney Frank (D., MA), press call, 06-23-09: “One way, actually, we might be able to make money to offset this is to have a contest. You said we need more F-22s, no one has told me what we need them for. So I would be prepared to sponsor a contest to see what they need them for and pay the winner somethin’.” [Audio, :15]
• Larry Korb, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress Action Fund, press call, 06-23-09: “Bob Gates, the Secretary of Defense, said even if he had $50 billion more he wouldn’t buy it, so it’s not a question of money. You probably know Gen. Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, along with the Secretary wrote an op-ed in the Post about it, and in the Wish List the Air Force sent up to Congress, this wasn’t in it. So this isn’t a question of civilians overruling the military; even the military is saying they don’t want to do this.” [Audio, :35]