Obama proposes to cut funds to the F-22 and other military projects.

[Azure]

Okay, first of all, I already support cutting back the Pentagon budget, provided no US troops are in combat, and it done the right way. This isn't be done the RIGHT way.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ent-war-needs/

Among the programs that might be targeted are littoral combat ships, the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter and certain missile defense systems.

But, according to this article, there are over 25,000 jobs in the United States that directly or indirectly work with the F-22. Thats a lot of people that are going to be laid off.

WASHINGTON, April 6 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The International Association
of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) today denounced the decision by U.S.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates to end funding for the F-22, the
next-generation fighter aircraft that would have assured U.S. air superiority
for years to come.

"Not only is the decision to cut funding for the F-22 shortsighted militarily,
but our economy can ill afford to disperse the thousands of aerospace jobs
required to design, construct and maintain aircraft of this caliber," said IAM
President Tom Buffenbarger. "We simply cannot afford to cannibalize our
national defense to repair damage caused by reckless financial institutions
and greed-crazed corporate executives."

More than 2,000 Lockheed Martin workers, many represented by the IAM, assemble
the F-22 Raptor at the company's facility in Cobb County, Georgia. In addition
to jobs directly related to production and assembly, as many as 25,000 jobs

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090406


Lockheed claims around 95,000 people are involved in the project.

Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed Martin is trying to continue production of the F-22 fighter jet, the most expensive aircraft in U.S. history, as the Obama administration reviews weapons programs for possible cuts.
During the past three weeks, Lockheed bought daily newspaper advertisements that focused on 1,000 companies and 95,000 workers dependent on the project.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...yfU&refer=home

Not exactly a 'good' idea to cut something like that if its going to affect over 1,000 companies and around 100,000 workers.

[Finny61]

A smart person does not involve themselves with aerospace, very instable and when the economy so much as sneezes it means job losses. I haven't read through the entire article but I'd be interested in knowing the price tags on F-22's.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

Not exactly a 'good' idea to cut something like that if its going to affect over 1,000 companies and around 100,000 workers.

I think that little stat alone makes it a "good" idea. If it takes a hundred thousand people and 200 million bucks to build a single airplane then obviously someone is getting fleeced.

[T@T]

They are upping the amount of F-35's from 1400 to 2400, since it's also a LM project I'm assuming not all jobs will be lost. Just shuffled around.

[PsYcNeT]

Ah the US military.

Where all equipment is being built by either the lowest bidder or the company with the most inside contacts.

[TheDragon]

I watched a bit of the proposed military budget on CNN this morning, and it seemed like they were just trying to shift the focus of military spending towards things they actually need to help them win in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're going to be investing more in to surveillance equipment, UAV's/Predator drones and things like that.

F-22's are shiny and cool, but they're not particularily effective against an insurgency.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think that little stat alone makes it a "good" idea. If it takes a hundred thousand people and 200 million bucks to build a single airplane then obviously someone is getting fleeced.

That price has dropped quite a bit since they started shipping them, I was told about $140m now but thats still $55m more than the F-35.

It makes sense shutting the production down on these, they will still have about 200 in service which is 3 times more than the plane it replaced (F-117) they can retire the eagle and tomcat and use the F-35 and the new super hornet to replace them.

[Suave]

Originally Posted by Finny61

A smart person does not involve themselves with aerospace, very instable and when the economy so much as sneezes it means job losses. I haven't read through the entire article but I'd be interested in knowing the price tags on F-22's.

The Air Force quotes "flyaway" costs - the price for only the airframe, engines, electronics and maintenance equipment. By that measure, each plane costs $133 million. But that does not include research and development and testing costs, which are also paid by taxpayers.

Government auditors and outside watchdogs prefer program costs, which include R&D, testing and buying the planes, engines, electronics and other equipment. That price runs $339 million to $361 million each.

http://originmedia.mgnetwork.com/breaking/f22raptor/

[Azure]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

I think that little stat alone makes it a "good" idea. If it takes a hundred thousand people and 200 million bucks to build a single airplane then obviously someone is getting fleeced.

If you were making a $335 million dollar product, why wouldn't it take that many people?

I'm pretty sure companies like Lockheed and Boeing don't have people standing around doing nothing. They're not the government.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by T@T

They are upping the amount of F-35's from 1400 to 2400, since it's also a LM project I'm assuming not all jobs will be lost. Just shuffled around.

From what I've read.....Obama was proposing cuts to the F-35 projects as well. Nothing is confirmed though.

I wonder if Congress will agree with him. There are a lot of Democrats that want this project to continue.

[Clever_Iggy]

I realize that it's the Obama administration, but this falls at the feet of Defense Secretary Gates, a Republican. He was named Defense Secretary to allow for a smooth transition between Presidents during war time and because he had done such a good job in Iraq (relative to his predecessor).

When it comes to, frankly, detail decisions like this one, I'm sure Obama was briefed, but deferred to the opinion of his seasoned and knowledgeable Secretary of Defense.

A question for you Azure: are you going to post something every single time Obama makes a decision?

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you were making a $335 million dollar product, why wouldn't it take that many people?

I'm pretty sure companies like Lockheed and Boeing don't have people standing around doing nothing. They're not the government.

They certainly don't because they've laid off so many.

Boeing is really depending on that tanker contract, and they deserve it. The Air Force would probably like to get the planes before their current fleet starts dropping from the skies.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by TheDragon

I watched a bit of the proposed military budget on CNN this morning, and it seemed like they were just trying to shift the focus of military spending towards things they actually need to help them win in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're going to be investing more in to surveillance equipment, UAV's/Predator drones and things like that.

F-22's are shiny and cool, but they're not particularily effective against an insurgency.

Yeah, well neither is the Navy.....and you still need it.

I have no problem with cutting back the amount of F-22s being built, but scraping the entire program?

Oh, and the F-22 is being used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obviously at a very insane advantage too, but thats the name of the game.

Both Russia and China are increasing military spending, and I would think the US would want to stay on top of the game as well.

Cuts should be made in a time of peace, not while the country is at war.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I realize that it's the Obama administration, but this falls at the feet of Defense Secretary Gates, a Republican. He was named Defense Secretary to allow for a smooth transition between Presidents during war time and because he had done such a good job in Iraq (relative to his predecessor).

Actually, Gates was one of the people that ran things in Iraq before David Petraeus came around. Not to take anything away from what Gates has done, but give credit where credit is due. We all know how things went in Iraq before David Petraeus turned it around.

When it comes to, frankly, detail decisions like this one, I'm sure Obama was briefed, but deferred to the opinion of his seasoned and knowledgeable Secretary of Defense.

I would think so too. Regardless, Obama had to sign off on it. So, its his decision.

A question for you Azure: are you going to post something every single time Obama makes a decision?

Actually, the reason I posted this is because there are actually a few people on CP that know a lot of fighter jets.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

They certainly don't because they've laid off so many.

Boeing is really depending on that tanker contract, and they deserve it. The Air Force would probably like to get the planes before their current fleet starts dropping from the skies.

Well, what I don't understand is that the F-22 was, IIRC contracted for back when Clinton was still President.....to replace the F-15. If there are still F-15s in the fleet, why would you kill a multi-billion dollar project that has taken quite a few years to produce the F-22?

It would be like Canada opting out of the F-35 project because we need to make cuts. Most of the money has already been spent.....its just a matter of buying the planes, and apparently they've gotten quite a bit cheaper.

You don't need to buy 200 per year, but over time, structure the budget so that the F-15s are slowly replaced. Don't just kill the program.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Azure

Actually, Gates was one of the people that ran things in Iraq before David Petraeus came around. Not to take anything away from what Gates has done, but give credit where credit is due. We all know how things went in Iraq before David Petraeus turned it around.

I would think so too. Regardless, Obama had to sign off on it. So, its his decision.

Actually, the reason I posted this is because there are actually a few people on CP that know a lot of fighter jets.

I think Gates and Petraeus have made a great match - the overseer in DC and the man on the ground.

Shaving military spending is an absolute must in this country. Frankly, it's completely out of control. I do agree with you - cuts should be made during times of peace, not war. But the length and required costs of this war are completely beyond what was anticipated or what the US economy can handle.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Azure

If you were making a $335 million dollar product, why wouldn't it take that many people?

Hmm. Why wouldn't it take a million people, or 10 people?

I'm pretty sure neither of us have much of a clue as to what goes into these things, but a hundred thousand people and (apparently) 335 million bucks is a hell of a lot of loot for an airplane. Especially when you're broke.

When times are tough, this kind of thing should be the first to go.

Given your stance on most of Obama's maneuvers, I would think you'd be for cutting government spending, but here he is cutting spending and you are curiously against it.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I think Gates and Petraeus have made a great match - the overseer in DC and the man on the ground.

Shaving military spending is an absolute must in this country. Frankly, it's completely out of control. I do agree with you - cuts should be made during times of peace, not war. But the length and required costs of this war are completely beyond what was anticipated or what the US economy can handle.

Well, as much as I agree with you.....it seems a bit hypocritical to talk about stimulating the economy and committing trillions upon trillions of dollars to creating jobs and fixing the banks and whatnot, and in the meantime, you want to scrap a $12 billion dollar industry that HAS jobs in place.

I mean.....

[Displaced Flames fan]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Hmm. Why wouldn't it take a million people, or 10 people?

I'm pretty sure neither of us have much of a clue as to what goes into these things, but a hundred thousand people and (apparently) 335 million bucks is a hell of a lot of loot for an airplane. Especially when you're broke.

When times are tough, this kind of thing should be the first to go.

Given your stance on most of Obama's maneuvers, I would think you'd be for cutting government spending, but here he is cutting spending and you are curiously against it.

Very few of those 100,000 people would work exclusively on that project. Just to be clear.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Azure

From what I've read.....Obama was proposing cuts to the F-35 projects as well. Nothing is confirmed though.

I wonder if Congress will agree with him. There are a lot of Democrats that want this project to continue.

He's probably mad that the Su-27 kicks the crap out of the F-35