RSS
Home
Future of F-22 uncertain as Congress battles Pentagon and White House
Print
Email
RSS
Subscribe
The President has issued a veto threat over spending for new F-22 Raptors in the 2010 Defense Authorization Bill. The current fleet of 187 F-22s is considered enough by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who points to the fact that the F-22 has not flown a single sortie in support of the Iraq or Afghanistan wars as proof that the military needs to reorient its procurement procedure to focus on equipment necessary for counterinsurgency warfare. The F-22 was planned during the later years of the Cold War to be the successor to the F-15 Eagle air superiorty fighter. Essentially, its job description was to beat the Soviet Union in a war. The Pentagon and White House argue this capability is no longer needed on such a grand scale (the original request by the Air Force was 381 F-22s).
Congress, for various reasons, disagrees. Some members argue the United States cannot forget about growing threats from China and point to the F-22 as a keystone in our conventional weapons arsenal. To halt F-22 procurement at 187 fighters would allow a future gap for China to exploit. Other members worry about the implications on jobs in their districts if production is shut down. Plane-maker Lockheed Martin has been lobbying Congress furiously, telling lawmakers the program employs 25,000 workers directly and supports another 9,000 jobs in companies that supply F-22 parts. Further complicating matters is the fact that these jobs are spread amongst 44 states.
On June 17th the House Armed Services Committee voted to spend $389 million to begin buying parts for 12 more F-22s. The vote passed 31-30 only because many lawmakers were worried where Congress would find the $2.8 billion to fully buy 12 more jets. Absent that concern, support for future F-22 procurement runs high in Congress. If 12 more planes are built, they would be delivered in 2013 and 2014 and cost $234 million each, according to calculations by the House Armed Services Committee. If more than 12 planes were purchased, the price for each would decline due to economies of scale.
Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, believes a presidential veto of the $680 billion Defense Authorization Act is doubtful. "Does anybody seriously believe, given that we have troops in the field in two wars and the possibility of other deployments that may come up, that people in this country would put up with a veto?" asked Abercrombie. "It would be overridden in a nanosecond," he argued.
We will know soon if he is right.
