NY Times uncritically reported GOP claim that F-22 cuts mean Obama "refuses to fund programs critical to our national defense"
SUMMARY: In reporting GOP criticism of the Obama administration's decision to end funding for F-22s, The New York Times but did not point out that Secretary Gates said the "military advice" he received is that "there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond" those that have already been funded.
In an April 6 article, The New York Times uncritically reported Rep. Tom Price's (R-GA) assertion that Defense Secretary Robert Gates' proposal to cease funding for additional F-22 fighter jets is indicative of President Obama's "refus[al] to fund programs critical to our national defense." The Times did not point out that during an April 6 press briefing, Gates said "it was not a close call" to end funding for F-22s once four more jets are constructed and further stated that "the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187" the military will have once those four additional jets are completed.
Asked during the April 6 press conference to "give a sense of whether this was a close call or a no-brainer," Gates replied: "For me, it was not a close call. And the basic conclusion was that, first of all, we have fulfilled the program. I mean, it's not like we're killing the F-22. We will have 187 of them." Gates further stated, "So we are completing the F-22 program. And the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187." Gates added that it was also the advice of the Air Force to not fund the construction of additional F-22s.
From the Defense Department's transcript of Gates' April 6 press conference:
Q The F-22 decision is going to get scrutinized now that your budget has emerged from the shadows, so to speak. Can you give a sense of whether this was a close call or a no-brainer, in one -- and why couldn't you have bought more? Why wouldn't it fill the role that the Joint Strike Fighter will be filling that you outlined?
SEC. GATES: For me, it was not a close call. And the basic conclusion was that, first of all, we have fulfilled the program. I mean, it's not like we're killing the F-22. We will have 187 of them. That has -- the 183 of that has been the program of record, as I recall, since 2005. So we are completing the F-22 program. And the military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187.
Q What about the Air Force advice? They've been (allegedly ?) badgering you with all sorts of analysis that they need 60 more.
SEC. GATES: That was their advice as well.
Q Excuse me. It was their advice as well that -
Q -- that you didn't need more than 187?
Q Really? Okay.
From the April 6 New York Times article:
This year Mr. Gates made the unusual decision to publicly announce his proposed reductions in the Pentagon budget before the recommendations are sent to the White House.
Senator Carl Levin, the Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee, told reporters last week that Mr. Gates, a Republican who has worked for eight presidents of both parties, may have been trying to provide some political cover for Mr. Obama over the cuts.
Representative Tom Price, a Georgia Republican, reacted strongly against Mr. Gates's proposal to end spending for the F-22, which employs 25,000 workers in Georgia and across the country.
"It's outrageous that President Obama is willing to bury the country under a mountain of debt with his reckless domestic agenda but refuses to fund programs critical to our national defense," Mr. Price said in a statement.
In addition, a bipartisan group of six senators urged Mr. Gates not to make large cuts in missile defense programs. In a letter to Mr. Obama, they said the reductions "could undermine our emerging missile defense capabilities to protect the United States against a growing threat."
The group included the Republicans Jon Kyl of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma as well as Mark Begich, Democrat of Alaska, and Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut.
Good. Next up should be that osprey. What a piece of junk.
Great. Get rid of the Raptor, and suddenly the terrorists are winning all the dogfights.
The F-22 is not a viable combat aircraft at this point in time. Since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq does anyone know how many combat missions it has flown? That would be, 0. It can't fly over the battlefield because its sensor array is TOO sensitive for all of the interference it receives from radios, jammers for IEDs, satellite TV signals, and so on. All of the noise in the background makes it not useful for combat missions. They're working on that, but they always fail to mention that. Also, bear in mind that we have the F-35 JSF program that has all of the moves of the Raptor, plus vertical or short take off variants, stealth, and it's cheaper, a whole LOT cheaper than the Raptor. I like the F-22, I think it is a top notch plane, we just don't need it. Mostly because any enemy of ours was already outflanked, and outflown by the F-15s we had already, and by the F-18 Super Hornets we have on carriers.
Now as for the Osprey Snoop, I totally disagree with you. It's better than helos. Why? Mostly because you can load more troops into it, carry more gear or hardware with it, and at the same time, you can fly higher and faster and longer than a helicopter, and out of harm's way of small arms fire (which is a bigger deal these days say rather than, SAMs). The Marines love it. We need to keep it.
Missile defense? That hasn't worked yet, as in, they haven't shot down an incoming ballistic projectile. They haven't even come close. They have been pouring billions of dollars into this program for years, and it has never worked, and there is a good chance it will never work. Saying that it is vital for our national defense is a bunch of BS. We have missiles in Alaska right now, but if a ballistic missile came streaking in now. we would in all chances miss it when we shot at it. Missile defense is a cold war mentality, and we don't need it. Who is going to be shooting ballistic missiles at us? There isn't anyone currently that would do it.
and don't forget the f-35, being the joint strike fighter....is meant to be the sole plane in the Air Force, MArines, and the Navy.....i would think it would be mush cheaperon maintenece, costs, parts and such, like it would be much cheaper in the long run.
isn't there a upgraded Patriot missle thats able to shoot down a ICBM? i know it was mentioned in a Jack Ryan book, but i doubt it wouldn't have been used without some basis in fact.
I think this is what ye seek:
PAC-3
so it is real......well then why don't sensible people say hey....we already have something in the patriot missle lets use that
Remember the original Patriot of Gulf War 1 fame was an anti-aircraft missle that was converted during the heat of battle (OK the work up to battle) for missle intercept (SCUD's). Their stated role was one of area defense, so to answer your question it's a matter of range plain and simple.
War itself is our enemy. I don't know how we can continue to spend over $600 billion a year, roughly 10x more than the whole world spends combined, on weapons programs and aircraft that do nothing but waste resources and bring humanity closer to extinction. we didn't need the Osprey, the cost overuns and lives lost to get it "right" far outweight any usefulness it has, the money could have and should have been spent elsewhere to improve human lives. Our military spending is robbing us of needed financial resources that could go to things that would eliminate the need to go to war in the first place.
Ihave been workig on the F22 since 2000. Its a great fighter but very expensive an not applicable to the kind of wars we are in now. Our current opponents dont have air forcesbut some potential opponents dc,IRAN NORTH KOREA, CHINA do. I would like to see a few more built , take the total up to 220 from 187. But I am fortunate that with my senority, i will transfer to the F35 when the F22 IS FINISHED.MAGNOLIA I agree with you on the OSPERY AND MISSLE DEFENSE.The tilt rotor, when the bugs are ironed out will be as revolutionary to rotory flight as the je engine was to wingborne flight. as for the missle defense, its jut a multi billion dollar boondoggle.
Thanks for providing a bit of insight into the programs of the F-22 and the F-35. I know a little bit about this stuff, because mostly I've been an avid fan of aviation power since I was a kid, going to air shows, reading up on this stuff.
Even though I think it's over 30 years old, or pretty close to it, the F-15 is still a super air to air combat fighter, and has proven out to do well in the air to ground combat situation as well. I have read, and seen some shows on the JSF, and that looks to be like a good fit for everyone really. Stealthy. Agile. First look first shoot capabilities. And can be shared throughout all services.
I've also done a lot of reading on the Osprey, and the people most behind that program are the people both flying it, and using it for combat operations. Higher and faster than Blackhawks, and less chance of getting shot at in the current types of engagements that we are in. If we had a few Ospreys back when we had the mission going into Iran to get our hostages back, we would have succeeded greatly. And history would be a little different.
Missile defense, yeah, worthless.
MAGNOLIA, I, like you have been an avid avaition fan since I was a kid. i even managed to get my private pilots ticket before i was grounded by getting married and having two kids. Flying while I LOVE it is an expensive hobby. AMEN on the part about OSPERYS and the IRAN hostagerescue mission . I was really upset at its failure and realized we needed something better than helicopters for special OPS. When that jerk CHENEY canseled the OSPERY for wat I believe was personal reasons I was very angry with him. As far as i am concerned CHENEY can go rot in a very hot corner.
Well, looks like I have to eat some Ospery for dinner now. Granted, I was thinking about all the bugs and the controversy over the officer who ordered his team to fudge results when I wrote it. Anyone know what kind of whine serves well with Ospery?
"What kind of whine serves well with OSPERY? SNOOPY try DARTH CHENEY WHINE. The jerk tried to kill the OSPERY but ultimatley he failed.
Mag, you're confusing missions. The F22 wasn't desinged with the Urban Warfare misson in mind. Remember this was designed during the height of the Cold War when UW was on the backburner of planning.
While true there is EM pollution in the skies over Iraq, the AF has the ability to "fine tune" during the misson planning phase. I'm not saying it's not a problem, but to dismiss the program out of hand is a little naive.
This is the second thread that is stirring the pot on the 22/35 non debate as both are desinged with two different missons in mind. The US still uses the HI/Low Mix of air superiority / fighter attack model. While I understand the debate of mission/money, I doubt you'll see a departure from this tactic in our lifetimes.
What? I know this is a favorite talking point of the left, but it is not supported by the facts.
Missile Defense Agency
Successful Missile Defense Test
The Israeli's are getting in on the act...with the help of MDA of course!
Israel siccessfully tests Arrow 2
I knew that was coming as soon as I heard about the defense cuts. These are Gates' recommendations though. Not Obama's. And if they want to criticize Gates I suggest they recall their own furor over General BetrayUs.