It is the military aircraft that none of our services really want, has no mission and will cost more $200 million dollars each. So why is it going to be funded by our elected representatives? Led by Republicans, the House Armed Services Committee voted 31 to 30 on yesterday (06/17/2009) to keep the F-22 fighter jet alive.
The committee chairman, Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri, and the chairman of the air and land forces subcommittee, Representative Neil Abercrombie, Democrat of Hawaii, both voted against the measure, which would set aside $369 million to buy parts to build 12 more of the fighters.
The Obama administration has said it wants to quit building the plane, and House aides said its supporters would face a struggle to win approval for the money in the rest of the House and the Senate.
The vote came as the plane’s supporters have also been talking up the idea of selling the fighter to Japan and other allies. Isn’t that just what we need to do? Sell an advanced stealth fighter, which was designed to off-set Soviet aircraft of the Cold War period? Since n ally today is possible invasion target tomorrow, as Iraq was, is this really a good idea?
Many Republicans have opposed the administration’s plan to halt construction at 187 planes, saying that more are needed as insurance against potential conflicts with major powers. My question would be-What major powers?
Critics have described the planes, which cost $200 million each and have not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars, as cold war relics that are no longer affordable.
The House committee’s vote for the $369 million in advanced procurement spending came on an amendment, proposed by Representative Rob Bishop, Republican of Utah, to a broader spending bill. It shifted the funds for cleaning up environmental hazards on military bases. This is just the sort of butt-headed decision that we had to put up with in the Shrub years and the GOPERs keep making.