A new standard has been set with the F-22 — a standard for government waste by design. The Washington Post reports “The Premier U.S. Fighter Jet has Shortcomings” with the Washington media’s typical understatement and lack of reflection when it comes to assessing the utter idiocy of the defense spending process.

The F-22 is not now, and has never been, a necessity for American defense. It is not even a necessity for American offense, or for maintenance of the American empire overseas. But the F-22 is critical to the continuation of Lockheed’s gravy train on the backs of millions of increasingly burdened taxpayers in the 50 states.

To understand the history of the F-22 is to recognize a well-known story of defense system acquisition. A decade ago, Ivan Eland wrote for the Cato Institute that the F-22 Raptor should be sent to Jurassic Park, noting, “The Raptor was intended to combat two futuristic Soviet fighters that were never built.”

Congress, the Pentagon, and Lockheed Martin have missed some important milestones, and not only with the expensive F-22. They apparently missed the peacefull collapse of the Soviet Union over 20 years ago. They apparently didn’t notice that the only enemies the United States has fought since then haven’t had air forces at all, much less a fighter jet capable of air-to-air combat. Wise voices at Cato and elsewhere have continued to make the point that the F-22 is a white elephant—but like the original white elephant, the F-22 is a gift from Congress to the supplicating defense establishment—outrageously expensive to buy, exorbitant to maintain, and utterly useless.

Strangely, the many F-22 shortfalls that U.S. taxpayers will be required to fund in the coming decade include the jet’s inability to operate as designed when it rains and to be used for more than an hour and 40 minutes before experiencing a critical failure. Not being able to fly may actually be a good thing, as the F-22 has an operating cost per hour almost twice that of its F-15 predecessor, at nearly $50,000 an hour.

In retrospect, we should have bought a real white elephant for each member of Congress, each time they voted to fund the F-22. A visual reminder of the magnificent waste would have been far more beneficial to the security of our country than the F-22, and very likely just as intimidating to any potential enemies. Who, by the way, must be chuckling at our defense predicament vis-à-vis the F-22.

Karen Kwiatkowski, Ph.D.,  is a retired USAF Lt Col.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

Pat Henry said:

Strong Defense I'm surprised a JBS post made the editorial cut with the canard that the Soviet Union had a peaceful collapse. Gorbachev, anyone? KGB Putin (behind other puppets) still has an iron hand, as will his true successor. The Chinese are a serious threat. Perhaps, indeed, the F22 should not be built in favor of something more strategic. Great point. The Electronic Pulse Weapons and other missiles do need defended against, though. If the government would quit bailouts, we'd have more than enough for defense (and the need of it). And without their meddling, we might have all-American industries building it.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 14, 2009
Votes: +5

danwhitehead1 said:

Thank you Pat Henry I am still amazed by those who think communism "collapsed". I hope the day never comes when the people of this nation know from first hand experience what a lie that was/is, but I think perhpas they may. I wonder what the left wing will have to say then? I'm sure their bottomless pit of lies will come up with something. Also, why should the fedgov swillers worry about anything as silly as one of their few and carefully delineated legitimate functions, that of protecting us from enemies from without AND from within, when they can busy themselves shredding our constitution, doing things they have no business and no legitimate (hence legal) authority to do, such as taking from those who produce to give to those whom the fedgov myrmidons feel to be worthy? The hour is very late. The time for a replay of 1776 is here.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 15, 2009
Votes: +4

SCHNORCHEL said:

War, Money, and Hatred Robert Welch and many veteran Members of The John Birch Society always stated that the INSIDERS use the strategy of WAR, MONEY, and HATRED to move the US toward World Government. The Soviet-U.S. hostility has been a chronic version of this fake conflict used as the WAR part of the INSIDER strategy. It doesn't surprise me that the F-22 is just another manifestation of a very expensive "Defense" program looking for a WAR to fight, a WAR that the Insiders want to use to move the U.S. toward World Government. In the '70s, during the Carter Era, I was an Advanced Avionics Systems engineer at Lockheed, Burbank, one of the most mismanaged companies in existence, being a captive of Lazard Freres (using the INSIDERS' MONEY strategy), a New York-based Investment Bank. We engineers were managed by arbitrary terror and could not turn out a decent design under those grim working conditions, even if we tried. Today, Lockheed, Burbank has been razed to the ground, leaving behind the original alluvial sand of Burbank as a testimonial to mismanagement. To me, the F-22 disaster comes as no surprise.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 16, 2009
Votes: +3

Lou Johnson said:

USAF Isolationist theory Dr. Kwiatowski, while obviously well educated shows what happens when one knows more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. As stated above, the Soviet Union did not collapse. That was a dhimmicratic smoke screen, in fact, they never slowed down, they simply put on a different T-Shirt and continued to march. ANyone who has ever been outside the U.S. for more than an hour with their eyes open, knows that the Soviet Union is more expansive and global than ever. On the F-22, once the decision was made to build the F-22 instead of the superior F-23, it was all writing on the wall. We need to clone Col. Boyd and get him to once again, refocus our aircraft programs. We do need fighters, 50% mission specific, 25% mission variable, and 25% trainers. G-whiz and smart bombs won't do it all. The man riding the weapon system is absolutely necessary to prevent mission creep when required and to provide mission adaptability when required. Obviously all lessons learned from teh F-4 program were lost. It did everything pretty well, but the only things it excelled at were flying with everything on it broken, and burning fuel. For a better lesson, look at the F-16 and F-15C versions.

report abuse vote down vote up

July 21, 2009
Votes: +1