Editorial: Grounds for grounding

Lockheed's outdated F/A-22 fighter program is a valid target for budget-cutters at Pentagon

Atlanta Journal-Constitution 01/12/05
(Copyright, The Atlanta Journal and Constitution - 2005)

In their search for outdated, old-fashioned weapons systems that can be cut to save money, budget-conscious Pentagon officials have made an apparently odd choice: Lockheed's F/A-22 Raptor, a futuristic jet fighter that boasts cutting-edge stealth technology and some of the most advanced avionics ever installed in a production-line aircraft. The Defense Department has indicated it may try to cancel planned production of 100 of the high-tech airplanes.

That would be bad news for Lockheed's Marietta plant, where 2,200 workers are employed by the program. With potential cutbacks in production of the C-130 transport plane, also built at Lockheed's Marietta plant, the long-term future of that plant might be in jeopardy.

Unfortunately, though, it's hard to argue with the Pentagon's logic. The modernistic F/A-22 may very well be the most highly advanced fighter in history, as its backers argue. But it is also an ancient relic that was outdated before it left the drawing board.

The F/A-22 was conceived and designed a generation ago, during the height of the Cold War, to counter next-generation Soviet fighters and to penetrate Soviet air-defense radars. But that world no longer exists. The new Soviet jet never materialized, the radars are no longer a problem and even the Soviet Union itself has passed into history. Given that changed reality, the current plan to build 277 F/A-22s --- at a cost per copy of up to $258 million, depending on your accounting method --- is in fact a rational place to look for savings.

Congress, however, is likely to argue otherwise. Like other defense contractors, Lockheed has learned the wisdom of spreading its subcontracts into as many states and congressional districts as possible to build political support for its programs. In the case of the F/A-22, companies in 43 states have won Raptor-related contracts. Not surprisingly, Georgia's congressional delegation has already weighed in, with U.S. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson and U.S. Rep. Phil Gingrey, among others, promising to fight any attempt to cut production.

That defense of the F/A-22 is usually couched in patriotic terms, with claims that our fighting men and women deserve the best equipment we can make available to them. "We'll fight to make sure the Air Force gets what it needs," as Chambliss put it. "We don't know where the next war is going to be, and we need this airplane to weaken the enemy before our troops put their boots on the ground."

In reality, building F-22s that we don't really need will make this country less secure and make our troops more vulnerable. That's because every dollar spent on that outdated weapon system is a dollar that is not available to field more important and modern weaponry designed to meet the challenges of today and tomorrow, rather than the challenges of yesteryear.

The economic impact of a cutback in F-22 production would be real and would be particularly painful for those whose jobs would end. However, defending an expensive, outdated arms program mainly because of the jobs it provides to your community or state is not patriotism. It is special-interest, pork-barrel politics, motivated more by selfishness than by real concern for the well-being of the country or those who fight for it.