Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Defense Contractors Gone Wild

By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted September 19, 2006.


The billions we're spending on the worthless F-22 fighter plane is just the latest taxpayer rip-off. When will the military-industrial complex get the smackdown it deserves?
Advertisement

There are small news stories, there are really small news stories, and then there is "Defense Institute Head Resigns," a little maggot of a news item that blipped into the "D" section of the Washington Post last Wednesday. 356 words in all, about half the length of an AP NFL game account, and the Post was the only paper in the country that ran the story. So how important could it have been?

Actually, the Post item about the resignation of Dennis C. Blair from the federally-funded Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA) spoke volumes about the utter insanity of the modern American media landscape. In a month when Katie Couric redefined the "scoop" as an advance glimpse of celebrity idiot-spawn Suri Cruise, and investigative journalism according to muckraking icon 60 Minutes meant sappy profiles of Howard Stern and Bill Romanowski, it made all the sense in the world that the denouement of a spectacular tale of massive government waste and fraud would go completely unnoticed by virtually the entire journalism community.

The name of Dennis C. Blair became somewhat infamous on the Hill this summer when he became wrapped up in a minor controversy surrounding appropriations for the F-22 Raptor jet fighter. Blair, a former Navy admiral who once headed the U.S. Pacific Command, was until last week the president of the IDA, a federally-funded non-profit research center which provides the government with "independent" analyses of weapons programs and defense legislation.

Earlier this year, the IDA had been asked by the Pentagon to assess the viability and potential cost of a three-year, $60-plus billion Multi-Year Procurement (MYP) of F-22 jets. The details here are complicated, but in essence the MYP proposed as an amendment to the Senate's 2007 Defense Authorization bill by Georgia's Saxby Chambliss would lock the government into a bulk purchase of three years' worth of F-22s, instead of the traditional yearly individual purchases.

Blair's IDA did as ordered, ultimately issuing a report showing that the MYP, by allowing suppliers to sell to the government at reduced bulk rates, would save the government a quarter of a billion dollars. This contradicted the findings of both the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Research Service, which blasted the procurement as an indefensibly stupid waste of money, but the IDA's "congressionally mandated independent study" (as Chambliss called it) was the one legislators chose to listen to.

Chambliss's amendment passed 70-28, with wide bipartisan support. Most all of the Senators who voted for the bill, including Democrats like Joe Lieberman, Chuck Schumer and Daniel Inouye, had received generous campaign contributions from Lockheed-Martin, the maker of the F-22, and from subcontractors like Pratt and Whitney.

Moreover, it subsequently came out that Blair himself sat on the board of EDO, a subcontractor on the F-22 project. EDO makes a missile launching system for the plane. Though such conflicts of interest are not barred by the Pentagon, Blair last week resigned voluntarily -- quietly, with only the Post noticing, at a time when Katie Couric was neatly innovating the network news concept by giving platform-impoverished radio jock Rush Limbaugh a guest slot on her news show. Blair's resignation was a de facto admission that a key study supporting one of the largest defense procurements in history was seriously compromised, even beyond the built-in conflict of interest inherent in a congress heavily funded by defense contractors.

The ongoing bureaucratic drama surrounding procurement for this project is a kind of fairy tale for the system of legalized corruption in this country, in which taxpayer money is basically stolen and shot into space by an open conspiracy of legislators, defense contractors and Pentagon officials, colloquially known as the "Iron Triangle." The F-22 project is particularly offensive since its cost -- $65 billion -- mirrors very closely the $50 billion in "emergency" cuts to social programs congress made last year, ostensibly to help pay for Katrina reconstruction.


Digg!

Matt Taibbi is a writer for Rolling Stone.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Excellent Mr. Taibbi. This is actually news.
Posted by: WhatNow? on Sep 19, 2006 3:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I appreciate Mr. Taibbi's sentiment towards what passes for journalism on the major news outlets. I only watch some of it to see of how little importance most of what they disseminate really is. I actually think Dan Rather was a decent person. Everything I've heard about kouric makes me sick.

I am not a proponent for single mothers. I believe most probably should not have replicated, but I'll be damned if I would deprive them in favor of building a weapon.

Here is another article about our sickening defense industry: US: Defense and oil company executives reap windfalls from Iraq war

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

great story
Posted by: cwm on Sep 19, 2006 5:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
thank god (or whatever you believe in) for people/places like this... "bring on the dancing horses..."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

What free press?
Posted by: Moonray on Sep 19, 2006 6:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a huge story and there are dozens more out there for any news organization that chooses to report them, but our "news" consists mainly of Bush administration talking points, missing white girls and the latest celebrity antics.

As I write this, Joe Scarborough is ranting on TV about the evils of "extremist Muslims." I forgot to change the channel, but it doesn't matter. Almost every channel is devoted to focusing Americans' fear and hatred toward our foreign "enemies" -- real and manufactured.

No wonder it's so easy for the arms dealers to screw the taxpayers so royally year after year.

If I were religious, at this point I'd have to close with: God help us.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

F22 - technology needed!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Sep 19, 2006 6:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The F 22 is a waste of money??..*l*.. it's obvious the writer hasn’t spoken to pilots, and military who rely on this type of technology..

Any aircraft has teething problems when in development, everyone knows that, so to bring up those types of problems as a basis for suggesting the aircraft is a failure is misleading

F16's are fine for fighting Bin Laden..yep, but F16 are old technology.. the performance envelope of high tech aircraft is continually increasing and the US has to keep ahead of competitors. Look at the magnificent performance of the F17. Our pilots deserve the best aircraft we can build and the safest.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: lessbread
» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: Lincoln fan
» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: oogiboogi
» RE: F22 - technology needed! Posted by: Conservasaurus
» But the YF-23 was the better plane. . . Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» Lets ask the Israelis Posted by: chaoslegs
» RE: Lets ask the Israelis Posted by: Conservasaurus
» Let's ask the box office Posted by: Habaro
» RE: Let's ask the box office Posted by: Conservasaurus
DoD Needs an Enema
Posted by: NoPCZone on Sep 19, 2006 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Worse than the follies of any one weapon program is the fact that we have a frankenstein of a defense establishment, both in uniform and in suits.

We have 2 Armies, the US Army & the US Marine Corps. The USMC has leveraged politics to evolve beyond it's true role of Naval Infantry into one of the world's largest standing Armies. The Navy, which it is a part of, is also rapidly expanding it's land warfare operations. They have evolved underwater demolition frogmen into SEALS- who are nothing more than sailors playing Special Forces Soldier.

We have 4 Air Forces, the USAF, Naval Aviation, Marine Aviation & Army Aviation. Each activity, as a stand-alone, would rank significantly in relation to that of most all other nations in the world.

It gets worse. We have the Army operating sea ports. I don't know if it has finally changed, but up until recently you could be an able bodied seaman in the US Army. Does this make any sense?

Each service is a fiefdom and empire unto itself. Some improvement has been made, but barely a sliver of the changes that need to be made. Service politics and the party kind in the halls of real political power have kept a great deal of structural reform from taking place. The waste in money, resources and combat effectiveness is astounding.

Each service also has separate R&D and procurement operations. Marines, Sailors, Airmen and Soldiers serve side-by-side in Iraq and Afghanistan wearing different uniforms with dissimilar camouflage, etc. Can anyone tell me why a Marine in Iraq needs a different set of utilities than a soldier doing the same job? This nonsense came to light when civilians started raising money so that Marines could have the same kind of helmet liners that the Army issues, which reduce some kinds of closed head injuries when IEDs go off.

Maybe we do not need to go all the way to a unified force like the Canadians, but some serious restructuring and reform is way past due.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: DoD Needs an Enema Posted by: badkitty
Well done, that man
Posted by: HeroesAll on Sep 19, 2006 8:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Nice one, Matt. If only you could sneak this into, oohh, one or two (or ten thousand) major news organs. Front page/prime time, for preference.

I'm not a US citizen/denizen, so I can't scream about "I pay taxes for this!". But it's an outrage no matter where you live, that a government can, with a straight face, swipe childcare funding to pay for expensive deadly toys.

And to Conservasaurus and anyone else who says "But we need this!": clearly you didn't read the article. If the US needs to stay ahead of competitors, all it has to do is stop bloody well selling it's prime tech to those same competitors. Pretty simple, I'd have thought.

Of course, the other aspect just puts the icing on the cake of irony: that the greatest technological threat to the US at the moment is a homemade bomb and a cell phone. Fat lot of use that stealth jet will be against them.

Then there's the fact that when the US actually was attacked, for once, the mighty armed forces somehow didn't manage to get a plane up for about 90 minutes. So sure, steal money from the poor to buy these stupid things: when another bunch of guys armed with stationery items hijack a plane, your expensive new toys will just be sitting around in their hangars like the current ones.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Well done, that man Posted by: JSquercia
» RE: Well done, that man Posted by: Conservasaurus
nice
Posted by: ShoShenQ on Sep 20, 2006 12:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would love to see an F-22 in a dogfight versus a Sukhoi 37 or even 35, but its a wet dream methink.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: nice Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: nice Posted by: Melvin
» RE: nice Posted by: Conservasaurus
» RE: nice Posted by: righteousbabe
reminder
Posted by: rsaxto on Sep 20, 2006 2:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Another reminder of how corrupt and worthless most politicians in office in the USA are. They are so corrupt and worthless that they are driving most of us into the poorhouse so a few worthless billionaires can become even more rich. This is government of the idiots by the idiots and for the idiots.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: reminder Posted by: Lincoln fan
both parties are heavily subsidized by defense contractors
Posted by: Lincoln fan on Sep 20, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and the banking industry, and the insurance industry, and the pharmaceutical industry and on and on. It's not just the war industry. Click on Open Secrets.Here you'll see who give, who gets, and how much. If you wonder why the Senior's Prescription Medical Bill was a bonanza for the pharmaceutical industry, the fact that they donated $10 million to the Democrats and $20 million to the Republicans might give you a hint. That $30 million was the best investment they ever made.

In my opinion, anyone who thinks that the voters control our government is deluded. Anyone who thinks that the Democrats are "the party of the peopke" are in denial. Anyone who thinks that you can vote the corporations out of power just doesn't put two and two together.

If you're angry about this tell both parties that you want taxpayer funded campaigns and that you want effective lobbying laws. Tell them that if neither party has this plank in their platform you'll cast your vote for "Honest Abe".

It's time to take control of both poliotical parties and our government. Join The Lincoln Initiative. It costs nothing and takes five minutes.
Bob Reichenbach
Director, The Lincoln Initiative

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Eric Umanski's article
Posted by: larry278 on Sep 20, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wonder if Eric Umanski will do an article for COLUMBIA JOURNALISM REVIEW on liberal blogs as he did for msm in CJR's Sep/Oct issue.
Note to Eric-I'm sorry if I garbled your last name.
Reading Eric's article in CJR covers the same ground as this article. I found it profitable to scan Eric's analysis. I've bookmarked it to reread it for it follows the template of articles in CJR. It is scholarly & thorough.
I'd like to see a scholarly analysis of your portion of the blogosphere since it's replacing MSM as a news media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

F22=Big Money Distraction
Posted by: kungfoofighterx on Sep 20, 2006 6:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I thought it was the department of defense. Shouldnt we be investing in defenisve missile systems. The F22 seems like it would be used to attack countries without state of the art air defense systems. On the bright side it will create jobs if parts of this plane are made in the USA. Does anyone out there know what precentage of this planes components are made in the USA? Will it mostly be assembled here or will it be produced and assembled in the USA. Does the F22=high tech welfare? I wonder what kind of consumer goods the engineers and skilled tradesman could have produced instead of this flying 80's hair metal band? I think rebuilding N.O. and maintaining strong social programs is a better defense of USA's future than a jet. Did anyone catch the PBS show where documented the building of another all strike fighter or something. So are they going to build that one also? Another 60 or 100 billion for jet we dont need to defend our land. This is all a waste of money that makes life more miserable here and abroad where they get bombed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

LOL!
Posted by: Sleepingcobra1 on Sep 20, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Made In China"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

gramps
Posted by: gramps on Sep 20, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
648,000,000,000 For Defense


Today the Senate just gave the Defense Department 648 billion dollars of your tax money. This is just for one year. Seldom do you see both Democrats and Republicans pass a bill without argument. This sterling example of bi-partisanship is going to provide us with new fighter planes and lord knows what else. Don't you feel more secure now: knowing that your government is spending your money so wisely? I feel like a guy with ten Rolls Royce's who just bought a new car. Never mind that we have more war machines than the rest of the world put together. There is a war on, called the war against terrorism. If we find a terrorist we need twelve air-craft carrier groups to hunt him down and nuke him. The problem is that the only time we find him is when he has already blown himself up. This is solved however by grabbing everyone with a towel wrapped around their head and sending them to Guantanamo or a half dozen other secret prisons in Egypt or Turkey where they will get a fair trial.

Some people might say that this expenditure is a little excessive considering that we are already eight trillion dollars in debt but not to worry. Global warming is melting the permafrost and releasing methane that has been trapped for eons and is worse than the carbon dioxide that already covers the stratosphere. Third world countries are supplying themselves with atom bombs as fast as they can because they realize that our president has his finger on the red button and is not known for his scientific acumen. Who knows what “the decider” will decide to do next?

They are feeding cattle, hogs, and chicken with antibiotics; and tuberculosis and other diseases that we thought were eliminated are now starting to show up. This keeps the pharmaceutical industry busy looking for new antibiotics because the old ones like penicillin are about as much use as aspirin. I know that a lot of you do not believe in evolution but these little buggers are evolving. It is really too bad that we don't evolve a few more brain cells ourselves. We sure as hell need them.

When I read this morning's San Diego Tribune I thought there would be a front page headline on such an important occasion but evidently the only people who know about what happened to 648 Bill of their money are old farts like me living on social security who can afford to watch C-Span. Those of you with two jobs do not have time to find out that your money is being stolen. What the hell! Who needs money where you are going?







[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Check out the roll call Posted by: Iconoclast421
Presto-chango! A disappearing act with our dough. And the shill is gaming the audience, too.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Sep 20, 2006 8:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Could not have been better said! What a loss for the american public that people have to search out internet sites like AlterNet (which the lazy public for the most part won't do) to get real news.

In a couple of sentences, this article nails the core corruption that underlies BOTH of our useless political parties:

"Since both parties are heavily subsidized by defense contractors and accustomed to giving them whatever they want, whenever they want (Lockheed-Martin even has the contract for the internet server in congress, for Christ's sake), neither party ever raises the issue with reporters."

You betcha! The subject matter of the article precluded adding in all of the other dozens of corporations that share ownership of our government, but you get the idea.

This is the cruel joke of party politics today in America: IT DOESN'T MATTER! We're arguing party vs. party while BOTH parties' aristocratic pirates merrily skip away with the loot. We're scraping to live on mac-'n'-cheese while Democrats and Republicans are secretly slapping each-others' heinies and scarfing down brie and chablis – expensive chablis we bought them. It's like pre-revolutionary France all over again; "Let them eat...oh, who cares?"

It is the classic military maneuver, "divide and conquer." We've been outflanked on both the right and the left by the same opponent. Until things get bad enough to create a massive groundswell of discontent and opposition, the downward spiral for most of us will continue.

This groundswell could happen; I'm willing to be surprised. But given americans' tolerance for malfeasance in government, as long as they can still shop cheaply at WalMart, I'm not holding my breath. Settle in (but don't get too comfortable) folks; it's going to be a long wait.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

70-28
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2006 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That says it all doesn't it?

And what the hell good is mach 2 when they won't even use it when there's an emergency? We'll be lucky if the planes even get scrambled if there's an emergency...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Check out the roll call
Posted by: Iconoclast421 on Sep 20, 2006 10:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
roll call

Notice that Clinton AND Kerry voted against it... isn't that odd?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Check out the roll call Posted by: sausage
It was Lenin who said...
Posted by: sausage on Sep 20, 2006 11:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
One of the original reasons for developing the F-22 was that foreign sales of the F-15 and F-16 had diluted America's technological superiority over other nations. But this summer, Texas congresswoman Kay Granger, whose district contains a Lockheed factory that makes the F-22 midsection, offered legislation to lift a ban on foreign sales of the plane. The measure passed in a June voice vote in the House after only 11 minutes of discussion.

...Or maybe it was Stalin. Or it could be an urban myth. Be that as it may, the old bromide is so true:"Capitalists will sell the rope for their own hanging." Let me add, that shareholder greed always outwieghs national security.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Matt, you are a retard, and here is why.
Posted by: TooDamnCool on Sep 20, 2006 12:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You must have not read about the performance evaluation in Alaska last month. In test trials the F-22s racked up a 108 to 0 kill ratio when put up against Su-27/30 equivalent aircraft. Earlier, 8 F-22s fought it out against 33 F-15Cs and shot down all the F-22, without suffering any losses.

The radar system that supposedly destroys the plane’s stealth is also a load of manure. It’s a uni-directional low power radar, meaning that it can only be detected when it’s painting a target, can only be seen by what its painting, and very sensitive detection equipment is needed to do this, not currently on fighters.

And while the Warsaw Pact may have dissolved (much to your chagrin I am sure) its planes still fly with dozens of air forces, so that pretty much destroys that argument.

And Pierre Sprey, is that the only asshole you can pull out of your hat? Sprey said the same thing about the F-15 when it rolled out 30 years, and surprise surprise he was wrong then too!

Does someone really pay you to write your swill?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

whats wrong with the Joint Strike Fighter?
Posted by: troy23 on Sep 20, 2006 12:43 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Joint Strike Fighter will nicely replace the aging F14/15/16/18 fleet. It is one fighter that will be used across the armed forces, and shared with our allies.

Why we need the F-22 is so beyond me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I work of Fighter Jets and the Author is right... Kind of...
Posted by: Natedog on Sep 20, 2006 2:21 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The F-35 project, not the F-22, needs to be eliminated. I've worked on F-16's, Blocks 5/10/15/25/30-32/40-42/50-52/and am now assisting in the final stages of upgrades for the Norwegian and Dutch F-16's during their Mid Life Updates (MLU). I've been in the inner circles of the debate on weather or not these air forces should buy the F-35, and as of now almost every country is saying "Why" even though you may here different in the news. The two countries I am working for, among a few others, that have a vested interest in procuring the F-35 are now looking to back out because of the piss poor performance characteristics compared to the costs. The F-35 was designed as a suplement to the F-22 as an ground attack aircraft. That is great if you have an air superiority fighter on you wing (F-22) but these smaller countries do not have that option. They need a multi-role aircraft. Something that can bomb and "Knife Fight". The F-35 could not win against an f-16 in a "turning fight" nor against an Eurofighter 2000 Typhoon or an Rafale or an Gripen for that matter and these aircraft can carry a bit more in ground attack loads than the F-35 could dream of. Plus, the Europeans produce these aircraft at a fraction of the cost. Soooo, if I were to make a cut, it would be the F-35. Stop selling the latest version of the F-16 to the UAE, make a larger number of the new Block-60/62 F-16's to replace the aging fleet we have now and let the Europeans decide on a new aircraft on performace, quality and what they need now, and in the future, instead of on all this political crap. The world needs to wake up and pay attention not only to what is happening in ones own country but what is happening to ones world.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

War's Hidden Costs (From the Public)
Posted by: hotlipsin61 on Sep 20, 2006 4:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here it is, written in black and white and not very many news organizations (including mine) ran the story. Military spending is awfully wasteful but the news about cost overruns with defense contractors hardly is front-page news or leads TV broadcasts.
We're more interested in entertainers and their antics (we are a nation of voyeurs who enjoy seeing people "get it" in this age of meanness) than what goes on in the nation's capitol-at times.
The public needs to ask questions on military spending. For every jet fighter built will take away some spending on social programs, as we have seen in Texas according to this article. So, we're prepared to make cuts in social programs to further our enormous appetite for war materiel. How much is enough? Is it worth sacrificing the health of current and future generations?
Warplanes won't solve problems but they surely will line the pockets of defense contractors. Just take a drive out to Palmdale, California.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why wouldn't Katie Couric want to talk about this?
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Sep 20, 2006 4:10 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well, she might, but she wouldn't be allowed to, and here is why:

Katie got her start working at ABC (owned by Disney, Inc.) and then moved to ABC (owned by General Electric, primarily), where she got her start as a Pentagon Defense reported before moving to the Today show, and has recently moved to CBS (owned by Viacom, Inc.).

Well, one might say that this is the telecommunications industry, which is separate from the defense industry, so there's no conflict of interest.

However, the major financial holders in Disney, Viacom and General Electric include Barclay's Investments UK, State Street Corporation, Wellington Management, Fidelity, Vanguard, Capital Research and Management - those are some of the upper crust. Their cumulative holdings in those three media companies are in the multi-billions.

Now, let's take a look at who owns Lockheed-Martin: here are the top five: State St. (5.7B), Barclays (2B), Wellington (1.8B), Fidelity (1.2B), Capital Research (1.1B). It is pretty obvious that the owners of the media corporations don't want stories published that will hurt their financial interests in their defense corporation holdings. If Katie Couric hadn't learned to toe the line years ago she'd never have advanced to her prominent media position.

This is not to say that there are not a lot of good reporters out there - they are the ones who get sidelined, laid off or fired. The only solution is to break up the American media monopoly, and any politician who proposes doing that will be tarred and feathered by the likes of Couric and Brokaw...grim. Consider that State Street (5.7B in Lockheed) is also the >50% controller of the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and you really start understanding just how screwed up our system is.

(To figure this all out, all you need are two web sites and a little spare time: http://finance.yahoo.com/ and http://www.cjr.org/tools/owners/)

Keep in mind that this is just the publicly traded region of the defense industry - the real corruption is found in the privately held funds, of which the primary example is the Carlyle Group - a nexus of Suadi bankers, Bush-Reagan era politicos, pharmaceutical and media companies and defense contractors. Frank Carlucci, old college chum of Rumsfeld, is the chairman emeritus. They've made huge profits on Bush Jr.'s "War on Terrror" and Bush Sr. is still an advisor to the group.

What does the Washington Post think about Carlyle? Nothing but adulation for this 'savy defense trader': "Carlyle Shows It's Still Tops In Defense, Investment in Qinetiq Pays Off Handsomely
By Terence O'Hara, Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, February 13, 2006


A most politically well-connected and secretive private equity fund is portrayed by the Washington Post as a "savy trader"! We can make anything smell like roses, says the Post.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money WASTED on Empire is Food Out of the Mouths of Kids
Posted by: sofla100 on Sep 20, 2006 4:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Look you can argue forever about the effectiveness of weapon systems but its not the real gist of the author's point. The reality is: America SPENDS MORE THEN ALL THE OTHER COUNTRIES combined on its military and national security infrastructure. Get it? More then all of them combined. Now, we all know the horor stories of the military weapons stuff. All the ex-military officers on the take with the contractors, the padded tests, the senators with defense contractors giving them campaign contributions, etc., etc. We all know it's filthy as can be, but we need to bring out however that America's priorities are messed up. We cannot feed kids, we cannot take care of our own, because all the money is being wasted on this defense and security crap. Our own national needs, from health care to children are stupendous. I was just visiting New Orleans, have you seen it? The entire place is basically still trashed, it's unbelievable. And, the money is not there to fix it. Sure, poor people and minorities live there, so I guess the politicos don't want to even bother with it. America, your priorities are wrong. Money wasted on Empire is food out of the mouths of kids.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Juraissic Economics
Posted by: edith on Sep 20, 2006 6:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
can't have enough of these muckracking but well researched articles. These corporate socialist drones spend hundreds of billions of dollars on junk and justify it by claiming to defend "freedom", a W euphemism for the "free enterprise'' system. This is the antithesis of free enterprise: it's corrupt corporate-DOD incest-the DOD monopoly in bed with the literal handful of consolidated defense contractors. Competition is non-existent and collusion rampant as competitors often "share" defense contracts. One thing about the F22 that is accurate: its name. The Raptor. This clutz of a plane is a predator that eats huge volumes of the taxpayer's dollars. In the meantime we pay hundreds of billions to pay interest on a debt that could be reduced by elimination of this hungry Lizard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Juraissic Economics Posted by: Lincoln fan
Re: TooDamnCool - F22 108:0 ratio is BS
Posted by: igor on Sep 20, 2006 9:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In test trials the F-22s racked up a 108 to 0 kill ratio when put up against Su-27/30 equivalent aircraft.

yeah, and US's BMD did hit the incoming warhead during tests ... when that warhead was equipped with homing beacon!

until F-22 is put against Su-30MKI in scenarios supervised by non-USDoD observers, no one, however cool he is, can say what the kill ratio would be --- which is never going to happen, btw.

anyway, only enthusiasts who lack technical knowledge believe "100:0" kill ratios...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Air Supremacy unmatched
Posted by: cinattra on Sep 20, 2006 11:47 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would not want to go to war without a 100% assurance of air superiority by our Air Force and this is what the F-22 assures for the foreseeable future it is that simple. Without air superiority anything on the ground is a sitting duck and anything in the air is in danger of being brought down. The F-22 also decreases the logistics footprint compared to older fighter aircraft as well which means it is easier to maintain and it takes fewer personnel to keep it flying.

Facts the articles doesn't quite get right:

The F-22 is replacing the F-15 and the F-16 is being replaced by the F-35.

Only Japan would probably be open to buying the F-22. Only Japan has the combination of money and the need for it amongst our allies while Australia and Israel have expressed interest. Not sure where the UK stands.

Yesterday's fighter jets have Mach 2 cruising speed. While the F-22 can fly faster than Mach 2 it also has supercruise which allows it to fly faster than Mach 1 without afterburners thus saving fuel and increasing flight range.

Warsaw Pact aircraft that the F-22 was designed to shoot down are being flown today by customer countries of Russia to include Russia, India, China and Venezuela to name a few. Those same aircraft out perform the F-15.

The F-22 has had only one crash and that technical problem has been fixed. I don't think being trapped in a cockpit for 5 hours qualifies as crash.

The F-22s AESA radar will severely limit the ability of enemy aircraft to track it by radar. This feature will also limit ground radar in tracking the F-22 by radar also.

$137 million is a good price for this type of capability dominance.

It is unfair to use the development costs in the price of the F-22 because F-22 developmental costs feed into other weapon system programs and possibly one day into the civilian marketplace.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Air Supremacy unmatched Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: Air Supremacy unmatched Posted by: Conservasaurus
Hope you can speak Chinese
Posted by: eddie torres on Sep 21, 2006 1:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To cinattra, Conservasaurus, ShoShenQ, TooDamnCool, and Natedog: Thanks for pitching in and making this comment section lively. Considering the author's position and the material, I'd say it takes a lot of guts and patience to wade into a feeding frenzy of progressives and liberals. And they owe you thanks for injecting some real numbers and data into the mix - things that lefties are usually weak on.

Off to learn Chinese today - part of my retirement package.

Ready - Set - Flame on!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hope you can speak Chinese Posted by: Conservasaurus
» My apologies Posted by: Conservasaurus
Allen
Posted by: AllenM on Sep 22, 2006 2:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will the light of our nations folly illuminate us to our selves like it has so clearly those looking in our windows that we used to call friends and neighbors? We can not continue on this path or a radical response is sure to propagate a cataclysmic finallity to the discussion. When the Venuzuelan President call our acting president "Satan" was he so wrong?

Please continue your illumination, we are listening! Be the change you seek.

Allen

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We are Broke and Cannot Afford These Toys
Posted by: edith on Sep 24, 2006 5:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I listen to some of the advocates of F22 who sound like NASCAR or dragracing enthusiasts. While their enthusiasm is cute, what wars exactly are to be fought against whom to justify this welfare project for a couple of megadefense contractor monopolists(or oligarchs, correct me economists out there!). We are broke. We can't(and shouldn't )fight Iran as we have been bled to death financially by Iraqi misadventures of W. Missile defense, another techie gee whiz fascination, sucks up hundreds of billions yet when N.Korea fired off its Popgun or whatever missile no one expected our expensive toys to really work.

Our days as a superpower are really over although you will never find an honest poltician out side of Ron Paul or Bernie Sanders to admit it. We have shipped our assets overseas, lived on credit cards, and have trillions of dollars in direct liabiltities for Medicare, social security and pension defaults that we have no idea how to pay for. Hezbollah type groups can whip the butt of techie armies like the IDF which is equipped with the latest laser toys from the US and Israel.

Sorry kids. Mom isn't buying you your F22 for Xmas this year. The family's broke and the house is being foreclosed!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From an F-16 Driver
Posted by: Gancho on Oct 5, 2006 8:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just to offer a response to a few of the points in this article:

"the F-22's technological selling points are completely irrelevant to the security challenges currently facing the country."

-I agree, yet the plane was developed to complete dominate emerging technologies. In fact it skipped a generation of fighters altogether. Other countries won't start producing anything close to matching it's capabilities for decades. The American Public expects it's military to have the best equipment. We don't want even odds, we want total dominance.

"In order to detect enemy aircraft beyond visual range, the plane needs to turn on its radar, immediately rendering it visible to even the most primitive detection system."

-Just not true, sorry.

"...well-known aircraft analyst Pierre Sprey graded the F-22 on four criteria -- seeing the enemy first, outnumbering the enemy, outmaneuvering the enemy, and killing the enemy quickly."

"The Raptor is a horrible failure on almost every one of those criteria," Sprey said.

-Again, probably the only true statment here is the fact that the F-22 may find itself outnumbered in a fight. Still, the capabilities of the airplane allow a flight of F-22s to fight against groups of much larger numbers. The kicker here is that even then the F-22 still comes on top.

-Historically planes sold to other contries have degraded capabilities (one exeption is the Block 60 F-16 sold to UAE) vs the American version. The F-22 could be sold to Alllies with modifications, specially in avionics that would allow us to maintain the advantage if some day those allies were to turn on us or sell the equipment to other countries.

-The cost of an aircraft includes with it the design and development of the program. As the number of production orders decline, the price per copy must increase since the R&D is a fixed cost. Also, you need to read the contract. Many times the price given includes things as tools, spare engines, and part for the aircraft. Even then the F-22 is very expensive and that is why no other country in the world has anything like it.

-Finally, I'm an F-16 Pilot and there is some stuff out there that could make my day go really bad in a heartbeat. I wouldn't mind having the 22 watching my back if that day arrives.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]