Deseret News | Reader comments: Bishop saves F-22 production by 1 vote

Reader comments
Bishop saves F-22 by one vote

Ken | 2:19 p.m. June 17, 2009

Another pet project.

Way to go! | 2:23 p.m. June 17, 2009

Gotta love Rob Bishop, a great representative for Utah and for our wonderful nation! Thank you!

Anonymous | 2:26 p.m. June 17, 2009

Why tie the military's hands and force them to keep a Minuteman missile warm line if the air force didn't ask for it, just so you can provided jobs to your constituency?

Comments continue below

TonyD1203 | 2:44 p.m. June 17, 2009

Rob Bishop...TRUE AMERICAN!!!

Change | 3:04 p.m. June 17, 2009

I love the era of change in Washington where we continue to pare down the military and try to put money into "enviro" projects. Thank goodness for the Air Force and Bisop's willingness to make a difference over the Demo's.

Good Move | 4:28 p.m. June 17, 2009

Most money on the F-22 is spent on research and development. The first F-22 is the most expensive.

It is a waste of money to pour all this money into R & D than only build a few planes.

This plane is so expensive and technogically complex, that no other country could afford to build one and remain solvent.

It is assured to rule the skies and assure us air dominance in any war. Air dominance children is what keeps soldiers alive. Without it we would have many more casualities.

suzyk | 4:30 p.m. June 17, 2009

Rob Bishop has always been a great American. Even though we live in Phoenix, AZ now I keep up with all that is going on in Utah. Utah...MY HOME. Utah ought to be preparing Mr. Bishop for a future Presidency don't you think? He has and will have all he needs to be a good risk as President of the United States.

Anonymous | 4:45 p.m. June 17, 2009

Another pet project is right. Utahan love their pork. Compare the costs of the F-22 to the F-35. The reason there is not British or Spanish empire was their military and expansionist wars bankrupted them.

Mr. Bond | 4:49 p.m. June 17, 2009

F-22s are way cool.

Good job, Rob! | 4:51 p.m. June 17, 2009

The F-22 is the best fighter in the world; we should build as many as possible.

Plus, it's the only fighter that can protect us from the Decepticons! ;)

Chad | 5:01 p.m. June 17, 2009

I thought Starscream was an F-22 and decepticon.

I love the fact that rep Bishop saved the F-22 but I hate the way the article describes it as best for Utah. Senators and Congressmen need to think! They are US senators and US congressmen and should do first what is in the best interest for this country, and second what is in the best interest of their state or district. Focusing on state first causes pork and waste. The warm missle program is a prime example.

The F-22 is needed, great job. Next time think please and place your country ahead of your state!

Decepticon. | 5:01 p.m. June 17, 2009

Sure the F-22 can protect you NOW. Decepticons will be back. Be very afraid.

anti-anonymous | 5:09 p.m. June 17, 2009

The reason the f-35 is cheaper than an f-22 is because it can't do all the things that an f-22 can do. In order to retain air superiority we NEED these new planes. The f-35 will be produced on a two or three to one basis compared to the f-22. The cost to defend America is already beng held low with the f-35 but the 22's are needed to keep the superiority. Do your homework before you comment on things you know very little about.

Re: Decepticon | 5:20 p.m. June 17, 2009

I'm predicting they'll be here by June 24th.

@anti | 5:22 p.m. June 17, 2009

Who exaclty is challenging our air superiority?

This is a waste of money. | 5:25 p.m. June 17, 2009

The F-22 should be a low priority for the Air Force it is a concept led by Fighter Jock Generals that don't see its real needs. The F-35 JSF is just as good, cheaper, more flexable and is easier to maintain. The F-22 should go the way of the Army's high budget Crusader artillary system. It is simply a one dimensional platform.

The Air Force has bigger problems that it needs to fix. What good is a fuel happy aircraft that can't be refueled in the air because all the tankers are 50+ years old, or the command and control aircraft can't get them there.

Fighter jocks have run the rest of the Air Force into the ground to get the newest and coolest toys. We are already two generations ahead of the our closest competator in fighter aircraft, why reduce the number and be less responcive to emergent mission?

The Air Force needs to put some loggies in charge!!

NO WASTE | 7:08 p.m. June 17, 2009

If you want to talk waste, talk ACORN getting $5 billion in Obama Stimulus money, and Nancy Pelosi getting $150 million for endangered "Rat" for habitat restoration. That's real waste. The F-22 is the most awesome technology we have. Who knows who our adversaries will be 10 years from now...WIth China militarizing beyond defensive means. We cannot afford to let down and take a break from maintining our edge. In the beginning of program, they were going to build 740 F-22s. Now it's way down to 243 is the minimum number they need. Obama and Gates want to stop at 187, so they can put more money into paying irrespponsible people's mortgages and making $350,000 photo ops for Air Force one.

Opinion | 8:05 p.m. June 17, 2009

I'm glad we're supporting the F22. F22 R&D & production will be a long term benefit to our country. With all the problems in N. Korea, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, & other places, it is imperitive that we continue spending on national defense. I'd rather keep national defense companies alive & healthy than pour billions into GM & other unionized factories whose efficiency & quality are subpar. National Defense should be a top priority. The government was primarily established to protect our freedom. National Defense is critical and should never fall by the wayside especially in these perilous times. Have you been following what the North Koreans are saying? Way to go Bishop! Having a strong presence in the skies is huge.

This program should be killed | 8:40 p.m. June 17, 2009

Both administrations are financially bankrupt. Building the F-22 will cause the Air Force to be a small, slow moving, short range, but lethal tactical force that can defeat any other aircraft. But it will not get there. The work horses of the Air Force are obsolete the KC-135s are older then almost all of the AF pilots (maybe not the old Fighter Jock Generals). They are being sent to museums, while the same systems are still being abused and missing missions. There is no real plan to support them or replace them. Real strategic aircraft dont have the funds to be fully sustained.

The real workhorses (the Army, Marines, and their reserves) in the two current wars are becoming crippled and broke due to OPTEMPO. The Air Force Fighter Jock Generals can think about the war ten years from now because they are ineffective in the current ones. They still wont get there, because they will have not TANKER SUPPORT. The F-22 is a gas guzzler.

The Air Force needs a change from tactical level Fighter Jocks to real strategic thinkers. Transporters, Tankers, Missile, and Loggies.

National Defense is Unionized | 8:50 p.m. June 17, 2009

Opinion: Fact all of the major National Defense Industries are highly unionized. Why do you think the government is trying to save GM, and the other auto companies? They compete for National Defense dollars. They build stuff that the Army and Marines (as well as the ground loving Navy and Air Force) use on a day-to-day basis. How far can a Fighter fly without a Tanker? To the Salt Flats and back.

Anonymous | 7:54 a.m. June 18, 2009

Should not the Pentagon decide which weapon systems should be utilized, rather than pork-barrel loving Congressmen like Bishop who are more interested in bringing home bacon than getting a handle on out of control spending that they complain about on others' projects? Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and was he ever right. But that Republican President and war hero who knew has been ignored by Bishop and other members of Congress who lvoe to spend, spend, spend, even when the military doesn't want something. Pigs and hypocrits!

Daeyel | 9:15 a.m. June 18, 2009

This is small minded parochialism at its worst!

One man insisting questionable programs continue, just so he can 'bring home the bacon' to his state.

How about looking at a larger picture? How about doing whats right for the USA and not UTAH?

And next week, we'll be running around wondering why our taxes are so high, why our deficit runs in the trillions?

This is why. 435 Representatives of Congress pulling parochial 'Me and my state first!' stunts like this. 100 Senators putting their state before national interests and national security. 535 members of Congress with their own agenda, which certainly never begins with the welfare of ALL citizens.

Congress is NOT an accumulation of leaders. It is NOT a government. It's just a big game of Hungry Hungry Hippos, with our dollars as marbles.

Someone who actually knows... | 9:51 a.m. June 18, 2009

Please explain to me why on the JSF webpage, the product statement for the F-35 states "the F-35 is the most affordable, lethal, supportable and survivable aircraft to be used by SO MANY WARFIGHTERS across the globe". Then in a side article concerning Lockheed getting more funding to build the plane, we're selling it to the UK and Netherlands. At first I thought "across the globe" meant U.S. bases across the globe. But apparently we're selling our cutting edge technology to everyone??? How does that give us an advantage? I get that we have allies, but let them have our old planes, not brand new.

Read the Constitution | 8:06 a.m. June 19, 2009

Anonymous (popular name here), go read Article 1 of the US Constitution. It is up to CONGRESS to "provide for the common defense" and the "appropriations power" rests SOLELY with the Congress. So your inane observation that "shouldn't the Secretary of Defense decide" belies your ignoracne of our system or government. The SecDef is to IMPLEMENT what CONGRESS directs it to do. CONGRESS represents the people as duly elected representatives. SECDEF is APPOINTED shill for Obama. There is BIG DISAGREEMENT witihin the Pentagon on F-22 between Secretary Gates and the Air Force. Air Force study after study says we need 250 aircraft as "moderate risk" to future air superiority!! 187 is certainly higher risk. Get a clue. Yes, F-22 provides good jobs and what's wrong with that? At least they provide a needed good and service, unlike ACORN.

good for bishop | 2:21 p.m. June 19, 2009

did anyone read the article were sukhoi's(russia) making a 5th generation fighter with india. the f-22 is the best fighter ever built. much better than the 35. i dont live in utha but i do make parts for the 22. there are alot of jobs tied into this plane. we have already spent the money on developement' it only gets cheaper from there. once again a guy like gates wants to put inferior weapons into our militarys hands. MAKE THE BEST FOR THE BEST!! there are a minimum of 6 other countries that will have the 35 as well as us. whers is our air superiorty then? answer f-22. congress needs to do there job, protect our country from outside and in. GATES GO TO HELL !! you are not the voice of the people congress is

Supporting the F-22 is WELFARE | 9:50 a.m. June 20, 2009

Simple fact is that the F-22 program is a welfare program not actually supporting what the Air Force needs. DOD needs to put its diminishing resources in supporting the CURRENT WARs and plan for the future to support and sustain real stratigic aircraft.

Keep the sword sharp | 10:14 a.m. June 24, 2009

Does anybody remember the entire F-15 fleet being grounded last year for structural reasons? The mighty Eagle is getting old and near the end of its structural life cycle. We need the F-22 ASAP and in sufficient numbers. Fighters crash and get shot down - it's called attrition. Take advantage of the economy of scale, keep the plants open with an optimized production volume, avoid even more brain drain out of DOD projects and build the Raptor in sufficient numbers to counter whatever threats we may face the next 2 or 3 decades. Only 187 for an air superiority fighter? That's insane. Funding ACORN and worthless stimulous projects instead of the F-22 is true welfare. (And, yes, we do need a new tanker. It should not be an either/or proposition.)

UAV win. | 10:35 a.m. June 24, 2009

Big win with UAVs. That's gonna be huge and Utah needs to be involved in maintaining and developing tech for it. Eventually piloted vehicles will all be obsolete.

great! | 10:59 a.m. June 24, 2009

More big deficit spending from the war mongers on the right! At a time when we have serious healthcare issues at home that need too be addressed, we will continue to blow billions of dollars on death and destruction rather than jobs and medical care. Tell me how much the republicans really care about the deficit and our children. NADA!!!!!!

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.