Orrin Hatch, Rob Bishop tout importance of F-35 at Hill Air Force Base

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • mehmet Turkey, 00
    Oct. 18, 2013 10:58 a.m.

    Thanks for the announcement. Meantime here you can have a look at some great F-35 photos:

    F-35 Joint Strike Fighter Pictures

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 22, 2013 6:10 p.m.

    "Our guy who always pushed HAFB and vitamins!"

    Yup. And he went out of his way to insure that the "vitamin" companies could make outlandish claims about what they could cure, and not have to back up anything.

    Nothing like a good BUCK to insure that legislation allows money to flow to those who pay.

  • ThornBirds St.George, Utah
    Aug. 22, 2013 3:20 p.m.

    Utah history will remember Senator Orrin Hatch as "Our guy who always pushed HAFB and vitamins!"

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:34 a.m.

    This is a good move for the Air Force and the administration due to the large training and flight areas in Nevada, Idaho and Utah for aircraft to perform military roles and have the local depot and ATK close-by to evaluate and pursue changes as needed. The military and civilian workforce along with contractor involvement locally is outstanding at Hill AFB.

    It is good to see that our security forces and missions will continue for the foreseeable future. Thanks to good people that are supporting our way of life.

  • Jeff29 Draper, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 11:17 a.m.

    I agree that the technical problems and cost overruns with the F-35 program are definitely problamtic (although cost overruns are not uncommon in civilian as well as military contracts). But to all of those complaining about the F-35, what is your solution? The F-35 will replace Air Force F-16's, Navy F-18's (A-D models), and Marine Harriers. The first F-16's rolled of the production line in 1976 with the newest US versions being over 10 years old. Similarly, the first F-18's were produced in the late 70's with the newest C/D models being 13 years old. Finally, the Harrier is based on a British plane designed in the late 50's with the U.S. model being produced between 1969 and 2003 (in addition, Harriers are very difficult to fly).

    These are all great planes, but they won't last forever. So what's the solution? Do we just fly them all until they can't fly anymore, and then disband the flying forces of our military, or do we build a replacement?

  • Invisible Hand Provo, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:50 a.m.

    The military is stuck in the mentality of putting pilots in jets. They could be faster, fly further and be more economical in every way if they didn't insist on putting a fragile human in them who is subject to G-forces, fatigue, injury and death. Drones are the future of combat aircraft, not $135M jets.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:36 a.m.

    Bishop and Hatch are wrong.

    Even the military no longer wants this weapons system.

    the costs of the F35 pale when compared to Obamacare. Even if purchased, the weapons system will eventually be retired and the costs will end. Obamacare will go on and on and on and on and on and on and - well, reasonable people will get the idea.

    we have learned Obamacare will costs significantly more than originally projected when the lie was being foisted on us. the costs will continue. No comparison between an unneeded weapons system and a wasteful and damaging health insurance law.

  • redshirt007 tranquility base, 00
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:34 a.m.

    Behold, the power of pork spending.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 10:03 a.m.

    Re CHS 85

    I agree it would be nice if all base closings were based on merit and need of the D of D but some how I feel that is not the case. Personal feelings political considerations and lobbying have a huge effect on this procedure.

    I seem to remember one politician here in Utah I do not remember which campaigning on the fact that his senority could protect Hill AFB from reductions and possible closing and the jobs it would lose while his or her opponent would not have that seniority to accomplish that task.

    I am probably wrong but I remember other elected officials talking about how they can protect Hill AFB for the jobs and economic impact on northern Utah and their opponents could not.

    Are these politicians simply feeding the "Sheeple" or is there some truth to what they say?

  • Reasonable Person Layton, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:48 a.m.

    Doug10 - Senators are not paid $380,000 annually.

    Everyone else - Yes, the F-35 was "dumped" on Hill AFB, as the plane the Air Force didn't want. It's not a happy situation, because Hill has already lost its independence and is now just an adjunct facility of Oklahoma's Tinker AFB.

    Look for Hill to be on the next BRAC list.

  • Doug10 Roosevelt, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 9:00 a.m.

    The colossal cost of the jet is awful.

    You know it is bad when they send Sen Hatch as he can justify any cost in the country as he has done for the past 20 years. He can be counted on by Washington, not by Utah but by the politicians in the capital.

    He is the man who spent $10,000,000 to win a job that pays him $380,000. Of the $10,000,000 he spent there was $890,000 from Utah voters.

    Where did the rest come from?

    According to senator Htachs office it was interested citizens outside Utah. Sorry Seantor I don't buy that story nor any you talk about now...they are all ......

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 22, 2013 8:46 a.m.

    "Again, military bases are not jobs programs."

    Maybe not, but the DOD is the largest employer in the world.
    When discussing base closures, the first argument IS about jobs.

    Jobs may not have been the impetus for opening a base, but is certainly ranks high when there are thoughts of closing one.

    Who is the single biggest employer in Utah? Any guesses?

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 7:32 a.m.

    @Iron Rod

    Hill AFB isn't a jobs program, it is a strategic military installation and if it is not needed, then it should be closed. I know that would be horrific to the state of Utah, but Hill should not be spared simply because it is in Utah. Other bases around the country were closed in droves after the cold war, and Utah should feel fortunate that Hill AFB was not closed along with them. And those bases were in politically important areas where one would think political clout would save them - Fort Ord, Griffis AFB, Long Beach Naval Shipyard, El Toro MCAB are just a few that come to mind.

    Again, military bases are not jobs programs.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Aug. 22, 2013 6:43 a.m.

    "Wheeler — a longtime military-cost analyst on Capitol Hill (where he toiled on both sides of the aisle) and the Government Accountability Office — says the plane’s $159 million purported per copy price in that latest Pentagon SAR — continues to rise, and is actually well north of that sum."

    In a related issue, Lockheed Martin has spent over $15 million in EACH of the past 2 years lobbying congress. THAT IS ONE COMPANY.

    That is in addition to $4+ million in campaign contributions.

    The defense industry spent over $130 MILLION in 2012 lobbying congress. Keep in mind, we only have 535 members of congress.

    Does anyone believe that this money does not taint our politicians?

    But, that's OK folks. Dont worry about corporations buying our politicians. Our time is much better spent arguing over birth certificates and presidential vacation costs.

    We carp daily about the pennies while the real dollars fly out the window.

    And that is exactly what our politicians want us to do.

    Can you imagine if both R and D banded together and told congress, "YOU WILL NOT take obscene amounts of money from businesses or unions"

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 5:28 a.m.

    Let me see if I have this straight...

    We "need" a $400 Billion weapon system against a 'possible' threat,
    We don't "need" an Affordable Healthcare system against a known threat.

    I get it now...NOT!

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 22, 2013 4:55 a.m.

    How about the answer "Corporate Welfare"?

    These companies maintain an army of former Generals and "glad Handing" lobbyist who occupy Washinton D.C,

    These companies and their lobbyists convince our elected representatives that it is OK and logical to borrow money to give it away to Egypt and Israel so they can buy expensive top of the line military jets and other equipment from their companies.

    If that isn't a classic example of "welfare" what s?

  • HappyHeathen Puyallu, Wa.
    Aug. 22, 2013 12:50 a.m.


    The F-35 debacle is a colossal waste of taxpayer money.

  • Blue Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:57 p.m.

    From Bloomberg Business News: "The Pentagon envisioned the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as an affordable, state-of-the-art stealth jet serving three military branches and U.S. allies. Instead, the Lockheed Martin Corp. aircraft has been plagued by a costly redesign, bulkhead cracks, too much weight, and delays to essential software that have helped put it seven years behind schedule and 70 percent over its initial cost estimate. At almost $400 billion, it’s the most expensive weapons system in U.S. history."

    And no one can offer a rational answer to the question, "Why is this airplane, which can't fly in the rain, even remotely needed?

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Aug. 21, 2013 10:39 p.m.

    I would hope the constant negative comments from our Senator Lee about the current administration in power would not impact the future mission of Hill AFB.

    At times when people feel they have been wronged unjustly they strike back and cutting the role of Hill AFB would be one way for the administration to strike back at Senator Lee.

    Is he ready for it?