The Pentagon’s proposal to cut off new orders this year of the F-22 Raptor fighter jet is bad news for United Technologies Corp. and the state. UTC Chief Executive Louis Chenevert had tied the F-22 work to the preservation of 2,000 to 3,000 jobs, including those at local suppliers.
UTC’s Pratt & Whitney makes the F-22’s engine and its Hamilton Sundstrand unit makes the engine controls. Nationally, estimates are that 100,000 jobs could be lost across 44 states if the F-22 program is dropped.
There are legitimate arguments to be made that the F-22 production should make way for a fighter that is better equipped to handle the changing military threats to the U.S. One such fighter, the F-35, also would provide jobs to Connecticut workers but would not be produced for a few years.
Proponents of scrapping the F-22 point out that the stealthy jet hasn’t contributed to the military efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan. They argue that the wars show more investment needs to be made in aircraft that provide intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has long been a critic of the F-22. His plan would cap future production of the fighter at 187, down from the many hundreds the Air Force requested.
The F-22s are getting a bad rap when it comes to the current conflicts. The first F-22s were not declared operational until late 2007 and the Air Force had determined they were needed in Iraq, but the request was denied by the Department of Defense.
In an e-mail to the Air Force Times, former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne said a study requested by the Department of Defense concluded the service needed more F-22s to replace outdated fighters. Wynne said the study had never been made public.
A number of Air Force generals also want more F-22s, but they are in a difficult political position. Reports indicate that former Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley was fired in part because of his F-22 lobbying efforts.
Connecticut aerospace-union officials point out that continuation of the F-22s would help ensure that there is a work force in place when production of the F-35 is begun.
Indeed, the best argument for continuing production of the F-22 is that it would be next to impossible to eliminate the jobs of the thousands of highly skilled workers who’ve produced the F-22 and expect to start production of the F-35 when the time comes.
Some state lawmakers are suggesting the Pentagon consider a way to bridge production of the two fighters in order to guarantee that an experienced and highly skilled work force is in place when the transition is made.
In a letter sent last week to President Obama, Connecticut’s congressional delegation made the argument that stopping production of the F-22 would hurt the U.S.’s industrial base, and informed the president that it would do everything it could to get more jets into the budget.
Connecticut’s delegation must continue to make the argument — as strongly as it did to save submarine jobs for Eastern Connecticut workers — that the nation’s military interests and the state’s economic interests are compatible.
In the case of the F-22 fighter, those interests are best served by phasing out production until work on a jet better capable of meeting the country’s military needs is ready to be made.
Reader response:
“F22 Cost $361 million per aircraft.
T-38 Cost: $756,000 in 1961” — Joshua
