MARIETTA, Ga. — The final F-22 Raptor fighter jet rolled off the assembly line at a Lockheed Martin Corp. plant in Marietta on Tuesday.
The jet is the last of about 190 F-22s produced for the U.S. Air Force, completing its operational fleet.
The F-22 Raptor is designed to carry a variety of weapons, including smart bombs and air-to-air missiles.
The final Raptor will be delivered to the U.S. Air Force next year, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported. About 2,000 workers have assembled the jets at the Marietta plant.
The F-22s are now based at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, Elmendorf AFB in Alaska, Holloman AFB in New Mexico, and Hickam AFB in Hawaii.
The F-22’s maiden flight took place Sept. 7, 1997, a Sunday morning, over Marietta with test pilot Paul Metz at the controls.
Lockheed originally expected to eventually build more than 1,400 Raptors, but the Navy pulled out of the project not long after the contract was awarded.
Critics have complained of the plane’s cost, about $140 million per plane, and many have argued there is no clear mission for the Raptor now that the Cold War is over.
The Raptor did not have a role in the fighting in Iraq or Afghanistan. It has been deployed to Japan and Guam to enhance security in the Pacific.
Comments (20)
Add commentBO’s unemployment:
With the loss of jobs that will go along with this cut and the return of military personnel.
In which some will remain in the service and others will join the civilian population. I wonder what that’s going to do to BO’s unemployment numbers. Also, let’s not forget the cuts in defense and the jobs that will be lost over that.
I'm confused?
When is big government spending it's way to economic recovery ok and when is it not. Is it ok as long as its a military program? If it's a social program, it's not ok? Help!
Milspec's Logic*...
The article states that the F-22’s maiden flight was in 1997. From that we should be able to discern that the production contract was awarded sometime earlier than that, say 1995. The article also states that the reduction in the number of planes to be produced was due to the Navy pulling out of the program “not long after the contract was awarded”.
So…
Step 1. Something happens in the mid-nineties with a result that you don’t like.
Step 2. ???
Step 3. Blame Obama.
*With apologies to South Park and the Underpants Gnomes.
Cut this waste!
Boondoggle programs like this one + two unneeded and unpopular wars are the reason for the deficit, not social programs, but the Repugnicans want to use it as an excuse to unravel our social safety net.
Cut defense spending! Spend the money on high speed rail, renewable energy, infrastructure repairs to put those defense workers and former military to work!
But no, the Koch Brothers and their corporate allies want to cut everything for the middle class and taxes for the rich, and Congress toadies right up to them.
I'll take Social Security over this kind of dead-end spending any day.
cur, as soon as the "but no, the koch bro" came up...
switched you off. Social Security is dead end spending. It is unsustainable.
obama communist blah blah
obama communist blah blah blah
government workers, jobs bad blah blah blah
social security bad blah blah blah
government spending for me, military, my benefits good blah blah blah
Hansolo:
I didn’t say anything about blaming BO. It is a very good question to ask. It is a fact that unemployment is going to rise and Bo is on watch. You can't twist that around.
But you can contradict
But you can contradict yourself when you're well known for railing against government spending and jobs...
I'm glad you're coming around to the fact that government employees also hold jobs, though, and that cutting them loose doesn't help our economy.
Quit aware:
I am very aware of that PP. Always have been. As you know I am against wasteful spending by our government along with other things. And I am also pro military and do not have a problem with keeping it up to speed, bigger the better. Everyone including your self wants’ the military budget cut in half with no regards to the loss of jobs it will cause. No contradiction here.
@ curmudgeon
Huh? High speed rail where? From Amalga Harbor to Thane? Renewable energy? Solar panels in a freaking rainforest? All that is nice in theory, but doesn't work in real life, especially when it takes a 30-40% gubmint subsidy to even give it a chance of viability.
Like justlivin said, I switched you off when you mentioned the Koch brothers. Too much MSNBC is bad for the brain, dude. Kinda makes you stop thinking for yourself and start speaking in Democrat talking points.
@Logical: I do believe
@Logical: I do believe curmudgeon was talking from a national perspective, where rail and solar do make sense.
And Milspec., I'm curious as to why you believe our military should be as large as possible. Surely you understand that we don't face military threats and that military spending essentially disappears into a void--it does not create wealth.
Right on both counts
Military spending does not promote growth. A healthy private sector does. The Gov't subsidized "green" energy is a farce and just a way for BO to divert funds to his cronies. The US's only hope, the sale of oil and precious metals which the world, especially China, cannot do without. Let's get back to basics and pretend its 1949, a time that was about to launch the US into an economic superpower (and before the time of political correctness gone amok).
@Banditrider: weren't you the
@Banditrider: weren't you the one a few weeks ago who said China had almost no natural resources of its own? Why should we take anything you say seriously? After all, there was no green energy scam--I and others have proven this several times, and you could even do a simple Google search for the same effect.
Oh, also, in 1949 the world was trying to come back from the most explosive war in history, and only America's industrial capacity came through it unscathed, allowing us all the lucrative contracts required to rebuild it. I'll leave it to you to figure out other ways 2011 differs from 1949.
Now I know you're just
Now I know you're just joking.
PP, are you kidding?
PP sez " After all, there was no green energy scam--I and others have proven this several times, and you could even do a simple Google search for the same effect.". Kinda the same as your boy Al Gore inventing the "internets". huh? A Liberal wing nut living in Juneau, AK has disproven a widely accepted fact. Wow.
You also say "Surely you understand that we don't face military threats and that military spending essentially disappears into a void--it does not create wealth." You may be right about the creating wealth angle, but you are completely wrong about us not facing military threats. If you'd look up from your tofu and beansprout quiche, you might notice that Iran, northern Africa, China, and Russia are likely problems on the rise. The Muslim Jihadists are another issue in their own right.
We don't need a WWII-style military, but we do need a strong, robust, and agile military to deal with the bad guys that are out there. Liberal wishy-washy Koombayah naivete won't protect us. Guns and tough guys that can use them will.
A couple thoughts
The US economy boomed after the 40's in part due to hard work at home and the development of resources within US borders. But perhaps more significantly, our economy boomed after the 40's because we were busy snatching up resources in other countries and making use of them in the US. The Cold War ensued for so long because the USSR also wanted their hands on global resources, which is why we found ourselves in proxy wars and KGB-CIA clashes in strange, far off lands like Korea, Vietnam, and Indonesia, Zaire and Angola, Panama, Honduras and Guatemala, Argentina and Chile, etc. We were fighting for control of natural resources worldwide, and we continued to develop not only our military reach, but also our diplomatic reach (i.e. USAID, Peace Corps, and even US embassies) to access those resources and/or to defend their accessibility against the Soviets.
We live in a different world today. Our own natural resources have been mostly exploited down south. There are resources in Alaska that some people are eyeing for immediate, short term development without foresight or concern for what happens when those resources go through the standard boom and bust cycle and we're left with no more natural capital and an even more severe unemployment crisis. And we no longer have unfettered and relatively free access to natural resources in foreign countries the way we used to in the good ol' days.
I don't have any silver bullets here. Just an understanding that we have a stark reality on our hands that can be attributed, in large part, to the short sighted mistakes of the 20th century that so many of us are eager to replicate in the 21st century.
@Logical: actually, all I did
@Logical: actually, all I did was show there's no evidence for any green energy scandal. The so-called "scam" consists of a solar panel company being outcompeted by Chinese firms. This happens in capitalism, believe it or not. I find it odd that you hardcore free-market types would think a business failing means there's something nefarious going on.
As for military threats, you must be one insecure dude. Iran and North Korea are the closest thing to threats we have, both of which are geographically removed and not even regional superpowers (South Korea is militarily superior to North Korea, Israel and the Islamic states around Iran are also militarily superior). There is absolutely nothing--NOTHING--that justifies our spending as much on military as the rest of the world combined. Oh, and Russia and China? Do you not understand politics? Why would either of those countries, with their inferior technology, with the very real possibility of mutually assured destruction (remember, we have the world's most capable nuclear arsenal now), with the extent their economies rely on ours, decide to attack us? Are you completely unaware of globalization?