Today Max Bergmann pointed out over at Think Progress that a contractor who would directly benefit from the Air Force's F-22 Raptor program was involved in a supposedly independent endorsement of continuing the controversial program.
He points out that "In a recent piece in Foreign Affairs, conservative Fred Kagan pointed out that a single F-22 could pay for 3,000 additional American troops." But it goes back further than that. Kagan has valiantly been fighting against the F-22 since at least September 2000, when he signed on (along with Paul Wolfowitz, "Scooter" Libby and other PNACers) to a paper which suggested (PDF link) that F-22 wasn't needed. What was needed were more aircraft like the C-17.
I honestly couldn't say whether or not the F-22 is worth the cost, but, of the people that do know, most say it isn't. But I find it odd that one of the signators of this document was Barry Watts of Northrop Grumman. NG provides systems for all kinds of aircraft, including the A-10, the B-1B, the B-2, the B-52, the C-130, the E-3, the F-111G, the F117A, the F-15, the F-16, the KC-10A, the KC-135, the OA-10A, the E-2, the C-17, the Global Hawk, the Predator, the FA-18, the MH-60, the AH-1Z and the UH-1Y. What airplane is missing from that list?