Our friend Amy Butler over at Aviation Week reports the following:
U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne says his push to garner an extra $20 billion per year to boost the service’s procurement plans is “beginning to get some traction” with the White House.
Wynne and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley have consistently told Congress that the extra funding is required to pay for aircraft — including the F-22, Joint Strike Fighter, future refueling tanker and next-generation combat search and rescue helicopter — in higher quantities and at lower per unit costs.
“We are actually starting to hear a little bit of melody,” on this initiative, Wynne told an audience Nov. 28 at the Aerospace & Defense Finance conference …
Read the rest at Military.com.
– Ward
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Good news. This is one problem I don’t mind throwing a lot of money at. Per unit costs of the F-22 could be reduced significantly with increased production. And by sales to other interested ally nations – like Japan. Of coarse if you sell them to Japan, ROK will demand them too. Reducing costs further (complications aside).
Selling F-22′s to Japan also has the added benefit of screwing with China, forcing them to totally realign their air defenses. Away from Taiwan.
The F-35 is already spread out among several nations, including Australia. Canada should be encouraged to buy them as well if they’re not already.
Didn’t Japan already ask for the F-22? Lockheed Martin would love to sell them overseas. And I thought I remember reading that someone said ‘no’ because they don’t want all that nice techonology to out of US control . . . same reason why the export version of the F-35 will lack a lot of the really nice stealth stuff . . .
This is good news. From the fly-boy to the grunt this fighter is a necessity. If I have to be in the air I want a F-22 up there with me. If I have to be on the ground, I want a F-22 in the air above me.
The bottom line is that has a higher rate of survivability than any current fighter, thus it’s more likely to be there when it’s needed.
“The bottom line is that has a higher rate of survivability than any current fighter, thus it’s more likely to be there when it’s needed.”
How many pilots have escaped due to its superior “rate of survivability”? No doubt the Raptor is a very advanced airframe, and LIKELY is more survivable in combat than other aircraft, but your statement is completely unvalidated as of yet.
Also, what does survivability have to do with “being there when its needed”? Thats makes absolutely no sense. If a pilot has to “survive” an incident in a Raptor, I seriously doubt the aircraft is going to be flying ever again!
C Foskey-
I think when talking about survivability, he isnt talking about actually surviving a hit from a SAM/AAM/AAA but surviving in a high threat enviroment. The Raptors LO/supercruise/networking/etc capability allow it to survive, by not getting hit, in an enviroment that other aircraft would quickly seen, tracked and hit.
I think some people’s “love” of the B-2 Spirit,the F-22A Raptor,& the F-35A/B/C Lightning II JSF borders on eroticism.Where is the love for the YF-23A Black Widow II or the X-32A/B/C? I guess the F-117 Nighthawk is the blue haired old lady with the baggy droopy tits & sagging ass now,huh?
I’d be stealing bandwith if I went into the gory details of survivability, including the Kill Chain here. Suffice to say, that it involves a lot more than ability to take a hit. I interpret Chris’ statement about ‘being there’ as “it didn’t get shot down earlier”.
I could make a pretty good educated guess as to the less obvious reasons why the JSF is considered exportable and the F-22 is not (yet). But it would only be a guess because I only have marginal insight into the F-22 program. I WOULD bet dollars to donuts that it has nothing to do with stealth performance. We (US) are exporting the F-35 largely to NATO partners and it is a good thing for interoperability purposes to NOT have uneven capabilities, as we really witnessed in 1999 during the Serbia/Kosovo ops. Our NATO Allies took the need for better systems as that as a valuable leesson from that conflict.
The whole survivability thing was hashed over pretty well in an earlier post by Ward: (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/003424.html)
or search “Is the Dogfight Dead?”.
IN the case of the F-22, it is still a whiz bang dogfighter if you get inside it’s bubble – not neccessarily the case with the F-35. There is a reason it is called a ‘Strike Fighter’ (‘Bomber Fighter’ sounded bass-ackwards) and not a ‘Fighter Bomber’.
I find it fascinating that anyone might believe our (US) JSF program partners would accept anything less than the US in the low observable department. I’d be interested in hearing any reasons or conditions that anyone can think of where that would be the case.
Driving unit costs down: Yes! If you want a graphic example as to how costs are gamed look no further than the B-2 and F-22. I saw a LockMart brief back about 2000 that broke down the unit cost growth between what was driven by the technical and the program side vs. what was caused by the serial reduction in numbers bought. About 80% of unit cost growtyh was due to cutting numbers. When the B-2 was capped at 20 aircraft intead of the original 132, the instant $2B bomber was born because the amortizaton of all the design, development, tooling, and test costs were spread over %80+ fewer aircraft. We don’t have to WAG what any more would cost, because a few years ago Northrop offered the AF 40 B-2Cs for about $750M each. (In the end, entrenched AF factions gamed those numbers along with other reasons they ginned up in order to not proceed.)
If we could get the politicians out of the process (those in and out of the uniform) we could probably cut all defense costs 20%, but alas! ‘It ain’t gonna happen!’
The YF-23 is among the greatest aircraft never built. I view it as America’s Avro Arrow: years ahead of its time and something where we will always wonder what might have been.
The F-117 was a fabulous first step for modern stealth, it hurt my eyes to look at it the first time I saw one it was so different. But its beauty is in its functionality…like the F-4, like the BUFF and BONE, and like the AH-1 are beautiful. Like the A-10 is beautiful. Form follows function.
Unfortunately, all of the above also are obsolete (or rapidly getting there) in their original configurations or mission.
The X-32 was ugly for many reasons, not the least of which it was a failed concept and a failed design. It belongs no where in the same paragraph with the other systems mentioned.
Hmmmm. In this case I would say it appears just as likely that the attachment of the concepts ‘eroticism’ and ‘sexy’ to ‘new and better’ weapon systems more accurately identifies one as having an emotional and nostalgic attachment to the past (one that perhaps never was) and an unexplainable tendency to hold on to things beyond their useful lives. As individuals in a free society that is a luxury we can sometimes afford to indulge in (someday when I retire maybe). As a nation it is folly – one that can only bring disaster because nostalgia does not win wars.
C Foskey, maybe not in “real” combat. I’m sure, however if you go ask the pilots playing war games over Alaska, it’s as real as it gets w/o dying for real.
Here’s a single example.
D’oh, here’s the link:
http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/August/08102006/08102006-09.htm
America spends more on defense than the rest of the world combined, and it still isn’t enough? There must be some serious inefficiencies in there somewhere.
And apparently America does need the F-35 for export purposes. Otherwise, that part of the world which buys American fighters is going to give up and start buying Russian and European models instead.
I seriously have no problem with the F-22.The problem is that the same people,with power, are arguing the same arguments we are.Arguing over whether we need the JSF leaves us with no fighter jet period because paralysis which prevents us from going either way has set.While the powers that be are arguing what kind of fighter jet is needed,none of any kind are being built.The same is true with the CSAR-X.The end result is that we have NO helicopter for the CSAR-X.The Future Combat System is in the same boat.The Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter is n limbo.Even the EFV is stuck in limbo.The same goes with the LCS(one LCS goes a long way I guess) & the DD-21 Zumwalt Destroyer.A lot of you are taking it on faith that these weapons systems are eventually going to come on line.I’m sorry,thats faith I do not have.Do we have the funds for the reset program for our Abrams & Bradleys?How about being able to reset the equipment being used in Iraq & Afghanistan?Please,please,please,take your eyes off of the “promises made” & look,seriously look at what we have,or don’t have,TODAY.
RE:
When are we going to start building more C-5′s and C-17′s so we can get everything where it needs to go in time of war?? We are going to have to do something with the C-5A’s possibly being phased out due to fatigue and age; the C-5B’s will have to be reworked and we did not replace the C-141′s with the C-17 on a one-for-one basis which is needed if the C-5 squadrons are going to be reduced. Just food for strategic thought, if that can still be done in Washington. . . .
By the way, why is the picture named F-22 when it resembles a F-35?
you sure thats a F-35? take another look at the pic