Our friend and sometimes DT poster Bob Cox of Fort Worth Star-Telegram fame had this piece on Saturday:
General reprimanded for disagreeing on F-22
A senior Air Force general picked a bad time to publicly disagree with Defense Secretary Robert Gates over his opposition to buying more F-22 Raptors.
After weeks of debate over the future of Lockheed Martin’s high-priced stealth fighter jet, Gates sent Air Force leaders a message to tone down the rhetoric by having a top general reprimanded for suggesting that the service would find a way to circumvent Pentagon and White House objections.
Experts don’t expect Air Force officials to change their minds about the need to buy more F-22s after the disciplining of Gen. Bruce Carlson. But a Washington insider said Friday that service leaders will turn down the volume.
“The secretary of the Air Force has sent a message to all of his four stars [generals] saying they need to be more circumspect in their language,” said Loren Thompson of the Lexington Institute, who has close ties to the Air Force and is a consultant to Lockheed.
Leaders of the Air Force and the Pentagon have been engaged for weeks in an unusually public and testy disagreement about the future of the F-22 program.
The latest developments were spurred by Carlson’s comments published this week in the trade journal Aviation Week.
The general, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said the Air Force was “committed to funding 380″ F-22s regardless of the Bush administration’s budget policies. “We’re building a program right now to do that. It’s going to be incredibly difficult … but we’ve done this before.”
Carlson’s comments came as Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England was testifying before congressional committees.
In an exchange during a Senate Budget Committee hearing Tuesday, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Oregon, asked whether the Pentagon would buy F-22s to replace aging F-15s, some of which have been grounded because of structural defects.
“I do not believe the F-22 will be the replacement for the F-15,” England said. “I would expect instead to try and accelerate the [F-35] joint strike fighter,” which he called a capable and far less costly replacement.
The Air Force has long insisted that it needs at least 381 F-22s, which cost about $175 million each, according to budget documents. Bush’s 2009 defense budget provides funds to buy 20 F-22s, which would bring the total force to 183 planes.
England and Gates have insisted that they do not see a compelling need to buy more than a few additional F-22s, especially with the government facing the costs of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as developing and procuring future weapons.
“The reality is, we are fighting two wars … and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater,” Gates said in an appearance before a Senate committee last week.
Without an additional multiyear order for F-22s, Lockheed says it will have to begin shutting down the assembly line.
The company builds the plane’s midfuselage in Fort Worth, where about 1,800 people work on the program. It assembles the plane in Marietta, Ga.
About 8,000 people at Lockheed’s Fort Worth plant are working on the F-35 program, which is expected to provide most of the facility’s work for the next 20 to 30 years.
Winslow Wheeler, an analyst with the Center for Defense Information in Washington and a critic of the F-22 program, said Gates’ rebuke would have little effect on the argument over the F-22 because Congress will likely grant the wishes of the Air Force and Lockheed and provide money for more F-22s.
“There’s 44 states where there’s F-22 production,” Wheeler said, adding that even liberal Democrats such as Wyden like to preserve defense jobs.
The office of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne released a statement late Friday saying that the “F-22 program is critical for the nation’s defense” but that Carlson’s comments “misrepresent the position of the U.S. Air Force. The Air Force wholeheartedly supports the President’s budget request for the F-22 program.“
– Christian
DA,
I am not worried about China today. I AM worried about China’s capabilities in 2035. My worry is that the F-22 is going to be the spearhead of any US air operation for the next 40 to 50 years. There are currently no plans for a replacement for the F-22. There aren’t even plans to create any plans for the replacement for the F-22. This aircraft may end up with a service life to rival that of the B-52. We’re facing an enemy with a growing economy, with a large population, that has shown a large interest in upgrading its own military capabilities.
If we cease production on the Raptor, it will not restart. I would rather invest in the Raptor today (we already have a substantial investment–I’d like to take advantage of that by buying more) than be forced to spend much more in the future to counter a growing Chinese threat.
DA, your ignorance is startling. Consider the number of armored divisions that we currently field, which is way and above more than what we would field against any third-world army that we might fight, such as Iran, Venezvuela, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc, in the next twenty years.
Our armored divisions are just about invincible (!!!) according to how you’d define them. So why couldn’t we get by with half the armored divisions? Why couldn’t we retire a 1000 tanks?
Because we need a strategic reserve and we need to cycle those units, we need them to guard hotspots and deploy on exercises, etc.
Your insistence on invincibility of the F-22 is risible. It isn’t. Nothing is. Saying so makes you a titanic fool. Disdaining the force structure of the Air Force makes your arguments risible.
Man, way too many negative attacks on this thread that tend to destroy credibility of otherwise outstanding posters with differing opionions.
Please stop.
NTV, while the Chinese theoretically could launch a surprise attack with something up their sleeve, even if they have initial successes, if we stop the shipment of oil to China, how long does a country with 1.3 billion continue to fight and survive daily life?
Add our own mobilization and deployments and China could not stay on Taiwan for long. Of course, this may be academic with Taiwan elections in March. Hong Kong seems to have survived under Chinese rule, and Taiwan would as well…through peaceful elections.
Can’t picture fighting China in any scenario other than saving Taiwan. Can you, and why? Please no obscure references to wanting to dominate the Pacific. What specific event would cause war with China if the Taiwan issue disappears? I can envision many more reasons for war between China and Russia that would not involve us.…their best trading partner.
Even with the worst case China air threat, with our F-35 fleet soon to be growing annually, it’s hard to picture anyone threatening us in the air for the indefinite future.
The USAF has to learn to compromise like every other service.
> if we stop the shipment of oil to China, how
> long does a country with 1.3 billion continue
> to fight and survive daily life?
The question is, do we have theability to stop the oil? Maybe we could, or maybe we couldnt. China is building its navy so that the oil makes it through. AT this point it is anyones guess as to how this would shake out in 10 years.
> Can’t picture fighting China in any scenario
> other than saving Taiwan. Can you, and why?
Thats the thing with war,it often pops up where you least expect it. On February 22, 1998 did you think that in 10 years the US would be engaged in 2 COIN operations, and that those operation had been going on for % and 4 years?
The fact is China is a growing power, politically, militarilly, and economically. As China grows their influence and thirst for resources both natural, and human, will cause conflict with our intrests. When, and where, and IF this conflict erupts into war is up in the air right now. Hopefully, we can work together and avoid armed conflict, but that may not happen.
As I have said before, Conventional military forces are a deterent, and if China looks at out Air Order of Battle, along with our naval forces and sees a weakness, then they will exploit it. In that same vein, we will exploit their weaknesses.
> What specific event would cause war with China if the Taiwan issue disappears?
Sorry to disapoint you, but there is no way to point to a specific event and say that a certian action will result. There are reasons for conflict, how the events paly out, is a unknown at this time.
> The USAF has to learn to compromise like every other service.
I would suggest to you that the USAF has compromised like evey other service in the past, they do now, and they will in the future. If they didnt there would be more than 20 B-2’s, The F-22 buy would be 600, they wouldnt be tied to the F-35 with the Navy and Marines, We would already have a new Tanker, etc, etc.
“This is why I asked why getting airsuperiority [sic] over PRC proper would even be necessary. If you look at the situation, it isn’t.“
Really? Air superiority isn’t necessary? Are you sure you want to go with that answer, chief?
Granted, total air superiority over ALL China is not necessary, but we had better have it over Taiwan, and unless we want to supply 1000 Patriot batteries to Taiwan, we ought to have it over the Chinese coast.
It is those mind-blowing statements (F-22 came from planet Krypton, and due to our yellow sun, is superfantastic; air superiority is, eh, good, I guess, but I’d rather have a sammich), DA, that make polite conversation with you so difficult.
Cole, 381 F-22 already IS a compromise. Actually, not it isn’t it is the MINIMUM of that they need to do their job, a compromise would be something MORE than 381. The USAF has stated that it would PREFER to have 1.5 F-22 squardons per AEF (which would require 500+ total) but knows that isn’t going to happen.
The USAF is not out of whack with the budget, the budget is out of whack with what the USAF (as well as the rest of the US armed forces) is asked to do.
Where did I say that one squadron deployed and one on call is much of a deterrent to China?
China is not the only place in the world the USAF is expected to maintain total air dominance. Hell the requirement for 381 F-22s is NOT based on deterring China. It is based on the fact that at any given moment at any give hotspot around the world the USAF is EXPECTED to provide total air dominance & with the current structure of the USAF is set up with 10 AEFs which are rotated around to provide “constant coverage” when ever/where ever it may be needed. It doesn’t matter how many F-22s you have if the AEF closest to the fight doesn’t have any…
pfcem, perhaps you can clarify. I’m still not sure how 2 AEFs deploy or on call to multiple theaters. That suggests to me that someone chooses where they will visit:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/airforce/a/afaef.htm
This last quote from the second page of the link above illustrates what I’ve been arguing all along. Once you surge F-22 squadrons with multiple AEFs, you can handle the worst case Chinese threat…especially when considering the other fighters in the AEFs, the permanently based squadrons in the Pacific, and the permanently based carriers in the Pacific.
“An AEF will be able to deploy in 48 hours
I may have misunderstood anything said about Indonesia,but I do know that their armed forces is so disorganized,that they are not a threat at all to Australia,which has a population a fraction the size as Indonesia.
Anyway,we’re 1 short a B-2 Stealth Bomber today,since one of the very few we have crashed in Guam today.Maybe,just maybe,it wasn’t hurt enough that they can rebuild it,if we have the technology & industrial capability to do it.If however,it’s reduced to powder,then never mind.
Anyway,Russia is threatening an armed response to the Kosovo argument.While they have their balls handed back to them if they do attack(who though,who?) militarily,the threat should still be taken seriously.We’re aren’t talking “scripted” sneak attacks like they do on WWE wrestling or in Hollywood movies,where we all start singing patriot songs,go on war bond drives,& “MIRACULOUSLY” gear up our industries to pull ourselves out of the “jaws of defeat” & drive the foes back(even though it DOES work in the movies AND for WWE Wrestling).
Kosovo,it’s south of what’s left of Serbia,north of Albania.It’s in Europe.It’s a small insignificant place in the world that can play its part in plunging us into World War III just like in Israel,the middle East(like around Basra),the Korean Peninsula,& Taiwan.
What are we supposed to do if the shit hits the fan in all of these hot spots all at once,at the same time? IT CAN HAPPEN. Don’t forget the massive terrorist attacks happening all over the “free world” with weapons of mass destruction occuring also at the same time.
Cole, I NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT DETERRING CHINA!
In fact I said the USAF requirement for 381 has NOTHING TO DO WITH DETERRING CHINA. The only relevance China has to the 381 requirent is that it is ONE of the several hot-spots around the world where the USAF may be expected to obtain & maintain total air dominance. OBVIOUSLY with the size of China’s air force & SAM network more than 1 AEF would be required to do that.
From the link you posted…
“In plain language, the Air Force has taken their combat wings (Active Duty, Reserves, and National Guard), and assigned them to one of ten AEFs. For example, AEF #1 might be composed of F-15 or F-16 flying squadrons and maintenance/support squadrons from multiple bases throughout the United States (both active and reserve). When it’s time for that AEF to deploy, personnel from all of these different squadrons, located at different bases, will all deploy as one large organization. Everyone knows in advance when their particular AEF deployment “window” is, based on what AEF their Wing (base) has been assigned to be part of. If a deployment is required within that window, they know that the AEF they are assigned to are going to be the ones that go. This eliminates much of the “no-notice” deployments of the past.“
It could hardly have been stated more clearly, the 10 AEF are on a rotating cycle. The idea is for all AEF to be as close to equal as possible with requard to overall capabilities so that it does not matter which AEF up “up” on the schedule when called on to deploy (whether that be part of “normal peacetime” deployments or a sudden “emergency”).
The last quote from the second page of the link ALSO illustrates what I’ve been arguing all along. An AEF is able to deploy in 48 hours with ADDITIONAL AEF able to deploy in 15 days. So if the AEF “up” on the schedule is one of those without F-22s (or whose F-22 squadron is down for whatever reason), you won’t have ANY F-22s in theater for ~2 weeks until ANOTHER AEF arrives.
Again, the requirement for 381 F-22 is based on the need for AT LEAST 1 squadron of F-22 for each AEF & NOTHING to do with the number of F-22 required for any ONE specific campaign.
DA,
You’re just wrong, chief. Of course, air superiority over China is necessary. Deal with it.
Cole,
The rotation is for 10 AEF & the requirement for 10 squadrons of F-22 is so than each AEF has one F-22 squadron. Like I said, if the AEF that is “up” on the schedule then you have NO F-22 as part of the AEF for two weeks.
The USAF originally wanted 750 F-22, 381 is the MINIMUM they require do to what they are asked to do on a day-to-day basis — they would LIKE to have at least 1.5 suardons per AEF.
The USAF has already been cut to the bone & you just want to make it smaller & work each airframe/squadron even harder.
DA
Yes, the US Navy is a mighty force, but China understands that a will plan accordingly. Will the US Navy be able to cut the amount of oil imported? Yes, Will that be able to cut imports enough? Thats a little harder to determine. China is improving their Navy so as to better control their SLOC’s ANd here again time and distance are our enemies. How long will it take the US to get enough naval forces to the region th implament a blockade? Further what international pressure will we face for sinking unarmed merchant ships?
Lastly, what about the new oil pipelins into China, and also one that may be built from Russia. The US Navy will have a hard time getting at those.
DarthAmerica, are you (like Cole) completely unable to see reality?
Between the USAF & the ANG we currently have over 500 F-15A-D (~440 + ~125 respectively). ALL of which are currently past their originally intended 4,000 flight hour life & MANY are quickly (more quickly than originally forcast) reaching 8,000 flight hour (IIRC estimates put most of the fleet over 8,000 around 2010). By some wet dream some HOPE we can keep 178 of them flying until they are/were ALL replaced by F-22 ~2025 by SOMEHOW extentending their life to 12,000 flight hours.
The 178 “Golden Eagles” are/were intended to extend the life of the F-15 (in order to maintain the required force numbers) until they could be COMPLETELY replaced by 381 F-22!
Without 381 F-22 you not only need to somehow keep F-15’s flying longer (not just a little longer but 4 TIMES longer than they were built to & TWICE as long as most are even now intended to) but MORE of them flying.
In reality there are only 2 options. Either get 381 F-22 by ~2025 (@ 20/year we would get them ~2022) or start designing the NEXT GERERATION air superiority fighter (which will undoubtably be even more expensive than the F-22) NOW in the hope that it will be ready for full scale production by ~2025.
Who knows how long it will be until the ENTIRE F-15A-D fleet is grouned again, how many will then NEVER return to service & how expensive the “fix” (which will undoubtably be temparary until the NEXT problem to ground the fleet yet AGAIN) will be…
pfcem utters his normal refrain: DarthAmerica, are you (like Cole) completely unable to see reality?
1960 Price Reality:
House: $16,500
Car: $2,600
Gallon of gas: 31 cents
Gallon of milk: 49 cents
F-4 Phantom: $2 million
Multiply all of the above by a factor of 10 for today’s median prices means we should be able to pick up a new fighter for about $20 million, correct there little buddy.
Apparently not.
Now lets look at other trends:
1380 B-47
744 B-52
100 B-1
21, oh wait, 20 B-2
Do you see a clear trend? Are we heading for negative balances in Air Force aircraft procurement?
Or could it be that in actuality, 20 B-2 are more than sufficient for the threat as are 200 or so F-22s?
Get with it dude. The USAF can’t have its quality cake and large numbers too. Choosing outlandish pricepoints obligates you to live with fewer numbers. Otherwise the exponential budget bite starts to eat into other services.
I might add that many F-15Cs can easily last until 2025 and 12,000 hoursy then we will have ample F-22s and F-35…all that’s required for the threat.
You can continue to question other’s concept of reality or you and the USAF can do a little self-examination.
I think that the 381 number(For F22) is the correct number. 381 is a min.# The Navy also must order some next generation Super Hornets while decommissioning old legacy Hornets. The new Super Hornets will fill the void until JSF starts being delivered in numbers.