Prodded specifically by the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman for their personal opinions, U.S. Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne and chief Gen. T. Michael Moseley allowed that their own preferences would be for additional F-22 Raptor fighters and an alternative Joint Strike Fighter engine.
The top two Air Force leaders repeatedly stressed their support for President Bush’s fiscal 2009 budget request and outyear defense budget planning. Moreover, during the Wednesday hearing in front of the SASC they noted profound efforts to “salute smartly” in response to all budget-making guidance from White House and Pentagon superiors.
But explicitly asked by Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) to offer their personal assessments, Wynne and Moseley made clear their own desires for more Raptors and an alternative JSF engine. The Air Force leaders suggested the SASC chairman ask them for their personal opinions after Levin grew momentarily frustrated with their hesitation to respond to his direct questions on the issues.
The secretary said he believes the minimum number of Raptors needed to meet future requirements is probably the previous estimate of 277. Moseley stated that he personally does not believe that the official Defense Department plan for just 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters is enough.
“No, sir,” the chief of staff told Levin when the senator asked him.
Both men also allowed that a second JSF engine could be a smart move by Washington, citing engine experiences with F-16s. Wynne acknowledged that the “business case” for a second JSF engine undermines such an effort on that specific cost analysis, but the question for defense leaders and lawmakers might be more one of confidence in meeting capabilities rather than strict budget concerns.
“Affordability can’t always be the rule,” the secretary said.
Indeed, highlighting redundancy and reliability above cost concerns played a major role in Wynne’s explanations for more Raptors, in light of planned JSFs, as well as another JSF engine. He recalled being able to rely on F-16s when F-15s had to be grounded after longeron failures were identified last fall following an F-15 crash.
Moseley said the Air Force tries to craft its official budget request following affordability guidance provided from above, but it also stands ready to answer where further dollars would be best spent. “We owe you what we believe it takes,” the chief also said.
Read the rest of this story and more great stuff from our Aviation Week colleagues at Military.com.
– Christian
“Agreed on at least this point even if we disagree on how much exactly “stealth” it takes.“
Indeed. Now, if you don’t mind, I’m going to the open-24 hours-a-day and manned by oppressed immigrants, good-old fashioned American supermarket and stock up on canned goods to wait out the apocalypse.
Sven Ortmann,
Nobody is suggesting unlimited defense spending.
If fact I have not seen/read/heard of anyone seriously suggesting more that a 20% increase over what we are spending now (which would STILL put our defense spending at only ~5% of our GDP).
Just as an example (inflation along will increase future budgets), the FY09 budget allocated $515.4 billion to defense with $143.8 billion of that for the USAF. Procuring 20 F-22 would add (or require reallocation) only ~$3 billion — that is only ~0.06% increase for the total defense budget & only a ~2% increase for the USAF budget.
Try looking at it while ignoring the billions. A $3,100 overall budget with $515.40 allocated to defense with $143.80 of the $515.40 for the Air Force increased by just $3.00 for 20 of the most important items in the entire budget…
DarthAmerica,
The USAF has already determined (in a MUCH more thorough study than you could possibly conceive) that 381 is the MINIMUM number they NEED.
It is the responsibility of anyone who claims any smaller number will do to prove their number.
Darth,
So with your argument that all services ask for more than what is needed we should ascertain that the Army and Marines really do not need the additional troop numbers they are requesting?
Based on your other posts in this blog string my suggestion that we do away with the JSF is correct. You have stated numerous times that our current F-15/F-16/F-18 aircraft can defeat any enemy brought against it. Therefore, we only need one 5th generation fighter as the tip of the spear during an armed confrontation. The F-22 is now at the end of its production cycle while the JSF has yet to be cleared for production.
The F-22 is more maneurvable, more stealthy, and with upgrades currently planned more capable in compairson to the JSF. Why would you not want more of these at the expense of the JSF? Simply replace the JSF with the F-16E which is just as capable with the exception of stealth. The Navy can buy more F-18E/F and use the saved money for their real needs (ASW).
My proposition would not cost any more than what we are currently budgeting for future procurement. Yet it will recapitalize the Air Force inventory and give the generals all of the F-22s they need. The F-22s will still be augmented (in the Reserves and Guard) with the Golden F-15 just in case the F-22s ever became grounded.
You think we have enough F-22s? Pay attention to the Bears we are currently intercepting over Alaska. They are being escorted by F-22s with drop tanks. Reason being: the drop tanks give longer loiter time and prevent another pair of F-22s from having to come up and escort.
There simply aren’t enough of these aircraft available now.
DC2
Johan, I believe I luv u! In a purely platonic sort of way, of course, but then again, it is the Y2K’s, so WHAT-eva…
This is awesome…
“Money may get printed on paper, but for a really worthless currency it would be hard to go past whatever institution issued you with an economics degree.“
I cannot believe I missed it.
DarthAmerica,
Who knew the truth would hurt so much…lol
The USAF has provided the proof that 381 is the minimum number they need & unlike so many ignorants, they did not pick some number out of their ass & then attempt to come up with some BS about how it is the “right” number (if they even bother to try & justify their number at all). The USAF conducted a VERY thorough study based on [WAY OVER SIMPLIFYING HERE] what they are being asked to do now & in the comming decades (& the state of their current forces) & the study indicated a minimum number of 381.
What REALLY pisses me off is the [insert derogatory term of choice] who can’t even remember or go back even a few years to realize that the “deal” the Bush administration made was to provide a multiyear commitment to 183 F-22 through the FY09 budget (the last budget the Bush adminstration would have any part of) — leaving the total number to be eventually procured up to later administrations. Now there are fools (even within the Bush administration & the DOD) who think that deal was to be the end/last of the F-22 at 183.
DA,
As far as I know, the F-15s are still grounded. And the F-18s you mention are Canadian. Check on the squadrons in Alaska right now and how many aircraft they currently have. That is the real reason why they had drop tanks. If there were enough aircraft available, then a second pair of F-22s would have come in to relieve the original pair.
There were very intelligent people within our government back before we invaded Iraq that threw away 10 years of planning to reduce the number of soldiers needed to occupy that country. When the Army Chief stated they needed 400,000+ ground troops he was basically fired in lieu of a yes man.
Ignorant, yeah, right.
You must not have read about the capabilities of the F-16E. Again, without stealth, it is just as capable and maneuverable as the JSF.
One of the reasons the SDB was developed was to further increase the strike capabilities of the F-22. It can do the job as a lead attack aircraft. After that stealth does not matter and you can resort to the F-16E, F-15E, A-10 combination.
Get a life and stop being so arrogant. Maybe you will learn a thing or two.
DC2
DA,
BTW, the last 4 F-22s were procured this year. Meaning, that it is at the end of it’s production cycle. When we are having dialogue about funding to close down the production line, that would indicate to me that the cycle is almost done too.
But you know, I’m just ignorant and you are omnipotent (at least in your own mind).
> The USAF, DoD, Congress are leaving open the
> possibility of continued F-22 production. If
> they want to stop it, it will take about 500
> million dollars to do so.
Thats the funny thing. Some people are argueing that the DoD knows how many F-22’s the AF needs, and thats all they should get. But if the DoD felt so strongly about their numbers why dont they fund the shutdown?
Boy, talk about a flamewar.
There’s been some light here and there in the fog and heat; people have made some good points. Even the Euro– and US-bashing serves a purpose, I guess; better grudges are aired, than nursed.
Still, there’s been some ugly, stupid sh*t here. Some of you folks need a different way to get out your ya-ya’s.
Apart from that, one of the things that seems to be missing here is that directed energy weapons are going to be deployed over the next several decades. It’s already started with AESA, whose DEW capabilities are an open secret. There have been pretty open discussions of using AESA for soft kills of missiles and UAVs. If that seems absurd, consider the fact that you can run a 50,000 volt stun gun off a 12V battery.
The tech is a little beyond me, partly because so much of it is still in the black world, but common sense and physics suggests that stealth isn’t just about avoiding detection. In a world of RF DEW, refractive/absorbing materials like RAM would be a form of armor, like wearing rubber shoes and gloves when you’re working with live wires.
Apart from that, the US hasn’t fielded a new A2A or A2G system in decades. Developing the F-22 and –35 as next generation aircraft seems pretty much a no-brainer, especially if either of them can also be UCAVs. It’s not so much that we need them now, or next year; it’s more that we might need them in 10 years.
Apart from that, air wars are fought with mission packages and fleets of complementary types. Consider it a minimax strategy; if you want to cover all outcomes, you have to hedge your bets. The UK didn’t stop building Hurricanes after the Spitfire proved out. The US didn’t stop building Wildcats or P-40s after the Hellcat and P-51 proved out, and so on. We’re probably keep on building F-15s, –16s, and –18s for a while, and, even after JSF, Europe will probably need to keep on building Typhoons, Rafales and Gripens.
You go to the track, you don’t bet on one horse to win. You bet on 2 or 3, win, place, or show. That’s how pretty much all nations have conducted air combat, since its inception. SHTF, you launch whatever you have.
My bet is, we’re going to buy a little bit of everything. Especially after the US Congress and European parliaments get through making sausage.
DarthAmerica,
Read you own comment concerning not being able to meet our global military obligations and deploy 400,000 troops to Iraq…
The same thing is true for the F-22. We will not be able to meet our global military obligations and deploy enough F-22s when/where/who ever the next “major” confict could be without A LOT more F-22 that are currently funded.
That is problem with BS of trying to tie the number of F-22s we need with any one specific conflict. Even if a conflict breaks out somewhere, we have other global military obligations that require F-22s that don’t go away.
DarthAmerica,
The problem is that “today” is irrelavent (there is nothing we can do about “today”) what matters is 10, 20, 30 years from now…
If you think the rest of the world is just going to sit still while age and fatigue continue to reduce the number of F-15Cs we can keep in the air, you are VERY MUCH uniformed & sadly mistaken.
DA,
Please do not respond to this comment, I don’t need your arrogant self-righteousness.
On Military.com, there is an article indicating a GAO investigation of the JSF shows costs increasing dramatically for this aircraft. That means we will either pay more for the total airframes we are currently asking for or we will reduce the number of airframes we purchase. I would go for the latter based on previous experience with the F-22 and the B-2.
Gen. Moseley has indicated in the past that the JSF is the last priority on his list. The only service that truly needs this aircraft as a replacement is the USMC (along with those nations that need the B version). So the real question is what to do for them to fix their needs.
But the fact of the matter is the Air Force cannot afford two 5th generation fighters. We have a known cost for the F-22, and possible reductions due to additional airframe purchases. We can also offer this aircraft for export to help those nations offended by the cancellation of the JSF (obviously not at the same capabilities) to further reduce the cost. With JSF projected costs rising each year there is no telling how much we will eventually end up spending.
Again, 381 F-22s plus F-16Es make far more sense to me than the JSF purchases with fewer F-22s. Especially given the fact that when it is all said and done we may only be purchasing 1000 F-35s, further reducing our capabilities.
DC2
DA,
Here is a good comment for you:
“The F-35 program of record for the US and UK held steady at 2,593 for four years, and those numbers were reaffirmed in the January 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review. There were reports in early 2006 that the Air Force had an internal plan to ultimately reduce the number of joint strike fighters from 1,763 to somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200.“
And the 1,763 number is a reduction from the originally planned 2,000+ the Air Force originally requested in 1996. That does not include reductions made by the Navy in the past. That also does not include other nations looking to back out of the program due to increased costs.
BTW, here is the link from my quote:
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-35-program.htm
What you reference is always subject to change. There is currently debate among a number of the countries referenced from the docs about their commitments to the JSF.
I was referencing the F-16E as the Block 60 version. And it is cheaper than the JSF (even as it currently costs). Again, you are talking about a fixed price for an aircraft versus a price for an aircraft that has not been determined. The F-16E has a unit cost of $27M while the JSF is at least $80M (the 6 F-35s purchased this year had a unit cost of $200M).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16#Costs
So, everyone here can judge for themselves what insults we throw apply appropriately. I just find it amazing that someone currently in country has so much time on their hands that they can be all seeing, all knowing about everything the military is doing. I guess you are some sort of Geek Squad Rambo or something.
Trust me, I’ve dealt with you know it alls while I was in the military. Back when I was in we usually rimmed your coffee cups and gave you nice little blanket parties. For you, I might have left a nice little curly-que for you to chew on with that cup of joe.
DC2
DA here is your quote further proving my point about the lack of a need for the JSF purchase of 1,700+ aircraft.
“WHAT THREATS CURRENTLY EXIST THAT THE USAF IS UNPREPARED TO DEAL WITH? WHAT THREATS DO YOU THINK WILL EXIST OUT TO 30 YEARS THAT THE USAF FLIGHT PLAN IS INADEQUATE TO DEAL WITH. SUPPORT ANY RESPONSE WITH DATA.“
So we are arguing about aquiring 180 F-22s because there is no apparent enemy that we could not deal with for the next 30 years. But purchasing 1,700 F-35s for at least three times the cost of a cheaper alternative is perfectly acceptable? You are talking about a savings of $85B between the F-35 and F-16E in unit cost (at a minimum). I think that would be more than enough to purchase the F-22s the Air Force is looking for.
And I’m the one smoking crack?
DC2
For those that want to look at the full GAO report just released on the F-35, here is the link:
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08569t.pdf
Reference page 8 of this doc. It shows an average procurement cost per unit of $104M in 2008 from a cost of $69M in 2001.
DC2
DA,
Prove the cost isn’t what I quoted. I provided my reference which you always claim must be provided. You have referenced Wiki in the past, so you must believe it is credible.
Again, you have quoted many times on this blog that nobody can match the capabilities of the USAF. What country poses a threat in the next 30 years that justifies 1,700+ JSFs?
The GAO article I have referenced indicates the maintenance costs for the JSF are increasing too. Once again, I backed up my claims.
What the F-16E can’t satisfy, the F-22 can. In fact, one of the reasons the F-117 was retired so early is because of the capabilities of the F-22.
Last time I checked, the Army hasn’t equipped Humvees with WiFi access. War doesn’t change, never has, and only will once robots are fighting for us. Otherwise, it still takes a soldier aiming something (gun, laser designator, etc) to kill an insurgent.
Grow up? I’m a man pal, trust me. Now stop being a snot nosed brat and stick to facts.
DarthAmerica,
I said “If you think the rest of the world is just going to sit still while age and fatigue continue to reduce the number of F-15Cs we can keep in the air, you are VERY MUCH uniformed & sadly mistaken.“
I stand by that statement 100%.
Like I saud, current threats are not the problem. Future threats are.
And stop with the BS that I have to justify the requiremnet for 381 F-22. The USAF has already done that. Those who claim otherwise OTOH have not — so the ball is in their court to prove their number. You are obviously one of them so “If you cant do that then please don’t waste my time with one-liner responses or unsupported assertions.”
DC2,
You are wrong about the cost of the F-16. You need to do more research into where the numbers came from & what they actually represent. For example how do you explain the F-16I costing SO much more than the others?
To save you A LOT of time, I will give you the answer.
F-16A/B in 1979: $14.6 million
F-16C/D in 1984: $18.8 million
The true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote because they were purchased as part of a foreign arms deal but by taking the amount paid divided by the mumber paid for…
F-16I: ~$70 million
F-16E/F: ~$80 million
pfcem,
The foreign military purchases also included spare parts and other equipment. Therefore, the number is not accurate by simply dividing the number of aircraft by the total contract cost. Also, I believe the UAE contract also included R&D money for the addtional system that were installed (AESA, IRST, etc.), but I don’t know if the overall purchase price you are using includes that amount.
Honestly, I have never found a site that was completely accurate with regards to purchase prices at flyaway costs. Everyone wants to slant it one way or the other.
DC2
pfcem,
Here is an IDF website for the F-16I. It indicates a unit price of $45M per aircraft. Again, I don’t know what that number entails. Whether that is a full unit price or fly away cost.
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/aircraft/f-16i/F-16I.html
DC2
DC2,
Are you incapable of reading what is posted by others?
I said:
“
The true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote because they were purchased as part of a foreign arms deal but by taking the amount paid divided by the mumber paid for…“
F-16I: ~$70 million
F-16E/F: ~$80 million
“
I guarantee you those numbers are MUCH more accurate than your BS $27 million. Personally, based on all the information I have seen the true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E/F are PROBABLY around ~80% of the numbers above but as I said the true “fly-away” cost of the F-16I & F-16E are nearly impossible to accurately quote.
DarthAmerica,
True, F-15C/Ds are not in as bad a shape as some think &/or would have you believe BUT it is what shape they will be in from 2015–2025 that matters.
While the F-15C/Ds are more than likely OK for another half-full decade, after that you run into SERIUS problems. And reduced numbers of F-15C/Ds doesn’t help anything unless those F-15C/Ds are replaced by something (otherwise it is actually worse since having fewer airframes means that the airframes you have run up flight hours faster).
Sorry but the F-35s will be replacing F-16s & A-10’s for the USAF (plus F/A-18A-D for the USN & USMC plus AV-8B for the USMC plus several foreign partners). There is NO WAY we will procure enough of them fast enough to replace F-15s as well…Besides, as good as the F-35 will be in air-to-air combat it is a poor substitute for the F-22 (which the USAF can afford) for air dominance. Saying we should procure more F-35s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have stopped procuring F-15s when we started procuring F-16s.
The USAF has already justified its need for a MINIMUM of 381 F-22s. It is those who claim a smaller number will do who have yet to justify their number.
Saying that we don’t need more F-22s beyond those already funded is akin to saying that we should have stopped procuring F-15s in 1980 (about half way though its eventual production run — not including the F-15E & later varients). Just imagine how bad a shape we would be in now if that had happened…That is how bad a shape we WILL be in ~2030 if we don’t continue procuring more F-22’s!
And saying that we should procure “advanced” F-15s instead of F-22s is akin to saying we should have procured “advanced” F-4 Phantons in 1980 instead of continuing to procure F-15s. Not as bad as not procuring anything at all but just think if the USAF’s primary air-superiority fighter (F-22’s being a rarity & all F-15A/Bs being long gone) today & for the next decade or two were “advanced” (as in F-15C/D avionics but not flight performance) F-4 Phantons…
The requirement for 381 F-22’s is not 381 F-22’s TODAY but by ~2025 (when even the “Golden Eagles” will no longer be combat worthy).
DarthAmerica,
Don’t confuse the number the DOD has/had agreed to fund with the number the USAF needs. The number prior to 381 was 442, the 339 number is the what DOD agreed to fund (at the time) based on projected budgets & had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Same for the 183 number — it is based SOLELY on the number that could/would be funded through the current administration & has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with how many ANYBODY thought were needed. Unfortunately there are enough ignorant people out there who don’t realize the difference & mistakenly think that the number funded is in any way relavant to how many are actually needed.
It is true that the 381 number is based on the previous 2MRC (2 Nearly Simultaneous Major Regional Conflict) model (no “Soviet” like threat levels) which has now been replaced by the “1–4-2–1″ model which could in fact require MORE F-22s…
And stop with the BS that there has to be (or is or ever was) any specific threat or threat level as THE FACTOR in how many F-22s are needed because it simply is not true. It IS (& has been) based on how many are needed for the USAF to to fulfill its obligations.
Who said anything about new numbers would were out our airforce too much? If anything the current numbers have not yet taken into account the higher ops levels in recent years.
Keep in mind that you have to commit to procurement at least 2 years in advance in order for all of the parts/pieces et cetera to be ordered in time for final assmebly…
DarthAmerica,
NOBODY (at least nobody I know of) IS SAYING WE NEED 381 F-22s NOW!!!
But someday we will. And unless you are willing to pay MORE for F-22s later, the only way we are going to ever get the 381 F-22s we WILL eventually need is to keep the production line open.
THAT is the problem, there are far to many people like you who are only looking at today & not the future.
The U.S. Air Force Transformation Flight Plan (AFTFP), doesn’t do anything to indicate that the USAF will be able to meet its worldwide oblications in the decades to come with fewer than 381 F-22s…
DarthAmerica,
Did I say anything about how realistic it was (it IS realistic by the way, not neccessaryily highly propable but possible)?
Did you even read what I posted. My scenario SAYS that the F-35 knocks the Typhoon & Rafale “out of the market” so they go to another market (a market not all that friendly to the US). You think that Europe is going to just give up & let the US & Russia become the ONLY suppliers of fighter to the ENTIRE world…
You are dreaming if you think that Russia could not or would not increase Flanker production if the market supported/required it.
F-15Es, F-35s & F-16 are not air superiority fighters — not the the USAF anyway. Good luck pulling enough of them away from what that WILL be doing to use them as air superiority fighters…All those F-35s are replacing A-10s, F-16s, F/A-18C/Ds, AV-8B — NOT F-15C/Ds.
We can’t even get ONE full squadron of F-22s for each AEF with 187 and you want pull some BS that we will be able to somehow get all (half is not even realistic) F-22’s in inventory to any specific conflict. Join the real world man!
Sorry, but I have friends & family in the USAF — I have a pretty fair idea how bad the F-15C/D maintenance is (& what the trends over the past decade make it clear how much worse it will get over the next decade)…Like I said, even IF it is physically possible to keep a useful number of F-15C/D combat worthy until 2020 (much less any time beyond that) it will likely become economically unrealistic (politically incorrect) to do so.
Prove that a fleet of 187 F-22’s would “overwhelm quantitatively and qualitatively 90% of our potential advesaries”. Beside, if you don’t prepare for that other 10% you are NOT preparing properly.
DarthAmerica,
Your lack of understanding of the real world is truly astonishing…
The only way to know for sure if the Raptor really is the best fighter money can buy is to send it up against a real opponent like the Eurofighter Typhoon and the Dassault Rafale. Perhaps we’ll know the truth in a Red Flag exercise when the RAF and the French air force bring their Typhoons and Rafales respectively for a showdown with the USAF.
Only then will we know for sure if the Raptor is all that it is hyped up to be.
The USAF should pit the F-22 against the RAF Eurofighter and the French Rafale in the next Red Flag exercise. Then we’ll know the truth as to how good the Raptor really is.
Just a little reminder as to how numbers do matter: The USAF and US Navy outnumbered the Vietnamese MiG force over Vietnam. That is how the expensive F-4 Phantom managed to get a superior kill ratio over the MiG-17 and MiG-21. Pierre Sprey was right about strength of numbers making a difference. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, the F-22 is not stealthy and it’s not the only airplane that can supercruise (Rafale, Flanker and Typhoon can all do that AND detect the Raptor via IRST). US taxpayers are getting ripped off. Prove me wrong.
Interesting facts, I learned new something today