The Hill reports –
Senators are pressing President-elect Obama to allow the Air Force to continue buying F-22 Raptor fighter jets.
Deciding whether to buy more F-22s after the final aircraft on order is delivered at the end of 2011 is one of the first strategic and business decisions Obamas Pentagon leaders will have to make after Inauguration.
A group of 44 senators 25 Democrats and 19 Republicans sent Obama a letter with the request. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), a defense authorizer who represents a state where Lockheed Martin builds the fighter plane, and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), a defense appropriator whose state is home to Boeings operations, headlined the letter. Boeing is a subcontractor for the F-22.
Continued F-22 production is critical to both the national security and economic interests of our country, Murray said in a statement. At a time when we are looking to create jobs and stimulate the economy, eliminating the $12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs tied to F-22 production simply doesnt make sense.
The 2009 defense authorization bill requires Obama to decide by March 1 whether to continue the production of the F-22.
–John Noonan
{ 51 comments… read them below or add one }
Odd, but wasn’t it Congress that forced the Air Force to hack the original +1,000 order down to 381.
Too expensive. Period.
Buy more f-35s and tell the flyboys they will have to play with their current set of tinker toys for a while longer.
I think Gates and Obama are more interested in buying as many UCAVs as humanly possible, and ending the the F22 under 200 planes. F35, who knows, that plane is now an international jobs program.
“Odd, but wasn’t it Congress that forced the Air Force to hack the original +1,000 order down to 381.”
That was ten years ago and with a different party controlling congress.
Odd that Senators had a house member write the cover letter though, especially when the Hill article mentions the House is putting together their own version of the letter. Still I hope this is a sign of things to come.
The Congress will get what it wants. Obama’s mantra is keeping jobs, so he will keep the factory open. Furthermore, it’s becoming apparent that Obama’s number one obstacle in his first term, is going to be his own party. He is going to give them the aircraft so that he can get cooperation on his domestic initiatives.
I just don’t get the Air Force. They have so many other initiatives that have yet to get adequate funding, and they insist on spending limited resources for more of this aircraft. F-22 as far as I know can’t fulfill the role of the F-35, so buying more now means you still have to buy more F-35′s later. They have tankers, satellite systems, UAV, F-35, legacy aircraft, etcetera, that still need funding and their spending their limited budget on this. Something is going to get cut.
Forget UAVs! There are just there to kill Enemies who have no airdefense. Even now they die quit quickly in Iraq & Afganistan. The moment a enemy has Stinger-like weapons or better it is over.
The only reason the US Armed Forces need so many of them is simply:
CAS with guited bombs. why? cause the army & the USMC dont have organic heavy support weapons to deal with terrorist who play hide & seek.
The F22 mission is the number one mission every AF has:
air superiority.
The JSF should be a bombtruck, but price is going up and more and more shortcomings & problem show up.
There is almost no mission the Raptor cant do as good or even better then a F-35.
The raptor is the new first day strike aircraft, the new F-117A.
I said ir once and i say it again:
Get 600 F-22, a “Strike”-Variante later and cut the F-35″A” to around 800.
Dude, these F22 R really expensive stuff. R they that important and needed?
Posted by: Drake at January 17, 2009 08:22 AM
well said dude
f22 is a awsome aircraft it is the best out there by far i have issues with its reliance on stealth like i do for many other programs such as the f35, ddx etc etc. that said get 381 planes or so get some parts stocked try to sell some to ausstralia musch as i dont see them realy being as good as they are today with the changes going on there.
Oh yea one othere thing for the f35
cut the stealth, which will make it much cheaper add pylons for wings.
Btw were developing a missile defense for our ground vehicles why not for our air vehicles?
“$12 billion in economic activity and thousands of American jobs tied to F-22 production simply doesn
Buy the additional fighters, and at the same time open up international sales to Japan and Australia to knock down the per unit cost. The time to buy is now before the production line shuts down. Once production has stopped, re-starting it will be almost as expensive as designing a new aircraft (example: the B-1 bomber in the early ’80s.) Meanwhile, the need is there: several hundred F-15s perform the air defense & air superiority role, and the last air superiority variant was built in 1983. 187 F-22s doesn’t come close to replacing that force.
“Cut the stealth”? It’s not as easy as checking a box. The design’s already been made and taking it back to the drawing board will cost even more.
If you really wanted this to be a cost-centric exercise we would just skip F-35 and stick to F-16s. Sitting on our haunches worked for two decades, see the twenties to the fourties. And then what?
Everything’s expensive these days. I suppose it’s just a matter of when we switch to giant Bolos.
Sounds to me like the AF is prioritizing. The F-22 is a sure gaurantee. Its already in production. F-35s are still in development, it would be quite easy for a production partner to get their knickers in a twist and send the whole budget into a mess, not to mention the whole contract into the courtroom.
From an acquisitions position, the F-22 is the safer bet. Its expensive, but we know just how expensive it is. Something could still happen to the F-35 program that could potentially make it just as expensive as the F-22.
There’s also the priority that the AF will get in aircraft delivery from the F-35 program. The marines, Brits and allied Harrier drivers need their Vstol harriers ASAP, for very good reasons. After that, the AF, Navy, and all allied states who want A and C models will be duking it out for production priority. If the AF loses that battle, and gets kicked to the back of the line, it could be a pretty long time before the AF sees its F-35s.
“Too expensive. Period.
Buy more f-35s and tell the flyboys they will have to play with their current set of tinker toys for a while longer.”
If you’re so worried about price, then you should be in favor of outright cancelling the F-35 and building more F-22′s and new-build F-16′s and 15′s. We’d get more aircraft for the same value as going with that turkey called the F-35. (BTW, the F-35′s cost per unit has trippled since production began, and it’s the most expensive defense program in U.S history, period.
On a side note, I find it highly ironic that a busting economy may save the F-22. Go figure.
I hear people say that the Air Force should go F-22 centric, and dump the F-35 because the F-22 is a known quantity, and because it supposedly cuts costs(which is open to argument). I have a question. Can the F-22 full fill the role the F-15, F-16, F-18 and that of the F-35?
I realize that the F-22′s mission role has changed more than Madonna’s husbands, but somehow I don’t think it was designed to be a multi-purpose aircraft. Given its high maintenance and service costs, would we really want to operate this thing like we currently do our legacy fighters? I have yet to see a reputable source answer this question, but I’m thinking no.
The F-35 is already undergoing flight tests, so stating that we should cancel the program at this late date by citing arguments such as cost overruns is disingenuous especially when the F-22 went through the same tortuous process and still undergoing costly upgrades to bring it up to date.
The F-35 is indispensable to not just the Air Force, but the Navy and the Marines. If you cut it, you resign the Navy and the Marines to relying on purely legacy aircraft for the foreseeable future, which incurs additional costs to those forces.
I understand money is tight and people feel that the F-35 is taking away from F-22 money so ergo the current smear campaign against the F-35. The reality is the Congress will get its planes and the money will have to come from somewhere else.
What our pilots really need is more air combat training. Most of our pilots are only versed in basic ACM. Our front line fighter guys like the 1st Tac FW, carrier guys, ect should be experts in ACM and not have to depend on stuff like stealth to even the odds. Give the fighter jocks more time in the air and better, more realistic ACM. That will make them more effective in an F-15C with a active array radar than someone who only knows basic ACM flying a Raptor.
Jack
Drake,
The F-22 is for replacing the F-15.
The F-35 is for replacing the F-16 (among others).
The F-22 isn’t supposed to do the F-35s job & the F-35 isn’t supposed to do the F-22s job.
Air Forces (& Armies for that matter) do not operate adequitely without air superiority. That is the F-22′s job. The F-15 is already showing its age & we will be LUCKY if enough of them last & every F-22 less than the 381 the USAF needs is ANOTHER F-15 (or TWO) that has to somehow stay in service well beyond the USAF’s already optimistic schedule.
***
Deepy,
F-22′s aren’t THAT expensive & the cost comes down with every additional batch we get (eventually leveling off but we haven’t gotten there yet). PLUS on a cost-benefit/effectiveness stand point the F-22 is a BARGIN.
Cancel F22.
Just about every wing in the AF is taking 20% budget cuts to pay for the F22 and tankers. The F22 us a great airplane, but it’s too damn expensive.
F35 is a better deal.
Congress needs to stay out of acquisitions.
We need to cancel programs rather than nickel and dime other programs, rendering them ineffective and a death by a thousand cuts.
For your consideration:
http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/01/19/story3.html?b=1232341200^1762605
Boeing??? Didn’t they lose the ATF contract? I thought this was a Lockmart bird.. silly me, y’live, y’learn.
Now, this Senate support couldn’t be about all those jobs (pork?), and not about whether this jet’s really what we need today, could it?
Drake,
The F-22 is for replacing the F-15.
The F-35 is for replacing the F-16 (among others).
The F-22 isn’t supposed to do the F-35s job & the F-35 isn’t supposed to do the F-22s job.
TY, but I already know that. The statements I made were meant to be somewhat rhetorical, because I’m not sure others do by the comments I have read.
Deepy,
F-22′s aren’t THAT expensive & the cost comes down with every additional batch we get (eventually leveling off but we haven’t gotten there yet). PLUS on a cost-benefit/effectiveness stand point the F-22 is a BARGIN.
Posted by: pfcem at January 17, 2009 11:52 PM
Um isnt the cost per plane somthing like 180mil?
plus drake is right f22 isnt going to be bought by countries in these times in the batches yall dream of. f35 is ment to be able to be cheap(for a modern combat aircraft) but more importantly easier to operate(you should be able to share alot of parts making them cheaper) and mass produce.
the harrier desperatly needs to be replaced its a great combat aircraft but its also a death trap.
it is expensive but its going to be bought by many nations and multiple services.
Last I heard the Raptor had a 68% mission readiness rate. That’s not good no matter how you spin it!
Also, the AF has no plans to give the Raptor the AIM-9X with the associated helmet system. That means the Raptor better not get in close to fighters that have high offboresight IR missiles.
Jack
taka,
NOTHING is or has ever been cut to pay for the F-22. The F-22 has been cut again & again & again. You would have thought we learned from the B-2 how STUPID an idea that is…
***
Valcan,
Not $180 million, $140 million & could drop to $120 million (or less) if we procure enough of them.
***
jack,
The F-22 has been MORE than holding its own vs AIM-9X & HMS equipped adversaries WVR…
The reason why F-22s are so important is because it is a foreign policy tool in its own right as a global deterrent. Many Americans nowadays don’t truly understand that or realize how important air supremacy is. It’s often overlooked and assumed (I don’t blame them, I view it as a partial compliment to the effectiveness of the USAF/USN). In contrast, I’m sure Iraqi insurgents, Al Qaeda, and Hamas militants right now have a much better understanding of the vitality in airpower. If you can’t guarantee security in the air in a world with Flankers/4th and 5th gen-proliferation fighters, then it’s essentially open season on your forces.
The USAF gets a lot of flak for spending the most at Toys-R-Us, however for them status quo is to be ahead of the world…by leaps and bounds. This means that they are always looking ahead into the future, always on the pinnacle of technological innovation (helps to work with NASA too), and as such these things come at a high price. Many opinions here and in previous F-22 related posts tend to be uninformed or flat out incorrect. Do your complete research and realize you should not criticize the Air Force (or anyone) if you don’t completely understand why these planes were built and how they are to be implemented.
Also pfcem is correct, the F-22 and the F-35 were built for different reasons in mind and therefore it would be inaccurate for them to be compared. F-22s and F-35s are the replacements to the F-15s and F-16s. The reason we have two is because of the “High/Low mix” concept where you have an air superiority fighter with a secondary strike role produced in lesser quantity than an inferior cheaper fighter designed for the strike role with secondary fighter roles. Operations consist of more strike sorties than fighter sorties. The F-35 is worse at the fighter role than the F-22 is at the strike role. The F-35 just happens to also be needed to replace other aircraft like the harrier and legacy F/A-18s as well, which saves a lot more than if everyone had decided to go off and build their own planes. If the USAF, the world experts in airpower, says ~183/200 Raptors are not enough (and still fighting to the end in the face of other issues), then it’s probably not enough.
This is off topic but I should address this since we will be seeing more of these problems in the future: The USAF are at a point in time when new replacements are needed for most airframes due to extensive service life and a lack of previous successful replacement programs. The current average age of the fleet is about 24 years which is the oldest in history. That’s when you start seeing things in the news like F-15Cs falling apart on their own or 707/C-130 derivatives turning into “Hangar Queens”. Look up each aircraft in inventory and take note the year they entered service. Strictly speaking, the most recent major aircraft behind the F-22, the B-2, is currently less high tech than an iPod.
Most people don’t doubt the need for the F-22 or F-35, it’s just the right high low mix where there is room for argument. The Air Force’s judgment looked a bit off at one point, but I think Bob Gates got their house in order for the most part.
I’ll take a good pilot in an F-15 any day over an average pilot flying a Raptor.
The pilot’s skill and determination will always be the deciding factor in a fight.
If it means our pilots get more flight time and better training in F-15s, 16s, ect then stop buying the Raptor.
jack
Jack,
An average pilot flying a Raptor will win vs a good pilot in an F-15 neary every day OF THE YEAR & most days the F-15 pilot won’t even know what happened.
Stop buying the Raptor won’t gain one pilot one more flight hour. Sorry but it just does not happen that way.
I’m strongly in favor of the Marine Air generals giving up on the all-VSTOL “dream”, ditching the STOVL F-35, and going all SuperHornet for the forseeable future.
The Super Hornets can still support expeditionary units/brigades/forces with expeditionary airfields as well as big deck support. Super Cobras and an eventual osprey-based gunship variant can still use the little decks. The Harriers, and the STOVL F-35, in USMC service, will never be performing missions that require high-end stealth. Of the current aircraft around, that are already navalized, the Super Hornet is the best choice for the Marines. Its a known quantity in every way, already in the Naval support pipeline, and a heck of a lot safer and capable than the Harrier. And much much cheaper and useful than the STOVL F35 will ever be.
Krag
It was a Democrat member of Congress who said the New Deal only started working when WWII rolled around. So I say skip the mob museum and the bike paths and go straight to weapons procurement.
Not just more F-22′s but RRW and MMIII replacement new stealth bombers, SSBN’s and SSN’s, weapons in space, moon base, sharks with friggin’ lasers on their heads.
The best part in you will preserve high tech jobs in America. Hey if you are going to spend the money.
@freefalling bomb
I was being a little cynical and sarcastic, should have picked that up on the “sharks with friggin lasers” part of my post.
My point, maybe hidden in the comment, was if there is a trillion dollars for things like mob museums and bike paths then some needed investment in modernization IS possible.
Your read of the New Deal is quite interesting, I disagree but that what makes freedom of speech great.
build F-22
ships
sell to other nations (why should the germans sell asians)
Norway has already bought (better country than sweden)
To the poster “bobbymike”:
You wrote: “…modernization IS possible”.
But it’s not the CAPACITY of the U.S. Armed Forces that I suspect of (never was, never did), but their INTENTIONS . Even the Nazis and the Soviets were more discrete, more hypocritical, more clever about the ultimate plans for their radical military build-ups, for international Propaganda’s sake. They still cared what the rest of the World thought of them, at least until the global assault could start.
I wonder how many of these comments came from anyone who has actually flown in a modern fighter. Like little boys arguing whether the Chevy or the Mopar is faster. Neither has any experience.
You all may be interested in knowing that the USAF uses the F-16 as the aggressor force aircraft in the “Red Flag” pilot training exercises.
To the poster “Bob”:
You wrote: “I wonder how many of these comments came from anyone who has actually flown in a modern fighter.”
That’s you. And I wonder how many F-22- or Space Shuttle-pilots’ opinions will be asked about this topic.
I can’t wait till they make a final decision on this planes procurement, so I can see an end to the hysterics it naturally engenders.
I can see reason in both sides of the argument.
The reason that the F-22 or F-35 programs exist at all is that the F-15, F-16 and F-18 fleets are getting old and need to be replaced, and if we’re going to replace aircraft at great expense, we might as well get something better than 1970s technology with upgrades shoehorned into the original design. One could restart production of some of the old models, but that would be expensive and give you old technology.
Also, clearly, the F-22 is irrelevant to the question of naval aviation. The carrier fleet can get a next generation of F-18s, buy F-35Cs, buy F-35Bs, or buy UCAVs. But, more F-22s will need meet the needs of the carrier fleet in any way, and no one has seriously proposed that the Marines buy F-22s instead of F-35Bs either.
So, what the question really boils down to is the number of F-22s v. F-35As purchased by the Air Force. The F-22 program has reached a point where further cost overruns are unlikely.
There appears to be a consensus that the F-22 is more capable (by design) than the F-35A in air to air combat roles and probably in small bomb payload strike roles (i.e. key initial targets or Libya like one off strikes) than the F-35A due to superior stealth and speed. The F-35A has a greater bomb payload and potentially somewhat a better design for air to ground, but it is a replacement for planes like the A-10 only in planners dreams.
Of course, no one thinks it is very likely to the F-35A will have major development hang ups at this point either. The testing program is coming along, the technological risks relative to the technologies established with the F-22 are modest, and the F-35A is, after all, the plain vanilla version for which the lowest capabilities are expected. Vertical or short takeoff and landing are not required of it to the same degree, and its need to be compatable with existing systems (like aircraft carriers) is small.
Indeed, in addition to the fact that the F-22 can’t replace the F-35B or F-35C, there is the small problem that the F-35B is something that we are required to deliver to many of our allies (who need them for their Harrier carriers), making it effectively impossible to kill or even really impair the F-35B program.
None of these factors has changed. What has changed is that (1) the F-35A is going to be delivered behind schedule leaving a procurement gap, and (2) the unit price of the F-35A has ballooned from the estimates that motivated the program in the first place.
The entire premise of the F-35A program (and an important justification for the curtailing of the F-22 program in favor of the F-35A program) was that one would get five or six F-35As for each F-22. As the number of F-35As that can be purchased for the cost of one F-22 has shrunk, the bang for your buck argument for the F-35A has taken a real hit. At two F-35As per one F-22, the tradeoff is much less clear.
Another development that has undermined the case for the F-35A is the increasingly accuracy and decreasing cost of smart bombs. The originally planned mix of F-22s and F-35As was based on assumptions about how much ordinance was needed to match the capabilities of the F-15/F-16/F-18 fleet. While most of the Air Force action in Iraq after the initial hostilities has involved fighters acting as bomb trucks and recon platforms, the number of planes required to do this has been far smaller than it would have been a couple of decades ago. So, while the core F-35A mission isn’t gone, it is smaller than it used to be.
If the Air Force is willing to give up a lot of F-35As in order to fund more F-22s, that doesn’t sound like an irrational choice to me, so long as the F-35A isn’t cut to an uneconomical buy that makes it pointless to have a third F-35 production line going (alongside the F-35B and F-35C).
Indeed, it wouldn’t be completely irrational to kill the F-35A and F-35C entirely before those lines start production and incur the associated production, training and maintenance costs. The Air Force could replace its F-35A buy with more F-22s, F-35Bs, a low cost off the shelf ground attack plane, and a new short/medium range bomber (possibly a UCAV) to make up for lost F-35A bomb payloads and combat range. The Navy could replace the F-35C with a mix of next generation F-18s, F-35Bs and UCAVs.
On the other hand, while the case for the F-35A is weaker, the case that 180 or so F-22s is insufficient to meet the nation’s air to air combat superiority needs isn’t much stronger than it was when the buy was cut in the first place.
F-22s remain dreadfully expensive, even at fly away cost that disregards sunk costs. So there are high opportunity costs involved in buying them instead of other systems.
We have 15 squardrons or so of best in the world planes in that category already. The F-22 fleet is sufficiently mobile (if we properly fund air refueling tankers) that we can relocate the entire fleet from one regional war or battle zone in a global war, to another, in a day or two. So can the air forces of our not unsophisticated allies (a few of whom would like to buy F-22s for themselves). And, the likelihood of full scale global air war, in multiple fronts, against technologically sophisticated opponents with many capable modern fighters each, all happening within a matter of days of each other, seems much less likely a contingency now than it did during the Cold War.
Do we really need more than 180 F-22s, on top of the other available aircraft of our own Air Force and those of our allies, in addition to the ship based anti-aircraft missiles of Navy, to defend our allies Taiwan, Japan and South Korea from the Chinese and North Korean Air Forces?
Similarly, do we need these forces to adequately defend our European allies from Russia given our allies’ own ample advanced military resources?
If the answer is “no,” then we shouldn’t be buying more F-22s period. And, even if the answer is “yes”, we should look long and hard at how many more we need, and ask if those needs can’t be met simply by selling F-22s to reliable allies like Japan and the U.K. and Australia, instead. No military service will ever have everything it wishes it could have, but the Army and Marines, and the logistics side of the Air Force, seem harder pressed than the fighter fleet of the Air Force.
“f35 is ment to be able to be cheap(for a modern combat aircraft) but more importantly easier to operate(you should be able to share alot of parts making them cheaper) and mass produce.”
Cheap was a much better argument before the cost overruns started. Sharing parts is the most dubious part of the whole F-35A/B/C deal from its inception. The U.S. DOD has the largest combined fleet of aircraft in the world, and from a practical perspective there is little benefit in an Air Force base in Germany or Aviano Italy being able to share parts with a carrier in the Pacific. And, how often are Marine flotillas deployed with carrier groups? Sure, it happens, but not enough to make it a priority.
By the way, the whole job creation piece of the pitch is almost counterproductive. Even if you are committed to high spending on defense, why spend it on F-22s instead of some other defense program? Twelve billion can create a lot of jobs, and if you really want to create jobs, you can leverage private and public money to do it, instead of paying 100% of every single person’s salary with public money. Hell, you can create more jobs simply be expanding the active duty personnel roster of the Army, than you can buying F-22s, and the vets who muster out of the Army eventually will probably have more useable job skills than the factory workers laid off when the F-22 line shuts down.
I really don’t know what books you are reading but your take on history is “interesting” if not a little disconcerting.
And by the way The US is a Republic not a democracy.Did you know the word democracy does not appear once in the Constitution, which you might want to read along with your “alternate” history books.
ohwilleke,
While the intent of much of what you have said has merrit you are unfortunately using incorret data/assumptions.
The reason that the F-22 AND F-35 programs exist is that potential adversaries have caught up to (& in some way surpassed) the capabilities of the the F-15, F-16 and F-18. Also keep in mind that the F-22 & F-35 are not indended to counter current threats bu FUTURE threats.
No, the F-22 is NOT irrelevant to the question of naval aviation. If the USN believed it could realisticly get a navalized F-22 (or equivalent) it would LOVE to do so.
The USAF requirement is for 381 F-22s (PLUS 178 F-15C “Golden Eagle”) & 1763 F-35A.
No, the premise of the F-35A program was NEVER that one would get five or six F-35As for each F-22. The F-22 & F-35A are simple a continueation of the ‘high/low’ mix established by the F-15 & F-16. They are meant to COMPLIMENT/SUPPORT, not be a substitute for each other. And the “cost exchange” ratio was intended to be more like three F-35 for the cost of one F-22. Of course that was based on getting A LOT more F-22s…
No, the planned mix of F-22s and F-35As was NEVER based on assumptions about how much ordinance was needed to match the capabilities of the F-15/F-16/F-18 fleet.
Yes it WOULD be completely irrational to kill the F-35A OR F-35C entirely. They are needed every bit as much as the F-35B.
No, the case that 180 or so F-22s is SUFFICIENT to meet the nation’s air to air combat superiority needs isn’t much stronger than it was when the buy was cut in the first place.
You are woefully uninformed about how the USAF operates & how many F-22s are needed JUST TO BE ABLE TO ENSURE 1-2 squadrons (much less your wet dream of the entire fleet) can be deployed to any particular area in a short time.
And I LOVE your BS complaint about the cost of the F-35A/B/C while ignoring that developing & procureing three DIFFERENT aircraft (one for each service) would be MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE.
The truth is the F-22 & F-35 (if built in sufficient numbers & at a sufficient rate) would ‘only’ be ~1/3 more expensive that new F-15s & F-16s respectively. And in terms of cost-effectiveness/benifit the F-22 & F-35 actually look GOOD. Three F-22 are better than four F-15s & three F-35A are better than four F-16s AND, in the long run due to lower overall operating costs, LESS expensive.
And last but not least, how much money are you going to WASTE “trasfering” that $12 billion to something else…
I can’t believe my eyes!Anyone can use a fighter plane and kill dummies!Those new planes are pure ignornace and blindness too our present crisis!Get a clue asap!
pfcem-
The F-22 and F-35 are designed to counter future threats? It took TWO decades (roughly) to get the F-22 to its IOC, and it was originally designed to counter a threat that no longer existed by the time it was deployed.
There are numerous causes of taking so long to deploy a system, but it looks like lately no matter what kind of system we try to produce, it ends up high cost, high complexity, and hard to find a mission to justify its existence. And then too often these things end up stillborn.
We seem to be rather bad at identifying future threats, and that isn’t helped by taking so long to move a system from paper to the field. Don’t you think it’s time we fixed this acquisition nonsense?
Argue all you like for keeping 22s and 35s, we haven’t got many options after all, but the underlying idea of your argument, that these systems are as good as we can get them, just falls on its face. F-22 still hasn’t delivered on all the promises, and F-35 doesn’t exist in any form to make statements about what it CAN do. It might live up, but it’s yet to be seen.
These systems not only need to work, but be affordable in the numbers needed to do the job. The money’s gotta come from somewhere. It’s hard not to get the feeling that in a big sense, our reach has exceeded our grasp.
Mike J,
While you are correct in a sense, I will point out that other nations have had the same difficulty with this last generation of equipment. There hasn’t been a 5th generation fighter that has seen the light of day besides the F-22. The latest and greatest submarines, tanks, ships, etc, have all become trapped in development hell, regardless of whether those have been produced in the US, Russia, Europe, or wherever. This isn’t the 60s anymore, when you could just slap together a plane in a couple of years. It may be that this is simply the way weapons development will be for the foreseeable future. As weapons get more complex, development times get longer.
If that is the case, it reduces the worry on the Raptor and the F-35, because while it took us a long time to make them, it will take China or Russia just as long (or longer) to develop anything comparable.
The “acquisitions nonsense” stems as much from our democratic processes and Congressional oversight as it does from Lockheed or the military. No one ever said that government was efficient.
Brian-
What if those potential adversaries choose not to compare, but compete differently? And I don’t really care for the argument that ‘we can live with this potential weakness, because nobody’s got better…’ We face thinking adversaries, they will try to exploit weakness. Don’t count on them to zag when they might zig.
Too many assumptions about how we do things are being accepted as dogma. We can’t put systems together quickly? Give this a read: http://www.dau.mil/pubs/dam/2009_01_02/ward_jf09.pdf
If it’s just a management problem, there are ways to adjust. If we can do it right, we’ll end up with the right kinds and amounts of equipment at the right cost. That makes some other problems disappear in and of itself.
Mike,
How? You’re talking about exploiting theoretical weaknesses with theoretical zigging. As soon as we become aware of a definitive plan of action by a hostile power, we’ll respond. But we shouldn’t NOT develop expensive weapon systems just because we don’t know what the enemy might do.
Yes, we’re always at risk that Russia or China or whoever might develop some inexpensive counter for our costly programs. I’m sure in 50 years, you’ll be able to take out a billion dollar aircraft carrier with a thousand dollar ray gun. But the potential for unknown advancement by the enemy is not an excuse to abandon our research into difficult areas.
Regarding the article you posted, I see a call for reduction of bureaucracy, and nothing more. I counter with the fact that every country on earth has experienced this same slowdown in development. Russia made the same leaps in technology we did back in the 50s and 60s. So did Europe. But now, the latest generations of equipment take 20 years to reach the field, no matter which country develops them. Look at the chronically delayed Eurofighter. When was the last time a new MiG came out? When was the last new booster rocket developed?
We’re dealing with harder tasks today, and we’re doing it in an environment of less funding (percentage-wise). It’s harder to build an F-22 than it is to build an F-4. A lot harder. And we’re seeing the results in increasing costs and longer development times.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/01/21/peek-inside-obama-transition-on-f-22/
Peek Inside Obama Transition on F-22
By Colin Clark Wednesday, January 21st, 2009 10:53 pm
Posted in Air, Policy, Rumors
We all know Obama
Well, there are a lot of different questions there. First, most of the world IS forced to respond to us. What was the last major technological advance we had to respond to? Anti-ship missiles? And so we built AEGIS. That’s the last one I can think of, but I’m sure others can do better. But for the most part, our enemies have been forced to respond to US, not the other way around. If they want to abandon the expensive type of acquisition programs that we undertake, let them. They will simply find themselves unable to compete in those areas.
One of the reasons we developed new systems so quickly in the 50s and 60s is because we would build a new generation of equipment and then replace it three or four years later. We aren’t spending that kind of money today, and so we shouldn’t expect to go through that many generations of aircraft that quickly. If you want to talk about spiraling expenses, while our individual programs may cost more today, we have avoided the expenses of replacing fleets of aircraft every few years, something we did quite a bit back in the good old days. We have, however, been making phenomenal advances in avionics, electronics, radar, etc. I think it is disingenuous for us to act as though the F-15 today is the same aircraft that it was in 1975, just because they look the same on the outside.
We can build new types of weapon systems quickly and inexpensively — look at the huge strides we’ve made with UAVs and with small robotic systems just in the past 10 years. Look at the rapid deployment of MRAP vehicles that we had in Iraq. These were largely unexplored areas that have seen an explosion in development. Unlike traditional methods of war, these have been relatively untouched, and so there is more low-hanging fruit that we can exploit. Fighter aircraft and naval vessels, on the other hand, have been heavily researched for the past 60 years (and the past several millenia in the case of ships). Anything “new” in those areas will require a lot of money, as we’ve already made all the easy advances. Yet in each, we have new, transformational designs undergoing testing. We’ve got the world’s only operational scramjet engines that we are continuing to test, that will eventually be on an Air Force jet. We’ve got a naval railgun that appears to work. Nobody else in the world has either.
Brian-
I am saying we could get the same equipment- even if you’re not buying the argument that we can have really good less complex systems- I mean THE SAME stuff, but cheaper, just by relieving the overburden of bureaucratic waste.
We developed lots of new systems in the 50′s and 60′s because we were experimenting and trying to fill niches as we identified them. The state of the art was moving fast, and we did not have the same acquisition hurdles. Nobody is making the argument that we should build and discard systems that way today. Can’t you at least admit getting a system from the drawing board to production faster is a worthy goal?
-I had to laugh at that article Drake pasted below. While those Admirals and blue suiters are playing tug-of-war over the budget, who’s got their eyes on what matters? This, too:
Hello I am a student in a class which requires us to blog on media topics. I do agree with the bloggers who say the F-35 is a wiser investment, however I do believe the argument goes deeper the which craft is better suited for the next joint fighter. It would seem that producing the most jobs is the senators’ agenda for this bill (as if you all didnt already know that). The real problem is that AlCan the largest Aluminum extrusion plant in the world has be shut down from production for most of 2008. They are currently still undergoing repairs and will not be fully functional for at least another year. Not only that, but I will assume we can all agree that the F-22 project was too long on drawn out and has obviously has not lived up to its original creators ideas of granduer. Therefore, to optimize jobs for AlCan and the overwhelming larger F-22 project crew the only logical answer is to give more buisness to both group. I hope I have helped this blog one way or another.
mike j,
Yes the F-22 & F-35 were designed to counter future threats.
The F-22 of today is significantly different from the YF-22 of 1991…
Because we did not produre hardly any fighters for the USAF during the 1990′s, the F-15 fleet (last USAF F-15C built in 1986) has ALREADY had to have its projected life extended from 4,000 flight hours to 8,000 flight hours AND has had flight restrictions placed on it for quite a long time now.
Weapons developement taking so long is WHY we need to continue procuring F-22s.
Air superiority is VITAL to success REGUARDLESS of the threat.
Absolutely we should fix this acquisition nonsense & we can start by stop playing BS games & commit to the USAF getting AT LEAST the 381 F-22 it has identified it needs.
I never said the anything even remotely close to that these systems are as good as we can get them. Good God, there is a scheduled upgrade/improvement program in place for them.
Of course the F-22 still hasn’t delivered on all the promises, the IDIOTS in Congress & the DOD keep cutting its funding.
The F-35 IS IN PRODUCTION NOW.
E-Breaux50, TY for posting. It’s very hard to come by numbers that shed light on the costs involved in reopening older asircraft lines. Perhaps you can shed some light on this or provide some links?