There should be little doubt by this point that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an honest broker. His actions since he’s been in office suggest he has no personal or political agenda. He’s shown he deeply cares about the troops. So when he does a deep dive on the Air Force’s fighter aircraft requirement and emerges with 187 as the right number of Raptors — all things considered — Americans can feel confident that he’s doing the right thing. And taxpayers can actually start to believe that their hard-earned dollars might not ultimately be wasted. Procurement reform just might be possible.
(Cue scary music.) Then Congress shows up and smashes all hope. To wit, AP reports:
Lockheed Martin Corp.‘s F-22 program got an unexpected lift Wednesday after House lawmakers approved $369 million to continue production of the radar-evading fighter jets.
The surprise amendment, likely to reopen a debate over the necessity of the Cold War planes that cost $140 million each, was approved by the House Armed Services Committee. Republicans largely backed the measure and were joined by a handful of Democrats in a 31–30 vote.
The extra funding was adopted as part of the 2010 Defense Department spending bill mark-up. The bill still needs to make its way through the full House and Senate.
Notice how it’s called a “mark-up” and not “mark-down” or even “mark-sideways”? Same as it ever was …
Read the full AP report here.
– Ward
{ 41 comments… read them below or add one }
The nature of the Congress means it
Gen. John D.W. Corley, Commander, Air Combat Command:
From what I have read the f-22 is far better than the f-35.
I like that plane!
Has anyone noticed the moronic commentary in the full AP report, as follows:
“Part of Gates’ proposed $534 billion defense budget represents a shift away from outdated, Cold War weapon systems to futuristic programs aimed at unconventional foes”.
Outdated Cold War weapons systems? Last time I checked this country is still facing formidable threats from Russia and China and an ever growing threat from North Korea and Iran. The idea that F-22 production should be halted at 187 because we may only be facing threats from “unconventional foes” is sheer stupidity.
Good ol’ Winslow Wheeler. Right as usual:
http://www.counterpunch.org/wheeler06092009.html
With all the $$$ being spent on congressional pork disguised as stimulus, and I mean hundreds of billions, why not redirect some of those dollars toward America’s security, that would at least stimulate the aerospace industry, keeping it working…Where that money is now being spent only civic, vote enticing, wasteful, turtle tunnels are being stimulated, I’ll take a gross of F-22′s any day.
I still believe he canceled them knowing full well that the congress wouldn’t let it happens. What better way to clean up your budget but still get some of the higher price tag items.
You place entirely too much stock on being “honest” and not enough on being right. Stupidity and failure is usually done in earnest, success is often blemished with a little license here and there.
Gates knew that at best he could only slow some of these programs down with a gunshot approach. Ultimately the Secretary of Defense does not hold control of the purse strings. If the Secretary is getting rolled, it
“There should be little doubt by this point that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates is an honest broker. His actions since he’s been in office suggest he has no personal or political agenda.”
*Sarcasm*???
Two of the honest brokers were fired by Gates. Now looks like there will be one more:
http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003146274
It’s funny. Gen. Shinseki spoke his mind about insufficient forces and got fired by Rumsfeld. Lo and behold war comes and Shinseki is proven right.
Now Mosley and others who are speaking their minds about insufficient F22s and it’s Gates doing the firing. However, the press, in its infinite wisdom, is saying what a hero Gates is for putting his foot down on the AF.
Apparently, hubris can be construed as wisdom, as long as you phrase arrogant decisions in humble language.
The cynical would like to think that firings at AF were all about F-22, but they forget the resistance other more important reasons like: AF leadership resistance to UAS/ground support, the flubbed tanker deal, lost nukes, and neglected nuke infrastructure.
After reading all of the comments I was impressed by what none of you said. The F-22 was designed and built to replace the aging F-15 fleet. The questions that should be asked, and hasn’t been, are: 1. Can 187 of these aircraft do the job that currently requires over a thousand F-15s? 2. How long can we ask pilots to risk their lives in aircraft that are no longer structurally sound? 3. What are the plans to insure that the existing aircraft will remain technologically at the forefront, or rather at the bleeding edge? Until these question are answered, how can Mr Gates justify cutting the projected buy? Doesn’t he know that with increased numbers bought the per unit price drops, and did he take this into consideration when he capped the production of the F-22? And what provisions were made to replace aircraft losses?
So many smart people, and they can’t or won’t ask the basic questions necessary to insure a sound decision!
The question that should be asked, is why the AF seeing that they wouldn’t get the nuimber of jets they wanted, chose to go the route of risking pilot’s lives and neglecting its homeland defense duties by not buying additional legacy aircraft. I heard they are once again trying to extend the life of F-15s.
Even some in the clueless Congress suggested that more legacy aircraft should be bought for the national guard. What does the AF think about this? Hello, AF?
How much does it cost to buy new F-15s anyways? I’m sure with avionics bloat and inflation the “real” cost gets closer and closer to that of the F-22. We can always look at the cost of the F-15I or the variants supplied to Japan and South Korea for reference.
If the difference isn’t sufficient, we should go all-out and make more F-22s. Maybe we have too many F-15′s to begin with! Perhaps a “pyramid” model where the top is our elite F-22s with a large “base” of F-16s (and hopefully JSF in the future).
The drawdown assumes that unit-for-unit since each F-22 is superior to X eagles then they are interchangeable. However we need a bit more than that as an envelope against attrition, and to compensate for the probable increased workload associated with one craft replacing many. Doing equivalencies based on kill to death ratios is a bad way to go.
It was complaints from the commanders on the grounds, plus Gates pushing that brought a lot of that about. I don’t stress every little imagined offence or intrigue surrounding the F22- I hear ELP and company are good at playing that game.
The AF house seems to be in order, so I don’t see Air Combat Command boss Gen John Corley going anywhere.
__________________________________________________
This is how things always work. If complaints (ie perogatives) of ground commanders were being addressed, why was it a failing of AF leadership??? If leadership failings led to the sacking of the entire AF top echelon, then why is the Naval leadership still there despite a collapsing ship building program?
What evidence is there that the AF is now in order? From the ACC’s comments it seems that the AF’s medium term planning is in disarray.
Furthermore has the nuclear weapons issues been adequately addressed? Issues like that fall down to morale and discipline. What concrete measures have been taken on that front?
It is true that Gates’ has been an effective manager. It is not clear at all that he is taking the DoD in the right direction in terms of force structure and procurement practices. I hope the consequence of his effectiveness is not the efficient destruction of our war fighting capabilities.
RE: “It [America] has to change to match the world as it is, not what we want it to be or what it was before. The F22 is the golden past, not the future.”
Care to try to salvage that bit of nonsense with an explanation before I waterboard you with it?
Wait till Congress really starts feasting on the Ponzi scheme known as the F-35. Then the entertainment level will pick up.
One of the common arguments against the Raptor is that it doesn’t stop pirates or terrorists, that it isn’t capable of performing in a low intensity conflict.
WAKE UP PEOPLE! IT WASN’T DESIGNED FOR A LOW INTENSITY CONFLICT!
There are times and will be times in the future where America will face a high intensity conflict, and probably more frequently, we will face “hybrid wars” that combine high intensity and low intenstiy aspects. I do not deny in any way that the US should continue to improve its ablility to perform in low intensity conflicts. However, it would be a greivous mistake to do this to the exclusion of all other threats. The only way America will continue to be safe is for America to remain capable of winning wars in whatever form they manifest themselves, and the Raptor has a key role in that. Note I said role! the F-35 has a role too and so do attack subs and abrams tanks and carriers and all the rest. However, our national security will not be as strong if we do not buy an adequate ammount of Raptors while the production line is open, and by adequate I mean enough to fill out the ten AEF’s that the Air Force has (and 187 won’t do that). One of the main reasons for America’s martial success has been the fact that since World War II our ground troops have NEVER operated on a battlefield without air superiority. We take this for granted now, whch is a sad thing, because we are now in danger of compromising that essential ingrediant to battlefield success by not getting enough Raptors to replace the current air superiority fleet.
Let me remind you all that it wasn’t that long ago that many people were harping about how the M1 Abrams and other heavy tanks and fighting vehicles were no longer effective war fighting vehicles in the new 21st century battlefield. The new thing was gonna be FCS with light armor. Then the war in Iraq came along and we found out that Heavy tanks sure as heck still have a big role to play in modern warfare. We would have gotten our butts kicked in many different urban battle situations without the heavy metal to flush out insurgents and absorb rpg’s and ied’s. Now, ironically, the FCS vehicle program has been cancelled with survivability concerns one of the main concerns. Those “Cold War Aritfacts” performed pretty well in a insurgency, wouldn’t you say?
These high end weapons systems do not do everything, but they have important roles in almost all of the conflicts we fight in. It would be better to have the Raptor (in sufficient numbers) and not use it than to need it and not have it.
Ward,
Could not disagree more with your assessment of Gates.
mike j,
Same for your assessment of Wheeler.
Wait till Congress really starts feasting on the Ponzi scheme known as the F-35. Then the entertainment level will pick up.
_________________________________________
The F-35 is good for the US for several reasons, not the least of which is that it will supply the fighter market to a degree sufficient to deprive foreign military-industrial complexes of resources for growth, thus favoring long term continuation of US preeminence.
Say what you will about the F-22, it does what it was designed to do perfectly.
You either need it or you don’t, the F-35 is not a replacement. Especially because its cost is closing with that of the F-22. It may well be over 100 million per by the time it comes out.
Somehow,I believe that the F-22 Raptor is our “Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.” It is a weapon built in small numbers that will not make any difference in our nation’s survival. The Nazis had cutting edge weaponry during WWII. But they didn’t build enough of them,nor did they deploy what they had in a timely manner to make a difference in the outcome of WWII. Like the Nazis,we suffer from stupid “civilian” leaders who cannot make up their mind what our nation needs. they are playing the JSF off against the Raptor,which is like comparing apples & oranges. Cheney neutered our military when he was SecDef,& it went down hill ever since. Clinton just followed Cheney’s course,& ol’ W. Bush did nothing to rebuild our military back the way Reagan did. Obama is not doing anything different than what W. Bush & Rumsfeld would have done. If the Raptor AND the JSF get canceled,it doesn’t matter who was in office to do it because there is not a dime’s worth of difference between the Democrats & Republicans,AND…….Obama is just George W. Bush with a suntan,while Bush,Jr. was just Bill Clinton reincarnated,& Bill Clinton was just more of George HW Bush.etc,etc,ad nauseum….
I wonder if making a straightforward navalised variant of the F-22 would lower its procurement cost i.e. current single-seat configuration with corrosion-proof, strengthened airframe for carrier-based operationss.
I wonder if making a straightforward navalised variant of the F-22 would lower its procurement cost i.e. current single-seat configuration with corrosion-proof, strengthened airframe for carrier-based operations.
Leave it to Air Power Australia: the #1 F-22 fanboy site to recommend such a thing. Not going to happen…I see no interest at all from the Navy for the F22.
Strider, I has a sarcasm.
Good Morning Folks,
I do enjoy the ramblings about how to save the F-22 that is coming to the end of it’s life support.
The latest defender of the F-22 is marine Brig. General David Heinz who maintains that the F-22 is the only way to defeat the Russian S-300PMV2 Air Defense System. Of course the general fails to say how the F-22 can do this since it lacks any AG weapon systems, but hey what are facts.
It appears that BG Heinz learned all he knows about the F-22 from pillow talk with Lockheed Lobbyist Rebecca Grant. I would suggest that the general zip it up and use what ever creditability he may still have on other matters of more pressing to the Marines and defend the EFV, CV-22, the poorly designed and built LPD’s and the troubled LHD. But again military affairs are not rocket science.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner
“he has no personal or political agenda…”
yeah and obama is the messiah…
Gates is doing barry’s bidding – disarming an America Barry hates…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y7wDVDs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.punditchick.com%2F2008%2F02%2F27%2Fobama-plans-to-cut-defense%2F&feature=player_embedded
Every F-22 means two less F-15s or something like that. A lot of pilots are gonna lose out, not just politicians.
So yeah, no F-22. Perhaps a stealthy UCAV will start nudging its way into the niche current occupied by F-22 in the interim.
I don’t see anybody mentioning N. Korea as a potential “what-if” scenario and what the F-22′s role would be there. Is it really prudent to assume they aren’t going to do anything so stupid that it will require a military response?
Remote piloted UAVs require iron-clad secure communication links to be a viable combat platform. How do you gain air superiority using UAVs if your opponent has just enough EW technology to even occasionally interrupt those communication links?
RE:”Of course the general fails to say how the F-22 can do this since it lacks any AG weapon systems, but hey what are facts.”
‘facts’? Pffft.
1. the Air Force began the process of actually modifying the F-22 for Air-to-Mud in 2002. See: http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-6023065_ITM
2. F-22 Air-to-Mud capability entered flight test in 2007. See: http://defense-update.com/newscast/0307/news/080307_f22a.htm
3. The F-22 dropped the first SDB in September 2007. See: http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123070053
4. The F-22 completed the first supersonic SDB drop in August 2008. See: http://defense-update.com/newscast/0808/f22_sdb.html
THOSE are facts. There are more, but the point is made.
Again.
Byron Skinner,
The F-22 is a $140-145 million jet. And would be significantly less expensive if any of the last 2-3 SecDef were worth a crap.
Today (& for some time) the F-22 is capable of utilizing the ’1,000 lb’ JDAM (GBU-32 or GBU-35) and if so desired virtually any similar sized munition could be integrated. Although obviously for the type of air-to-ground missions the F-22 is likely to perform (DEAD) the ’250 lb’ SDB (GBU-30 or GBU-40) will be the preferred munition.
And please, the F-22 & the Predator C are completely different aircraft for completely different missions. Comparing them clearly shows how cueless & desperate you are.
And please, the F-22 & the Predator C are completely different aircraft for completely different missions. Comparing them clearly shows how cueless & desperate you are.
Posted by: pfcem at June 22, 2009 05:41 PM
______________________________
Air superiority no, but the targeting of sam sites seems better suited to a UAV.
I see some of what Byron was getting at after reading this article linked on the Dew Line Blog.
Dave Majumdar’s aerospace blog on examiner.com illuminates some stunning omissions in the US Air Force’s upgrade plans for the Lockheed Martin F-22 fleet. My list of highlights from Dave’s recent interview with the F-22 SPO:
1. The first 34 F-22s can not be upgraded with the Increment 3.1 air-to-ground and electronic attack and Increment 3.2 advanced air-to-air and networking upgrades.
2. The next batch of 63 F-22s will be upgraded to carry eight small diameter bombs, but they can only attack two targets at a time. These aircraft will never be able to fire high off bore sight missiles, which are swiftly becoming the standard for aerial combat.
3. The final batch of 91 aircraft are programmed to receive both the air-to-ground and advanced air-to-air hardware, but these do not include helmet-mounted cuing, also standard kit for latest-generation dogfighters.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/06/the-f-22-cant-do-what.html#comments
Thanks for pointing that out, Drake.
Now the raptor cheer squad is going to show up saying “See? See? We gotta buy more so they’ll all be up to 3.2!” Another interesting tidbit was the F-22 using a “proprietary” data link that can’t communicate with the -15s and -16s, well, except through voice, like they’ve been doing for about 80 years.
That “$140-145 million” seems like it buys less every time I look. Anyone want to explain how exactly these people are being good stewards of our tax dollars?
“These aircraft will never be able to fire high off bore sight missiles, which are swiftly becoming the standard for aerial combat. ”
unless the Raptor mounted its missiles externally… oops, no more stealth… Silent Eagle anyone?
Drake,
The DEW post omitted some critical details:
The first 34 F-22s were supposed to be for operational evaluation and testing. Thus they were not built to the fully upgraded configuration. This, once again, exposes the sheer folly of cutting a 700 aircraft program down to 187.
Furthermore, the AF is looking into incorporating software based capabilities into these aircraft. In other words, they may not get the full capabilities, but will have a significant subset of them.
The first 90 or so cannot currently fire high off bore sight missiles because of the rail carrying system. However, the AF is working with Lockheed and others to figure out how to back fit this capability onto the aircraft.
The lack of HMCS does not prevent the Raptor from exploiting the high off boresight capabilities of the missile.
The ability to dynamically re-target the SDBs is scheduled for increment 3.2, and the article did state that the early jets will not have increment 3.2 capability, but it also states that the AF will add as much of the 3.2 capability as they can. In other words, other than the off-boresight missile capability and others requiring new hardware, one has no idea which capabilities will not make it into the “old” jets.
The dynamic SDB capability is slated to be in 3.2, but it may well be added to the old jets if only a software upgrade is needed.
E:
With more money for upgrades, I’m sure they will get it right in time for the F35 roll out.
sorry curtis, didn’t catch the sarcasm, read it again in that light and cracked up. With all this other nonsense flying around I guess I got trigger happy
Also liked the comment about the vitality of comms in regard to uav’s. hadn’t thought about that before. one more reason to keep those “obsolete pilots” around longer in there “fighters of the stone age.”
Byron Skinner: Please make sure you know what you are talking about before you post. One step would be to find what good a sidewinder would be in a AG role, as SMSGT MAC so astutely pointed out. Congrats though, you cracked me up with that one. I’m sure it would crack up the taliban too, to see some sidewinders blowing up on the ground.
The main issue however, is the question of roles! we’re not buying the raptor for its AG capabilities. You can blow and puff all you want about it but its relatively irrelavent because the Raptor’s role is to shoot down enemy fighters. This is what the Eagle was designed to do originally too. Remember not a pound for air to ground? there’s a reason we’re buying a whole lot of F-35s, and that is for bomb trucking. So yell and scream about the raptor’s bomb load all you want but just realize that it isn’t critical to it’s role in our plan of warfare.
As for the predator, its role is armed recon. It has no bearnig on the raptor issue because it has no bearing on the role of the raptor. THe predator has a role that it fills well. THe mistake is to shoehorn it into roles it is not capable of performing, like high threat environment strike missions or air supiriority.