USAF Woes

[CougarKing]

Interesting.

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/dod-procurement.html

Senior blue-suited officials have argued the air service could transition funds in its fiscal year 2009 budget plan tagged to shut down the F-22A line into additional Raptor buys. The Air Force has $116 million set aside in the FY-09 blueprint to shutter the fighter's production line.

However, DOD acquisition czar John Young said today that the Air Force would be better served by nixing plans to stretch the fighter's production past the department's 183-plane cap, and funnel those dollars into upgrading the F-22As the service is already slated to get.

“There has been a fair amount of study work here that says 183 F-22As are an adequate number of airplanes,” Young said during today's briefing at the Pentagon. “Beyond that, the Air Force, I think, has some challenges that need to be addressed.”

The first 100-plane tranche of “Increment 1” Raptors will be baseline models of the fifth-generation fighter, while the remaining 83 jets will be advanced “Increment 3” versions of the Raptor, Young said.

“So 100 planes right now are planning to be less-capable planes, and the Air Force does not intend to upgrade those planes [and] there is at least $2.3 billion in the budget right now to create these Increment 3 [planes],” Young said.

“If we had additional dollars in the defense budget, I think they should be spent to improve the capabilities of those first 100 F-22As so all F-22As are the most capable,” he added.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Round and round they go:

Pentagon halts bitter Air Force tanker competition in setback for Northrop Grumman
Defense Secretary Robert Gates cancels a lengthy contest that had been marked by scandal. The decision gives new life to an effort by Boeing, which had been expected to lose to Northrop.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-tankers11-2008sep11,0,5014015.story?track=ntothtml

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Wednesday canceled a bitter competition to build a new fleet of Air Force refueling tankers, saying the contest had become so acrimonious that picking a winner was impossible before President Bush leaves office.

The unexpected action is the latest setback for the star-crossed $35-billion program, which now has had its selection process started and stopped three times over the last five years.

The move will leave a decision on how to restart the 179-plane program to a new presidential administration, delaying delivery of the much-needed new tanker as much as another year. The Air Force first awarded a contract to build the replacements shortly after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.

The decision to scrap the competition is a particularly tough blow for Century City-based Northrop Grumman Corp., which beat Boeing Co. in the most recent contest and was widely expected to have that victory confirmed in the follow-up competition that Gates canceled.

"We are extremely disappointed at the decision to terminate the current tanker competition, especially on behalf of our men and women in uniform who will now be denied a critically needed new tanker for years," Northrop spokesman Randy Belote said.

Northrop has said the contract award would create more than 7,500 jobs for California's struggling aerospace industry, even though the planes would be assembled in Alabama.

Boeing had been pushing for a four-month delay to completely overhaul its bid, and it said in a statement that it welcomed Gates' decision, which would allow for a "thorough and open competition" in the future.

The move gives Boeing new life in one of the last remaining large-scale weapons contracts of its generation, said Richard Aboulafia, an aircraft expert at Teal Group Corp., an aerospace and defense analysis firm. "It sure beats the sudden death they were facing with the existing plan."

The cancellation comes after two months of disarray following a July ruling by government auditors that the Air Force mishandled the selection process that chose Northrop, which was proposing to build its tanker from an Airbus A330 commercial airliner.

In the wake of the Government Accountability Office ruling, Gates took responsibility for the competition away from the Air Force and vowed to run it out of his own office, saying he believed it could be completed by the end of the year.

But Pentagon officials have in recent weeks grown increasingly concerned that Boeing, which has been aggressively pressing its case on Capitol Hill, was about to launch a legal challenge to the Pentagon's revised competition rules, which were due out in a matter of days.

The threat appears to have been part of what convinced Gates that a "cooling-off" period was needed...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Just another update for this thread:

Boeing, Lockheed Martin seek to save F-22 fighter program
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - by Steve Wilhelm Staff Writer

http://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/01/19/story3.html?b=1232341200^1762605

Boeing and Lockheed Martin are pouring money into a publicity campaign to maintain funding for the F-22 Raptor, worried the fighter-plane program may be on the chopping block of the Obama administration.

On the line locally are 1,200 Boeing jobs, which could be lost in three years if current Raptor funding isn’t supplemented.

While the raptor is considered a Lockheed Martin aircraft, the wings and aft fuselage are made in Boeing’s legendary 9101 building on East Marginal Way. The avionics and software are integrated nearby, in the 908 building.

Terminating production might spell the end of an important local Boeing legacy of building high-technology military aircraft in the high-security buildings.

Widely acknowledged as the most capable fighter aircraft in the world, the $150 million F-22 has been under fire for years for bleeding away money needed elsewhere. The Bush administration wanted to kill it, but was overruled by Congress and by the U.S. Air Force, which wanted more of the aircraft.

The Air Force originally wanted 750, but now is hoping for a fleet of 243, said Boeing spokesman Doug Cantwell. Currently, 183 aircraft have been funded and 134 produced. The immediate issue is whether another 20 will be funded, to bring the total funded up to 203, Cantwell said.

The publicity campaign, focused on policymakers in Washington, D.C., includes print ads in policy journals, radio spots and even billboards in Metro stations, Cantwell said.

He said he didn’t know the cost of the campaign nor Boeing’s share. He said Boeing contributes about one-third of the value of the F-22 program.

“We are major partners with Lockheed Martin and (engine maker) Pratt & Whitney, and as such we pay a chunk of the advertising bill every year,” he said.

The F-22 issue is widely regarded as one of the first tough military procurement questions that Barack Obama will face as president.

While the aircraft is very stealthy and can cruise at supersonic speeds, its high cost has raised questions about whether it’s the proper allocation of increasingly limited government resources, especially in a recession.

“The plane flies, there’s no question about that, but is it a Cold War weapon, is it a weapon we need to deal with terrorism, or what?” said Philip Coyle, senior adviser for the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Defense Information.

“Obama has a reputation as being ruthlessly pragmatic. He’ll do the right thing, but he’s very pragmatic about it,” Coyle said.

The aircraft was targeted in a Dec. 21 New York Times editorial, which said that the government could save $3 billion a year by terminating the Raptor. The editorial also listed other high-tech weapons systems to cut, including the Zumwalt-class destroyer, the Virginia Class sub, and the V-22 Osprey (also built by Boeing, but not in Washington). Money saved from these should be put into more ground troops, more shallow-draft Navy ships, and supplies for the National Guard, the editorial said.

The Boeing-Lockheed Martin ad campaign also is playing on the recession, saying that the program employs 25,000 people in 44 states, with more than twice that working for suppliers, Cantwell said.

While current orders would take until 2012 to complete, the deadline is actually much closer because some titanium parts need to be ordered 36 months in advance, he said.

An article supporting the F-22 and published by the conservative Lexington Institute gave an even higher number, contending that upward of 100,000 jobs are supported by F-22. The writer, Loren Thompson, said that the contract should be continued because it benefits the economy, maintains critical U.S. technology skills and will maintain future air superiority.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Heat for head of USAF:

Gates drops ball on U.S. Air Force needs
http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/04/21/Gates-drops-ball-on-US-Air-Force-needs/UPI-25371240328455/

Gen. Norton Schwartz, the U.S. Air Force chief of staff, faced biting criticism from his service's senior leaders in a video teleconference last week.

They accused him of betraying the service's requirements process by siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in terminating key airpower programs without rigorous analysis and signaled that Schwartz's credibility is at risk among his Air Force peers.

Doubts about Schwartz have been rife since Gates selected him to replace the less pliable Gen. T. Michael Moseley last summer after Moseley clashed with Gates over the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor fighter and management of nuclear weapons. A look at Gates's plans for Air Force programs shows why Schwartz's tenure could resemble a controlled flight into terrain.

Airlifters. Gates wants to end production of the only long-range airlifter currently being built, the Boeing C-17 Globemaster, at 205 planes. That number is the low end of a fleet mix recommended in the 2005 Mobility Capability Study, adjusted to compensate for a later decision to forgo putting new engines on most older Lockheed Martin C-5 Galaxy transports. The C-17 and C-5 are the only long-range jet transports in the joint fleet, and under the Gates plan that fleet would be capped at about 315 planes.

But a U.S. Government Accountability Office report found the 2005 study probably underestimated future mobility needs. Also, Gates is increasing the size of ground forces that would use airlifters by 92,000 personnel while expanding operations in Africa. Nonetheless, he decided to terminate the C-17 without completing a new mobility study.

Fighters. Gates proposes to end the F-22 fighter program at 187 planes while sticking with plans to buy 2,443 less-pricey Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighters -- about 1,800 of which would go to the Air Force.

But the two planes were designed to operate together, with the F-22 providing air dominance and the F-35 focusing on ground attacks. The F-35 lacks features such as vectored thrust and fuel-conserving super-cruise, so it is not as capable in combating enemy defenses.

Ten years ago Defense Secretary William Cohen wrote, "The F-22 will enable the Joint Strike Fighter to carry out its primary strike mission. The JSF was not designed for the air-superiority mission." Neither Gates nor Schwartz has explained how this division of labor can work while ending F-22 production far below stated requirements.

Bombers. The war-winning potential of long-range bombers was the original rationale for an independent air force, and today the U.S. Air Force still has a sizable fleet of heavy bombers. But Gates said on April 6, "We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement and the technology."

Money set aside for a future bomber has been taken for other purposes, leaving the service with a decrepit fleet of 160 Cold War bombers. Only a handful of these planes -- the stealthy Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirits -- are likely to survive a prolonged encounter with modern air defenses.

Tankers. The Air Force has been trying since the 21st century began to modernize the aerial refueling tankers that make it possible for U.S. airlifters, fighters and bombers to operate in remote places like Afghanistan, and Gates has stood by plans to develop a new tanker. That is good because most of the planes in the aerial refueling fleet are approaching half a century of age.

But even on tankers, it isn't so clear Gates knows what he's doing. He says he will lay his body "across the tracks" to prevent Congress from splitting production between two teams because it would cost too much -- ignoring the fact that a dual award would replace aging tankers much faster and avoid billions of dollars in upkeep for the current fleet. Is it any wonder Schwartz is having a hard time explaining himself?

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Yet another update:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,190484,00.html

USAF 2010 Request Lacks Major New Initiatives
Aviation Week's DTI | Amy Butler | May 07, 2009
This article first appeared in AviationWeek.com.

The U.S. Air Force's $160.5 billion Fiscal 2010 budget request is notable more for what is absent, compared with the tradition of including a bevy of new projects.

Along with the end of C-17 and F-22 production, the Air Force budget includes only two new starts -- $439 million to begin another competition to replace KC-135 aerial refuelers, as expected, and $9.5 million in seed money to begin the Common Vertical Lift Support Program (CVLSP). This will replace aging UH-1N Hueys used by Air Force Space Command for aerial support to nuclear weapons convoys and some executive lift operated out of Andrews Air Force Base, Md.

The service's baseline Fiscal 2010 top-line falls just under total Fiscal 2009 allocation of $161.4 billion, although the latter includes war supplemental funds. The service further expects to get about $16 billion more in supplemental war spending in Fiscal 2010. Growth in what the Air Force calls its "blue" topline, or discretionary funding, is about $2 billion over Fiscal 2009, which falls short of inflation, says Patricia Zarodkiewicz, deputy budget director for the service.

In past years, the USAF intentionally short-changed infrastructure and personnel accounts to pay for modernization programs, mainly the F-22 and C-17. Next fiscal year, however, the service is requesting $91 million to shut down the Long Beach, Calif., C-17 line (the balance would come later once international orders cease). Another $64 million is needed to dismantle the Marietta, Ga., F-22 line.

A decision has not yet been made on whether to maintain some F-22 tooling in a "warm" status or to fully close production, Zarodkiewicz says.

In Fiscal 2010, installations maintenance accounts are supposedly short by about $2 billion, and repair and sustainment funds are short by about $800 million. However, Zarodkiewicz says, the service's budget is "well balanced" this year with hefty needs to end a string of personnel cuts, with a force level of 331,700 airmen planned in Fiscal 2010 and another 1,000 in Fiscal 2011.

Also emphasized in the request are funds for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) aircraft and accounts that support nuclear activities. The latter was required after a series of mishaps in the service's handling of nuclear weapons. Zarodkiewicz says the Fiscal 2010 request includes about $900 million in requests for ISR systems, including new sensors.

Most major Fiscal 2010 shifts -- including delaying a new Combat Search and Rescue-X (CSAR-X) procurement and next-generation bomber competition -- were announced by Defense Secretary Robert Gates April 6.

Stunting CSAR-X is forcing the service to buy two H-60Ms, the variant used by the U.S. Army, to add to 95 HH-60G Pave Hawks now in service. Specialized mission systems will be added later so that they are optimized for the CSAR mission, Zarodkiewicz says.

The Air Force also will assume oversight of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, now led by the Army, during Fiscal 2010 though the details are not yet sorted out. The service plans to buy eight of those C-27J aircraft, built by L-3 Communications/Alenia North America in Fiscal 2010.

 

[CougarKing]

An update with the F22:

Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings

The U.S.’s top fighter jet, the Lockheed Martin F-22, has recently required more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies, pushing its hourly cost of flying to more than $44,000, a far higher figure than for the warplane it replaces, confidential Pentagon test results show.
The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings — such as vulnerability to rain and other abrasion — challenging Air Force and contractor technicians since the mid-1990s, according to Pentagon officials, internal documents and a former engineer.
While most aircraft fleets become easier and less costly to repair as they mature, key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative, and on average from October last year to this May just 55 percent of the deployed F-22 fleet has been available to fulfill missions guarding U.S. airspace.
The troubles with the nation's foremost air-defense fighter are emerging amid a fight between the Obama administration and Congress over whether the program should be halted next year at 187 planes, far short of what the Air Force and the F-22's contractors around the country had anticipated.
(Washington Post, July 10, 2009, Pg. 1)

 

[aesop081]

more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour in the skies

I cringe every time the media makes a statement like this. That is a falacy often repeated and used here in Canada when talking about the Sea King. "30 man-hours" is most likely more representative of the truth.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Link to story here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

Another major update:

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4185286&c=AME&s=AIR

U.S. Defense Budget Faces Veto if F-22 Isn't Cut
By rick maze
Published: 13 Jul 2009 14:38 

U.S. President Barack Obama and top defense officials warned July 13 that the 2010 defense budget will be vetoed unless Congress kills further purchases of the F-22 aircraft.

Continuing to procure more of the fighters is taking money away from more pressing needs, Obama said in a letter as the Senate begins debating S 1390, the 2010 defense authorization act.

The bill includes about $1.75 billion for the purchase of seven more F-22s that the Pentagon says it does not want or need.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen, in their own letter to Congress, said continuing to spend money beyond 2009 on the F-22 would come "at the expense of other Air Force and defense programs."

The letters were read on the Senate floor by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, who said the $1.75 billion being spent on the F-22 was taken from military personnel and operations and maintenance accounts, including accounts to cover the cost of active-duty bonuses and support and from the civilian payroll account.

Money also was "found" through an assumption that the military will be able to save money starting next year by reforming defense acquisition policies.

"Each of these places cannot afford these cuts," Levin said, noting in particular that overhauling rules on weapons-buying could end up costing money in the short term rather than providing savings.

"Major savings, which we think will come, are not going to happen in the short term," he said.

Levin said cutting uniformed and civilian personnel accounts would be a mistake, and likely would force the Pentagon to come back later for extra money to cover expenses.

Levin and Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the armed services committee's ranking Republican, support the Pentagon's view that 187 F-22s are enough. As Senate debate began July 13 on the bill, the first amendment under consideration is to cancel additional F-22 purchases.

"At some point, we have to come to the logical conclusion that a weapons system has come to an end," Levin said.

This will be the first of many tests to see whether Congress is willing to terminate or reduce weapons programs. In this case, with contracts for F-22 pieces spread over 40 states, job protection in a weak economy is a major factor.

McCain said the votes "are not there" to kill the F-22, and that he hopes Obama's letter "has a significant impact."

Debate on the defense bill is expected to extend through early next week, with more than 300 amendments anticipated.

 

[CougarKing]

Yet another update on the ordeal of the F22.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4187281&c=AME&s=AIR

Senate F-22 Foes Outnumbered But Still Fighting
By william matthews
Published: 14 Jul 2009 16:15

For now, the Senate opponents of the F-22 don't have the votes to kill the costly stealth fighter. But they're still working on it.

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Carl Levin, D-Mich., tried out a new argument July 13 and 14 as they strove to convince colleagues to support their amendment to remove $1.75 billion and seven F-22s from the 2010 defense budget.

"This debate is not about depriving the Air Force" of aircraft it needs, McCain said. It's about ensuring that the Marine Corps and Navy also get the fifth-generation fighters by keeping the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program on track, he said July 14.

McCain was echoing a theme that Levin, chairman of the Senate Armed Services, had rolled out the day before: "The F-35 is a system which all of the services need," Levin said. It's better at electronic warfare than the F-22 and it is half a generation more advanced, he said. To ensure that F-35s begin arriving on time in the Marine Corps and Navy, "we have to at some point say that we have enough F-22s," he said.

McCain said if the F-35 program stays on schedule, the Marine Corps should have the new fighters in 2012, the Air Force in 2013 and the Navy in 2015.
Levin bolstered his argument against buying more F-22s by reading from a letter he received July 13 from President Barack Obama in which the president said, "We do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress."

Obama said that buying more F-22s "would be a waste of valuable resources" that should be spent instead "to provide our troops with the weapons that they actually do need."

The veto promise put a sharper edge on a threat by senior White House advisers in June to "recommend a veto."

Levin also read from a letter written by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They warned that, "If the Air Force is forced to buy additional F-22s ... it will come at the expense of other Air Force and Department of Defense priorities, and require deferring capabilities in areas we believe are much more critical to our nation's defense."

How effective McCain and Levin's arguments are may be known July 15, when a vote on the amendment to kill the F-22 is tentatively expected.

"This is probably the closest vote we've seen," said Mandy Smithberger of the Project on Government Oversight. A survey of Senate members July 13 showed that 23 support McCain and Levin's effort to end the F-22 program; 45 oppose it; and 32 were undecided.

F-22 supporters, led by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., were working July 14 to round up enough votes to override an Obama veto, Smithberger said. F-22s are assembled in Chambliss' state.

However, the veto threat from Obama may be convincing some senators to support cutting F-22s from the budget, she said.

Chambliss struck back at McCain and Levin in an afternoon Senate speech July 14.

Although Gates wants to halt F-22 production now, it was Gates that kept the program alive a year ago, he said. While he was defense secretary during the Bush administration, Gates agreed to buy four more planes so the next administration could decide the plane's fate, Chambliss said.

It is the Obama administration that wants "to terminate the best tactical airplane in the world," he said.

Chambliss also stressed that Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz has stated that 243 F-22s is the military requirement, that 187 is a "moderate to high risk," but that the additional planes are "simply unaffordable."

The chief of the Air Force Air Combat Command, Gen. John Corley said 381 F-22s is the required number, and that ending the program at 187 is a "high risk."

McCain reminded his colleagues that the Defense Department wants to focus on increasing its capabilities for irregular warfare, "and the F-22 is not part of that." The plane, which was designed in the 1980s to battle Soviet fighters over Europe, "has limited air-to-ground capability," making it of little use for counter-insurgency operations, McCain said. Indeed, the United States is fighting two wars, "and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater," McCain said.

Levin stressed that the decision to end F-22 production was not a new initiative by the Democratic Obama administration, but dates to 2004 when George W. Bush was president and Donald Rumsfeld was secretary of defense.

F-22 supporters have been busily rounding up allies, including Air National Guard generals.

At the request of Chambliss, Lt. Gen. Harry Wyatt, director of the Air Guard, wrote that F-22 would be useful for protecting the United States against launched cruise missiles.

"That threat is simply not present today," McCain said, and if it does emerge, the most effective counter might be unmanned aerial vehicles.

Much of the support for the F-22 is due to the jobs it creates.

According to the Defense Department, about 25,000 workers are employed by the F-22 program. According to Lockheed, another 90,000 jobs receive some support, but may not be fully dependent on the F-22.

Ending F-22 production "will lead to loss of jobs in certain states," McCain conceded. "But the F-35 will be a job creator."

Gates has said that as F-35 production picks up, employment will increase from 38,000 people today to 64,000 in 2010 and 82,000 in 2011.

The F-35 costs $100 million per plane, according to the Government Accountability Office. F-22s costs about $360 million apiece. Both figures include development costs.

 

[aesop081]

Ah yet another article flaunting the virtues of the F-35.

:

The final true cost of each F-35s is not known...by anyone.

The in-service date of the F-35 for each service, IMHO, cant be stated for sure. There is still so much work to do and so many unanswered questions.

The Air national guard is in a major fix. It remains to be seen if it can wait for the F-35 to replace its fighters. It may need the F-22 if the F-35 cant be delivered in time to replace decrepit F-15, F-16 and A-10s.

My 2......

 

[5parta]

$100 million a piece with unproven record?!  : That's putting a lot of eggs in one basket  ;D

I don't see why the current fleet of fighters can't do a good job in situations encountered in the last 20 years. Plus, the UAVs are giving us that extra edge already. As we know, we are fighting a different type of war nowadays.
If we are talking about facing the emerging military giant(s): short of going nuclear > , our ability to win decisively would hinge on sheer numbers. As far as I know, one of the reasons the Allied gained the WW2 air superiority was due to its ability to keep replacing losses.

Just my  :2c:.....

 

[aesop081]

I don't see why the current fleet of fighters can't do a good job in situations encountered in the last 20 years.

The current feet of fighters (F-15, 16 and legacy 18s) are are the very end of their life cycle. THAT is a major problem. This problem is even more pressing for the National Guard.

Plus, the UAVs are giving us that extra edge already. As we know, we are fighting a different type of war nowadays.

UAVs are not a replacement for fighters. Further, what type of war will we fight tomorow ? Yes we need to fight THIS war, but considering the number of years it takes to bring a fighter into service, we cant afford to be shortsighted.

As far as I know, one of the reasons the Allied gained the WW2 air superiority was due to its ability to keep replacing losses.

WW2 has come and gone. Israel managed significat aerial victories despite inferior numbers. We can toss examples back and forth arguing both stances.......

 

[Journeyman]

Yet another update:
http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,190484,00.html

The Air Force also will assume oversight of the Joint Cargo Aircraft (JCA) program, now led by the Army, during Fiscal 2010 though the details are not yet sorted out. The service plans to buy eight of those C-27J aircraft, built by L-3 Communications/Alenia North America in Fiscal 2010.

You should have highlighted the whole paragraph, since the C-27J is a recurring Canadian issue.....well, for anyone following the Herc/Buffalo FWSAR saga anyway

 

[CougarKing]

And a number of officials try to make the case for the F22:

http://www.military.com/features/0,15240,194558,00.html

Officials: The Case for More F-22s
Aviation Week's DTI | David A. Fulghum | July 10, 2009
This article first appeared in Aerospace Daily & Defense Report.

A chorus of U.S., Japanese and Israeli officials believe that China, Russia and Iran present common problems that more F-22 Raptors could help solve.

Japan's F-15J force, once top of the line, is now "outclassed by the new generation of Chinese fighters" such as the Su-30MKK, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff U.S. Air Force Gen. Richard Myers (ret.), tells Aviation Week.

Moreover, China's air defenses, which include variants of Russian-made, long-range SA-10s and SA-20 (S-300 family) missiles, can only be penetrated by the fast, high-flying, stealthy Raptor.

Japan's Defense Ministry has studied the problem closely and, at least internally, has produced "a very impressive tactical rationale" for buying the F-22 if its sale is approved by the U.S. Congress. Myers predicts that any resistance within the U.S. Air Force to selling Raptor technology to Japan, "an incredibly staunch ally," will be isolated and not critical.

Such considerations are pressing because tensions are growing over Japan's far-flung island empire, some of it mineral rich, that stretches to within 125-150 miles of China. That distance, interestingly enough, is the range of the Raptor's advanced radar, compared to 56 miles for the F-15. Japan feels it must be prepared to defend its area of responsibility from a new generation of regional threats – including China's increasingly sophisticated fighter force, which boasts the J-10 – that can carry its new, small-radar-signature, air-launched cruise missiles. Japan also needs a precision bombing capability if any of its islands are occupied.

While he won't pick a fight with the current management of the Pentagon over ending production of the F-22, Myers makes the point in public that only under the umbrella of air superiority that the Raptor provides can U.S. military endeavors succeed. He also contends that there is a fleeting window -- now -- in which to approve the sale of F-22s to foreign air forces, in particular Japan, which has expressed a willingness to pay twice the price ($290 million) charged to the U.S. Air Force ($142 million) for the stealthy aircraft.

In the same vein, Israeli Air Force officials contend that even a single squadron of F-22s, despite the cost and problems with maintaining a small fleet, is worth the cost in its deterrent value.

In the Middle East, the sale of S-300s and other advanced missiles to Iran and Syria has set off alarms in the U.S. Current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen was asked recently if the sale of SA-20s to Iran had come up in talks with Russia.

As part of the summit in Moscow, there "was a document that I signed with my counterpart, General Makarov, and it focuses on military-to-military cooperation," Mullen says. "One of the areas I discussed with him ... is that issue and recognizing that particular system is a game-changer. I focused on that. That's a huge concern because of the potential [the S-300] has."

Mullen also referred to Iran's development of a nuclear weapon and discussed what he meant by saying publicly that all options, including military options, for stopping the work are on the table.

"I wouldn't over-read the fact that I said, 'including military options,'" he says. "Where we're challenged here is the time frame [for Iran's development of a bomb of] one to three years. My concern is that the clock has continued to tick. I believe Iran is very focused on developing this capability and I think, should they get it, it will be very destabilizing.

"Another question is the whole strike option piece," Mullen says, which refers to preemptive bombing to disrupt Iran's nuclear weapons manufacturing chain. "I also think that would be very destabilizing and hugely significant."

Photo: Lockheed Martin

 

[MarkOttawa]

SecDef fights back:

Gates Sharpens Rhetoric In Dispute on F-22 Funds
Secretary Pushes to Terminate Program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/16/AR2009071603872.html

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates made an impassioned case Thursday for terminating the F-22 program after production of 187 planes, as the Obama administration sought to blunt a bipartisan push to add money to the defense budget for the fighter jet.

"If we can't bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision -- reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the current Air Force secretary and chief of staff -- where do we draw the line?" he said in a speech at the Economic Club of Chicago. "If we can't get this right, what on earth can we get right?"

In recent days, House and Senate lawmakers from both parties have defied the White House and put money back into the $680 billion defense spending bill to keep the F-22 production line open, prompting President Obama to threaten a veto. It is not clear whether F-22 backers have enough votes to keep the program going. "It looks pretty close," Gates told reporters.

For Gates, the Lockheed Martin F-22, which has been in development for almost three decades, has become a potent symbol of why the Pentagon needs to change the way it prepares for future wars. The high-tech aircraft was designed to counter Soviet jets in the waning days of the Cold War. Today, no U.S. adversaries have a plane in development that can match it or the F-35, which the Pentagon plans to deploy over the next decade.

China will not be able to field a similar plane until about 2025, when the United States will have more than 1,700 F-35s [emphasis added], Gates said.

The defense secretary warned that any effort to add planes to the budget would rob dollars from more pressing weapons programs that are needed for the conflict in Afghanistan or for battles with future adversaries unlikely to challenge the United States in a major conventional war. He singled out the threat posed by extremist groups such as Lebanon's Hezbollah, which "currently has more rockets and high-end munitions -- many quite sophisticated and accurate -- than all but a handful of countries."..

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

And the debate continues as the time for the vote draws near:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090721/ap_on_...efense_spending

Senate heads toward vote on F-22s
            Jim Abrams, Associated Press Writer – 32 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The Senate debated Tuesday whether to spend $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets, a decision that pits the possible loss of thousands of defense jobs against Obama administration assertions that the Pentagon has enough of the fighters and the program should be terminated.

Lawmakers from states that would benefit from manufacturing the jets want the money pumped into the aerospace and defense industries. Defense Secretary Robert Gates counters that the money would be better spent on ensuring that the military has the tools it needs to fight the unconventional wars taking place in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The chamber was expected to vote on the issue Tuesday.

Gates has been calling wavering senators to urge their support for cutting off spending for new F-22s. Vice President Joe Biden and other White House officials have also been calling lawmakers to press the issue and remind Congress that President Barack Obama has threatened what would be the first veto of his presidency if the money isn't removed.

"What I have not heard is substantive reason for adding more aircraft in terms of our strategic needs," Gates said Monday while reiterating his opposition to the purchase.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Tuesday that spending on the stealth fighter would "inhibit our ability to buy things we do need," including Gates' proposal to add 22,000 soldiers to the Army.

The $1.75 billion is currently part of a $680 billion defense spending policy bill.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and the top Republican on the panel, Sen. John McCain of Arizona, sponsored the amendment to take out the F-22 money.

"The Senate has heard from the senior leadership of the Defense Department both civilian and military that we should end F-22 production. The recommendation is strong and clear, as strong and clear as I have ever heard," Levin said.

But there's strong resistance, particularly from senators representing states where the plane and its parts are made.

According to Lockheed Martin Corp., the main contractor, 25,000 people are directly employed in building the plane, and another 70,000 have indirect links, particularly in Georgia, Texas and California. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., a supporter of the program, said there are 1,000 suppliers in 44 states.

Dodd, speaking on the Senate floor last week, questioned why Congress should approve $65 billion to prop up the automobile industry but can't spend $1.75 billion to support an important segment of the aerospace industry.

Supporters of the program also argued that it would undermine the nation's security to terminate the F-22 when China and Russia are both developing fighter jets that can compete with it.

The Senate took up the F-22 issue last week, but then put it aside to deal with two amendments having nothing to do with defense. On Thursday senators voted to adopt a major expansion to hate crimes law, and on Monday they turned to a proposal allowing people with concealed weapons permits in one state to carry their weapons into other states. A vote on the gun law was expected Wednesday.

The House last month approved its version of the defense bill with a $369 million down payment for 12 additional F-22 fighters. The House Appropriations Committee last week endorsed that spending in drawing up its Pentagon budget for next year. It also approved $534 million for an alternate engine for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, another program that Obama, backed by the Pentagon, says is unwarranted and would subject the entire bill to a veto.

The defense bill authorizes $550 billion for defense programs and $130 billion for military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and other anti-terrorist operations.

___

The defense bill is S. 1390.

 

[tomahawk6]

I expect the funding for the additional F-22's to be approved. Another way to keep the production line open is to sell the F-22 to allied nations.

 

[CougarKing]

And the F22 crashes in the Senate!

WASHINGTON -- The Senate on Tuesday voted to strip $1.75 billion on seven additional F-22 jets that President Obama said was unnecessary and would doom a $680 bill authorizing defense spending plans for the coming fiscal year.

The 58-40 vote prevents Obama from carrying out a threat to use the first veto of his presidency if senators had kept the designation in the defense bill.

<more>

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/21/senate-consider-stripping-controversial-f-money-defense/?test=latestnews

 

[tomahawk6]

Withn the trillions of dollars Dear Leader is spending 7 F-22's is a drop in the bucket and would have kept people working. Too bad.