"Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings F-22's"
Mike
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
By R. Jeffrey Smith
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 10, 2009
The United States' 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 in
recent years, 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 Defense Department acknowledged
this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-
defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama
administration and the Democrat-controlled 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.
"It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7
hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of
the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane
who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside
the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a
Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and
say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist
threats.
But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the
Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs
in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities,
express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the
plane is worth the unexpected costs.
Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to
spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production
line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force --
including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new
Lockheed videos for key lawmakers -- and intense political support
from states where the F-22's components are made. The full House
ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin
consideration of F-22 spending Monday.
After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates called the $65 billion fleet a "niche silver-bullet solution" to
a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the
House's decision as "a big problem" and has promised to urge President
Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains
F-22 funding.
The administration's position is supported by military reform groups
that have long criticized what they consider to be poor procurement
practices surrounding the F-22, and by former senior Pentagon
officials such as Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from
2001 to 2005. Christie says that because of the plane's huge costs,
the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and
has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."
David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps
oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've
executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the
challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.
A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched
capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems
are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.
'Cancellation-Proof'
Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military
dominance of the skies, the F-22 was conceived to win dogfights with
advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop.
Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, director of the Air National Guard, said
in a letter this week to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) that he likes
the F-22 because its speed and electronics enable it to handle "a full
spectrum of threats" that current defensive aircraft "are not capable
of addressing."
"There is really no comparison to the F-22," said Air Force Maj. David
Skalicky, a 32-year-old former F-15 pilot who now shows off the F-22's
impressive maneuverability at air shows. Citing the critical help
provided by its computers in flying radical angles of attack and tight
turns, he said "it is one of the easiest planes to fly, from the
pilot's perspective."
Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability
Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer
in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes, said that from
the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be "too big to fail, that
is, to be cancellation-proof."
Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more
than 40 states, and Sprey -- now a prominent critic of the plane --
said that by the time skeptics "could point out the failed tests, the
combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most congressmen were already
defending their subcontractors' " revenues.
John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the
department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low
because projecting the real costs would have been politically
unpalatable on Capitol Hill.
"We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force
thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I
was there," Hamre told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April.
"I'm not proud of it," Hamre added in a recent interview.
When limited production began in 2001, the plane was "substantially
behind its plan to achieve reliability goals," the GAO said in a
report the following year. Structural problems that turned up in
subsequent testing forced retrofits to the frame and changes in the
fuel flow. Computer flaws, combined with defective software
diagnostics, forced the frequent retesting of millions of lines of
code, said two Defense officials with access to internal reports.
Skin problems -- often requiring re-gluing small surfaces that can
take more than a day to dry -- helped force more frequent and time-
consuming repairs, according to the confidential data drawn from tests
conducted by the Pentagon's independent Office of Operational Test and
Evaluation between 2004 and 2008.
Over the four-year period, the F-22's average maintenance time per
hour of flight grew from 20 hours to 34, with skin repairs accounting
for more than half of that time -- and more than half the hourly
flying costs -- last year, according to the test and evaluation
office.
The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the
Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The
F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.
'Compromises'
Darrol Olsen, a specialist in stealth coatings who worked at
Lockheed's testing laboratory in Marietta, Ga., from 1995 to 1999,
said the current troubles are unsurprising. In a lawsuit filed under
seal in 2007, he charged the company with violating the False Claims
Act for ordering and using coatings that it knew were defective while
hiding the failings from the Air Force.
He has cited a July 1998 report that said test results "yield the same
problems as documented previously" in the skin's quality and
durability, and another in December that year saying, "Baseline
coatings failed." A Lockheed briefing that September assured the Air
Force that the effort was "meeting requirements with optimized
products."
"When I got into this thing . . . I could not believe the compromises"
made by Lockheed to meet the Air Force's request for quick results,
said Olsen, who had a top-secret clearance. "I suggested we go to the
Air Force and tell them we had some difficulties . . . and they would
not do that. I was squashed. I knew from the get-go that this material
was bad, that this correcting it in the field was never going to
work."
Olsen, who said Lockheed fired him over a medical leave, heard from
colleagues as recently as 2005 that problems persisted with coatings
and radar absorbing materials in the plane's skin, including what one
described as vulnerability to rain. Invited to join his lawsuit, the
Justice Department filed a court notice last month saying it was not
doing so "at this time" -- a term that means it is still investigating
the matter, according to a department spokesman.
Ahern said the Pentagon could not comment on the allegations. Lockheed
spokeswoman Mary Jo Polidore said that "the issues raised in the
complaint are at least 10 years old," and that the plane meets or
exceeds requirements established by the Air Force. "We deny Mr.
Olsen's allegations and will vigorously defend this matter."
There have been other legal complications. In late 2005, Boeing
learned of defects in titanium booms connecting the wings to the
plane, which the company, in a subsequent lawsuit against its
supplier, said posed the risk of "catastrophic loss of the aircraft."
But rather than shut down the production line -- an act that would
have incurred large Air Force penalties -- Boeing reached an accord
with the Air Force to resolve the problem through increased
inspections over the life of the fleet, with expenses to be mostly
paid by the Air Force.
Sprey said engineers who worked on it told him that because of
Lockheed's use of hundreds of subcontractors, quality control was so
poor that workers had to create a "shim line" at the Georgia plant
where they retooled badly designed or poorly manufactured components.
"Each plane wound up with all these hand-fitted parts that caused huge
fits in maintenance," he said. "They were not interchangeable."
Polidore confirmed that some early parts required modifications but
denied that such a shim line existed and said "our supplier base is
the best in the industry."
The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy has also caused
problems, with a stuck hatch imprisoning a pilot for hours in 2006 and
engineers unable to extend the canopy's lifespan beyond about 18
months of flying time. It delaminates, "loses its strength and
finish," said an official privy to Air Force data.
In the interview, Ahern and Air Force Gen. C.D. Moore confirmed that
canopy visibility has been declining more rapidly than expected, with
brown spots and peeling forcing $120,000 refurbishments at 331 hours
of flying time, on average, instead of the stipulated 800 hours.
There has been some gradual progress. At the plane's first operational
flight test in September 2004, it fully met two of 22 key requirements
and had a total of 351 deficiencies; in 2006, it fully met five; in
2008, when squadrons were deployed at six U.S. bases, it fully met
seven.
"It flunked on suitability measures -- availability, reliability, and
maintenance," said Christie about the first of those tests. "There was
no consequence. It did not faze anybody who was in the decision loop"
for approving the plane's full production. This outcome was hardly
unique, Christie adds. During his tenure in the job from 2001 to 2005,
"16 or 17 major weapons systems flunked" during initial operational
tests, and "not one was stopped as a result."
"I don't accept that this is still early in the program," Christie
said, explaining that he does not recall a plane with such a low
capability to fulfill its mission due to maintenance problems at this
point in its tenure as the F-22. The Pentagon said 64 percent of the
fleet is currently "mission capable." After four years of rigorous
testing and operations, "the trends are not good," he added.
Pentagon officials respond that measuring hourly flying costs for
aircraft fleets that have not reached 100,000 flying hours is
problematic, because sorties become more frequent after that point;
Ahern also said some improvements have been made since the 2008
testing, and added: "We're going to get better." He said the F-22s are
on track to meet all of what the Air Force calls its KPP -- key
performance parameters -- by next year.
But last Nov. 20, John J. Young Jr., who was then undersecretary of
defense and Ahern's boss, said that officials continue to struggle
with the F-22's skin. "There's clearly work that needs to be done
there to make that airplane both capable and affordable to operate,"
he said.
When Gates decided this spring to spend $785 million on four more
planes and then end production of the F-22, he also kept alive an $8
billion improvement effort. It will, among other things, give F-22
pilots the ability to communicate with other types of warplanes; it
currently is the only such warplane to lack that capability.
The cancellation decision got public support from the Air Force's top
two civilian and military leaders, who said the F-22 was not a top
priority in a constrained budget. But the leaders' message was muddied
in a June 9 letter from Air Combat Cmdr. John D.W. Corley to Chambliss
that said halting production would put "execution of our current
national military strategy at high risk in the near to mid-term." The
right size for the fleet, he said, is 381.
Fatal Test Flight
One of the last four planes Gates supported buying is meant to replace
an F-22 that crashed during a test flight north of Los Angeles on
March 25, during his review of the program. The Air Force has declined
to discuss the cause, but a classified internal accident report
completed the following month states that the plane flew into the
ground after poorly executing a high-speed run with its weapons-bay
doors open, according to three government officials familiar with its
contents. The Lockheed test pilot died.
Several sources said the flight was part of a bid to make the F-22
relevant to current conflicts by giving it a capability to conduct
precision bombing raids, not just aerial dogfights. The Air Force is
still probing who should be held accountable for the accident.
Arved Sandstrom
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR2009070903020.html?hpid=topnews
>
> Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
> F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 10, 2009
>
> The United States' 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.
> David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps
> oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've
> executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the
> challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.
>
> A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched
> capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems
> are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.
[ SNIP ]
What cloud-cuckoo-land do these people live in?
AHS
Jeb in Richmond
> Mike wrote:
> >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR200...
> What cloud-cuckoo-land do these people live in?
>
> AHS
If it's a hatchet job, you know Sprey's going to show up. That's
enough to set my BSometer off.
nada
the enemy. Going into combat wit the latest hot rod where one or two
weapons systems might work simply means the force will not complete its
mission. It is the same as taking a shiny state of the art knife to a
gun fight.
David E. Powell
we...@aol.com
wrote:
> Sounds like President Obama has lowered the boom on it.
Good heavens! Is nobody capable of researching or remembering the
hysterical anti F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, Maverick, M16, M1 Abrams, etc.
etc., propaganda from 35+ years ago? From exactly the same corporate
and bureaucratic mouths? GAO, Wash Post, NY Times, Bos Globe, 60
Minutes, etc., etc., etc.? And what became of these systems as the
normal research, development, production, modification cycle
continued? Answer these questions and you'll know how valuable this
drivel really is...and you'll be able to guess at the reason for it.
Arved Sandstrom
Quite apart from the fact that some of the systems you mention the US
has never really _needed_, you're essentially arguing that we can't
consider each case on its own merits. IOW, just because past weapons
systems have been criticized and have turned out OK (leaving aside the
fact that we may not have needed them), therefore any similar criticism
of a current or near-future weapons system must also be ill-founded.
That argument makes no sense.
In any case there is a change in the realities of systems acquisition.
Costs are so high now that we don't get adequate inventory of anything,
it takes a very long time to build and produce these complex systems,
because they _are_ very complex there is no such thing anymore as a
quick fix, and because the programs have to be started so much earlier
than initial operational deliveries the military equation has often
altered by the time the systems arrive. Back in the day you could more
easily adapt to initial errors...now you can't.
It is more often the case now, as opposed to 20 or 40 years ago, that
sometimes the only reasonable thing to do quite late in a program is to
kill it.
AHS
David E. Powell
http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-60319.aspx
Which brings two questions:
1 - Is there any chance of production runs for foreign F-22 buyers
now?
2 - What, if anything could replace the F-22? F-35? Or something else
which will start on a clean sheet of paper, or clean computer screen
as it were?
Any chance Congress could override the Prez? I'm guessing that even
with several big league dems on board for various reasons it would be
an uphill climb. Still, elections are coming up in 2010.
Kerryn Offord
<SNIP>
> http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-60319.aspx
>
> Which brings two questions:
>
> 1 - Is there any chance of production runs for foreign F-22 buyers
> now?
>
Who else can afford the F-22? (China ? :)
David E. Powell
Israel has been interested, and also Japan. I could see each one being
able to afford a squadron as a long term investment.
Also, I wouldn't be surprised if South Kroea got interested.
Jeb in Richmond
> > On Jul 10, 1:41 pm, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> > wrote:
> >> Sounds like President Obama has lowered the boom on it.
>
> > Good heavens! Is nobody capable of researching or remembering the
> > hysterical anti F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, Maverick, M16, M1 Abrams, etc.
> > etc., propaganda from 35+ years ago? From exactly the same corporate
> > and bureaucratic mouths? GAO, Wash Post, NY Times, Bos Globe, 60
> > Minutes, etc., etc., etc.? And what became of these systems as the
> > normal research, development, production, modification cycle
> > continued? Answer these questions and you'll know how valuable this
> > drivel really is...and you'll be able to guess at the reason for it.
>
> Costs are so high now that we don't get adequate inventory of anything,
> it takes a very long time to build and produce these complex systems,
> because they _are_ very complex there is no such thing anymore as a
> quick fix, and because the programs have to be started so much earlier
> than initial operational deliveries the military equation has often
> altered by the time the systems arrive. Back in the day you could more
> easily adapt to initial errors...now you can't.
I'm reminded in particular of the B-1B, which took YEARS to get
properly funded on the maintenance side, and when it finally did, soon
thereafter the MC rates shot up. If this F-22 complaint is actually
grounded in reality and not in Sprey & Co.'s fevered minds, then just
look at the comments in the article about maintenance funding.
Beausaber
wrote:
SNIP
Sure, if you want an aircraft around 2040. The F-22 program took
something like 25 years before the first squadron was operational. I
can't see that shortening. Some things just take time. As the classic
"The Mythical Man-Month" put it, "You don't assemble a commitee of
nine women in a conference room and announce they have one month to
come up with a baby."
Beausaber
SNIP
Arved, Your point is well taken taht each program whould be considered
on its own merits. Having said that, this crowd has cried wolf and
been proved wrong so many times that one must conclude they have a
political axe to grind and their creditabiolity is suspect.
I am reminded of what aviation authority Bill Gunston once wrote about
the the five stages in the life of a RAF aircraft
1) The new kite is a piece of rubbish, sure wish we had the old ones
back
2) The once troubled XYZ has turned out to be surprisingly successful
3) The XYZ is unquestionaly the best aircraft in its class in the
world
4) RAF veterans saddened as last XYZ makes final flight
5) The new kite is a piece of rubbish, sure wish we had the old ones
back
Kerryn Offord
Israel can afford them if the US pays for them..
Japan..
Not sure they can afford them, nor can South Korea.
At most they can afford a single fighter squadron.. Which has a minor
difficulty.. The enemy just attacks where they aren't...
Ed Rasimus
<dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>we...@aol.com wrote:
>> Good heavens! Is nobody capable of researching or remembering the
>> hysterical anti F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, Maverick, M16, M1 Abrams, etc.
>> etc., propaganda from 35+ years ago?
>
>Quite apart from the fact that some of the systems you mention the US
>has never really _needed_, you're essentially arguing that we can't
>consider each case on its own merits. IOW, just because past weapons
>systems have been criticized and have turned out OK (leaving aside the
>fact that we may not have needed them), therefore any similar criticism
>of a current or near-future weapons system must also be ill-founded.
>
>That argument makes no sense.
Actually, except to a pacifist or fantasy-world dweller, your argument
makes no sense. The systems listed are, and have been the backbone of
the USAF and Army capabilities for the last 30 or more years. I can't
come up with any of those mentioned as "never really_needed_".
The F-15A through E was needed in a number of significant instances
and has compiled an incredible record. The F-16 is the core of free
world air forces capability in both a/g and a/a roles. The A-10
evolved into a very credible component of joint strike operations. The
very limited B-1 numbers still perform a significant long-range,
long-endurance, large-payload precisions stand-off role. The Maverick
has been superceded by JDAM and similar weapons, but did quite well
for its operational life. The M-16 has been the US main battle rifle
from 1965 to the current ultra-configurable M4 version. And as main
battle tanks go, the M1 Abrams still is a formidable capability.
I can't imagine which of those systems mentioned were never really
needed and which aren't still needed today.
There have been a lot of unneeded systems during the period covered,
but those mentioned aren't among the suspects.
Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
www.thundertales.blogspot.com
www.thunderchief.org
David E. Powell
Yeah really. They don't have planes go from design to flight as fast
as they used to. That's why I can't imagine them tossing the F-22 as
is for something new instead of tweaking it once in service, like they
did with the F-15 and eevn the F-16.
Cutting it now would really be a pointless cut in terms of saved money
and time, unless they just don't feel the US should take the next step
in capability at all.
Arved Sandstrom
I said _some_ of the systems, and when I use the word "needed", I mean
"need" as in the US would have been in dire straits without the system.
For which systems I myself didn't include amongst the "some", that would
be the F-15 and F-16. I wasn't going to comment on the Maverick at all
without major research.
However, concerning the others, I'm dubious about awarding the "need"
qualification to either the M-1 Abrams or the A-10. Both would have been
welcome in a war against the Soviets but we'll never know. As far as
their performance against the Iraqis, please...you don't seriously
believe that the US _needed_ either one to defeat them, do you? M60A3
tanks and attack helos would have done the trick.
B-1: somehow I don't believe our nuclear deterrence posture would ever
have been affected if we didn't have that plane, and as for conventional
bombing, hey, the B-52 is still chugging along. And you like you said,
the numbers are a joke.
M-16: this one is a bit tricky. There hasn't been a war until the
insurgency in Iraq where you could say that the US would truly have been
ill-served by the types of small arms we had prior to the M-16. We have
to make an assumption here that at some point many decades ago the US
would have had to field new small arms anyhow, because of age. But the
specific type of weapons system that the M-16 is, as represented by the
latest variants, has really only been needed in Iraq since 2003.
AHS
Dan
Certainly earlier tanks and Huey gunships could have done the trick.
The problem is they are long gone from the inventory. A decision was
made during the Cold War to go with M-1 and A-10. The U.S. doesn't have
Huey gunships nor earlier tanks, thus the U.S. "needs" what she has.
>
> B-1: somehow I don't believe our nuclear deterrence posture would ever
> have been affected if we didn't have that plane, and as for conventional
> bombing, hey, the B-52 is still chugging along. And you like you said,
> the numbers are a joke.
Are you suggesting deleting B-1? Granted it isn't an absolute
necessity, but it has been purchased and is of value. Should B-52 be
grounded as a fleet, no matter how briefly, something has to take its
place. Before you suggest that is unlikely consider it has happened to
other airframes. B-1 was purchased because of the perceived need to
penetrate Soviet air space.
>
> M-16: this one is a bit tricky. There hasn't been a war until the
> insurgency in Iraq where you could say that the US would truly have been
> ill-served by the types of small arms we had prior to the M-16. We have
> to make an assumption here that at some point many decades ago the US
> would have had to field new small arms anyhow, because of age. But the
> specific type of weapons system that the M-16 is, as represented by the
> latest variants, has really only been needed in Iraq since 2003.
M16 was certainly needed in Viet Nam for a multitude of reasons not
the least of which was the ability to carry more ammunition than M14. It
was also lighter and easier to handle on full auto than M14.
>
> AHS
A natural logical extension to your argument is a system isn't needed
for potential threats, just current, actual ones. In that case
innovation should cease in the absence of an immediate threat.
I would like to point out that the U.S. needs the weapons it has in
the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there are no options
short of restarting the manufacture of obsolescent systems. Given it is
cheaper to use what is at hand than to do that what choice is there?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Arved Sandstrom
Yes, I clearly recognize the point you make in the last sentence.
Obviously we'll be at the point eventually where we need the F-22 and
F-35 because we didn't go with anything else.
The thrust of this discussion, I believe, is to consider "need" in the
context of when the decisions were originally made, right up to the
point where it's still possible to not produce/deploy the system. After
that final point you do in fact "need" the system because you committed
to it.
Also, I'm not suggesting for any of these systems that we ought to still
have (in 2009) the M60A3 or the original M16 (let alone the service
rifles that the M16 replaced), or have Huey gunships (I think the Apache
was a good program). In fact we did need replacements - the issue at
hand is, what kind of replacement did the US need as opposed to get?
>> B-1: somehow I don't believe our nuclear deterrence posture would ever
>> have been affected if we didn't have that plane, and as for
>> conventional bombing, hey, the B-52 is still chugging along. And you
>> like you said, the numbers are a joke.
>
>
> Are you suggesting deleting B-1? Granted it isn't an absolute
> necessity, but it has been purchased and is of value. Should B-52 be
> grounded as a fleet, no matter how briefly, something has to take its
> place. Before you suggest that is unlikely consider it has happened to
> other airframes. B-1 was purchased because of the perceived need to
> penetrate Soviet air space.
In order to argue this one we'd need to discuss the Holy Trinity. I'm
not the only person out there that believes that sending manned bombers
into Soviet airspace was something that disappeared as a real need a
long time ago. If your ICBMs and SLBMs won't do the trick you're in much
bigger trouble than not having manned strategic bombers.
Perceived need, sure. Real need, no.
>> M-16: this one is a bit tricky. There hasn't been a war until the
>> insurgency in Iraq where you could say that the US would truly have
>> been ill-served by the types of small arms we had prior to the M-16.
>> We have to make an assumption here that at some point many decades ago
>> the US would have had to field new small arms anyhow, because of age.
>> But the specific type of weapons system that the M-16 is, as
>> represented by the latest variants, has really only been needed in
>> Iraq since 2003.
>
> M16 was certainly needed in Viet Nam for a multitude of reasons not
> the least of which was the ability to carry more ammunition than M14. It
> was also lighter and easier to handle on full auto than M14.
The only problem is, you don't actually know how things would have been
if the M16 didn't get fielded precisely because it _did_ get fielded.
The only way to make a comparison would have been if the US had been in
two similar wars at the same time (terrain, enemy etc), with M16s
deployed in one theatre and the older weapons in the other.
I'm wary of arguments in the SA arena that say that this weapon is
definitely superior to this other weapon. Too many variables. Let a guy
carry more ammo and he starts fighting in a way that is based on having
more ammo...not necessarily fighting better though. And so forth.
>> AHS
>
> A natural logical extension to your argument is a system isn't needed
> for potential threats, just current, actual ones. In that case
> innovation should cease in the absence of an immediate threat.
No. That's an extension I am specifically not making. I'm absolutely not
against designing, producing and deploying weapons systems based on
realistic future threat appreciations. What I _am_ against is building
bleeding-edge super-expensive systems just because we can.
> I would like to point out that the U.S. needs the weapons it has in
> the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there are no options
> short of restarting the manufacture of obsolescent systems. Given it is
> cheaper to use what is at hand than to do that what choice is there?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Dan, as to your last paragraph, I agree with you. It's 2009 and all past
decisions put the current stable of weapons systems in the hands of the
troops. Recent, current and future decisions will put yet more systems
in the hands of the troops. A lot of these systems - now and in the
future - will be needed because they are the only systems we have. The
point of this argument is not to refute that reality - it's to say that
many of these systems are overkill or ill-suited for the specific type
of warfare. It's in that sense that I am arguing that they are not "needed".
AHS
Dan
Not to put too fine a point on things, but when heaving of large
quantities of thermonuclear weapons commences it doesn't matter what
"we" versus "they" have. Things would go rather rapidly bad.
In the mean time bombers can be used for conventional weapons
delivery. B-1 has a lower RCS than B-52 and can enter airspace B-52
might not be able to. I'm not talking about distributing cruise missiles
or other stand off weapons to deserving recipients. There are some cases
where dumping large quantities of munitions is required.
>
> Perceived need, sure. Real need, no.
>
>>> M-16: this one is a bit tricky. There hasn't been a war until the
>>> insurgency in Iraq where you could say that the US would truly have
>>> been ill-served by the types of small arms we had prior to the M-16.
>>> We have to make an assumption here that at some point many decades
>>> ago the US would have had to field new small arms anyhow, because of
>>> age. But the specific type of weapons system that the M-16 is, as
>>> represented by the latest variants, has really only been needed in
>>> Iraq since 2003.
>>
>> M16 was certainly needed in Viet Nam for a multitude of reasons not
>> the least of which was the ability to carry more ammunition than M14.
>> It was also lighter and easier to handle on full auto than M14.
>
> The only problem is, you don't actually know how things would have been
> if the M16 didn't get fielded precisely because it _did_ get fielded.
> The only way to make a comparison would have been if the US had been in
> two similar wars at the same time (terrain, enemy etc), with M16s
> deployed in one theatre and the older weapons in the other.
In that case why change issue at all? We will never know what might
have been in either case.
>
> I'm wary of arguments in the SA arena that say that this weapon is
> definitely superior to this other weapon. Too many variables. Let a guy
> carry more ammo and he starts fighting in a way that is based on having
> more ammo...not necessarily fighting better though. And so forth.
That argument got a lot of U.S. and British soldiers killed when the
powers of intellectual prescience wanted to stay with single shot rifles
like Martini-Henry and trapdoor Springfield when the opposition had
repeating rifles.
>
>>> AHS
>>
>> A natural logical extension to your argument is a system isn't
>> needed for potential threats, just current, actual ones. In that case
>> innovation should cease in the absence of an immediate threat.
>
> No. That's an extension I am specifically not making. I'm absolutely not
> against designing, producing and deploying weapons systems based on
> realistic future threat appreciations. What I _am_ against is building
> bleeding-edge super-expensive systems just because we can.
Who is doing that? F-16 and F-15 are nearing the end of their
operational lives. Given the need to replace them it becomes a matter of
facing potential future threats. The Russians and Red Chinese aren't
stupid. They are planning ahead also. Do I predict war with either
country? No, but they do export and the importing countries may be an
enemy in the not too distant future. On the other hand think of the
Korean Conflict. The U.S. was planning for a war with the Soviets and
wound up fighting a third world country with WW2 weapons systems. The
Soviets and Red Chinese supplied armour and aircraft a little more up to
date than WW2. Think of the B-29 getting bounced by MiG-15.
>
>> I would like to point out that the U.S. needs the weapons it has in
>> the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there are no options
>> short of restarting the manufacture of obsolescent systems. Given it
>> is cheaper to use what is at hand than to do that what choice is there?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> Dan, as to your last paragraph, I agree with you. It's 2009 and all past
> decisions put the current stable of weapons systems in the hands of the
> troops. Recent, current and future decisions will put yet more systems
> in the hands of the troops. A lot of these systems - now and in the
> future - will be needed because they are the only systems we have. The
> point of this argument is not to refute that reality - it's to say that
> many of these systems are overkill or ill-suited for the specific type
> of warfare. It's in that sense that I am arguing that they are not
> "needed".
>
> AHS
In that case there are two options: cease operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan or admit the systems are needed.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Ed Rasimus wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:30:12 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
>
> >> we...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
> However, concerning the others, I'm dubious about awarding the "need"
> qualification to either the M-1 Abrams or the A-10. Both would have been
> welcome in a war against the Soviets but we'll never know. As far as
> their performance against the Iraqis, please...you don't seriously
> believe that the US _needed_ either one to defeat them, do you? M60A3
> tanks and attack helos would have done the trick.
There would be a lot of dead M60A3 tankers since its armour and crew
surviavabillity is significantly less than the M1. The question is
would the US public tollerate lots more body bags for what have
ultimatly been wars that did not threaten US territory, probably never
would have (at least for 100 years) and simply changed the geopolical
situation such that the US suffered no more than increased resource
prices and less acess to markets.
Not investing in up to date weapons does translate into dead soldiers,
sailors and airman. It also means compensating quality for quantitiy
and accepting longer campaigns. Admitedly spending to much can have
tragic consequences as well.
I note that the B1A/B1B were cancelled by (J Carter) in part because
they were already inadaquete for their mission and the money was in
theory better spent on the B2.
I doubt that anything but a stealthy aircraft has any chance against
the 3 digit missiles. Without Stealth jamming alone can no longer
provide a measure of protection as it once did in Vietnam.
Arved Sandstrom
> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
[ SNIP ]
>>> Are you suggesting deleting B-1? Granted it isn't an absolute
>>> necessity, but it has been purchased and is of value. Should B-52 be
>>> grounded as a fleet, no matter how briefly, something has to take its
>>> place. Before you suggest that is unlikely consider it has happened
>>> to other airframes. B-1 was purchased because of the perceived need
>>> to penetrate Soviet air space.
>>
>> In order to argue this one we'd need to discuss the Holy Trinity. I'm
>> not the only person out there that believes that sending manned
>> bombers into Soviet airspace was something that disappeared as a real
>> need a long time ago. If your ICBMs and SLBMs won't do the trick
>> you're in much bigger trouble than not having manned strategic bombers.
>
>
> Not to put too fine a point on things, but when heaving of large
> quantities of thermonuclear weapons commences it doesn't matter what
> "we" versus "they" have. Things would go rather rapidly bad.
Hey, I agree.
> In the mean time bombers can be used for conventional weapons
> delivery. B-1 has a lower RCS than B-52 and can enter airspace B-52
> might not be able to. I'm not talking about distributing cruise missiles
> or other stand off weapons to deserving recipients. There are some cases
> where dumping large quantities of munitions is required.
I'll grant that the B-1 is useful in the conventional role. Not
essential, seeing as how B-52s have stuck around, but useful. Neither
one (B-52 or B-1) has been absolutely critical for the past twenty or
more years, but they've been useful.
[ SNIP ]
>>> M16 was certainly needed in Viet Nam for a multitude of reasons not
>>> the least of which was the ability to carry more ammunition than M14.
>>> It was also lighter and easier to handle on full auto than M14.
[ SNIP ]
>> I'm wary of arguments in the SA arena that say that this weapon is
>> definitely superior to this other weapon. Too many variables. Let a
>> guy carry more ammo and he starts fighting in a way that is based on
>> having more ammo...not necessarily fighting better though. And so forth.
>
> That argument got a lot of U.S. and British soldiers killed when the
> powers of intellectual prescience wanted to stay with single shot rifles
> like Martini-Henry and trapdoor Springfield when the opposition had
> repeating rifles.
Let's just say that you don't need to convince me that we at least need
semiautomatic rifles. And at least when I was in (mid-80's to early
'90's) that's exactly what I had - a semi-auto M16A2. 3-rd burst on one
setting, sure, but still fundamentally semi-auto.
But I myself am not convinced that the individual rifleman needs full
auto. Nor am I convinced that the calibre chosen was the best; I also
had a fair amount of experience carrying and firing the FN-C1 (FN FAL),
and I believe that soldiers using this weapon have not (and are not)
ill-served.
Talking SA is a whole other thread, and very prone to religion and flame
wars. :-)
>>> A natural logical extension to your argument is a system isn't
>>> needed for potential threats, just current, actual ones. In that case
>>> innovation should cease in the absence of an immediate threat.
>>
>> No. That's an extension I am specifically not making. I'm absolutely
>> not against designing, producing and deploying weapons systems based
>> on realistic future threat appreciations. What I _am_ against is
>> building bleeding-edge super-expensive systems just because we can.
>
> Who is doing that? F-16 and F-15 are nearing the end of their
> operational lives. Given the need to replace them it becomes a matter of
> facing potential future threats. The Russians and Red Chinese aren't
> stupid. They are planning ahead also. Do I predict war with either
> country? No, but they do export and the importing countries may be an
> enemy in the not too distant future. On the other hand think of the
> Korean Conflict. The U.S. was planning for a war with the Soviets and
> wound up fighting a third world country with WW2 weapons systems. The
> Soviets and Red Chinese supplied armour and aircraft a little more up to
> date than WW2. Think of the B-29 getting bounced by MiG-15.
I'm not talking about only the specific weapons systems we have called
out. For example right now one argument (and I am not the only one
making it) is, did we ever need the F-22? Could we stick with the F-35?
For that matter, did we even need the F-35? We needed a new plane (or
planes), but was the F-35 the right choice?
Similar arguments are going on with respect to components of the Army
FCS, several USMC weapons systems, and a number of incoming or future
Navy platforms. Common factors in all the arguments are cost and
suitability for future conflicts.
>>> I would like to point out that the U.S. needs the weapons it has in
>>> the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because there are no options
>>> short of restarting the manufacture of obsolescent systems. Given it
>>> is cheaper to use what is at hand than to do that what choice is there?
>>>
>>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>>
>> Dan, as to your last paragraph, I agree with you. It's 2009 and all
>> past decisions put the current stable of weapons systems in the hands
>> of the troops. Recent, current and future decisions will put yet more
>> systems in the hands of the troops. A lot of these systems - now and
>> in the future - will be needed because they are the only systems we
>> have. The point of this argument is not to refute that reality - it's
>> to say that many of these systems are overkill or ill-suited for the
>> specific type of warfare. It's in that sense that I am arguing that
>> they are not "needed".
>>
>> AHS
>
> In that case there are two options: cease operations in Iraq and
> Afghanistan or admit the systems are needed.
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
No, the third option is, fight the wars you've decided you need to
fight, and make do with what weapons you have, however ill-suited they
are. This is, in fact, what we have done.
AHS
Gernot Hassenpflug
> Dan wrote:
>> Arved Sandstrom wrote:
>>> Ed Rasimus wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:30:12 GMT, Arved Sandstrom
>>>> <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> we...@aol.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Good heavens! Is nobody capable of researching or remembering the
>>>>>> hysterical anti F-15, F-16, A-10, B-1, Maverick, M16, M1 Abrams, etc.
>>>>>> etc., propaganda from 35+ years ago?
>>>>
>>>>> Quite apart from the fact that some of the systems you mention
>>>>> the US has never really _needed_, you're essentially arguing that
>>>>> we can't consider each case on its own merits. /../
>>>>>
>>>>> That argument makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>> Actually, except to a pacifist or fantasy-world dweller, your argument
>>>> makes no sense. /../
>>> I said _some_ of the systems, and when I use the word "needed", I
>>> mean "need" as in the US would have been in dire straits without
>>> the system.
>>
>> /../ U.S. doesn't have Huey gunships nor earlier tanks, thus the
>> U.S. "needs" what she has.
>
> Yes, I clearly recognize the point you make in the last
> sentence. Obviously we'll be at the point eventually where we need the
> F-22 and F-35 because we didn't go with anything else.
>
> The thrust of this discussion, I believe, is to consider "need" in the
> context of when the decisions were originally made, right up to the
> point where it's still possible to not produce/deploy the
> system. After that final point you do in fact "need" the system
> because you committed to it.
>
>> Are you suggesting deleting B-1? Granted it isn't an absolute
>> necessity, but it has been purchased and is of value. Should B-52 be
>> grounded as a fleet, no matter how briefly, something has to take
>> its place. Before you suggest that is unlikely consider it has
>> happened to other airframes. B-1 was purchased because of the
>> perceived need to penetrate Soviet air space.
>
> Perceived need, sure. Real need, no.
>
> The only problem is, you don't actually know how things would have
> been if the M16 didn't get fielded precisely because it _did_ get
> fielded. The only way to make a comparison would have been if the US
> had been in two similar wars at the same time (terrain, enemy etc),
> with M16s deployed in one theatre and the older weapons in the other.
French economist F. Bastiat stated that the difference between a good
and a bad economist is that the former considers both the "seen" and the
"unseen". Politicians make their play by hiding as much as possible any
discussion of the "unseen" from their constituents. I have no doubt that
engineers, logistics planners and various other technically-oriented
people did and continue to do their utmost to foresee as much as
possible the issues and trade-offs. However, in the end it is the
politicos that make the decisions, and reversal of such again becomes a
political process. Too bad, since its a grand waste of taxpayer money,
but it seems that's the only process that exists, inefficient though it
may appear...
Jack Linthicum
The unseens may include, actually must include, parts and assemblies
built in many states and congressional districts. For the F-22, the
major areas are only part of the story.
"But the F-22 has broad support on Capitol Hill. The primary
manufacturing plant is in Georgia, and key parts are made in Texas and
California as well as Connecticut. Hartford-based United Technologies
Corp., Pratt's parent company, has said that the F-22 program supports
at least 2,000 jobs in Connecticut."
http://www.courant.com/business/hc-f22-funding.artjun26,0,4683101.story
and
"Subsystems for the F-22 Raptor are made in 44 states. Its wings are
made in Seattle. Its engines are made in Connecticut. It's assembled
by Lockheed Martin in Georgia and Texas. After Lockheed stopped making
its previous stealth fighter, the F-117, in Burbank, it paid $33
million dollars for exposing workers to toxic solvents, epoxies and
primers. It paid $60 million to city residents for poisoning their
drinking water and $265 million to remove perchloroethylene and
trichloroethylene that leached into the groundwater and soil. So you
can't really say the communities that make the Raptor will have
nothing to show for it. They may have kidney problems, brain damage
and cancer.
Finally, there's a perfectly good reason the Raptor has never been to
Iraq, and it's not because it's a useless fat turd. You're thinking of
Jonah Goldberg. The reason we've never used the Raptor in Iraq is it
doesn't work in places where there are wars."
Too much radio interference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164148.html
zzbu...@netscape.net
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR200...
>
> Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
> F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 10, 2009
>
> The United States' 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 in
> recent years, 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 Defense Department acknowledged
> this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
But the people with actual knowledge of the linitations of the
technology have also
been been telling the Pentagon and Lockheed for decades, not years,
that the cost Stealth Technology can do nothing but increase
exponentially in manned aircraft.
So that's why they moved on to Drones, Cruise Missiles, Phalanx,
UAVs, AAVs, GPS,
Optical Computers, Microcomputers, Holograms, Laser Disks, Fiber
Optics,
Distributed Processing Software, On-Line Banking, On-Line
Publishing, neo-Energy Systems,
and other things that don't have an intrinsic Washington Beltway
idiocy associated with them.
> Sprey ...
>
> read more »
frank
I'd argue there needs to be a complete revamping of the acquisition
and procurement system. Lets face it, 25 years for the F-22 is a bit
much. I remember the flyoffs at Edwards and most people (except
Lockheed) thought they picked the wrong fighter.
Now part of it is how Congress does its budgeting. All the smoke and
mirrors to fund something over 5 years, budget for two, change
everything the next year. Change your favorite political hack and
programs can go up or down.
Another good hunk of time are paper pushers inside the Pentagon and at
areas such as Wright Pat for the AF that come up with changes and slow
up builds for whatever reason. i.e. making a ground attack option in
something that was built as an air superiority fighter, adding on
different weapons systems after things are set and in production.
Sometimes things are found in flight test that need to be corrected.
Sometimes there is a correction, sometimes the airframe has a
deficiency that is never fixed, just a notation in the Dash One this
doesn't work as you'd expect it would.
Somethings are just economies of scale. Want 250 RADAR systems that do
this? It'll cost an arm and a leg, but if there are no other buyers,
the company is going to go somewhere else and work on other projects
unless you pay through the nose to keep the production line open. And
most times they don't.
We've also shortsighted ourselves with the rush to a global economy.
Nobody can produce a battleship turret anymore. We nearly lost the
capability a decade or so ago in building an M1A1 turret. Add stuff
like this up, you end up with major delays.
But, this is talking to the choir. Go to academia, they have no clue
about keeping specific areas in manufacturing for national security.
You even start talking about national security as a requirement for
something, its like you put the turd in the punchbowl in the faculty
lounge. So a lot of people who have no clue about the military go out
and work their way into making decisions that really don't help this
country.
Maybe it'll take something like another Pearl Harbor to turn this
around.
I'd like to say I worked on the last AF system that required punch
cards, but somehow I know somebody somewhere is going to say, no look
at their area.
Then again, we always thought that AF Systems Command were a bunch of
Commies.
David E. Powell
wrote:
Don't they have some Dems up there in State and National office? I
thought Washington state was a big powerhouse for the Dems?
Its engines are made in Connecticut.
That's Lieberman's state, so the Dems will want it canned for sure for
that.
It's assembled
> by Lockheed Martin in Georgia and Texas.
Yeah at this point it's a real up hill climb then. :P
After Lockheed stopped making
> its previous stealth fighter, the F-117, in Burbank, it paid $33
> million dollars for exposing workers to toxic solvents, epoxies and
> primers. It paid $60 million to city residents for poisoning their
> drinking water and $265 million to remove perchloroethylene and
> trichloroethylene that leached into the groundwater and soil. So you
> can't really say the communities that make the Raptor will have
> nothing to show for it. They may have kidney problems, brain damage
> and cancer.
Or the lessons of that manufacturing pocess could be corrected in the
case of the F-22, which would of course increase the short term price,
for less long term cost. It also goes into the F-117 being a black
project, as opposed to the more open nature of the F-22 project.
Secrecy laws were used to justify waste disposal methods that were
hazardous in the F-117 program. The F-15 program is a better
comparison here.
> Finally, there's a perfectly good reason the Raptor has never been to
> Iraq, and it's not because it's a useless fat turd. You're thinking of
> Jonah Goldberg. The reason we've never used the Raptor in Iraq is it
> doesn't work in places where there are wars."
Hey the P-80 never flew over Berlin either - Was it cancelled? The
F-14 didn't get much mention during the Vietnam War either, but in the
years after it was hardly useless.
> Too much radio interference
>
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164...
damarkley
You are actually having a civil and rational discussion? LOL
Dean
Alan Lothian
<deanm...@comcast.net> wrote:
<snippaggio>
> OK, you two (Arved and Dan) are acting very irrational for this group.
> You are actually having a civil and rational discussion? LOL
Quite right, Dean. This sort of thing -- intelligent exchange of
thought-out views, willingness to listen to the other side's argument,
careful avoidance of flames -- really must be stamped out. And
literate, too, which compounds the felony. I have reported both parties
to the Internet Police.
--
"The past resembles the future as water resembles water" -- Ibn Khaldun
If you wish to email me, try putting a dot between alan and lothian.
Blueyonder is a thing of the past.
Jack Linthicum
> In article <1Fu6m.71905$S16.9...@newsfe23.iad>, damarkley
I hate to connect with another thread but the F-22 question seems tied
to these two Heritage Foundation papers. As I have reported from
earlier in this thread the F-22 seems to be unable to operate in a
congested radio environment, too sensitive.
"Too much radio interference
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164...
"
Fixing the Fighter Gap Facing the U.S. Navy, Air Force, and Air
National Guard. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/wm2531.cfm
The Growing Air Power Fighter Gap: Implications for U.S. National
Security. http://www.heritage.org/Research/NationalSecurity/upload/bg2295.pdf
Does the question of the air power fighter gap imply that someone
wants to keep building F-22s, despite their problems, and is again
looking for that enemy that we must dominate.
Ed Rasimus
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>I hate to connect with another thread but the F-22 question seems tied
>to these two Heritage Foundation papers. As I have reported from
>earlier in this thread the F-22 seems to be unable to operate in a
>congested radio environment, too sensitive.
>
>"Too much radio interference
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164...
>"
So, you are putting up an incomplete link to a Huffington Post
comment? I've got to be a bit skeptical about the HuffPo as a reliable
source for evaluating Raptor capability. As Ariana got any combat
time?
Seriously you would have to be more specific than "radio
interference"--we've been using frequency agile secure comm for a long
time now and it isn't specific to the F-22. If you are talking about
other frequency spectra, the history of data links has been one of
leap-frogging advance and counter-measure since crystal radios.
Data congestion is going to be a factor in any weapon system in the
modern arena. We might want to consider a return to the P-51 "coffee
grinder" ADF to deal with that.
Jack Linthicum
> On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 14:13:28 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
Didn't realize the address was bad, the Huffington Post is repeating
statements from Aviation Week, that spokesrag for the aircraft
industry. That part is at ***********
Save the Pitiful F-22
If there's one thing that makes me madder than pork-filled make-work
programs, it's shadowy netroots pressure groups that just want to get
rich off big government. Who's with me?
Which is why that anonymous "Protect American Jobs / Save the F-22
Raptor" ads on Drudge -- and every other political website to the
right of LOLcats -- make my free market blood boil. Someone is
spending a lot of money to gin up a petition to save history's most
expensive fighter plane. I'll bet it's ACORN.
Actually, I don't know who preserveraptorjobs.com is, and they're not
saying, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if they turned out to be
Lockheed-Martin.
Lockheed-Martin builds the F-22, a plane designed in the early 90s to
fight the planes the Soviet Union didn't build in the late 80s. We've
spent $65 billion dollars on it and it's never fired a shot in anger.
President Obama has until March 1st to buy more or shut it down.
Whoever preserveraptorjobs.com is, they've got deep pockets. Their ad
seems to pop up beside every online news story that even mentions the
Raptor, which can't be cheap, but then, neither is freedom.
Did I say freedom? I meant JOBS! Read the ad: The F-22 is all about
JOBS! "American jobs." "Specialized jobs." "Well-paying American
jobs." "Well-paying specialized American jobs." Forget what the plane
does -- or in the F-22's case, doesn't do -- the government's job is
to give people jobs! They can take our lives, but that can't take away
our JOOOOOOOOBBBBS!!! Sign this petition.
Yours,
John Maynard Keynes
c/o The Military Industrial Complex
Here's some of the ad:
Act Now!
Production of the world's most advanced fighter aircraft, the F-22
Raptor, is in jeopardy. Your help is needed to urge the Obama
Administration to save more than 95,000 American jobs and more than
$12 billion in national economic activity.
Ask Questions Later!
There's no source given for either of these numbers. But according to
the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 647,000 people work in industries
where at least a fifth of the products are related to defense
production, which would mean that roughly one out of seven Americans
who work in the defense industry works on the Raptor. This is
unlikely.
Last month, in a letter to Obama from 44 Senators arguing for more
Raptor money, the number of jobs was only 25,000. I guess they've been
hiring. Maybe they're working on the website.
Keeping the production line of this model aerospace program open
is not another bailout; rather, it simply requires that the new
administration release funds already authorized by Congress to
continue a successful program.
This is the kind of slippery copywriting that's probably more
appropriate for the Franklin Mint than public policy. (You pay
nothing. We simply release funds already authorized from your
MasterCard.) And it's not a bailout because we say so. And what does
"successful program" mean in the context of a plane that's never been
used? It takes off and lands. Is that a success? I flew to Syracuse
for New Year's; am I a success?
By law, President-elect Obama must decide whether to continue the
Raptor program during his first weeks in office. Please sign the
petition to send the message to Congress that Obama must approve
continuing the Raptor program, and send a letter to the White House
urging the Administration to preserve F-22 Raptor production to
protect American jobs, our economy, and national security!
Over seven trillionty-gillion jobs are at stake.
--
The worst thing about trying to sell the Raptor as a welfare program
is that the plane has so many other things going for it.
Even though it's the biggest, fattest, heaviest fighter plane ever
made, it's surprisingly nimble. Or maybe it's just surprising that it
flies at all.
It's made out of titanium and carbon-fiber composites, and employs a
"honeycomb sandwich construction" for its skin panels, which sounds
delicious.
It's built with super-secret stealth technology. The F-22 is invisible
to radar, except when it switches on its radar to aim its weapons,
opens its bomb bay to fire them, or turns.
Subsystems for the F-22 Raptor are made in 44 states. Its wings are
made in Seattle. Its engines are made in Connecticut. It's assembled
by Lockheed Martin in Georgia and Texas. After Lockheed stopped making
its previous stealth fighter, the F-117, in Burbank, it paid $33
million dollars for exposing workers to toxic solvents, epoxies and
primers. It paid $60 million to city residents for poisoning their
drinking water and $265 million to remove perchloroethylene and
trichloroethylene that leached into the groundwater and soil. So you
can't really say the communities that make the Raptor will have
nothing to show for it. They may have kidney problems, brain damage
and cancer.
*********************
Finally, there's a perfectly good reason the Raptor has never been to
Iraq, and it's not because it's a useless fat turd. You're thinking of
Jonah Goldberg. The reason we've never used the Raptor in Iraq is it
doesn't work in places where there are wars.
According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, there's just too much
radio interference. To quote the man in charge of Air Combat Command,
Gen. Ronald E. Keys:
"We didn't anticipate there was going to be this level of jamming.
Every patrol is out there with personal jammers. We've got lots of
airplanes that are also jamming. At the same time, we've got people
trying to listen [to insurgent conversations], a lot of it on the same
or overlapping frequencies."
The jammers he's talking about are the ones the troops use to disable
roadside IEDs. So the F-22, at $351 million a pop, is an excellent
plane; it just doesn't work over a battlefield where one side is using
booby traps activated by TV remotes and electronic garage door
openers.
So Iraq is out. And anyplace else with TVs, radios and cars.
Also according to Aviation Week:
(A) possible vulnerability in the stealth fighter's legendary
electronic surveillance system--located in the leading edges of the
wings and vertical tails--became apparent during operations by the
first operational squadron flying in the Chesapeake Bay area. The
strong radars on nearby Navy ships were overwhelming the delicate
sensors.
So it also doesn't work around warships.
I take it back. Maybe they should emphasize the jobs.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164148.html
hcobb
several legacy fighters (needed for the wars we're actually fighting)
to be retired early to pay for the Raptor, it's minimal $8 billion
upgrade and the day to day maintenance required.
So the more we build the less of an Air Force we have left and the
worse the fighter gap becomes.
-HJC
zzbu...@netscape.net
Well, the Air Force idiots also quite obviously miss the point the
"gap" was a fiction created in pre-WWII days by Army Politicans.
Which is also why the people with actual non dense-set post Sopwith
Camel Aviation brains,
engineering abilities, and post-Gettysbug Organizational Technology
Brains
even bothered to developed Stealth Technology Programs,
A.I., Digital Computers, DSP, Satellite Technology, Laser
Systems,The Air Force,
and NASA as distinct organizations from both the Army Air Corps and
the equally-apparently permanently-crank Navy "Welded-In-Norfolk"
to being with.
So the idiots quite obviously also fail to realize that's where
Microwave Ovens,
Microwave Cooling, Thermo-Electric Cooling, Biodiesel, Gas Turbine
Engines,
Hybrid-Electric Engines, Cell Phones, Pv Cell Energy, HDTV, Blue
Ray, Home Broadband,
Fiber Optics Signalling Systems, Cruise Missiles, Drones,Phalanx,
UAVs, AAVs,
GPS, Digital Terrain Mapping, Holograms, Electronic Books, All-in-
One Printers,
Atomic Clock Wristwatches, Light Sticks, Optical Computers, Cyber
Batteries,
XML, USB, On-Line Banking, On-Publishing, C++, Flatscreen Software
Debuggers,
Self-Replicating Machines, and Self-Assembling Robots also come
from.
>
> -HJC
zzbu...@netscape.net
wrote:
Or since these idiots will obviously claim that's illegal since
it's a Government
within a Government,
The counter-motion on the table is trivial, since the only thing
you imbeciles
even know about Goverment is Howard Hughes and Frank Sinatra.
>
>
>
>
>
> > -HJC- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Ed Rasimus
That's quite a rant, but the sort of language used and the Keynesian
nom-de-plume lead me to give it little credence. It's the sort of
thing found on a Facebook group discussion. Lots of name-calling,
innuendo, assertion and lack of detailed technical fact. But, I
digress.
The argument that the Raptor is "biggest, fattest..." is ludicrous on
its face. The weight, dimensions, etc. are all with the F-15
footprint. The agility demonstrated is well beyond anything we possess
and more than competitive with anything our potential enemies possess.
The canard regarding not fighting in the current Iraq nation-building
effort or the Afghan counter-insurgency is that neither of those
operations are currently in that type of conflict.
We can't hope that today's war is what we can expect future wars to
look like. Today's war is different than yesterday's which was
different than the ones before that. Raptor would have been a powerful
asset in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, but that level of engagement
is now past.
To assert that existing (aged and deteriorating) platforms are
adequate for the foreseeable future is wishful thinking at best. F-15C
is not significantly engaged in the current conflicts either, so
cancelling twenty years of development on Raptor and reverting to 1980
technology isn't a prudent solution.
David E. Powell
wrote:
> On Jul 14, 5:26 pm, Ed Rasimus <rasimusSPAML...@verizon.net> wrote:
SNIP
> The worst thing about trying to sell the Raptor as a welfare program
> is that the plane has so many other things going for it.
>
> Even though it's the biggest, fattest, heaviest fighter plane ever
> made, it's surprisingly nimble. Or maybe it's just surprising that it
> flies at all.
Actually, it has been stated that it owns F-15s in mock dogfights on
maneuverability. Then again being the Huffington Post (I wonder if she
will switch back to Republican soon - she was an anti Clinton gadfly
in the day, before Bush got in office and then she made her business
on bashing the GOP, and now with Dems holding all the big positions,
one has to gadfly on the "powers that be" to make that kind of living)
I doubt that this even entered the equation for them. It could be
argued it is even misrepresented. The F-22's manuevering
characteristics are enhanced by thrust vectoring, so it isn't really
just "amazing it flies at all" in a dogfight.
> It's made out of titanium and carbon-fiber composites, and employs a
> "honeycomb sandwich construction" for its skin panels, which sounds
> delicious.
>
> It's built with super-secret stealth technology. The F-22 is invisible
> to radar, except when it switches on its radar to aim its weapons,
> opens its bomb bay to fire them, or turns.
Sort of like the F-117 or the B-2, which haven't had too much of a
problem with that limitation, except hellaciously more maneuverable
than an F-117 and able to fly an all up fighter mission as well.
> Subsystems for the F-22 Raptor are made in 44 states. Its wings are
> made in Seattle. Its engines are made in Connecticut. It's assembled
> by Lockheed Martin in Georgia and Texas. After Lockheed stopped making
> its previous stealth fighter, the F-117, in Burbank, it paid $33
> million dollars for exposing workers to toxic solvents, epoxies and
> primers. It paid $60 million to city residents for poisoning their
> drinking water and $265 million to remove perchloroethylene and
> trichloroethylene that leached into the groundwater and soil.
Yes, because unlike the F-22 it was a black project, and secrecy laws
were used to hide the dumping from the public. Everybody and their
brother knows where the F-22 is being built now, and what it generally
is supposed to be, and if nothing else the company will have people
making darn sure there is no illegal dumping because they know this
story is out there and they don't want to lose more money on a
lawsuit. They aren't fools.
So you
> can't really say the communities that make the Raptor will have
> nothing to show for it. They may have kidney problems, brain damage
> and cancer.
Or they may not, but people opposed to it will look for anything to
throw at it.
> Finally, there's a perfectly good reason the Raptor has never been to
> Iraq, and it's not because it's a useless fat turd.
No, it's a very capable fighter that isn't needed to drop a bomb on
three guys with a mortar in the back of a truck when you already have
Cobra and Apache helicopters, F-16s, A-10s and F-15s a plenty that can
do it, not to mention even cheaper drones. Then again that kind of
erudition in print isn't the Post's forte.
You're thinking of
> Jonah Goldberg. The reason we've never used the Raptor in Iraq is it
> doesn't work in places where there are wars.
Sigh.
> According to Aviation Week & Space Technology, there's just too much
> radio interference. To quote the man in charge of Air Combat Command,
> Gen. Ronald E. Keys:
Um, actualy, there is no need for a stealth plane when the enemies are
terrorists in pick up trucks or roof top snipers that other stuff can
deal with easier and with in less cost. There are other places the
F-22 would be needed more, and other stuff it is designed to deal with
that is harder for those other planes to deal with. Until that need
arises they aren't putting the F-22 around that much.
> "We didn't anticipate there was going to be this level of jamming.
> Every patrol is out there with personal jammers. We've got lots of
> airplanes that are also jamming. At the same time, we've got people
> trying to listen [to insurgent conversations], a lot of it on the same
> or overlapping frequencies."
>
> The jammers he's talking about are the ones the troops use to disable
> roadside IEDs. So the F-22, at $351 million a pop, is an excellent
> plane; it just doesn't work over a battlefield where one side is using
> booby traps activated by TV remotes and electronic garage door
> openers.
It is designed for that environment, actually, so I think someone is
having some fun.
> So Iraq is out. And anyplace else with TVs, radios and cars.
THE SKY IS FALLING OH NO!
> Also according to Aviation Week:
>
> (A) possible vulnerability in the stealth fighter's legendary
> electronic surveillance system--located in the leading edges of the
> wings and vertical tails--became apparent during operations by the
> first operational squadron flying in the Chesapeake Bay area. The
> strong radars on nearby Navy ships were overwhelming the delicate
> sensors.
Even if this is true, which I would regard with a bag of salt, that's
why you have tests. Odds are if there was such a problem, that's when
the sensors would get recalibrated, because it is just one part of the
plane. The air frame is good, the radar is good, most of the package
is good.
Plenty of F4U Corsairs and other planes actually crashed in early
service, but the F4U was not scrapped. Early F-117 usage produced a
few losses too, but didn't prevent it from becoming a success. How
many F-22s have crashed? Wouldn't a hypothetical sensor that had to be
retuned beat crashes by a country mile as far as problems that need to
be fixed go?
> So it also doesn't work around warships.
>
> I take it back. Maybe they should emphasize the jobs.
Then there would actually be one stimulus program from the Gov't that
could actually be proven to have saved jobs.
Guess the HuffPo crew wouldn't want that.
Maybe if we just call the jet nozzles at the rear of the plane "high
speed wind turbines" we can get them on board.
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-kelly/save-the-pitiful-f-22_b_164...
Jack Linthicum
So, both of the above contend that we should not require a fighter to
take part in any combat situation that it wasn't designed for? Wasn't
the possibility of that need for various capabilities what all the
added junk was about? Why not, then, make F-22s without all the
electronics?
David E. Powell
Fine tuning a couple sensors =/= making a plane without any
electronics.
hcobb
wrote:
> Actually, it has been stated that it owns F-15s in mock dogfights on
> maneuverability. Then again being the Huffington Post (I wonder if she
> will switch back to Republican soon - she was an anti Clinton gadfly
> in the day, before Bush got in office and then she made her business
> on bashing the GOP, and now with Dems holding all the big positions,
> one has to gadfly on the "powers that be" to make that kind of living)
> I doubt that this even entered the equation for them. It could be
> argued it is even misrepresented. The F-22's manuevering
> characteristics are enhanced by thrust vectoring, so it isn't really
> just "amazing it flies at all" in a dogfight.
However when it dogfights it needs to have its targets in a narrow
forward cone for Sidewinder lock.
When a F-22 tries to dogfight a F-35 the Lightning will strike first
because it will see the F-22 coming first, then launch an AIM-9X blind
and lase the F-22 for lock on after launch.
Having the F-22 behind the F-35 simply extends the range of the
engagement, because the F-35 can add the F-22's speed to the speed of
the AIM-9X's.
Someday (long after the $8 billion upgrade), the F-22 will add the
gear to take advantage of the AIM-9X's off-boresite and so will be
able to engage almost anything forward of the plane, if not the F-35's
all around coverage.
-HJC
Ed Rasimus
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>So, both of the above contend that we should not require a fighter to
>take part in any combat situation that it wasn't designed for? Wasn't
>the possibility of that need for various capabilities what all the
>added junk was about? Why not, then, make F-22s without all the
>electronics?
If you build an air dominance fighter, it probably won't be good for
air mobile troop insertions or delivering hurricane relief supplies,
therefore it is useless...
Can you say non sequitur?
Air/air fighters take part in any combat situation which requires
engagement with an air-to-air threat. Embedded counter-insurgency
operations use a different sort of force. You also can't use a Special
Forces platoon to counter a flight of enemy aircraft coming to bomb
your airfield.
The combat aircraft has long been called a weapon SYSTEM--it hasn't
been merely an airplane for forty years now. An F-22 "without all the
electronics" would be a very heavy Spad.
You've demonstrated more logic and rational thinking in the past,
Jack. I hope this isn't a trend.
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
> >So, both of the above contend that we should not require a fighter to
> >take part in any combat situation that it wasn't designed for? Wasn't
> >the possibility of that need for various capabilities what all the
> >added junk was about? Why not, then, make F-22s without all the
> >electronics?
>
> If you build an air dominance fighter, it probably won't be good for
> air mobile troop insertions or delivering hurricane relief supplies,
> therefore it is useless...
You are mixing your own statement to mine which I obtained from
Aviation Week. I would expect a fighter that could only be used in air-
to-air combat to useless. CAS, intercept of non-fighter aircraft,
combat air patrols for those air mobile troop insertions, but not just
a pristine situation where no radio sources are present.
>
> Can you say non sequitur?
>
> Air/air fighters take part in any combat situation which requires
> engagement with an air-to-air threat. Embedded counter-insurgency
> operations use a different sort of force. You also can't use a Special
> Forces platoon to counter a flight of enemy aircraft coming to bomb
> your airfield.
This is what I mean, the F-22 is such a diva that it can't do normal
combat aircraft duties such as attacking the targets of counter
insurgency operations. You are flying off on tangents that are signs
of a lack of reasoned argument. The F-22 is a dog with abilities only
for show places or it is a normal fighter.
>
> The combat aircraft has long been called a weapon SYSTEM--it hasn't
> been merely an airplane for forty years now. An F-22 "without all the
> electronics" would be a very heavy Spad.
>
Your "weapons system" has become too narrow and too specialized. It
needs to start being a part of the combat operations or just sit
around on the air show runways with a "made in (XX) Congressional
District" on a sign in front.
> You've demonstrated more logic and rational thinking in the past,
> Jack. I hope this isn't a trend.
>
> Ed Rasimus
> Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.comwww.thunderchief.org
My cites were from Aviation Week which considered the voice of the
aircraft industry. If they say the problem is the F-22 can't be used
in a combat situation where there radio systems are used then your
problem is with them.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
another county heard from, people with more experience that I have
with this sort of "queen of the air".
Robert M. Gates, the Pentagon chief, recently declared, “We’re
fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not
performed a single mission in either theater.” Even by the low
standard of Raptor criticisms, this one was strange.
The F-22, as Gates knows, has not been around very long. Nor is it the
only virgin weapon out there; in its wars with terrorists, the US has
not employed ICBMs, attack submarines, or Patriot air defense
batteries, either. Yet the Defense Secretary has not seen fit to
mention that.
Unfortunately, though, we cannot easily dismiss Gates’ remark. He and
Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England have drawn a line in the sand
on the Raptor. (See “Washington Watch,” p. 8.) And their actions
suggest something deeper and more ominous than opposition to a
fighter.
USAF says it needs 381 Raptors, but its 2009 budget, unveiled Feb. 4,
makes no provision for any beyond an already approved 183. If there
was any doubt about DOD’s hostility, Gates and England erased it with
this string of remarks to House and Senate panels:
Gates, Feb. 6: “It [the F-22] is principally for use against a near
peer. ... Looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict
with one of those near peers over the next four or five years, ...
something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy.”
Gates, Feb. 6: “My worry is that a significant expansion of the
production of the F-22 in the out years will [limit] how many [F-35s]
can be purchased.”
England, Feb. 12: “The Air Force [does] have older airplanes.
Unfortunately, a lot of the money was spent on a relatively small
number of F-22s that are very high cost.”
England, Feb. 13: “My strong feeling is that we have enough F-22s.
They’re designed for a specific mission, we have enough to do that
mission.”
England, Feb. 13: “The [F-35] performance and the F-22 performance is
extraordinarily close. ... [The F-35] is a much newer airplane, so it
also has very similar, if not in some cases better, performance with
other attributes.”
England, Feb. 13: “We have an aging fighter fleet, but, on the other
hand, they’ve spent $65 billion, and we have 183 F-22s. I mean, at
some point, we have to decide not to buy the very costly, high-end
airplane, and buy the quantity.”
Translation: The F-22 is of no value in irregular war. The Raptor is
needed to fight China, Russia, or other “near-peers,” but such war is
unlikely. The fighters are competitive, not complementary. The focus
on the F-22 has aggravated USAF’s aging fleet problem. The F-22 is a
one-trick pony. The two new fighters are comparable.
http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/March%202008/0308edit.aspx
Ed Rasimus
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> This is what I mean, the F-22 is such a diva that it can't do normal
>> combat aircraft duties such as attacking the targets of counter
>> insurgency operations. You are flying off on tangents that are signs
>> of a lack of reasoned argument. The F-22 is a dog with abilities only
>> for show places or it is a normal fighter.
The "normal combat duties such as attacking the targets of counter
insurgency operations" are not the forte of any high performance
fighter. Predators are ideal for that sort of long endurance pin-point
targeting. Stand-off manned systems are also very good at it. Neither
of those, however, can go the other way and handle the air superiority
role, the intercept role, or even the traditional battlefield
interdiction/CAS mission.
>>
>> > The combat aircraft has long been called a weapon SYSTEM--it hasn't
>> > been merely an airplane for forty years now. An F-22 "without all the
>> > electronics" would be a very heavy Spad.
>>
>> Your "weapons system" has become too narrow and too specialized. It
>> needs to start being a part of the combat operations or just sit
>> around on the air show runways with a "made in (XX) Congressional
>> District" on a sign in front.
You don't have to go very far into the recent history of Iraq
operations to find a requirement for conventional tactical strike
packages working against a modern IAD, with radar, interceptors and
both guns and missiles. That is not a scenario that we can rule out
for the future.
>>
>> > You've demonstrated more logic and rational thinking in the past,
>> > Jack. I hope this isn't a trend.
>>
>> > Ed Rasimus
>> > Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)www.thundertales.blogspot.comwww.thunderchief.org
>>
>> My cites were from Aviation Week which considered the voice of the
>> aircraft industry. If they say the problem is the F-22 can't be used
>> in a combat situation where there radio systems are used then your
>> problem is with them.
Av Week didn't originate that inflammatory screed that was previously
posted. That isn't their editorial style. Quoting opponents to a
system is fine, but keep in mind who is speaking and what their
motivation is.
>
>another county heard from, people with more experience that I have
>with this sort of "queen of the air".
>
>Robert M. Gates, the Pentagon chief, recently declared, �We�re
>fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not
>performed a single mission in either theater.� Even by the low
>standard of Raptor criticisms, this one was strange.
The Gates statement was one of fact. After the quotation mark it is
then one of opinion and assertion of the meaning of Gates statement.
>
>The F-22, as Gates knows, has not been around very long. Nor is it the
>only virgin weapon out there; in its wars with terrorists, the US has
>not employed ICBMs, attack submarines, or Patriot air defense
>batteries, either. Yet the Defense Secretary has not seen fit to
>mention that.
Omission does not mean much in that context. The F-22 appropriation is
on the table, not ICBM, SSN's or TAADS.
>
>Unfortunately, though, we cannot easily dismiss Gates� remark. He and
>Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England have drawn a line in the sand
>on the Raptor. (See �Washington Watch,� p. 8.) And their actions
>suggest something deeper and more ominous than opposition to a
>fighter.
Yes, it suggests politically driven positioning. Gates and England are
functionaries of the President, not the military who seek to establish
reasonable requirements.
>
>USAF says it needs 381 Raptors, but its 2009 budget, unveiled Feb. 4,
>makes no provision for any beyond an already approved 183. If there
>was any doubt about DOD�s hostility, Gates and England erased it with
>this string of remarks to House and Senate panels:
>
>Gates, Feb. 6: �It [the F-22] is principally for use against a near
>peer. ... Looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict
>with one of those near peers over the next four or five years, ...
>something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy.�
The problem is we had better plan beyond the next four or five years.
We've invested 20 years in Raptor and we've got at least five years
before first F-35s are operational. If the force isn't equipped and
sized for the threat in 10-15 years we are in trouble.
>
>Gates, Feb. 6: �My worry is that a significant expansion of the
>production of the F-22 in the out years will [limit] how many [F-35s]
>can be purchased.�
Reminds me of the old Wimpy line in Popeye, "I will gladly pay you
tomorrow for a hamburger today"--I don't have confidence that
cancelling an additional Raptor buy will ever result in a big fleet of
F-35s.
>
>England, Feb. 12: �The Air Force [does] have older airplanes.
>Unfortunately, a lot of the money was spent on a relatively small
>number of F-22s that are very high cost.�
That is a non-sequitur. The small number wasn't AF choice--there were
supposed to be more than 700. The money is fixed cost, it was spent.
The possession of older airplanes has no relation to that.
>
>England, Feb. 13: �My strong feeling is that we have enough F-22s.
>They�re designed for a specific mission, we have enough to do that
>mission.�
183 airplanes with numbers taken for training, numbers for OT&E,
numbers in periodic maintenance and normal forecast attrition leaves
you with a half-dozen squadrons. That is not cost effective for a
military the size of ours.
>
>England, Feb. 13: �The [F-35] performance and the F-22 performance is
>extraordinarily close. ... [The F-35] is a much newer airplane, so it
>also has very similar, if not in some cases better, performance with
>other attributes.�
That is so ludicrous as to not require comment. The F-35 is very
capable but doesn't have the speed or the air/air sensor suite to make
it comparable.
>
>England, Feb. 13: �We have an aging fighter fleet, but, on the other
>hand, they�ve spent $65 billion, and we have 183 F-22s. I mean, at
>some point, we have to decide not to buy the very costly, high-end
>airplane, and buy the quantity.�
At this point the additional airplanes are at unit cost, not program
cost. Your sunk costs begin to reap benefits.
>
>Translation: The F-22 is of no value in irregular war. The Raptor is
>needed to fight China, Russia, or other �near-peers,� but such war is
>unlikely. The fighters are competitive, not complementary. The focus
>on the F-22 has aggravated USAF�s aging fleet problem. The F-22 is a
>one-trick pony. The two new fighters are comparable.
The F-22 and F-23 are indeed complementary and not competitors. They
are just like F-15/16 or F-4/A-6 in USN.
>
>http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2008/March%202008/0308edit.aspx
Jack Linthicum
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
Yeah, yeah yeah. So we have to tick off China for the airplane to be
useful. Isn't this the one that is supposed to replace the A-10? Dog
time! The AF likes to fly high and fast and not contribute. Looks like
their aircraft are designed to suit the pilots not vice verse.
Arved Sandstrom
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 12:24:21 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
> <jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> England, Feb. 13: �My strong feeling is that we have enough F-22s.
>> They�re designed for a specific mission, we have enough to do that
>> mission.�
>
> 183 airplanes with numbers taken for training, numbers for OT&E,
> numbers in periodic maintenance and normal forecast attrition leaves
> you with a half-dozen squadrons. That is not cost effective for a
> military the size of ours.
[ SNIP ]
>> England, Feb. 13: �We have an aging fighter fleet, but, on the other
>> hand, they�ve spent $65 billion, and we have 183 F-22s. I mean, at
>> some point, we have to decide not to buy the very costly, high-end
>> airplane, and buy the quantity.�
>
> At this point the additional airplanes are at unit cost, not program
> cost. Your sunk costs begin to reap benefits.
[ SNIP ]
I'm no fan of the F-22, but I can agree with you on one thing - have
none or have a reasonable amount. 183 F-22's is a joke, because what we
have now is what we'll have for any future situation. What would you
consider to be a better number?
AHS
Jeb in Richmond
wrote:
> Translation: The F-22 is of no value in irregular war. The Raptor is
> needed to fight China, Russia, or other “near-peers,” but such war is
> unlikely. The fighters are competitive, not complementary. The focus
> on the F-22 has aggravated USAF’s aging fleet problem. The F-22 is a
> one-trick pony. The two new fighters are comparable.
A couple of points from this thread that I want to make are:
1. The DOD is really looking at post-combat results from Russia v.
Georgia and the air defense environment as an example of what modern
AD will look like. It wasn't bush-league, but it also probably wasn't
as eye-watering as the majors will be if things go hot. Any fighter/
bomber that's going to survive in that environment needs to be low-
observable, fast, and able to absorb and process the electronic
spectrum.
2. So the F-22 was "overwhelmed" by those electronic emissions in
tests? So what? That reminds me of the "self-jamming" criticisms laid
against the B-1B; a problem was exhibited and then was resolved. The
F-22 avionics fitment is certainly going to allow for digital signal
filtering and processing that will mitigate whatever the issue that's
been vaguely cited was.
As far as "normal combat aircraft duties" go, let me weave a
scenario.
Five years from now, North Korea has launched a massive strike against
South Korea, and F-22s are operating out of Kadena. A four-ship is
tooling along doing Mach 1.5 at 50K, each loaded with four SDBs and
five AAMs. Forty miles west of feet-dry, each bird's passive EW
receivers pick up a UHF signal on a frequency known to be used by the
PRK Army. Because the four Raptors are flying in a horizontally and
vertically dispersed arrangement but sharing data via datalink, they
get a good 3D hit off the emission and work to refine the
triangulation as they advance. By the time they're within 20 miles of
the signal, the computers have agreed on the coordinates for the
signal. It's 20 miles ahead, three miles off to the left, and
stationary. Lead assigns Two and Four to the target, and each pilot
feeds the data coordinates to one of the SDBs. The computer cues the
pilots to bank right five degrees to mask the bay door openings from
an air-search radar about 35 miles off to the right, and then each
plane ejects one SDB. As the bay doors snap closed, the SDB wings flip
out and the bombs angle off toward the target while the flight shifts
heading by a few degrees. Shortly thereafter, the two SDBs detonate on
the coordinates, obliterating a command tent and knocking down C&C for
40,000 North Korean troops.
Predators and the like are good for COIN because they can be in one
area and linger for a while, but they can't get somewhere fast. It's
like the difference between the U-2 and the SR-71. The F-22 either has
(with current capability) or will have (with updates in progress) the
ability to range farther and faster over contested territory than any
UCAV that we've seen, and go after either air or ground targets.
David E. Powell
> On Jul 15, 7:10 am, "David E. Powell" <David_Powell3...@msn.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, it has been stated that it owns F-15s in mock dogfights on
> > maneuverability. Then again being the Huffington Post (I wonder if she
> > will switch back to Republican soon - she was an anti Clinton gadfly
> > in the day, before Bush got in office and then she made her business
> > on bashing the GOP, and now with Dems holding all the big positions,
> > one has to gadfly on the "powers that be" to make that kind of living)
> > I doubt that this even entered the equation for them. It could be
> > argued it is even misrepresented. The F-22's manuevering
> > characteristics are enhanced by thrust vectoring, so it isn't really
> > just "amazing it flies at all" in a dogfight.
>
> However when it dogfights it needs to have its targets in a narrow
> forward cone for Sidewinder lock.
It uses AMRAAM and ASRAAM is in the pipeline.
> When a F-22 tries to dogfight a F-35 the Lightning will strike first
> because it will see the F-22 coming first, then launch an AIM-9X blind
> and lase the F-22 for lock on after launch.
Why use a laser to guide a heat seeker?
If F-22 has better stealth it will see F-35 first too, it also depends
if someone acn get where the other person isn't looking.
Paul J. Adam
<1d63af09-1cc7-49f5...@z34g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
David E. Powell <David_Po...@msn.com> writes
>On Jul 15, 2:56�pm, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> However when it dogfights it needs to have its targets in a narrow
>> forward cone for Sidewinder lock.
>
>It uses AMRAAM and ASRAAM is in the pipeline.
No ASRAAM for the USAF: although AIM-9X uses the same seeker and is also
a capable beast.
>> When a F-22 tries to dogfight a F-35 the Lightning will strike first
>> because it will see the F-22 coming first, then launch an AIM-9X blind
>> and lase the F-22 for lock on after launch.
>
>Why use a laser to guide a heat seeker?
Because Henry hasn't quite grasped how the technology works.
>If F-22 has better stealth it will see F-35 first too, it also depends
>if someone acn get where the other person isn't looking.
But you forget, Henry likes the F-35 and doesn't like the F-22, so the
Raptor will always be seen first and will always have to close to a
dogfight.
The point oft overlooked about modern fighter aircraft is that their
phenomenal close-quarters agility is like an infantryman's body armour:
it's a survival measure, not a primary weapon. You don't get into a
close turning fight if it's at all avoidable, no matter how much fun it
is to fly or how spectacular Tony Scott made it look in "Top Gun", and
if in that fight you disengage as soon as you can; you kill as many of
them as possible at arm's length where you have a clear sensor, weapon
and countermeasure advantage.
>> Having the F-22 behind the F-35 simply extends the range of the
>> engagement, because the F-35 can add the F-22's speed to the speed of
>> the AIM-9X's.
Because demanding that the missile fly a 180-degree-turn off the rail
will not use any energy at all, won't take any time, and won't have any
stability implications. Then the missile will be pointed at the oncoming
F-22, with enough time and distance for the seeker to acquire and the
missile to guide to impact. And if you believe all that, I have some
national monuments for sale, bargain prices, cash in advance and buyer
to collect.
The F-22 will be, say, two thousand yards behind the F-35 for a visual
fight. Let's assume that the AIM-9X just flips end-for-end at full speed
for simplicity: it's now got a closing speed of Mach 4 or so (own speed
plus the oncoming Raptor) so it's got all of one second from launch to
acquire a target, reject any countermeasures, and fly an intercept
course. I'm not convinced that in one second it'll even have got the S&A
unit unlocked.
The RAF's Jaguars (now retired) had ASRAAM cued by helmet sights by the
end of their lives. Handy to have if attacked, but nobody ever suggested
it made them F-22 killers. Perhaps there's a lesson there?
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
Paul J. Adam
hcobb
wrote:
> On Jul 15, 2:56 pm, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > When a F-22 tries to dogfight a F-35 the Lightning will strike first
> > because it will see the F-22 coming first, then launch an AIM-9X blind
> > and lase the F-22 for lock on after launch.
>
> Why use a laser to guide a heat seeker?
http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Missiles-And-Rockets-2007/USN-plans-AIM-9X-datalink-and-AOTD-variant.html
The new variant will enter production with 'Lot 8', with deliveries in
2009. It adds an Active Optical Target Detector (AOTD) and a datalink
that the USN said will "double the maximum range and greatly increase
weapons' effectiveness throughout the weapons' engagement zone".
-HJC
Beausaber
F-22 is too specialized is the question of training. With only a
limited amount of time and funds in a year, nobody in the USAF/USN/
USMC is "master of all trades". The USAF has F-16 squadrons primarily
dedicated to air-to-air and others that emphasize air-to-ground, This
is not to say that the other role is ignored, but the reaility is we
have specialization today. Second, while the F-15 (I'm talking the
basic bird, not the Beagle) does have a ground attack capability, I
don't think it has ever been used...and I can't recall anyone claiming
that bird was useless. Third, aircraft and their weapons evolve - the
F-15 was built under the slogan "Not a pound for air to ground", while
the Tomcat was specifically designed as a fleet defense interceptor to
swat the nasty Bears and Badgers befoe they got within missile
launching range - yet both were adapted later in their lives for the
attack mission. There's no law of physics that says you won't be able
to accomplish attack misisons with a F-22, if the capability is
needed, via a future upgrade (these days, that mainly means adding a
sensor or two, modifying the computer code in the fie direction system
and training the guys)
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:43:05 GMT, Ed Rasimus
><rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>The argument that the Raptor is "biggest, fattest..." is ludicrous on
>>its face. The weight, dimensions, etc. are all with the F-15
>>footprint. The agility demonstrated is well beyond anything we possess
>>and more than competitive with anything our potential enemies possess.
>>The canard regarding not fighting in the current Iraq nation-building
>>effort or the Afghan counter-insurgency is that neither of those
>>operations are currently in that type of conflict.
>>
>Of course not. What we need in the current conflict(s) is "boots on
>the ground". If weapon systems such as the F-22 are impacting getting
>them there or their logistical trail (beans & bullets) then perhaps
>the program does need to be back-burnered. Although I highly doubt it
>needs to be killed completely.
The program was initiated in 1985. It has been back-burnered
repeatedly. I don't dispute your "boots on the ground" but my
consistent point here is that Gates (and your) assertion that
something not needed for the current conflicts is therefore not needed
for the future is wrong. We are in a special ops conflict(s) and the
force is evolving in that direction. We will still have conventional
threats and if you are sizing for the next 20-30 years you have to
consider that.
>>
>>We can't hope that today's war is what we can expect future wars to
>>look like. Today's war is different than yesterday's which was
>>different than the ones before that. Raptor would have been a powerful
>>asset in Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom, but that level of engagement
>>is now past.
>>
>Well you can always hope, but that does make you ill prepared. Having
>been in the USAF during Desert Storm and Iraqi Freedom I really don't
>see how the capabilities of the Raptor would have added all that much
>to the equation. Perhaps maybe in some of its additional capability
>in the Electronic Warfare & Signals arena, but not as an Air
>Superiority Fighter. Now if you wanted to make an argument that the
>F-35 Lightning II would have been a valuable tool during Desert Storm
>and Iraqi Freedom (and even the current on-going missions) I might be
>right there with you agreeing.
Sadaam had the fifth largest military in the world at commencement of
DS. There was plenty of reason to believe that there would be an
overhead threat to American and Allied ground forces. Who could have
thought that most would flee to Iran (of all places) or be buried?
>>
>>To assert that existing (aged and deteriorating) platforms are
>>adequate for the foreseeable future is wishful thinking at best. F-15C
>>is not significantly engaged in the current conflicts either, so
>>cancelling twenty years of development on Raptor and reverting to 1980
>>technology isn't a prudent solution.
>>
>Now you confuse me. You say that the F-15 is not significantly
>engaged (read required or needed) in the current conflicts, so what
>would make an even more advanced Fighter so?
See above regarding 20-30 timeline and potential variety of conflicts.
>
>We learned a lot designing & building the first F-22's. The knowledge
>is now there and won't be lost simply because the program is scaled
>back. Given that we only have X amount of dollars to go around and
>that the current conflict is very much a "boots on the ground" one we
>need to ensure that are Warfighters on the ground are getting
>everything they need to conduct that mission. We already have Air
>Superiority in both theaters and it isn't being opposed at any level
>so why equipment that is even less needed then the current platforms.
We don't need SSBN in the current conflict. Should we eliminate them?
Carrier aviation can't reach Afghanistan from blue water. Should we
eliminate them? Neither conflict has much application for Navy ships.
Should we eliminate them?
>
>Now the program can always be ramped back up should an emergent threat
>present itself, but I just do not see one on the horizon (unless of
>course the Aliens invade).
The cost of suspending production is mothballing or dismantling the
construction facilities--the jigs, test equipment, etc. etc. It means
reconfiguring the factories to new programs. It means loss of the
technical expertise of the workers. It means suspension of the
technology development. None of which is cheap. Restart is not simply
flipping a switch.
China, India, resurgent Russia, N. Korea, Venezuela, Iran, Pakistan,
Brasil, Argentina, etc. etc. You might be looking at too near a
horizon.
guy
> On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 07:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
>
Ed, stop talking common sense ... it confuses some people!
Guy
guy
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/09/AR200...
>
> Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
> F-22's Maintenance Demands Growing
> By R. Jeffrey Smith
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Friday, July 10, 2009
>
> The United States' 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 in
> recent years, 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 Defense Department acknowledged
> this week. The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.
>
> Sensitive information about troubles with the nation's foremost air-
> defense fighter is emerging in the midst of a fight between the Obama
> administration and the Democrat-controlled 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.
>
> "It is a disgrace that you can fly a plane [an average of] only 1.7
> hours before it gets a critical failure" that jeopardizes success of
> the aircraft's mission, said a Defense Department critic of the plane
> who is not authorized to speak on the record. Other skeptics inside
> the Pentagon note that the planes, designed 30 years ago to combat a
> Cold War adversary, have cost an average of $350 million apiece and
> say they are not a priority in the age of small wars and terrorist
> threats.
>
> But other defense officials -- reflecting sharp divisions inside the
> Pentagon about the wisdom of ending one of the largest arms programs
> in U.S. history -- emphasize the plane's unsurpassed flying abilities,
> express renewed optimism that the troubles will abate and say the
> plane is worth the unexpected costs.
>
> Votes by the House and Senate armed services committees last month to
> spend $369 million to $1.75 billion more to keep the F-22 production
> line open were propelled by mixed messages from the Air Force --
> including a quiet campaign for the plane that includes snazzy new
> Lockheed videos for key lawmakers -- and intense political support
> from states where the F-22's components are made. The full House
> ratified the vote on June 25, and the Senate is scheduled to begin
> consideration of F-22 spending Monday.
>
> After deciding to cancel the program, Defense Secretary Robert M.
> Gates called the $65 billion fleet a "niche silver-bullet solution" to
> a major aerial war threat that remains distant. He described the
> House's decision as "a big problem" and has promised to urge President
> Obama to veto the military spending bill if the full Senate retains
> F-22 funding.
>
> The administration's position is supported by military reform groups
> that have long criticized what they consider to be poor procurement
> practices surrounding the F-22, and by former senior Pentagon
> officials such as Thomas Christie, the top weapons testing expert from
> 2001 to 2005. Christie says that because of the plane's huge costs,
> the Air Force lacks money to modernize its other forces adequately and
> has "embarked on what we used to call unilateral disarmament."
>
> David G. Ahern, a senior Pentagon procurement official who helps
> oversee the F-22 program, said in an interview that "I think we've
> executed very well," and attributed its troubles mostly to the
> challenge of meeting ambitious goals with unstable funding.
>
> A spokeswoman for Lockheed added that the F-22 has "unmatched
> capabilities, sustainability and affordability" and that any problems
> are being resolved in close coordination with the Air Force.
>
> 'Cancellation-Proof'
> Designed during the early 1980s to ensure long-term American military
> dominance of the skies, the F-22 was conceived to win dogfights with
> advanced Soviet fighters that Russia is still trying to develop.
>
> Lt. Gen. Harry M. Wyatt III, director of the Air National Guard, said
> in a letter this week to Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) that he likes
> the F-22 because its speed and electronics enable it to handle "a full
> spectrum of threats" that current defensive aircraft "are not capable
> of addressing."
>
> "There is really no comparison to the F-22," said Air Force Maj. David
> Skalicky, a 32-year-old former F-15 pilot who now shows off the F-22's
> impressive maneuverability at air shows. Citing the critical help
> provided by its computers in flying radical angles of attack and tight
> turns, he said "it is one of the easiest planes to fly, from the
> pilot's perspective."
>
> Its troubles have been detailed in dozens of Government Accountability
> Office reports and Pentagon audits. But Pierre Sprey, a key designer
> in the 1970s and 1980s of the F-16 and A-10 warplanes, said that from
> the beginning, the Air Force designed it to be "too big to fail, that
> is, to be cancellation-proof."
>
> Lockheed farmed out more than 1,000 subcontracts to vendors in more
> than 40 states, and Sprey -- now a prominent critic of the plane --
> said that by the time skeptics "could point out the failed tests, the
> combat flaws, and the exploding costs, most congressmen were already
> defending their subcontractors' " revenues.
>
> John Hamre, the Pentagon's comptroller from 1993 to 1997, says the
> department approved the plane with a budget it knew was too low
> because projecting the real costs would have been politically
> unpalatable on Capitol Hill.
>
> "We knew that the F-22 was going to cost more than the Air Force
> thought it was going to cost and we budgeted the lower number, and I
> was there," Hamre told the Senate Armed Services Committee in April.
> "I'm not proud of it," Hamre added in a recent interview.
>
> When limited production began in 2001, the plane was "substantially
> behind its plan to achieve reliability goals," the GAO said in a
> report the following year. Structural problems that turned up in
> subsequent testing forced retrofits to the frame and changes in the
> fuel flow. Computer flaws, combined with defective software
> diagnostics, forced the frequent retesting of millions of lines of
> code, said two Defense officials with access to internal reports.
>
> Skin problems -- often requiring re-gluing small surfaces that can
> take more than a day to dry -- helped force more frequent and time-
> consuming repairs, according to the confidential data drawn from tests
> conducted by the Pentagon's independent Office of Operational Test and
> Evaluation between 2004 and 2008.
>
> Over the four-year period, the F-22's average maintenance time per
> hour of flight grew from 20 hours to 34, with skin repairs accounting
> for more than half of that time -- and more than half the hourly
> flying costs -- last year, according to the test and evaluation
> office.
>
> The Air Force says the F-22 cost $44,259 per flying hour in 2008; the
> Office of the Secretary of Defense said the figure was $49,808. The
> F-15, the F-22's predecessor, has a fleet average cost of $30,818.
>
> 'Compromises'
> Darrol Olsen, a specialist in stealth coatings who worked at
> Lockheed's testing laboratory in Marietta, Ga., from 1995 to 1999,
> said the current troubles are unsurprising. In a lawsuit filed under
> seal in 2007, he charged the company with violating the False Claims
> Act for ordering and using coatings that it knew were defective while
> hiding the failings from the Air Force.
>
> He has cited a July 1998 report that said test results "yield the same
> problems as documented previously" in the skin's quality and
> durability, and another in December that year saying, "Baseline
> coatings failed." A Lockheed briefing that September assured the Air
> Force that the effort was "meeting requirements with optimized
> products."
>
> "When I got into this thing . . . I could not believe the compromises"
> made by Lockheed to meet the Air Force's request for quick results,
> said Olsen, who had a top-secret clearance. "I suggested we go to the
> Air Force and tell them we had some difficulties . . . and they would
> not do that. I was squashed. I knew from the get-go that this material
> was bad, that this correcting it in the field was never going to
> work."
>
> Olsen, who said Lockheed fired him over a medical leave, heard from
> colleagues as recently as 2005 that problems persisted with coatings
> and radar absorbing materials in the plane's skin, including what one
> described as vulnerability to rain. Invited to join his lawsuit, the
> Justice Department filed a court notice last month saying it was not
> doing so "at this time" -- a term that means it is still investigating
> the matter, according to a department spokesman.
>
> Ahern said the Pentagon could not comment on the allegations. Lockheed
> spokeswoman Mary Jo Polidore said that "the issues raised in the
> complaint are at least 10 years old," and that the plane meets or
> exceeds requirements established by the Air Force. "We deny Mr.
> Olsen's allegations and will vigorously defend this matter."
>
> There have been other legal complications. In late 2005, Boeing
> learned of defects in titanium booms connecting the wings to the
> plane, which the company, in a subsequent lawsuit against its
> supplier, said posed the risk of "catastrophic loss of the aircraft."
> But rather than shut down the production line -- an act that would
> have incurred large Air Force penalties -- Boeing reached an accord
> with the Air Force to resolve the problem through increased
> inspections over the life of the fleet, with expenses to be mostly
> paid by the Air Force.
>
> Sprey ...
>
> read more »
Ok, scrap the F-22, what will the USAF be using for air superiority in
20 years time?
Guy
Jack Linthicum
Another airplane. The problem with the F-22 is it is very expensive at
half a billion per and seems to have one mission which doesn't involve
combat. Imagine a war with those "near peers" that everyone talks
about. Where do you base aircraft like the F-22 against the Chinese?
The Iranians? The Russians? How do you use them? If it is only an air
superiority fighter then do you send them in or wait for the enemy?
Can it escort bombers?
guy
Snip
> Another airplane. The problem with the F-22 is it is very expensive at
> half a billion per and seems to have one mission which doesn't involve
> combat. Imagine a war with those "near peers" that everyone talks
> about. Where do you base aircraft like the F-22 against the Chinese?
> The Iranians? The Russians? How do you use them? If it is only an air
> superiority fighter then do you send them in or wait for the enemy?
> Can it escort bombers?
which will 25+ years to develop.
so, what will the USAF be flying air superiority missions with in 20
years time? Typhoons?
Guy
Jack Linthicum
Improved F-16s? I get eleven years of development for that one. 1969
idea, 1975 production. First delivery 1980. You just have to realize
that the airplane is not a Christmas Tree and know when it has reached
its potential.
Ed Rasimus
<jackli...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Ok, scrap the F-22, what will the USAF be using for air superiority in
>> 20 years time?
>>
>> Guy
>
>Another airplane. The problem with the F-22 is it is very expensive at
>half a billion per
That is a straw-man which uses total program development cost divided
by delivered aircraft. You truck it out to support no more airplane
buys.
You can price an airplane by additional unit cost--what another bird
off a mature assembly line costs. You can amortize development
costs--more expensive price. You can include spares and support
equipment--still more expensive. It depends what conclusion you want
people to reach.
> and seems to have one mission which doesn't involve
>combat.
Air superiority is not a counter-insurgency mission. There are a lot
of combat missions which the Raptor is very capable of.
> Imagine a war with those "near peers" that everyone talks
>about.
The "near peer" is another aircraft, not a nation. Advanced Russian
aircraft, French aircraft in Indian or Venezuelan hands, etc.
>Where do you base aircraft like the F-22 against the Chinese?
Where in China is the target? The basing is the same place you would
base F-15s or -16s, or your notional replacement which starts today on
a blank sheet of paper.
>The Iranians? The Russians? How do you use them? If it is only an air
>superiority fighter then do you send them in or wait for the enemy?
Waiting for the enemy is an interceptor misson, not an air superiority
or air dominance task.
>Can it escort bombers?
Of course. You don't need to fly the bombers wing like a P-51 with a
B-17. Even then they did sweeps, CAPs and offsets as well as close
escort.
J
> You can price an airplane by additional unit cost--what another bird
> off a mature assembly line costs. You can amortize development
> costs--more expensive price. You can include spares and support
> equipment--still more expensive. It depends what conclusion you want
> people to reach.
This ignorant "sillyvilian" would like to know what it would cost to
take the F-22's non-stealth technology and build it into a brand new
F-15 on the assembly line (anything that doesn't change the existing
F-15 airframe.
Ed, I have both of your books. Great reads. Very enlightening and
informative. Thanks for the words and your service, sir.
Cheers . . . J
Jack Linthicum
>
Capable schmapable, the Sec AF and the Sec DoD don't think it's worth
the trouble.
All the semantics in the world says that you can't find a place where
this dog can hunt. Do we buy three different expensive birds because
this one is a one trick pony?
I am going north for one of those glorious family reunions where I
will know noone. Back Monday maybe.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Too weird for words, can't fly in the rain? 55% availablity? $44,000
an hour costs? 1.7 hours to critical failure? Oh yes, designed to
fight a plane that was never built. Whee.
Premier U.S. Fighter Jet Has Major Shortcomings
<continued>
Jack Linthicum
and
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/mfi.htm
MiG 1.42 etc. does both
The MAPO-MiG enterprise claims the new fighter would be able to
outperform the F-22 Raptor, the most advanced US air-superiority
fighter. Although the primary mission of the MFI is air-superiority,
unlike the F-22 the MFI is also capable of performing strike mission,
and thus in both conception and configuration is more directly
comparable to the similar multi-role EFA2000 Eurofighter. Like the
American F-22, the MFI has a thrust vectoring system that allows it to
make sharp turns. It also has similar stealth capabilities, with the
canard, wing and fuselage structures incorporating carbon-fiber and
polymer composite materials. Other stealth features include radar-
absorbing covering, screening of radar-visible structure elements, and
reduced heat signature. The fifth-generation pulse-doppler radar has a
phased-array andtenna with electronic scanning to simultaneously
attack over 20 targets. The aircraft can carry long-range air-to-air
and air-to-surface guided missiles, and it is armed with a 30-mm
cannon.
Dan
<snip>
>
> All the semantics in the world says that you can't find a place where
> this dog can hunt. Do we buy three different expensive birds because
> this one is a one trick pony?
"One trick ponies" have included U-2, SR-71, B-47, B-52, F-15 and a
few others. NASA uses U-2, SR-71 was worth it, B-47 was used in other
than bombing roles, B-52 is used by NASA and can do strike missions for
which it wasn't designed, F-15 was designed as an air superiority and
has a ground attack version in F-15E. The list can go on.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Jack Linthicum
The one I know, SR-71, had at least one variation, the YF-12, an
interceptor from a reconnaisance plane.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Now here's a prize.
"In a speech before the Economic Club of Chicago, Gates called the
plane a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the way the United
States spends money on defense: building expensive weapons with
limited use rather than cheaper systems that U.S. forces are more
likely to employ."
Gates warns against excess with F-22s
The Defense secretary says the expensive F-22 fighter jet has limited
use and building more may make the U.S. more vulnerable.
By Julian E. Barnes
July 17, 2009
Reporting from Chicago — Intensifying a fight over the fate of the
military's F-22 stealth fighter jets, Defense Secretary Robert M.
Gates said Thursday that the push by lawmakers for additional planes
-- against the Pentagon's recommendation -- actually risks making
America more vulnerable.
In a speech before the Economic Club of Chicago, Gates called the
plane a perfect illustration of what is wrong with the way the United
States spends money on defense: building expensive weapons with
limited use rather than cheaper systems that U.S. forces are more
likely to employ.
"We must change the way we think and the way we plan -- and
fundamentally reform -- the way the Pentagon does business and buys
weapons," Gates said.
In a Pentagon budget submitted to Congress, Gates halted further
production of the F-22. But a Senate defense authorization measure
restored money for seven additional planes. House bills seek partial
funding for 12 more.
President Obama has threatened to veto any defense bill that contains
funding for more F-22s, a threat Gates reiterated in his address.
The Senate is considering one amendment, backed by Obama's onetime
presidential rival, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), that would strip
funding for the plane. A vote on that measure is expected next week.
Rep. John P. Murtha (D-Pa.), chairman of the appropriations
subcommittee on defense, predicted the White House would compromise on
the F-22 and other issues.
"We'll work it out," Murtha told reporters. "In the end, the bill
won't be vetoed."
In Chicago, Gates delivered his speech to an audience of 800 near the
home base of Boeing Co., a partner with Lockheed Martin Corp. in
building the F-22. In April, Gates outlined a series of deep cuts,
including the F-22, an airborne laser system, new presidential
helicopters and others. Gates described his recommendations as an
attempt to change the nation's mind-set about how to plan for war.
"Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity --
whether for more F-22s or anything else -- is a dollar that will be
unavailable to take care of our people, win the wars we are in, to
deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas
where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable," he said.
Gates in recent months also has emphasized the need for the Pentagon
to focus more on the fights like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan and
less on wars among big powers, which he sees as less likely.
Gates in his speech said that the helicopter was an example of how
mounting requirements can drive up costs.
"We ended up with helicopters that cost nearly half a billion dollars
each and enabled the president to, among other things, cook dinner
while in flight under nuclear attack," Gates said to laughter from the
Chicago crowd.
Obama has criticized the new helicopter, but congressional supporters
said canceling it would waste money already spent on its development.
The F-22 originally was designed to counter a potential Soviet threat.
The Pentagon has spent an estimated $65 billion researching,
developing and building 187 F-22s.
Gates prefers the cheaper F-35, which he has argued is newer, carries
more weapons and will prove superior in combat.
Lockheed Martin has said that about a third of the F-22's
approximately 1,000 suppliers are in California, providing up to 6,500
jobs. Boeing assembles the aircraft's aft section and wings in its
Seattle plants. In Baltimore, Northrop Grumman Corp. builds the
plane's radar. In Connecticut, Pratt & Whitney builds the engine.
However, Gates said the work created by the F-35 -- 38,000 jobs now,
growing to 82,000 by 2011 -- exceeds the 24,000 jobs directly involved
in F-22 production.
Earlier in the day, on a visit to Ft. Drum, N.Y., Gates said he was
considering a temporary expansion in the size of the Army, which would
be the second such effort in recent years. Sen Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.)
has proposed temporarily raising total Army strength by 30,000 above
its current size of 547,400.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gates17-2009jul17,0,3848424.story
hcobb
relevance and tossed it to the F-35.
"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger
suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most
importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated
enemy air defenses."
-HJC
frank
wrote:
Backwards. YF-12 was based on A-12. That was original concept, only
had one sensor bay. Lockheed wanted to keep production of it going,
scrapped for SR-71 that had more sensor bays. Being CIA was much more
classified than SR-71 was. Well worth doing a google search for Oxcart
documents that are declassified on CIA website. Mission profiles, lots
of specs as far as alt, speed, stuff like that.
Too bad SR-71 wasn't significantly upgraded or a new aircraft
developed. Satellites aren't end all be all of intell.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
>On Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:15:39 GMT, Ed Rasimus
><rasimus...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
><snip>
>>
>>At this point the additional airplanes are at unit cost, not program
>>cost. Your sunk costs begin to reap benefits.
>>
>But therein lies the rub. The F-22 was supposed to meet USAF
>requirements for survivability, supersonic cruise (supercruise),
>stealth, and ease of maintenance.
Check, check, check and check...your point was?
>
>The one area where it is falling woefully short is in maintenance. If
>the maintenance costs are to high you will lose those sunk-cost
>benefits with on-going requiring costs, not to mention the
>availability issues? What good is the latest & greatest toy if every
>time you take it out for a one-hour mission you are facing multiple
>hours of maintenance?
Surprise, all aircraft take more maintenance man-hours than flying.
Even if nothing is wrong with them, they will take about 3 to 1 with
just preflight, fueling, weapons upload, post-flight, etc. Complex
systems take a lot, but it isn't straight time--it's multiple folks
working, each contributing to the total hours. It is amortization of
the extended hours of periodics and engine changes as well.
New system tend to take more maintenance hours per flight hour because
of the training and experience curves.
>
>Now I know that part of the equation is the ground crews & logistic
>trains coming up to speed on the platform and becoming more proficient
>over time & practice, but it currently appears to be a very delicate
>bird which makes me wonder how well it will stand up to any level of
>combat damage.
It isn't that delicate. And, the number of mx hours isn't unexpected
or appreciably beyond the norm. Airplanes, particularly sophisticated
tactical systems aren't like cars where you pop in every six months
for an oil change.
Ed Rasimus
wrote:
Pass the word to SecDef Gates that the Raptor is in operational
squadrons today and the F-35 is on a factory ramp going through
developmental testing.
Jim Yanik
news:52q1651eaird4utu3...@4ax.com:
the F-35 would never get close enough to attack "sophisticated enemy air
defenses". Not without stealthy AC to first knock them back a bit.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Jeb in Richmond
> On Fri, 17 Jul 2009 10:58:23 -0700 (PDT), hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You missed the point where Gates took away the F-22's final grasp for
> >relevance and tossed it to the F-35.
>
> >"The F-35 is 10 to 15 years newer than the F-22, carries a much larger
> >suite of weapons, and is superior in a number of areas – most
> >importantly, air-to-ground missions such as destroying sophisticated
> >enemy air defenses."
>
> >-HJC
>
> Pass the word to SecDef Gates that the Raptor is in operational
> squadrons today and the F-35 is on a factory ramp going through
> developmental testing.
Accelerated developmental testing that is certain to let major
complications through. We've seen that happen before.
hcobb
> One of the things that has been ignored in the question of whether the
> F-22 is too specialized is the question of training. With only a
> limited amount of time and funds in a year, nobody in the USAF/USN/
> USMC is "master of all trades".
And Bush decimated USAF flight training hours to pay for the F-22's
spiraling costs.
> There's no law of physics that says you won't be able
> to accomplish attack misisons with a F-22, if the capability is
> needed, via a future upgrade (these days, that mainly means adding a
> sensor or two, modifying the computer code in the fie direction system
> and training the guys)
Where exactly would you add an F-35 style sensor and target designator
turret (built in "Sniper pod") to the F-22 without ruining its
stealth?
-HJC
Beausaber
> On Jul 16, 7:09 am, Beausaber <ren23...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > One of the things that has been ignored in the question of whether the
> > F-22 is too specialized is the question of training. With only a
> > limited amount of time and funds in a year, nobody in the USAF/USN/
> > USMC is "master of all trades".
>
> And Bush decimated USAF flight training hours to pay for the F-22's
> spiraling costs.
To paraphrase Mary McCarthy on Lillian Hellman, “Everything Hank Cobb
writes is a lie, including ‘the’ and ‘and’”
Do you EVER look things up before you try to make up "facts" like
that?
Specialization has been around since before GW Bush's dad was Director
of the CIA.
Air University Review, January-February 1977
Air-to-Air Training Under the DOC System
Colonel Robert D. Russ
“In 1972, the Tactical Fighter Symposium addressed two of the most
vital issues confronting tactical aviation: tactics and training. The
symposium concluded that both areas required a thorough review in
light of Air Force combat experience in Southeast Asia. Two primary
recommendations concerning training were made. First, training should
be optimized; and second, training should be more realistic. Optimized
training was to be based on reducing the number of roles required in
multipurpose tactical aircraft. Aircrews would concentrate primarily
on either the air-to-air or air-to-surface role, but not on both. They
would maintain a secondary but less-demanding capability in the other
role. Sorties and events rather than flying hours were to be used as a
measure of merit. Realism was to be enhanced by providing au.
authentic warlike environment during exercises and upgrading the
facilities in which training was to be conducted.
The program remained in the conceptual stage until 1973, when the fuel
crisis provided the catalyst necessary to transform talk into action.
An important meeting was held to review tactical requirements in the
late fall of 1973 at Headquarters USAF. Representatives from all
commands that employ tactical air power were in attendance. As a
result of this meeting, the entire training system for operational
units was realigned. The operational capability of each tactical
fighter squadron was designed to optimize training in either a primary
air-to-air role or a primary air-to-surface role. Those units with
multipurpose fighter aircraft (e.g., the F-4) would be assigned a
primary and a secondary Designed Operational Capability.* Further
delineation was provided in terms of sorties required versus aircrew
proficiency level.”
> > There's no law of physics that says you won't be able
> > to accomplish attack misisons with a F-22, if the capability is
> > needed, via a future upgrade (these days, that mainly means adding a
> > sensor or two, modifying the computer code in the fie direction system
> > and training the guys)
>
> Where exactly would you add an F-35 style sensor and target designator
> turret (built in "Sniper pod") to the F-22 without ruining its
> stealth?
SNIP
For a starter, I'd go with what they did with the F-111 when they
installed Pave Tack, by insllaing a rotatable turret taking up some of
one of the wepons bays, which would be enclosed until the attack began
and it rotated and extended into position. Since we're talking 20XX
rather than 1970's electronics, we can probably make it smaller than
Pave Tack. And remember, that with PGM's the USAF is going to smaller
wespons (less collateral damage), so the space occupied isn't as much
as a sacrifice as it once was. I don't have a set of drawings, but
another posssibility would be give up part of a tank in the after
lower fuselage, again behind doors that would open as the aircraft
began the attack.
Jeb in Richmond
> For a starter, I'd go with what they did with the F-111 when they
> installed Pave Tack, by insllaing a rotatable turret taking up some of
> one of the wepons bays, which would be enclosed until the attack began
> and it rotated and extended into position. Since we're talking 20XX
> rather than 1970's electronics, we can probably make it smaller than
> Pave Tack. And remember, that with PGM's the USAF is going to smaller
> wespons (less collateral damage), so the space occupied isn't as much
> as a sacrifice as it once was. I don't have a set of drawings, but
> another posssibility would be give up part of a tank in the after
> lower fuselage, again behind doors that would open as the aircraft
> began the attack.
Don't even need that. Just use high-res ground mapping tied to GPS so
you can provide coordinates to the foot in the JDAM/SDB guidance
package. If you need something lased, you'll probably already have a
UAV or ground asset in the area to put a spot on the target.
hcobb
It still doesn't provide live IR scanning of the target and the F-35's
IR advantages in air to air combat.
-HJC
hcobb
> On Jul 19, 1:18 pm, hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And Bush decimated USAF flight training hours to pay for the F-22's
> > spiraling costs.
>
> that?
http://www.afa.org/magazine/jan2008/0108scarce.asp
Now, the Fiscal 2008 budget is setting a risky precedent. The spending
blueprint calls for cutting overall flying hours by 10 percent across
the board. According to Air Combat Command officials, decreased flying
hours are forecasted for all missions except testing and intelligence
gathering. No platform in the combat fleet is getting an increase in
hours.
Q.E.D.: Bush decimated Air Force flying hours.
Bush decided on the 187 number.
Bush blew up the budget and wore out the current fighter force in Iraq
before the F-35s were ready to replace them.
Some people are willing to accept the moderate risk that Bush left the
country with and work to fix things.
http://mccain.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressOffice.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=7a17feb9-d56e-db2b-13a8-a712b544c59a
"Whatever moderate risk may arise from ending the F-22 program now is
merely short-term and, under the Air Force’s Combat Air Force (CAF)
restructure plan, necessary for the Air Force to transition the
current fleet to a smaller, more capable fifth-generation fighter
force for all the Services."
-HJC
Jeb in Richmond
The F-35 IR system isn't designed for air-to-air.
Ed Rasimus
It should also be noted that the F-35 "style" sensors are flush
mounted generally and retain the low RCS of the airframe. The data
fusion available allows linked info to come from other platform
sensors. Data can be loaded to a weapon within the bay and when
released it is autonomous. JADM, for example requires neither sensor
to detect the target nor designation from the release platform. Simply
load the GPS deck.
David E. Powell
The thing about the F-22 is that if it is cancelled there isn't
anything to really fill that role in the next 10 years. Given how long
the development process in apex fighter planes is these days. If there
were other competing designs, OK, but that point came and went with
the F-22 vs. F-23 trials, and it's pretty far down the chain of
development to cut the program now.
Even if there are some redos and tweaks on the finer points like
sensors, etc., it certainly isn't nearly as much work as they had to
do on the Bradley fighting vehicle when it first went through trials,
and they chose to retune that program instead of cancelling it.
Plus as you point out with so much development cost now done, the per
unit cost will drop as more are made, and with allies put on the order
list as well as the USAF that can drop even farther. Even if the USAF
doesn't want more, which they do, why not allow allies to buy them?
That makes little sense to me, except in the area of security
concerns, and that can be worked out by limiting who gets it, or
tweaking features for other nations' needs and wants.
Heck it could open up a lot with Germany on other issues, if floating
them a F-22 squadron or two were an option. Or Israel, allowing them
to even look at the F-22 as a purchase option would send a real
message to shore them up right now. Not to mention Japan, with North
Korea being so fidgety right now. O South Korea. Heck, Japan and SK
getting F-22 would get the NKs' attention, and maybe put pressure on
Beijing to put more pressure on the NKs.
There is more than just good fighter planes here, there is the chance
to use it for a defensive plane's best possible role - ensuring and
spreading peaceful conditions without firing a shot.
hcobb
> The F-35 IR system isn't designed for air-to-air.
I think that as you come to know about the F-35's systems (assuming
you have the capability to do so of course), you will come to
appreciate it.
-HJC
http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/solutions/f35targeting/
The DAS surrounds the aircraft with a protective sphere of situational
awareness. It warns the pilot of incoming aircraft and missile threats
as well as providing day/night vision, fire control capability and
precision tracking of wingmen/friendly aircraft for tactical
maneuvering.
Jack Linthicum
Pricey Jets Could Set Stage for Obama's First Veto
Huge Defense Bill Could Face Veto if Senate Votes Tuesday to Fund
F-22s
By Z. BYRON WOLF and LUIS MARTINEZ
July 21, 2009—
A controversial effort to buy seven pricey fighter jets with taxpayer
money could set the stage for President Obama's first potential veto.
The Senate is expected to vote today on whether to strip money for the
F-22 jets from a bill being considered on Capitol Hill. Included in
the Senate version of this year's defense authorization measure is
$1.75 billion to buy radar-evading fighter planes that have not seen
combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.
"What I have not heard [from members of Congress] is a substantive
reason for adding more aircraft in terms of our strategic needs,"
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday.
Both the Pentagon and the White House are unenthused about continuing
to fund the plane, but lawmakers from several states where the
aircraft is made say the project creates jobs back home.
The battle pits President Obama against Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-
Conn.,and Arizona Republican John McCain against Connecticut
Independent Joe Lieberman.
"The Air Force has repeatedly warned that stopping this program at 187
aircraft would place our nation at 'higher risk', and that is not a
risk I am willing to accept," Lieberman said in a statement when a
Senate committee approved the measure. "Continued production of the
F-22A will guarantee that we have balanced combat air forces in the
future to support the transition between the F-22A and F-35 Joint
Strike Fighter programs."
"Some of the wheeling and dealing on the Hill, of a few hundred
million here and a few hundred million there, for a pet project here
and pet project there, confront us with ever more difficult choices
when we're trying to make trade-offs in terms of how do we help our
soldiers out -- how do we relieve the stress on the force," Gates said
Monday. "The money's gotta come from somewhere."
The administration thinks the money could be put to better use for
weapons like F-35 planes designed to be used by the Air Force,
Marines, and Navy as well as key American allies. The F-35 fighter jet
program that could eventually number 2,443 planes and cost $1
trillion.
On Monday, Gates said that by axing the program to fund the F-22,
there "would be a substantial increase in the number of jobs in the
aerospace industry."
"The F-35 already has 38,000 employees," Gates said. "That will go to
64,000 in FY '10 and 82,000 in FY '11 if we don't drain money away
from it."
"To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable
resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops
with the weapons that they actually do need," Obama wrote in July 13
letters to Sens. McCain and Carl Levin, D-Mich., urging them to remove
the funding.
Full House and Senate Committee Have Voted for F-22s
A total of 187 of the F-22 jets are already under contract but Gates
has said it isn't logical to order more.
In late June, a White House statement said "the President's senior
advisors would recommend a veto" if the bill sent to the president's
desk contained F-22 money.
That statement said the White House "has serious concerns with a
number of provisions that could constrain the ability of the Armed
Forces to carry out their missions, that depart from Secretary Gates'
decisions reflected in the President's Fiscal Year 2010 Budget which
carefully balanced fiscal constraints, program performance, strategic
needs and capabilities, or that raise other issues."
"I think the President has outlined projects, as well as the Secretary
of Defense, that he believes are not necessary spending," White House
press secretary Robert Gibbs said June 25.
But lawmakers have felt otherwise.
On June 25, the House passed its $680 billion version of the defense
authorization bill with an F-22 provision included. Unlike the Senate
version, the House version calls for the government to buy additional
parts for the F-22, but doesn't specify how many aircraft should be
purchased.
On June 26, the Senate Armed Services Committee approved the bill,
sending it to the full Senate after voting in favor of more F-22s.
"It is regrettable that the administration needs to issue a veto
threat for funding intended to meet a real national security
requirement that has been consistently confirmed by our uniformed
military leaders," Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said June 25.
Some lawmakers have also said F-22s could help protect the nation from
seaborne cruise missiles and Somali pirates. Gates said last week that
fending off pirates is "a job we know is better done by three Navy
SEALs."
Back in April, Gates announced plans to cut programs from the Defense
Department that no longer made sense, including the plan to eliminate
the F-22 fighter program as expected.
His proposed changes need to be approved by Congress before taking
effect.
"We stand at a crossroads," Gates said last week. "We simply cannot
risk continuing down the same path -- where our spending and program
priorities are increasingly divorced from the very real threats of
today and the growing ones of tomorrow."
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=8126691&page=1
guy
SNIP
>
> Some lawmakers have also said F-22s could help protect the nation from
> seaborne cruise missiles and Somali pirates. Gates said last week that
> fending off pirates is "a job we know is better done by three Navy
> SEALs."
SNIP
F-22 vs Somali Pirates???
Guy
Jeb in Richmond
I know, but it's Congress talking, so you can't expect much sense.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Senate sides with Obama, removes F-22 money
Senate sides with Obama, removes money to extend F-22 fighter program
JIM ABRAMS
AP News
Jul 21, 2009 11:40 EST
The Senate has sided with the Obama administration in agreeing to cut
off new spending for the F-22 jet fighter program.
The 58-40 vote removes $1.75 billion set aside in a defense policy
bill to build seven more F-22 Raptors, adding to the 187 stealth
technology fighters already in the pipeline.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates has said that the Pentagon has enough
of the $140 million jets to meet operational needs and President
Barack Obama has threatened to veto the defense bill if Congress
ignores the request that the program be terminated.
But for many lawmakers, the F-22 means thousands of jobs for their
state or district, and resistance to ending the program has been
fierce.
Jack Linthicum
Changing the way they do business in Washington.
Aggressive, Coordinated Effort Led to F-22's Demise
By Ann Gerhart and Perry Bacon Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, July 26, 2009
The most remarkable thing happened in Washington this past Tuesday.
Congress scrapped the F-22 stealth fighter jet, killing off a 30-year-
old Pentagon hardware program that employs 25,000 people in 46 states.
It was a dogfight almost to the end over $1.75 billion and the need to
remake military readiness. Threats and promises, blunt talk and grand
gestures -- all were deployed to support an appeal to common sense and
for urgent change, according to principals involved. The White House
coordinated the ultimately successful vote-wrangling, and its specific
tactics may show up again in another epic battle now unfolding:
getting Congress to draft and pass health-care reform.
For years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has argued strenuously
against the F-22s as Cold War relics, too inefficient and expensive to
warrant building any more than the 187 already in the fleet. He cut
the Air Force's F-22 funding request of $400 billion, for 20 more, to
zero.
He bluntly warned Lockheed Martin that he would slice funding for the
more modern F-35 jet if the contracting giant lobbied to build more
F-22s. Lockheed Martin's chief executive, Robert J. Stevens, told
employees he supported Gates's call "to put the interests of the
United States first -- above the interests of agencies, services and
contractors." That left the powerful lobbyists to sit on their hands.
But lawmakers had all those jobs on the line in their districts, and
in a lousy economy. Republicans and Democrats alike defied Gates and
the White House. In June, the Senate Armed Services Committee voted 13
to 11 to shift the $1.75 billion from other programs.
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the committee's ranking Republican, and
Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) fought back with an amendment to the
defense budget bill to strip that funding out. Then the two senators,
Gates and White House officials started looking for 51 votes.
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel called an old Chicago pal just
back from a honeymoon in Italy. He asked for a favor: Could Bill Daley
quickly pull together a full house at the Economic Club of Chicago if
Gates were to come and deliver a forceful speech about military
readiness and how the F-22 was a bad idea?
"I said we would love to do that," said Daley, a former commerce
secretary. "I got hold of the [club's] president. We sent out a blast
e-mail," and about 800 members, including several executives of
Boeing, headquartered in Chicago, were on hand about two weeks later,
on July 16, to listen politely.
"And we got great play," said Daley, with much media coverage of
Gates's remarks and his forceful comments to reporters after the
speech. It was exactly what the White House wanted.
Meanwhile, President Obama vowed to veto any bill funding the F-22s.
"We do not need these planes," he wrote in letters on July 13 to
McCain and Levin.
When a showdown vote loomed on July 15, Senate Democratic leaders who
backed Obama's effort to scuttle the program did not think they had
the votes to win. There was opposition in their own caucus: Sen. Patty
Murray wanted the F-22 funding (and ultimately supported it in the
final Senate vote, as did her fellow Democratic senator from
Washington and the two Democratic senators from California). There
were only about 20 votes that could be counted on to scrap the F-22
program, and even with those undecided and leaning, "we didn't crack
50," a Senate aide said.
So they put off the vote by shifting attention to a provision in the
defense bill to expand protections under laws against hate crimes.
That gave the Obama administration several days to restart its
lobbying effort to win the vote. That afternoon, the administration,
in a statement from the Office of Budget and Management, repeated the
veto threat, emphasizing the point by underlining the sentence.
"People had to ask: Did we want this to be the first time he vetoed a
bill from Congress?" said one senior Democratic Senate aide.
With several days now to organize opposition to the plane's funding,
Gates started calling members of Congress. Vice President Biden called
his old friend, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), Inouye said. The
vice president called at least two other senators and asked for their
votes, and Obama called Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), said a senior
administration official. National security adviser Gen. James Jones
made calls, as did Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn.
On the day before the vote, Gates called Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to
push him to support stripping the funding. Some of the plane's
components are produced in Massachusetts, but Gates told Kerry of the
importance of the vote and said the F-35 would continue to be
produced, employing workers in the state. In a later call with
Emanuel, Kerry said Gates had answered all his questions.
"The president pulled out all of the stops," said Sen. Johnny Isakson
(R-Ga.), who was pushing for additional funding for the plane.
Another advocate for funding the plane, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), said
the lobbying effort included calling Republicans, because Obama "had a
lot riding on this vote."
On Tuesday, aides in the White House's legislative affairs office, all
former key aides to powerful congressmen, swarmed the Hill to collar
votes. Emanuel sent some of his own staff members to help and to
provide key intelligence directly to him back in the White House.
After the Senate voted 58 to 40, two votes fewer than would have been
required to fund the program, Obama and the man he defeated in last
year's presidential contest both hailed the outcome, using strikingly
similar language.
"It really means there's a chance that we can change the way we do
business here in Washington," said McCain, who long has had a deep
disdain for the F-22 program.
The outcome of the fight is "a good example of us starting to change
habits in Washington," Obama said.
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who had worked the $1.75 billion into
the $680 billion defense spending bill, was left to grumble that he
had never seen a White House lobby as hard for anything as this one
did.
Jeb in Richmond
wrote:
> The outcome of the fight is "a good example of us starting to change
> habits in Washington," Obama said.
>
> Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.), who had worked the $1.75 billion into
> the $680 billion defense spending bill, was left to grumble that he
> had never seen a White House lobby as hard for anything as this one
> did.
Mark my words, they'll go after the F-35 next. The Obama White House
will do more to cripple the DOD than the Clintons did.
Jack Linthicum
The Clintons did it with a Republican Congress.
Beausaber
wrote:
> On Jul 10, 5:58 am, Mike <yard22...@yahoo.com> wrote:
One wonders how many political chits were passed out to get the vote
and what that's going to cost the taxpayers
Jack Linthicum
They save $1.8B. That will buy a lot of real defense. You might blame
it on the Soviet Union, they never built the plane the F-22 was
supposed to fight, and we never got into a situation where the F-22
could do its job. Too much specialization and not enough forward
vision.
j...@cix.compulink.co.uk
<7a40bcb1-fdd4-4fd0...@k19g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
jackli...@earthlink.net (Jack Linthicum) wrote:
> It was a dogfight almost to the end over $1.75 billion ...
> For years, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has argued strenuously
> against the F-22s as Cold War relics, too inefficient and expensive to
> warrant building any more than the 187 already in the fleet. He cut
> the Air Force's F-22 funding request of $400 billion, for 20 more, to
> zero.
Err, there seems something confused here. Clearly the things don't cost
$20 billion each. Is $400 billion the total USAF budget, of which $1.75
billion was for 20 F-22s?
--
John Dallman, j...@cix.co.uk, HTML mail is treated as probable spam.
Jeb in Richmond
wrote:
> On Jul 26, 3:30 pm, Beausaber <ren23...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jul 26, 6:08 am, Jack Linthicum <jacklinthi...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 10, 5:58 am, Mike <yard22...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > One wonders how many political chits were passed out to get the vote
> > and what that's going to cost the taxpayers
>
> They save $1.8B. That will buy a lot of real defense. You might blame
> it on the Soviet Union, they never built the plane the F-22 was
> supposed to fight, and we never got into a situation where the F-22
> could do its job. Too much specialization and not enough forward
> vision.
That's exactly the wrong sort of conclusion that led to this
situation. It's a specialized airframe in the sense that it can go
high, fast, and deep into contested territory, but once it's there, it
can do air dominance, it can do defense suppression, it can do
electronic recon and attack, and operate as a C&C node for F-35,
Growlers, and last-gen fighters once the air defenses have been sorted
out. F-35 may be able to do some of the tactical stuff, but it doesn't
have the survivability factors.
Jack Linthicum
Name three possible aircraft it could face and the situation that
would require its presence. Got anybody we are going to invade in the
next 20 years?
guy
>
> - Show quoted text -
The reason that question cannot be answered is the reason you need the
F-22
Guy
Jack Linthicum
Bullshit. If you are not going to face anything the Chinese, Iranians
or Russians are fielding now or in that 20 years why bother? The F-22
is just a make-work and "get me elected" campaign.
Jeb in Richmond
No. Scenarios have been spelled out enough times before, here and
elsewhere, that it's not worth the effort if all we get in response is
you sticking your fingers in your ears and singing la-la-la-I-can't-
hear-you.
Ed Rasimus
In 1975 when Vietnam ended, would you have thought we would invade
Panama and Grenada? Would you have thought that in four years the US
embassy in Teheran would be seized?
In 1976 when the F-16 began entering the inventory would you have said
we would be fighting in Bosnia and Kosovo?
In 1980 would you have predicted major combat operations in Iraq?
In 1990 would you have said we would be fighing in Afghanistan?
Defense is about what is generally unforeseeable in the future, not
about fighting the current or most recent wars. That would have us
building Maginot Lines.
Jack Linthicum
Would we need an F-22 in Grenada and Panama? Would the F-22 have been
better than the F-117, including the one that got shot down? IIRC the
F-22 can't fight in Afghansitan, they use radios and jammers there.
When we go to war with the Eskimos or whoever the next near peer is
will the F-22 contribute or sit on the runway for pictures?
Jack Linthicum
China? Russia? the F-22 is the museum piece for the Cold War. Live
with it.