The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: House Approves 12 more F-22's
mustang22    6/17/2009 11:24:53 PM

F-22 Funds Approved in Wee-Hours Vote
By william matthews
Published: 17 Jun 2009 17:04
Print Print | Print Email

It hasn't flown in combat yet, but the F-22 stealth fighter prevailed in a life-or-death battle in an early-morning vote June 17 by the House Armed Services Committee.
A vote early June 17 by the U.S. House Armed Services Committee means that the Pentagon will pay for work to begin in 12 more F-22 jets, even though Defense Secretary Robert Gates wants the program to end. (SENIOR AIRMAN ZACHARY WOLF / U.S. AIR FORCE)

After more than 16 hours of squabbling over the 2010 defense budget, weary committee members voted 31-30 at 2:30 a.m. to keep the F-22 program alive by making a $369 million down payment on 12 more planes.
Related Topics

* Americas
* Air Warfare

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had intended to end F-22 production at 187 fighters, but House lawmakers overruled him.

The $369 million would buy advance procurement parts to begin production on a dozen new fighters. Ultimately, the planes would cost about $2.8 billion.

The advance procurement money would be taken from funds budgeted for Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites, a House aide said.

Although it is the Air Force's most advanced and most expensive fighter, the F-22 has never been flown in combat, a point Gates has stressed repeatedly in appearances before Congress.

When he announced April 6 that he wanted to end F-22 production, Gates said, "For me, it was not a close call. ? The military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F-22s beyond the 187."

In the past, the Air Force has said it needed 381 F-22s. More recently it lowered the number to 243 until Gates put a 187-plane cap on the program.

But the fighter is popular in Congress, where it is praised as providing the Air Force with a high-tech advantage over potential foes, and is prized for creating jobs. Plane maker Lockheed has emphasized that the F-22 program employees 25,000 workers directly and another 90,000 in companies that produce F-22 parts in 44 states.

The amendment to save the F-22 was introduced by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah.

"We would liked to have funded a full buy of 12 aircraft," an aide to Bishop said. But Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Ike Skelton prohibited amendments that would add to the overall cost of the defense budget.

Bishop was able to shift $369 million for the F-22s from defense environmental cleanups at sites that are projected to be ahead of schedule or are at risk of not being able to spend money allocated for 2010, the aide said.

It's enough to keep the F-22 production line from shutting down, but Bishop and others on the committee believe the Air Force needs more than 12 additional F-22s, he said.

While the Armed Services Committee was saving future F-22s, the full House approved spending $600 million to buy the final four planes that Gates wants. Money for those planes is included in a $106 billion "emergency supplemental" bill used to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Language in that bill prohibits using the F-22 money to shut down the F-22 production line, and it permits the Defense Department to consider building a less capable version of the F-22 for sale overseas.

The war-funding bill thwarts Gates' efforts to end another aircraft program, the C-17 cargo plane.

Gates said the 205 C-17s that are already in the fleet or under construction are enough, and he included no money in the 2010 defense budget for additional C-17s. But the House and Senate added $2.7 billion to war-funding bill to buy eight C-17s and seven smaller C-130J cargo planes.

The additional C-17s are "pure pork," said Christopher Hellman, a defense budget analyst for the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. Buying more C-17s "can only be characterized as a jobs program."

And C-17 maker Boeing has done just that. In February the company boasted that C-17 production sustained 30,000 jobs in 43 states, with concentrations in California, Texas, Missouri and Connecticut.


Its a start, can't say that I'm surprised. Probably want to keep the line open to assess actual requirements and evaluate the tactical aircraft situation as a whole. Darth, this is NOT an I told you so but I am extremely pleased with this decision as I'm sure other posters here are as well.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT
FJV    An irrelevant number of planes.   6/18/2009 2:15:17 PM
12 extra F22's are not gonna make a significant difference.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 2:17:10 PM
12 more F-22s will keep the line open and that alone may very well make the difference.
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/18/2009 2:20:45 PM
@ FJV
 
> 12 extra F22's are not gonna make a significant difference.
 
The US Congress is trying to keep the F-22 line open until Japanese F-22 orders can be filled.
 
It is now a US congressional policy to export F-22 to Japan and who that want it, most likely Korea and Australia.

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    243   6/18/2009 2:34:00 PM
 
Let US all remember what 243 F22 represents. It's USAF matrix was based upon the very rosey scenario that F35s would roll off the assembly lines on time, on budget, and in specific numbers totaling almost 2,000 for US alone. Since the F35 is about to be radically reduced or cut altogether, a fresh set of eyes need to look at the 243 middle risk assessment to determine how many Raptors we need in order to make up for the new threat matrix. This is because any reduction or delay of the F35 program will result in a shortfall in our tactical requirements being met at a very basic level.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       6/18/2009 2:34:02 PM

12 extra F22's are not gonna make a significant difference.

 

 

 



It has nothing to do with them thinking 12 more will make any appreciable difference and all to do with keeping the line from closing down, like the article suggests. There is a shortage of fighters in the AF, until someone comes up with a better plan to fix it, closing the line down is foolish, its that simple.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       6/18/2009 2:57:03 PM
The F22 needs other planes to function optimally, specialized electronic warfare aircraft is one of these.
 
12 additional F22, without additional for sake of a better word "supporting planes"  is not optimal.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       6/18/2009 3:13:15 PM


The advance procurement money would be taken from funds budgeted for Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites, a House aide said.

I guess we'll leave the inconvenient chores, N-waste remediation and cleanup, for the children and grandchildren.  Should keep the little rascals busy.  What a shining city on the hill we are.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 3:17:46 PM


I guess we'll leave the inconvenient chores, N-waste remediation and cleanup, for the children and grandchildren.  Should keep the little rascals busy.  What a shining city on the hill we are.


v^2


Why not?  This Congress is already leaving the children and grandchildren the tab for their reckless spending today!  At the very least we are getting war planes to defend our nation instead of simply laundering money to people who helped the Congresscritters and Obama get elected to office!

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       6/18/2009 4:08:25 PM


Why not?  This Congress is already leaving the children and grandchildren the tab for their reckless spending today!  At the very least we are getting war planes to defend our nation instead of simply laundering money to people who helped the Congresscritters and Obama get elected to office!



10,000 people are employed at good wages by the Hanford and related clean-ups:  h**p://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIjeFJCrIfe9au4cq59GpzuurA8QD98F3GQG2

Now if your position is that increased F-22 numbers are more important than getting at isotopic plumes that continue to grow, then that's your right.

I have consistently maintained personal acceptance of additional F-22 provided that something else is cut to pay for it and the plane is not exported.

Io triumphe.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       6/18/2009 4:43:10 PM

12 extra F22's are not gonna make a significant difference.

Sure it will.  187 aircraft is a tiny force for an air superiority fighter.  Of the 187, you would normally have 126 combat-coded, about 6-8 used for testing, and the remaining split between training and depot level maintenance.  That does not provide any attrition flexibility and guarantees that all of the airframes will fly often and so use up their lifetimes faster.  Every additional airplane eases that load.
 
Beyond that, the 12 is just a placeholder to keep the line going.  I don't really have an opinion on the notion of exporting them to the Japanese, but I suspect the USAF will wind up with more than the 199 currently ordered.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       6/18/2009 4:51:59 PM


10,000 people are employed at good wages by the Hanford and related clean-ups:  h**p://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iIjeFJCrIfe9au4cq59GpzuurA8QD98F3GQG2


Now if your position is that increased F-22 numbers are more important than getting at isotopic plumes that continue to grow, then that's your right.


I have consistently maintained personal acceptance of additional F-22 provided that something else is cut to pay for it and the plane is not exported.



Io triumphe.

v^2




How about this:  cut the $1.5 trillion ($876 BILLION + interest) that is nothing more than Congressional Money laundering, and you can have BOTH more F-22s and your little clean up opperation.
That was easy.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/18/2009 5:13:27 PM




12 extra F22's are not gonna make a significant difference.




Sure it will.  187 aircraft is a tiny force for an air superiority fighter.  Of the 187, you would normally have 126 combat-coded, about 6-8 used for testing, and the remaining split between training and depot level maintenance.  That does not provide any attrition flexibility and guarantees that all of the airframes will fly often and so use up their lifetimes faster.  Every additional airplane eases that load.

 

Beyond that, the 12 is just a placeholder to keep the line going.  I don't really have an opinion on the notion of exporting them to the Japanese, but I suspect the USAF will wind up with more than the 199 currently ordered.

I wasn't aware the additional 12 got past the full House and Senate?

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Shovel ready......   6/18/2009 5:16:09 PM





The advance procurement money would be taken from funds budgeted for Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites, a House aide said.




I guess we'll leave the inconvenient chores, N-waste remediation and cleanup, for the children and grandchildren.  Should keep the little rascals busy.  What a shining city on the hill we are.


v^2


V^2 actually, you have a good reason why this incompetent congress and the interregnimist are both in the subset "idiots". If they were serious about recovery, then we would have a national energy policy, and a infrastructure recovery act that would actually include waste management and nuclear wastedisposal as part of that energy program. There's a few hundred thousand jobs (almost a million for at least 20 years by some estimates)  just waiting to be created.
 
   
I just weep when I see those idiots bailing out Gokdman Sachs and their answer to infrastructure is THIS:
 
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/18/2009 5:18:07 PM
It is now a US congressional policy to export F-22 to Japan and who that want it, most likely Korea and Australia.


Absolute rubbish.  It's some congressman playing local politics to keep their voting cohort happy.  They are not the US Congress.  Count up all the seats in Congress and then count up all those members who are wailing.

An export F-22 basically requires a rebuild - its not just a matter of unbolting bits and ripping up some ITARS documents.

This whole discussion about a detuned F-22 for export is just sophistry of the highest order.  Anyone with a half a clue aware of the details of the build and the current sustainment problems knows that its not a simple engineering job.

F-22 is not even on the timeline for integration for some critical future USMil capability developments - thats how confident the US military was about future development and integration costs even before Obama got in.

IMO This is all colour and movement.  The facts of why nobody is rushing into the room with an export model are all too apparent to the manufacturer.  If the US wants more (and I do actually believe that they should) then fine - but this talk of an export model is just tiresome tosh.  This is less an issue about political will and intent and more about technologiical embuggerances in sustaining and integrating their own force with future proposed systems into the future.  

 



 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       6/18/2009 5:22:41 PM
The $233 million price quoted for each of the additional 12 F-22s is above the many cited fly-away costs per plane I've seen that are between $120 million and $145 million. What appears to have happened is that part of the R&D and other sunk costs have been reapportioned to the new buy. What is important is that a 5th generation fighter production line is kept open until the F-35 is in series production. Trading a dozen F-22s a year until then for perhaps the cost of 30% more F-35s in the short term is a reasonable hedge especially since the cost of the F-35 is not clear and may even be more than a F-22 for comparable numbers.     
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy