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
mustang22       6/18/2009 5:32:59 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.  






 











Exactly, it was never worth it for LM to spend the money on redesigning the plane, no one would buy enough of them to make it cost effective. To maintain the sensitive equipment as our own, an export version would be a nothing more than a glorified F-15 with RAM.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       6/18/2009 5:42:53 PM
gf :
""and it permits the Defense Department to consider building a less capable version of the F-22 for sale overseas.
good grief, more of this nonsense that the loonies in APA etc are now going to  run with.
How the ferk is LM going to run an export model when there is a criticality of core components availability for the existing  fleet?""
 
This is very easy to do , it is all about modules , you get them or not .
If I was a foreign DoD , I wouldn 't buy a downgraded version of the F-22 , no way .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

LB    What is a less capable F-22   6/19/2009 10:10:50 AM
Does it get less effective engines, weapons, radar, stealth, and/or ofter avionics?  Does it cost more to take out some black boxes we will not export?  Has anyone suggested the airframe has to be redesigned?
 
One might assume an export F-22 would be less stealthy and not have quite the same electronic capability but it would still be the most stealthy fighter available in an airframe without peer competition.  Stating one would not want one without knowing the exact cost is illogical.
 
The altitude and speed advantage of the F-22 really should not be discounted.  It means it conveys much more energy to it's weapons and itself possess more energy.  An export F-22 might very well be the best option for a new air superiority fighter for Japan and others.  It's not clear the Congress will repeal the law that bans export nor is it clear how much it would cost.
 
Finally it's not clear how much growth the F-22 airframe has and how much it would cost to create a longer range version with a larger internal bay.  Keeping the line open keeps our options open.  Closing it before we are certain about the F-35 is simply beyond foolish.
 

 
Quote    Reply

neiyold    Downgraded F22   6/19/2009 11:19:17 AM
It is very interesting how some folks seem to think it is "easy" to downgrade or remove "features" from a complex, highly
integrated system like the F22.  To the best of my knowledge it was not designed to be "modular" in function blocks.  Removing any one block leaves the risk of a callback wondering WTF happened to the variable it used to call.  Of course regression resolves this, eventually, at great expense.  Which turns to a question of cost.  Which is cheaper, an F22 without the the /94, new *processors*, and other function blocks removed and the new system tested, or more F15s with newer updates and upgrades, which are already *engineered* (go figure) for other customers.  As GF states, if we have trouble supplying obsolete components to keep our own fleet up, can you believe the cost for a foreign client?  Its not that we cant solve the problem(s), its just that the cost outwheighs the effort requirements.  If, and it seems to, the F22 meets our requirements as is (including airframe fixes and x86 problems aside) then fine.  And that is why there is no great cry in the US to change this.  And with LM tied up with the JSF, who else is going to be able to make the improvements, or function block removal?  Or rather, who at a competitive price to updated Beagles, Shornets, Tiffys, etc.
 
None of this matters though, becuase selling the Raptor else where is a dead end, no matter how -slow- the -man- may be in the head.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    No Export- Really?   6/19/2009 12:18:23 PM
According to the Air Force Times, June 16, 2009, the USAF is prepared to allow an export F-22 to Japan.  Japan has stated they will pay the estimated 1 billion required to develop it.  The only outstanding issue is whether the Congress will repeal the law barring transfer or if the USAF will certify the export version does not violate the law.
 
Saying it might not happen is fine. Stating it's a "dead end" is not supported by any facts in evidence.
 
Personally I do not have access to information about what exactly has to be removed or downgraded and what integration issues that presents.  What I do see is an estimate that the cost is 1 billion and someone is prepared to pay it.  Moreover, I see the US Senate asking about an export model and 5 days later the USAF saying ok fine.
"Dead end" indeed.
 

It is very interesting how some folks seem to think it is "easy" to downgrade or remove "features" from a complex, highly

integrated system like the F22.  To the best of my knowledge it was not designed to be "modular" in function blocks.  Removing any one block leaves the risk of a callback wondering WTF happened to the variable it used to call.  Of course regression resolves this, eventually, at great expense.  Which turns to a question of cost.  Which is cheaper, an F22 without the the /94, new *processors*, and other function blocks removed and the new system tested, or more F15s with newer updates and upgrades, which are already *engineered* (go figure) for other customers.  As GF states, if we have trouble supplying obsolete components to keep our own fleet up, can you believe the cost for a foreign client?  Its not that we cant solve the problem(s), its just that the cost outwheighs the effort requirements.  If, and it seems to, the F22 meets our requirements as is (including airframe fixes and x86 problems aside) then fine.  And that is why there is no great cry in the US to change this.  And with LM tied up with the JSF, who else is going to be able to make the improvements, or function block removal?  Or rather, who at a competitive price to updated Beagles, Shornets, Tiffys, etc.


 

None of this matters though, becuase selling the Raptor else where is a dead end, no matter how -slow- the -man- may be in the head.



 
Quote    Reply

neiyold    Air Force Sale   6/19/2009 3:26:32 PM
Hmm, perhaps dead end is too strong, but only $1billion for this effort? New processor, new/modified avionics, LO "reduction" techniques.  I just dont see this being that cheap. 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3



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