Another dozen F-22 Raptors

L

luca28

New Member
It's not over until it's over

House Committee votes to include $369 million for the advance procurement of 12 F-22A’s

defpro.com | Surprise, surprise! The House Armed Services Committee yesterday morning voted to include $369 million in extra funding to the Pentagon's 2010 budget for the advance procurement of 12 F-22A fighter jets. With an extremely close vote of 31 to 30, the House committee chose to increase the Raptor inventory and, thus, to ensure continued production of the stealth fleet beyond 187 aircraft. The $369 million is just the financial base for the procurement of items and materials needed for one dozen aircraft, which is now expected to be authorized in Fiscal 2011.

This move was somewhat unexpected, since Defense Secretary Robert Gates proposed phasing out production of the US Air Force's most expensive fighter, the Lockheed Martin-built F-22 Raptor, by fiscal year 2011. Gates believes the Air Force only needs 187 F-22 fighters. “We will end production of the F-22 fighter at 187 – representing 183 planes plus four recommended for inclusion in the FY 2009 supplemental,” he said in early April, and observers thought the Raptor was dead. Gates proposed, in the 2010 Defense Department budget, to boost the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) instead.

The committee proposal, which now will have to wind its way through the House and Senate, is sure to come under scrutiny from the White House. Both Gates and President Obama do not want funding for a new fighter in the 2010 budget. The additional hundreds of millions of dollars will go against plans to rebalance the US military's spending.

One lawmaker told The Wall Street Journal that 187 jets is "frighteningly low". Some lawmakers wanted to commit to purchasing 12 more F-22 jets, but others in the group thought that option would be too expensive. The new funding is, in effect, a down payment on 12 additional jets to be bought in fiscal year 2011.

The 199 fighters still dips well below the 381 F-22s that the Air Force has always claimed it needs, and far short, even, of the 243 fighters set as the new military requirement by the USAF Chief of Staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz.

In a statement, Lockheed said it "remains confident that the Congressional review process will lead to a healthy and full examination of budgetary and economic impacts, strategy, force structure and threats."

It added that, as the Pentagon's largest contractor, Lockheed "will continue to support our customers and work to deliver affordable solutions that meet their strategic and operational needs."
Click to expand...
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
 
S

Sea Toby

New Member
luca28 said:
Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
Click to expand...
This is a committee vote, by no means is this a vote on the floor of the House, much less the Senate, or of any joint bill. Don't expect this to go much further.....

This happened last year as well, and no new aircraft were ordered. In fact last year some would have been bought if the new administration had decided to buy. Since the new administration didn't want anymore, the program was assumed dead...

Since the House and Senate never ever agree, the bill which will either buy or kill the program will be the joint bill come near the end of the year, most likely in December.....

With baseball terms, a bunt has been laid down. We still don't know whether the hitter is safe at first base yet.... By no means has the hitter hit a home run or cross home plate.....

He will have reached first base if the full house votes for the Raptors. He will have reached second base if the full senate votes for the Raptors. He will reach third base if this is included in the house-senate conference bill. He will reach home plate when that bill passes both houses again......
 
Last edited:
S

swerve

Super Moderator
Sea Toby said:
...
With baseball terms, a bunt has been laid down. We still don't know whether the hitter is safe at first base yet.... By no means has the hitter hit a home run or cross home plate......
Click to expand...
A bit US-centric for an international forum.
 
StevoJH

StevoJH

The Bunker Group
luca28 said:
However, good to understand.
Click to expand...
Only if you know baseball terminology, which people like myself, don't.

Soccer/Football, Rugby (both union and league) and Cricket all the way.

So basically a subcommittee of the US congress has said they want them to be built, but for them to override gates they need votes of the full houses of both congress and the senate?
 
F

F35Owns

New Member
StevoJH said:
Only if you know baseball terminology, which people like myself, don't.

Soccer/Football, Rugby (both union and league) and Cricket all the way.

So basically a subcommittee of the US congress has said they want them to be built, but for them to override gates they need votes of the full houses of both congress and the senate?
Click to expand...
Great Q. Long story, short...yes, hey are going to build them. The defense sub committee basically, paid "up front" for the building of 12 more fighter. Now, they didn't pay for all of it, just enough to pay for the parts to the F-22.

Yeah, they do have the power to go behind Mr. Gates and do this. Their thinking is, if we pay for the parts, they will have no option but to build the planes when they finish building the remain fighters. They are up to 141 of the 187. So, you won't see the 12 into service until 2013. It gives the congress enough time to decide if they will build more after that.....

Nice strategy if you ask me.
 
D

Davyd

New Member
I don't understand how quickly politicos can get short sighted once they get to the Hill. I mean, how can these people who so easily wave their pens and send thousands troops and materiel to various sites across the globe not do the same for those forces spread so thin? How can they see the various other countries' building up their respective forces with more and more modern equipment and fail to do so for their own? They sit and complain about the forces and the age of the equipment but won't do a thing about it. I'm not saying there should've been or should be another arms race, but if the suits and top brass would've kept up long ago there wouldn't be such trouble now. That and if they would stop this nonsense of "policing" the globe. Less than 200 F-22s? Geez, a good two front skirmish could dwindle that number rapidly. It's not like they're invincible or something.
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Davyd said:
I don't understand how quickly politicos can get short sighted once they get to the Hill. I mean, how can these people who so easily wave their pens and send thousands troops and materiel to various sites across the globe not do the same for those forces spread so thin? How can they see the various other countries' building up their respective forces with more and more modern equipment and fail to do so for their own? They sit and complain about the forces and the age of the equipment but won't do a thing about it. I'm not saying there should've been or should be another arms race, but if the suits and top brass would've kept up long ago there wouldn't be such trouble now. That and if they would stop this nonsense of "policing" the globe. Less than 200 F-22s? Geez, a good two front skirmish could dwindle that number rapidly. It's not like they're invincible or something.
Click to expand...
It's ironic that you advocate modernizing USAF equipment when F-22 production was shut down in order to put more funds into the F-35 program, an aircraft that is much, much more modern (and thus in many ways more capable) than the F-22. Not trying to have a dig at you, just saying.
 
D

Davyd

New Member
I'm not advocating modernization through procurement of more F-22s. I'm advocating air superiority through the procurement of more F-22s. Or has the Air Force or Pentagon likes to now term it to make themselves sleep better at nights while getting less and less fighters, "air dominance". As far as the 'F-35' goes, my feelings on single engine fighters (ducted fans not included) is well documented; that and the fact that the program (if at this point it actually makes it to FSD and front line service) is lagging so far behind who's to say how advanced the plane will be by the time it's fielded? While it's great to actually get a NEW fighter, it remains to be seen how it will fare with its' peers.

But i guess it's not to worry about age of the fighter side of the house. After all, they only average 19 years approx. It's the strategic side that needs youth more pressingly.
 
B

Bonza

Super Moderator
Staff member
Davyd said:
I'm not advocating modernization through procurement of more F-22s. I'm advocating air superiority through the procurement of more F-22s. Or has the Air Force or Pentagon likes to now term it to make themselves sleep better at nights while getting less and less fighters, "air dominance". As far as the 'F-35' goes, my feelings on single engine fighters (ducted fans not included) is well documented; that and the fact that the program (if at this point it actually makes it to FSD and front line service) is lagging so far behind who's to say how advanced the plane will be by the time it's fielded? While it's great to actually get a NEW fighter, it remains to be seen how it will fare with its' peers.

But i guess it's not to worry about age of the fighter side of the house. After all, they only average 19 years approx. It's the strategic side that needs youth more pressingly.
Click to expand...
What exactly are your feelings on single engine fighters?

I just don't see the purchase of another dozen Raptors as having much impact on your nation's ability to achieve air superiority. Something it can already do, and do better than any other nation on earth.
 
D

Davyd

New Member
What exactly are your feelings on single engine fighters?
Click to expand...
I'm just like so many of those that feel the NEED for combat aircraft (and most other aircraft for that matter) to have dual engines. When one fails, then what? Glide? In today and the future, we build more and more designs that are inherently unstable or heavy and i'd just prefer to not go the route of one power source. It goes back to some old joke i had heard about a snotty Phantom pilot escorting a BUFF: the Phantom pilot was buzzin' the BUFF rolling and looping about, generally showing his ass. So the Phantom pilot gauded the BUFF pilot into doing something and they did - fly with two engines out.
And as far as the rest of that goes; firstly i agree, i don't see what the purchase of a dozen more F-22s will do. Which is why i want more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of the close to 400 they originally wanted (actually, replacing F-15s one for one would be ideal, but we all know THAT will never happen - probably keep F-15s around until they are 60 years old too). And sure, we can achieve air superiority. Against a force a tier or two below ours. What if it was an equal? Someone that could outnumber us in the air, with advanced SAMs. Or since we are so into helping every other nation or policing the globe, how would we plan on doing this on two or three fronts? With training and attrition still bound to go on? As i said before - the politicians really need a hard slap to let them realize this thing is NOT indestructible and NOT even invisible like they believe it is (they must, since they think we can get by with so little of them). I'll bet it's good and close, but no craft has those sure fire capabilities.
But also, how do we know we can achieve superiority with this thing? We haven't even seen it used in anger yet, and have only a handful of exercises to compare it on.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
Davyd said:
I'm just like so many of those that feel the NEED for combat aircraft (and most other aircraft for that matter) to have dual engines. When one fails, then what? Glide? In today and the future, we build more and more designs that are inherently unstable or heavy and i'd just prefer to not go the route of one power source. It goes back to some old joke i had heard about a snotty Phantom pilot escorting a BUFF: the Phantom pilot was buzzin' the BUFF rolling and looping about, generally showing his ass. So the Phantom pilot gauded the BUFF pilot into doing something and they did - fly with two engines out.
And as far as the rest of that goes; firstly i agree, i don't see what the purchase of a dozen more F-22s will do. Which is why i want more. Somewhere in the neighborhood of the close to 400 they originally wanted (actually, replacing F-15s one for one would be ideal, but we all know THAT will never happen - probably keep F-15s around until they are 60 years old too). And sure, we can achieve air superiority. Against a force a tier or two below ours. What if it was an equal? Someone that could outnumber us in the air, with advanced SAMs. Or since we are so into helping every other nation or policing the globe, how would we plan on doing this on two or three fronts? With training and attrition still bound to go on? As i said before - the politicians really need a hard slap to let them realize this thing is NOT indestructible and NOT even invisible like they believe it is (they must, since they think we can get by with so little of them). I'll bet it's good and close, but no craft has those sure fire capabilities.
But also, how do we know we can achieve superiority with this thing? We haven't even seen it used in anger yet, and have only a handful of exercises to compare it on.
Click to expand...
There is no Air force on Earth, extant or projected that is as capable as the USAF.

There are VERY few forces as capable as the USN and USMC. US airpower is a dominant force within world military capabilities, today.

The USAF has what it needs from F-22 in 7x operational Squadrons. More is just a case of "toys for the boys". What USAF needs are genuine replacements for it's large F-16/F-16 fleets and F-22 will never fill that role on a cost basis alone.

Acquisition cost would come down if hundreds more were bought, but it is support costs which kill the F-22 and is the EXACT reason why F-35 is specifically being designed with cost reduction as a primary concern.

As for the "2 engine" requirement, USAF F-16's have the best safety record of any current USAF aircraft...
 
C

Crusader2000

Banned Member
Scorpion82 said:
Congress approved the acquisition of another 12 F-22s for the USAF using funds from the Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapons sites. It was a 31:30 voices decision and 369 mln $ has been approved for advanced procurment of long lead items. The contract will supposley be valued at 2.8 bln $.

F-22 Funds Approved in Wee-Hours Vote - Defense News
Click to expand...

Yet, President Obama has threaten to "Veto" any bill that includes more "F-22's"............Plus,Senators Carl Levin (D) and John McCain (R) both leaders of the Senate Defense Committee are against the plan...........along with Defense Secretary Gates.


In short I wouldn't could my chickens yet.:duel
 
D

Davyd

New Member
Aussie Digger said:
There is no Air force on Earth, extant or projected that is as capable as the USAF.

There are VERY few forces as capable as the USN and USMC. US airpower is a dominant force within world military capabilities, today.
Click to expand...
Well, i'm sorry then. Didn't mean to set anyone off on it. After hearing, seeing, reading and analysing multiple takes on the state of the USAF versus a few other major notable forces this just isn't the way i see it. And it really feels like others don't see it this way either. I more or less look at it like this: 20 years ago the USs' major front line ASF was the F-15. And at the time it was considered the global yardstick by which to measure other ASFs. Then they had about 500 of them, and no major conflicts anywhere to send them. That was 20 years ago. Now, they are that much older. There are only about 300 of them (we're not counting the E model here). And other forces have had the time to catch up technologically while they're still using those same F-15s. Now, i grant that they've had their various upgrades. But the design is still approaching 40 years on. And my main question relating to that (and why i feel the need for more F-22s) is: If there were no projected conflicts when the US felt the need to build 700 of them back in the 70s, why is that now that the US is actually engaged in conflicts the need is only for a fraction of that number of its replacement? On top of all that, other countries forces have caught up (and in the F-15s sake, most feel past).
As for the "2 engine" requirement, USAF F-16's have the best safety record of any current USAF aircraft
Click to expand...
Firstly, i thought that title belonged to the KC-10. Secondly, i wouldn't believe it anyway - i have seen so many comics, heard so many degrading comments on it (why is one of its nicknames The Lawn Dart?) to make me think otherwise. And off all of that, i would still consider the number skewed for the simple fact that there are up to 1100 in the inventory. A few losses to that number would make that ratio look better than most others anyway (1 crash per 1100 F-16s = 1:1100, 1 crash per 60 F-117s = 1:60).
 
F

fretburner

Banned Member
The same Senators who approved 7 Raptors are also pitching for an export variant, for possibly Japan and other allies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top