DOD wants to replace F-15s with F-35s.

[F-15 Eagle]

The U.S. Defense Department is likely to speed production of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter rather than buy more of the company's pricier F-22 fighters, the Pentagon's No. 2 official told Congress Tuesday. "I do not believe the F-22s will be replacements for the F-15," Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the Pentagon's fiscal 2009 budget request. The Boeing Co F-15 is an older-model fighter that has been subject to groundings in recent months after one broke up in flight.
"So I would expect instead we would try to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more the class of the F-15," he said. "So the Air Force would move into Joint Strike Fighter and not into the much more expensive F-22 airplane."
The F-35 is a family of warplanes for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, as well as for export. Current Pentagon plans call for production of 2,458 aircraft in three versions over a 28-year delivery period.
The Defense Department left the F-22's fate uncertain in the $515.4 billion military spending blueprint sent to Congress a week ago. The budget lacks funding to shut down the F-22 line as well as any seed money for future purchases.
But the head of a House of Representatives panel that funds the U.S. military said Tuesday he opposed shutting down the F-22 line.
"We don't want to see the F-22 line shut down," Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on defense, said in an interview after speaking at a defense technology conference sponsored by Aviation Week magazine.
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said he also opposed shutting down the Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft production line, another decision left in the lurch by President George Bush's fiscal 2009 budget plan, which Congress may now rework.
He said he would recommend the purchase of 14 C-17s with funds from the supplemental budget Bush is seeking in fiscal 2008 to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"And we're also looking at whether significant savings can be achieved if we procure additional C-130s," Murtha said, referring to Lockheed Martin four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft.

Here is a link: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1226363220080212

 

[eckherl]

The U.S. Defense Department is likely to speed production of Lockheed Martin Corp F-35 Joint Strike Fighter rather than buy more of the company's pricier F-22 fighters, the Pentagon's No. 2 official told Congress Tuesday. "I do not believe the F-22s will be replacements for the F-15," Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England said at a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the Pentagon's fiscal 2009 budget request. The Boeing Co F-15 is an older-model fighter that has been subject to groundings in recent months after one broke up in flight.
"So I would expect instead we would try to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more the class of the F-15," he said. "So the Air Force would move into Joint Strike Fighter and not into the much more expensive F-22 airplane."
The F-35 is a family of warplanes for the U.S. Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy, as well as for export. Current Pentagon plans call for production of 2,458 aircraft in three versions over a 28-year delivery period.
The Defense Department left the F-22's fate uncertain in the $515.4 billion military spending blueprint sent to Congress a week ago. The budget lacks funding to shut down the F-22 line as well as any seed money for future purchases.
But the head of a House of Representatives panel that funds the U.S. military said Tuesday he opposed shutting down the F-22 line.
"We don't want to see the F-22 line shut down," Rep. John Murtha, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on defense, said in an interview after speaking at a defense technology conference sponsored by Aviation Week magazine.
Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat, said he also opposed shutting down the Boeing C-17 cargo aircraft production line, another decision left in the lurch by President George Bush's fiscal 2009 budget plan, which Congress may now rework.
He said he would recommend the purchase of 14 C-17s with funds from the supplemental budget Bush is seeking in fiscal 2008 to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"And we're also looking at whether significant savings can be achieved if we procure additional C-130s," Murtha said, referring to Lockheed Martin four-engine turboprop military transport aircraft.

Here is a link: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssIndustryMaterialsUtilitiesNews/idUSN1226363220080212

This will all change in a year from now when a new administration will be in control of the country, the U.S Airforce is hadis bent on procuring additional F-22 aircraft and they will not settle for the answer of no.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

This will all change in a year from now when a new administration will be in control of the country, the U.S Airforce is hadis bent on procuring additional F-22 aircraft and they will not settle for the answer of no.

I agree. F-22A is the only realistic replacement for the F-15C both in terms of role and availability. I would be very supprised if more are not procured considering the F-15C debacle. Money should have been spent on new airframes rather than upgradeing 30 year old models.

 

[AGRA]

I agree. F-22A is the only realistic replacement for the F-15C both in terms of role and availability. I would be very supprised if more are not procured considering the F-15C debacle. Money should have been spent on new airframes rather than upgradeing 30 year old models.

The F-35 can carry out the ATA role far better than the F-15C. While you may need two F-35s for every F-22 (because of ATA weapons limits and speed-airspace coverage) it is still a very effective ATA system.

 

[Tasman]

I agree. F-22A is the only realistic replacement for the F-15C both in terms of role and availability. I would be very supprised if more are not procured considering the F-15C debacle. Money should have been spent on new airframes rather than upgradeing 30 year old models.

Whilst I agree that the F-22A would be the ideal replacement for the F-15C, I can't see any way that the USAF will get sufficient numbers, even if we make the assumption that one F-22A can do the job of several F-15Cs. If the F-22A remains in production the USAF will be hard pressed, IMO, to get more than a trickle, perhaps just enough to keep the line open. I hope that the airforce does get additional F-22As but realistically I think the majority will need to be replaced by F-35s, maybe optimised for A2A. Whilst not as capable as an F-22A in A2A I think that the F-35 will be superior in most aspects of this role to the F-15Cs that it replaces. Ideally I think that a mix of F-22As and F-35s would be the best of the affordable solutions.

Any moves by the USAF to speed production of the F-35 should be good news to allied countries seeking the early delivery of the F-35 as I expect it it would result in a better funded and faster development program.

Tas

The F-35 can carry out the ATA role far better than the F-15C. While you may need two F-35s for every F-22 (because of ATA weapons limits and speed-airspace coverage) it is still a very effective ATA system.

I agree with what you have said but still think that there is merit in an F-22/F-35 mix as an F-15C replacement. I envisage a large force of F-35s supplementing a smaller force of F-22s in this role.

Tas

 

[neil]

Plus upping the number of F35's being procured will drive down unit costs and will be good news for everyone.

I think another thing that will have a big impact is wether the US government will continue funding the military using supplemental budgets, or wether they will work them into the Pentagon base budget as the chairman of the joint chiefs have asked for.

The current use of supplemental budgets doesn't allow the military to do proper planning because they dont know how much money they will get.

 

[f-22fan12]

This will all change in a year from now when a new administration will be in control of the country, the U.S Airforce is hadis bent on procuring additional F-22 aircraft and they will not settle for the answer of no.

You are 100% correct. The current administration has left the line open, but ordered no new planes, leaving it up to whoever runs the country in 2009. And the Air Force will not, and should not settle for the answer of no. The USAF needs the F-22 to combat new threats. The Chinese PLAAF expands every year in huge numbers. The Russians sell them everything, or at least it seems that way.

 

[Izzy1]

This will all change in a year from now when a new administration will be in control of the country, the U.S Airforce is hadis bent on procuring additional F-22 aircraft and they will not settle for the answer of no.

I second the above.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

The F-35 can carry out the ATA role far better than the F-15C. While you may need two F-35s for every F-22 (because of ATA weapons limits and speed-airspace coverage) it is still a very effective ATA system.

Sure it is, the F35A will definatly be a more capable air superiority platform than the F15C, without a doubt. However the fact remains that the F-15A~D fleet is grounded NOW. Realistically the only way F35's can be chosen as replacements is if somehow the F35A block 3 is produced faster (pretty unlikely), and if the USAF took the spots of allied nations to get all the earlier production aircraft, which wont be pallitable to many. Even if that is indeed feasible the USAF will just have to live with a real and large capability gap for a significant number of years, untill 2013~14 before they receved decent numbers of aircraft at least.

Allthough replaceing the F-15C fleet on a one for one would be pretty much impossible no matter which platform was chosen, the F-22A production line is open now. If an additional 100 units (F-22A) were procured which would make a grand total of 281, that would mean enough for 4~5 additional combat squadrons. Now this may not be a 1 for 1 replacement (1 for 4) but it would go a hell of a long way to redeeming the capability gap and could be in place and operational by the time the USAF started receiveing F-35A's. F-35A would be cheaper thats for sure, but every additional F-22A would be cheaper than the last. Additionally I'm sure all those eagle jocks would be stoked to get the best air superiority platform on the plannet, and may not be too happy with an additional ground pounding role (they were dedicated air superiority squadrons anyway). Realistically this is the best way forward i can see for the USAF, annother 100 F-22A's ASAP (200 would be nice, which would make 381 or 10 squadrons plus plenty of extra's), F-35A is just too far away.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[F-15 Eagle]

You are 100% correct. The current administration has left the line open, but ordered no new planes, leaving it up to whoever runs the country in 2009. And the Air Force will not, and should not settle for the answer of no. The USAF needs the F-22 to combat new threats. The Chinese PLAAF expands every year in huge numbers. The Russians sell them everything, or at least it seems that way.

I agree with you on having more F-22s and I also think they should keep the full order of F-35s as well. But right now no one knows for sure if the next president will fund 200 more F-22s, right now we can only hope he/she will.

 

[f-22fan12]

The chinese threat is exaggerated. They introduce 30-40 planes a year (J-10s and Su-27s).

US annual production of F-18E/Fs runs into the 20s. F-15s are being manufactured at 10+ a year. F22s are being built @~10 a year. JSF low rate production is just starting.

Moreover, the USAF has more than 3,000+ F-16s/18s/15s in its inventories. Doesn't count Korea, Japan and Taiwanese air forces.

It won't be even close to a fair fight now or anytime soon even at double the Chinese production rates.

The key is to speed up the introduction of the JSF so that planned force replacements can begin. Planned production of the JSF will hit something like 100 a year.

At the rate outsourcing is going, maybe some wiseguy will start shifting JSF production to China?:nutkick

China's economy grows and grows, ours hits trouble and then more trouble. The bottom line is that within 40 years the Chinese economy will overtake America's. It is then only a matter of time before their military becomes more powerful and advanced then ours. The key to a strong military is a strong economy. Currently, you are right, it isn't a fair fight. But 50 years down the line, it is.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[swerve]

...

China's GDP is affected by high inflation. If inflation continues as it is, high growth rates is less meaningful because actual PPP growth is reduced due to inflation. In other words, I can earn more money but I can buy less as prices go up.
....

Fundamental mistake in how GDP growth rates are calculated. Published rates are always "real", i.e. after adjustment for inflation, unless they're called nominal GDP. The published UK GDP growth rate last year was 3.1%, inflation about 2.5%. That doesn't mean real GDP growth was 3.1% - 2.5% = 0.6%. It means nominal GDP growth was (roughly) 3.1% + 2.5% = 5.6%.

 

[Lostfleet]

Would the price of F22 drop if they place an order for the replacement of the entire F15 fleet?

however if they decide to do that, by the time they finish production of all F22s require, would it be an old design or still compatible for the needs of the future?

 

[Viktor]

I think US will at least have 380 F-22 flying around and mutch probobly even more.. production will not be terminated as US military industrial complex is to strong to allow something like that and the money no matter its price (witch now stands at 140M) is not an object (just look at US defence budget and all will be clear).

 

[Aussie Digger]

I think US will at least have 380 F-22 flying around and mutch probobly even more.. production will not be terminated as US military industrial complex is to strong to allow something like that and the money no matter its price (witch now stands at 140M) is not an object (just look at US defence budget and all will be clear).

I wouldn't be so sure about that...

The strange thing in my opinion when you look at this issue, is that the USA has 5 "new generation" tactical fighter types (F-22A, F-35A, F-35B, F-35C, F/A-18E/F) under development or in production simultaneously, plus an enormous number of upgrades for existing fighter types (F-15/F-16 upgrades, on-going F/A-18A/B/C/D and A-10 upgrades) as well as new generation unmanned combat air vehicle development...

And most other nations are trying desperately to match (or slightly exceed) the capabilities the existing "teen series" provide...

Simply astounding...

Fighter dispute hits stratosphere

template_bas​

template_bas


[COLOR=#333333 ! important]A Pentagon struggle over weapons policy escalates as a general is rebuked by the Defense secretary.[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#999999 ! important]By Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
February 15, 2008 [/COLOR]


WASHINGTON -- In an intensifying dispute over weapons priorities, Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates on Thursday privately rebuked a four-star general for suggesting the Air Force intended to buy twice as many sophisticated F-22 Raptor aircraft as the Bush administration had approved, according to Air Force officials.

One senior defense official called the remarks by Gen. Bruce Carlson, who heads the Air Force command responsible for testing and developing new weapons, "borderline insubordination," because they contradicted a decision by the president.

In its 2009 budget submitted to Congress earlier this month, the White House approved multiyear plans to buy 183 of the stealthy new fighters at an estimated $140 million apiece. Many Air Force officials, however, continue to insist they need 381 of the F-22s to deter global threats.

The rebuke by Gates on Thursday, in a telephone call to Carlson's superior, reflects a deepening debate within the Defense Department over the direction of the military in the post-Iraq era. In particular, the clash over the F-22 -- the Air Force's premier fighter plane -- has become a microcosm of the argument over what kind of wars the United States is likely to encounter in the future.

With defense spending expected to decline as U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq, some in the Pentagon have argued for shifting money to high-end weapons systems, like fighters and Navy ships, that can be used if needed against rivals with larger militaries, like China and Russia.

Gates prefers a focus on equipment and personnel needed to wage low-grade counterinsurgencies, like Iraq, arguing that such fights are more likely to occur in the near future.

"The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater," Gates told a Senate committee last week.

Carlson, however, told a group of reporters earlier in the week that the Air Force was "committed to funding 380" of the fighters, regardless of the Bush administration's decision.

According to an Air Force official briefed on the Thursday rebuke, Gates telephoned Air Force Secretary Michael W. Wynne, who was on vacation at the time, to express his displeasure with Carlson.

The senior defense official said Carlson's remarks, reported Thursday by the trade publication Aerospace Daily, angered the Pentagon's top leadership, adding that they were "completely unacceptable and out of line."

"Gen. Carlson and others in the Air Force may not like it, but 183 is the number of F-22s approved first by Defense Secretary [Donald H.] Rumsfeld, then reaffirmed by Defense Secretary Gates and provided for in budgets presented to Congress by President Bush -- Gen. Carlson's commander in chief," the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing internal debates.

Although the comments by Carlson reflect widespread thinking within the service, Gen. T. Michael Moseley, the Air Force chief of staff, has been careful in recent weeks to shy away from a direct confrontation with Gates, saying he would take the F-22 up again with the new administration.

"I'm being very, very, very careful not to get pitted against Dr. Gates, because I've said to him over and over, when we've had this conversation, 'Just don't shut the [assembly] lines down,' " Moseley said in an interview with The Times last week.

At the same time, as part of a new strategic plan released by Moseley last week, the Air Force chief listed as one of his top acquisition priorities negotiating a new multiyear procurement contract for the F-22. The existing contract with defense giant Lockheed Martin only accounts for 183 planes.

"We can defend our requirement of 381," Moseley said. "You can defend that on any number of operational analyses, but I'm trying not to go down that road."

In the 2009 budget, Gates agreed to keep the F-22 assembly line open -- but just barely. He removed $400 million in funding that would have been used to start shutting down the line and instead is expected to request four additional fighters when he submits a war funding proposal to Congress this spring.

The decision will allow the next presidential administration to decide whether to keep the F-22 program at current levels or expand the program to the numbers the Air Force is seeking.

The Air Force has faced intense pressure from within Gates' inner circle to shut down the line entirely. Gates has argued that the aircraft is only intended to fight "near peer" competitors, Pentagon code words for China and Russia, threats which Gates does not consider imminent.

Some Gates aides argued that the imminent production run of the Joint Strike Fighter -- a smaller, newer and cheaper plane -- made acquiring additional F-22s unnecessary and pushed for the line to be shut down completely in the 2009 budget.

"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, until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along, I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy," Gates said last week.

 

[F-15 Eagle]

Why is the Pentagon going for the F-35 which has not been proven yet, the Block III F-35s wont be ready until 2014-15, well the F-22 a already proven fighter is in production now! They where saying it might take until fall before they come up with a decision on how to replace the F-15s. Its very frustrating on how the DOD will not buy more F-22s with the production line running and putting their fates on a fighter that wont be ready for another 10 years that has not been proven to work.In fact the F-35 was never designed to replace the F-15 anyway and now Gordon England says the F-35 is the same class as the F-15 and the F-22 is not a good replacement for the F-15. Clearly he just maid that up with no facts whatsoever for another lame excuse to not build more F-22s for whatever reason.:lul

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Deleted

 

[swerve]

Where growth rates are "real" that means inflation rates are taken into account at pegged base year. However, my indicated growth rate was nominal.

You didn't give a growth rate, and as I've said, quoted growth rates are almost always real.

BTW, those countries which have the statistical resources don't use pegged base years nowadays, but chained indices, i.e. each years growth is given in prices of the year before, e.g. 2007 growth in 2006 prices, 2006 in 2005 prices, etc. They are quoted in prices of a fixed base year, but that is usually just a denominator.

There is no inaccuracy in my post. Even as China's output increases, this has still to be inflation adjusted to be meaningful ie real growth rates. The basic premise is correct.....

As I've already said, the published double-digit growth rates for China are real growth rates, already adjusted for inflation. They do not need to be adjusted for inflation again. They may not be accurately calculated, & there's a lot of evidence that they're overstated, but they are not nominal growth rates.

It is also only an assumption that China will catch up. Such an economic model assumes a stagnant US and a continuing growth for China. Both are unrealistic.

This is just plain wrong, & bad arithmetic. For China to overtake the USA in 40 years in total GDP at PPP needs (assuming the recent World Bank estimates are correct) for the Chinese economy to grow at less than 2% per year faster than the US economy. Assuming a stagnant USA, & Chinese growth continuing at the low end of unofficially estimated rates (i.e. slower than official rates), China will overtake the USA in about 10-12 years. And the latest World Bank estimate of PPP GDP appears more likely to be an underestimate than an overestimate.

OK, enough digression. End of topic for me.