It's B-70 time all over again....

[MKSheppard]

AF Promises 380 Raptor Buy
DEFENSE TECH
By lowe on Av Week Extra

U.S. Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of Air Force Materiel Command, told a group of reporters Wednesday that the Air Force will figure out a way to buy 380 F-22s, despite the fact that the Pentagon -- through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) -- has capped the number of Raptors to be procured at 183.

"We think that [183] is the wrong number," Carlson said. Even 380, a number he joked is a "compromise" from the 381 the Air Force originally asked for, still leaves too much room for risk. That risk could even include a future conflict with China, he said. "Most people say in the future there will be a Chinese element to whatever we do," he added.

"We're committed to funding 380," Carlson said Feb. 13 after speaking at Aviation Week's Defense Technology and Requirements conference in Washington. "We're building a program right now to do that. It's going to be incredibly difficult on the Air Force, but we've done this before." He added there are only three places from which to draw funds to accomplish the Air Force's goal: operations and maintenance, research and development and procurement. "We don't have a [money] printing machine," he said. "We have to pay for it."

----------

Fighter dispute hits stratosphere
A Pentagon struggle over weapons policy escalates as a general is rebuked by the Defense secretary.
By Peter Spiegel
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

February 15, 2008

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.

Air Force officials have argued that the single-engine Joint Strike Fighter is not as capable as the two-engine F-22, which is faster and would be used in the early stages of a war against an adversary with sophisticated air defenses.

But Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England told a congressional hearing Wednesday that the performance of the two planes was "extraordinarily close" and that he had recommended ending the line completely. Officials familiar with England's stance said he argued internally for the F-22 line to be shut down, only to be overruled by Gates.

"My strong feeling is that we have enough F-22s," England testified. "We're designed for a specific mission, we have enough [F-22s] to do that mission and we need to go on with the Joint Strike Fighter program."

Under the Air Force's reasoning, each of its 10 expeditionary forces -- the Air Force equivalent of a Navy carrier battle group or an Army brigade combat team -- needs to be equipped with a squadron of F-22s so that any battlefield commander around the world would have them ready to face any unexpected foe.

Brig. Gen. Darren W. McDew, the head of Air Force public affairs, insisted that the Air Force continued to support the Bush administration's budget and characterized the debate over the number of F-22s as a routine disagreement over weapons systems.

"I think Gen. Carlson was really saying some of the same things, but maybe with a little bit more passion," McDew said. "We're looking forward in the future to a continued debate about where the numbers are going to be as we figure what post-Iraq is going to look like."

Opponents of the F-22 charged that Air Force officials used the November grounding of the service's fleet of F-15 fighters -- the aircraft the F-22 is designed to replace -- to ramp up support for the newer plane. The F-15s were grounded after one of the fighters disintegrated in mid-flight. Although most of the 670 F-15s in the Air Force inventory have returned to service, about 160 older models have remained mothballed.

Air Force officials have denied overplaying the F-15's flaws, but advocates in Congress have pushed Gates to reconsider increasing the number of F-22s to account for the unexpected loss of F-15s.

The F-22 is primarily built by Lockheed in its aircraft plants in Ft. Worth and Marietta, Ga.

A portion of the aircraft's electronic systems are built in Lockheed's Palmdale facility, and Lockheed said nearly a third of the fighter's approximately 1,000 suppliers are in California, providing about 5,600 jobs.

[Sidewinder]

Well, if the US government decides to put an end to overseas deployments like Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, not to mention telling the UN to fuck off when it wants the US to participate in peacekeeping operations like what happened in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, the USAF MIGHT get by with only 183 Raptors. Now if only George W. Bush, his replacement, and Congress will realize that the US military will NOT be able to perform operations like that anymore.

By the way, one of Aviation Week's commentators proposed putting the F-15 back in production. Do you think that'll help, or is it more cost-effective to just buy more Raptors?

[Sea Skimmer]

By the way, one of Aviation Week's commentators proposed putting the F-15 back in production. Do you think that'll help, or is it more cost-effective to just buy more Raptors?

The F-15 is still in production actually and will be for just a bit longer to fulfill orders from South Korea and Singapore. However the thing costs nearly 100 million dollars and is simply obsolete technology in most respects, besides being anti stealth owing to all the huge vertical surfaces on it. You can get an F-22 for 140 million meanwhile, and F-22s have beat F-15s 2 vs. 14 in exercises. Its pretty easy to tell which is the better deal.

If we had a lot more total funding you might be able to justify buying more F-15Es as self escorting strike aircraft, but not as air superiority fighters.

[Alan Bolte]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Air Force is saying we need enough superiority fighters to take on Russia and/or China in a stand-up fight, while the administration is saying we only need enough to defend the mainland should someone send fighters at us, for all other purposes we want self-escorting bomb trucks like the JSF. Disregarding why they might take those positions, is that roughly what the debate is about?

[dragon]

What about the F35 I keep hearing mentioned once in awhile. Isn't the chairforce going to want a few hundred of them as well. Second question whats all diferent between the F22 and F35.

[MKSheppard]

Second question whats all diferent between the F22 and F35.

F-35 is a piece of shit. It flies lower and slower (supercruise as a requirement was deleted); and carries much less weapons. Plus, we're gonna sell them to everyone.

[Hawkwings]

F-22 is basically better than F-35 in every way except bombload. Faster, stealthier, better air to air combatant, etc.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Of course, the F-35 wasn't meant to be the F-22, so the point is moot. If you want something that offers more bang for your buck, then go Raptor. If you want to play second fiddle, go with the JSF which is Raptor Lite.

[VT-16]

Isn't the JSF meant to be a replacement to ground support fighters like the Harrier?

[Admiral Valdemar]

Yes, yes it is.

[Sidewinder]

By the way, one of Aviation Week's commentators proposed putting the F-15 back in production. Do you think that'll help, or is it more cost-effective to just buy more Raptors?

The F-15 is still in production actually and will be for just a bit longer to fulfill orders from South Korea and Singapore. However the thing costs nearly 100 million dollars and is simply obsolete technology in most respects, besides being anti stealth owing to all the huge vertical surfaces on it.

The guy was referring to the C/D models, not the Strike Eagle.

[Sea Skimmer]

The guy was referring to the C/D models, not the Strike Eagle.

So what? Even if we wanted a single seat plane it would only make sense to use the Strike Eagle airframe, which has twice the expected lifespan of a C model and the ability to carry enormously more weapons. The extra weight reduces dog fighting performance, but the F-15 is no longer a top notch dogfighter anyway.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Well, if the US government decides to put an end to overseas deployments like Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, not to mention telling the UN to fuck off when it wants the US to participate in peacekeeping operations like what happened in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia, the USAF MIGHT get by with only 183 Raptors. Now if only George W. Bush, his replacement, and Congress will realize that the US military will NOT be able to perform operations like that anymore.

And if we were to do this we'd be more capable of building the proposed number of Raptors. I find that somewhat amusing.


Anyway, the JSF's only real semblance to the Raptor is that it shares a very similar appearance. Otherwise, it's something that's somewhere between F-15 and F-22 in overall performance. The different designations have different abilities, based on what they'll do. There's one that has VTOL, for carrier type missions, one based more on the ability to deliver payloads, and then a general support one, I believe. It won't be able to compete with the Raptor, nor is it intended to. Lockheed Martin was smart about the program, by using a proved body and making the adjustments needed, rather than doing a ground up, IMO.

The F-35 is basically the thing that has nothing the USAF minds other countries having. The F-22, on the other hand, is intended to be a way of saying "Don't fuck with us, we've got something that grinds the F-15 into paste." Please keep in mind that the F-15 has a bloody fantastic track record. "As of 2008, the F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat." Wikipedia sources that, too: John Correll, "The Reformers", AIR FORCE Magazine (February 2008), Vol. 91 Number 2, p.44


Anyway, I'm all in favor of more F-22s. Even with as badass as they are, it's always good to be able to have enough that any sort of loses suffered won't have a huge impact. It also makes it so we won't have to shrink active wings when repairs or general maintenance is done.

[Sea Skimmer]

Anyway, the JSF's only real semblance to the Raptor is that it shares a very similar appearance. Otherwise, it's something that's somewhere between F-15 and F-22 in overall performance.

Nope, it’s an F-16 with a shitload more internal fuel. You really cannot compare twin engine planes to single engine planes anyway.

The different designations have different abilities, based on what they'll do. There's one that has VTOL, for carrier type missions, one based more on the ability to deliver payloads, and then a general support one, I believe. It won't be able to compete with the Raptor, nor is it intended to. Lockheed Martin was smart about the program, by using a proved body and making the adjustments needed, rather than doing a ground up, IMO.

A proven body? What? Every last thing about the F-35 is new, nothing is proven about it and all three variants are being developed concurrently, not successively. The decision to force three very different roles onto one airframe was a Clinton era political decision to ‘save money’, not any choice by Lockheed. This incredibly stupid decision, ignoring all history of STVOL development, has caused years of delays and billions of dollars in cost overruns. Ultimately even this wasn’t enough, they’ve only sort of made the STVOL F-35B work via simply reducing the specifications it has to meet and using shitloads of titanium.

"As of 2008, the F-15 in all air forces has an air-to-air combined kill record of 104 kills to 0 losses in air combat."

It’s also never once faced enemy planes in combat of remotely comparable quality and with decent pilots, and has always had numerous force multiplying advantages like extensive AEW support. Most of its kills are MiG-21s and MiG-23s, and the best thing it’s blown out of the sky is a MiG-29A. I’m not saying the F-15 isn’t a very good fighter, but it’s very dated now and is inferior to fighters flown by several other nations. A true test is yet to come.

[Decue]

The F-15 is still in production actually and will be for just a bit longer to fulfill orders from South Korea and Singapore. However the thing costs nearly 100 million dollars and is simply obsolete technology in most respects, besides being anti stealth owing to all the huge vertical surfaces on it. You can get an F-22 for 140 million meanwhile, and F-22s have beat F-15s 2 vs. 14 in exercises. Its pretty easy to tell which is the better deal.

If we had a lot more total funding you might be able to justify buying more F-15Es as self escorting strike aircraft, but not as air superiority fighters.

According to the US. Air Force homepage the F-22 will cost $338 per aircraft. That figure includes both the research and development and the on actually procuring the aircraft. Still, all the things like pilot training, ground personal with their toys and trinkets is not in that pricetag. $140 million sounds like something you tell the congress that it costs

[darthbob88]

The F-15 is still in production actually and will be for just a bit longer to fulfill orders from South Korea and Singapore. However the thing costs nearly 100 million dollars and is simply obsolete technology in most respects, besides being anti stealth owing to all the huge vertical surfaces on it. You can get an F-22 for 140 million meanwhile, and F-22s have beat F-15s 2 vs. 14 in exercises. Its pretty easy to tell which is the better deal.

If we had a lot more total funding you might be able to justify buying more F-15Es as self escorting strike aircraft, but not as air superiority fighters.

According to the US. Air Force homepage the F-22 will cost $338 per aircraft. That figure includes both the research and development and the on actually procuring the aircraft. Still, all the things like pilot training, ground personal with their toys and trinkets is not in that pricetag. $140 million sounds like something you tell the congress that it costs

I think you mistyped there, probably dropped off a "million" or something. At $338 per aircraft, I could probably buy one myself. Not that there's anything wrong with that possibility; it would mean I could go to school from home, with a commute less than an hour.

[Beowulf]

According to the US. Air Force homepage the F-22 will cost $338 per aircraft. That figure includes both the research and development and the on actually procuring the aircraft. Still, all the things like pilot training, ground personal with their toys and trinkets is not in that pricetag. $140 million sounds like something you tell the congress that it costs

Sunk costs should not be used in determining unit costs. Why? Because you've already paid out for it. Whether you buy 1 or a million, the sunk cost won't change.

[Medic]

Let me see if I understand this correctly. The Air Force is saying we need enough superiority fighters to take on Russia and/or China in a stand-up fight, while the administration is saying we only need enough to defend the mainland should someone send fighters at us, for all other purposes we want self-escorting bomb trucks like the JSF. Disregarding why they might take those positions, is that roughly what the debate is about?

In spite of what this General's said, the 381 number is a number reached by being able to field a full squadron of Raptor's to a certain number of regions we already have commitments in, I forget the wordage used precisely but it is not an arbitrary number, 183 is the arbitrary number cause it practically assumes we'll never lose the damned things. 381 allows in any wartime situation to rotate them in a steady basis, still have a set number set off to the side for training and anticipates at least some war- and peacetime attrition.

In a wartime situation you're looking at ~60 Raptor's being able to be fielded and reasonably rotated or you could "surge" something over that number, but like this current "surge" by the Army, it would NOT be indefinite because the force structure for that simply doesn't exist, not if you intend to give people some rest. You want a silver bullet? Build 183.

[defanatic]

The F-15 is still in production actually and will be for just a bit longer to fulfill orders from South Korea and Singapore. However the thing costs nearly 100 million dollars and is simply obsolete technology in most respects, besides being anti stealth owing to all the huge vertical surfaces on it. You can get an F-22 for 140 million meanwhile, and F-22s have beat F-15s 2 vs. 14 in exercises. Its pretty easy to tell which is the better deal.

If we had a lot more total funding you might be able to justify buying more F-15Es as self escorting strike aircraft, but not as air superiority fighters.

According to the US. Air Force homepage the F-22 will cost $338 per aircraft. That figure includes both the research and development and the on actually procuring the aircraft. Still, all the things like pilot training, ground personal with their toys and trinkets is not in that pricetag. $140 million sounds like something you tell the congress that it costs

I think you mistyped there, probably dropped off a "million" or something. At $338 per aircraft, I could probably buy one myself. Not that there's anything wrong with that possibility; it would mean I could go to school from home, with a commute less than an hour.

Not only that, but you could shoot down enemy fighters while doing so! And with low RADAR visibility. F-22 at $338, it's not just the best choice, it's the right choice.

[Medic]

Oh yeah, and the Deputy SecDef's suppressed independent studies saying we should build above and beyond the DoD's 183 figure. I don't know what precisely they DO say unfortunately cause, well, they're suppressed. It could only be 240 but word has it they're unanimous in agreeing ~180 is too low.

[Medic]

According to the US. Air Force homepage the F-22 will cost $338 per aircraft. That figure includes both the research and development and the on actually procuring the aircraft. Still, all the things like pilot training, ground personal with their toys and trinkets is not in that pricetag. $140 million sounds like something you tell the congress that it costs.

You know what? You're right, we should do the same for the F-15E, only to be fair, we'd have to include the sunk costs in the original F-15 R&D, the tooling and manufacturing costs of the A/B/C/D and finally the E (cause really, you'd never get to E without the preceding evolutionary steps) and then come up with THE TRUE FIGURE that taxpayers wasted on the F-15 series! :roll

[Sea Skimmer]

In spite of what this General's said, the 381 number is a number reached by being able to field a full squadron of Raptor's to a certain number of regions we already have commitments in

It’s the number required to support 1 full squadron in each of the 10 air expeditionary wings the USAF currently has, with proper margins for training and attrition reserves.

[Netko]

In spite of what this General's said, the 381 number is a number reached by being able to field a full squadron of Raptor's to a certain number of regions we already have commitments in

It’s the number required to support 1 full squadron in each of the 10 air expeditionary wings the USAF currently has, with proper margins for training and attrition reserves.

Sure, that is a very rational basis for coming up with the required number. But is it really necessary? If you do go up against a country with near-parity (or within shouting distance, at least) no matter what, there isn't going be just one squadron going up against them. And in the case of surging, the US can outnumber almost everyone with Raptors while the other side is flying shit planes, and with the estimated kill rates taken into account, can probably outnumber everyone at this time. And do you really need a full squadron for pissant countries like Iraq where almost any plane in the US arsenal is good enough, especially for self-defence, do to the vastly superior command and control, awareness, and in almost all cases ability. Hell, in Iraq a lot of those "self-escorting" planes were better then most Iraqi interceptors.

I'm not saying that the current numbers are right or not, but the rationale for increasing them doesn't really convince me. Sure, everyone would like to have nice, clean, planned for ToEs - but is that realistic in this case?

[Sea Skimmer]

You must remember that the F-22 isn’t just being bought for what we need today, its going to have to last the next 30 years, probably even longer then that. 183 of them might be fine for any possible threat today, but in two decades when everyone else in the world has introduced a whole new generation of fighters and surface to air missiles on top of all the new systems being fielded today? Who knows? It’s not a risk worth taking, and once the production line is closed it’s almost certain to never come back; even if it did it would only be at absurdly higher cost.

All the major aircraft the US uses today were all heavily criticized when we developed them back in the 1970s as being too expensive, too capable and generally unnecessary, but look what it got us, the ability to basically not field anything new for decades and still have an effective force. Also don’t discount the simple issue of attrition, Planes are going to crash in training, one F-22 has already been lost that way, and the airframes are going to age and soak up flying hours. More planes will let the fleet remain a viable force for much longer. Dozens upon dozens of F-15s and F-16s have crashed, while only a handful have been lost in combat.

The only thing more expensive then maintaining air superiority is not having it. You can see the effect of this simply by comparing the vast range of SAM and AAA systems fielded by the Russians in comparison to US Army air defenses.

[Commander 598]

The only thing more expensive then maintaining air superiority is not having it. You can see the effect of this simply by comparing the vast range of SAM and AAA systems fielded by the Russians in comparison to US Army air defenses.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that's WAY cheaper...

I believe the primary reasoning as to WHY we're not getting the full bunch is because:

A. We don't even remotely NEED them.

B. They cost several orders of magnitude more than the closest comparable foreign fighter which means that if someone can monetarily afford to go to actual war with the US, they can probably afford to outnumber 380 Raptors in an absurd fashion.

C. Harriers are ancient and really kind of need a replacement.

and...

D. The chances of us actually needing massively superior to everything air superiority fighter anytime soon are astronomically low, possibly even over the next 30 years baring someone discovering a way to make aerospace fighters or a freakishly powerful nation ala Ace Combat appears out of literally nowhere.


This is all just the AF acting like a spoiled kid whose parents just told them they can't have a toy.