Pentagon May Support Air Force Bid for More F-22 Fighters

[AnthemZ]

Pentagon May Support Air Force Bid for More F-22 Fighters

By Michael S. Rosenwald
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, December 4, 2007; D06





The Defense Department is seriously considering supporting an Air Force request to purchase additional F-22 stealth fighters from Lockheed Martin, according to people familiar with the matter.

Such a purchase, which would require congressional approval, would be a victory for the Air Force, which has for years argued that it needed significantly more F-22s than the 183 that the Defense Department has previously deemed necessary and affordable.

It would also be a financial boon for the Bethesda defense contractor, which is facing a flattening of aeronautics sales while new fighter jet programs ramp up. An F-22 sells for $130 million to $135 million.

The F-22 is a highly maneuverable fighter jet with a supercruise engine that flies undetected and is designed to dominate the air in combat situations.

Production of the F-22 is scheduled to begin shutting down next October, but Jennifer Cassidy, a spokeswoman for the Air Force, said in a statement that it has officially requested that the production line remain open. It takes more than 30 months to build an F-22, and some of the parts needed for production take several years to procure and mold into shape.

"Lockheed Martin stands ready to support our Air Force customer and their requirements in whatever way they request," Thomas Jurkowsky, a Lockheed spokesman, said in a statement.

The Defense Department referred questions to the Air Force.

Support for leaving the production line open has grown in recent weeks for a couple of reasons, according to the people familiar with the discussions, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about the matter.

For one, the Air Force recently grounded more than 400 of its oldest F-15 fighter jets, which the F-22s are designed to replace. The F-15 dates back to the Cold War and has recently shown airworthiness problems. Fuselage defects were found in an F-15 that recently crashed.

Also, the shutdown would start in October 2008, potentially prompting layoffs of workers in a number of states during the immediate weeks before the general election.

Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute who frequently speaks with senior Defense officials, said yesterday that the Air Force was making progress in a battle it has fought for some time with the Pentagon.

The Air Force has consistently maintained that it needs 381 F-22s to guarantee air supremacy in war zones. But former Defense secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld never fully bought into the F-22 program and did not agree, Thompson said.

"He always disliked the program and thought it was a Cold War plane," Thompson said. "He thought it was a plane optimized for the Soviet threat but not for the future."

The Air Force has requested that several hundred million dollars in the 2009 budget that was to be used for shutting down production be instead converted to buy a lot of 20 F-22s. Thompson said there was no guarantee that the Air Force would get the additional 198 planes that it desires. "This gets them 20 planes closer," he said.

[Shotgun Styles]

How about a Hummer that can take a shaped charge hit? That would be money well spent.

[AnthemZ]

Originally Posted by Shotgun Styles

How about a Hummer that can take a shaped charge hit? That would be money well spent.

You mean a HumVee?




What do you think of these?

[Shotgun Styles]

Originally Posted by AnthemZ

You mean a HumVee?




What do you think of these?

Well it's great if you're looking to invade Poland. A little to big and heavy for a light duty vehicle.

We have v-bottom vehicles, they just aren't practical in an urban environment (read that: rush hour traffic in downtown Baghdad).

[Haswell]

I'm pretty sure he'd prefer a Hummer.

[Prof Maxwell]

Nobody is a bigger fan than me regarding the Raptor, but these aerospace companies are simply going to charge themselves into oblivion. There is absolutely no reason that an F-22 should have a price tag like that. Companies like Lockheed attach prices like this, because they want to stash the profits now, because the age of manned US air power is rapidly coming to an end.

I'd put my money into a multi-role fighter like the F-35, at this stage of the game.

[deepsepia]

Originally Posted by Prof Maxwell

Companies like Lockheed attach prices like this, because they want to stash the profits now, because the age of manned US air power is rapidly coming to an end.

There is a thought question: Why manned air superiority fighters at all?

One can still see some role for men in ground attack and so on-- but the burden of keeping a pilot conscious plus the fact the visual doesn't matter much for an air superiority fighter begs the question-- what's he doing? Eliminate the pilot, and the aircraft can pull (and more importantly, push) far more Gs . . . and forgo the weight and other design constraints associated with keeping a pilot alive.

[Prof Maxwell]

Originally Posted by deepsepia

There is a thought question: Why manned air superiority fighters at all?

One can still see some role for men in ground attack and so on-- but the burden of keeping a pilot conscious plus the fact the visual doesn't matter much for an air superiority fighter begs the question-- what's he doing? Eliminate the pilot, and the aircraft can pull (and more importantly, push) far more Gs . . . and forgo the weight and other design constraints associated with keeping a pilot alive.

I think that within 20 years, if not sooner, a bulk of our air assets will likely be unmanned. Not only are these vehicles vastly cheaper to build, maintain, and operate, but you also take the possible loss of a pilot's life out of your mission planning, and that makes a whole lotta difference.

The diehard military pilot community, doesn't want to see themselves replaced by these machines, and I can understand that, but the fiscal reality of the situation, will dictate otherwise.

We have a large variety of UAV and UCAV vehicles currently in service, with more that haven't even been revealed to the public yet.

I expect to see a couple of manned bombers yet to see service, but I suspect the Raptor and Lightning 2, will likely be the last manned fighters mass produced by the US.

[DemonGeminiX]

I don't get it... why purchase more F-22s and keep production lines open when, according to various media sources, we're (the US alone... not counting the various other countries that use the Lightning II as well) planning to purchase over 1500 F-35s?

[marquis]

Originally Posted by Prof Maxwell

I think that within 20 years, if not sooner, a bulk of our air assets will likely be unmanned. Not only are these vehicles vastly cheaper to build, maintain, and operate, but you also take the possible loss of a pilot's life out of your mission planning, and that makes a whole lotta difference.

The diehard military pilot community, doesn't want to see themselves replaced by these machines, and I can understand that, but the fiscal reality of the situation, will dictate otherwise.

We have a large variety of UAV and UCAV vehicles currently in service, with more that haven't even been revealed to the public yet.

I expect to see a couple of manned bombers yet to see service, but I suspect the Raptor and Lightning 2, will likely be the last manned fighters mass produced by the US.

I think the answer lies between the two;use unmanned aircraft where possible but keep a number of manned ones on hand for those missions where the presence of a pilot would be an advantage.
Air superiority? Against whom?

[Nemowork]

Originally Posted by DemonGeminiX

I don't get it... why purchase more F-22s and keep production lines open when, according to various media sources, we're (the US alone... not counting the various other countries that use the Lightning II as well) planning to purchase over 1500 F-35s?

Check the number of Senators who's districts are involved in building them against the list of people supporting the project

[jessep28]

With wars becoming more fragmented, a multi-role F-35 would probably suit the future era of war better than a bunch of cold war spawned F-22's.

When people question the cost, there is always the "we don't know who is going to be our enemy in the future" card to go back on. I don't buy it, and never will.

I am not a liberal, but do believe the US needs to be smarter in terms of defense projects.

[Nemowork]

0There seems to be an idea that if you want defence you have to pay big bucks. without getting into other political areas, the defence budget isnt a bottomless pot.

The capabilities of this thing seem to be way beyond the actual need or budget!

One thing i do have to say for Rumsfeld, he was a smart guy who had some good ideas, the technological reforms he started after Vietnam to replace US bodies with technology has really paid off for the last 20 years.
Even good ideas can go too far though, as Iraq proved. Sometimes you need a lot of manpower!

[treesmoke]

The problem i have with unmanned aircraft is who is say that once we go totally or more then 80% unmanned there wont be a easy way to hack into the system and disrupt the it. I mean what type of waves are they using to control these plane that can not be hacked into. At least with a human in the cock pit you dont have to worry about that expect.

[Nemowork]

Its alright, us Brits already own Skynet and we promise not to set it loose on you