Adios F/A-22?

[Jolly Rogers]

McCain on the possibility of funds for the jet fighter program being used elsewhere.

Edit in: for those who may be unable to access the link:

 

 

U.S. Fighter Jet Could Die to Help Fund War

By Jim Wolf

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Pentagon may have to scrap its premier fighter jet program to help pay for the war in Iraq, Sen. John McCain, an influential member of the Armed Services Committee, said on Sunday.

"It's obvious that we're paying a heavy price, I think, for not having had enough troops there from the beginning," the Arizona Republican said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

McCain said both the U.S. Army and the Marine Corps must be expanded overall, a position at odds with President Bush's administration. The United States has about 135,000 troops in Iraq, a number that McCain said must rise.

As part of a broad overhaul of U.S. priorities, he said, the Pentagon may have to scrap the $71 billion Air Force program to buy F/A-22 air-to-air fighters built by Lockheed Martin Corp. .

"We may have to cancel this airplane that's going to cost between $250 million and $300 million a copy," said McCain, floating what could become a major new legislative hurdle to a top Air Force priority.

McCain led a drive that stalled what has become a $23.5 billion plan to lease up to 20 and buy up to 80 modified Boeing Co. 767s as mid-air refueling tankers. The plan is on hold pending reviews due next month at the Pentagon.

"We've got to change the way we do business and put the priority where it belongs," McCain said. "And that is making sure that we succeed in Iraq."

Republican Sen. Pat Roberts of Kansas, chairman of the Intelligence committee, said the United States needed more specially trained forces in Iraq.

"People that are in there have to know what the heck we're doing," Roberts said on the CBS program Face the Nation. "If we do have those troops, yes, let's send them."

The Air Force hopes to buy at least 277 F/A-22 fighters, which it describes as key to dominating the skies in future combat. It is about to enter operational testing en route to replacing the F-15C.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has resisted calls for any lasting increase in the U.S. occupation force in Iraq and argued against permanently boosting the size of U.S. armed forces unless sought by military commanders themselves.

Last week, Rumsfeld said the Pentagon may postpone the departure of some troops supposed to be heading home now. The Pentagon originally had planned to decrease the numbers to about 115,000 in coming months.

Edited April 12, 2004 by Jolly Rogers

[Anubis]

There's lots of other crap the govt can cut without scrapping the F-22, and still do eveyrthing else they need to do.

Once again they are looking at the WRONG thing to cut to cover their pork bloated budget. That's all I'm going to add to that one without making this a political topic.

Needless to say this pisses me off.

They want to scrap one, scrap the JSF program for now, and save that money. F-22's and F-16's combined are perfect.

Edited April 12, 2004 by Anubis

[mechaninac]

There are very few Constitutionally mandated Governmental priorities; among these, National Defense is paramount, and that is where I prefer to have my tax dollars spent. It figures that in this age of the nanny state, a program that would guarantee US supremacy in aeronautics and provide for America's ability to project power, is being considered to get the axe.

Edited April 12, 2004 by mechaninac

[Isamu Atreides 86]

i have a lot of respect for John McCain, but i think its a bad move....

[JsARCLIGHT]

Is it a bad move cancelling this fighter? Maybee...

Is it a bad move cancelling this fighter for this reason at this time? Definately.

Someone really needs to take the keys and credit cards away from these people before they spend and cancel us into another era of weakness ala the 70's of post-vietnam.

... now where is Agent One with his Ronnie Raygun to give us all hope again?

[the white drew carey]

The problem is that there is not enough money enough our coffers to fund the war in Iraq. Now, IIRC, was that money allowed for in the proposed budget.

Sadly, that money has to come from somewhere, and what better target than an overbloated, un-required program?

I think the F/22 is cool and all, but the simple fact of the matter is that there is no viable reason for this plane to exist. It's mission can be, and is already, carried out by our existing forces as it is.

Although one they should scrap first is the B-2 Spirit. What a waste of money...

[the white drew carey]

Someone really needs to take the keys and credit cards away from these people before they spend and cancel us into another era of weakness ala the 70's of post-vietnam.

Yeah:

Cost of War in Iraq (based on estimates from the Congressional Budget Office)

[KingNor]

There's lots of other crap the govt can cut without scrapping the F-22, and still do eveyrthing else they need to do.

Once again they are looking at the WRONG thing to cut to cover their pork bloated budget. That's all I'm going to add to that one without making this a political topic.

Needless to say this pisses me off.

They want to scrap one, scrap the JSF program for now, and save that money. F-22's and F-16's combined are perfect.

in all fairness, its not like any other country in the world can touch us militarily. maybe a super expencive new plane isn't warrented.

though i do like the F-22.

dont' forget that F-15s have a spotless flight record, i mean spotless, none have ever been shot down. when you've got planes that don't even have competition, why spend so much to replace them? i'm just glad they're still doing research so that we have the technology if we need it.

[J A Dare]

I'd put the F/A-22 and JSF program on hold for like 10 years (until we actually need them) and use the money for more important and pressing needs (Iraq, global terrorism, homeland sec).

[the white drew carey]

I'd put the F/A-22 and JSF program on hold for like 10 years (until we actually need them) and use the money for more important and pressing needs (Iraq, global terrorism, homeland sec).

Ditto.

KingNor's got a point, as well. We already possess near-complete air superiority in every theatre imaginable. Why increase that superiority even more when the need is not warranted at this time?

[Nightbat]

I'd put the F/A-22 and JSF program on hold for like 10 years (until we actually need them) and use the money for more important and pressing needs (Iraq, global terrorism, homeland sec).

Don't forget that the US isn't the only one involved with the JSF

if they hold- or cancel the JCF, my country would like to see their investments back

[J A Dare]

Don't forget that the US isn't the only one involved with the JSF

if they hold- or cancel the JCF, my country would like to see their investments back

Well since the dollar is weak against the euro, would you Dutch take repayment in say...joints?

[nemesis120]

Considering the things price tag, it's a decent thing this is pretty close to going away. It's rediculously expensive, the project has had huge cost overruns, and there's not much out there that can challenge our current fighters. Not to mention the fact that the September 11th people showed that you can spend all you want on defense, but if you don't spend it in the right way, it's worthless (this program and missile defense come to mind).

[Sumdumgai]

I'd put the F/A-22 and JSF program on hold for like 10 years (until we actually need them) and use the money for more important and pressing needs (Iraq, global terrorism, homeland sec).

Ditto.

KingNor's got a point, as well. We already possess near-complete air superiority in every theatre imaginable. Why increase that superiority even more when the need is not warranted at this time?

The way things are looking up, it looks like the next big kind of war will be terrorism. I mean it's already starting to look like Vietnam with military forces pounding the hell out of some tiny countries with trigger-happy little guerilla troops and bomb-carriers.

The F-22 wouldn't do much against a terrorist cell in Podunk Idaho, waiting to travel across country and blow up a government building, or cause an accident and release nerve gas on a freeway.

It sucks to be in one of the European cities targeted by terrorism which hasn't been struck yet, let me tell you!

[Phyrox]

Ya, I gotta say I am not all that unhappy (or suprised) at this.

In a time when the U.S. has a real problem with troop readiness/deployment it just makes sense to restructure priorities and funding.

I am an aviation enthusiast of the highest (ok, maybe not the highest) order, but this (if it does indeed happen) seems to be a good move.

[Anubis]

First thing to go before the F-22 is the missle defense shield. There is something that is a huge waste of money. And it still has bugs.

[Nightbat]

First thing to go before the F-22 is the missle defense shield. There is something that is a huge waste of money. And it still has bugs.

Not only that, but after that stunt on 9/11 it's clear it's useless

Terrorists don't have nuclear launch-capability, they just ship it in and detonate

it in your back lawn

JA Dare:

No thanks, we might be Marihuana country #1

but even over here it's still "Money talks..."

[Noyhauser]

Ya, I gotta say I am not all that unhappy (or suprised) at this.

In a time when the U.S. has a real problem with troop readiness/deployment it just makes sense to restructure priorities and funding.

I am an aviation enthusiast of the highest (ok, maybe not the highest) order, but this (if it does indeed happen) seems to be a good move.

welcome to the predicament of the Canadian Armed forces.... except that you start getting a bow wave of delayed procuerment projects and then your screwed in the long run

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

why doesnt mccain just cancel the superhornet program instead and spearhead development of a new multirole strike fighter that can OUTDO and replace the superhornet, A-6, and F-14D? that would ok neermind wrong topic.

anyways. yes the F-15 has a flawless record and even when the F-222 enters service there will be HUNDREDS more eagles. Nonetheless I still think they shouldnt cancel the F-22 program.

[Skull Leader]

We've already cancelled our next-wave helicopter project.... now our next-wave fighter? I understand that the F-15, and for that matter, vitually ALL of our combat aircraft have phoenominal track records. But do we really want our forces relying on aircraft as old as it is? The F-15 is great, but many that are still in service are starting to get up in age. I know age can be a limited variable (I mean, look at the B-25.... I'm talking about a plane produced 20 years before I was born and isn't scheduled to leave service until about 50 years after I die!) But nevertheless... we put our fighters through extreme paces sometimes... and I'd feel better knowing my tax money was going to make sure our guys get the latest and greatest hardware to fly... and KEEP them flying. I don't think any more forces in Iraq are going to make much difference... in fact, I wouldn't count on hostilities coming down until we start shipping our boys out of the region. MORE people there certainly isn't the answer, and it's very much against popular opinion at this point.

Come on, Department of Defense... don't let them take the Raptor away from us!

[Lightning]

well, since the F/A-22's so expensive we could always buy about 500-1000 Su-37's....

or we could just go ahead and try to build a VF-0...

[one_klump]

Personally, I think the gov't has lost all sense of value of just exactly how much a million dollars really is, not to mention 277 billion!!!

These people just throw money around like it comes from the very air we breath, not a single politician actually thinks about wasting the taxpayers money...

BTW, I think it would be a shame to lose the F-22, our military is due for an upgrade in their fighters.

Hey - they should cut the funding to the F/A-18 'Super Hornet' (not so super), and keep the F-22 alive!

[Lightning]

Personally, I think the gov't has lost all sense of value of just exactly how much a million dollars really is, not to mention 277 billion!!!

These people just throw money around like it comes from the very air we breath, not a single politician actually thinks about wasting the taxpayers money...

BTW, I think it would be a shame to lose the F-22, our military is due for an upgrade in their fighters.

Hey - they should cut the funding to the F/A-18 'Super Hornet' (not so super), and keep the F-22 alive!

I AGREE!!

[ewilen]

There was some good related discussion over in this topic:

http://www.macrossworld.com/mwf/index.php?showtopic=5753

We began by talking about plans to use the F-35 in the close support role, but drifted over into talking about the viability of both the JSF and F-22. Someone explained convincingly why the JSF can't be stopped; the Super Hornet is already on-line, so that leaves the Raptor looking increasingly like an endangered species.

I agree that missile defense should go on the chopping block even before the F-22; however, I think there are political reasons to doubt that it will be cut any time soon. Certainly not before January, 2005. I'd go into greater detail but I'd probably start a political flame war if I did.

[David Hingtgen]

250-300 million? As if. I like McCain too, but that's one of those "including the cost of the pilot's breakfast, runway maintenance, fuel for 30 years, every missile it'll ever shoot, and enough paint to keep it pretty for inspection" numbers. Plus an extra 100 million.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...t/f-22-cost.htm

Well sh*t, they cut them from 339 to 276!!! Of course the price goes up. We've already spent $29 billion on the program, if we cut the order down to 10 fighters, it'll be 2.9 billion per plane. Sigh, at this point (low numbers) I wonder why we even build them. There were supposed to be 750+, to replace the F-15. Now it'll be like 6 wings--Training, East coast, West cost, Japan, Korea, and Europe.

I also recommend reading the Air Force's comment on why they need F-22's, it's about 99% of what my response for why we need F-22's was going to be.

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?storyID=123007397

Of course, F-35's getting all the funding it wants...

Edited April 13, 2004 by David Hingtgen

[Noyhauser]

I argued why the F-35 can't be culled, it was due to 22% foreign involvement. Honestly I think that the F-22 will be the last fighter developed under the cold war model of procurement, while the F-35 is the first to be procured under the new post cold war model, that sees major foriegn involvement in all aspects of production. Both models have various advantages, but the foreign involvement has less risk involved and decreased initial production costs because you share the costs across the partner nations. Furthermore you open yourself to a wider market for selling your goods.

You've got to remember that procurement isn't money that is just lost, you get a lot of domestic offsets that the money gets recycled into society through production wages, raw materials, ect. However you then have to specialize at every part of production, when you could get cheaper parts from other partner nations that could specialize in building those parts, thats increases inefficiency.

[the white drew carey]

(I mean, look at the B-25.... I'm talking about a plane produced 20 years before I was born and isn't scheduled to leave service until about 50 years after I die!)

Wow, they're still flying the Mitchell!?!

I think you mean the B-52.

[Druna Skass]

What the f*ck, are you telling me they poured all this capital and effort into a fighter (not to mention hyping the sh!t out of it) just to cancel it over some ill-concived war started by some chimpanzee-looking !@#$%^^&*((*^$#@! who thinks Command and Conquer is like the real world?!

If they axe the 22 what are they going to use as a stop gap, upgrade F-15s to ACTIVEs? Or (what ever higher power you belive in) forbid, they say the F-35 can do the air supiriority role...

Edited April 13, 2004 by Druna Skass

[ewilen]

Hoo boy. To think I was worried about introducing politics...

That article is interesting David, but...

We had air superiority over Korea and all we could manage was a draw.

We had air superiority over Vietnam and we lost.

We have air supremacy over Iraq and things are looking pretty dicey.

For all its marvelous technology, the F-22 isn't necessarily a forward-looking weapon. It is very much made to fight the last war, not the next.

[Jolly Rogers]

I am more worried about how the manufacturer is ever gonna recover all their investment. It's not like they can turn around and sell the planes to the highest bidder on the open market. Think about all the jobs and potential boost in economy this would have generated.

[Graham]

I'd say give the JSF the chop first (although I know that wont happen). As I've argued elsewhere, that plane is too much of a 'Jack-of-all-trades', does lot's of things reasonably well, but nothing spectacularly. And IMO it's not really much of an improvement on what we have already. In same cases, it actually offers less capability.

And as much as I like the idea of the F-22, in this day and age of mostly low intensity guerilla type conflicts, it really is a plane in search of a mission. Unless that is the US ends up going to war with either China, Europe or North Korea, then an F-22 might be useful in achiving air superiority.

If it was up to me, I'd say the USAF should scrap both the JSF and F-22 and instead engage in extensive upgrade or even new-build program on the F-15, F-16 and A-10.

For the F-16, you could add things like RAM & thrust vectoring or even consider the enhanced performance variants such as the F-16XL and F-16 CCV.

The F-15 could also be improved by going to the F-15 ACTIVE, and perhaps adding RAM and doing some subtle reshaping of some parts to (hopefully) reduce the RCS and make the plane at least a bit more stealthy. Other improvements such as off-boresight targetting and helmet mounted sights should also be added (same goes for the F-16).

The A-10 could definitely benefit from a more modern cockpit layout and improved avionics and sensor package.

Graham

[Noyhauser]

What the f*ck, are you telling me they poured all this capital and effort into a fighter (not to mention hyping the sh!t out of it) just to cancel it over some ill-concived war started by some chimpanzee-looking !@#$%^^&*((*^$#@! who thinks Command and Conquer is like the real world?!

Two words, sunk costs.

You've already spent the money for the fighter, and thats all gone, that should not be a consideration. the question is now, is the money you will spend from now on worth the weapon you are going to get? IS it actually useful?

[JsARCLIGHT]

We had air superiority over Korea and all we could manage was a draw.

100% Correct.

We had air superiority over Vietnam and we lost.

To quote Sgt. Barnes, washington kept trying to fight the war with one hand tied around their balls (a.k.a. they kept trying to force the enemy to fight "our war on our terms" rather than meet them head on on their level.

We have air supremacy over Iraq and things are looking pretty dicey.

See above, subsitute 1964 for 2004.

For all its marvelous technology, the F-22 isn't necessarily a forward-looking weapon. It is very much made to fight the last war, not the next.

Either that or we will go to war under some dumbass doctrine like "don't shoot unless fired upon" which totally negates those wonderful planes, tanks, APCs, bombs, nukes and sharp sticks. We may have the most kick-patootie toys on the block but when mom won't let you take them out of the toy chest and play with them there sort of is no point.

What we really need is to invest all that DoD money into some nice killer robots... something that will apease the doves by "not getting our soldiers killed" and something that will sate the bloodlust of the hawks with "robotic chopping knives death attack".

[Uxi]

Never lost a battle in Vietnam. The political goals were lost due to the political micromanagement. Militarily, it wasn't a defeat in any sense of the word since there were no clear metrics for "winning" or "losing." Just an indefinite backing of a flailing government.

Korea? The North Koreans got their asses whooped hard. A million screaming Chinese using human wave tactics can change the equation. But Truman didn't have the gonads to send them Chinese packing.

I woudln't mind seeing the F/A-22 cancelled if a production F-15 Active took it's place... but I'd really like to see both. F-16 isn't that necessary. For air superiority, I'd rather have F-22/F-15 types... and for CAS something slower. F-35 may or may not fit the bill...

[one_klump]

What we really need is to invest all that DoD money into some nice killer robots... something that will apease the doves by "not getting our soldiers killed" and something that will sate the bloodlust of the hawks with "robotic chopping knives death attack".

Agreed!!!