Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Politicos Want More F-22s  
User currently offlineLumberton From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 4708 posts, RR: 20
Posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2948 times:

Pardon my skepticism, but this reads like a pre-arranged "drama".
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...54009320071109?rpc=44&pageNumber=1

U.S. senators demand Pentagon release F-22 reports

Quote:
Six U.S. senators on Friday demanded Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England release three government-funded reports that call for additional purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) F-22 "Raptor" fighter jets beyond the currently planned level of 183.

The senators said they were concerned by the recent grounding of the Air Force's 700-plus fleet of Boeing Co (BA.N: Quote, Profile, Research) F-15s, India's recent decision to join Russia's effort to develop a new fighter jet, and the Air Force's statements that it really needs 381 F-22s, although it can only afford 183.

"We continue to be perplexed by the Department of Defense's insistence that only 183 F-22As should be procured," the senators wrote in the letter, which was obtained by Reuters.

They asked England to let Congress examine in full three separate reports that reportedly concluded that a far greater number of F-22s was needed, and to make public the reports' conclusions about the minimum number of F-22s needed.

The fix is in?

[Edited 2007-11-09 12:35:13]


"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
36 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 2943 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):

The fix is in?

Do any of us really think the Air Force is going to stop at 183? It seems more likely that we'll go well over 300 when it's all said and done.

Who knows, this might be like the C-17 program. Lockheed will say they are going to be forced to shut the line down, the Air Force will say they don't have the money to buy more... so Congress steps in and provides additional funding, thus relieving the Air Force from having to buy the aircraft out of their annual budget.

I hope that doesn't happen though. It would make more fiscal sense in the long run to admit we're going to buy 300-400 aircraft, and also allow it to be sold to Israel and Japan... thus lowering the project costs and saving the taxpayers some money. Afterall, money is not in huge abundance these days for the Air Force.

-UH60


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2905 times:

I've said all along that the Raptor won't shut down any time soon. The costs to reopen the line once it's closed or worse, develop of and all-new frame are too high. The USAF will get 400 Raptors, or even more.
I'm against foreign sales at this point, epecially to Israel. I'd hate to see Raptor tech end up in Chinese or Russian hands just for a quick buck. I take issue with a few of the "partners" in the F-35 program as well.  Wink



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 3, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2900 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
Lockheed will say they are going to be forced to shut the line down, the Air Force will say they don't have the money to buy more

I always found that logic a bit strange, at least from my perspective. If something is finished the line gets shut down, this is more normal than not.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
Do any of us really think the Air Force is going to stop at 183? It seems more likely that we'll go well over 300 when it's all said and done. [...] It would make more fiscal sense in the long run to admit we're going to buy 300-400 aircraft

What would be the overall price per frame (all costs divided by all aircrafts produced) if they stopped at 183 and what if they got all the 381 they want? Or is that one of the questions I better do not ask?  duck 


User currently offlineMCIGuy From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 1936 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (6 years 10 months 2 weeks ago) and read 2900 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 3):
What would be the overall price per frame (all costs divided by all aircrafts produced) if they stopped at 183 and what if they got all the 381 they want? Or is that one of the questions I better do not ask?

Around $90M a frame.  Smile



Airliners.net Moderator Team
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 5, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4):
Around $90M a frame.

I don't know whether you refer to 183 aircrafts or 381, but I generally doubt that figure. If you really include all costs (unit price+system+development costs) you'll end up in solid three-digit amounts of United states dollars. The sheer unit price (the naked, unfuelled aircraft!) may be 90M$.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12146 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2853 times:

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
The USAF will get 400 Raptors, or even more.
I'm against foreign sales at this point, epecially to Israel.

Near 400 F-22s (not counting any FB-22 versions) is about right for the USAF. But it should also go the FMS route, being sold to Israel, Japan, and Australia. Sell it to the UK, too if they want/need it.

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 5):
I don't know whether you refer to 183 aircrafts or 381, but I generally doubt that figure. If you really include all costs (unit price+system+development costs) you'll end up in solid three-digit amounts of United states dollars. The sheer unit price (the naked, unfuelled aircraft!) may be 90M$.

On a USAF sale of 381 F-22s the unit costs, including all R&D costs will be $148M US. A unit fly away cost, not counting R&D is around $90M US.


User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 2767 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
Near 400 F-22s (not counting any FB-22 versions) is about right for the USAF. But it should also go the FMS route, being sold to Israel, Japan, and Australia. Sell it to the UK, too if they want/need it.

the FB-22 version is no longer an issue it was discarded last year when the airforce decided the money would be better spent in a long range bomber (and I agree with them) due to the troubles in afganistan of aquiring any close regional airbases. I agree with selling it or at least offering it to Australia and Japan and even the UK although the UK funds are tied up into the Euro-fighter it would be very unlikely they would have the money or even want the F-22. Israel has been too loose with our secrets to China I am not in favor of selling it or even offering it to them. Back to the original post, I do agree that we will need more than 183 F-22's I like the 400 figure myself but feel it will be around 350 by the time they are done. If the pentagon and politicians were smart (I really use that term loosley) they would buy 350 F-22's and supplement the replacement of the rest of the F-15's with the new F-18 e/f since the aircraft is as capable and more in some aspects only lacking slightly on range but with mid air refueling thats not really a large issue. It would be really cost effective since the F-18 e/f is already in full scale production and with being able to get rid of the extra items needed to land on a carrier like the F-18c's did with out it, they would have some increase in preformance. Just my opinion but glad to see at least someone is waking up.


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2707 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 6):
On a USAF sale of 381 F-22s the unit costs, including all R&D costs will be $148M US. A unit fly away cost, not counting R&D is around $90M US.

So I calculate (148M$*381pcs)-(381pcs-183pcs)*90M$)/183pcs = 210M$ a piece when only 183 are ordered?


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 9, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 1):
and also allow it to be sold to Israel and Japan... thus lowering the project costs and saving the taxpayers some money.

I'm pretty sure Isreal will get them and won't pay a cent for it themselves, hence you (the US taxpayer) are paying for it.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 4):
Around $90M a frame.

that's rather optimistic I'd say Big grin


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Quoting Lumberton (Thread starter):
Pardon my skepticism, but this reads like a pre-arranged "drama".

Not so much pre-arranged as an opportunity jumped on. The F-15 grounding is significant and F-22 proponents are taking full advantage of it. Anything else they can find to add fuel to their fire is a plus. There's little doubt in my mind that more F-22s are coming. And I don't see the Air Force getting all excited about quoting low prices to repair the F-15s. If they do anything they'll clamor at the opportunity to state the needed repairs aren't cost effective, at least as it applies to the older C and D model F-15s.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineFlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 14
Reply 11, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2629 times:

Thru a reliable source, the USAF will receive at least 244 F-22s, altho 183 are "officially" funded. Don't worry about the F-22 production run being shut down prematurely...the aircraft is simply too good to pass up this soon in it's service life. Definitely more are on the way.
On a sidenote regarding the C-17...the USAF will get 200, even tho 190 are, again "officially" funded. However, once the RAF, RAAF & the RCAF gets their C-17s, this production line may be shut down for good, unless there are more orders soon.
Regards.



"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 12, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 9):
I'm pretty sure Isreal will get them and won't pay a cent for it themselves, hence you (the US taxpayer) are paying for it.

I wonder if anyone has spent some time on actually REASSESSING the general defense situation of Israel in recent years. The extent of arms and money provisions from the US to Israel has barely changed since the really hot times in the late 60s, 70s and early 80s. Now Israel lives at peace with most of its neighboring governments. They only thing they have to cope with is the general insurgency and Syria. I'd argue that they could handle that on their economic power. It's not like 30 years ago when they were at war with five neighboring countries at the same time. And I mean it's not only the US pouring money into the Israeli military ...

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
I'm against foreign sales at this point, epecially to Israel. I'd hate to see Raptor tech end up in Chinese or Russian hands just for a quick buck.

Now I am curious on how you see it going from Israel to Russia or China? Israel is not known for being a notorious technology leaker ... I would worry more about F-16 Block 50 sales to Pakistan.

Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 2):
I take issue with a few of the "partners" in the F-35 program as well.

Which? AFAIK they are all members of NATO and should count as your closest allies.


User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2605 times:

Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 11):
Thru a reliable source, the USAF will receive at least 244 F-22s, altho 183 are "officially" funded.

Even 244 isn't enough.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineAcheron From Spain, joined Sep 2005, 1656 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 2595 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
Now I am curious on how you see it going from Israel to Russia or China? Israel is not known for being a notorious technology leaker ..

The whole Lavi/J-10 deal. Several classified american items went to China during the sale.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 2588 times:

No chance the UK will ever buy F-22.
Typhoon gets, (still incredibly) a lot of flak for 'being a Cold War' aircraft, only good for dogfighting.
Until they drop their first bomb on a Taliban target next year, though these claims probably won't even stop then.
Really, the only good PR it's got recently was an appearance on Top Gear and some help from the Russian AF!

So consider trying to buy something that will be seen in the same light, never mind if it's not fair comment, only much more expensive and not even doing anything for local industry-not that this factor plays all that much here, most unlike in the US.
F-22 is just too much aircraft for the RAF, too few could ever be procured, with very hard choices elsewhere to pay for it.
Quite honestly, it's not needed.

The RAF's manned types post 2020 are set in stone, Typhoon and F-35B. It will be a struggle to get all the numbers the RAF want of them, though half the F-35B's will be with the RN.
As Elmer Fudd once said, 'that's all folks!'


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 16, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
I wonder if anyone has spent some time on actually REASSESSING the general defense situation of Israel in recent years. The extent of arms and money provisions from the US to Israel has barely changed since the really hot times in the late 60s, 70s and early 80s. Now Israel lives at peace with most of its neighboring governments. They only thing they have to cope with is the general insurgency and Syria. I'd argue that they could handle that on their economic power. It's not like 30 years ago when they were at war with five neighboring countries at the same time. And I mean it's not only the US pouring money into the Israeli military ...

I don't think Isreal's security sitation, which is rather allright at the momen as you pointed out, has anything to do with it. If the Isreali's want it, the'll get it, as there's no American politician brave enough to risk loosing the Jewish vote.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13206 posts, RR: 77
Reply 17, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2500 times:

I do think the 'Jewish Vote' in the US, influencing policy towards Israel, is somewhat overrated.
It's not a huge block, many tend to vote Democrat.
Policy varies too, the first George Bush had a difficult personal relationship with Shamir, however this and the robust stance generally, did not lessen US influence, rather at the most important time it enhanced it, preventing Israel from destroying the 1991 coalition against Iraq, by understandably retaliating to the extreme provocation of the SCUD attacks.

That era had seen US pressure when Israel was seriously acting against US policy, it was this stance, that I think enabled Bush and his team to prevent disaster in 1991.
The more carte blanche attitude now, coupled with the incompetence of the current US administration, means the US probably has less influence thea under the current President's father.

It is really, the more fundamentalist Christian influence in the US, that helps to drive the current stance.
This is a newer aspect, the US will always be highly supportive of Israel, but the degree of this has changed, to more ideological and less pragmatic perhaps.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 18, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

either way, there is enough pressure from lobbyist with Jewish background that have a lot of influence in places that will make sure they get what they want for free.

User currently offlineWvsuperhornet From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 517 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2416 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
Now I am curious on how you see it going from Israel to Russia or China? Israel is not known for being a notorious technology leaker ... I would worry more about F-16 Block 50 sales to Pakistan.

The J-10 was developed off a F-16 that came from Pakistan. The technical knowledge and american avaionics knowledge were given to China from Israel. The f-16 block 50's being sold to Pakistan are probably no more advanaced or if they are its by very little than the J-10 china already has. The damage has already been done so why not sell pakistan the block 50's. So yes Israel while considered an ally has sold US technology before. I doubt the US taxpayer would be in support of letting Israel have the F-22 especially when our airforce is flying 20 plus year old aircraft. Also Israel has a very good and dominant airforce now in the region with their F-15I and F-16I, they will probably receive some F-35's in the future but realistic fact is they really dont have any challengers to their airforce and probably wont have for some time. I know where my vote would go and it would be a big "No" to Israel having access to the F-22.


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 2406 times:

Quoting PADSpot (Reply 12):
Now Israel lives at peace with most of its neighboring governments. They only thing they have to cope with is the general insurgency and Syria.

It isn't necessarily just about protecting Israel. Although it isn't granite, Israel is a stable extended ally of America in a region of instability. Syria and Iran are still seen as allies of Russia and the cold war continues in that regard.

Secondarily, in the eyes of this US administration and Israel, the Iran situation (whether you agree or not) calls for a state of readiness.

Israel certainly has less enemies, but a few are merely waiting for the right opportunity.


User currently offlineF27Friendship From Netherlands, joined Jul 2007, 1125 posts, RR: 5
Reply 21, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2382 times:

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 20):
Syria and Iran are still seen as allies of Russia and the cold war continues in that regard.

where did this come from?!


User currently offlinePADSpot From Germany, joined Jan 2005, 1676 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2381 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 19):
I know where my vote would go and it would be a big "No" to Israel having access to the F-22.

If was a US taxpayer my consideration would be more about the money poured into the Israeli military than the type of technology.

Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 20):
the Iran situation (whether you agree or not) calls for a state of readiness.

#

Agreed, although it may not call for some sort conventional readiness, but more about strategic deterrent capability, which Israel already has and, which I think, is ineffective and counterproductive in this case. Because IF Iran seeks nuclear weapons then BECAUSE Israel has them. It's a political problem and that's why they can only be a political solution. Any sort of military action would lead to a more severe counter reaction, more hatred, more bloodshed, more insanity and less peace. So no option. Finally the core problem there is that one side does not accept the other as dialog partner. This is not about power, hegemonic ambitions, access to resources or whatever ...


User currently offlineFumanchewd From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 2333 times:

Quoting F27Friendship (Reply 21):
Quoting Fumanchewd (Reply 20):
Syria and Iran are still seen as allies of Russia and the cold war continues in that regard.

where did this come from?!

Russia still has weapons sales and political interests in both. Russia supplies much of Iran's means to acquire nuclear power/weapons. The US continues the polarity in Israel. It hasn't changed in over 50 years. Its just that the "communism" label is gone. These are the same players as Suez minus Egypt plus Iran.

"Spheres of influence" as they say.


User currently offlineOroka From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 913 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 10 months 1 week 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2260 times:

Quoting Wvsuperhornet (Reply 19):
The J-10 was developed off a F-16 that came from Pakistan.

The J-10 was developed from the Lavi, which was based on the F-16. The J-10 is the Lavi airframe and Russian engine and electronics.



As for the F-22, I think that once the main production run has completed, a large number of bare airframes (no engines, no electronics) should be built and stored. If the need be, those frames can be completed, or modified into something that is needed (say FB-22). The F-22 is the silver bullet for the USAF, but I sure would want to have more on tap just in case.


25 Zkpilot : Thats actually a very good idea if they don't keep the production line open up to say 350-400 aircraft. If they only make 300 then building an extra
26 Echster : I've seen Barry McCaffrey, former NATO commander and Presidential candidate, come out and say in 15 years we'll be falling behind China. He is advocat
27 F27Friendship : that's something totally different than the cold war still going on. Russia and the US aren't supplying these to get to each other.
28 Checksixx : I think a big problem in this thread is that many of you don't know what 'production line' means. What LMAero is talking about right now is the shutdo
29 Halls120 : That will never happen. Unless, of course, Ms. Clinton wants a democratic version of Rumsfeld.
30 TexL1649 : This isn't new, it's politics. Producing an extra hundred bare frames is antithetical to the decision-makers who would approve such a move. Step 1: C
31 KC135TopBoom : That's a pretty accurate summery.
32 Michlis : Are you sure about that?
33 F27Friendship : I'd see they are competitors in some way, but nothing like the cold war by any means.
34 PADSpot : Given they have more than four times the amount of brain and manpower (in economic terms) and a non-democratic system which has less difficulties dev
35 Lumberton : With all due respect, people were saying similar things in the '70s about the U.S. & the Soviet Union. Remember Kissinger's famous "Sparta & Athens"
36 PADSpot : Well, but China's potential of just outgrowing its rivaling super powers are much more immanent than those of the Soviet Union in the seventies. It w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Politicos Want More F-22s
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Thailand Want Gripens posted Thu Jul 5 2007 10:23:52 by SAS A340
More Info For Air Force Week. posted Tue Mar 20 2007 02:04:19 by Jacks757
Should The USN Bought More Supply Class AOE's? posted Sun Feb 18 2007 00:44:09 by 747400sp
BAE In More Corruption Probes posted Wed Feb 7 2007 17:04:39 by RichardPrice
More Delays To FSTA, Effect On VC10 posted Mon Jan 8 2007 23:57:58 by Bennett123
Official STS-117 Thread (S3/S4) And More Arrays! posted Sat Dec 23 2006 03:40:31 by TedTAce
Rumsfeld's Departure May Mean More F-22 - F-18E/F posted Wed Nov 15 2006 01:06:02 by MCIGuy
Congress Agrees To 10 More C-17's For Usaf posted Tue Oct 10 2006 08:23:45 by B747
One More Time... F-14 At NAS Oceana Airshow 2006 posted Thu Aug 17 2006 21:50:52 by Ftrguy
Usaf And Boeing Lobbying For More C-17 posted Thu Mar 9 2006 14:58:50 by DAYflyer

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format