Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 25636
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 1:13 am

Another step in the politicking for the model. Interesting that Schwartz is softening Air Force leadership tone against the model.

Quote:
USAF Chief Notes F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilities
Feb 17, 2009

U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, the chief of staff, says more stealthy F-22s are needed – though less than the 381 required by the service in recent years - yet he has stopped short of identifying how many more.

“We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way” and produced a number that “I feel is credible,” Schwartz said during a Defense Writers’ Group breakfast this morning in Washington. The top four-star USAF general further said it is a “sign of a healthy institution” when it is “willing to revisit its own beliefs.”

Schwartz said the F-22’s performance is “respectable,” especially when compared with the first-generation stealthy F-117 and the B-2 bomber. “These are not numbers to be scoffed at,” he says.

Schwartz was cool on the notion of developing an export version of the F-22. Japan has expressed interest in buying the system, but the so-called Obey Amendment, named after the top House appropriator who drafted the language years ago, prohibits foreign Raptor sales.

Full Story
AF%20Chief%20Defends%20F-22%20Need,%20Capabilities&channel=defense" target=_blank>http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...ed,%20Capabilities&channel=defense
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 4:47 am

The first rule of defense aquisitions: Always ask for more than you want.  Wink
 
bennett123
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:33 am

"Respectable" is somewhat damning, especially given that F117 has already been retired.

Also strange that he does not say how many the USAF want.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 3:06 pm

Maybe he's giving Congress some room to suggest just what higher number of airplanes they're willing to fund?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27019
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 5:09 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 2):
"Respectable" is somewhat damning, especially given that F117 has already been retired.

F117 was retired (from what I hear) due to the high cost of maintaining its radar-absorbing material. I suspect F22 will take its place in some cases, B2 in others. Besides, getting rid of F117 clears out the hangars for more F22s!  Smile
 
bennett123
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Feb 18, 2009 6:34 pm

Regardless of the reason for retiring the F117, given the cost of the F22, I would expect more enthusiasm from the USAF.

Does he really not want more F22.
 
Oroka
Posts: 1139
Joined: Sat Dec 09, 2006 4:37 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:18 am

The reason for retiring the F-117 was to free up funds for additional F-22s. Really, why would you want to fly a F-117 into a high risk area when F-22s are available that can sneak in, and fight its way out if needed.

While a groundbreaking aircraft, it is now obsolete. They have already shredded at least one airframe in a test for the best way to dispose of them.



 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 4:49 am

I'd like to see the 600-750 the ATF program originally called for.  Smile
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27019
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 5:41 am



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 7):
I'd like to see the 600-750 the ATF program originally called for.

While you have the wallet out, weren't we supposed to get 120 B2s and enough B1s to replace all the B52s?

Can you imagine how much whoop-ass that would be?
 
bennett123
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:29 am

Is it my imagination, or was this guy the first Chief of Staff to not have a Fighter or Bomber background.

Secondly does the USAF NEED more F22's.

It is hard to see the US facing an opponent of that calibre.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 10:20 am



Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
While a groundbreaking aircraft, it is now obsolete. They have already shredded at least one airframe in a test for the best way to dispose of them.

Obsolete... for the USAF yes... for just about any other country in the world? No they would love to be able to buy them off the US! I guess it comes down to security however... stealth techniques etc. I'm betting if the US offered Australia a good deal for them they would snap them up to replace the F111s!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27019
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Feb 19, 2009 2:52 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9):
It is hard to see the US facing an opponent of that calibre.

I know.

But that's been true for the majority of the lifetime of the ATF/F22 program, and it's been kept chugging along for around 20 years now.

And those F15s won't fly forever.

And yes, just like the Eurofighter, there is something to be said for keeping your technology base alive.

It'd be nice to have a world-wide agreement to send all weapons to the scrappers, but we aren't there yet.

I'd love to see that day, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 12:22 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10):
Obsolete... for the USAF yes... for just about any other country in the world? No they would love to be able to buy them off the US! I guess it comes down to security however... stealth techniques etc. I'm betting if the US offered Australia a good deal for them they would snap them up to replace the F111s!

There are all sorts of problems with that idea. The F117 has neither the range nor the speed of the F111. It is also a bit unique - and that usually creates many extra problems and expenses logistically. There are many other platforms out there that can do the same job plus a lot more for the same money.
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 11227
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 1:14 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9):
Secondly does the USAF NEED more F22's.

It is hard to see the US facing an opponent of that calibre.

Russia, China,?  scratchchin 

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10):
I'm betting if the US offered Australia a good deal for them they would snap them up to replace the F111s!



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 12):
There are all sorts of problems with that idea. The F117 has neither the range nor the speed of the F111.

Additionally, the F-117 could only carry 5,000 lbs of weapons, compared to the 30,000 lbs the F-111G (FB-111A) can carry.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 14572
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 3:37 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 9):
Secondly does the USAF NEED more F22's.

It is hard to see the US facing an opponent of that calibre.

The problem with military construction today is that it's so hi-tech and expensive that you can't just convert a factory that builds pick up trucks into a factory that builds F-22s overnight like they did with the manufacturing base of the US during WWII. There's a window in which they will manufacture the aircraft, after that if there are no more orders the factory closes and the machinery is either mothballed or totally destroyed. In the case of aircraft like the B-2 and the F-22 the machinery would most likely be destroyed in order to prevent espionage.

While making plans for fleet size you have to take into account not only current threats but future threats, while the military is focusing it's operations right now on very low tech counter insurgency that does not preclude a complete and total opposite threat from appearing on the not too distant horizon. Unfortunately there will most likely be more not less conflicts as Countries vie to control the dwindling sources of natural resources on the planet.

More F-22s, F-35s, Virginia Class subs etc..
 
JoeinTX
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 4:16 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 6:57 am

I think more than the current 183 is necessary for perceived threats in the future. The 381 number about is not realistic so I do find the 243 number (including the extra 60 funded by Congress this past year) as acceptable.


The 650 or so originally planned when the program began is beyond all means now. The F-35 is planned and designed as an F-16/18"+" type of airplane that will assume a number of jobs that original -16/-18s could not. The F-35 will be a primary air defense component of NORAD unlike the F-16 and a primary defense/attack airplane for the Navy unlike previous decades where te F-14 or A-6 was responsible for these roles. It will share with the Super Hornet on carrier decks, but be seen as equal for various jobs.


More F-22s, yeah. But, plenty of F-35s and Super Hornets and UAVs even more so in the future is the ticket.
 
bennett123
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:10 am

KC135TopBoom

The Russians may be less of a threat than you think.

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/military/read.main/102864/

Furthermore there are 183 F22's plus F15/F16/F18 and F35.

It seems that at the moment Air Superiority is not an issue.

Perhaps you need slightly more quantity and slightly less High Tech.

I certainly agree with more UAV, (blimps?).

Plus more helicopters and airlift, (C17's).
 
bennett123
Posts: 10881
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 10:17 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People's_Liberation_Army_Air_Force

A substancial force, but it is hard to envisage a conventional Chinese attack that the US could not meet without more F22's.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27019
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:03 pm



Quoting JoeinTX (Reply 15):
I think more than the current 183 is necessary for perceived threats in the future. The 381 number about is not realistic so I do find the 243 number (including the extra 60 funded by Congress this past year) as acceptable.

 checkmark 

Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
A substancial force, but it is hard to envisage a conventional Chinese attack that the US could not meet without more F22's.

I've made the same point in the past, but in the US, no politician wants to be known as being weak on defense. It's quite clear the US overspends on defense, and wants massive superiority on the battlefield. That way of thinking is not going to change in the recession. In fact, more bones will be tossed to the defense contractors to "stimulate the economy". The F22 line is mature, and it'll be kept busy till the F35 has to be funded in earnest.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:41 am

Reuters: Pentagon Says F-22's Fate to Hang for Awhile Longer

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE51N07K20090224

The text seems odd. Could the Pentagon really believe they have the unilateral up-or-down authority on the F-22 program? Seems to me. it is really the politicians who will be deciding the issue.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Topic Author
Posts: 25636
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:14 pm

Sounds like a potential mini-order for 20 to be authorized by Obama.

Quote:
Young Signs F-22 ADM to Keep Options Open
Mar 4, 2009

Following the Obama Administration’s decision this week not to certify further F-22 production until April at the earliest, departing Pentagon acquisition chief John Young signed an acquisition decision memorandum March 3 for Lockheed Martin’s stealth fighter program.

It continues what is described by Pentagon specialists with insight into the program as Young’s stance of “keeping all the President’s options open.” Those options include: stopping F-22 production at 183 and using congressionally approved long-lead money to shut down the production line; releasing long-lead money to start building the next 20 aircraft (184-203); or approving production of another 60 (for a total of 243) fighters as desired by the U.S. Air Force.

Air Force officials tell Aviation Week that they are finding diminished support for all the additional 60 fighters they have hoped for and expect the Obama White House to approve production of another 20 while deferring additional production decisions for another year.

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...p%20Options%20Open&channel=defense
 
cpd
Posts: 6825
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sun Mar 08, 2009 1:25 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 10):
Obsolete... for the USAF yes... for just about any other country in the world? No they would love to be able to buy them off the US! I guess it comes down to security however... stealth techniques etc. I'm betting if the US offered Australia a good deal for them they would snap them up to replace the F111s!

The worst part about this plane is it is too specialised - too slow, and carries too small a weapons load.

We need big planes that carry a heavy load of weapons quickly (hence why we have the "pig"). It's a very useful plane.

While Australia might have some use for the F-22, it's doubtful we'll get any with the finance crisis hitting the budgets badly. What budget is available is going to infrastructure programs.
 
gsosbee
Posts: 365
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 8:40 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Mar 14, 2009 4:10 pm

This article will ratchet up the F-22 needed banter:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...44b4d87e8a32a02.4a1&show_article=1

As usual one never knows what the Russians are up to. This may be as much an attempt to distract US congressmen (not to terribly hard to do) as to finding bases in the Caribbean. The distraction would be spending more on F-22, to the detriment of missiles and missile defense and the F-35. The Russians see the the F-22 for what it is - dangerous air-to-air and obviously feel they can handle it better than hundreds of F-35's in CAS/ground attack mode.

They have been wrong more than right, but a broken watch is correct two times a day.
 
jrw261
Posts: 35
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2005 9:32 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Fri Mar 20, 2009 12:49 am

These aircraft arn't sheet metal airframes with .50 cal guns. These are advanced weapons that take alot of time an money to integrate all their systems. Therefore development costs are going to be large.

The F22's development costs were just that. We have already paid for their development so why not spread those development costs across more airframes. The airframes will get used less, we have more if we need them, they won't wear out as fast, and how much more does it really cost you in the big picture.

10-15 years ago we envisioned a European war-front with high-tech weapons... instead we are fighting a low-tech enemy and now they predict that we'll be fighting a low tech war in 15 more years.... I'de rather error on the side of caution. Point being, when you need 'em.. you wont have 'em and wont be able to develope and make 'em fast enough.
 
Blackbird
Posts: 3384
Joined: Wed Oct 06, 1999 10:48 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:43 pm

MCIGuy,

Quote:
The first rule of defense aquisitions: Always ask for more than you want.

Isn't there a risk that when you do that, you might lose all funding? Or is it just knowing how much more to ask for?
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jun 16, 2009 7:53 pm



Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
The reason for retiring the F-117 was to free up funds for additional F-22s. Really, why would you want to fly a F-117 into a high risk area when F-22s are available that can sneak in, and fight its way out if needed.

The F-117 was built for the stealth mission, the F-22 was initially designed as a high performance a/c, I don't believe it is as stealthy, but I'm sure the Air Force has fact to dispute that, they had to use it to retire the F-117's early. As for the a/c that was shot down, it harkens back to the VietNam conflict where the Buff's were required to fly the same profile every flight.

Quoting Oroka (Reply 6):
While a groundbreaking aircraft, it is now obsolete

The Air Force needed the funds, so it was declared obsolete.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 12):
There are many other platforms out there that can do the same job plus a lot more for the same money.

I assume you mean the F-111, not the F-117, only other a/c is the B2. Have the fighter jocks been practising bombing missions with the F-22's yet?
 
michlis
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 8:13 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:16 am



Quoting Revelation (Reply 4):
F117 was retired (from what I hear) due to the high cost of maintaining its radar-absorbing material.



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
The reason for retiring the F-117 was to free up funds for additional F-22s. Really, why would you want to fly a F-117 into a high risk area when F-22s are available that can sneak in, and fight its way out if needed.

Consider that the F-117 has also been exposed to a lot of foreign radar equipment with good operators who now know what to look for thus making the F-117 less effective than it was pre-Gulf War I. Stealth does not equal invisible or invincible.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 4631
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:59 am



Quoting Par13del (Reply 25):

The F-117 was built for the stealth mission, the F-22 was initially designed as a high performance a/c, I don't believe it is as stealthy, but I'm sure the Air Force has fact to dispute that, they had to use it to retire the F-117's early. As for the a/c that was shot down, it harkens back to the VietNam conflict where the Buff's were required to fly the same profile every flight.

"The F-22s overperformance includes a radar cross section that is “better” than was contracted for, the company says. That classified requirement has been calculated at a -40 dBsm, about the size of a steel marble. By contrast, the F-35 is thought to be a -30 dBsm, the size of a golf ball." My understanding was that the F-117 had the profile of a bird or baseball. So the F-22 is significantly more stealthy than the F-117.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:45 pm

Per Rep Abercrombie (D-HI), Congress will fund "at least" another 20 F-22s.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marke...sNews/idINN1827570420090618?rpc=44

Quote:
WASHINGTON, June 18 (Reuters) - Congress will fund at least 20 more Lockheed Martin (LMT.N) F-22 fighter jets despite Obama administration plans to cap production at 187, the chairman of a House of Representatives panel with Air Force oversight responsibilities said on Thursday.

"You've got to do 20 more of these" as a bridging strategy while the administration mulls longer-range strategic issues, said Rep. Neil Abercrombie, a Hawaii Democrat who heads the House Air-Land subcommittee. He made the remarks to a group of reporters.

A "bridging strategy"...good one!
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 2:56 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 27):
"The F-22s overperformance includes a radar cross section that is “better” than was contracted for

The key term there is contracted for, which is??????

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 27):
My understanding was that the F-117 had the profile of a bird or baseball.

Thats the rub, to justfiy more F-22's something had to go, including easily accesible numbers for the F-117

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 27):
So the F-22 is significantly more stealthy than the F-117.

Do we really know this for a fact or are we taking the Air Force F-22 project managers numbers, any conflict of interest there?
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:02 pm

More F-22 news.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4144686&c=AME&s=AIR

Quote:
After more than 16 hours of squabbling over the 2010 defense budget, weary committee members voted 31-30 at 2:30 a.m. to keep the F-22 program alive by making a $369 million down payment on 12 more planes.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates had intended to end F-22 production at 187 fighters, but House lawmakers overruled him.

The $369 million would buy advance procurement parts to begin production on a dozen new fighters. Ultimately, the planes would cost about $2.8 billion.

While I remain a huge fan of Robert Gates and his leadership at DOD, I think he would be well advised to throw in the towel on this one, and the C-17 (money added for that, too). Some battles aren't worth fighting.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:12 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 30):
While I remain a huge fan of Robert Gates and his leadership at DOD, I think he would be well advised to throw in the towel on this one, and the C-17 (money added for that, too). Some battles aren't worth fighting.

A vote of 31-30 says that there are folks on both sides of the equation, would have gotton a better gauge of the problem if they had to vote for the entire $2.8 billion.
If the Gates side ultimately prevails, some donors just got a $369 million a/c to no where parts contract.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 3:40 pm



Quoting Par13del (Reply 31):
vote of 31-30 says that there are folks on both sides of the equation,

No offense meant here, but a vote of 59-2 would say the same thing.

That the SECDEF can't kill a program when the party of the Administration comfortably controls both houses of congress is telling. Keeping F-22 production alive is by no means a "done deal" yet, but this is a huge hurdle. If they can't kill it in committee, I don't think they will have any luck in the House.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:53 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 32):
No offense meant here, but a vote of 59-2 would say the same thing.

Agree

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 32):
Keeping F-22 production alive is by no means a "done deal" yet, but this is a huge hurdle. If they can't kill it in committee, I don't think they will have any luck in the House.

This is the point of my thought process on the close vote. On a 59-2 vote, once released from the committee the chances of survival for the loosing side are much lower, not much trading power. On a 31-30 vote the sky's the limit, members will be able to offer up this and that, trading will be done all over the place, which ultimately strengthens the hand of the administration rather than the congress. Everyone wants to avoid a veto or a big budget bust up with the administration, so if they really want to kill the F-22, something else will be offered. Note in the article it's stated that the C-17 is only a jobs program, even though I don't think anyone questions that the a/c can be used, same could be said of the the F-22 when they talk about all the jobs involved, these are all aviation jobs, a great percentage are similar.

However, I think the other thing the F-22 has going for it is that it's the "baddest" and most expensive fighter a/c out there and its American, that alone will count for some votes  Smile
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:34 pm

Dr. Gates responds to the actions of the Congress. Characterizes it as a "big problem". Very strong words.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/06/18/ga...-calls-hasc-f-22-move-big-problem/

Quote:
“Frankly, to be blunt about it, the notion that not buying 60 more F-22s imperils the national security of the United States, I find completely nonsense,” Gates told reporters at a Pentagon briefing today. That comment may have come in response to a story yesterday on Congressional Quarterly’s site that Gen. John Corley, chief of Air Combat Command at Langley, Va., wrote a letter to Senator Saxby Chambliss, R- Ga., that said buying only 187 F-22s jeopardizes U.S. national security. Corley reportedly said 381 F-22s would be the ideal number but that a fleet of 250 fighters would be tolerable.

 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:40 pm

More of Rep Abercrombie's comments WRT F-22 funding sustainment by the Congress. Note the tone and pointedness of his remarks. They have implications across-the-board for other major programs--ESPECIALLY the tanker.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=4146850&c=AME&s=AIR

Quote:
Abercrombie said F-22 supporters prevailed by one vote only because he and other committee members had questions about how to pay for 12 more planes, which will cost $2.8 billion. Abercrombie was among those who voted no.

Had the funding question been worked out, 50 or 60 of the committee's 62 members would have voted to buy more F-22s, he said.

"It's not a Democrat or Republican thing at all, but rather a Congress versus the executive in terms of who's in charge," he said.

Last year, Congress included money in the defense budget to begin buying parts for 20 more F-22s, but the Defense Department decided instead to end the program.

"The Constitution says very clearly that Congress is in charge. The Defense Department is there to execute" what Congress decides, Abercrombie said.

"I'm committed to get the Defense Department to do what it was supposed to do in the first place," he said. "We cannot allow the executive to run roughshod over congressional responsibility. They need to learn who's in charge. The Congress is." (Emphasis added)

 
dahawaiian
Posts: 229
Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2001 12:51 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:10 pm

Abercrummy at it again. I am sure he and Uncle Dan are hoping to get an extra F-22 squadron for Hickam AFB.
 
User avatar
par13del
Posts: 10993
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:46 pm

And the horse trading has begun, the rumour mill from the Hill will be most important the next few days. Once the leaks are made public we will have a better indication of what the house is looking for and are willing to compromise on, next the administration will kick in.

Fun times ahead for military spending, my bet is that the VH-71 backers will somehow someway get their project included.  Smile
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 27019
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:45 am



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 32):
That the SECDEF can't kill a program when the party of the Administration comfortably controls both houses of congress is telling. Keeping F-22 production alive is by no means a "done deal" yet, but this is a huge hurdle. If they can't kill it in committee, I don't think they will have any luck in the House.

Congress is all about bringing home the bacon to the home district, which is a totally different interest than that of the President and the DoD.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 35):
"It's not a Democrat or Republican thing at all, but rather a Congress versus the executive in terms of who's in charge," he said.

Yes, and it's about getting re-elected, or not.

Most voters will pick local jobs over nebulous things like exactly how many fighters we need or how big the deficit is.
 
trigged
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:25 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sat Jun 20, 2009 1:09 am



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 17):
A substancial force, but it is hard to envisage a conventional Chinese attack that the US could not meet without more F22's.

Bingo. The future war that is on the minds of the planners is not Russia, it is China.

"Quantity has a quality all of its own" If you throw enough men and machines at an enemy, you will eventually succeed. It may be a Pyhrric victory, but a victory nonetheless.
 
wvsuperhornet
Posts: 517
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:18 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sun Jun 21, 2009 2:40 am

I think it comes down to pure money, they may be needed but the money may not be there to purchase them. For now 183 F-22's and the F-15's,F-16,s and Superhornets are just going to have to carry us until the F-35 is ready which at least for a while we should be ok.
 
XT6Wagon
Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Feb 13, 2007 4:06 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Sun Jun 21, 2009 3:28 am



Quoting Trigged (Reply 39):
"Quantity has a quality all of its own" If you throw enough men and machines at an enemy, you will eventually succeed. It may be a Pyhrric victory, but a victory nonetheless.

problem is that if your numbers are enough higher, it will be nearly bloodless on your side. If you face say 50 invincible fighters with only 4-6 missiles each, you can just ignore them, let them bleed you a little, and they won't have anywhere to land, no more missiles, etc. so they get 3-4 of yours each, and in return lose everything.

even worse, the F22 isn't invincible against current last gen fighters, so if you are outnumbered greatly, you just get run over while taking a small slice out of them. Which is why they need to be backed by not only enough of thier OWN numbers in a region, but lesser fighters. The USAF knows just exactly why they buy F16's to back up F15's and why they are keeping everything they can to back up F22.

really I can't imagine not keeping F22 on a low boil production wise to keep deployed numbers up as the first frames age. Also keeps the frame in existance so a F22NG could be done on the "cheap" later with new electronics, engines, and weapons as technology progresses even past it.
 
trigged
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:25 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jun 23, 2009 9:42 pm



Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 41):
problem is that if your numbers are enough higher, it will be nearly bloodless on your side. If you face say 50 invincible fighters with only 4-6 missiles each, you can just ignore them, let them bleed you a little, and they won't have anywhere to land, no more missiles, etc. so they get 3-4 of yours each, and in return lose everything.

Exactly. If there are 158 F-22's in combat against 3000 Migs will be a joke. The Air Force needs to quit scrapping combat aircraft and just mothball them at a decent readiness level. I have a feeling that if worse comes to worse, they will need them.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:04 pm

Well it's official, the Raptor is dead. Can't say I didn't expect it. Thanks President Carter!

Washington Post

Quote:
The Senate voted Tuesday to kill the nation's premier fighter jet program, embracing by a 58-40 vote margin the argument of President Obama and his top military advisers that the F22 is no longer needed for the nation's defense and a costly drag on the Pentagon's budget in an era of small wars and growing counter-insurgency efforts.

Dammit, I'd rather have something and not need than to need it and not have it!  Angry
 
User avatar
Stitch
Posts: 27724
Joined: Wed Jul 06, 2005 4:26 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:12 pm

If the USAF says they don't need it, then why shove it down their throats? It's the same with the C-17.

It would be far cheaper to pay those people their salaries while you re-train them for new jobs then keep the lines open for the sake of keeping them employed making things the customer doesn't want and can't use.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 5:17 pm

I don't think it's so much that they don't want them but they need the money to pay for the endless war in Afghanistan. What pisses me off is that if we hadn't halted the bombing at Torabora then this would've been over way back then.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:03 pm

Still no good reason why we don't sell a few squadrons to Japan, especially when their willing to pay twice the price that the USAF pays for them. Israel would like a squadron's worth just for the deterrant value, and who knows, maybe the Aussies would still buy a squadron or two, drop out of the JSF program, and just supplement the gap with Super Hornets?

One thing is for sure, the JSF has a lot to live up to. Unfortunately, the last JSF a.k.a. the F-4 Phantom was such a resounding success for the US military that it led to the three service branches (who fly combat jets) to each go their own separate way after less than ten years in service! (USAF: F-15/F-16, USN: F-14/F-18, USMC: F-18/AV-8)
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 6:10 pm

Yeah, I love how the clueless media portrays the F-35. Their take: Newer = better. At best, the Lightning is "Raptor Lite".
I agree with your sentiment Ryan, except for maybe Israel. I have absolutley nothing against the state of Israel but their history of protecting secrets we sold them is pretty bad.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2399
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 7:01 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 47):
I agree with your sentiment Ryan, except for maybe Israel. I have absolutley nothing against the state of Israel but their history of protecting secrets we sold them is pretty bad.

Yeah, that will always baffle me - talk about biting the hand that feeds you!
 
MSNDC9
Posts: 202
Joined: Thu Jul 16, 2009 4:14 pm

RE: Usaf Chief: F-22s Are Needed, Defends Capabilties

Tue Jul 21, 2009 11:21 pm



Quoting MCIGuy (Reply 43):
Well it's official, the Raptor is dead. Can't say I didn't expect it. Thanks President Carter!

Washington Post

Nice. Idiots have no idea what kind of capability was just surrendered.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: art, FokkerNoMore and 14 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos