U.S. Fighter Jet Could Die to Help Fund War (F/A-22)

Minuteman

Minuteman

I HAVE STRONG OPINIONS ABOUT AUTOMOTIVE LIGHTING!
[ QUOTE ]
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, an influential member of the Armed Services Committee, 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.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=4798748


[/ QUOTE ]

$250 to $300 million a plane!?! I hate to say it, but I don't want my money buying planes at those prices as a matter of principle ... that and I think Lockheed has enough slices of pie already.
 
New toys are expensive...sometimes too much so!

It would be interesting to see what would have to happen with the existing F-15s if the F/A-22 was cancelled. F-15s are already falling apart and have very high maintenance hours per flight hour. Years of high G maneuvering have culminated in cracks being found in planes, etc. One F-15 on takeoff from Al Dhafra AB had lost it's right external drop tank after the wing spar snapped on lift off.

15s are in much need of replacement. This will be interesting.
 
I know the F-15s need replacing, but when was the last time we faced a serious air-to-air threat? Not in Afghanistan and not in sanction-riddled Iraq. And I know that if we go up against North Korea, though, all bets are off, but still I think a lot of it comes down to training, as we saw in the first Desert Storm. Our pilots have the superior training to just about any other country out there, and a large part of that is the fact that our pilots get more flying time and superior training/experience than most other countries.

Perhaps there should be a USAF purchase of F/A-18E/Fs as a stop-gap to get up to date airframes of an aircraft that is capable of air-to-air as well as strike; the Air Force did that before in the 60s with the F-4.

After hearing that the F-35 is over budget and that the F-22 is continuing to have developmental problems, I am shocked that neither of these programs have been cancelled. I don't know how long the taxpayers will continue to support these costly acquisitions.

I am just shocked that about 15 years ago, they were talking about the Comanche, the F-22, and the V-22 as the newest aircraft for the future force. However, 15 years later, none of these systems have been fielded.

Perhaps at this point since we are no longer fighting a cold war but instead a war on terror, we need to skip a generation of aircraft and design new aircraft capable of better fighting this new enemy instead of the old one.

Like MikeD said, this should be interesting.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I know the F-15s need replacing, but when was the last time we faced a serious air-to-air threat? Not in Afghanistan and not in sanction-riddled Iraq. And I know that if we go up against North Korea, though, all bets are off, but still I think a lot of it comes down to training, as we saw in the first Desert Storm. Our pilots have the superior training to just about any other country out there, and a large part of that is the fact that our pilots get more flying time and superior training/experience than most other countries.



[/ QUOTE ]

Funny thing....F-15Cs were only on the Air Tasking Order for OIF for the first 3 days. After figuring out they were doing nothing more than boring holes in the sky, they were taken out and sent home on the fourth day.

No wonder they're testing the C-model 15s as JDAM carriers.

So much for their "not a pound for air to ground".
tongue.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]


Perhaps there should be a USAF purchase of F/A-18E/Fs as a stop-gap to get up to date airframes of an aircraft that is capable of air-to-air as well as strike; the Air Force did that before in the 60s with the F-4.



[/ QUOTE ]

Perfect idea. You should be a Senator. I don't think they should scrap the f-22 program at this point but definetly put it on hold for 5-8 years. But that will never happen because ego always wins over brains.
 
Actually, the F-16 already fills the multi-role bill quite nicely. So the F/A-18 Super Hornet thing would just be ANOTHER multi-role "do it all" jet. Which is NOT what the AF needs. Mike D above all should know this. We need a purpose built aircraft, specifically designed to attain, and maintain air superiority. Multi-role jets are able to perform a variety of missions, which makes them valuable. But they generally dont excell at any ONE mission. If you want control of the sky, you need a jet that is OVERWHELMINGLY superior to the competition. Not just a jet that "can" fight other aircraft. Cancellation of the F/A-22 program would not only be a mistake in a tactical sense, but also a HUGE waste of money on a program that almost 100% complete. Arg!
 
I've just got a laymans knowledge of military aviation, but a good USAF multi-role fighter/attack aircraft doesn't necessarily mean it'll be a good platform for the USN.

Like the F-16 sure is a purdy jet, but I doubt it would last for a cat shot or a trap without a huge amount of modifications. And those modifications add weight. And with added weight comes an increased need for a more robust powerplant. Which brings a need for more fuel. But then you've got to store it so it's got to have hinged wings, and so on and so on.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Cancellation of the F/A-22 program would not only be a mistake in a tactical sense, but also a HUGE waste of money on a program that almost 100% complete. Arg!

[/ QUOTE ]

Not even close to 100% complete. The Air Force has not started full rate production; they won't even make that decision until December and when they do, they have to justify it to Congress. Then, they are only building 22 this year, 24 next year, and 32 the year after that. It's still a long way to the planned 277, especially for an aircraft that continues to be plagued by software problems...
 
I for one am all in favor of cancelling the F22 if there is a cheaper susbtitute to replace the F15's. I don't know if we could replace the old F15s with new ones or what but dang the F22 is expensive. Especially expensive considering we already seem to enjoy a ridiculous amount of air superiority for anytime in the concievable future.

For those that might acuse me of being an AF basher, I also think the conversion of SSBN's to SSGN's is a waste of money as well. Cool but wasteful.
 
If you want to control the skies above the battlefield, shouldn't you put your best equipment in the sky? Hate to use an abstraction here, (I passed my FOI test), but most NFL teams don't start their backup quarterback in the Super Bowl, right? Not many MLB teams start opening day with their fourth or fifth starting pitcher, right? And in the NBA, is it usual to put your bench in to start the game?

Check my memory here, but didn't the F-15 come about in the early 70's or so? So let's see, early seventies to the turn of the millenium....30 years. In our next conflict, does it make sense to send in our 30 year old backup, because it's cheaper?

We've got the technology, we've got the plane, and we've got the resources to make it successful. We should put our best effort in the sky, no matter what the cost. What price freedom?

G
 
But is it the best? The plane still hasn't gone through IOT&E yet. IOT&E is the initial operational test and evaluation, where you prove it can successfully achieve its mission. It is generally required BEFORE low-rate initial production, and it is almost unheard of to be this far along into its life cycle WITHOUT completing IOT&E. Without completing IOT&E, no one can say for sure the plane is completely capable of performing its mission.

It's like the difference between Peyton Manning and Ryan Leaf to use your analogy. Both had great stats in college and both looked like phenomenal quarterbacks, but Leaf just couldn't get it together in the NFL.

There is one simple reason why the F-22 is behind schedule and over budget: they just can't get it together. Yes, they can probably make it work, but do you sacrifice C-17s, F-35s, JSSAMs, UCAVs, new tankers, the BMC2, and the top brass's usual answer ("just cut support equipment") to do it?

[ QUOTE ]
In our next conflict, does it make sense to send in our 30 year old backup, because it's cheaper?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it makes sense to send in your 30 year old backup because it works. Again to use your analogy, it's why you usually see a veteran quarterback beat the other team's rookie in the Super Bowl every time.

Does anyone remember the B-1? The F-22 is starting to look a lot like the B-1 did. They couldn't get it to work right, and now when they finally have it working (mostly), they decide to send a third of them to the boneyard in favor of keeping the much older (but yet proven) B-52, because the B-1 still has a lot of problems they just can't seem to work out.

The acquisition landscape is riddled with systems that didn't do what they were supposed to and got cancelled: the A-12, the Sergeant York anti-aircraft system, and the Comanche to name a few that come to mind off the top of my head.

Don't get me wrong, I hope they can get the F-22 working, but don't forget these are OUR tax dollars at work. I'd much rather see an across the board pay raise for all military personnel, more airlift capability, adequate support equipment to properly maintain the weapons systems we currently have, and R&D that looks at winning the war on terrorism instead of the Cold War BEFORE I want an aircraft system that, while very cool looking, may not be able to perform its primary mission.
 
I think the analogy is incorrect.

Take it to baseball instead.

If the US is the Yankees, then the rest of the world appears to be the Charleston Riverdogs (a 1A team in the Devil Rays organization.) Why would you continue to pay the salary of the Yankees if you know you can crush the opposition with a regular MLB team. Especially when you are also supporting other teams. So any money you spend on the Yankees takes away from money to be spent on your other teams that don't enjoy such a dominant lead over their peers. Its all about Balance Danielsan...
 
I live on Davis Monthan Air Force base which is where the military boneyard for a/c is. Most of the B-1's that were in the process of being mothballed have been pulled back to be reintroduced into service because some senators liked thier performance over Afghanistan (which is actually a waste cause now they have to find funds that dont exist to upgrade those a/c).

Also about the F/22, I think that we are already completely dominate in the sky (not counting the Israeli fighter pilots who would fly F/22's anyway) with our F-15's and F-16's. I say save money buy purchasing 2 F-15's for every F/22 we would have purchased. That still leaves a money savings and opens up yet another coveted fighter pilot slot.
 
New stealth fighter plagued by overheating

I promise I'm not trying to bash the plane, but...

[ QUOTE ]
New stealth fighter plagued by overheating

By Amy Klamper, CongressDaily

The F/A-22 Raptor is outfitted with the most sophisticated components available, but as the Air Force's new stealth fighter enters operational testing this month, those advanced technologies could cause a serious glitch: overheating the jet as it idles on the runway.

Air Force acquisition chief Marvin Sambur said recent adjustments to the avionics software should mitigate the problem, which could be exacerbated by the summer weather at the Raptor's operational testing range at Edwards Air Force Base in southern California. Sambur said the Air Force also is examining a long-term plan that would modify the aircraft's hardware to increase cooling capacity in its fuel bays.

Still, other Pentagon officials say it is unclear whether the overheating will continue to plague the aircraft in warm climates, posing a risk to the fighter's sensitive avionics.

"It's an airplane that costs $300 million a copy, and you still have to park it in the shade," joked one Pentagon official who has expressed concerns about the problem.

Finding a shady spot to park the aircraft was one initial fix used to avoid overheating, according to Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh, director of global power programs, but other efforts included chilling the plane's fuel supply and scheduling flights during the cool, early morning hours.

Air Force officials say the problem is minor and infrequent. In flight, the F/A-22 is cooled by using airflow. But on the ground, the fighter's gadgets can sometimes generate too much heat during maintenance or air traffic delays in warm weather.

Internal liquid cooling systems are designed to keep the temperature of the F/A-22's high-tech systems at 68 degrees. But once the cooling system transfers heat to some of the plane's gas tanks, the fuel cannot stay cool for prolonged periods while parked on the hot tarmac.

Software solutions for such complications have been installed, and the problem is unlikely to thwart the Air Force's plan to complete operational testing and approve full-scale production of the $72 billion program in January.

The Air Force continues to explore a long-term solution to the problem, including using even more fuel tanks to absorb heat from the cooling system, reducing the amount of heat produced by the avionics, and additional air-cooling capacity with vents in the rear of the aircraft. The cost and feasibility of these options are currently under consideration.

"We're going to fly this airplane where it's hot, so we need to have it fixed," Welsh said.

The F/A-22 has strong support in the House, where rank-and-file members earlier this week sent letters to House Armed Services Chairman Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., and House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., urging them to fully fund the president's $4.7 billion funding request for the plane in fiscal 2005.

Senate Armed Services member John McCain, R-Ariz., said in April he would consider canceling "this airplane that is going to cost between $250 million and $300 million dollars a copy."

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0404/043004cd1.htm

[/ QUOTE ]
 
Re: New stealth fighter plagued by overheating

It just isn't right to spend billions with an aircraft pogram as it is so succesfull and then just scratch it off to fund a few more months of war. In my opinion this has gone off hand.
 
[ QUOTE ]

For those that might acuse me of being an AF basher, I also think the conversion of SSBN's to SSGN's is a waste of money as well. Cool but wasteful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those 726 boats cost something like 2 bill to build and they still have 30-40 years of service left....why scrap them just because of a treaty? They're incredibly quiet boats...great NSW launch platforms. I think it was the most cost effective/outside the box plan the five-sided puzzle palace has hatched in a long time...
 
[ QUOTE ]

Like the F-16 sure is a purdy jet, but I doubt it would last for a cat shot or a trap without a huge amount of modifications. And those modifications add weight. And with added weight comes an increased need for a more robust powerplant. Which brings a need for more fuel. But then you've got to store it so it's got to have hinged wings, and so on and so on.

[/ QUOTE ]

When I first got to Kadena and saw a 15's gear up close I thought "how dainty". DoD tried making a common usaf/usn jet....the F-111. It was a failure for the USN and a bastard child (from what I hear) for the chair force. The Aussies still fight them with success out of Amberley...LOUD!
 
I can assure you the tridents definately don't have 30-40 years left in them. We are still trying to prove that Enterprise can last 50 years. It is at 43 and is so manpower and maintenance intensive, it would have been much cheaper to scrap and replace about 10 years ago. Submarines are worse because of the cycling stress on the hull from diving and surfacing. The hull on a sub won't last that long. The SSGN's may have a service life of about 15 - 20 years. The Navy only did it, because ADM Bowman of NR doesn't want to see too few non SSBN submarines and this was an easy way to get 4 more platforms to sea. The Seawolf costs too much. The virginia class is taking too long to build. I think this is a cool concept. I mean it is going to carry a lot of missiles, is quieter than the ocean, can carry several seal teams pretty close to target. I just think it is kinda wasteful right now.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the F-16 already fills the multi-role bill quite nicely. So the F/A-18 Super Hornet thing would just be ANOTHER multi-role "do it all" jet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, the Hornet is a much better solution to the multirole/multiservice problem; it could easily be the modern day equivalent of the F-4. It's got engine redundancy and a better radar than the Viper, giving it air-to-air capability on par with the F-15, particularly in beyond-visual-range engagements, and it's every bit as capable as the Viper in the surface attack role.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Actually, the Hornet is a much better solution to the multirole/multiservice problem; it could easily be the modern day equivalent of the F-4. It's got engine redundancy and a better radar than the Viper, giving it air-to-air capability on par with the F-15, particularly in beyond-visual-range engagements, and it's every bit as capable as the Viper in the surface attack role.

[/ QUOTE ]

Problem with the Hornet is it's very short legs, much the same as the rest of the fast movers.

Capable in the SA role as the F-16 is accurate, though it may even be closer to the 15E in that respect, especially with the E/F models.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top