Possible configuration of the Sukhoi T-50
© NPO Saturn
Posted on 11/11/2007 10:17:36 AM PST by sukhoi-30mki
Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet
By Andrea Shalal-Esa
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six senators on Friday urged the Pentagon to increase its fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 fighter jets, saying they were concerned by development of rival aircraft by Russia, India and China, and the recent grounding of U.S. F-15 fighters.
The Republican senators also demanded Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England release three government-funded reports that reportedly call for additional F-22 purchases beyond a currently planned level of 183.
The senators cited the recent grounding of the Air Force's 700-plus fleet of Boeing Co F-15s, India's recent decision to join Russia's effort to develop a new fighter jet, and U.S. Air Force assessments that it really needs 381 F-22 Raptors, while 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 a letter.
They asked England to let Congress examine in full three separate studies 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.
In addition, they asked for a detailed Pentagon briefing before January 15, 2008 on the number of tactical aircraft required to execute U.S. military strategy through 2020.
"We also request that during this briefing, the Department of Defense articulate why Raptor procurement should be limited to 183," said the letter.
The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the letter, signed by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett, both of Utah; Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, both of Georgia; James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Thune of South Dakota.
Lockheed builds the F-22 in Georgia and there is a maintenance center in Utah.
Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, last week accused the Pentagon of willfully ignoring expert studies which concluded that it needs around 250 of the next-generation fighter jets, substantially more than the 183 the government plans to order.
"HIDE THE STUDIES"
"The Pentagon paid for studies that showed more F-22s were needed, but when it got that answer it decided to hide the studies and not share them with Congress," Thompson told Reuters. "Now Congress wants to know why the program is being cut to 183 planes, less than half the Air Force requirement."
The Air Force says ideally it needs 381 radar-evading F-22s to equip each of 10 air wings with a squadron of 24 fighters, plus some for testing, attrition and training, but cannot afford that many.
The senators said they were worried about Russian work on a radar-evading next-generation fighter jet known as the Sukhoi T-50, citing media reports that it was being developed to directly confront the F-22.
India's participation in the project was "especially disconcerting," they said, given how well Indian Air Force fighters performed during recent joint military exercises with U.S. forces, and "the propensity of the Russian Government to sell advanced weapons to our potential adversaries."
The letter also cited media reports that China reportedly was working on a similar twin-engine stealthy fighter jet.
The Air Force initially planned to buy 750 F-22s when the program first began in the 1980s, but that number has been whittled lower due to rising costs, budget pressures and competition from other weapons programs.
Sources familiar with the studies in question have said they cite a need for at least 40 additional F-22s, including one prepared by Virginia-based consulting group Whitney, Bradley & Brown, and first reported by Reuters in July 2006.
(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Brian Moss and Tim Dobbyn)
Possible configuration of the Sukhoi T-50
© NPO Saturn
I’d rather they spend the money on 8 new Active Army combat brigades and 4 more Active Marine combat brigades.
I’d rather spend money on both. If there is anything bonified for the goverment to spend money on, it’s defense.
We need to beef it up across the board. It warning signs are out there. Now is the time.
I’d rather that America saves a few billion dollars a year by cutting military aid to Muslim nations-can buy a few F-22s with that money.
I didn’t see which Senators were doing the urging. I guess they’re trying to drum up work (votes) for their state. Also I wonder if they’re due for election in 08. F-15’s are getting older. How much of what to replace is a tough question. When your largest current running military project is counterinsurgency in 3rd world dirt floor hell holes, it’s hard to justify spending money on these things. I didn’t thing air superiority over Iraq/Afgan was an issue. If there were a large WW2 style conflict in the next 10 years this would be money well spent but I doubt there will be such a conflict so in the mean time, more money for low tech ground forces is more helpful
“The senators cited the recent grounding of the Air Force’s 700-plus fleet of Boeing Co F-15s...”
Sure, ONE of them crashes, so let’s scrap 700+ of them and buy a much smaller amount of new ones that have not been combat tested.
It seems we are also replacing our fleet of 85 B-52’s with only 21 B-2’s.
Noone seems to care that the inevitable accidents or “golden bb’s” will quickly erode such small numbers.
It’s insane to cut procurment levels after so much has already been spent on &D. Production costs are a pittance compared to the money we’ve already poured into the program. I hope the F-35 lives up to the hype, because we’re clearly putting most of our eggs in that basket.
IMO it’s sortof a damned if you do and damned if you don’t situation. There are some good arguements for your case. I do believe there is a case for providing those funds also.
Well heck, let just fire the Pentagon since we all ready pay the US Senate and they are bleeding’ experts on everything.
“Sure, ONE of them crashes, so let’s scrap 700+ of them”
I know the current shutdown is suppossedly based on the recent crash
putatively from structural failure.
But I wonder if the loss of an F-15 about a month earlier (due to
jammed cable) probably added a little impetus to taking the F-15s
out of the line for now.
Article on the October crash in Indiana:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/328002.html
It is acceptable if you provide aid that helps best meet your interests.Example is counter-insurgency equipment for the Philippines or Pakistan.But what do the Pakis want?They want & will get F-16s equipped with AMRAAM missiles & 50 new Harpoon missiles for their submarines.Not exactly useful for taking on terrorists hiding in caves.Same goes for Egypt getting more Abrams tanks & upgrades to other American systems.
The funny thing in all this that US Aid,helps these countries to free up their budgets to buy from other suppliers as well.So while Pakistan gets US mil-aid,they are free to spend money on almost 200 new fighter aircraft from China,in addition to possibly transferring new US technology to them.
The F-15s are only being grounded-which is routinely done for weapon systems after mishaps.While there are over 700 of them-they are also aging.Same goes for the B-52,the youngest aircraft of that type is over 40 years old.You miss out that a new ‘regional’ bomber should be ready after 2015 to take over some roles.
The USAF needs more F-22s than currently in the works. DoD considers it a zero sum game and won’t ask for them.
DoD should ask for a heck of a lot more than they are right now, so that we can expand the Army & Marines while re-capitalizing the USAF and Navy.
But GWB refuses to ask for the money. He doesn’t want the political fight...one I think Congress would back down from quickly. Meanwhile, we’re still operating on a continuing resolution in Nov...
we need more f-22’s in order to effectively dogfight against al qaeda’s superior camel air force.
I agree with your comments and concerns. I do not support transfers of technology, and I would be very careful what I gave out that might hurt our interests.
This isn’t an easy game we play. If we back off, others will be more than willing to supply nations with what they want, and that will establish even closer relations with them.
I was very unhappy when I found that we were giving advanced tanks to Egypt. Some of the provisions to Pakistan are very problematic as well. I want good relations with India, and I do not want our relationship with Pakistan to eclipse that.
As you mentioned, China has it’s fingers in Pakistan’s business.
The destabalization of trade with China rears it’s ugly head around the planet. I cannot fathom the intelligence of facilitating what we continue to facilitate with them.
China is in the position to supply Pakistan because we have gifted it with technology and funding. It’s just suicidal what we are doing with China, IMO.
The only thing that is guaranteed is air superiority. And we must do everything at all costs to maintain it.
Taking them offline for evaluation when you don’t need them is fine. If they were needed, they could all be fighting.
Using the grounding as an excuse to buy a smaller ammount of unproven aircraft to replace them is foolish.
Run the numbers -
The Serbs knocked out almost 2% of our entire fleet of F-117’s with one lucky shot, and supposedly damaged another 2% with a near-hit.
If half of our fleet was committed there ( 29 aircraft ), two “golden BB’s” took out over 6% of our attack force of F-117’s.
With the recent surfacing of a Chinese Sub within firing range of our Carrier, “putting all your eggs in one basket” MUST take on new importance.
“If there were a large WW2 style conflict in the next 10 years this would be money well spent but I doubt there will be such a conflict so in the mean time, more money for low tech ground forces is more helpful.”
Concur fully, Samp. $200 million per F-22 Raptor not built will buy us several $5 million Predators or $15 million Global Hawks.
The design is probably 25 years old
It took nearly 20 years for the thing to IOC.
I worked with the F-14 and watched it be delivered to the Navy really quick. Why did it take so long to develop this thing?
I have been led to believe it has a very limited range.
The Air force sold its soul for this aircraft when they declared, "Not a pound for air-to-ground."
It is almost bankrupting the Air Force. They have been having to reduce their force size in order to afford the F-22.
When it’s all said and done, the production run will be about 450 to 500 F-22s.
One can hope.
Also, a new all service “A-10” would be great...
the other thing is, we may end up stick with a dem president and congress in the future. We can’t expect an unlimited military budget, buy all these f22’s and have little room for the stuff that actually wins wars
At this point, new F-22s run just a little over what new F-15s would run. The R&D costs are past - nothing we do now will get them back. What matters from now on is the cost to build them - and they are extremely competitive on that basis.
A lot of delay was due to sensor fusion, which is a tough challenge for all modern aircraft.
Grounding all the F-15s in service does sound extreme.
I’m suprised the serviced didn’t just maybe put part of each version
(cohort) of F-15s out of action for extensive inspection and refit
as needed, but keep the rest at least ready to jump into the fray if
needed.
But...I’ve got to admit that making such decisions is
“above my paygrade”!
Well,a lot of those comments are unfair-
1.The F-14 was developed in a different era when a very potent threat which could take on the US in a conventional war itself existed.Besides level of technology(relative to the era) on the F-14 is lower than that on the F-22.To prove that,similar aircraft came up quickly incl. the F-15,F-16,Su-27 & Mig-31.If the F-22 was delayed,it was because it was attempting to do things which won’t be done for a foreseeable future with it’s combination of stealth,supercruise,thrust vectoring & a new level of sensor fusion.The Sukhoi T-50 being talked about here,won’t enter service till after 2015 at the earliest.In other words,the F-22 won’t have any rivals for atleast 15 years-if the T-50 comes out right in the first place.No other aircraft in the last 50 years has had distinction.
2.The F-22’s range is adequate for something it’s size-it’s ability to supercruise gives it a better fuel fraction than previous aircraft.
3.It’s internal bays can carry atleast 2 JDAMs with a total weight of 2,000 pounds,while 4 winghardpoints can carry weaponry or fuel tanks upto a capacity of 20,000 pounds.As good as,if not better than existing aircraft.It will lose stealth & range if those are used,but it would still be very potent.
Unless,the airforce orders atleast 250 F-22s,the only thing that could save the line will be exporting the aircraft.
4 winghardpoints can carry weaponry or fuel tanks upto a capacity of 20,000 pounds.As good as,if not better than existing aircraft.It will lose stealth & range if those are used,but it would still be very potent.
The JDAM and all air-to-ground capability was added much later in the design. Do you really think it will ever be used in that role?
An expert recently told me that the thing has the same fuel flow as a F-4.
concur ... National defense is the primary reason that us.gov exists.
The F-22 is ideal as a replacement for the F-117 in the pin-prick strike role even with it’s internal weapons alone.It was never designed for the strike role,but it can be handy for it.
About having performance similar to the F-4,well the F-4 was classified as a long range fighter,so it can’t be too bad.That too with much newer engines & cleaner design.
I think we need a new fighter aircraft, but not that one. The Air Force really screwed up on that. I honestly think the F-23 was better. What killed the F-23 was that McD put A-G capability in the initial design.
I don’t think that there are any official figures stating the internal fuel capacity of the Raptor,though some publications & sites put it at rought 10,000 litres,while that of the F-4 is put at about 7,500 litres.You are probably right about the F-23,but no point talking over spilt milk.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.