What will Obama do about the F-22?

star-telegram ^ | Dec. 29, 2008 | BOB COX

[pobeda1945]

Sometime during his first couple of months in office, President-elect Barack Obama will have to confront one of his first big decisions about U.S. defense policy and budgets.

And it’s a thorny one.

Specifically, Obama and his as-yet-unnamed circle of top defense advisers will have to determine whether to continue spending roughly $4 billion a year to buy F-22 Raptor fighter jets built by Lockheed Martin.

They might decide, as the Bush administration has, that the F-22 is superfluous and that the money is needed for other priorities. On the other hand, the Air Force, according to defense analysts and consultants, wants to buy at least 60 more of the $180 million jets.

Jim McAleese, a consultant with close ties to the Air Force, told a Reuters conference in Washington last week that the service was putting "all its political capital" into buying more F-22s beyond the 183 on order.

[PreciousLiberty]

“Up graded F-16’s and F-18’s can answer the mail for at least another decade.”

First off, the F-22 is the replacement for the F-15, which has still never been defeated in combat. 104 kills to 0 losses. The F-15 is definitely getting long in the tooth compared to some of the newer competition like the SU-35, though.

That said, the “180 million” price tag for the F-22 rolls the entire cost of R&D into the unit cost of the jets. If we were building more, or there were a “foreign export” version, the unit cost would drop more in line with an inflation-adjusted F-15. That’s the same deal with the “$1 billion” B-2.

Given the literally revolutionary capabilities of the F-22 I’d hate to see the buy reduced. If anything, we should buy more to reduce the per-plane cost, and possibly export some [reduced capability version] to the UK, Australia, and Israel.

[Leisler]

That’s like using Rangers, Delta and SF personnel to run detention camps because you never know when they might half to. Meanwhile the Air Force wants to drop bombs on three guys in a alley with AK’s and RPGs.

defense establishment too....careers, contracts and romanticism.

[pawdoggie]

I don't know how Benevolent Leader Comrade Obama will do about the F-22. He may follow Comrade Representative Frank's advice, and decide that the F-22 is one of those unnecessary defense programs that must be eliminated, or he may decide to split the baby in half, and ask for only 20-30 aircraft. If you follow the Democrat's recently acquired practice of insisting on nothing but the "best" (body armor, armored vehicles, small arms) for our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan (and damn the field testing and additional expense), then 60 more F-22s make good sense.

I believe that the USAF Chiefs have the best interests of the country, and the pilots who will have to face 21st Century threats sooner than most retired "defense analysts" imagine (the Chinese have proven far more adept and innovative with high tech than anyone would have dreamed twenty years ago). That having been said, this debate serves to mask the real question: whether we really need to get on with the production of smaller, less expensive, more maneuverable, deadly and stealthy "unmanned aerial vehicles", the UAV.

[SouthDixie]

Informative article and impressive video, thanks for sharing !

[Feckless]

Have all of that aircraft grade aluminum beaten into 22” rims.....

[GBA]

Sad when allies like Japan, Israel and Australia say they would buy them but people here don't think we should.

The F-22 is expensive, but it's way beyond anything we or anyone else has (now). It's a complete package, so we are not buying simply an advanced airframe and equally advanced engines, but also all the advanced electronics and software along with support. Considering how long we keep these assets in our inventory and the decades of use and abuse they receive, not to mention how well they do their jobs and bring their pilots home, I'd say we more than get our money's worth.

Our aircraft have not had to go up against any air force of consequence, so we swagger about sure in the knowledge our early 70s airplanes are the best in the world and more upgrades will keep them omnipotent for another 30 years. Too bad it's not true. Recently, F-15s have been grounded after structural failures and due to structural cracks found during inspections. The F-117 is now obsolete and retired. The latest from Sukhoi are more than a match for the F-15.

Pre-Pearl Harbor thinking killed a lot of Americans as it meant we were completely outclassed with our cute P-26s and out matched F4Fs and P-40s when we really needed them. Failing to take our enemies seriously meant that "inferior" MiG-17s shot down quite a few USAF and USN pilots in Vietnam. That kind of history doesn't have to repeat itself unless we choose it. Any new airplane has to be designed to handle any current or potential threat along with those we have no way of predicting and then survive decades of extreme service. You don't buy that at K-mart.

[CPOSharky]

Hmmmm. Sixty times $180 million is a little less than $11 billion.

How much was it that they gave to the UAW, oops, I mean the auto makers?

They could take that unused $350 billion bailout money and nearly double the military budget. And that would be constitutional.

[The Working Man]

Personally, I would prefer to see the money spent for one wing of F22’s go to buying new A-10’s.

Just my humble opinion of course. I see the A-10’s as being a more all around useful aircraft and my friends who were Army and Marines certainly think so.

[flowerplough]

Shades of the B-2 bomber? F-22 also “so expensive that we dare not hazard them in combat”? Or will the new Raptor end up like Thuds and Phannies over Viet Nam, million dollar aircraft dropping a thousand dollar bombs on five dollar bicycles?

[Erik Latranyi]

Any new airplane has to be designed to handle any current or potential threat along with those we have no way of predicting and then survive decades of extreme service.

Absolutely!

This nation must always maintain an arsenal far superior to that of any other nation or we will be guilty of abandoning our responsibility to ensure this nation's survival.

I don't know if the F-22 is a boondoggle or not. I leave that to experts. I do know that the money we spend on the military pales in comparison to that spent on clearly useless social programs.

[rbg81]

You make the mistake of assuming that all our wars will be fought against insurgents. If that were the case, I’d agree with you. But Russia and China are continuing to upgrade their aircraft—and both sell their products. At some point in the future there is a possibility we could go to war against one or both or thru proxies. You need an aircraft that can meet the challenge. You also cannot afford a procurement holiday on aircraft. If you don’t produce a fighter for 10 years, you might as well not produce them at all.

[mkjessup]

That’s like using Rangers, Delta and SF personnel to run detention camps because you never know when they might half to. Meanwhile the Air Force wants to drop bombs on three guys in a alley with AK’s and RPGs.

The fact is you NEVER know what Rangers, Delta or Special Forces might HAVE to do. Your approach would limit the military, just like Gary Hart's.

But by all means, defend your home with rocks and stone knives, don't worry about purchasing that new .357, it's too much for you to handle.

That principle cuts both ways, you see?

[Leisler]

sNo, you make the mistake of failing of economy of force. Of not consuming more than you need of resources, men, material or money on a given task.

You are like the Captain that wants a division worth of troops in case he gets all the way to Moscow.

99% of the wars have been irregular, low(relatively), tribal, colonial or just a political military mess. This is where the 99% of the killing has been, the economic destruction and obstical to progress.

It’s best illustrated in the case of the Army and their, up til now, distaste of SF, language schools. With the Navy you have their complete lack, up til now, with coastal and river force, even though that’s where the wealth and people are.

Even the CIA at tens of billions per year said, and this is after Gulf War one and the expense of the US of hundreds of billions, and more by other parties, and the dislocation and political and economic disruption of Saddam....that they, the CIA, did not have ONE human asset in Saddams Bath party.

Anyways, back to my theme, which escapes you, why is it OK for the Army to use second tier combat troops for less intensive operations, and why is it not OK for the Air Force to use simpler, cheaper craft for less demanding actions?

Why has the Air Force, except during war when they need them, been so anti A-10s? Matter of fact, wasn’t the A-10 program, more or less, shoved down, and kept down the Air Forces throats?

Let me get to the point. The Air Force want’s new fighters, and will trash, burn out, wear out, waste and dump it’s existing force to beaurocratical force, to box Congress to buy it new systems. (the other services do this too.)

[mkjessup]

You make good points. I look at the macro bottom line, which is that as expensive as weapon systems may be today, in the event of a war breaking out between the United States and the Soviet Union errr, Russia and/or the ChiComs, there isn't such an animal as a 'too expensive weapon', if it makes the difference between victory and defeat.

Of course that victory vs. defeat equation depends on not only the political will in the White House, but in what DIRECTION that will is guided. We've had a traitor in the White House before (Jimmy Carter) and we're about to get another one.

And I agree with you 100 percent that the F-14 Tomcat was taken out of the game way too soon, and for all the wrong reasons.

[mkjessup]

Let’s cut to the chase Leisler, what’s your military experience and the basis for your assertions?

[Mr Rogers]

The USAF plans on keeping the A-10 for a long time. That is why they just finished upgrading them to the A-10C.

[Poison Pill]

F-22 is way to expensive. Cooler than all get out, but too expensive. IMO the age of manned fighters is over. UAVs and RPVs can do it cheaper and can be in the air longer and don’t need to be engineered around a piece of meat.

[nikos1121]

I watched the video. Great plane but what’s it for, dogfighting? This is the kindof plane Israel needs.

I will say this, I agreewith some of the other posters here. We should be able to make a plane with the same flying capabilities as this one for a lot lessmoney.

Will be oool to see what the next generation of planes can do. ARe they tinkering with nuclear propolsion? That would make the plane virtually capable of standing there like a helicopter, turning, (like the animal it represents) and firing.

[Leisler]

Yeah, NOW, they are, and good thing too. They( not the same guys as now) were dumping them for F-16 a decade ago, and got pressure from Congress.

[JessieHelmsJr]

Right on

I’d rather buy a sh*tload of F-22s that 1 GMC that was built by the UAW with bailout money. At least I would be getting something for my tax money.