Posted on 02/29/2012 4:44:28 AM PST by EnjoyingLife
The US Air Force is re-assessing its numbers of so-called fifth-generation fighters, although it is still not backing off its commitment to buy 1,763 Lockheed Martin F-35As over the next 35 years.
The USAF now plans to operate about 185 Lockheed F-22As along with the F-35A fleet, amounting to a combined force of nearly 1,950 fighters with the stealth, manouevrability and advanced sensors that meet the service's definition for fifth-generation capability.
However, as cost increases and the budget reductions lowered planned orders of F-22As from 750 to less than 200 over the last 20 years, some have rasised questions about the USAF's ability to afford the full F-35A fleet size.
“What could have been done, and IMHO should have been done, is if we were going to settle on 187 as the final number, then we build 187 aircraft to the newest hardware and wiring standard, and sell off the earlier block aircraft to allies who wanted F-22s such as Japan and Australia. “
I’m in full agreement!
Uhm, are you implying that I’m an F22 “basher”? Because if you are, you couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
I am simply tired of the persistent and ignorant comparisons between the 2 aircraft and how the F22 is so much better than the F35 “overall”.
Simply, the F35 is the next generation tactical bomb truck with LG and stores capabilities the F22 doesn’t have. The F22 is the top dawg in the air, hands down.
They each have their part to play.
That is all true for the US and I have made that argument myself many times. But things change slightly with forign sales. If they are trying to decide on just one plane to buy they have to decide based on all the factors. For their needs one might make sense over the other. And that is all but impossible for us to debate anyway because only they know what their needs are and what tradeoffs they are willing to make. What is better, more planes or faster planes? Longer range or shorter runways. and ninezillion other tiny tradeoffs.
Again, from the article:And again, from later down in the same article:
In the "Joint Explanatory Statement" accompanying the bill, the House and Senate appropriators specified that $2.907 billion was to be appropriated for 20 F-22s in 2009. The math comes to just about what the Air Force said, $145 million per copy.
So, what's the problem?There's more; plenty more. Flipping down to the section on "modification of aircraft" we find another $327 million for the F-22 program.
Switching over to the Research and Development section, we find another $607 million for the F-22 under the title "Operational System Development."
Some will further know it is typical for DOD to provide "advance procurement" money in previous appropriations bills to support the subsequent year's purchase of major equipment. In the case of the 2009 buy of 20 F-22's, the previous 2008 appropriations bill provided "advance procurement" for "long lead" items needed to be purchased in advance to enable the 2009 buy. The amount provided was $427 million.
Here's the arithmetic: $2.907 + $.327 + $.607 + $.427 = $4.268 billion for 20 aircraft. That's $213 million each.
Please do not think these data represent an exceptional year. If you check any of the last few annual buys of F-22s, you will find the same pattern: in addition to the annual "procurement" amount, there is additional "modification," "operational system development," and advance procurement.
F-22s are costing these days a little over $200 million each. Period.
“The AF wants to buy aircraft with no immediate operational need.”
That is a good thing. Fighting the last war is the error. We need to prepare for a possible future conflict with China, possibly a Russian/China/Iran Alliance.
“Can you see the F-35 and B-2 using even a small percentage of their “combat capabilities” in Africa or Latin America?”
Yes. But that isn’t their role. Most of the future Terrorism contingencies are going to be standoff attacks with both UAVs and Deep Strike Missions launched from the US - in conjunction with selective Special Operations missions.
“Yet, the AF is anxious to spend billions upon billions of dollars to fight a future war (like World War III in Central Europe.”
Peace through Strength.
They know future generations of UAVs will kill off any manned fighter with ease. Even the Military/Industrial Complex realizes a bad bet when it sees one. A paradigm shift has arrived, like when Billy Mitchell rendered the battleship obsolete.
Fine, and by the same metric F-35s are far more expensive. Again, I was interested in apples-to-apples comparisons. From the F-35 article I linked:
In February 2011, the Pentagon put a price of $207.6 million for each of the 32 aircraft to be acquired in FY2012, rising to $304.15 million ($9,732.8/32) if its share of RDT&E spending is included.We'll see if the cost of F-35s comes down over time. I'm betting not.
“They know future generations of UAVs will kill off any manned fighter with ease. “
Really? Even if said UAV can’t detect the target? Even with auto-pointed beam weapons (anti-missile/anti-UAV) in play?
We’ll see.
"Uhm, are you implying that I’m an F22 “basher”? "
Not at all, just thought I'd ping over some folks who might be interested from the other thread.
I figured the F-22 bashers would know who they are... ;-)
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.