Armoredd.com

Source: MSNBC

By Roxana Tiron
Posted: 06/18/09 01:34 PM [ET]
A key House defense authorizer on Thursday predicted that Congress will likely fund as many as 20 more F-22 Raptor fighter jets, despite the Obama administration deciding to put the kibosh on the Lockheed Martin contract after the 187th airplane is delivered.

The renewed fight over Lockheed’s F-22 comes as a surprise at a time when most lawmakers, contractors and the Air Force have all stopped talking about buying more stealthy, radar-evading fighter jets beyond 187.

The final F-22 plane will be delivered by the end of 2011 or early 2012, after which the production line in Marietta, Ga., is slated to close.

But Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii), the chairman of the Armed Services Air and Land Forces subcommittee, said at a breakfast with reporters on Thursday that there will likely be support in Congress to buy as many as 20 more planes.

The House Armed Services Committee this week kick-started what could be another heated debate over the F-22. Defense authorizers narrowly agreed to add $369 million for the procurement of materials and items for 12 F-22s that the Pentagon would purchase in 2011. The provision sponsored by Rep. Rob Bishop (R-Utah) passed narrowly by a 31-30 vote.

Abercrombie voted against it, but only because of a technicality: He wanted better identification of where the offset money would come from to pay for the advance materials.

Abercrombie said he still believes the Pentagon should buy 20 more planes at least as an assurance, a bridging strategy while the administration mulls longer-range strategic issues. Congress already decided last year that the Pentagon should buy 20 more planes and appropriated the money for items that could be bought in advance for the production of those planes.

The lawmaker, who is running for governor in Hawaii, also expressed clear displeasure at the fact that the Pentagon has ignored Congress’s direction from last year to buy 20 more planes and has not spent the appropriated money for the advance materials for those planes.

The new provision approved this week by the House Armed Services Committee will have to survive an extensive approval process, as that panel was the first to mark up the bill. The Senate Armed Services Committee is taking up the 2010 defense authorization next week and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) is expected to fight for more F-22s.

Regardless of what happens on the authorizing panels, appropriators would have to follow suit by actually writing in the funds for the advance procurement, and the administration is expected to fight any additional procurement of the F-22 beyond the 187 planes it committed to. The Pentagon did not want funding toward any new planes in 2010.

Additionally, lawmakers would have to find money next year to buy the planes — an increasingly difficult proposition at a time when the Obama administration is looking to tighten the belt and seeking to pay for other defense priorities. Because the planes will not be bought as part of a multi-year contract that could save money, they are expected to cost $250 million apiece. Twelve planes therefore could cost as much as $3 billion.

Because the planes will not be bought as part of a multi-year contract that could save money, they are expected to cost $250 million apiece. Twelve planes therefore could cost as much as $3 billion, according to House Armed Services Committee numbers. However, Lockheed Martin’s number comes to about $185 million a plane. That is the price tag for four F-22s that the government is buying outside of a multiyear contract.

Source: The Hill

By Thomas Burr
The Salt Lake Tribune
Updated: 06/17/2009 05:30:25 PM MDT

Washington » At the request of Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, a House committee shifted money to continue to build F-22 fighters, a defeat for the Obama administration and a win for the workers at Hill Air Force Base.

Near the tail end of a marathon congressional hearing on the defense budget, Bishop pushed — and won by a single vote — an amendment that shifts $369 million to hold off on plans to shutter the F-22 production, and leaves open the potential of building 12 more fighter jets.

Bishop lost repeated attempts to restore a $1.2 billion cut to the missile defense system.

“We had a few losses on the missile defense side, but it was very good [night] for Hill,” Bishop said.

The defense-spending bill now heads to the full House for a vote and then to the Senate, a long process where language and funding may get changed.

“This is the first step,” Bishop said. “We have a long way to go.”

But Bishop said getting the House Armed Services Committee to agree to keep alive the F-22 program and deferring for a year a reduction in Air Force jets was a good initial success.

The Obama administration, led by Defense Secretary Robert Gates, has pushed a series of defense cuts, including ramping down the production of F-22s.

The Utah congressman, the state’s only member of the House Armed Services Committee, also added to the spending bill:

» $5.1 million for modifying the taxiway apron of Hill’s main runway to make it safer and allow for more efficient flight operations;

» $3.4 million for research into converting fuel to fertilizer at Tooele Army Depot;

» $5.2 million for a program at Ogden Air Logistics Center to improve productivity of the 309th Maintenance Wing.

tburr@sltrib.com

12 June 2009

Future exports of the US advanced F-22 fighter may become difficult, according to US Air Force chief of staff General Norton Schwartz.

The chief of staff said that pragmatic obstacles such as technical, legal and timing aspects would affect the export.

The obstacles include a legal ban on F-22 exports overseas, the high costs that would be incurred for designing an export version of the plane and the issue of the production line being still open by the time any exports were approved.

Opponents say the issue can be dealt with since a large percentage of the components on the F-22 are the same as the F-35.

The F-22 is a multi-role fighter capable of simultaneously carrying out air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions.

The US Department of Defense has planned to halt the production of the F-22 after the production of 187 planes, despite the military requirement for 243, due to budget constraints.

Recent changes such as North Korean missile launches and continued interest by Japan for F-22s had softened the opposition to the export of the fighters.

Source: Air Force Technology

09 June 2009

The US Air Force has estimated that export version F-22 fighters would cost Japan about $250m each if the present US ban on its export is lifted.

The F-22, US defence classified equipment, is a multi-mission fighter that can simultaneously carry out air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions in face of multiple airborne and ground-based threats.

Japan has long been interested in buying two squadrons of its own F-22s that translates into orders for 40 to 60 fighters.

The US Air Force is no longer opposed to F-22 exports and is planning to lift the ban in the face of recent North Korean missile launches, continued interest by Japan and the impending shutdown of the F-22 production line, Reuters reports.

The export may also open up the possibility for resuming F-22 production for the US Air Force in future, which is expected to halt in 2009 with production of 191 planes due to budget constraints.

Japan seems to be willing to pay the cost of modifying the sophisticated fighter jets for export that would amount to about $1bn, Reuters says.

Source: Air Force Technology

By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 20 May 2009 18:02

Source: Defense News

Congressional proponents of more F-22 fighters will aim to put extra money for the stealthy jets in the 2010 U.S. defense appropriations bill, a key senator says.

“The appropriations process is the key right now. … That is primarily what we’re going to focus on,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., said May 20. Chambliss is a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

“We might not even need the authorization” bill to spend more money on Raptors, he said.

Chambliss said after a speech at the Washington-based American Enterprise Institute that he has spoken with congressional leaders about buying more Raptors with 2010 appropriations.

Asked whether those leaders had given him any guarantees, Chambliss said: “The good news is we have people in leadership on both sides that realize 187 [jets] is not enough.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced April 6 that the Obama administration would hold to the Bush administration decision to halt F-22 production. The Pentagon has money for 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made jets; lawmakers are expected to provide four more in pending war-funding legislation.

But some in Congress - especially those, like Chambliss, whose districts make F-22s and their parts - say a 187-plane fleet would hamstring future presidents. Chambliss said the currently planned Raptor fleet would only be available in one region at a time. That would limit “a future president’s options,” he told an AEI audience.

Chambliss said the decision to cap the fleet “is not a one-year or two-year decision; it’s a 30-year decision.”

Gates has countered that only 187 are needed, citing internal Pentagon analysis who say peer militaries, like China and Russia, will not be able to field a comparable fifth-generation fighter until the 2020s. When coupled with the Raptor’s cost, Gates has said he is willing to take a bit of near-term risk, since all indications are any fighter that could take on the F-22 is decades away.

F-22 proponents also have touted its ability to take out enemy surface-to-air missile systems. Gates has answered that, too, telling Chambliss during a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing last week that the military has plenty of other aerial systems that can target SAM sites.

The secretary announced his decision to cap the Raptor fleet on the same day he announced proposed changes to 49 other major weapons.

All content © 2009, Army Times Publishing Company

By JOHN T. BENNETT
Published: 14 May 2009 12:49
Defense News

An internal Pentagon study on the American military’s tactical aircraft needs concluded 260 F-22 fighters are needed for future missions, Sen. Saxby Chambliss said.

The Georgia Republican cited the Defense Department’s recent “TacAir Optimization Study” in criticizing Defense Secretary Robert Gates’ decision to cap Raptor production at 187 jets.

Gates has said repeatedly since announcing a raft of major program decisions April 6, including capping F-22 production, that “no military need exists” for more than 187 Raptors.

Chambliss, who hails from the state that hosts the fighter’s production line, said during a May 14 Senate Armed Services Committee hearing that Air Force leaders have told him otherwise.

Chambliss said he has garnered the private assurance of Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz that the “military requirement is 243 planes.”

According to the senator, Schwartz called a 243-Raptor fleet a “moderate risk force.”

Chambliss said he expects the air chief will say as much next week when he testifies on the Air Force’s 2010 budget request.

The senator also said he has learned that the Office of the Secretary of Defense believes the fighters only will be needed in the Pacific region, while the Air Force sees it being needed in other areas as well.

Gates did not comment directly on the tactical air study. But he did say his decision to field only 187 models came after discussions with the military’s combatant commanders, as well as Air Force leaders.

Gates that his decision also was based on Pentagon assessments that in 2015 and 2025, the military will have around 1,000 to 1,700 more fifth-generation fighters than would China, its expected closest peer.

The secretary said he came to believe the U.S. military would not “need any more fifth-generation fighters to take out fourth-generation fighters.”

Chambliss also criticized the F-35, which Gates’ 2010 budget plan calls for buying more of. The senator said he has been told the costs of F-35s likely will come to $140 million a copy - “which is the current F-22 cost.”

That is not what the Congressional Budget Office says. Its May study of options for buying new fighters found that the F-35, depending on model and procurement schedules, would cost between $67 million and $116 million.

Gates told Chambliss his decision also was based on factors such as growing evidence that the Air Force fleet of the future will look differently than expected just a few years ago. Most notably, the secretary said, the fleet will consist of more unmanned aircraft.

In his final salvo of the exchange, Chambliss called the F-22 the most effective weapon for countering enemy surface-to-air missiles.

Gates shot back that he believes “the only defense to a surface-to-air missile is not just something with a pilot in it.”

All content © 2009, Army Times Publishing Company

By Greg Grant Friday, May 1st, 2009 12:35 pm
Posted in Air, Policy
DoD Buzz

A former head of Air Combat Command is aware of “no analysis whatsoever” that could have produced a requirement that the Air Force buy just 187 F-22 air superiority fighters. That’s the number Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon intended to buy, after which the aircraft’s production line would be shut down.

Retired Air Force Gen. Richard Hawley said the only “detailed analysis” he knows of generated a requirement for 381 F-22s, the number needed to fight two simultaneous wars “against adversaries capable of contesting our control of the air.”

Hawley’s not terribly surprising call for more F-22s was made in front of a largely sympathetic group of senators from the Armed Services Air Land Subcommittee on Thursday, most of whom, including chairman Sen. Joe Lieberman, Ct., appeared to be looking for ammunition to refute Gates’ recommended F-22 buy. Piling on the Gates’ decision at the same hearing was CSBA senior fellow Barry Watts, who said DOD’s 187 F-22 number “was purely budget driven, it had nothing to do with analysis.”

Hawley said a fleet of 187 F-22s might be able to support one major war against an adversary with advanced air defenses, but even that number could be too low. Due to normal attrition, maintenance and the need for training aircraft, the general rule-of-thumb is that it takes 100 aircraft to produce 72 “operational” aircraft. By that formula, a fleet of 187 F-22s would be able to generate at best 100 combat ready aircraft, he said.

Hawley said he participated in the original analysis that produced the “actual requirement” for 381 F-22 number, based on generating ten operational squadrons for the two major war scenario. Moreover, a large F-22 fleet is vital to maintaining our “conventional deterrent posture,” he said. Because the stealthy aircraft is able to penetrate advanced air defenses it threatens a potential enemy’s high value targets, where other aircraft in the U.S. fleet cannot. “The F-22 is an investment in deterrence just like our investment in nuclear weapons during the Cold War.”

If the Obama administration decides fighting two simultaneous wars against advanced adversaries in different parts of the world is no longer the force sizing construct, then shutting down the F-22 production line would be appropriate, Hawley said. The “prudent” move would be to continue F-22 production until at least a year from now when the national security strategy hopefully becomes a bit clearer. While praising the attributes of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, he said it was very much a complimentary aircraft, not a replacement for the F-22.

The future of the Air Force’s Next Generation Bomber was also a hot topic at Thursday’s hearing. Watts said the aging fleet of 20 B-2 stealth bombers would not see us through the next 20 to 30 years, and development must begin immediately on a replacement. Referring to Gates’ decision to hold off on the NGB program until after the QDR strategic review, Watts said “we’ve studied the NGB issue to death, we don’t need more studies.” Hawley raised the ghosts of Vietnam as a warning against short changing pilots with inferior aircraft in the face of a determined enemy, saying the Air Force entered that war ill-trained and ill-prepared and had over 2,000 aircraft shot down, against what he called a “third rate” adversary.

Updated: Hawley’s 100 operational F-22 comment came in response to a question regarding how many aircraft would be operational over the long term after x number of a 187 strong F-22 fleet had been lost through normal attrition. His exact quote: “Given that that’s likely the number, about 100, we must understand that you never are able to deploy all of those airplanes. In my experience you shouldn’t expect to have more than about 75 percent of that force available in surge cases to support a combatant commander who faces a serious threat, so it’s even less than 100.

Fighter can be chief weapon against SAMs
By Phillip S. Meilinger
Air Force Times

For 10 years, the Air Force has argued that the F-22’s incredible dogfighting capabilities will ensure the U.S. remains dominant for decades. And for 10 years, critics who say the fighter is an overpriced Cold War relic have steadily whittled down the service’s Raptor budget.

It’s time for a new argument.

The F-22’s superior dogfighting capabilities are barely relevant. Yes, formidable new fighters are being fielded by potential adversaries, notably the Russian-built Su-37 and MiG-31 and the Chinese F-11. The F-22 is far superior to these older-technology, nonstealthy aircraft, but the F-35 would also far outperform any of these models. As a consequence, the dogfighting rationale for the F-22 has never gained much traction outside the Air Force.

Air Force leaders need to regroup and posit a rationale that the administration, Congress, the services and the American people can understand and support. The dogfighting gambit has not worked, but the need for maintaining air superiority is very real. The F-22 should become our chief asset for taking down enemy air defenses.

Air superiority has two aspects: We prevent the enemy from using air power to attack our forces and facilities, but he cannot prevent us from attacking his. This second element is the most challenging.

Since World War II, the Air Force has lost more than 2,700 aircraft in combat. Of those, fewer than 200 have been shot down in air-to-air engagements — and none since Vietnam. The other 93 percent have been either destroyed on the ground, or downed by anti-aircraft artillery and surface-to-air missiles.

Now Russia has built new SAMs that are far more dangerous to our aircraft than anything we have yet faced. The S-400 system has an impressive range of up to 200 miles and would devastate nonstealthy fighter aircraft. Large and less maneuverable aircraft — tankers, airlifters and C2ISR platforms — would not stand a chance. These new SAM systems are proliferating, and we can expect that they will soon be in the arsenals of China, Iran, North Korea and Syria — if they are not already there.

To employ our assets near the combat zone, we would have to take out the enemy SAM belt. Our current Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses assets could not do this — our anti-radiation missiles, carried by nonstealthy F-16s, are far outranged by the SAMs. It would be the classic case of taking a knife to a gun fight.

But the F-22 could.

With its superstealth and high speed, the F-22 could penetrate the enemy SAM belt, use its advanced radar and sensors to locate the enemy SAMs, and employ its internal ordnance of small-diameter bombs to destroy those sites. Removing these lethal missiles will then allow the thousands of other U.S. and allied aircraft to operate in the combat zone.

Air superiority should remain the key mission of the F-22, but the threat is not the nonstealthy aircraft of potential adversaries. The threat is from the ground. Only a stealthy fighter with the capabilities of the F-22 can accomplish this crucial SEAD mission.

The Air Force needs to remarket the Raptor. The old arguments about the need for a superior dogfighter are not credible. A SEAD asset is, however, essential. That is the vital mission the Raptor can perform peerlessly and for which it should be adapted.

———

Phillip S. Meilinger is a retired Air Force colonel and command pilot with a doctorate in military history. He is a freelance writer in the Chicago area.

By Colin Clark Thursday, April 23rd, 2009 10:50 am
Posted in Air, Policy
DoD Buzz

The F-22 fight is in full swing, notwithstanding comments earlier this week from Lockheed Martin’s CFO that the company will not fight down to the wire for the weapon. Sens. Saxby Chambliss and James Inhofe signaled this week that they are almost certain to keep fighting for the plane.

“Just because you are the boss doesn’t always mean you are right, and it doesn’t always mean you will win,” the former commander of Air Force Material Command, Greg Martin, said Thursday in a clear sign of just how vigorous the fight over the F-22 may become. Martin spoke at an F-22 event hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

Just who will win over the F-22 and what that will mean for the services and Congress is growing increasingly complex.

For example, Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said last week that the service’s requirement for 243 F-22s remained intact. If that’s the case, Gates’ decision to cap the F-22 buy raises basic questions about the role of the services in building budgets and making budget decisions.

An Air Force officer familiar with Schwartz’ thinking told me that the requirement remained but that Gates had made a resource decision and the service understood that. Now defense secretaries are the final decision makers at the Pentagon. No question. But Schwartz’s comments [first reported on Friday by Air Force Magazine] would seem to raise all sorts of questions about the sanctity or relevance or requirements. Are requirements nothing more than guidelines subject to the latest budgetary crisis? Are they largely irrelevant, except as a proof of concept exercise?

Given the impressive amount of national treasure and brain power that goes into determining the requirements for major weapons systems, should they be overruled or ignored when money looks tight? And how much risk is the country accepting? That is not clear from Gates’ arguments yet.

Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post that 243 Raptors would have been a “moderate-risk” inventory. The 381 F-22s, the former requirement, was a low-risk number. But Air Force Magazine reported that Schwartz said at a National Aeronautic Association’s luncheon that stopping production at 187 was made very simply because “more F-22s are unaffordable in the context of other things we must do.”

At the CSIS event, Grant questioned whether Gates had performed any analysis to craft the 187 number. “What was the analysis that led us to that number? When we look at it, I think we’ll find there wasn’t any,” Martin said.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss castigated Gates for lacking a strategic basis for his decisions on the F-22 and the Future Combat Vehicle.

“Despite the secretary saying in his April 6 comments that he was not focusing on the budget, when you look at the decisions he made those decisions are purely budget-oriented choices,” Saxby said, adding that Gates made these choices without “a real strategy” and “no analysis” of the F-22 and its military impact.

Rebecca Grant, an analyst at the Lexington Institute, said Thursday that she would characterize 187 as a “high-risk” result. She argued, during the CSIS event, that the F-22 is needed principally because it is the premier weapon against the sophisticated S-300 ground-to-air missiles that the Russians have developed and are trying to sell.

by Rebecca L. Grant
Arlington VA (UPI) April 13, 2009

Space War

When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said April 6 that the U.S. Air Force advised him it wanted 187 Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptors, the reaction was shock.

That is because evidence indicates the U.S. Air Force was ready and willing to cap off production after buying a total of 243 F-22s, not 187. Do the simple math: Just 187 F-22s to replace 522 Boeing F-15 Eagles now in the total inventory is not enough in a crisis. A total buy of 243 F-22s is the minimum to fill out 10 F-22 squadrons for overseas missions and homeland defense.

What happened to the 243 number? Is the Obama Pentagon clamping down on the U.S. armed services?

Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, confirmed in December that he and Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz were discussing 60 more, or 243 total, F-22s. On April 7 a reporter asked Gates, “As recently as a few weeks ago, the U.S. Air Force leadership was still publicly saying 260, 265. When did that change for them?” Gates’ verbatim reply: “Well, you’ll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)”

Recall how things work in normal times. The Pentagon budget is a $650 billion behemoth that relies on a formal process derived from the checks and balances in the Constitution. The armed services submit their budgets. The Office of the Secretary of Defense makes adjustments, then sends the budget to the president, who sends it to Congress. Key committees call generals, admirals and civilian officials to hearings where they swear under oath to give Congress their undiluted opinions.

Here is the dog that didn’t bark in the night. Last summer Schwartz said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed 381 F-22s were too many but 183 were too few. He promised to “delve deeply” into the analysis and return with a new number. Schwartz had numerous opportunities to call a halt to the F-22 at 183 aircraft. He did not.

Going forward, Congress appropriated partial money for the next 20 F-22s based on the longstanding requirement for the F-22 to replace F-15s. Outgoing Bush administration officials threw in procedural delays to prevent the Lockheed Martin, Boeing and Pratt & Whitney team from getting to work.

Then came the U.S. presidential election on Nov. 4. Many applauded President Barack Obama’s decision to retain former President George W. Bush’s secretary of defense to ensure wartime continuity.

What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., has called a “novel” approach to the defense budget.

Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program-analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director. Next, in February Gates did what no previous secretary of defense had done. He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process — even to other senior officers in their services. Can you picture even experienced former Secretaries of Defense Caspar Weinberger or William Cohen making a demand like that?

Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised. To speak up given Gates’ new restrictions might risk the tradition of civilian control begun by President George Washington. Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith. Is this what change in Washington means?

(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)

(United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

$140 million-per-plane F-22 stealth fighter is on the chopping block

Associated Press
updated 12:08 p.m. PT, Mon., April. 6, 2009
MSNBC

WASHINGTON - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the U.S. military’s biggest weapons programs.

Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a “fundamental overhaul” in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to “fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks,” Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon’s spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Lawmaker opposition
Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon’s most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army’s $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

“It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk — or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant — is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable,” Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon’s biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a “staggering” figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By REBECCA GRANT, UPI Outside View Commentator
Published: April 1, 2009 at 6:22 PM

WASHINGTON, April 1 (UPI) — Fighters typically have a shorter design life than cargo or other mobility aircraft because of the g-forces imposed during training and wartime fighter maneuvers. A fighter executing a routine 3-g climb-out — at three times the regular force of gravity — on takeoff is enduring stress unknown to other types of aircraft.

How long fighters stay in service depends primarily on how fast pilots use up the design life hours — and what they do during those sorties.

A small fleet uses up service life more quickly than the U.S. Air Force planned.

The oldest Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22s delivered in the late 1990s would begin retiring just as the 2015-to-2020 threat fully emerges. A major block of about 50 F-22 Raptors that were delivered to the U.S. Air Force before 2005 would retire by 2025 to 2030.

There is yet another dilemma. The smaller the fleet, the less time the U.S. Air Force has to research and develop a follow-on for the F-22. At some point, the U.S. Air Force will have to develop an F-22 replacement. A boutique fleet will burn through the F-22’s service life at a rate that forces premature decisions on investment for a follow-on force. A fleet of no fewer than 250 F-22s would provide forces for conventional deterrence and allow more time to mature technologies before making a huge new investment.

A strong conventional deterrent with airpower remains essential to international security. As U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in his speech to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Oct. 28, “Let’s not forget the deterrent value … of our conventional military forces.”

Yet this is exactly the risk that the United States is taking with conventional deterrence. Unless the F-22 Raptor is bought in sufficient numbers, the risks to all joint forces go up and up in the years ahead. Right now, the United States has the ability to stay ahead in the conventional-deterrence game by upgrading its airpower with the unique capabilities of the F-22 Raptor. When production ceases, the door will close.

It would take many years and billions of dollars to begin a new program to surpass the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor. Long before then, the United States could see its policy options cramped by the limits of its own military power.

“I believe we are going to need a nuclear deterrent in this country for the remainder of this century, the 21st century,” Gen. Kevin P. Chilton, head of the United States Strategic Command told the Defense Writers’ Group on March 4, 2008.

“So long as there are other countries in the world that possess enough nuclear weapons to destroy the United States of America and our way of life … we will have to deter those types of countries,” Gen. Chilton said.

That is just as true for conventional deterrence. No one except America’s enemies wants the United States locked out of surveying a developing crisis or forced to escalate when a strong, conventional airstrike option would have done the job.

To fail to provide air dominance would allow other nations to deter U.S. forces and international coalitions. Within a half-decade, by some counts, other nations will build up enough lockout capability to foreclose all but very costly action. The door is already swinging shut for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance and other types of early crisis response.

The F-22 Raptor is a key ingredient in ensuring the kind of conventional deterrence that leaves the United States and its allies with access when they need it. It’s a capability that can make other nations think twice about their antics and ambitions. To cut it short with a truncated fleet unable to cover multiple theaters or sustain its service life would strike a blow to U.S. military power for all joint forces.

–

(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)

–

(United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

By REBECCA GRANT, UPI Outside View Commentator
Published: March 27, 2009 at 3:56 PM

ARLINGTON, Va., March 27 (UPI) — The developments most likely to interrupt the ability of the United States to carry out missions up to and including conventional airstrikes and thus imperil deterrence come from a range of technologies. Developments in these areas can be seen as pacesetters.

– Fighters. After a long lull, the world fighter market has seen new procurement plans and research on advanced types. First up are variants incorporating advanced tracking and targeting systems explicitly intended to match current U.S. fighters. In March 2008, Russian President Vladimir Putin called on the defense ministry to add more Sukhoi Su-35s and Mikoyan-Gurevich MiG-35s — an upgrade of the MiG-29 Fulcrum — in the interim before Sukhoi’s “fifth-generation” PAK-FA type is developed, Alexey Komarov reported in his article “Bear Market” in Aviation Week and Space Technology on March 3, 2008.

Together, Russia and China have 12 open military-aircraft production lines.

– Jammers. Digital radio-frequency memory is an electronics countermeasure technology that samples and digitally duplicates a waveform. The digitized waveform can be reconstructed at will and projected back to give false information on position, speed, heading and more.

– Infrared search and track. New systems like the one incorporated on the MiG-35 are capable of passive detection of heat from air resistance on a missile nose cone. Coupled with laser range-finding or other techniques, infrared search and track offers a potential fire control solution, too. While IRST has some operational disadvantages, it has the potential to be a formidable new weapon.

– Ultra-long-range missiles. According to the Air Force, new missiles are under development that will cut into some Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile and stealth tactics. Longer-range adversary missiles will make fighter aircraft speed crucial because it enables the Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT)/Boeing F-22 Raptor to engage at longer ranges with the same effect.

These are just some of the technical trends relevant to conventional deterrence as it relates to the ability to conduct air strikes. Many of these technologies debuted in rudimentary form years ago, and most are in the inventory or well within reach of the U.S. and Western partners. Together, they open tactical possibilities that present a near-even match with current U.S. fighters.

The Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT)/Boeing F-22 Raptor was designed to combat developments like these. Much of its edge is built into the aerodynamics of the platform. The whole intent of the F-22 Raptor was to create one fighter with the performance to ensure superiority against upgraded and new adversary fighters, even as they add advanced capabilities.

(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)

(United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

USA Today

EDWARDS AIR FORCE BASE, California (AP) — Lockheed Martin says one of its test pilots was killed in the crash of an Air Force F-22 fighter jet in the Southern California desert.

The company says in a statement Wednesday that the pilot was 49-year-old David Cooley.

Cooley was a 21-year Air Force veteran who joined Lockheed Martin in 2003.

The F-22 Raptor crashed 35 miles northeast of Edwards Air Force Base, Pentagon spokesman Gary Strassburg said. He had no information about the area where the jet crashed.

Small said the jet, assigned to Edwards’ 412th Test Wing, was on a test mission but he did not know its nature.

The radar-evading F-22s each cost $140 million and are designed for air dominance. The warplanes can carry air-to-air missiles but are capable of ground attack as well.

The $65 billion F-22 program is embattled, with some opponents contending that a different warplane under development, the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, is more versatile and less costly at $80 million per plane.

The U.S. is committed to 183 F-22s, down from the original plan laid out in the 1980s to build 750.

Its prime contractor, Lockheed Martin Corp., says there are 95,000 jobs at 1,000 companies connected to the F-22.

A spokesman for Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin referred all calls about the crash to the Air Force.

Lockheed is trying to convince the Pentagon to buy as many as 20 more F-22s. The military is expected to signal its intentions when the 2010 Defense Department budget is released next month.

The F-22 is able to fly at supersonic speeds without using afterburners. That allows it to reach and stay in a battlespace faster and longer without being easily detected.

The fighter, powered by two Pratt & Whitney engines, is 62 feet long, has a wingspan of 44 feet and is flown by a single pilot.

Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

By REBECCA GRANT, UPI Outside View Commentator
Published: March 13, 2009 at 3:18 PM

WASHINGTON, March 13 (UPI) — Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said, “It’s way past time to re-examine our strategic thinking about deterrence.”

Conventional deterrence is all about how to posture America’s air and naval forces, in particular, to safeguard allies and national interests without resorting to war. Make adversaries aware they’ll pay a price for action, and it will boost the chance for peace.

The last few years have brought forth a wider set of goals for conventional deterrence against rising powers and rogue states. “Our goal is, in part, to reduce their ability to hold other nations hostage and to deny them the ability to project power,” Secretary of Defense Robert Gates said.

Military forces for conventional deterrence range from missile-defense to airstrike options. However, tailored, proportional conventional airstrikes are a tool central to conventional deterrence.

Only one aircraft was designed to guarantee that option by staying ahead of evolving threats — the Lockheed Martin (NYSE:LMT)/Boeing F-22 Raptor.

For example, commanders need intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance at the start of a crisis. Formidable adversary air defenses could keep ISR platforms out. They’d also make it tough to intervene against states like Iran if called on to do so by the international community.

Even the U.S.-led North Atlantic Treaty Organization is facing renewed challenges. The F-22’s abilities will be critical when U.S. forces are outnumbered or sent on extremely difficult tasks, such as hunting and tracking mobile missile launchers.

What’s of concern is whether the United States is shaping the force to meet the demands of conventional deterrence in the next 20 years. Decisions made now affect the health of the conventional deterrent because competitors are moving ahead with sophisticated systems at a pace not seen since the Cold War.

If the U.S. Air Force’s F-22 fleet remains stuck at 183 aircraft, it will put future conventional deterrence abilities at risk. Commanders may not have enough of these specially designed aircraft to defeat threats with confidence, and the overall fleet life will be used up years before it should be, due to heavy tasking.

Right now, the United States has the ability to stay ahead in the conventional deterrence game by upgrading its air power with the unique capabilities of the F-22. When production ceases, the door will close. It would take many years and billions of dollars to begin a new program to surpass the F-22. Long before then, the United States could see its policy options cramped by the limits of its own military power.

Shoring up a prime element of U.S. conventional deterrence — its ability to conduct precise airstrikes anywhere — will take not fewer than 250 F-22s, for the good of the nation and the world

(Rebecca Grant, Ph.D., is a senior fellow of the Lexington Institute, a non-profit public-policy research organization based in Arlington, Va.)

–

(United Press International’s “Outside View” commentaries are written by outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

27 February 2009

Air Force Technology

The top US Air Force general said he had put forward a fresh request for top-of-the-line F-22 fighter jets that would postpone an otherwise-imminent start to the shutdown of Lockheed Martin’s production line.

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said on Thursday that he had presented the revised acquisition plan to Defense Secretary Robert Gates this week.

He declined to elaborate on their discussion and suggested he did not yet know the fate of the radar-evading fighter, the most advanced in the US arsenal.

“Until he [Gates] renders a decision, I’d prefer to keep the content of that conversation between the [Air Force] secretary and myself, and Secretary Gates,” Schwartz told reporters after speaking to an Air Force Association symposium in Orlando, Florida.

Lockheed Martin has said it plans to start phasing out the production line as early as next week unless President Barack Obama decides to buy more than the 183 F-22 Raptors now on order.

Schwartz said the Air Force’s top acquisition priority remained replacing its aging KC-135 tanker fleet. Last year, the Pentagon cancelled a contract with Northrop Grumman, teamed with Europe’s EADS, for 179 new tankers – a deal valued at $35bn – after US auditors upheld a protest filed by Boeing.

Air Force Secretary Thomas Donley, who joined Schwartz at the press briefing, said the timetable for re-running the tanker competition remained under review by the Defense Department.

If new bids are sought this spring, as projected by Gates, “we could potentially be in a position to to make a decision at the very end of the calendar year, more likely in the January time frame,” said Donley. The White House said Thursday that it was keeping Donley in his job.

Schwartz said on 18 February that the air force had scaled back its most recent goal of acquiring a total of 381 F-22s. He said at the time he would not dispute Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said late last year the air force was seeking about 60 more than the original 183 F-22s on order, or a total of about 243.

The final aircraft in the current F-22 order are scheduled to be delivered at the end of 2011.

At about $143m each, not including development costs, the F-22 has become the focus of a debate about hedging for large-scale wars versus fighting guerrillas in places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The F-22 has not been used in combat.

Gates, President Barack Obama’s sole holdover from the cabinet of former president George W Bush, has favoured instead buying the F-35 joint strike fighter, another Lockheed Martin fighter. The F-35, also designed to avoid radar detection, is being co-developed with eight other countries.

Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell said this week that the administration would make its F-22 plans known when it releases full details of the fiscal 2010 budget, likely in April, not by 1 March as had been sought by Congress.

Some F-22 suppliers already had been notified that “we will begin shutdown activities on 1 March unless the President certifies that continued production of the F-22 is in the national interest,” Sam Grizzle, a Lockheed spokesman, said earlier this month.

“If the decision on extending F-22 production is not made by 1 March, additional funds, already authorised and appropriated by Congress, will be necessary to keep the line open,” Grizzle added this week in an email to Reuters.

By Jim Wolf, Reuters.

24 February 2009

Air Force Technology

A high-stakes decision on the fate of Lockheed Martin’s premier F-22 fighter jet will be made known only with the release of the fiscal 2010 budget, not by 1 March as some people had expected, a US Defense Department spokesman said on Monday.

The administration’s plans for the radar-evading F-22 “like all big-dollar programmes, and particularly programmes facing execution problems … will not be known until the budget is structured and released,” said Geoff Morrell, the Pentagon press secretary.

The F-22 is the most advanced fighter in the US inventory. It has become an emblem of a debate about balancing purchases for wars such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan against those for deterring threats from other potential adversaries.

President Barack Obama’s detailed spending plans are expected to be sent to congress in April, after a more general summary of the fiscal 2010 budget is delivered on Thursday. Fiscal 2010 starts 1 October.

Congress provided $140m in bridge funds to keep the F-22’s production line going until at least 1 March, when lawmakers had wanted the administration to make up its mind on whether to buy more than the 183 F-22s now on order or delivered.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Obama’s sole cabinet holdover from former president George W Bush, has been cool to extending the production line, favoring Lockheed’s F-35 joint strike fighter, a multinational development effort. The F-35s cost roughly half as much as the F-22, Gates has said.

The administration planned to notify congress on or about 1 March of its latest thinking on $90m in congressionally provided bridge funds for the F-22 that the Pentagon has not yet allocated, Morrell said .

“You should not read into it necessarily that this is a road map of where we are going” with the aircraft, Morrell said. Rather, it would bring congress up to date on parts that must be pre-ordered to be ready in time for production.

“Whatever we decide to do by 1 March with regard to long-lead parts is not necessarily an indication of where we’re going with the programme as a whole,” Morrell said.

Jeffery Adams, a Lockheed spokesman, had no comment.

By Jim Wolf, Reuters.

Erin Dick
P&W Military Engines
+1.860.557.0122
erin.dick@pw.utc.com

Matthew Perra
Pratt & Whitney
+1.860.565.8938
matthew.perra@pw.utc.com

Pratt & Whitney

EAST HARTFORD, Conn., Feb. 11, 2009 – Pratt & Whitney has been awarded a $285 million contract option from the U.S. Air Force to maintain F119 engines for the F-22 Raptor. This Support Program for the Raptor Engine (SPaRE) involves sustainment for fielded engines in 2009. Sustainment activities include spare parts, labor support, fleet management and technical support for the Pratt & Whitney F119 engine. Pratt & Whitney is a United Technologies Corp. (NYSE:UTX) company.

“We are very proud of our continued relationship with the United States Air Force,” said Tyler Evans, director, F119 program, Pratt & Whitney. “We believe this contract extension illustrates their continued confidence in Pratt & Whitney’s ability to meet their expectations in the areas of engine availability, reliability and maintainability while keeping their fleet at a high level of readiness.”

The F-22 Raptor is exclusively powered by two Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, and is the only fifth generation fighter in operational service. The F119 has logged more than 90,000 operational flight hours and features integrated low observables with high thrust-to-weight, allowing for stealth, supercruise and thrust-vectoring capability in the F-22. It also shares a common legacy with Pratt & Whitney’s F135 engine, the only engine currently powering the fifth generation F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

Pratt & Whitney is a world leader in the design, manufacture and service of aircraft engines, space propulsion systems and industrial gas turbines. United Technologies, based in Hartford, Conn., is a diversified company providing high technology products and services to the global aerospace and commercial building industries.

This press release contains forward-looking statements concerning future business opportunities. Actual results may differ materially from those projected as a result of certain risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to changes in the USAF’s funding related to the F-22 aircraft and F119 engines, changes in government procurement priorities and practices or in the number of aircraft to be built; challenges in the design, development, production and support of technologies; as well as other risks and uncertainties, including but not limited to those detailed from time to time in United Technologies Corp.’s Securities and Exchange Commission filings.

# # #

© 2009, United Technologies Corp. - Pratt & Whitney

Tue Feb 17, 2009 9:31am EST

WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Air Force is seeking to buy more Lockheed Martin Corp (LMT.N) F-22s beyond the 183 now ordered but fewer than it had previously sought, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said on Tuesday.

Schwartz, speaking to reporters, said he was prepared to pay for additional F-22s by scaling back other, unspecified purchases. Schwartz said he would meet soon with Defense Secretary Robert Gates to present a revised number of F-22s that the Air Force wants to buy.

An Air Force “analytical study” supports buying more F-22s than the 183 now ordered, but the new number is below a previously stated need for 381 of the aircraft, Schwartz said. (Reporting by Jim Wolf, editing by Gerald E. McCormick)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

<---End of Quote--->

Related Article:
Schwartz to ask Gates for more F-22s soon

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Feb 17, 2009 21:15:08 EST
Military Times

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters Tuesday that he will ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the next couple of weeks for more F-22 Raptors than the 183 approved by Congress, but he wouldn’t disclose the final number.

Congress set a deadline of March 1 for President Barack Obama’s administration to decide whether to purchase more F-22s beyond the 183 already approved. The Air Force originally requested 381 of the stealth, fifth-generation fighter jets, but that number has dropped.

“It’s less than 381,” Schwartz said.

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said in December that he and Schwartz had talked about buying 60 more F-22s, which would bring the total to 243. Schwartz said Tuesday that he “wouldn’t dispute Admiral Mullen’s characterization.”

“But as I indicated, I have yet to discuss this with the secretary of defense, and I think it would be appropriate that I share my military advice with him first before doing so publicly,” Schwartz said.

F-22s cost about $150 million apiece and have been scrutinized for not contributing to the irregular wars the U.S. faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Air Force generals have said the current buy of 183 F-22s is too small, especially considering that only 100 could be available for combat at one time because of maintenance rates.

Lockheed Martin’s production line in Marietta, Ga., could be shut down if more F-22s are not ordered. Gates added funding for four more F-22s to last year’s supplemental budget to keep the line open after he chose to pass the decision on its future to Obama’s administration.

The Pentagon’s chief weapons buyer, John Young, said in November that another $8 billion will be needed to upgrade the current fleet of Raptors. He described the stealth fighter’s mission capability rate of 62 percent as “troubling,” and he said it was “proving very expensive to operate.”

Schwartz defended the F-22’s mission capability rate Tuesday, saying that the F-22’s performance has been “respectable” compared to other stealth aircraft such as the B-2 and F-117.

He acknowledged that his F-22 request will face scrutiny but said that lowering it from 381 should not be seen as a “sign of weakness.”

“I think it’s the sign of a healthy institution that we’re willing to revisit long-held beliefs no matter how central to our ethos they may be,” Schwartz said.