((The most senior retired military officer to back President Obama's run for the White House says the president is making a "real mistake" in terminating F-22 production.
Retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, who was the Air Force chief of staff during the 1991 Operation Desert Storm and who credited air power with winning the war, was the first four-star officer to endorse the one-term senator in his presidential campaign. McPeak traveled with Obama to bolster the candidate's commander-in-chief credentials, much to the chagrin of the general's fighter pilot colleagues.
But now McPeak is breaking with Obama on the president's most contentious defense budget decision: ending production of the Air Force's top-line fighter at 187 aircraft.
"I think it's a real mistake," McPeak told FOXNews.com. "The airplane is a game-changer and people seem to forget that we haven't had any of our soldiers or Marines killed by enemy air since 1951 or something like that. It's been half a century or more since any enemy aircraft has killed one of guys. So we've gotten use to this idea that we never have to breathe hostile air."
McPeak's comments come as Obama is in the throes of a major battle with Democrats and Republicans who have voted in committee to fund seven more F-22s.
Obama sent a letter to Congress Monday with a blunt warning.
"I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress," Obama wrote. "To continue to procure additional F-22s would be to waste valuable resources that should be more usefully employed to provide our troops with the weapons that they actually do need."
Defense Secretary Robert Gates ramped up the pressure Thursday, attacking Congress for trying to keep the $65 billion program alive.
"If we can't get this right, what on earth can we get right?" Gates said.
But McPeak said the F-22 has the capability to deter attacks.
"We do not want to field an Armed Forces that can be defeated by someone simply by topping our capability," he said. "The F-22 is at the top end. We have to procure enough of them for our ability to put a lid on, to dictate the ceiling of any conflict."
The radar-evading fighter/bomber's role is to control the skies in a future war against a major foe. McPeak and F-22 backers in Congress say 187 planes are simply not enough to do that job given the fact that some will be needed to train pilots and others will be in regular depot maintenance. That may leave only about 100 planes available for a war.
The Air Force had at one time wanted over 700 F-22s, but eventually lowered the figure to 381, then acceded to the 187 number.
"We certainly need some figure well above 200," said McPeak. "That worries me because I think it is pennywise and pound foolish to expose us in a way this much smaller number does ... That's taking too much high-end risk."
Gates defends the termination by saying more money needs to be spent on current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He also is increasing production of the multi-service single-engine F-35, a slower aircraft carrying fewer munitions, to augment the F-22. Both planes are to replace the Air Force's aging fleets of F-15 and F-16 fighters.
Obama and Gates are upping the pressure as pro-F-22 forces seem to be gaining steam in Congress.
Obama has two Senate heavyweights on his side -- Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin, D-Mich., and Arizona Sen. John McCain, the panel's top Republican.
Yet Levin and McCain were unable to defeat an amendment in committee offered by Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., to add seven planes. They will try to kill that provision next week.
In another act of defiance toward the White House on the F-22, Rep. John Murtha's panel added a down payment in the fiscal 2010 defense bill for 12 more jets.
"I think the F-35 is going to be a good airplane, when we get it," McPeak said. "It's just not going to be surprisingly good" like its successor, the F-16. He said the F-35 has been "compromised" in an effort to build versions for the Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.
McPeak also said he opposes Gate's decision to retire 200 tactical aircraft, mostly F-16s, over the next year.
"Certainly driven by cost, not driven by the fact that we don't have lots of work for these guys to do," he said.
Still, McPeak said he has no second thoughts about backing Obama.
"Barack Obama is doing a tremendous job," he said. "I think he's a great president, and has a shot at being put up on Mount Rushmore. ... My bitch is with Secretary Gates who I do not think has shown a lot of judgment here on these calls regarding the Air Force budget. ... His principal advantage is he is not (former Defense Secretary) Don Rumsfeld. And that virtue can only be played out so long." )) - www.alert5.com

Still more supporters for the F22 programme to continue..... frompersonal stand point, the US is making serious mistake about closing down production - almost like when they refused to consider options carefully and decided not to have heavy armour included in their arsenal when the sent in troops to Somalia. They refused to listen to people on the ground.....they are too blinded by the "BIG PICTURE' theory - COSTS. Without a doubt that current US economic situations and finances would have repreive from expenditures...but at what costs?? Many examples have been given from both sides (actually I think the side that opposes to the shut down has given more examples as to why it should not be closed whereas the side for the shut down has only given their argument as - cost cutting for other more important equipment) but the bottom line is the more this plane is produced, the lesser it would be (simple economies of scale)....with the advent of stronger competition from Russia and China, US needs such planes to continue to dominate or at least deny the enemies control of the skies.....as rightly pointed out by General McPeak, US had almost continually been able to achieve upper hand in the skies in the conflicts that followed the 50s till now. That has made lesser lives lost for the US military....as such they should (Obama included) look for other ways to reduce costs.....(in fact they should not have scrapped so many good ships earlier which need replacing now is one example of poor forward thinking and planning; basically the US have been very guilty of countless one sided plannings which created alot of unnecessary fund wasting). They keep saying they cannot sell the plane due to possiblity of secrest leaking out...goodness, they already lost some many secrets to stupid employment of Chinese and their own treacherous nationals....perhaps they should increase spending on intelligence and counter espionage by 100% in order to cap that gap which is actually more harmful than losing secrets sold to Allies (but of course the opposition is right to point out Israel - they should have punished the Israelis more when those guys sold the LAVI plans)

It can continue only if they amend the law and allow exports.

Frankly, those who claim that the Obama administration are not seeing the big picture are themselves blind. It's unaffordable to continue production if it was to be supplied only to the USAF alone.

Numbers are important both for economics as well as cutting edge technology. T

Seeing the big picture includes not only economics but defence. Obama administration (being Democrats - usually less militarily inclined in my opinion) did not consider the full spectrum of possibilities to reduce costs. It would be confirmed non-adjustable costs if the F22 is not allowed to carry on production.....the F22 did not even have a chance to be modified to make it less sophisticated for the export markets etc.....if F16s were in the same hype (back then) as F22s are now, why then are there export models? Meaning the US just wants to take the easier way out by scrapping the programme altogether.....thereby affecting THE BIG PICTURE....

Costs reduction could come in the form of more productions, stricter control of costs - workers pay etc.....obviously the aviation workers (unions) have not been targeted for control of their wages, insurances and retirements benefits etc...... with the wage cost factor reduced and perhaps a government stipulation not to pay for costs over-runs which were due to contractors' fault.....all these will contribute to reducing the overall bill.

I agree with Gates. No one has yet put up a cogent argument why 187 isn't enough.

China has only 270+ Su-27/30. Counting Suks to train, depot maintenance (far worse in terms of serviceability), how much of those can they deploy that 187 F-22s can't match.

That's not counting F-15s, F-16s and F-18s all of which are supposed to be better than suks and 2,700+ F-35s that will enter the pic. Americans won't be fighting alone either with RAF, RAAF joining in every case and for China, likely ROCAF, ROKAF and JASDF. Doesn't count deployment cost, capability etc.

Who is Russia going to attack that US has to defend? Does Iran or NK have an airforce beyond what 187 F-22s can handle?

All these are conveniently ignored in the so called "big picture" analysis which is not so big.

The only rationale put forth for F-22 continued procurement is maintaining production base. But that's a fallacy cos LM produces both F-22 and F-35 and those F-22 engineers are just going to switch lines keeping their jobs.

The reality is that $1 trillion of deficit/debt incurred annually for $500b of defence spending is just not sustainable. The USAF has far more urgent and bigger needs eg Tankers!

F16s, F15s and F18s are already in the news...slated for retirement due to increased usage in the current operations in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Also, if US were to be involved in a bilateral conflict or hostilities against either Russia or China, would anyone be sure that UK / Australia would definitely be involved too? This would be too presumptious that the US would depend on this possibility of aid from these 2 allies to dictate their defence procurement needs.

I guess we are going to be debating on this based on numbers so, I'll go dig up numbers to counter / support my side while you can search for yours bro.... :P

Point to note: Friendly debate....each exchanging points so that the other can be better informed. :P

Cheers!

Click here FTW.

THanks Iowa....excellent information...thanks for sharing

((If Japan's long-standing effort to acquire the Lockheed-Martin F-22 Raptor fifth-generation superfighter falls victim to Washington power politics, the United States may inadvertently encourage an Asian arms race over which it may have little control.
It is fortunate for the United States that in what may be the last year a deal is possible, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Daniel K. Inouye and his supporters have decided to lead an effort to reverse a 1998 law barring foreign sale of the F-22.
Through Mr. Inouye's efforts Japan now knows a slightly degraded export model of the Raptor may take five years to develop and cost about $290 million a plane for about 40, compared to the estimated $150 million the U.S. Air Force pays.
Japan's long-standing quest to obtain the F-22, however, may be shot down amid the intense political struggle over the F-22s very future. President Obama and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have made termination of F-22 production at 187 planes a symbolic goal of their effort to cut defense spending and reorient U.S. military strategy. This has been challenged recently by the House Armed Services Committee, which approved the production of 12 more Raptors, and a Senate committee that approved production of seven more. However, the administration immediately threatened a veto, and the F-22's opponents are working hard to ensure that production ends in 2011 as currently planned.
After 2011, the F-22's costs will grow significantly, so Japan and its U.S. supporters have little time to nail down a deal. However, some U.S. officials have long doubted that Japan can afford to pay for the F-22, which is why the George W. Bush and Obama administrations have not seriously promoted the F-22 for Japan. Mr. Gates reportedly favors selling Tokyo the smaller, somewhat less capable and less expensive Lockheed-Martin F-35 Lighting II.
While Japan may also purchase the F-35, there are two important reasons Washington should fully support Japan's goal to acquire the F-22. First, the F-22 will be the only combat aircraft capable of countering China's expected fifth-generation fighters. Second, selling Japan the Raptor may become a critical nonnuclear means for Washington to help Japan deter a China on its way to becoming a military superpower by the 2020s. If Washington cannot provide decisive nonnuclear means to deter China, Japan may more quickly consider decisive deterrents such as missiles and nuclear weapons.
Though the Chinese government says next to nothing and the U.S. government says very little, what is known about China's fifth-generation fighter program is disturbing. Both of China's fighter manufacturers, the Shenyang and Chengdu Aircraft corporations, are competing to build a heavy fifth-generation fighter, and there are serious indicators China may be working on a medium-weight fifth-generation fighter similar to the F-35. China can be expected to put a fifth-generation fighter on its future aircraft carriers, and it can be expected to build more than 187.
Furthermore, China's development of anti-access capabilities such as anti-ship ballistic missiles, its buildup of nuclear-missile and anti-missile capabilities and space-warfare weapons will increasingly undermine U.S. strategic guarantees for Japan. China's development of long-range anti-air and surface-to-air missiles also threatens the electronic support aircraft critical to the "networked" U.S. air-warfare paradigm, meaning that jet fighters could quickly lose force-multiplying radar aircraft, tankers and communication satellites. As such, Japan is correct to prefer the F-22, which reportedly can fly 300 to 400 mph faster and two miles higher than the F-35 -- an aircraft optimized for attack, not air-superiority missions.
If Japan is serious about the F-22 and its military security, it will have to pay for both. But if Washington is serious about sustaining a strategic alliance, it should sell the Raptor to Japan and be prepared to do more as China's military looms larger.)) www.alert5.com

More substance on why the F22s should continue.... crux being that Chinese will build their version of F35 type fifth generation jets numbering more than 187....meaning as per usual communists' theory - numerical superiority....since the Chinese versions are bound to be cheaper, they can surely be able to afford to build more....

All aircraft are slated for retirement even F-22s. Just a question of when.

The USAF isn't going to retire all its F-16s, F-15s and F-18s by next year. What the USAF wants to do is to retire ~250.

And as to how USAF fighter forces will look and its impact of early retirement, this is a good report commissioned for this exact purpose.

http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/101xx/doc10113/...ghterForces.pdf

Isn't that what allies are for. If one can't even activate allies, then can the presumptions for war under alliance treaties even exist?

No probs. I don't claim to know everything so extra info is always welcomed.

In any case, the argument is a moot point as the $1.75b supplemental has been defeated in the senate.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090721/ts_nm/...mF0ZXZvdGVzdA--

I managed to do a short read on the PDF file from weasel.

It's stated that F-35A will go from 68-90 max(long term purchase price of course)

F-18E/F will cost 75-90 million

F-16E(UAE version w/AESA) -now- cost 48-50 million.

From the look of things, the USA is looking at planes with performance of a minimum of 600 N.M. which the F-16 doesnt qualify(usually since they take it as mainly 400 N.M or 720km range)

Is this a matter of issue for us? 600 N.M ~540km combat radius or *2 for range.


Either way, it just shows how many refuel times a non-stop flight by the F-16s to singapore from USA took....

Senate voted nay to more F-22 production.. but the caveats remain. And one key opponent is pushing even more for export permission to compensate for cost of production

NYT

187 F-22s sound like a lot, but once one takes away the number required for F-22 training and attrition, then divides the remainder by 10 according to the 10 AEFs, then one sees that 187 is quite paltry indeed. The number of F-22s assigned to each of the 10 AEFs do not even make for a full squadron, I think. One point is that the F-35 is not yet proven to be a successful plane, this is one of the few credible points Bill Sweetman makes about the F-35. The F-22 production line should not be halted before the F-35 reaches full production, especially now that the F-22 costs are finally reasonable from reaping the benefits of full, sustained production.

As far as 187 being enough, that was achieved by changing the 'requirement' and accepting a certain amount of risk in the process. ie. put hands together and pray that the scenarios which required 337 F-22s don't come to pass. As said before, taking numbers and comparing is quite superficial. One cannot simply take 187 planes and compare with any particular adversary. The numbers deployable are actually far less than that. It may be true that even with the decerased numbers of 187 the US still has an overmatch, but that overmatch will be thin, hence the higher risk.

1) The F-22 is not a substitute for the F-35. If the F-35 is not successful, procuring more F-22s will not be able to fully fulfil F-35 designated roles either so that's not complete insurance at all.

2) The F-22 is not a "proven" design either.

What Bill Sweetman is rightly concerned is that the F-35 cannot fulfil the A2A role that F-35 procurers would like the F-35 to undertake.

Purchasing more F-22s or continuing the line now will presume that the F-35 will fail. The basis for this presumption is however not supported in any testing or production performed so far.

If the F-35 programme does fail, then there will be a higher cost of restarting the F-22 line. It does not mean the F-22 line cannot be restarted. The staff don't disappear and it won't take 10 years as some have claimed.

If the F-35 programme does fail, then there will be $300 billion of funds earmarked for the F-35 programme that can be allocated to restarting any program + building F-15SE/F-18E/Fs.

I don't think anyone other than Kopp seriously thinks the F-35 programme will fail at this stage.

Despite the claims of F-22 availability, the programme is supposed to reach 75% serviceablity at maturity (its not a matured programme yet) and USAF recently debunk Washington post in establishing that availability already exceeds 60%. Building more F-22s will not create more trained pilots.

As to scenarios, there will never be enough. Even at 381, the claim was that 750 (which was the original figure) is required. The reality is that resources are limited and resource allocation is a requirement.

No one can really envisage a scenario when 300+ F-22s are required that cannot be supported by F-35s, F-15s and allied forces at this time. If despite all the claims, we can't even imagine a scenario when this would be required, how can this propel policy?

I do hope the US does open up the F-22 for foreign military sales though (US stopping local procurement gives more impetus to opening up FMS so I support that 100%). imho, having a small RSAF sqn of even just 8 F/A-22s is sufficient to make a difference (heck care arguments about too many types of aircraft...).

It keeps a 5th gen fighter production line running, as opposed to if the F-35 somehow boggles up the way the V-22 was and the full rate production is postponed for a long time. The F-22 may not be as all round capable a fighter as the F-35, but it provides better air superiority and deep strike capabilities than the F-35 does.

It very much is. The F-22's performance and capabilities are a known quantity, based on lots of exercises carried out. Of course nothing beats performance in a real war, but contrary to popular perceptions, the US weapons testing programs are probably the most vigorous in the world.

Restarting production lines require astronomical sums of money, and the experience gained before will be lost. People who have worked on it will have been transferred elsewhere, suppliers will have other committments or closed down etc. It really isn't as simple as imagined, even if the production machines and toolings themselves still remain.

750 was based on the Cold War requirement. Subsequently 381 was the revised requirement. The USAF was willing to make do with 280 (?) or so as a compromise. In general, I think his heavy emphasis on the war now at the expense of future scenarios are ill-advised. Those UAVs , for example, are useful mainly for a benign aerial threat scenario.

Allied forces don't go to war just because US asks them to. They go to war when their interests are aligned. In any case, the F-35s don't give the heavy overmatch in quality required by the US, which will have to contend with the possibility of fighting outnumbered, since their scenarios are mostly expeditionary in nature.

The F-22 has only just started going through the paces. The bulk of the info is relating to the GAO-OSD-DOD argument in 2006 about air dominance. In a 2004 report, the GAO highlighted that the F-22 was a air sup fighter designed for cold war. The DOD wanted to make it relevant by expandng ground strike and ISR capabilities (which needed more money) and of course the OSD refused claiming the F-15Es and F-35s would fulfil that role more adequately. At that time, there were performance issues (which the DoD and USAF claims has been fixed.) That started the whole debate thingy.

I think this para from the 2004 GAO report summarised it.

I think the F-22 can't handle 2,000lb munitions where unlike the F-35B, can at least carry those externally.

Over several years, the GAO was asking the DOD to make a business case for more F-22s cos the OSD didn't want to fund pass 178 (I think that was in 2006). And ultimately the DOD said they would do a study to justify 381 (which incidentally was supposed to be 240 PAIs for the 10 sqns and 141 for the training and depot or 63% availability).

The funny thing was that the DOD joint air dominance study leading to the QDR then came up and justified the 183 number (and claiming though the F-22A is the best air sup fighter, the F-35 was also "strong" in the A2A role. How they did that was that the F-22As and some F-35s were tasked to handle one sector of AD and when air dominance was achieved, the F-35s would have sufficient numbers for mop up whilst the F-22s would be sent to another sector ie "silver bullet" force.

Seriously, the only 2 front war that the above can apply is a Russia-China vs US scenario which isn't going to happen. China-NK, China-Iran isn't going to need F-22s for handling NK or Iran. And US isn't going to face China alone nor will they desire to do so.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the F-22 is probably the best air sup fighter today. If the DOD didn't think it needed more, I'd take that at face value.

Re-starting F-22 production won't take US$300b that abandoning the F-35 will free up. In fact, this link suggests the "astronomical" sum is up to US$500m.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/11/...8_f22_spending/

http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?arti...rfriendlyvers=1

Since FOT&E it has been put through numerous exercises and quite a few deployments. The USAF should already have a firm grasp of its capabilities by now, going with what has been said about it afer the exercises.

Given what the F-22 was capable of, it would have been quite inconceivable that the F-22 wouldn't have air-to ground and ISR capabilities added to it down the road, especially when much of the prerequisites for those capabilities were already inherent in the plane's basic design. The fall of the Soviet Union wouldn't have changed that one bit.

CAS certainly isn't an F-22s role, but if the F-35 failed, at least the F-15s and 16s could still carry on that job. But they cannot take on the job of deep penetration into heavily defended zones if the F-35s gone and the F-22 isn't around to take up the slack due to insufficient numbers.

The 187 number seems to not have been arrived at through a proper analysis, but through some briefing numbers, as alleged by AFA. On the other hand thare has been a number of independent studies commissioned by the DoD that supports a need for more than 183 planes, somewhere in the 240 region, I believe. TThey simply discarded these analysis and decided on the number of 187.

The problem is that the USAF doesn't like to have silver bullet forces like teh B-2. Silver bullet forces are expensive to upkeep, and the plane production only just got into the 'groove' with a standardised airframe after 50 to 100 airframes. On top of that, only the last 87 F-22s have a configuration that allows for future upgradeability.

500 mil is quite the number. Frankly I'm not sure if that covers it all. The experience lost through a dispersed workforce and supplier base? The money, time and effort to reconstitute that?

I agree with the above. I understand if there were DOD studies commissioned, these were probably before 2004. GAO asked for copies of the study to substantiate 381 which the DOD could not produce.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06455r.pdf

The 381 number represents "fiscally unrestrained" numbers...

The USAF can't even say its an obama thing cos the joint capabilities review was ordered by Rumsfeld back in 2004.

As to supplier base, the issue according to feedback to the GAO was not so much that supplier base disappears as the supplier base is largely the same for both F-22 and F-35. More focus is on the gap between F-22 production and F-35 production such that a gap in production will mean suppliers changing job (so affecting F-35 base rather than F-22 base). However, it should be noted that F-35 production is ramping up far faster and the gap is not really a material one. That's why there was an impetus to accelerate F-35 production. Production engineers for F-35 aren't going to be newbies. Most likely F-22 engineers will port over to F-35 lines so LM isn't making noise about F-22 retrenchments.

Politics and the economy determine the numbers ... There are just so much US can afford now. Remember how USSR fall apart, they went bankrupt spending to prepare for a war that never came.

The US politicians probably thought they will hold the superiority in the next 10-15 years. And they can restart production or may have newer technologies in future if they ever need to fight a major war unless they are caught by surprise. Who is right or wrong, only history will prove.

Of course, they could be thought as short sighted, just as the push for open global economy had shown. Once CEOs and politicians were telling everyone the benefits of exporting labours and technologies. (Outsourcing) But it had came back to haunt them. Now US is no longer the dominant producer or innovator of many commercial products. First Japan, Taiwan, SKorea and now China and India are prosperous thanks to that policy. US had became a debtor country with an economy driven largely by consumption and not production.

They will have find the balance maintaining the edge without overspending to survive. Nuclear bombs wont collapse US in a day but the economy will. Chinese are capable of initiating that by redeeming the US treasury notes they hold and making US dollar worthless. Once Chinese got its way to setup an alternative global currency, US will be in big trouble.

The only problem with this picture is I don't see China willing to do so any time soon. Devaluing the US dollar only hurts both economies.

GF a defence expert that lurkers @ the Land Defence Forum should know has stated rather clearly that despite his -personal opinion- that the F-22 ideally should be more, his professional support lies with killing the F-22 due to reasons he cant support with open source materials.

However he has stated that:

the current 187 F-22s consists of -3- distinct variants out of which ~68 cannot be upgraded at all(he cannot say what cannot be upgraded but seems to be linked to something A-A combat).

He also said that the only way to solve this would be a complete rebuild of the F-22 from the inside out aka new bird.

To sum himself up he mentioned that the F-22 has desigs from the 70s and 80s that do not work well with the 21st century's design of integrated digital warfare.

Considering that he's an actual insider, the problem must be rather significant.

I don't think its cannot be upgraded. The problem was that the programme for upgrade would have cost $11.7b. By 2004, 73 of the 187 units were already purchased and ~68 delivered which as expected were configured for A2A.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04597t.pdf

The DOD wanted a development spiral that would include JDAM capability under global strike basic. Replacing avionics and computer architecture, testing etc for existing aircraft would only apply for the global strike full programme. The JDAM capability being integrated into the other aircraft had a number of issues to resolve so the focus was on introducing the capability onto new-builds first. The first test of JDAM for the F-22, I think occurred in 2005/6.

However, as you can see from the GAO report,

So all F-22s will have JDAM and probably HARM capability but for beyond, the new architecture ie global strike advanced will apply for the latter planes.

Out of the 187 aircraft, only the last 87 have the avionics architecture which lends themselves to easiy upgradeability. Of the rest of the 100, the first 34 which rolled off the production line will only get minimal upgrades due to their older hardware config, while the other 63 can get upgraded to Increment 3.1 but only part of Increment 3.2. Limitations include only being able to engage 2 targets despite being upgraded to carry 8 SDBs, and not being able to carry AIM-9X and AIM-20D in future. Only the last 87 can be upgraded to do so. So what one sees here is only 87 F-22s which can fully 'pace the threat' and evolve according to operational requirements. Some of which are assigned to full time testing, and sooner or later there will be attrition over their 20 to 30 years service. That is why 187 just doesn't cut it.

Points from both spectrums have their merits; the facts of the matter are:

a) US economy is in dire straits and they are focused on cost cutting measures
B) Whether US would face off China-Russia, no one can say for certainty as the current politics and situation goes, anything can happen
c) restart costs of F22s when the F35 programme don't achieve its target performance is going to be even more expensive than funding continued production but with export sales allowed - cos' it also costs money to shut down a production line as such to restart would costs them too, perhaps even more.


The US are just like a bank, when they are facing losses, they cut staff numbers for immediate cost reduction realizations; when business volumes start to pick up (invariably its the case; but in this scenario when things start to point that they do need the F22s) the bank has to urgently re-hire. But their previous staff would have already be somewhere else as such the bank would incurr costs of engaging head-hunters etc and adverts for hire and the admin costs involved in screening the potential new hires plus running the risks of operational losses due to insufficient staff in the interim period plus incompatibilities of new hires etc....all these are costs (computable in numbers). Might be too simplistic form of comparison but it is a reality that this is happening and both cases are quite similar if the F22 were to be really capped and re-started.

In any case, the F22 was tipped to be an air-superiority aircraft like the F15 was initially.....by adding extra tasks to it initially it of course makes the aircraft more expensive plus show up some short comings....afterall how long has the F22 been in operation? As the aircraft mature, more informations are obtained and as such it can be used to make the adjustments / modifications etc to make the aircraft itself better.

Perhaps we are just side liners to the whole game of politics here (which we are)....there are proponents for and against this plane and each have their own reasons (some selfish, while others could be plain stupidity and blindness and yet others just indifference). There are so many stakeholders here - the aircraft manufacturers, the lobbists, the politicians, the workers, the unions, the pilots, the generals.....whether or not the top management has heard the points from the users or those on the front line is a question.....most often than not, the people who most have the information that is crucial aren't heard.....so much for big picture

I guess it would take an incident which shows that the USAF has lost its edge to make the top brass wake up its idea - the fastest would be evidence that alot of US servicemen blood could be shed due to loss of F22s.... :P

In terms of timelines.

ATP programme approved - 1981
F-22 development began - 1986
Original target for development complete - 1995
Original target for IOC - 1996
F-22 - First order 1999
F-22 - First production lot 2001
F-22 - First delivery 27 April 2001
F-22 - IOC - 2005
F-22 - FOC - 2007
F-22 - last order/production lot 2009
F-22 - last delivery est 2012

Expected procurement -
750 (1986) Reagan
648 (1991) Bush Snr
442 (1993) Clinton
438 (1995) Clinton
339 (1997) Clinton
333 (1999) Clinton
295 (2001) Bush Jnr
276 (2002) Bush Jnr
279 (2003) Bush Jnr
178 (2005) Bush Jnr
183 (2008) Bush Jnr
187 (2009) Obama

((Why F-22s Are Losers
July 21, 2009: The current battle in Congress and the Pentagon, over whether to build more F-22s, has depicted the F-22 as a too expensive and too difficult to maintain. Among the allegations were the fact that it currently costs (for maintenance and operating expenses) $44,000 an hour to operate the F-22, versus $30,000 an hour for the F-15 (which the F-22 was originally designed to replace). Two facts that got left out of the debate were that many of the operating expenses for the F-22 are start up costs (buying maintenance equipment and base facilities). Take out those costs, and it's $19,000 per flight hour for the F-22, and $17,000 an hour for the F-15 (which has been around for over a decade, and long since paid for much of the maintenance equipment and basing costs). The other factor is also related to time. As aircraft become more mature, they require fewer hours to maintain. When an aircraft gets very old, the maintenance hours increase again. This also happens if you add more complex equipment to the aircraft.
F-22 advocates also point out that, between 2008 and 2009, direct maintenance man hours per flight hour for the F-22 went from 18.1 to 10.5. The design goal for the F-22 was 12 man hours. Although much is said of the hassles encountered maintaining the radar absorbent skin of the F-22, only a third of the maintenance hours are devoted to stealth features, which includes the skin. The F-22 was accused of having a sub-system failure every 1.7 hours. But the ultimate goal here is 3 hours, and the F-22 is on track to meet that goal once the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours.
The F-22 is still moving down the maturity cost curve (getting more reliable and cheaper to maintain as it accumulates more flight hours), and doing so on schedule. Comparing the F-22 in this phase of its life, to the fully mature F-15, is inaccurate. In fact, the history of fighter development over the last sixty years shows aircraft getting more expensive, but more capable and reliable. The problem with the F-22 is that it is way ahead in performance, and cost. The argument against the F-22 is that it provides more performance than the air force can afford. Now, when it comes to performance, fighter pilots feel "too much ain't enough." But to the air force commanders who must plan and conduct the battles and campaigns, too much performance in too few aircraft can be a losing proposition.)) www.strategypage.com

Some infor which doesn't compare apples against apples but rather apples against watermelons but under the broad category of fruits.....

Was just looking at the VH-71 programme. With the extra $485m Murtha is going to pour to the $3.2b already funded to try to bring 5 helos into the picture (+4 existing test helos), that would mean each helo would cost US$400m each making it more "effective" cost wise compared to the F-22. If that doesn't go through, that would be US$3.2b for zero.

((By MERRILL A. MCPEAK
The United States relies on the Air Force, and the Air Force has never been the decisive

factor in the history of war.

—Saddam Hussein,
before Desert Storm


High-end conventional war is characterized by the clash of industrial forces. It’s armored, mechanized and increasingly air-power centric. Few are equipped by training or temperament to understand the phenomenon, especially as it concerns air warfare, a relatively recent aspect of the human experience. (In this regard, Saddam Hussein had plenty of company.) But the bottom line is that in high-end conventional war, neither our Army nor Navy can be defeated unless someone first defeats our Air Force.

For high-end conventional war we’ve built an Air Force that, for now, is virtually unbeatable. Anyone looking at our air-power capabilities knows there is little hope they can concentrate conventional forces for decisive engagement of our Army or Navy. We will track them and pick them to pieces. When Saddam Hussein tried us on for size in the early-1990s, the ground war was a four-day walkover that followed the initial 39 days of aerial combat.

So today, no one in his right mind wants to fight us in a conventional war. Many are saying this another way: that we have no “peer competitor,” that there is no threat of high-end conventional war. I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that, but, if it is so, it is a desirable condition and one that didn’t happen by accident.

We have forced anyone with a bone to pick with us to find an alternative to high-end, conventional war. We’ve had to invent a vocabulary for this low end: “asymmetrical” conflict, it being another poorly understood activity. But it seems clear that in this sort of war our existence is not threatened, that we can regulate the resource input. It can be expensive in men and material, but we cannot be defeated militarily.

When the enemy succeeds, it is because we do not defeat him and then weary of the fight. This is not a good outcome, but it is better—and much cheaper for us in lives and treasure—than losing a high-end, conventional conflict.

The future air combat capabilities we should build are based on the F-22, a stealthy, fast, maneuverable fighter that is unmatched by any known or projected combat aircraft. But the F-22’s production run may soon come to an end at just 187 planes, well short of establishing the fleet size we need. After all, it’s expensive, and getting more so as the number contemplated has been repeatedly reduced. In an argument they seem to think makes sense, critics say the aircraft has no worthy opponent—as if we want to create forces that do have peer competitors.

It’s been more than half a century since any American soldier or Marine has been killed, or even wounded, by hostile aircraft, a period roughly coincident with the existence of the Air Force as a separate service. Even during the Korean War—the Air Force’s first engagement wearing new, blue uniforms—enemy air attack was primitive and rare. The main air battle was fought along the Yalu River, just as in Vietnam it was fought over Hanoi, and in Desert Storm, over Baghdad. Our guys on the ground had hard work to do, but when they looked up, they saw only friendly skies.

For the life of me, I can’t understand why we should wish to change this.

—Gen. McPeak (ret.), Air Force chief of staff from 1990 to 1994, was a national co-chair of Obama for President. )) www.alert5.com

Another serious voice for the continued production of F22s.....this guy shoud know... I just saw Blackhawk Down and there was a scene where the general says he requested for armour and AC130 Spectre gunships, but Washington says no.... is this a repeat of something thats always happening in the US? And they only listen after blood has been shed....and mistakes paid for in blood.

I believe YF previously commented concisely on problems with the F-22 platform. Please also see gf0012-aust's full comments on the F-22 in DT and I've also got extracts of his comments in strategy page on the many problems with the F-22 below:

@ Grunt. Nice read. Thanks.

There's two train of thoughts I suppose...that's exactly what I always say....that's why it is better to seek the inputs from the users - pilots....plus the strategists and men in command on the ground....

The F22s are undoubtedly great aircrafts in their own rights.... or as compared to other fighters available today

There's 2 ways of looking at this, and its the definition of the F-22.

From an engineering perspective, its this current system called the F-22. The abstract definition of the F-22 is an 5th Gen Air Superiority par None.

From what has been show in these discussions, the USAF needs more "F-22s". More air dominance fighters that would render the USAF a lightyear ahead of potential adversaries.

The USAF doesn't need THE F-22 since it seems that its engineering design is likely to cause more teething problems in future. However, this begs the question if THE F-22 with all its engineering faults and inefficiencies will still accomplish the act of putting the USAF ahead of potential adversaries for a good period of time?

Or can the JSF become an "F-22" by giving it more capable radars, computers and A2A capabilities?

Shotgun: my take to this is NO

F35 lacks 3 of the most crucial element in F22s

1. All aspect stealth (F35 is only Stealthy in some aspect)
2. Supercruise at Mach 1.5+
3. no thrust vectoring for super maneuverability.

I would argue that it is NOT impossible to migrate F35 weapon management system and avionics unto F22. It is however much harder to improve the physical aspect of F35 to give it the raw power that the Raptors have. Can't change the physics you know. But computer systems can always be changed. There are many examples of avonics upgrade. Heck even RSAF had the whole A4SU and F-5S totally rewired with new radar and avionics.

As per gf's comments ... it is "not impossible" ... it can be done, but it would "have to be regarded as cost negative."

I find the stated inability to easily upgrade the F-22 quite a tough line to swallow. But I'm also inclined to believe gf if he states categorically that this is so and no OS-INT is going to be able to fully explain it.

Given your example on the A4SU and F-5S, the only spin I can put on this to make it logically credible (to me), is that
i) The A4 and F5 belongs to a generation of pre-fly-by-wire aircraft that are aerodynamically stable. This means that change of avionics components and even harness/bus do not affect the code lines (if there are even any) that control flight stability.
ii) The F22, OTOH, is aerodynamically unstable and requires substantial computer assistance to keep it flying. This means code lines ... lots of it.

From what I understand, the F22 codes are written in a different programming language from other USAF platforms and on a different hardware interface/bus. Which means
iii) Any new avionics, from existing systems, will involve re-writing the avionics code to that of the F22
iv) Any re-harnessing of the F22 will involve rewriting (and testing) the entire avionics and flight control codes of the F22 ... which is a major bugbear and cost issue.

That is my interpretation of what gf is trying to allude to and may be why it really is not cost-realistic to migrate the F-35 stuff into the F-22.

any idea what language is this F22 written in? no longer Ada?

But both are different aircraft and are designed with different missions in mind.

The F22 is to ensure air superiority in the skies for USAF....F35s are more multi-role...definitely there will be some differences in capabilities becos one is specialised whereas the other is "jack-of-all trades".....

Meaning (from my own interpretation) that in a scenario which requires USAF to establish undisputed air superiority, they need F22s - that's what alot of line people are advising. But the smart alecks in Washington decided that is sufficient to have a multi role jet do the job...saves money and more efficient since its a "can do-it-all" jet....

Either they are really silly or they are really broke....then again it could be both.....

Funny enuff, Lockmart chose to write the entire F35 source code using C++. This is the last language I would have chosen for the critical system. Just image getting a null pointer exception or memory leaks because one forgot to delete a pointer to a large array of objects!

I am not familiar with C++, does it have multi-threading support, semaphores and exception handling semantics like Ada?

It does, but unlike Ada which is a true concurrent programming environment, it does it with rather more awkwardly. Multi-threading in C++ is just hard.

I thought C++ does not have a semaphore data type.

The only high level languages I know that is designed for real-time multi-threading programming is Ada and another rather obscure one called Praxis.

I was trying to look for the part where I read that the F-22 was coded in a different language ... couldn't find it. I may have misread or misunderstood :(

Instead found a link that says that 90% of the coding for the F-22 was in ada (higher risk software, such as sensor data fusion, specific algorithm testbeds have been constructed).

Will have to refine my understanding of gf's statements then :unsure: