Forum: F-22A Raptor

Negotiators agree to buy more F-22s, Zumwalt destroyers
By Megan Scully CongressDaily September 24, 2008

House and Senate negotiators on the fiscal 2009 Defense authorization bill have resolved differences between their versions of the Pentagon policy measure, readying a compromise measure for a vote on the House floor.

Senate leaders also hope to pass the bill, which has been stripped of any obvious veto bait, and send it to the president before Congress adjourns for the elections.

The final authorization bill trims $104.7 million from the Army's $3.6 billion request for the Future Combat Systems, according to a summary of the bill. The House had cut $200 million from the Pentagon's request, but the Senate authorized full funding for the program.

The bill provides $2.5 billion for a third DDG-1000 Zumwalt-class destroyer and adds $350 million for DDG-51 Arleigh Burke-class spare parts.

The Navy decided in the summer to end the DDG-1000 program after building the first two ships and buy more DDG-51s. But service officials reversed course on the issue.

Neither the House Armed Services Committee nor the House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee approved full funding for the third DDG-1000 in fiscal 2009. But their counterparts on the Senate side agreed to the $2.5 billion requested by the administration.

House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman John Murtha, D-Pa., said Tuesday that he and Senate appropriators had agreed to partial funding of the third DDG-1000 in fiscal 2009, with the remainder of the money presumably to be appropriated in fiscal 2010.

House leaders said they hope to bring the Defense spending bill to the floor today as part of a broader funding package.

On other shipbuilding programs, negotiators on the authorization measure agreed to add $600 million for advanced procurement for two LPD-17 amphibious warfare ships. Murtha said his spending bill provides partial funding for one LPD-17.

The final authorization bill also authorizes two T-AKE auxiliary dry cargo carriers requested by the Navy, as well as funding for a Virginia-class submarine. And the bill adds $300 million in advanced procurement funding for the Virginia-class program.

For aircraft programs, the bill cut $831.8 million from the Air Force's next-generation tanker program and redirected the funds to other, higher priorities.

House and Senate authorizers agreed to the $2.9 billion sought by the Pentagon to buy 20 F-22 Raptor fighter jets, a procurement program that enjoys broad support on the Hill. They added a House-passed provision authorizing $523 million in advance procurement for another 20 aircraft in fiscal 2010 -- planes the Pentagon has not planned on acquiring. The bill includes $2.1 billion for six C-17 Globemaster III cargo planes not requested by the Pentagon.

In addition, the final authorization measure reduces funding for the proposed European missile defense sites by $246.3 million and authorizes no funding for the proposed Space Test Bed, a key element of the program to develop space-based missile defenses.

To ensure passage of the bill, House and Senate negotiators opted to avert a stand-off with the White House over several provisions that drew veto threats. They either watered down provisions aimed at assuaging White House concerns or stripped them entirely from the bill, said several aides, who were unable to provide details.

Two specific provisions in both the House and Senate bills that would have triggered a veto would have limited the use of security contractors in war zones and prevented the hiring of contractors to interrogate suspected terrorists or other detainees.

If I read this correctly, And I think I do, The Air Force is going to get an additional 40 Raptors?
WOW ! That's like... Well you get the idea.
I always thought we needed more than was originally proposed. (at least I'm happy now)(providing the bill is passed)

Well, actually this bill pays for the last batch of 20 Raptors of the 183. The additional money put aside for either advanced procurement for another 20, or shutting down the line, will be decided by the next administration.

Yep if McCain wins the USAF will get 40 or more F-22s.

If Obsama wins then the U.S. military will be reduced to nothing more then just a few guys with some sticks and one rock which they all have to share the rock.

Well, actually this bill pays for the last batch of 20 Raptors of the 183. The additional money put aside for either advanced procurement for another 20, or shutting down the line, will be decided by the next administration.

Ok before I say this let me first confirm the following: I grew up with a military upbringing, I myself fly and am in the last phase of RNLAF pilot selections which, if I would pass, would make me the 3rd generation fighter pilot of my family. This is just to make clear I'm not some pacifist "don't buy military hardware" hippie .

Dear USA,

You have totally lost your head haven't you? Any active braincells still to be found in Washington? You have a military budget that is so large that it can't be matched even when you pool all other military budgets in the world together, even compensating for nations like China who are hiding the true size of their budget. This all including that of your allies who'm combined (without counting the USA) also have a larger military budget then the rest of the world combined.

And now you propose to add a few extra billion? The most hilarious part being that 2,1 billion is being added while the Armed forces haven't even expressed a need for that.
While at the same time your country is trying to push threw a bill that will push the US budget deficit to over 1 trillion USD just one year after already having accumulated more debt in the past 8 years then the 200 years before that.

And here's my reasoning: If your current mental defect commonly seen in teenage girls of spending more money then they have, continues in this current fashion. The USAF would be very sorry that they ever ordered the extra F-22's because the economy won't be able to support more then what the Russian military was during the mid 90's.

The US military is digging its own grave. It only wants to be strong today, it doesn't think about the possibility that in the future when Chinas economy rivals the USA, the US military may be unable to present a potent fighting force.

Guess again. If McCain wins, the Raptor will be gone, scrapped, no more. You obviously have no clue regarding McCain's history with the USAF. Nearly every opportunity he's had he has attempted to screw over the USAF. He'll say additional Raptors amount to either pork-barrel or earmark spending and will do away with them, claiming the Pentagon did not want them (in this case, the "Pentagon" being one Gordon England, backed by Bob Gates).

If Obama wins, there is a very good chance the Raptor program will continue not just for another one or two years but indefinitely, coupled with drastically raduced buys of the F-35 for the USAF, which will, I believe, place its bets on the NGB and a future UCAV around 2020 after the next QDR determines that what the USAF needs is not a mediocre fighter-bomber (the F-35) but a superlative attack aircraft (UCAV), especially when it will be able to guarantee air dominance via the F-22. If the USAF can get some 400 Raptors, there will be no need for its attack aircraft to have anything but the most rudimentary self-defense capability against air-to-air threats, therefore obviating the need for them to get an attack aircraft burdened with the requirement that it also be able to act as a fighter.

It is not true that the "US Armed Forces" did not request additional funding for more Raptors. Bob Gates and Gordon England did not want additional Raptors, but the service itself, the USAF, does, and has repeatedly expressed a need for them. Also, I hardly think an additional $2 billion per year, in the context of a $3 trillion federal budget, represents such an eggregious waste of taxpayer dollars when they may mean the difference between achieving air supremacy in a future conflict or completely squandering it, therefore putting our national security at risk. I'd rather spend $2 billion on the Raptor yearly for the next 10 years than on just about anything else, quite frankly. Cut Social Security for seniors by an equivalent amount, for instance. Those money-grubbing bastards will be dead soon enough, anyway, but the union must endure. The only reason we take such good care of the most useless members of our society is because they vote in droves, caring about nothing but their selfish interests. They would sooner cut education funding, which is a true investment in our future, than see their benefits reduced. And that, my friends (pace McSenile), is simply outrageous.

The question that remains then, what national security are you defending? If you no longer have the morality to provide the extreme poor with food (because that's all that US social security is, just enough to eat let alone pay rent) then what are you defending? For all the buff and high talk about Christian values and defending the American values and Democracy with the grand military... The Actual actions of the Country aren't all that Christian as you aren't a good Christian just by going to Church and selectively following its teachings its all or nothing.

And seriously what security threats, like I said in my previous post more then 50% of the military might is in the USA's hands, 25% is in the hands of its allies, 10 years would be a bit too short for one nation or even a group of big nations to pose a serious threat.

On the other hand: If the USA keeps up its deficit spending (And yes 2 billion on 3 trillion doesn't matter, but 502 billion does.) In a few years time, the USAF will end up in the state of the Russian Air Force during the 1990's. Which I won't have to remind you was an Air Force practically held together by stickytape.

The way I see it the USA really has two options.
A. Continue on the trend of an unafordable large military while children are denied healthcare thus making it questionable whether there is anything left to defend with that military. But facing the real possibility that the same military wouldn't be able to afford 3rd rate equipment.

B. A slightly more realistic posture that 300 million people can't afford to fund over half of the worlds armed forces. But you meanwhile have the knowledge that you will at least be able to afford a continuation of 1st rate aircraft. Just in lesser numbers.

The USSR took option A. And just like the USA thinks today, it thought that it was too big and too important to the international community to collapse. Take option B and you're still the strongest, nobody will still be able to ever successfully invade or attack you but you'll be able to afford that security tomorrow too.

The question that remains then, what national security are you defending? If you no longer have the morality to provide the extreme poor with food (because that's all that US social security is, just enough to eat let alone pay rent) then what are you defending? For all the buff and high talk about Christian values and defending the American values and Democracy with the grand military... The Actual actions of the Country aren't all that Christian as you aren't a good Christian just by going to Church and selectively following its teachings its all or nothing.

And seriously what security threats, like I said in my previous post more then 50% of the military might is in the USA's hands, 25% is in the hands of its allies, 10 years would be a bit too short for one nation or even a group of big nations to pose a serious threat.

On the other hand: If the USA keeps up its deficit spending (And yes 2 billion on 3 trillion doesn't matter, but 502 billion does.) In a few years time, the USAF will end up in the state of the Russian Air Force during the 1990's. Which I won't have to remind you was an Air Force practically held together by stickytape.

The way I see it the USA really has two options.
A. Continue on the trend of an unafordable large military while children are denied healthcare thus making it questionable whether there is anything left to defend with that military. But facing the real possibility that the same military wouldn't be able to afford 3rd rate equipment.

B. A slightly more realistic posture that 300 million people can't afford to fund over half of the worlds armed forces. But you meanwhile have the knowledge that you will at least be able to afford a continuation of 1st rate aircraft. Just in lesser numbers.

The USSR took option A. And just like the USA thinks today, it thought that it was too big and too important to the international community to collapse. Take option B and you're still the strongest, nobody will still be able to ever successfully invade or attack you but you'll be able to afford that security tomorrow too.

Driver:

Good luck on achieving the pilot slot and continuing the tradition.. (btw, I'd be curious, Off topic, about your opinion for RNlAF's next tactical replacement aircraft? And how many?)

1) many (surely most) Americans do concur about a certain need for substantial military/defense spending/acquisition reform, but perhaps you're mistaking and reading too much into Obamanite was saying? (I think) He is definitely talking about much smaller tactical manned fighters procured in future budgets, not more, with many fewer F-35s. Therefor, you're agreeing with him in that there should be fewer overall units, but sufficient 1st rate units, such as F-22 air superiority to deter a future China or separately, Rusgovt Air force threat?

Perhaps your threat assessment of no military threat could be posed to NATO/US in next 10 yrs is something to rethink. (although western intel/mil leaderships are probably assessing this, as we post? )

If anything, we may all collapse if we in the west continue to depend on hydro carbon based economy/transport - thus justified alternative energy security spending in future (I would hope).

5) Just curious though, if you were secy of DoD (hehe)... how many F-35 and F-22 would you support and what role UCAV would have in future if any? Thanks for any and all feedback - it would be very interesting..