Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Such short memories... Gates didn't like the F-22, but the Bush administration (Gates heavily involved) decided to kick that decision to the next administation, which lo and behold, kept Gates and let him finish the F-22 for good. At that time, Gates was spearheading a push against "Cold War" weapons systems and emphasizing equipment for existing conflicts.

Quote:

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/06/airforce_gates_f22s_061008w/
PETERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Colo. — Defense Secretary Robert Gates officially has passed the decision over how many F-22 Raptors the Air Force needs to the next administration takes over.

“I made the decision that we would allocate enough money to keep the production line open so the next administration could decide on the balance between buying more F-22s and buying more Joint Strike Fighters,” Gates said. “I felt that was a significant procurement decision that ought not be made in the last six or seven months of the administration.”

Quote:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07 ... ys-troops/
The grim reality is that with regard to the budget we have entered a zero-sum game. Every defense dollar diverted to fund excess or unneeded capacity – whether for more F-22s or anything else – is a dollar that will be unavailable to take care of our people, to win the wars we are in, to deter potential adversaries, and to improve capabilities in areas where America is underinvested and potentially vulnerable. That is a risk that I will not take and one that I cannot accept.

And, with regard to something like the F-22, irrespective of whether the number of aircraft at issue is 12 planes or 200, if we can’t bring ourselves to make this tough but straightforward decision – reflecting the judgment of two very different presidents, two different secretaries of defense, two chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, and the current Air Force Secretary and Chief of Staff, where do we draw the line? And if not now, when? If we can’t get this right – what on earth can we get right? It is time to draw the line on doing Defense business as usual. The President has drawn that line. And that red line with regard to a veto is real.

Obama was never focused on the F-22, it was mostly the doing of a Bush-appointed Defense Secretary, to which Obama gave approval to go ahead with what he had wanted to do anyway. So it would be too simplistic to say the decision was purely Obama's.

F-16.net Sponsor

As I recall, Obama directly threatened back in 2009 to veto the next year's spending bill if it contained money for one more F-22 (12 more were wanted to keep the line open). Gates had a lot to do with it, but I think that was part of a wider power struggle that may have had something to do him being butthurt over the fact that his USAF career was spent in a Minuteman hole. What better way to stick it to the fighter jocks and establish dominance than taking away their favorite toy?

1st503rdsgt wrote:

As I recall, Obama directly threatened back in 2009 to veto the next year's spending bill if it contained money for one more F-22 (12 more were wanted to keep the line open). Gates had a lot to do with it, but I think that was part of a wider power struggle that may have had something to do him being butthurt over the fact that his USAF career was spent in a Minuteman hole. What better way to stick it to the fighter jocks and establish dominance than taking away their favorite toy?

He was briefing missile crews; he wasn't actually part of them. The wider power struggle was over the Air Force leadership's myopic focus on the F-22 compared to more pressing issues, like those two war-things we were fighting, in addition to a pretty severe decay of Nuclear security and huge acquisition fiascos. They seemed to forget there's more to the Air Force than fighters, and cancelling the F-22 was partly a symbolic gesture saying that attitude is a huge mistake.

Prinz_Eugn wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

As I recall, Obama directly threatened back in 2009 to veto the next year's spending bill if it contained money for one more F-22 (12 more were wanted to keep the line open). Gates had a lot to do with it, but I think that was part of a wider power struggle that may have had something to do him being butthurt over the fact that his USAF career was spent in a Minuteman hole. What better way to stick it to the fighter jocks and establish dominance than taking away their favorite toy?

He was briefing missile crews; he wasn't actually part of them. The wider power struggle was over the Air Force leadership's myopic focus on the F-22 compared to more pressing issues, like those two war-things we were fighting, in addition to a pretty severe decay of Nuclear security and huge acquisition fiascos. They seemed to forget there's more to the Air Force than fighters, and cancelling the F-22 was partly a symbolic gesture saying that attitude is a huge mistake.

Well, at least we're in agreement that the F-22 was canceled primarily to make a point more or less. As for the "two war-things," the situation is now reversed and it's time to invest in non-COIN hardware that won't make the Chinese piss themselves laughing.

Says the Chinese infantryman in his APC: "Oh whatever shall I do? It's raining drone parts and I might actually have to close my hatch in this torrid Taiwanese heat!"

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Well, at least we're in agreement that the F-22 was canceled primarily to make a point more or less. As for the "two war-things," the situation is now reversed and it's time to invest in non-COIN hardware that won't make the Chinese piss themselves laughing.

Says the Chinese infantryman in his APC: "Oh whatever shall I do? It's raining drone parts and I might actually have to close my hatch in this torrid Taiwanese heat!"

I love the F-22, but I'm sure Congress wished it wasn't so expensive to purchase and operate. The cutbacks were partly the result of a break with tradition that every CSAF in recent history has been a fighter pilot until Gen Norton Schwartz became CSAF under Sec. Gates. The perception the AF brass focus on fighters at the expense of the rest of the AF.

neurotech wrote:

1st503rdsgt wrote:

Well, at least we're in agreement that the F-22 was canceled primarily to make a point more or less. As for the "two war-things," the situation is now reversed and it's time to invest in non-COIN hardware that won't make the Chinese piss themselves laughing.

Says the Chinese infantryman in his APC: "Oh whatever shall I do? It's raining drone parts and I might actually have to close my hatch in this torrid Taiwanese heat!"

I love the F-22, but I'm sure Congress wished it wasn't so expensive to purchase and operate. The cutbacks were partly the result of a break with tradition that every CSAF in recent history has been a fighter pilot until Gen Norton Schwartz became CSAF under Sec. Gates. The perception the AF brass focus on fighters at the expense of the rest of the AF.

Unless one wants the USAF to be some kind of police-surveillance/humanitarian-airlift organization, I'm pretty sure the focus is supposed to be on systems that can deter a near-peer opponent.

The purpose of the Air Force and military in general is to maintain national security, and neer-peers aren't the only things threatening that.

It's easy to infer that was the reason -- i.e. making a point that the USAF is more than just tactical fighters -- for canceling the F-22 in FY10. It's easy to infer such a reason since that was the justification being implied at the time.

However, with AF's plan to rapidly ramp up to 80+ F-35A units per year by FY17-FY18 en route to a grand total of 1,700 birds, such a totally unsustainable, flawed and just unrealistic acquisition strategy from inception was completely in contradiction to any such 'balanced' viewpoint being implied regarding USAF's more rounded requirements and needed focus. It all sounds good in speech of course and sounds sensible on a very elementary level of reasoning... but in truth, very unfortunately such a simplistic mindset and reasoning just wasn't strategic or sound.

So what was the real reason(s) for canceling the F-22? Well, beyond any potential classified reasons, the hard cold reality is simply that going forward, starting in FY10, it was flat out assessed even to the public eye, that there simply would not be sufficient COMBAT AVIATION PROCUREMENT appropriations to sustain BOTH the F-35s robust acquisition build, as well as follow-on F-22 orders as proposed. It's as simple as that; something would have to go - either the robust build up rate in F-35 acquisition orders (which would run entirely counter to the Program's sustainability and core business model), or the F-22.

For example, with USAF Total Aircraft Procurement budgets in FY10 (including modification of inservice aircraft) totaling around $14 billion; $13.5 billion for FY11 and with around $14.5 billion allocated for FY12... compared to roughly $18.5 billion in FY08 and $17.3 billion in FY09... all while F-35 Procurement budgets were required and estimated to increase substantially each successive fiscal year through the end of the decade, the near-term Procurement budgets would simply not support continued F-22 procurement in addition to F-35 procurement through say, FY12.

(short of some form of alternative strategic Financing scheme, eg a Strategic Lease and in possible conjunction with a strategic F-35 Bond to support procurement during LRIP)

Last edited by 1st503rdsgt on Sep 18, 2012 - 04:07 AM; edited 1 time in total

Right, we should just pay LM to develop, build, and maintain a pool of fighters (they certainly couldn't afford to do it themselves), then pay them again to rent the things. Flawless economic model there. Rolling Eyes

LM and other Corporations float Bonds all the time. It's not an extreme or flawed business function at all, 503rd.

It's just a matter of how it's conceived and implemented and it's just a matter of being part of a decisive strategic plan. In fact, there was something called War Bonds back in WWII, which amazing proved quite effective and essential in enabling industry to produce at maximal output and efficiency. Yet a Bond issuance sufficient to help in the short term during an obviously difficult LRIP period could have enhanced the robust sustainability of development and Production and increased the chances maintaining maximal sales as well as accelerated development. The 'Back-end' of production would have covered the Bond liabilities.

Furthermore, it's the DOD which could have Leased the F-35s, not LM. Again, these leased jets could have either been purchased 2nd hand by USAF, USN or partners/FMS after the term, or been extended for further lease. In the end, there might be a small per unit loss on them, of course, or there could have been a small gain too. And that's actually not a bad 'Stimulus plan' actually, if Govt can actually cover it's investment to acquire an asset necessary to fill the national strategy all while providing jobs!

So Flawless? Negative sir, flawless is not the claim nor the assumption here, maybe you mistook the proposal being suggested. Not flawless, but a strategic investment. It's called strategic thinking and planning sir. Regards.

Geogen! Long time, no see, man...

Bonds? Interesting, but I don't know how well that would fly with investors since it relies on the eventual purchase of the aircraft, which may or may not be somewhat risky/unprofitable depending on how long they are sitting around waiting to be delivered (and therefore how much upgrading they would require to be operational with the rest of the fleet). They might work, but it'd be a huge financial risk, and I don't think that would be politically acceptable.

Leasing doesn't really make any sense. Does LM even have the capital to raise production that much anyway? There would be no leasees unless Lockheed manages to get their own Darleen Druyun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darleen_Druyun) into a government somwhere. Fighters are simply operated for too long by their customers for leasing to make sense.

EDIT: What would make the most sense would be to simply buy more aircraft per year, but congress isn't in the mood for that...

Last edited by geogen on Sep 18, 2012 - 05:33 AM; edited 1 time in total

Well, my latest thoughts on this have attempted to refine the actual viability of it since first kicking it around here perhaps 3 years ago.

Basically, my thought is that it would have probably needed to been part of a comprehensive, coordinated 'national strategy and national security' supplement lobbied for and pressed by Administration, Joints Chiefs, National security agency, DoD and heck, maybe even Labor Dept. It likely wouldn't have been a classic open market 'Bond' issuance that LockMart would toss out for anyone biting. Without the Top down strategic imperative and decisive leadership to implement it though, such a plan would most probably not be possible.

My personal impression for this concept would have involved something like a $5 billion(?) Bond issuance to help reinforce and maximize a 5-7 year LRIP development and production phase. Initially, I had envisioned it to be a necessary component of the FY10 budget as a necessary means to have been able to better support F-35's LRIP success while simultaneously enabling funding of the 3 additional F-22 lots.

The Bond issuance would have likely been guaranteed by the DoD as the regulating agency for this plan, sure. Probably, as you noted, without such guarantee, the thing would obviously risk flopping in the open market. I mean, I wouldn't buy an un-backed Bond like that, are you kidding, seriously, who would?

But therein is probably where the DoD could have also acted under said 'National security and national employment stimulus (whatever fancy spin could have been affixed to it)' plan to be Lead Leasing agent. They could have Leased directly from LM the maximal number of originally scheduled LRIP F-35s which were not part of an outright 'buy order' and then sub-leased said Lease jets to customers both foreign and domestic who were willing to accept the reduced risk of LEASING an early LRIP F-35, rather than buying. For the USAF/USN in this equation, perhaps a split 'Buy/Lease' order could have been contemplated... perhaps buying 50-75% of their jets or something and then Leasing the remainder (perhaps even putting excess early-on jets in storage until they could be updated to mature block III and until the jets/pilots were ready to train).

Say a 10-year year lease term could have then either been extended or customer could have bought the jet cheap, or it could have been returned to DoD (acting as Bank) which could have turned around and sought a new FMS buyer (eg, the USAF) for said used early lot F-35 block III possibly as attrition aircraft or reserve, etc.

So my original contention and premise made years ago was that only under such a Strategic 'supplemental' stimulus (and actual boost to the F-35 success), could the additional F-22 lots been acquired under the diminishing FY10, FY11 and FY12 Procurement budgets.

I'm sorry, am I missing something? When exactly was the F-22 "canceled?"

Quote:

The jet was less the victim of any political party, and more the victim of it's own mostly single purpose design.

I don't see the F-22 as single purpose. It can conduct more than just air to air missions. It's like a mini-Rivet Joint (not sure where I heard that from) and can conduct attack missions. So I would call it an ELINT/strike platform too. With all the things it can do and has the built-in growth potential to do, I would say the F-22 is multirole with a heavy emphasis on air dominance. If a shooting war started right this second with someone like North Korea, I am willing to bet the F-22s would be flying strike missions from day one. How else does the USAF plan to take out the SAM sites?

The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 lacked funding for further F-22 production. The final F-22 rolled off the assembly line on 13 December 2011 during a ceremony at Dobbins Air Reserve Base.[11]

-wiki

Forum: General F-22A Raptor forum

Romney wants to buy more F-22s