F-16.net

Quote:

By Erik Holmes - Staff writer
Posted : Friday Dec 21, 2007 17:41:16 EST

The Pentagon’s top budget official told the Air Force this week to hold off
spending $497 million in fiscal 2009 to begin shutting down the F-22
production line and spend it instead on repairing F-15s, two-thirds of which
are grounded.

USA Today reported that Pentagon Comptroller Tina Jonas informed Air Force leaders of the change in a memo this week.

An Air Force official, speaking on background, confirmed Friday that the
service has been directed by the Pentagon to reprogram the funds, but the
official did not immediately have further details.

More than 400 F-15s remain grounded after the Nov. 2 crash of an F-15C, but the Air Force has not announced whether large-scale repairs will be
necessary. An investigation into the crash is ongoing.

The move appears to be a change of course for the Pentagon, which another Air Force official recently said had given the Air Force permission to use the funds to purchase long-lead-time items so the Air Force and Congress could have the option of buying an additional 20 aircraft beyond the currently authorized 183.

Congress originally suggested the idea in the report accompanying the 2008 defense spending bill.

If the funds are instead rerouted to pay for F-15 repairs, it is unclear how
that might affect the future of the F-22 line.

Lockheed Martin is under contract to deliver in 2011 the last of the 183
F-22s ordered, but the Air Force has long maintained that it needs 381 of
the aircraft. F-22s cost an inflation-adjusted $195 million each, not
including research and development.

US$195Million excluding R&D sheesh thats an expensive jet!

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Not considering how much an F-16C or F-15E costs today (adjusted for inflation).

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

How is not funding the shut down of the F-22 production line a blow to further F-22 production?

Because the funds had already been re-allocated to allow the purchase of parts to produce a further 20 F-22's. Which all plans for will now have to put on hold for.

**** the piece of sh*t F-15. Just buy more F-22As to replace them all. This stupid government can't seem to do anything right in terms of procurement...

Can't buy new and better guns for the troops. Can't buy replacement fighters to replace crappy old ones.

Stupid!

I'm going to write my congressman.

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 20, 2005 Posts: 1034 Status: Offline

boff180 wrote:

Because the funds had already been re-allocated to allow the purchase of parts to produce a further 20 F-22's. Which all plans for will now have to put on hold for.

I'm curious as to the source of the article. Also, what you wrote above is incorrect...those funds were being redirected to purchase long lead time parts and have nothing to do with the extra 20 Raptor's.

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Seen all the F-15 fix-it briefs. A lot of people have been working real hard.

While it is my opinion that fixing the F-15s won't cost a lot, USAF is low on cash.

Congress will probably fess up the difference. Lockheed Martin isn't going to give up the F-22 right away. They own too many congressmen.

The article Boff posted is from military.com

Boff, how much would the F-16 cost if you only made 100 of them? Laughing

In 2005 dollars 750 F-22s would cost $59 mil each. Run a graph. Laughing

I don't see how repairing a jet that is going to be replaced soon is a smart idea. I'm also going to write my congressman and also my senator. This is total bull$@&#!

F-16.net Editor Joined: Sep 23, 2003 Posts: 2848

Well if it's a Golden Ealge ( one of the 178 or so Cs) it wasn't going to be replaced until 2025 because annual airframe production slots for the USAF JSF were lowered.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

They're not all going to be replaced soon unless you can replace all the necessary F-15C/D airframes with F-22s. If we currently "need" (i.e. can't do without indefinitely) all the F-15C airframes that have been grounded, then one can safely assume we'd eventually need that many more F-22s. Regardless, these simplistic discussions on national defense spending never cease to amaze me. If things were as simple as just procuring as many F-22s as the Air Force deemed necessary, they would be procured! Even if we lived in a day and age where the entire world's population had evolved to the point where wealth, in a monetary or material sense, no longer played a role, there would still be limits on the "procurement" of high-technology items.

Every society has certain needs. Some are simply perceived needs that may or may not be necessary. Others are, without a doubt, very necessary either for survival or quality of life. I don't know if anyone is a Star Trek fan here, but "the Borg" (originally introduced in Star Trek: The Next Generation) was an artificial race of cybernetically enhanced humanoids that worked as one big team toward the same ultimate goal. The lack of individuality and free will made them extremely efficient from a military standpoint. The Federation (humans and our alien friends) on the other hand, was almost always outmatched by the Borg on the battlefield. The Borg were never outmatched in a purely militaristic sense. They were outwitted on numerous occasions though. I have no doubt that the USA and its willing allies could eventually outwit a militarily superior force. Who knows... maybe having only 183 F-22s as opposed to 381 means victory over defeat in some future war for whatever reasons.

In general, a country like the United States of America can always do with more military firepower in one form or another. It's not the only area in which it fails to meet its real or perceived needs though. The Soviet Union is a perfect example of how trying to meet a country's perceived military needs can doom it to eventual collapse/failure. The Kremlin could never manage to find a good balance between meeting its people's needs and its perceived military needs. If the people actually had a say in the former Soviet Union, it might not be so former. In the West, people had a say and they said all different kinds of things. How did we ever manage to prevail? How will we ever prevail with only 183 F-22s? The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!

Guess what... as long as the free world doesn't let its values and common sense go by the wayside, it will prevail over freedom-hating governments. Trust me... even Jane Fonda would would take up arms against against enemy soldiers if they managed to take control over the region of the US in which she currently resides (California?). People eventually figured out that Hitler had to be stopped at all costs. The majority of the free world at that time wasn't naive enough to think a bloody World War wasn't called for.

If there ever comes a time where we truly need 381 or even 5,000 F-22s, we will make it happen. Until then, people will have to learn to accept the realities of differing perceptions in regards to societal needs. I'm not going to lose sleep over 183 F-22s vs. 381. I might lose sleep if we ever got into a conflict where we actually needed all 183 F-22s though, to be quite honest. Duck and cover anyone?

Raptor_One wrote:

Trust me... even Jane Fonda would would take up arms against against enemy soldiers if they managed to take control over the region of the US in which she currently resides (California?).

I'm not as sure as you are about that one. There are plenty of examples in the last century of collaborators working with occupying forces, hence the generic terms "quisling" after the Norwegian traitor and "vichy" after the seat of the French government under the Nazis. I expect the US has any number of wannabe "quislings" under circumstances right for their ideology. Sad

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

I might lose sleep if we ever got into a conflict where we actually needed all 183 F-22s though, to be quite honest. Duck and cover anyone?

By then it's too late. "Quick! Get me two hundred more Raptors by tomorrow!" Laughing

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

sferrin wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

I might lose sleep if we ever got into a conflict where we actually needed all 183 F-22s though, to be quite honest. Duck and cover anyone?

By then it's too late. "Quick! Get me two hundred more Raptors by tomorrow!" Laughing

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22. Given our geographic location, we'd be in a better position to withstand conventional attacks from any potential enemy. If people start launching ICBMs and whatnot at us, everyone will wish they called their congressperson about funding missile defense technology rather than this, that, or the other. 381 vs. 183 F-22s will be an afterthought. Heck... people will probably start asking why we didn't invest more in carrier aviation. You think "they" won't try to launch nuclear missile attacks on any and all F-22 bases? You think they'll get all F-22s off the ground in time? Doubtful.

Again though, in a prolonged conflict we would build more of everything and then some. Did we not do so in all the other major prolonged military conflicts?

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1090

Loader2088 wrote:

Raptor_One wrote:

Trust me... even Jane Fonda would would take up arms against against enemy soldiers if they managed to take control over the region of the US in which she currently resides (California?).

I'm not as sure as you are about that one. There are plenty of examples in the last century of collaborators working with occupying forces, hence the generic terms "quisling" after the Norwegian traitor and "vichy" after the seat of the French government under the Nazis. I expect the US has any number of wannabe "quislings" under circumstances right for their ideology. Sad

Quite frankly, I don't think Americans in this day and age could accept living under an autocratic regime. You hear fools saying we're headed that way now or that we're already there. The Patriot Act... oh no! Just like the movie 1984!!! Horror! Yeah right... imagine if a portion of Pacific coast was occupied by an enemy force (not that I think this would ever happen) and authoritarian rule was imposed. People go out to protest in the streets and are shot, imprisoned, rolled over by tanks, and so on. Materialistic possessions are confiscated as fast as possible. They'll take Jane Fonda's riches just as fast as anyone else's. What good is it being a collaborator for the enemy if they offer less than you could have if you just fled for friendly territory or stayed neutral?

No more iPods, no more cool looking rims on compact cars... no more nice cars of any kind except for high government officials. Yeah right... people in this country who are considered to be living in poverty (technically speaking) are doing better than many people in potential enemy countries. The things people are allowed to complain about in a very public fashion in this country would go out the window in China, for example. Would anyone seriously not fight Chinese troops on our soil? Only the foolish would join them. Seriously... when did you ever hear about someone wanting to become a citizen of the People's Republic of China? Yeah sure... people have no problem visiting. Ohh... I want to see the Great Wall!!!! Yeah! Cool!

Elite 1K Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 1010 Status: Offline

Raptor_One wrote:

If there is ever a conventional WWIII (i.e. no nukes, bio/chem warfare, etc.), then yes, we would certainly be able to ramp up production of aircraft like the F-22.

It'd be nice to have a crystal ball like yours. And if five years from now the F-15 and F-22 lines are shut down with tooling destroyed (see dumbasses Cheney and MacNamara) then what? Make due with F-35s? Great plan.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Blow for "buy more F-22s" camp