Nyt: F/a-22 Cut

[JOE BRENNAN]

Today's NYT story, Pentagon tells White House it will propose substantial cuts in F/A-22 program in '06 budget being prepared, probably to 160 total production from 277 (IIRC) now. Though this has been mentioned many times before, article quoted various sources in DoD, Hill etc. saying this is going to be in the budget this time, "not a trial balloon". GA Congress members quoted as saying they'll fight. Main reason given, $ squeeze caused by Iraq.

 

My analysis: critical not to cancel F-22, though this will become a danger with meaningless new quotations of shocking "cost per plane" spreading already spent R&D $ over fewer planes. Only flyaway cost matters. The F-22 is a critical keystone to the whole concept of US warfighting against a serious enemy. If "we aren't going to fight serious enemies" then there's plenty of Army systems and formations that could be disbanded too, WWII style infantry divs with independent tank bn's (of M1's forever no nonmechanicl upgrades) attached as needed and towed arty would serve more than fine for occupying Iraq if that's all there was ever going to be. But it's not; long term planning has to encompass some higher end threats.

 

But push has come to shove on $'s for AF. I strongly believe all the service, mainly Navy and AF now, but Army and Marines in a few yrs when over hump in Iraq, need to downsize force structure substantially to realistically fully modernizable sizes with today's phenomenal unit equipment and personnel costs, and reality defense spending isn't going to expand much more unless something changes radically. I hope AF and all services will emphasize this rather than common peacetime practice of "get the platforms" and let EW gear, munitions etc or even training and spares wait til times get fatter again. In that respect this could be good news.

 

Joe

[Ken Estes]

Joe, this brings the Q: F22 or F35? The US cannot possibly afford two air superiority fighters, even if one is disguised for parttime ground attack. The devastating thing about F22 is its avionics. Already obsolescent, it has no plug in upgrade potential and will require DOD purchase of a 20 year parts block to ensure availability while industry standards advance. The cost to operate and train with such aircraft to any degree of effectiveness cannot be borne by anybody but the top 5 world air forces, if that. If we can survive with a strat bomber force of 21 B2s, who is to say that a few dozen F22 is not enough?

 

The Bush team campaigned in 2000 on the notion of skipping a generation of procurement and going higher tech. If executed, such a plan would unblock the runaway procurement dilemma that we now face.

 

F22 seems to be what the USN A12 would have become had not an enraged SecDef cut it when it first showed sickness. I think that very few F22s will be procured and that it is only the beginning of a DOD-wide program bloodletting like none other in history. Stand by for heavy rolls, we are -$500B/year and going down. Ken

[Steven P Allen]

The problem with reducing the numbers is that each individual a/c soon becomes too valuable to risk. Then we have effectively eliminated our own air superiority capability while still paying through the nose to purchase the pretty toys.

[Guest Hans Engström]

Just wait til you (for different reasons) reach the point where certain high-tech equipment is deemed so advanced (and unneeded) they are only procured as demonstrator equipment. This is what we are looking at now.

[Rubberneck]

Just a sign that GEN Schoomaker was right that Congress told him that they realized the Marines and Army were going to be the forces with the greatest needs over the next 20 years.

 

And the Air Force certainly didn't help itself with the Boeing mess over the fuel tanker lease.

 

Unlike the Army and Marines, the Air Force and Navy can get away with less personnel. I think the Air Force already cut a few thousand positions this year and the Navy is looking at the same.

[Slater]

The non-glamorous equipment such as helicopters, trucks, and body armor may get a cash infusion.

[Calvinb1nav]

We certainly are spending ourselves into unilateral disarmament... 15,000 B-24s, 2000 B-47s, 700+ B-52s, 100 B-1s, 21 B-2s, and if we build a B-3, we'll get what, 5? There comes a point where no matter capable a fighter or bomber is, it can't be at two places at once...

 

The F-22's avionics are ungradebable. It was the first jet built with open architecture to do just that. That aside, one wonders if it's worth the cost. The F-35 I'm even more suspicous about because it's a short-ranged jet, highly dependent on close basing, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, our tanker fleet isn't getting any better. Yet the AF disdains long-range bombers...

 

It's amazing how many the AF things has sacrificed to save the F-22. It's known as the Hoover in the acquisition world because it sucks up every other platform's funding. Think about much time the Sec AF and AF Chief of Staff spend every day defending it. Ridiculous...

 

If you think about it in a perverse way, a third world nation buys a handful of Flankers, and to counter that threat, the USAF spends all its money on the F-22s and retires scores of bomb droppers (30 B-1s for example) to pay for it. Thus total number of air-to-ground weapons falling on your country has dramatically decreased even if your Flankers never get airborne.

 

Still, nobody as won a conventional war without air superiority and the next war might not be against terrorists.

 

PBAR

[Gunguy]

But push has come to shove on $'s for AF. I strongly believe all the service, mainly Navy and AF now, but Army and Marines in a few yrs when over hump in Iraq, need to downsize force structure substantially to realistically fully modernizable sizes with today's phenomenal unit equipment and personnel costs, and reality defense spending isn't going to expand much more unless something changes radically.

 

Joe

127820[/snapback]

 

 

Joe and Ken,

Great posts. The forces are going to get downsized in a huge way. Kens bloodletting will come once Iraq starts winding down. Remember all of the people who were supporting an increase in the force size earlier this year? Rumsfeld was against it for good reasons. The axe is coming and it will probably hit pretty hard. Air Force structure is going to get much smaller. The Navy came up with the LCS ship in a BOLD, SMART and downright amazing move. They may never get 50 ships, but even getting a full 30 to 40 brand new ships will be good for them. I applaud the Navy for really getting on board for the first time in my life and deciding to plan for future cuts. Usually the Air Force was the leader in being pro-active. The Army will pretty much get a free pass. They really can't get any smaller.

 

The issue DOD is fighting right now, that is not out of the Pentagon, is that all the massive armoring of trucks and Humvees has made their costs skyrocket. Once Iraq starts winding down, you will see a high/low mix in the Army/Marines of armored vehicles and trucks. It is too expensive to armor everything. Maybe a 50/50 mix of armored and unarmored. I'm sure studies will be done to see how many they need to have on hand at all times. As I always say when these posts come up, the services are getting smaller, Iraq just delayed it by a few years. The next ten years will be very interesting for the military. We also have the BRAC coming up. I hope they do it right and close a lot of excess capacity. But, in the end, it is up to Congress. Gee, that doesn't make me all warm and fuzzy!

[FormerBlue]

This doesn't surprise me at all. If GM was the AF, they'd have the coolest concept cars at the Detroit Auto Show and nothing for the dealer's lots the following fall. The AF needs to understand that having "perfect" airplanes isn't going to happen. There are people retiring from the AF that enlisted after the ATF program was started. Did they really need thrust vectoring and supercruise? Or were those just fancy toys to be added?

 

As long as technology is the primary concern, and cost isn't. the AF will not be able to field new planes. GW1 and GW2 were fought with 1970s planes. Those aircraft did fine and therein is the lesson: the really neato technology is gold plating.

 

I'd be willing to wager that, taking C-17 or B-757 engines and avionics, I'd be able to create a low cost bomber to replace B-52s within 2 years max. Similarly, a new fighter shouldn't be that hard to build. The avionics are expensive and replacable. How difficult is an airframe and engine if you want it cheap and you want it now? Heck, a slightly modernized F-15 would have been a good bet.

[Stevely]

Time for the government to get serious about telling Lockmart and Boeing that they need to learn how to develop cheaper planes. Those companies are full of 900 lb brains, I'm sure they could figure it out if properly motivated. The acquisition process is broke in so many ways, but above all too many people cash in on the status quo and nothing will change until that changes.

 

I'd say one way to get the contractors' attention is to go to Lockmart and say we've found a bargain in the Gripen (or whatever the latest Swedish jet is). Or even better, the Rafale. We're going to buy those instead. Thanks for your effort.

 

Of course that will never happen, as Congressmen are amongst the chief cashers-in. I just hope the determination doesn't come as a result of our 2 F-22 air force getting overwhelmed by some pissant foe.

[UN-Interested Observer]

What did Eisenhower say about defence contractors?

 

Anyway I read a humorour quip that by the year 2030 the entire military budget would buy 1 air superiority fighter, it was speculated the Airforce and Navy could use it on alternating days.

[RETAC21]

We certainly are spending ourselves into unilateral disarmament...  15,000 B-24s, 2000 B-47s, 700+ B-52s, 100 B-1s, 21 B-2s, and if we build a B-3, we'll get what, 5?  There comes a point where no matter capable a fighter or bomber is, it can't be at two places at once...

 

The F-22's avionics are ungradebable.  It was the first jet built with open architecture to do just that.  That aside, one wonders if it's worth the cost.  The F-35 I'm even more suspicous about because it's a short-ranged jet, highly dependent on close basing, and in case anyone hasn't noticed, our tanker fleet isn't getting any better.  Yet the AF disdains long-range bombers...

 

It's amazing how many the AF things has sacrificed to save the F-22.  It's known as the Hoover in the acquisition world because it sucks up every other platform's funding.  Think about much time the Sec AF and AF Chief of Staff spend every day defending it.  Ridiculous... 

 

If you think about it in a perverse way, a third world nation buys a handful of Flankers, and to counter that threat, the USAF spends all its money on the F-22s and retires scores of bomb droppers (30 B-1s for example) to pay for it. Thus total number of air-to-ground weapons falling on your country has dramatically decreased even if your Flankers never get airborne. 

 

Still, nobody as won a conventional war without air superiority and the next war might not be against terrorists.

 

PBAR

127924[/snapback]

 

AND less fighters means the payoff of killing one is higher, and of course, planes can be killed while on the ground, and not only from the air...

[nitflegal]

Time for the government to get serious about telling Lockmart and Boeing that they need to learn how to develop cheaper planes. Those companies are full of 900 lb brains, I'm sure they could figure it out if properly motivated. The acquisition process is broke in so many ways, but above all too many people cash in on the status quo and nothing will change until that changes.

 

But how much of that is inability or unwillingness from the contractors, really? If the USAF requested a simpler plane without every gee-whizz feature I have a feeling that Boeing or Lockheed would give it to them. They might grumble a bit, but it would frankly be better for the company long-term to build 500 cheaper fighters over 10 year than 30 over 5. My dad worked on the F/A-22 and he'll keep you entertained for hours with the constant stream of changes, requests, mission-creep, etc. that they got from the AF. He stated hat the F-117 was simple to design in comparison, becaue the AF didn't know enough about the emerging technology to keep bugging them about improvements!

 

As long as the AF keeps asking for a jet that is bleeding edge, it's going to cost accordingly.

 

Matt

[Smitty]

Time for the government to get serious about telling Lockmart and Boeing that they need to learn how to develop cheaper planes. Those companies are full of 900 lb brains, I'm sure they could figure it out if properly motivated. The acquisition process is broke in so many ways, but above all too many people cash in on the status quo and nothing will change until that changes.

 

Lockmart and Boeing only share partial blame here. The U.S. can't originally ask for 760 uber-fighters and then only buy 160 without expecting prices to rise. They can't ask for a fighter that dramatically pushes the performance boundaries in every area without expecting to pay for it.

 

BTW, there are planes on the horizon that promise to be dramatically cheaper - UCAVs.

 

I'd say one way to get the contractors' attention is to go to Lockmart and say we've found a bargain in the Gripen (or whatever the latest Swedish jet is). Or even better, the Rafale. We're going to buy those instead. Thanks for your effort.

 

Puh-lease. Compare apples to apples. The Gripen has less legs than an F-16. Great if you just want to defend your home town, but they'll suck down tanking resources like crazy in an expeditionary role. Plus, none of the Eurocanards are stealthy, so they'll be little better than an F-teen over any kind of S2A threat.

 

The F/A-22 carries 20,000+ lbs of gas, has all-aspects, wideband stealth, and can cruise high enough and fast enough ignore whole classes of SAM threats.

[Smitty]

Did they really need thrust vectoring and supercruise?  Or were those just fancy toys to be added?

 

As long as technology is the primary concern, and cost isn't. the AF will not be able to field new planes.  GW1 and GW2 were fought with 1970s planes.  Those aircraft did fine and therein is the lesson: the really neato technology is gold plating. 

 

I'd be willing to wager that, taking C-17 or B-757 engines and avionics, I'd be able to create a low cost bomber to replace B-52s within 2 years max.  Similarly, a new fighter shouldn't be that hard to build.  The avionics are expensive and replacable.  How difficult is an airframe and engine if you want it cheap and you want it now?  Heck, a slightly modernized F-15 would have been a good bet.

127942[/snapback]

 

The real question you should be asking is "what does it need to do?" Until you understand this, and how it will fit in the overall force strucuture, any proposal is as good as any other.

[Rubberneck]

Ken,

 

Here is an article that is confirming exactly what you said. The high tech gear is going to be delayed or cut because: "It doesn't matter if you can win a war 20 years from now if we lose the global war on terror next year."

 

New York Times

December 30, 2004

Pg. 1

 

Pentagon Said To Offer Cuts In The Billions

 

By Eric Schmitt

 

WASHINGTON, Dec. 29 - The Pentagon plans to retire one of the Navy's 12 aircraft carriers, buy fewer amphibious landing ships for the Marine Corps and delay the development of a costly Army combat system of high-tech arms as part of $60 billion in proposed cuts over the next six years, Congressional and military officials said Wednesday.

 

The proposed reductions, the details of which are still being fine-tuned and which would require Congressional approval, result from White House orders to all federal agencies to cut their spending requests for the 2006 fiscal year budgets, which will be submitted to lawmakers early next year.

 

Since the November elections, the White House has been under growing pressure to offset mounting deficits and at the same time pay for the unexpectedly high costs of military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, which combined now amount to more than $5 billion a month.

 

The proposed Pentagon cuts, which include sharply reducing the program for the Air Force's F/A-22 fighter and delaying the purchase of a new Navy destroyer, would for the first time since the Sept. 11 attacks slow the growth in Pentagon spending, which has risen 41 percent in that period, to about $420 billion this year. Military and Congressional officials said the Pentagon was looking to trim up to $10 billion in the 2006 budget alone.

 

The budget-cutting is likely to foreshadow additional reductions of weapons designed in the cold war and the revamping of America's arsenal as the Pentagon prepares for its quadrennial review of military weapons and equipment to address current and long-term security threats, including the insurgency in Iraq and a possibly resurgent China.

 

"The services are making decisions about where to make their investments," said a Pentagon spokesman, Eric Ruff, who declined to comment on specific proposed cuts. "As we look ahead to the challenges of the 21st century, it's fair that we look at programs that began two or three decades ago."

 

One of the winners in this round of budget work is likely to be the Army, some military budget analysts and Pentagon officials said. While the other armed services have been forced to scale back their weapons modernization plans, the Army is spending billions of dollars a year to add as many as 15 brigades in the next several years.

 

"It doesn't matter if you can win a war 20 years from now if we lose the global war on terror next year," said one military official, who favors increasing spending for the Army to help battle the Iraq insurgency but spoke on condition of anonymity because the details of the budget are not complete.

 

When Donald H. Rumsfeld became defense secretary in 2001, he took aim at costly weapons systems that he and his top aides said were relics of the cold war. Since then, the Army has canceled the $11 billion Crusader artillery system and the $38 billion Comanche reconnaissance helicopter program.

 

But the armed services have until now resisted deeper cuts and have been buoyed by big increases in military spending since Sept. 11.

 

Mounting deficits and the growing cost of keeping more than 150,000 American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq the past year have forced the White House and the Pentagon to look at cuts. The war costs have so far been paid by supplemental appropriations, and the Pentagon is preparing another such request of about $80 billion early next year.

 

"The guidance the secretary is receiving is for the department to bear its share of cuts necessary to help work down deficits, and at the same time have adequate funds for the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and to refurbish the Army," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, who is chairman of the Armed Services Committee. Mr. Warner said in a telephone interview that he had a long conversation about the budget with Mr. Rumsfeld last week.

 

At a time when the Army and Marines are stretched thin, cutting force levels was out of the question, as was reducing operating costs.

 

The Pentagon's new weapons budget, now about $78 billion a year, became the immediate target, although much of the savings cannot be realized for several years because of how the programs' development and production costs are spread out.

 

"These are probably prudent steps to take," said Steven M. Kosiak, director of budget studies at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, a research group here. "One question, though, is how much in savings does that get you right away?"

 

Among the proposed cuts, the Navy takes some of the most prominent hits. This is in large part, Navy officials and independent budget analysts said, because increased efficiencies in its operations under Adm. Vern Clark, the chief of naval operations, allow for reductions in forces and ships that do not jeopardize the service's missions.

 

Two military and Congressional officials who have been briefed on the proposed cuts spoke about them on condition of anonymity because the budget is not yet complete.

 

Under the proposal, the Navy would retire the carrier John F. Kennedy - one of the oldest carriers in the fleet, having first been deployed in 1968 - next year. The Kennedy, based in Mayport, Fla., recently completed a tour in the Persian Gulf, where its air wing was flying 60 missions a day, including flights to Iraq.

 

The Kennedy's retirement would, for the first time since the mid-1990's, reduce the size of the Navy's carrier fleet.

 

The proposal also calls for reducing the number of new LPD-17 San Antonio-class amphibious landing docks, which are designed to transport Marine assault vehicles, amphibious landing craft and Osprey aircraft, to trouble spots around the world. The Navy had originally planned to buy five of the ships over the next five years, at about $1.2 billion apiece. The vessels are built by Northrop Grumman in New Orleans.

 

Another major change would be to build fewer new Navy destroyers than planned over the next six years. A team of contractors, led by Northrop Grumman, is building the ships, currently called DD(X), at a cost of $1.2 billion to $1.4 billion per vessel, in Pascagoula, Miss., and in Bath, Me.

 

In addition, development of the Army's $120 billion Future Combat System would be delayed. The system is designed to link soldiers by computer with remotely piloted aircraft and combat vehicles.

[Burncycle360]

It is too expensive to armor everything.

 

I do not believe this.

[itsuneek]

Do we need an ASF?

 

Why not a 747 with a2a missile loadout?

[Smitty]

Why not a 747 with a2a missile loadout?

 

The only way this would have any chance at all is if you had EXTREMELY long-ranged AAMs (several times the range of AMRAAM/R-77) and an AWACS-sized radar. Maybe adapting Patriot or Standard SM-2/3 would be an option. On the bright side, this may also give you some ballistic missile defense capability too.

 

Even then, you'd have to rely on such large standoff distances that you may miss terrain-masked aircraft and wouldn't be able to visual ID aircraft before firing. Also, you'd be a sitting duck if anyone closed to within their AAM envelope.

 

Now maybe a combination of ABL/AAM shooter might have a better chance, but it still has the drawback of having the RCS the size of a shopping mall and airliner kinematic performance. Plus it'd be wicked-expensive.

 

Also, this aircraft would be reduced to a standoff A2G platform in a dense S2A environment. It wouldn't be a penetrator like the F/A-22.

[Rod]

Perhaps we could persuade Japan to buy about 50 F/A-22s for their Air Force. Japan needs them to counterbalance China's increasingly Su-30 inventory as well as deterrence against North Korea whose saber-rattling got louder with the problem of Japanese abductions increasing the tensions.

 

Given the cost of their F-2 (a goosed up F-16), it would make more sense for them to just buy the F/A-22 which will help lower unit costs for everyone. Plus we could let Mitsubishi or IHI build the F-119 under license in Japan as way of generating some offsets to the Japanese economy. That's about 100 plus engines (counting spares) contract. IMHO a win/win for both the U.S. and Japan.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Perhaps we could persuade Japan to buy about 50 F/A-22s for their Air Force.

 

...to just buy the F/A-22 which will help lower unit costs for everyone.

 

Recent article in AW&ST on new Japanese plan, as well as other references, mention that US release of F-22 is the main issue: they aren't committed to buying it if released but have a serious interest. But US unwillingness to discuss foreign sale yet prevents that moving off square one for the timebeing.

 

On unit costs we have to distinguish two kinds (not to say you aren't but many discussions don't), all in incl R&D and flyaway. For a very high tech plane to be built in much smaller than originally planned numbers this diff is esp. acute for F-22. Opponents of planes will soon calc a new "unit cost spreading the R&D over 160 planes rather than ~280, look how the unit cost has exploded!, but this is pretty meaningless, the R&D is spent already and any remaining amount is virtually indepedent of the number of planes built. And no non-stooge foreign country (and Japan isn't) is going to pay a large amount of the proportional R&D on the planes they buy, maybe a little (IOW maybe they'll pay a small premium over USAF's fly away cost) but not much.

 

Flyaway cost, marginal cost per additional plane, will rise some for 160 but not a huge amount, and a Japanese sale would lower this a bit but I doubt significantly.

 

Joe

[Smitty]

On unit costs we have to distinguish two kinds (not to say you aren't but many discussions don't), all in incl R&D and flyaway. For a very high tech plane to be built in much smaller than originally planned numbers this diff is esp. acute for F-22. Opponents of planes will soon calc a new "unit cost spreading the R&D over 160 planes rather than ~280, look how the unit cost has exploded!, but this is pretty meaningless, the R&D is spent already and any remaining amount is virtually indepedent of the number of planes built. And no non-stooge foreign country (and Japan isn't) is going to pay a large amount of the proportional R&D on the planes they buy, maybe a little (IOW maybe they'll pay a small premium over USAF's fly away cost) but not much.

 

 

I wish more folks would understand this difference. Especially those who espouse supposedly "cheaper" alternatives like F-35.

 

Since the F-35 still in its R&D infancy, and has just begun the inevitable production cuts and cost increase game, it makes complete sense to compare the procurement (R&D-inclusive) price of the F-35 against the flyaway (R&D-omitted) price of the F-22.

 

When you look at the two this way, the differences really aren't all that great.

 

Hopefully we'll wise up and realize this before the F-22 production line shuts down and we find we can't afford the 2000-odd F-35s we want today.

[Gregory]

Just to throw it out there - could we develop an "Aerial Dreadnought" on 747 chassis? AFAIK (which isn't that much), most SAMs use proximity HE explosive charge, which sprays ball-bearing type fragments. We use some of 117,000 lb cargo capacity to swaddle the engines, cockpit and other mission-critical components in several inches of composite armor. The rest can be used for bombs and missiles to be rained down on the heads of hapless enemy. Add some Wild-Weasel loadout and you have a very scary platform.

 

Sort of a Megafortress, but with a bit different solution.

[Daniel Papp]

Yahoo says that the Navy retire CV-67 USS John F. Kennedy by the proposed cuts.

 

Yahoo link

 

Well, it makes sense to retire a conventional CV than a CVN, because it would be much easier to reactivate it if it is needed.

[EchoFiveMike]

Spending any more money for R&D on manned aircraft for combat use is wasted money IMO. Manned combat aircraft are on the way out. Every performance factor favors UAV's. Buy F22 to finish it out and shitcan F35. Take all the pilot payroll money and spend it on land systems and armed UAV's. Keep a few pilots for transport AC and UAV managers at the Bn and Rgt level, and send the rest of them off to United. S/F...Ken M