Budget Cuts : Raptor Or Jsf

[tanker_karl]

Any thoughts ?

 

====================================================

Rumsfeld clashes with air force top brass on plan to cut fighter order

By Peter Spiegel in London

Published: January 4 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 4 2005 02:00

 

Donald Rumsfeld, US defence secretary, has rebuffed an effort by the US air force to cut its order of Joint Strike Fighters bya third - a proposal senior air force officials had hoped would save its prized F/A-22 programme.

 

 

Air force top brass had sought a cut of about 500 JSFs in their 2006 budget proposal to Mr Rumsfeld - from 1,700 to 1,200 - to find money to fund 277 F/A-22 Raptors, a $72bn programme that recently moved into initial production. But Mr Rumsfeld, who has never been a strong supporter of the Raptor, refused to back the shift and is expected to submit a request for all 1,700 JSFs when the Pentagon makes its annual budget submission to Congress next month.

 

The Pentagon will instead seek only 180 Raptors, according to people briefed on the decision-making process. The cut is expected to save about $10.5bn (£5.5bn) during the next six years. Both fighters are built by Lockheed Martin.

 

The battle over the Raptor has been the most hotly contested procurement debate inside the Pentagon under Mr Rumsfeld's watch. With advanced stealth technology and the ability to fly at supersonic speeds for long distances, the Raptor has been the prized air force programme for almost a generation.

 

But Mr Rumsfeld and some of his closest aides have sought to cut the programme for years, arguing it was a cold war-era fighter designed for outdated high-speed dogfights.

 

By contrast, the JSF - which will be purchased by the air force, navy and marines as well as the British armed forces - is much cheaper and designed for both air-to-air fighting and the kind of ground-attack missions the Pentagon expects.

 

"JSF meets Rumsfeld's criteria for a 'transformational' programme," said Loren Thompson, defence analyst at the Lexington Institute.

 

"It is multi-service, it is multi-mission and it is low cost."

 

The $10.5bn cut in the Raptor is part of nearly $30bn in spending cuts during the next six years expected to come in the Bush administration's 2006 budget request.

 

According to internal budget documents disclosed yesterday by the newsletter InsideDefense.com, the biggest cuts will come in about half a dozen programmes, including the C-130J, a cargo plane that will be cancelled for the air force and curtailed for the Marine Corps saving $5bn, and in missile defence, where a similar saving is sought.

 

Next to the air force, the most affected service is the navy. It will see two ships cut from its new destroyer programme, saving $2.5bn, and the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy retired, saving $1.2bn. Despite the cuts, the Pentagon's overall budget is expected to remain at 2005 levels because of continuing costs of Iraq.

 

The savings on acquisitions will be moved to the army, which has seen heavy spending in its operations and maintenance budget.

 

source : http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b0b89920-5df4-11d...000e2511c8.html

[Tony Williams]

I'm not surprised: there have been reports that the USAF's procurement spending plans are somewhat detached from reality, so something's got to give.

 

The F-22 is the USAF's baby - theirs, all theirs - and they'd give up just about anything to keep it. But apart from the points in favour of the F-35 made in the article, there are also several nations who have contributed significant sums to its development and the potential export market is huge. The export market for the F-22 is zilch, for the foreseeable future.

 

Tony Williams: Military gun and ammunition website and discussion

forum

[Slater]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6784652/

 

 

Didn't realize the the Joint Common Missile was among the targeted programs. Guess Hellfire and TOW are adequate for the foreseeable future.

[Ol Paint]

I'd rather see the USAF buying the F/A-22 than the JSF. I am biased, of course, since I like larger airplanes...

 

In all seriousness, though, the F-22 seems to be much more capable in A2A combat than the F-35 (on the basis of claimed capabilities) and should be a decent strike aircraft once the SDB comes on line. Reducing the AF buy for the near term makes sense since the AF could purchase at the end of production, should they so desire it. Unlike the F-15s, I believe the F-16s are a bit younger and could serve a while longer. However, killing the F-35 completely is not an option since it would leave the USN, USMC, and RN with no replacements for their aging aircraft. The USN isn't in quite as tight a spot as the USMC and RN, since they also have the F/A-18E/F in production, but the F-35 is the only Harrier replacement in the offing. I have long advocated that the Air Force concentrate on long-range bombing, transport, and heavy fighters (to defend the former, if necessary), essentially turning into SAC and leaving TAC to the Navy, MC, and possibly the Army. While this probably won't happen, I think the Air Force should seriously consider it, playing to their strengths, rather than competing for short-range missions with the Navy/Marine Corps. In addition, I hate to see the US placing all of its eggs in the single basket of the JSF. The F-22 doesn't warm the cockles of my heart like the F-15 does, but I don't think the program should be killed--especially since the aircraft is about to go operational while the JSF is still in development.

 

Douglas

[Smitty]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6784652/

Didn't realize the the Joint Common Missile was among the targeted programs. Guess Hellfire and TOW are adequate for the foreseeable future.

 

JCM seemed like a useful program, but probably not 'transformational' enough. Other PGMs can fill the majority of roles planned for it. Plus, I'm sure the UK would love to sell us Brimstones.

[swerve]

<snip> However, killing the F-35 completely is not an option since it would leave the USN, USMC, and RN with no replacements for their aging aircraft.  The USN isn't in quite as tight a spot as the USMC and RN, since they also have the F/A-18E/F in production, but the F-35 is the only Harrier replacement in the offing.  <snip>

 

Douglas

 

Also the Italian navy, & probably the Spanish navy, which isn't involved in the JSF programme but (like Italy) is building a ship sized for the expected size & performance of the STOVL F-35. At least the RN is planning ships capable of operating a CTOL fast jet, such as the F-18E or Rafale.

[Rubberneck]

The JSF was supposed to be similar to the F-16 program where it was going to be the somewhat cheap, somewhat ubiquitous fighter that could have air to ground capabilites as well.

 

Who can afford the F-22 outside the US minus maybe Japan and some of the "friendly" Arab states? And why would the US want to sell this highest tech fighter to an Arab regime? I'm sure there are people who still remember the F-14 sale to Iran, only to see those fighters become decidely unfriendly a few years after the sale.

[Slater]

Presumably, the nations that currently operate the F-15 would be potential future F-22 operators, cost and security considerations permitting. This would include Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and maybe South Korea. Out of that list maybe Japan is the only realistic country. Probably too costly for Israel and who knows about Saudi's political landscape in the near future?

[Smitty]

Presumably, the nations that currently operate the F-15 would be potential future F-22 operators, cost and security considerations permitting. This would include Israel, Saudi Arabia, Japan, and maybe South Korea. Out of that list maybe Japan is the only realistic country. Probably too costly for Israel and who knows about Saudi's political landscape in the near future?

 

Frankly, I see no good reason to proliferate stealth and other F-22/35 technologies to countries that aren't the UK, Australia or Canada.

 

I don't care what that does to LockMart's bottom line, or the Senators that care about such things.

 

If it were up to me, I'd force other nations to buy updated F-teens, until the other major exporting countries caught up.

 

Just MHO.

[Rubberneck]

No way. The F-15 was pricy, but there is no way that the vast majority of countries are going to buy a $200m per copy stealth air superiority fighter. And other than Japan, I can't see any way that the US would sell a stealth aircraft to an Arab country.

[JOE BRENNAN]

Frankly, I see no good reason to proliferate stealth and other F-22/35 technologies to countries that aren't the UK, Australia or Canada.  

 

I don't care what that does to LockMart's bottom line, or the Senators that care about such things.

 

If it were up to me, I'd force other nations to buy updated F-teens, until the other major exporting countries caught up.

 

Just MHO.

129906[/snapback]

 

Besides cost though related I guess I think there's a disctinction between 22 and 35. Latter's cooperative effort includes Allies at a higher tier in the program than Canada (Italy and Netherlands) and Australia hasn't actually joined AFAIK, intends to. They, plus Denmark, Norway and Turkey at Canada's level obviously get the plane they helped pay to develop. Israel has chipped in too I think. This is among the reasons btw JSF cancellation is such a non-starter IMO (the suggestion below AF gets out of multi purpose tac fighter business in favor of USN/MC is after my heart though, but won't happen) besides the questionability of hand waving about UAV's.

 

Even within a given plane there are things presumably US F-35's will have than foreign ones won't, and in case of some maybe they have their own just as good stuff (to avoid a tangential argument on "American hubris" ) , but it won't be the same.

 

However F-22 though older contains a number of more sensitive things. All its capabilities haven't been disclosed, and it's much stealthier.

 

On cost one more time $250mil (will be more with cuts) is including R&D, assuming we're willing to sell it it's silly to lose the sale by insisting on amortizing that for the export planes. "Only" $130mil is more realistic prob even for reduced buy.

 

On allies maybe it's FFZ territory, I don't see Japan as a much less close ally than Canada; or more close, not a big difference among a number of allies after the UK (incle other NATO countries in F-35 program), not trying to put anybody's nose out of joint, my opinion. But with F-22 right now issue is selling to anybody at all. With Israel there is an issue of tech transfer as part of their arms sales that's less with some other allies but doesn't exist at all with Japan, who might actually want the F-22. I doubt Israel needs F-22's but will need a new generation fighter eventually. I can't see F-35 issues for either. Saudi Arabia, now that's a big difference.

 

 

Joe

[Ivanhoe]

The foreign involvement helps protect the F-35, and I expect 5 years down the road the Navy will be having heartburn from their all Superbug, all the time solution. Thus I think the USN will be buying them at least in out years, along with some sort of CSA stopgap. Dunno about the Marines, the price tag will have to be pretty low to fit their budget.

 

As for F-22, does anybody have believable numbers for unit production cost? Given the age of the F-15 fleet, the breakeven point for buying new Raptors may be surprisingly soon even with UCAVs being available RSN. There's the question of what F-22/F-16 or F-22/F-35 mix the USAF thinks will be appropriate, things are in such a flux these days any prediction is likely to be wrong but I think I'd go for 25/75% if I were SecAF.

[pi]

IIRC Australia has substansially built it's future plans for RAAF around the delivery of the F-35 so they would not be happy.

[FormerBlue]

Unlike the F-15s, I believe the F-16s are a bit younger and could serve a while longer. 

129772[/snapback]

While we could nit this all day, I'd rather not. Ignoring the "Stealth" and "Fancy Thrust Vector" and the really cute "Internal Weapons Bay," I really don't see where the F/A-22 really brings anything to the table other than a massive price tag. Total cost is what I'm after. F-15Is (new production so age of F-15/F-16 really doesn't matter) is 2Bil for 21 which, unless my calculator is broke, works out to about 90mil per plane.

 

Scrap the F/A-22 program. We can't build enough to make them worthwhile. Buy new F-15 airframes to continue that mission if they wish. R&D is already done, other countries are buying which makes spares cheaper, yada yada yada. Training savings would be huge.

 

I think if the AF is offered some new F-15s or nothing, they'll re-discover the absolute joy of having shiny new Eagles. Paint them in an array of exciting new colors.

 

A2A is a valid mission. I don't see where supercruise, thrust vectoring, and internal weapons bays bring as much to the mix as better radar and missiles. New radar and missiles can be hung on new F-15 airframes. Heck, pull the motors from the -22 program and ram them into F-15s to get the new fuel economy; want to bet they fit? If the engines don't fit, break out the hammer. We're talking new airframes after all.

[Wolfman]

Buy new F-15 airframes to continue that mission if they wish.

 

What is going to keep those F-15s from suffering heavy losses the first time they have to face S-300/400 SAMs, or any AA-12 equipped Su-series fighter?

[FormerBlue]

What is going to keep those F-15s from suffering heavy losses the first time they have to face S-300/400 SAMs, or any AA-12 equipped Su-series fighter?

130067[/snapback]

I believe that the total F-15 losses in Iraq were, let me check my figures here, Zero. Looking around at other potential trouble spots, I don't believe that I see much from NK, Iran, Syria, or Canada in the way of fleets of Su-series fighters or real high-tech missiles. The cold war is over. It has been quite some time actually. I think the plan here is to spend money on forces that can meet reasonably anticipated threats as opposed to any possible threat. What is the cost of one F-15I? 90mil? Write Putin a check for an even 180 to not sell to nutcase countries. Heck, deliver it in a shiny new Benz.

 

While it's altogether possible that England could build a new dreadnaught, I am not in favor of installing "disappearing mount" 14" naval cannon on Long Island.

[Ivanhoe]

A2A is a valid mission.  I don't see where supercruise, thrust vectoring, and internal weapons bays bring as much to the mix as better radar and missiles.  New radar and missiles can be hung on new F-15 airframes.  Heck, pull the motors from the -22 program and ram them into F-15s to get the new fuel economy; want to bet they fit?  If the engines don't fit, break out the hammer.  We're talking new airframes after all.

130064[/snapback]

 

New engines, new radar & missiles, new airframe to fit the new engines, you are talking about 75% of new airplane, spending new tax dollars on design, development, and testing that's already done for the Raptor, except the F-15Z won't be available until 2015. As Joe already alluded to, much of the giant price tag for the Raptor is from sunk costs, that's money already spent. Now decisions need to be made with now money, which means given X billion of taxpayer dollars, do we built more F-15s or build some Raptors. Thus my query on actual unit production cost of the Raptor, as opposed to the now meaningless total cost.

 

The stealth features are to provide survivability against SAMs as well as AAMs. No sense winning the A2A battle if you're going to lose the S2A battle.

[Wolfman]

I believe that the total F-15 losses in Iraq were, let me check my figures here, Zero.

 

You are assuming that every future war will be against a state such as Iraq. If we were to attack Iran right now, the aircrews would face S-300s. Not a nice proposition for non-stealthy airframes, I can assure you of that.

 

 

 

While it's altogether possible that England could build a new dreadnaught, I am not in favor of installing "disappearing mount" 14" naval cannon on Long Island.

 

Don't see why you'd need a 14" naval cannon when Harpoons and Mk-48s can sink a ship just as well.

[FormerBlue]

New engines, new radar & missiles, new airframe to fit the new engines, you are talking about 75% of new airplane, spending new tax dollars on design, development, and testing that's already done for the Raptor, except the F-15Z won't be available until 2015. As Joe already alluded to, much of the giant price tag for the Raptor is from sunk costs, that's money already spent. Now decisions need to be made with now money, which means given X billion of taxpayer dollars, do we built more F-15s or build some Raptors. Thus my query on actual unit production cost of the Raptor, as opposed to the now meaningless total cost.

 

The stealth features are to provide survivability against SAMs as well as AAMs. No sense winning the A2A battle if you're going to lose the S2A battle.

130080[/snapback]

So just build F-15Is. Skip the extras. I suppose you could just add that capability to the F-35.

 

I'm taking the other part to the FFZ as it's probably not a view shared by all. It will take a while. On a positive note, I get to abuse Canada.

[swerve]

I believe that the total F-15 losses in Iraq were, let me check my figures here, Zero.  Looking around at other potential trouble spots, I don't believe that I see much from NK, Iran, Syria, or Canada in the way of fleets of Su-series fighters or real high-tech missiles.  The cold war is over.  It has been quite some time actually.    I think the plan here is to spend money on forces that can meet reasonably anticipated threats as opposed to any possible threat.  What is the cost of one F-15I?  90mil?  Write Putin a check for an even 180 to not sell to nutcase countries.  Heck, deliver it in a shiny new Benz.

 

I think the original idea was to be able to beat the USSR, & since the demise of the USSR, to beat whoever buys significant numbers of the best weapons the Russians can develop if given enough money - i.e. China.

 

The USA is currently leaning on Israel to stop China getting upgraded Harpy ARMs (China has 1st gen. Harpies). They don't contain any US technology, so there's no formal agreement under which the USA can bar Israel from selling them to whoever it wants, but the Pentagon clearly considers them dangerous. The USA bought some passive radar systems from the Czechs recently to persuade the Czechs to not sell them to China. Again, no US technology involved, but a system which the US military is very keen to keep out of Chinese hands.

[Burncycle360]

Well, if we should build new F-15's to offset the fewer than expected F-22's, we could always come up with a mid life upgrade to incorporate into the design during the build to jack up prices. After all, that's almost a requirement nowadays!

Maybe the F-15 ACTIVE design. We all know how people get off at the mention of things like thrust vectoring, thrust reversers, and canards! (Besides, those things are tailplanes taken off an F-18! Glad to see them finally put to good use!)

 

 

 

Course, I'm blasphemous according to the brass...... I think the F-16 XL would be a better choice than the F-16, the F-23 would be a better choice than the F-22, and that it's rediculous to call the JSF "ideal" as an attack aircraft.

[V42]

What no one mentions is that about 10 active airforce wings have been cut since the original F22/23 order was made. I say we can afford to cut some F23s that had their numbers set based on a much larger airforce and buy more F22s.

 

The F23 was designed to operate as part of a package with the F-22 and thus is not a suitable replacement.

 

We are not buying the plane for today, but for the next several decades when today's F-15s will neeed to be retired.

 

If we try to reactivate any type of improved F-15 production with the procurement bureaucracy and evrything it will take at least 6-7 years and with all of the new testing to go into full production the planes will not be cheap.

[Smitty]

While we could nit this all day,  I'd rather not.  Ignoring the "Stealth" and "Fancy Thrust Vector" and the really cute "Internal Weapons Bay," I really don't see where the F/A-22 really brings anything to the table other than a massive price tag.  Total cost is what I'm after.  F-15Is (new production so age of F-15/F-16 really doesn't matter) is 2Bil for 21 which, unless my calculator is broke, works out to about 90mil per plane.

 

Scrap the F/A-22 program.  We can't build enough to make them worthwhile.  Buy new F-15 airframes to continue that mission if they wish.  R&D is already done, other countries are buying which makes spares cheaper, yada yada yada.  Training savings would be huge.

 

I think if the AF is offered some new F-15s or nothing, they'll re-discover the absolute joy of having shiny new Eagles.  Paint them in an array of exciting new colors.

 

A2A is a valid mission.  I don't see where supercruise, thrust vectoring, and internal weapons bays bring as much to the mix as better radar and missiles.  New radar and missiles can be hung on new F-15 airframes.  Heck, pull the motors from the -22 program and ram them into F-15s to get the new fuel economy; want to bet they fit?  If the engines don't fit, break out the hammer.  We're talking new airframes after all.

130064[/snapback]

 

Ok, let's see, where to start...

 

How can you ignore stealth? Did F-15s fly to downtown Baghdad during ODS? No, only F-117s and cruise missiles did that. OIF is not instructive here, we were fighting a country that we'd already smacked around during ODS and more than a decade of sanctions.

 

The F-22 can replace and vaslty improve upon the F-117, the F-15C AND the F-15E in service. New F-15s can only replace the later two and then only offer incremental improvements.

 

Supercruise is valuable in A2A but it's more important in A2G for increasing sortie rates and survivability. The fact that the Raptor can cruise at M1.5+ and 50k+ft AGL puts it completely out of range of entire classes of SAMs.

 

On price, the USAF estimated the marginal production price for F-22s, after about 100 airframes, will be around $75-80 million a copy.

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/march2003/0303FA22.asp

 

Flyaway prices will be somewhat higher, but still not THAT much higher than new-built F-15s. Even if you could buy 3 F-15s for the price of two Raptors, the Raptors are still preferable, IMHO. They're just that much more capable.

[Smitty]

What no one mentions is that about 10 active airforce wings have been cut since the original F22/23 order was made.  I say we can afford to cut some F23s that had their numbers set based on a much larger airforce and buy more F22s.

 

F-23? I say we can afford a 100% cut in the F-23, since there's no such thing.

 

The YF-23 was the competitor to the F-22 during the ATF program. It lost and went to the boneyard.

 

Did you mean the F-35?

[Josh]

I think running two separate programs for a modern airframe was, in retrospect, quite a waste. That said the Raptor is AFAIK in low rate initial production, so at this point its will be cheaper than the development of any other new, modern airframe like an improved F-16 or Eagle. While current production models could be substituted instead, since the work has already been done and the money already spent, its worth having a far more capable a/c. Supercruise combined with stealth allows the F-22 to quickly engage a/c, greately extend the envelope of its AAMs, and fire before the opposing a/c realizes its being fired upon. An F-15 is lunch for an F-22. As stated below, even if buying a couple F-22's is the same price as 3 F-15's, since the design is payed for, buy the F-22.

 

As for the F-35: too many services need it to back out; at minimum 3 parties are using it as a replacement even if the USAF were to drop the program. Plus the export potential in the future to friendly countries will be huge; it will be the next F-16 in all likely hood if it works at all.

 

We've painted ourselves into a corner. Perhaps 10 years ago we could have dropped the F-22 and bought more F15/F16 and saved the development costs but F-35 is really nonnegotiable and the F-22 is already here.