Boo-urns! U.S. Senate Votes to End Production of F-22 Fighter

watisdis

Coppin' a feel
Joined
Mar 8, 2006
Messages
921
Location
Over the Hills and Far Away
By Gopal Ratnam and Tony Capaccio

July 21 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Senate voted to end production of Lockheed Martin Corp.?s F-22 fighter jets at the 187 now on order after President Barack Obama threatened to veto any measure containing money to build more.

Senators voted 58-40 for an amendment striking $1.75 billion for seven more F-22s from a defense spending measure. The amendment was sponsored by Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat and chairman of the Armed Services Committee, and John McCain of Arizona, the panel?s ranking Republican.

?The time has come to end the F-22 line,? Levin said on the Senate floor before the vote. ?This is a difficult decision but one we are comfortable with.?

Obama said he is ?grateful? to members of the Senate who voted to end production of the F-22. ?At a time when we?re fighting two wars and facing a serious deficit, this would have been an inexcusable waste of money,? Obama said at the White House.

The overall measure authorizes $680.4 billion for spending by the Defense Department in fiscal 2010. The Senate plans to pass the legislation later this week. It must be reconciled with the House version passed June 25 that provides $369 million as a down-payment for 12 more fighters.

Lawmakers seeking to continue production of the fighter argued that ending it would cost thousands of jobs.

?We are told that there are at least 25,000 direct jobs and 95,000 indirect jobs at stake? if the production ends, said Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut, where F-22 engines are made.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=axONLEwy7W2s

These things are expensive, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the situation to make an educated call on this. Either way, as long as they keep the ones currently in service running, all its not lost I suppose. I just don't want this uber-awesome piece of machinery to go by the way of the SR-71 Blackbird ya' know?
 
I heard on the news a bit ago something about these particular planes taking 20 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight, in combination with $34,000/hour to operate.

I can see why they'd cut it.
 
It makes sense to cut it. I mean, the need for an air-superioirity fighter has been greatly reduced in modern warfare, so they probably have better areas to spend the money saved. People who were responsible for putting the F22 together can always be easily retrained to put together new aircrafts :)

They're keeping the current F-22s anyway, so I don't see much harm done.
 
While they're ending production of the F-22, they're also ramping up production of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter:

The Pentagon wants instead to ramp up production of the cheaper, more versatile F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, and Gates said last week that funding for that program could be jeopardized if Congress continues to fund the F-22.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_congress_defense

And that is awesome, because the F-35 has freakin' VTOL. And VTOL pwns.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xm7_PPE-8nk[/YOUTUBE]
 
?We are told that there are at least 25,000 direct jobs and 95,000 indirect jobs at stake? if the production ends, said Democrat Chris Dodd of Connecticut, where F-22 engines are made.
Ugh. You know, I understand these guys represent people who vote for them, but using the "THINK OF THE JORBS" line for everything is starting to get old.
 
Ugh. You know, I understand these guys represent people who vote for them, but using the "THINK OF THE JORBS" line for everything is starting to get old.

Seriously. At the risk of sounding Ayn Rand-ish, the demand of "You're going to buy it because it's good for me" just doesn't compute.
 
The F-35 is a much better aircraft to be investing in. It's much more versatile, and integrates some of the stealth advancements from the F-22 program. I agree with keeping the F-22 around for it's initially intended role. We don't need more than the 187 we already have, especially when the enemies we've fought recently don't have MIG-29 or SU-27s.
 
I was talking to a friend about this.

The F22 program started in the 80s with the ATF program, back when the Cold War was still going. It was basically designed for air superiority against the Russians, who had a modern and well equipped military. It was designed to hold the sky over Flankers and Fulcrums, a task which I have no doubts it would excel in.

If the cold war was still going, production would keep going. Of this I have no doubt.

However, look at contemporary US combat operations. They tend to be against countries without modern air forces, and frequently against non-government forces. Those require a different approach; ie. it's all about keeping troops on the ground well equipped against hit and runs, guerilla warfare, urban warfare etc.

Stealth and supercruise doesn't help against the AK-47 and the IED. UAVs that can loiter and shoot hellfires, better body armor and better IFVs do. I'd expect these to get more defense money than the F22 and its ilk.

Now, if the cold war or something like it happened again, against a well equipped military, then we'd see new versions of the Raptor and the like again.

So while it's awesome, it isn't really relevant. I'd rather have a wing of four F16s in a modern combat zone (without enemy aircraft; with all threats land based) than a single Raptor (137 million vs. ~18 million). The F16s would be cheaper to run, and can carry more ordnance into the field than the internal bay only, stealthy is everything, Raptor.

And remember, while the Raptor is stealthy in terms of BVR air to air, some douche with a stinger can always pop up at the wrong time and take potshots. At close range with the F22 pointed away I don't see the advantage over a modern F16.
 
For the record, for the 800 some F-15s produced, the total number of air-to-air kills is 100 something. They own the skies, but there's really nothing contesting them.

The only potential country that the US would go to war with who has a high tech air force is China (or possibly Russia). Since WWII, no two advanced countries have gone to war proper, so maybe it'll never happen, maybe it will, but if that day comes a fleet of 187 Raptors and 334 Strike Eagles will be more than sufficient to own the skies. Until that day comes, air superiority fighters aren't very useful.

Still, my reaction is: wat.
 
The F-35 program has had so many delays its not funny. Having said that, any sort of high-tech development work never goes to schedule anyway.

I see stuff like the A-10 having much more relevance in modern warfare though. Tough, easy to maintain and able to offer immense firepower to support ground troops.
 
The F-35 program has had so many delays its not funny. Having said that, any sort of high-tech development work never goes to schedule anyway.

I see stuff like the A-10 having much more relevance in modern warfare though. Tough, easy to maintain and able to offer immense firepower to support ground troops.

Except we can't build any A-10s any more because the Democrat government at the time (Clinton) not only defunded the program but ordered the tooling destroyed. Estimated time now to start making more A-10s: nine years from start to first flight. Their justification - "Well, the Cold War is over, we'll never need this capability again." They then spent the money on midnight basketball leagues and tree growth studies.

Cute, huh? This is why we are having to do service life extensions and airframe refurbishments rather than building new A-10Cs.

I heard on the news a bit ago something about these particular planes taking 20 hours of maintenance for every hour in flight, in combination with $34,000/hour to operate.

I can see why they'd cut it.


The Air Force Association has something to say about that. Via F-16.net:

F-22 Raptor News
Air Force Association Responds to WP F-22 Article
July 14, 2009 (by Eric L. Palmer) - Below is the Air Force Association response to a recent Washington Post article that was highly critical of the F-22 program.

Just as important; if a supposedly renown paper like the Washington Post gets so much wrong on this topic, what else are they misreporting?

Assertion: F-22 maintenance man-hours per flying hour have increased, recently requiring more than 30 hours of maintenance for every hour airborne.

Facts: The F-22 is required to achieve 12.0 direct maintenance man-hours per flight hour (DMMH/FH) at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. In 2008 the F-22 achieved 18.1 DMMH/FH which then improved to 10.5 DMMH/FH in 2009. It?s important to recognize this metric is to be met at system maturity, which is projected to occur in late 2010. So the F-22 is better than the requirement well before maturity.


Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.


Assertion: The aircraft's radar-absorbing metallic skin is the principal cause of its maintenance troubles, with unexpected shortcomings.

Fact: Stealth is a breakthrough system capability and it requires regular maintenance, just like electronics or hydraulics. The skin of the F-22 is a part of the stealth capability and it requires routine maintenance. About one-third of the F-22?s current maintenance activity is associated with the stealth system, including the skin. It is important to recognize the F-22 currently meets or exceeds its maintenance requirements, and the operational capability of the F-22 is outstanding, in part due to its stealth system.


Assertion: The F-22 is vulnerable to rain and other elements due to its stealthy skin.

Facts: The F-22 is an all-weather fighter and rain is not an issue. The F-22 is currently based and operating in the harshest climates in the world ranging from the desert in Nevada and California, to extreme cold in Alaska, and rain/humidity in Florida, Okinawa and Guam. In all of these environments the F-22 has performed extremely well.


Assertion: We're not seeing the mission capable rates expected and key maintenance trends for the F-22 have been negative in recent years.

Facts: The mission capable (MC) rate has improved from 62% in 2004 to 68% percent in 2009. And it continues to improve, the current MC Rate in the F-22 fleet is 70% fleet wide.


Assertion: The F-22 can only fly an average of 1.7 hours before it gets a critical failure that jeopardizes success of the aircraft's mission.

Facts: Reliability is measured by Mean Time Between Maintenance (MTBM). One of the F-22 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs) is to have an MTBM of 3.0 hours at system maturity, which is defined to be when the F-22 fleet has accumulated 100,000 flight hours. Through 2008, F-22s averaged 2.0 hours MTBM while the fleet has accumulated 50,000 flight hours. The F-22 is on-track to meet or exceed 3.0 hours of MTBM at system maturity, projected to occur in late 2010, and the latest delivered F-22s, known as Lot 6 jets, are exhibiting an MTBM of 3.2 hours.


Assertion: The plane's million-dollar radar-absorbing canopy delaminates and loses its strength and finish.

Facts: The F-22 canopy balances multiple requirements: mechanical strength, environmental resistance, optical clarity and other requirements. Initial designs for the canopy did not achieve the full life expectancy of 800 hours. The canopy has been redesigned and currently two companies are producing qualified canopy transparencies that meet full service life durability of 800 hours.


Assertion: The F-22 has significant structural design problems that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 had a series of structural models that were tested throughout its development in a building block manner. Lockheed Martin completed static and fatigue testing in 2005 on two early production representative airframes. The results of those tests required upgrades to the airframe in a few highly stressed locations. Follow up component level testing was completed and structural redesigns were verified and implemented into the production line. For aircraft that were delivered prior to design change implementation, structural retrofit repairs are being implemented by a funded program called the F-22 Structural Retrofit Program. Structural reinforcements are common during the life of all fighters and have occurred, or are occurring, on the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.


Assertion: The F-22 has a significant design flaw in the fuel flow system that forced expensive retrofits to the airframe.

Facts: The F-22 fuel system has not required redesign. Similar to other aircraft, the systems on the F-22 are continually being enhanced by a reliability and maintainability improvement program. For example, early fuel pumps turned out to not be as reliable as desired and have subsequently been replaced by more reliable pumps.


Assertion: Follow-on operational tests in 2007 raised operational suitability issues and noted that the airplane still does not meet most of its KPPs.

Facts: The F-22 has 11 Key Performance Parameters (KPPs). The F-22 exceeds 5 KPPs (Radar Cross Section, Supercruise, Acceleration, Flight Radius, and Radar Detection Range). The F-22 meets 4 KPPs (Maneuverability, Payload, Sortie Generation and Interoperability). The remaining 2 KPPs are sustainment metrics (MTBM and C-17 Loads) that are to be evaluated at weapon system maturity -- which is defined as 100,000 total flight hours and is projected to occur in late 2010. These two sustainment metrics are on-track to be met at 100,000 flight hours.


Assertion: The F-22 costs $350M per aircraft.

Facts: The F-22s currently being delivered have a flyaway cost of $142.6M each, which is the cost to build and deliver each aircraft. This number does not include the costs for research and development (that were incurred since 1991), military construction to house the aircraft, or operations and maintenance costs.


Assertion: The F-22 needs $8 billion of improvements in order to operate properly.

Facts: Similar to every other fighter in the U.S. inventory, there is a plan to regularly incorporate upgrades into the F-22. F-22s in their current configuration are able to dominate today?s battlefield and future upgrades are planned to ensure the F-22 remains the world's most dominant fighter. F-22 Increment 3.1, which will begin entering the field in late 2010, adds synthetic aperture radar (SAR) mode in the APG-77 radar, and a capability to employ small diameter bomb (SDB). Increment 3.1 is in flight test today at Edwards AFB, CA. Increment 3.2 is being planned and will add AIM-120D and AIM-9X weapons along with additional capabilities.


Assertion: F-22 production uses a shim line and national spreading of suppliers has cut quality, thus the F-22 lacks interchangeable parts.

Fact: The F-22 does not have a shim line. During the earliest stages of production while tooling was undergoing development, there were a few aircraft with slight differences which were subsequently modified. The F-22 supplier base is the best in the industry, as demonstrated by the aircraft?s high quality and operational performance. All operational F-22s today have interchangeable parts.


Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative. 4th generation fighters operate safely and effectively supporting the ground war in Iraq and Afghanistan. The best weapon may be the one that isn?t used but instead deters a conflict before it begins. Just as we have Trident submarines with nuclear weapons, and intercontinental ballistic missiles that were not used in the current conflicts, we need air superiority capabilities that provide deterrence. The F-22 provides those capabilities for today?s contingencies as well as for future conflict. It is important to remember that the F-15 was operational for 15 years before it was first used in combat by the USAF.

More importantly, you should realize that the F-15 airframes we currently have flying are so old that they are starting to break up in flight.

We need new airplanes. The flyaway cost of a current spec F-15I or S is $100M, and that gets you a non-stealth aircraft that was designed in the 1960s that is a huge target for IR missiles. So, $100M for an updated version of an old design, or $142.6M for a new plane that's demonstrably ten times better at the design function?

Seems a no-brainer to me. But I see Our Dear Leaders in Congress would rather bail out their buddies, fund their political allies, and spend money to 'combat global warming' rather than ensure the proper defense of the US and her troops.
 
Last edited:
We needed several hundred F-22s to replace the F-15s, this is quite unfortunate news.
 
Except we can't build any A-10s any more because the Democrat government at the time (Clinton) not only defunded the program but ordered the tooling destroyed. Estimated time now to start making more A-10s: nine years from start to first flight. Their justification - "Well, the Cold War is over, we'll never need this capability again." They then spent the money on midnight basketball leagues and tree growth studies.

Cute, huh? This is why we are having to do service life extensions and airframe refurbishments rather than building new A-10Cs.

Well that was fucken smart of them....
 
I can understand not wanting the F22 in today's world, but the A10? Really? ...Really?

There's no reason we shouldn't have a fleet of brand new tankbusters.
 
Regardless of the facts presented, Congress is still going to swing in the way of American sentiment, which fueled by the rampant yellow journalism today, believes that the military is woefully irresponsible in spending and funding (which in some ways it is). However, compared with dozens of "pork-barrel" programs out there, the military spends its money rather efficiently (*cough* DHS), and often has to make do with less.

While I'm disappointed to see such a superior machine such as the F-22 go, the F-35 is the more practical choice right now.
 
Last edited:
I would rather the Military and Congress would cut the little programs that are still around for stuff the Military can't or won't use but somehow remain on the budget.

Altough, I also believe the JSF can do 90% of the F-22s intended role so maybe it would be better to go with it until a real need arises.
 
I'm gonna take a page from Bob the Angry Flower here...





No! Wrong! Totally wrong! Where'd you learn this?

That 187 number was right out of someone's ass. I also took into consideration the original number the Airforce was planning to purchase.
 
Haha, apparently, it seems there's been 141 built. Where buddy got the 46 others is a mystery.
 
Top