WT Forums

<i>(Source: Project On Government Oversight (POGO); issued Feb. 10, 2004)

The President’s Office of Management and Budget has requested formal studies of the Air Force’s F/A-22 tactical fighter with an apparent eye toward cutting back or eliminating the costly weapons system, according to published reports in the Atlanta Constitution and Baltimore Sun.

POGO applauded Director Joshua Bolten’s request for an overview study of the program. POGO pledged in a letter today to assist in any way. (view the letter below)

“We urge you to remain steadfast in your fight to stop the Pentagon from throwing good money after bad,” POGO’s Executive Director Danielle Brian wrote in her letter to Bolten. “We also encourage you to remember that the budget decisions you make today will have implications for our fighting men and women for decades to come.”

In recent years, POGO has targeted the F/A-22 program as a prime candidate for financial cuts or elimination.

POGO investigates, exposes, and seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and subservience by the federal government to powerful special interests. Founded in 1981, POGO is a politically-independent, nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is accountable to the citizenry.


POGO’s Feb. 10 Letter to OMB Director Joshua Bolten

Dear Mr. Bolten:

We commend you for your recent directive requiring formal Pentagon review of the F/A-22 Raptor and Comanche helicopter programs with an eye toward cutting or eliminating these overpriced and unneeded weapons systems. In recent years, POGO has been closely monitoring these two programs because we believe both the F/A-22 and Comanche are bad buys for the taxpayers and are not being developed in the best interest of U.S. fighting men and women.

The F/A-22 tactical fighter program is now expected to cost over $71.7 billion. By latest estimates, the per-aircraft cost of the F/A-22 has climbed to $257.5 million and is expected to continue to rise in upcoming months. Originally, the Air Force planned to purchase 750 of the fighters, but now can only afford to buy 276 aircraft, and there are whispers that the number will soon fall to roughly 200. This is disconcerting in light of the fact that 200 new F/A-22 fighters will hardly replace some current 1,600 fighters in the active Air Force fleet.

This path toward what some have called “unilateral disarmament” was the focus of a quip once made by former army undersecretary and Lockheed Martin chief executive, Norman Augustine. “In the year 2054, the entire defense budget will purchase just one aircraft,” Augustine said in 1983. “This aircraft will have to be shared by the Air Force and Navy 3-1/2 days each per week except for leap year, when it will be made available to the Marines for the extra day.”

We applaud your admirable goal in requesting the program studies – to weed out unneeded, ineffective and overpriced weapons systems. We urge you to remain steadfast in your fight to stop the Pentagon from throwing good money after bad. We also encourage you to remember that the budget decisions you make today will have implications for our fighting men and women for decades to come.
</i>

Yeah ok.....


Sopwith Camels for Air Supremacy. However requires B61 Airburst Field mod.

We could have the Sopwith Camels Framed up under NAFTA down in Mexico for 5 Grand.

Hire the chinese to manufacture our Circuit boards, (shit they allready manufacture well over 50% of our consumables)

Outsource the Programming of the Autonomy/avionics kits to India.

outsource the Rubber work to Vietnam.

Outsource the Engines from the Russians.

Outsource the Hit and run Survival kits from the Cubans

Outsource the Egress Kits from the Palestinians.

anything else im missing?

Oh yes, lets leave it to the French to screen print our colors on the Covering.




"The power to Destroy the planet, is insignifigant to the power of the Air Force----Mudd Vader

Couldn't you see the irony in that Mudd?
The China-man whose making the circuits for a plane that might one day destroy his country side!
"Workers for the State" my ass!!

*My opinion: If ever this airframe gets the ax, it will get the ax if a new administration(Kerry) is elected; his record shows such.

Its been on the chopping for alonggggggg time, wont happen. But if they get 200 itll be close to a miracle. But what do I know??????/

yeah, a year ago I heard it would be axed and replaced by a cheaper more advanced project that had been developed almost in paralell in the "black world", aint seen nothing yet.

I've said this before, I think congress will look at the F-35 and say "we get MOST of the F-22s ability for much less cost" and then ax Raptor in favor of more F-35s.

Commanche can go as far as I'm concerned. It's mission has evaporated to the world of UCAVs and UAVs.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

V-22 is the biggest waste of money in USN history, and that's REALLY saying something.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

The odd thing is that you should build more Raptors to get the unit cost down. How much would one cost if the inventory was the full 750?

what 1 or 1000 cost per unit doesnt matter unless your selling them on the street, it's the total program cost right down to the pilots dental bills that counts as far as the congress and the DOD is concerned.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Okay, if they axe the F-22 than that has to mean they are bringing back the F-14 into production <hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

naturally

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

How many operating F-15C's does the Air Force have?

I can't really see this plane(F-22) take on a dedicated strike role like the Strike Eagle; the design was was never focused on that.

CBO Projections

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=50 ... =22&from=7

Sorry, but the chart wont copy/paste.

The F/B 22 is projected to replace both the F-117 and F-15E in the long-range interdicter role. I would guess(they dont say specfically)that the future UCAV-AF would also possibly replace some of these aircraft.

trit: I think there's something like 250 PMAI F-15C's in the active Air Force.

*

I'd axe the RAH-66, and reduce V-22 to a limited R&D project and give the Marines the H-92 or EH-101.

I'm hoping the F/A-22 stays alive and I think it will. But my guess is the production will be damn low; like maybe only five operational squadron total low, maybe 3 CONUS-ACC Langley, 1 PACAF Elmendorf , and 1 USAFE Lakenheath.



Edited by - viperttb on Feb 18 2004 1:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
I've said this before, I think congress will look at the F-35 and say "we get MOST of the F-22s ability for much less cost" and then ax Raptor in favor of more F-35s.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Thank you Boomer for an opportunity to quote "Black's First Law of Aerospace Procurement: The paper airplane always flies better." The Second Law follows: "The paper airplane is always cheaper." The Third Law is...well you get the idea. Expectations are always better than reality.
FYI, the F-35 does not have most of the F-22 Air-to-Air (offensive and defensive) ability and can not be made to have it...ever. Do you need it? I don't know. Should we scrap all the effort we have in the F-22 and start over? That sounds good for me, since we are largely finished with devlopment, and all of the fun is over. It all makes work for the working man. But the taxpayers may get wise and make us stop playing in the sandbox. Then we will have to field a real weapon, fast.

_________________
????

I think when congress looks at the F-22 they see supercruise, stealth, and internal weapons(not the number of them, just the fact that they are internal). I think we were lucky the F-16 didnt start out with BVR missles and RADAR, or congress may have stopped F-15 when F-16 came online. SOME in congress really know thier stuff, the majority have no clue and just look at the basics and the ca$h that wont be spent on projects without thier name on it.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

You're going to see all these same things happen as JSF gets closer to a real aircraft.

The costs will soar, numbers will be reduced, congress will hold hearings.

It's all a friggin' scam.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>

<img src="http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/501727.gif" border=0>
Hmm. <img src=newicons/idea.gif border=0 align=middle>

Davew27 <img src=newicons/icon_hog.gif border=0 align=middle>

http://www.globalaircraft.org/photos/pl ... a-10_2.jpg <img src="d:\&rest\dave\a10.bmp" border=0>

I just love all this controversy. Maybe the next aircraft I get to see abandoned will be the "Aurora II". Let's get to work on it, no strings attached.

<i>
<b>Raptor Options Placed on Table</b> (Posted: Friday, February 20, 2004)
[Note: When contacted by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution about this article, the company's full statement was, "The F/A-22 is healthy, solidly supported in the President's budget, by Congress, and by the U.S. Air Force. The Raptor program is on track for operational testing in preparation for the aircraft's in-service date of December, 2005. In fact, last week in Orlando, Fla., Air Force Secretary Dr. James Roche, Chief of Staff General John Jumper, and Air Combat Command chief General Hal Hornburg all strongly reconfirmed the service's commitment to the F/A-22 Raptor program during speeches before the Air Force Association."]




<b>Lockheed plane, produced in Marietta, may be in jeopardy</b>

[Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb. 20, 2004]

By DAVE HIRSCHMAN
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

In a sign that the Air Force is taking threats to its F/A-22 Raptor program seriously, officials have begun drawing up plans to reconstitute its aircraft fleet if the Marietta-based fighter is cut or canceled.

The stealthy and agile Raptor has long been the centerpiece of Air Force strategy for winning future air wars. About 2,200 of 7,000 Lockheed jobs in Marietta are directly tied to Raptor production, and the company has spent more than $200 million on specialized tools and equipment here.

But the program's $70 billion cost and rapid development of competing unmanned aerial vehicles have created doubts about the Raptor's future. Earlier this month, the White House Office of Management and Budget directed the Pentagon to study whether the Raptor — as well as the Army's Comanche helicopter — should go forward.

Loren Thompson, defense analyst at the hawkish Lexington Institute and a Raptor advocate, said Thursday that the Air Force is looking at options such as upgrading its current fleet of F-15 and F-16 fighters. Those planes were designed in the late 1960s and early 1970s but have been updated many times with new radar, avionics and engines.

"This shows that the Air Force is a lot farther down the road at considering alternatives to the Raptor than anyone had thought," Thompson said. "They've formalized the process, and within the Air Force, they consider cancellation of the Raptor to be a significant possibility."

Air Force Gen. Hal Hornburg, chief of the Air Force Air Combat Command, said at a conference in Florida last week that it was prudent for the service to look at "hedges" if Lockheed's Raptor or single-engine F-35 fighters don't enter the fleet as planned. The Air Force plans to buy up to 1,000 F-35s.

"We need capability if for some unknown reason those airplanes didn't come online," Hornburg said. "We want the F-35, and we want the F/A-22."

Hornburg said the Air Force has "no interest" in buying additional F-15s, F-16s or other "legacy airplanes."

About 25 supersonic, radar-evading Raptors have been built, and they are scheduled to enter front-line squadrons beginning in 2005.

Current plans call for at least 276 Raptors to be built, and 19 are scheduled for completion this year.

Lockheed spokesman Greg Caires said the planes are performing extremely well in ongoing "operational tests" in California and Nevada. Caires downplayed the possibility Thursday that the program could be canceled, saying the military "does lots of what-if drills."

Lockheed expects the go-ahead next year to dramatically increase Raptor production beginning in 2007.

"The F/A-22 is healthy, solidly supported in the president's budget, by Congress and by the U.S. Air Force," Caires said.

"The Raptor program is on track."
</i>

Didn't Dick Cheney say "The A-12 program is on track" in December 1990, and cancel it in March, 1991?





Edited by - a10stress on Feb 20 2004 12:55 PM

_________________
????

<i>Didn't Dick Cheney say "The A-12 program is on track" in December 1990, and cancel it in March, 1991?</i>

Looks like it's more Super Hornets for the Air Force<img src=icon_smile_shock.gif border=0 align=middle>

yeah, that "everything is ok" kinda statement is usually followed by bad news.
btw, last year I bet someone that F-22 production example #51 would never roll out the door, sure hope I'm wrong, but it aint lookin good.

"We sleep safely in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would harm us". George Orwell

Fighting For Justice With Brains Of Steel !
<img src="http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/atengun2X.GIF" border=0>

_________________
The only time you have too much fuel is when you're on fire.

Why update the Falcons and Eagles inlieu of canceling Raptors?
Won't they have major airframe fatigue in their later years?

Dave howd you get the chart to copy/paste like that. Thx Rick.

I think Vette kinda alluded to an accurate scenario:
Congress axes the Raptor program and the Air Force has to come up with, no wait...FORCED, with something to do. They find with a few adjustments that a modified SH and have their PR stating the mantra: <i>It's just like the Eagle, only more improved.</i>






Remember this: The article I posted which started this discussion is from a source(POGO) that is highly suspect in facts and highly liberal, in case you haven't noticed<img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>.

That being said, I give the Raptor a 60/40 chance of making it. It's not a "sure-fire", but I think it will <i>just</i> make it over the hump.



*Sniper, if ever the F-22 was cancelled and replaced with an Air Force-ized Super Hornet<img src=newicons/saevil.gif border=0 align=middle>, what would be your honest reaction?
If you would go ballistic, just give me forewarning so I can leave the tri-state area.







Edited by - Tritonal on Feb 21 2004 11:38 PM

Horseshit, the USAF would just buy F-15Ks.

Vette you are delusional if you think the USAF would ever buy super roaches.

If they did you'd see a MASSIVELY redone aircraft.

You forget, the USAF was the very first entity to tell the Hornet design "You're not good enough".

PS...the F-22 is already in production.

<img src="http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/sigs/snipersig.jpg " border=0>