WT Forums

Posted on Mon, Mar. 15, 2004

GAO Tells Pentagon to Make F/A 22 Case

JOHN J. LUMPKIN

Associated Press


WASHINGTON - The Pentagon needs to make a case to keep the F/A-22 fighter program in the face of vastly increased costs and technical problems, congressional investigators say.

The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, said in a report that the military can now afford only 218 of the planes within a $36.8 billion spending cap. The Air Force originally planned to buy 750 but has since reduced the number to 277 - which it still says it can afford once it makes the program more efficient.

The F/A-22 Raptor, intended primarily as a stealthy replacement for the F-15 Eagle, was built to shoot down other planes. Unlike its predecessor, the F/A-22 can fly at supersonic speeds for long ranges.

The plane was conceived 18 years ago, at the end of the Cold War, but critics note the U.S. military's current generation of fighters have been more than a match for every air force and air defense network it has faced in the wars since.

The Air Force is also trying to make the F/A-22 more useful by giving it the ability to attack ground targets. But that is making it even more expensive, to the tune of $11.7 billion, and adds significant technical challenges, the GAO says. Some of that money has already been spent.

The first combat-ready planes are supposed to hit the skies next year, and the military is supposed to decide by December whether to continue with full production of the plane. Later this month, the Pentagon will determine whether to advance the plane to a more rigorous phase of testing.

Prime contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. is making Raptors at a low rate for testing, and President Bush's proposed 2005 budget includes $4.7 billion for the program, which would include the purchase of 24 fighters.

The plane has had problems with its tail fins, canopy and computer software, the report notes. Its avionics computer processors are obsolete, and changing to new ones necessary for the plane's expanded role will cost years and hundreds of millions of dollars, the report says.

The report calls on the Pentagon to submit to Congress a detailed justification of the program before its December decision whether to go ahead with full production. The Pentagon responded in a letter to GAO that it intends to look at the program in already scheduled reviews.

The new concerns come at a time that the Pentagon has shown a willingness to cancel some big-ticket weapons systems, particularly the Army's Crusader artillery gun and Comanche scout helicopter.

Several watchdog groups reacted to the GAO report by calling for the cancellation of the F/A-22.

"There's no place for weapons without a mission like the F/A-22 given the current budget squeeze. Our military's transformation cannot happen until we let go of these Cold War weapons," said Eric Miller with the Project on Government Oversight, in a statement.

ON THE NET

GAO report: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04391.pdf

I know...why don't we just scrap every aircraft and fly F-86 Sabres again.....do people not understand that F-15s is 30 year old design? I mean, I worked F-15s, love the ACFT, but eventually new ACFT have to be developed...if the USSR was still around this wouldn't even be an issue.....

<img src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/images/25fs.gif" border=0><img src="http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/usaf/images/70fs.gif" border=0>
If you can't go fast...go Ugly

_________________

Hmmmm.....a modern build F-86 taking full advantadge of composite structures, digital avionics, phased array radar, state of the art weapons, and a kickass supercruising engine would actually be REALLY cool.

Certainly it would own the F-18 Stupid Horror.

PS...From what i've been hearing, the F-22 is history.


"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

<i>PS...From what i've been hearing, the F-22 is history.</i>

From which "grapevine"? Please share some industry gossip.





Edited by - Tritonal on Mar 15 2004 11:18 PM

I got a litle bit of that also Snipe. Someone posted an articlehere abit ago from a test pilot that says the F35 rocks the F22's world.

By this time tomorrow I shall have gained either a pearage or Westminster Abbey........Nelson

_________________
YGBSM !

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
Hmmmm.....a modern build F-86 taking full advantadge of composite structures, digital avionics, phased array radar, state of the art weapons, and a kickass supercruising engine would actually be REALLY cool.

Certainly it would own the F-18 Stupid Horror.

PS...From what i've been hearing, the F-22 is history.


"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

F18 Thermodynamics and propolsion are vastly superior to the F-86. There is not even enough "Footprint to compare with the f18 to house the avionics." Which i should remind you that the F18C no longer has any room for any new gadgets. Much of the reason the F18E/F development for the NAVAIR to replace the C models.

F18C's are now being Modified with 73 radar and more multi Platform ordnance capabilities. The Austrailians F18A's are almost superior to the US F18C's.

Just because an aircraft has an nostalgia factor. Doesnt make it correct.

I allready know of 3 Reserve Units that will be recieving the F-22. Much of the crossover training has allready began for them for both maint and operations. A Couple Active units are receiving it as we speak.

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

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
<i>PS...From what i've been hearing, the F-22 is history.</i>

From which "grapevine"? Please share some industry gossip.


<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Well, it is sure capable of <b>making</b> history. <i>From what i've been hearing</i>, last week the F-22 recorded a Mach 1.2, 5g sustained turn at 5000 ft. That's very impressive "thrust minus drag" for those of you in Rio Linda, and it's everyday yawn stuff for F-22 operations.



Edited by - a10stress on May 13 2004 09:08 AM

_________________
????

Don't get me wrong Stress and Mudd, i HOPE the F-22 sees service....but the grapevine i'm plugged into is going goofy with "it's being cancelled" talk.



"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

<b>USAF Plans To Boost F/A-22's Computing Power</b> (Posted: Wednesday, March 17, 2004)
[Aerospace Daily, March 17, 2004]

<i>The U.S. Air Force plans to add computing power to the F/A-22 Raptor as part of an effort to improve the aircraft's air-to-ground capabilities, a spokesman for prime contractor Lockheed Martin said March 16.

The Air Force and Lockheed Martin have determined that the F/A-22 will need the computer boost by about 2012, company spokesman Greg Caires told The DAILY. But while the General Accounting Office said in a recent report that the Raptor computers' avionics processors will be replaced to help provide the extra power, Caires insisted no such decision has been made.

"When we come to 2012, we may not need a new processor. We may just need to use more of the existing processors," Caires said. "We have two supercomputers worth of processors on the jet now, and we still have space, power and cooling for a third, so we could increase our computer capacity by 50 percent overnight just by populating that rack with processors."

Caires also denied a GAO assertion that the F/A-22's computer architecture will be replaced.

"The existing architecture supports the existing processors, and if we did have to go to a new processor, it would only be small changes to the architecture and to the software programs," Caires said.

The GAO contends in a March 15 report that the Air Force plans to replace the computer architecture and avionics processors to support the Raptor's final two development spirals.

"Current processors are old and obsolete, cannot be supported, and do not have sufficient capacity to meet the increased processing demands required for planned new air-to-ground capabilities" in the last two development spirals, the GAO wrote. "At the time of our review, the Air Force believed its best long-term solution to its avionics architecture and computer-processing shortfalls was a new, modern, open system architecture."

The Air Force had no immediate comment on the computer matter.

The GAO said the computer changes are part of a multi-billion-dollar F/A-22 modernization effort that mainly will add air-to-ground capabilities to what originally was envisioned as an air-to-air fighter. Those improvements will be made in five development spirals from 2007 to 2015: Global Strike Basic; Global Strike Enhanced, which actually consists of two spirals; Global Strike Full; and Enhanced Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR).

Global Strike Basic will allow the F/A-22 to launch Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) at faster speeds and from longer distances, while Global Strike Enhanced will integrate more air-to-ground weapons and improve radar capabilities against advanced surface-to-air missiles, the GAO said. Global Strike Full will increase the F/A-22's targeting speed and accuracy, while Enhanced ISR will further expand the kinds of targets the aircraft can pursue.

A year ago, Lockheed Martin was awarded a 20-month, $63 million contract to plot the F/A-22's spiral development plan (DAILY, March 17, 2003).

- Marc Selinger </i>

Let's combine the GAO report article and the Aerospace Daily article here. The GAO (and other sources) are constantly saying the F-22 is an overmatch to the threat, and therefore its performance is not needed. Depending on the weather that day, they either say a new design (the JSF) will handle everything or, the F-15 is obviously capable forever. Someone could get the feeling that this is the only defense program in history in danger of cancellation because it's demonstrated to be globally superior. If there are "problems" with the "tail fins" (sic) and canopy and computer software, why not use their own logic to salvage $35 billion in development by saying we don't really need to improve them, the're good enough. Remove all the pressure to perform to the spec and declare the F-22 satisfactory now. Why spend the money to get that last 10%. It won't cost that much more in "Fly Away" (the cost to build without considering sunk development costs)to build F-22s vs. F-15s. The F-22 has much more growth capability for the future than the F-15. This brings me to the Aerospace daily article. The improved ground attack fire control avionics they are talking about is a growth capability. If I'm reading the criticism correctly, the GAO wants in part to kill the F-22 because this growth needs time and money to accomplish. The overachieving superfighter that we don't need is suddenly and simultaneously obsolete too. They talk like this capability exists off the shelf and we should buy that instead. If you wonder why the government seems to buy marginal equipment sometimes, here's an example of insanity. <b>The accountants are making recommendations on techincal merits of jet fighters.</b> Everyone in government has hidden agendas and in order to get any hardware fielded you have to kiss up to them (them with the gold make the rules). By the time you get close to finishing, the political landscape is grown over with weeds. The only bright spot is that the Europeans are even worse.

I love this.

[q]There's no place for weapons without a mission like the F/A-22 given the current budget squeeze. Our military's transformation cannot happen until we let go of these Cold War weapons," said Eric Miller with the Project on Government Oversight, in a statement.[/q]

There's no place for B.S. artists without a mission either, but it isn't stopping Mr. Miller. I'm suspicious that the military transformation they would like to see will make us internationally impotent. If they had there way we would be flying F-86's and they would still be complaining we only need P-51's. After all that's all we needed before the cold war. Let's go back to them.

_________________
????

And now for some Pollyanna News:

The 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall AFB flew Raptors 4018, 4019 and 4020 three times each on the same day – a “three turn three” – on March 3. Tyndall’s ability to accomplish this many flights in a single day is a testament to the training the Tyndall pilots and maintainers are receiving as well as maturing F/A-22 maintenance systems.

_________________
????

""Current processors are old and obsolete, cannot be supported, and do not have sufficient capacity to meet the increased processing demands required for planned new air-to-ground capabilities" in the last two development spirals, the GAO wrote. "At the time of our review, the Air Force believed its best long-term solution to its avionics architecture and computer-processing shortfalls was a new, modern, open system architecture." "

That's a pure lie.

The F-22 has puters more powerful than ANYTHING commercially available, each CIP has as much computing power as a Cray 7. As is pointed out elsewhere in the article, there is room now for a third such CIP, with the cooling and wiring already in place.

Accountants, Lawyers and Politicians make me sick. Bunch of liars, all of them. Unfortunately, they're likely to 'win' this battle.

I guess they don't care that the F-15 fleet is totally whooped.



"US Snipers, Providing surgical strikes since 1776"

Thats ok Snipe...For we have the vaunted F/A-18E/F waiting in the wings to replace all tactical fighters in US service...I feel so much better about the scrutiny the F-22 program is undergoing just because of the SH. <img src=icon_smile_wink.gif border=0 align=middle>




Edited by - chadrewsky on Mar 17 2004 12:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
[q]There's no place for weapons without a mission like the F/A-22 given the current budget squeeze. Our military's transformation cannot happen until we let go of these Cold War weapons," said Eric Miller with the Project on Government Oversight, in a statement.[/q]

There's no place for B.S. artists without a mission either, but it isn't stopping Mr. Miller. I'm suspicious that the military transformation they would like to see will make us internationally impotent. If they had there way we would be flying F-86's and they would still be complaining we only need P-51's. After all that's all we needed before the cold war. Let's go back to them.
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

We are getting rid of cold war weapons of replacing them with new modern one like the F-22. I think we should take Mr Miller up in a F-15D and do some air combat training with one of India's SU-30MKIs.


Edited by - BenRoethig on Mar 17 2004 1:17 PM

<b>Discovery To Feature F/A-22 on 'Seven Wonders of Mega Jets'</b>(Posted: Monday, March 29, 2004)
The F/A-22 Raptor will be featured prominently in the Discovery Channel’s “Seven Wonders” series. The episode called “Seven Wonders of Mega Jets” is scheduled to air March 31 at 10 p.m., April 1 at 1 a.m., April 3 at 4 p.m., and April 5 at 2 a.m. The times listed are Eastern Standard Time. The promo for the show reads, “Enter the noisy, powerful world of turbo-blasting jets. These are the top choices of experts in the air for jaw-dropping aircraft.”



Anybody see this show?






Edited by - a10stress on Apr 01 2004 08:38 AM

_________________
????

I will definitely have to catch that one tonight.

Thanx for the heads up bro.

"It should come as a surprise only to the fools among the men of our generation that we liked war."

Major V. 'Popski' Poniakov, British LRG, WWII

I saw it.
It was pretty decent.

Thanx for the reminder, sir.



Edited by - tritonal on Apr 01 2004 6:23 PM

<i>This is a typical "project killer" opinion piece. It reads like attorney for the prosecution would talk in the courtroom. Mentally insert "Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury" before reading. He poses questions that he knows the comparison is favorable, but lets the reader assume an unfavorable answer. There are plenty of opportunities for meaningful criticism of military procurement, but this guy does not do any research of his own. If journalists did their homework and did honest reporting, we would all be better off. It's just the same old stuff, ad nauseum. My comments are inserted as I became disgusted. Somebody stop me.</i>

Opinion Column: <b>Planes the Air Force Doesn't Need</b> (Posted: Monday, April 05, 2004)
[Washington Post, Op-Ed Page, April 5, 2004]

By George C. Wilson
Monday, April 5, 2004; Page A17

Imagine paying $300 million for just one fighter plane. That's enough to build a 300-bed hospital or 10 new high schools, or pay for the national school lunch programs in the District, Maryland and Virginia for more than a year. Yet, the way things are going, now $300 million is what one Air Force F-22 fighter plane is going to cost us taxpayers.

<i>It is costing $300 million a year for school lunches in that area? That’s outrageous! Heads should roll. There must be corruption involved. I demand a Senate Hearing.</i>

The Pentagon's figures show that it intends to buy 278 F-22 fighters for $72 billion, or $258 million a plane, counting research and development costs already spent to bring it into being. But the General Accounting Office has just told Congress this will not be enough. The GAO says it will take an additional $8 billion-plus to finance the planned upgrades to make the F-22 a high-tech ground attack aircraft as well as air superiority fighter. This improvement would push the F-22's price tag up to $300 million.

<i>Oh-Oh, I did the math and it comes out closer to $259 million a plane. That’s it, the F-22 can’t be worth that, can it? A ground attack product improvement plan is cleverly twisted into a budget overrun. I could have done better, but to each his own.</i>

The $80 billion to buy a fleet of F-22s is one-third higher than this year's Education Department budget and about eight times as much as the State Department's current annual budget. The top priority the F-22 is getting as the president and Congress apportion tax dollars suggests this is a must-have airplane. But in fact changes in the world and other developments argue against buying this plane in the numbers being contemplated. President Bush is scheduled to decide whether to put the F-22 in full-scale production this December. Here are some reasons he should say no:

<i>He posts facts that are deliberately stated in a way to mislead. For instance, annual federal education budget allocations are compared to 20 years of spending on the F-22. Note that he never says how many jets he thinks is adequate. He suggests that zero is a dandy number.</i>

• The threat that the plane was designed to combat no longer exists. Back in 1986, when the F-22's gestation began, the Cold War was on. Air Force leaders successfully argued that they needed a super fighter plane that could down, at long range, the swarms of warplanes the Soviets were expected to put over Europe in a shooting war. The Pentagon is not worried about that kind of war today.

<i>He’s an historian now, “back in 1986 when dinosaurs ruled the earth”. You might think he is a student of this progam from the beginning. Well, there is still an air-to-air threat out there, although it may be diminished. If the Warsaw Pact swarm is gone, it follows we can live with fewer F-22's. He had an opportunity here to describe the world’s air forces and what we face now. We have cut the requirement from 750 to 278 to account for this, but he wants it to be zero. The threat is not zero. “F-15’s now and F-15’s forever” could be this argument. He’s got a little something here…nah.</i>

• The United States has less expensive fighter bombers flying and others in development that could shoot down any enemy's warplanes. For example, the updated F-16 fighter bomber, which is still in production, remains a deadly killing machine. One thing I learned in auditing the Navy's 11-month test pilot training course at Patuxent River was that today's air battles are usually won by the side that has the best "systems" -- the high-tech radar, communications and missiles -- and crews. The metal airplane itself, the platform, has become so secondary that pilots often complain they have been reduced to office managers running the systems. The United States has a huge lead in systems and air crews.

<i>Yes, the F-16 remains a good killing machine, so are many European types. I don't like the odds when mixing it up with them. He wants it to be more of a fair fight. I feel more comfortable with the option to shoot them in the face before they see me, especially since the tolerance for American casualties by his newspaper is nil. He pretends to be an expert by name dropping his auditing of the Pax River School course (probably his last hatchet job). In order to sound less anti-military, he compliments the next generation jet (the JSF) as the thinking man's answer to all things (as if?), when he is poised to attack that project next. His sentence on "systems" actually makes a good argument in favor of the F-22. (By the way, George, if you want to get along with me, don't call my airplane a platform. That describes an unsophisticated dust cover, barely capable of housing the precious electronic marvels. I beg to differ.)</i>

• The Navy has to worry about the same threats that have driven the Air Force to keep building the F-22 even though the Cold War is long over. Former defense secretary and now vice president Dick Cheney decided that Navy pilots could safely go to war in a lesser and cheaper plane than the F-22. He canceled the A-12 flying wing fighter, which had many of the same expensive stealth characteristics as the F-22 and which the Navy had planned to base on aircraft carriers. Cheney said the A-12 was costing too much. The Navy settled for the $92 million-a-copy F/A-18 E and F to combat enemy planes and penetrate air defenses on the ground. If this Chevrolet is good enough for the Navy, why do we need to buy almost 300 of the Air Force's F-22 Cadillacs?

<i>What's up with the A-12 reference? A bomb carrier that was abandoned a decade ago is not exactly relevant to his case. Dick Cheney cancelled the A-12 more because of personal embarrassment than threat assessment, but Washington Post writers really love to use Cheney’s A-12 termination . Even though they hate him they can’t help but admire a fellow project killer. The Navy wrote off deep strike when the A-12 went away. They didn't pass it to the F-18. They are not worried about it anymore. They abdicated it to the Air Force. I'm still not sure what that metaphor on flying Cadillacs is meant to say. Maybe he is looking for Elvis? Perhaps it is trying to cash in on the sure thing "everybody hates rich people"? And darn it, 278 has become 300. Why that’s (300-278) x $300 millon = 6.6 beelyon dollars (as Dr. Evil would say) more that the despicable Pentagon has stolen from our children. I'm glad he has reserved the "flying SUV" epithet for the F-35. It’ll be good for a future article.</i>

• For the threats beyond what the F-16 and F/A-18 E and F can handle, the Pentagon is already far along in building a new fighter bomber, the Joint Strike Fighter. It is expected to cost less than a third of what the F-22 does, $80 million vs. $300 million. Some of the Joint Strike Fighters will be able to do something the F-22 cannot: take off and land from a short runway or carrier deck. This is a highly desired capability in many global hot spots where long runways are scarce.

<i>Today’s praise will become tomorrow’s condemnation when this optimistic scenario does not work out. At least he looks less anti-military biased now.</i>

• Although the F-22's ability to foil enemy ground defenses is indeed impressive, there is a bloodless way to destroy them in the works. It takes the form of unmanned bombers that can fly low and hit antiaircraft sites while manned aircraft direct the drones from a safe distance above.

<i>Another case that the new concept always looks better on paper. This is a good ploy for appealing to people who want to believe there are cheaper alternatives. You know, like windmills are the answer to nuclear power. I think this may be controversial. Can we talk? </i>

• Buying the expensive F-22 would worsen the Pentagon's death spiral in procurement. Even within today's huge Pentagon budget there isn't the money to buy enough expensive planes to modernize the military's aging air fleets. Only a few flying Cadillacs can be purchased in any one year. Yet the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps need to keep hundreds of aircraft flying to patrol their global police beats. So the armed services spend billions to keep old crates flying to cover the hot spots. These gigantic maintenance costs eat up money needed to buy new planes, meaning our aircraft fleets keep getting older and more dangerous to fly despite the billions being spent on them.

<i>Best I can figure is he wants to stop buying any flying Cadillacs so we can have resources to maintain "old crates" (platforms?). Then we can slow down the death spiral so it dies after our watch. </i>

We don't need the F-22 no matter what it costs. President Bush and Congress owe it to the taxpayers to ask themselves whether this trip into the wild blue yonder is necessary.

<i>Or maybe we need the F-22 no matter what it costs. I can’t tell from this guy’s hack job. I always like references to wild blue yonder, though. “Off we go…” </i>

The author, a former defense correspondent for The Post, writes regularly for the National Journal.


© 2004 The Washington Post Company

_________________
????

Ignorance at it's very best.

LOL...nice comments Stress.

"It should come as a surprise only to the fools among the men of our generation that we liked war."

Major V. 'Popski' Poniakov, British LRG, WWII

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote> I'd like to see a hypthetical drawn up showing just how much the USAF would save if they cut ties to the JSF program right now and invested that R&D money into the F-22 instead. And when it came time to replacing current older F-16s they could just simply do so by buying new build, modern F-16E/F's!<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

And the Navy and Marines would do what? I dont think they can pull F-35 all alone.
Like it or not (and I dont) the F-22 is optional, the F-35 is mandatory worldwide.

"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.

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>Imagine paying $300 million for just one fighter plane. That's enough to build a 300-bed hospital or 10 new high schools, or pay for the national school lunch programs in the District, Maryland and Virginia for more than a year. Yet, the way things are going, now $300 million is what one Air Force F-22 fighter plane is going to cost us taxpayers.

<i>It is costing $300 million a year for school lunches in that area? That’s outrageous! Heads should roll. There must be corruption involved. I demand a Senate Hearing.</i>
<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" size=2 id=quote>

Some districts use the school lunch program in order to get more subsidies from the federal govt; it's a great scam.

Plus, in the DC districts, they spend 8900$ on the kids and they have the highest illiteracy rate in the country.
This reporter should be ashamed of himself.

Stress, what exactly does the new ground attack capabilities for the F-22 entail?





Edited by - tritonal on Apr 06 2004 4:17 PM

hi im new here.

were gonna need the f-22 in the future. with russia selling weapons and developing su-47 and mig 1.42. if they sell those were gonna need the f-22.

"FORGET WHAT THEY SAY, WATCH WHAT THEY DO"

Hi cool and welcome.
the Russians arnt developing the 1.42 they dont have the money, it's dead.

"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 is the F-22 optional exactly?

Seems to me it's long overdue. The Eagles are tired airplanes, and JSF is at LEAST 10 years from IOC(i'm being very optomistic).

The USAF NEEDS the Raptor.

The USN could go the F-35C alone, and may very well end up doing just that.

"It should come as a surprise only to the fools among the men of our generation that we liked war."

Major V. 'Popski' Poniakov, British LRG, WWII