Pity. I was hoping the F-22 would be kept in production. R&D and tooling costs have already been paid. Each additional aircraft will be cheaper and we need more aircraft after extensive hours have been put in our current airframes due to the GWoT.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...&refer=home


Gates Proposes Ending Lockheed F-22, VH-71 Helicopter (Update1)

April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates is recommending the U.S. cap purchases of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s F-22 fighter jets at 187 and cancel the company’s VH-71 presidential helicopter and a new Air Force communication satellite.

Four more of the F-22 fighters will be bought out of the 2009 war supplement for a total of 187 aircraft, Gates said at the Pentagon news conference today. He recommended terminating the presidential helicopter program because “it runs the risk of not delivering the required capability.”

Boeing Co.’s anti-missile Airborne Laser program made with subcontractors Northrop Grumman Corp. and Lockheed should be limited to one test aircraft, a person familiar with the decision said. The recommendations must be approved by the White House and Congress. Gates briefed members of Congress and their staff on the proposals earlier today before a news conference at the Pentagon.

The changes “collectively represent a budget reshaped to reflect the priorities of America’s defense establishment,” Gates said. “If approved they will profoundly reform how this department does business.”

Gates, in a prepared statement to reporters at the Pentagon, is also recommend proceeding with buying three DDG- 1000 destroyers to be produced by General Dynamics Corp. at Bath, Maine, and may continue the older DDG-51 destroyers built by Northrop Grumman Corp. Ship Systems at Pascagoula, Mississippi.

War Costs

The recommended cuts in weapons programs come as U.S. defense spending is set to reach $654.1 billion for the fiscal year 2009, including war costs, a 72 percent gain since 2000. President Barack Obama assigned Gates, who took office during the Bush administration, to rein in spending.

Standard & Poor’s Aerospace & Defense Index had risen 82 percent by the seventh anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks in 2008. Lockheed shares tripled in that time, making it the biggest gainer among the five largest U.S. defense contractors.

The recommendation to stop buying F-22s is a setback for Bethesda, Maryland-based Lockheed, the world’s largest defense contractor.

Bridging the Gap

The company wants to keep building the plane to bridge the gap until its new F-35 reaches full production. Gates would buy only four more than the 183 F-22s currently on order by using the forthcoming war spending, compared with the 60 more that the Air Force wants. He endorses continuing Lockheed’s F-35 fighter program.

The F-22, conceived at the height of the Cold War to take on the Soviet Union, was the focus of a lobbying campaign as Lockheed and its subcontractors said halting production at the 183 already on order could jeopardize 95,000 jobs in 44 states. At $354 million in inflation-adjusted dollars including research and development costs, it is the most expensive fighter in U.S. history.

Lockheed’s VH-71 presidential helicopter program based on a design by AgustaWestland, a unit of Finmeccanica Spa of Italy, is a fleet of 28 helicopters, whose cost has more than doubled to $13 billion since the company won the contract in January 2005. The original cost estimate was $6.1 billion. Obama has called it an example of a program “gone amok.” The current presidential fleet has some helicopters from United Technologies Corp.’s Sikorsky unit that are 40 years old.

Gates recommends canceling the Air Force’s Transformation Satellite Communication System program, which is intended to be a constellation of five satellites and ground stations to provide data and message services to ground forces throughout the world using laser beams. The program, expected to cost as much as $11 billion, was to be awarded this year. Boeing, Lockheed and its subcontractor Northrop Grumman have said their designs show that the technology is feasible.

To contact the reporters on this story: Gopal Ratnam in Washington at gratnam1@bloomberg.net. Tony Capaccio at acapaccio@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: April 6, 2009 13:57 EDT

Sad. I prefered to close F-35, even knowing all the international consequences, maintaining this program is maintaning a fiction in which US can afford not-so-much battleworthy aircraft for itself and its allies at very high costs. And F-22 is better, as there are substantial costs to be paid for F-35 (R&D), and could be exported. F-35 might not be the weapon of choice for European countries, they might go for Tranche 3 EF-2000, or Gripen NG, as JSF has substantial shortcomings, that are well-known. Maintaining F-35 is a maintaining a fiction that USA can afford a not really needed fighter, inferior in many ways, and expensive, just to show that US can perform a programme for its Allies. In fact, this will happen simultaneously with decrease of USAF combat value, along with closing the possibility to afford F-22 for some of USA's allies (Israel, Japan...)
Damn.

Evem more troubling is the mention of the VH-71 program balooning to $13 billion given that we are only talking about 28 helicopters. Assuming the fly-away cost of a brand new F-22 at $200 million (R&D is already paid), the VH-71 program could easily be used to purchase 65 brand new F-22s.

What an ass! Go ahead and cancel the VH-71, but not the damn F-22. This fool will likely order the USAF to destroy all production tooling to ensure they can't get any more!

I'm disgusted. After 2 decades (3?) and billions spent, we will have NOTHING to show for it! If you're going to cancel a program, cancel it when it still makes sense to do so, not when the program is about to bear the fruits of reward!

Good money after bad.

Just because you have poured billions into a project does not mean its now or ever will be a good one.

You're serious? The GWoT is running our F-22s into the ground?

Yeah, all those high-demand CAP missions to keep the Taliban air force out of Afghanistan are putting a serious strain on our fleet.

I think it was a good program all along. Something had to replace the F-15 eventually. Now that we actually got this amazing aircraft into the production stage we should buy a decent amount of them!

Hell, it has had a less troubled development history than the V-22 which was fixed simply by "throwing more money at it."

What exactly is not good about the F-22 except the cost and schedule overruns?

Hell you guys are going to have your own Arrow!!!

That so sucks, and is hard to recover from

The F-22? We'll have 187 planes (purchased, one lost already) to show for it. The procurement had been officially set at 183 for awhile, though the AF wanted 60 more. People on web boards can propose whatever they want but there was no realistic chance recently of more than the extra 57.

Joe

How strange. There is no reason to think that more F-22s will improve US capabilities. The F-35 replaces many other airframes, which will be up for discard in the next decade. VH-71 was wasteful from the beginning, but there is no reason to funnel its budget into other DOD programs, so why not take the economy?

What part of there is no money for US procurement since 1990 do we not understand? This is only the beginning of what has been required all along. Stand by for more heavy rolls!

At last, we have a SecDef worthy of the name. Now if he would only tackle the fiscal and inventory accountability, even though it cannot be finished during his term [or that of anybody else].

Why do you say that? The V-22 had a troubled development history but was it atypical for a weapon system of its complexity, ambition and era?

Of course the F-22 improves American capabilities. You can argue that the capabilities are not particularly relevant and there are higher priority uses for those resources, but there is not a serious argument that it is worthless.

It will be interesting to see what they do about the Presidential helo. As I understand it, the huge costs were not caused by the airframe chosen, but by all the special equipment they wanted to fit to them. What they need to be looking at is the requirement for all that equipment, because while that remains, the cost of installing it in any helo will be just as great.

Well now that we got the V-22 working, it is an impressive machine and can certainly offer useful capabilities. Indeed, something so revolutionary was likely to run into many delays and problems. Yet I wonder if with the end of the cold war we should have ended that program and put all of that money and effort into other systems. Possibly give Boeing and other companies reasons to develop the technology, but not funding it on such a scale.

Just used my calculator and the 13 billion saved by cutting the VH-71 program could buy 98 more Raptors assuming the price averages out to $132 million per aircraft (current price is said to be $138 million.)

I don't see a reason why the VH-60 type Blackhawks can't serve on for longer. Besides for that either upgrade the VH-3D, or buy two or so basic S-92 (or a similar aircraft in production here) and outfit like the VH-3D instead of trying to turn it into a helicopter AWACS. Was the production line for the AW101/US101 ever setup here or was that "still in progress"?

Any chance they open the F22 for export to a select few countries?

Axing the F-22 and committing to buy the DDG-1000? WTF?

F-22 is the dumbest cut the DoD could ever make.

Gates really has a grudge against the USAF...

Turns out the FCS vehicles are cancelled... Yet what will he have us get in place of FCS? I don't believe continually upgrading old vehicles is an effective solution.

Not F-22s, but F-15s. F-16s and F/A-18s. Keeping them flying in CAP missions non-stop is accelerating the use of their airframes life. Eventually they will have to be refurbished, money that could have been better spent buying more F-22s AND the upcoming F-35s.

The F-22 in particular is an asymetrical weapon system that single-handly can change the strategic scenario in a comparo of say US. vs. China. With China increasingly spending more of their trillions of dollars into their defense forces and upgrading their Air Force and Air Defense with the best that Russia has to sell, more F-22s increase our overall air supremacy.

Buy the CV90 and be done with it. With the billions saved you can buy dozens more F-22s.

I rarely post things, but cutting the F22 just seems like a bad decision. It is a weapons system that creates gigantic overmatch vs. opponents and is already in production.

I don't see why you wouldn't keep it in low rate production...say 20 F22s a year for at least awhile longer.

The F35 better be a darn good fighter, because if it's not, we're screwed.

You know...in a way Bin Laden did win. He sucked the US into two long wars that have sapped our strength and resources. Combine that with the greed of our own banks and we've just created a large financial quagmire that has opened the way for China to be the next superpower. Not good...not good at all.

Has there been any programs kept alive over a Sec Defense's 'suggestions'
I would think the F-22 could easily find congressional support

I was hoping for FCS to be cut as well. F-22 was a clear deal imho.

He openly stated that from day one - To draw the US into Afghanistan and recreate the anti-Soviet Jihad, plus a general open hostility from the entire middle east gets ratcheted up a notch. It didn't quite go as he planned but the end result is the same none the less...

Personally I think the F22 is one of the few things that the US has that is working and delivers what it says on the box.
This will be remembered as a major historical event in the demise of the US as a superpower in fifty years time...

One of the articles I read mentioned cutting any further purchases of the C-17. Now, I'm not a big follower of airlift concerns and the community, but what little I've read on the subject over the years always seems to say the same thing: they're stretched thin and need more aircraft (and the right aircraft, not more C-130 variants). So... if part of this budget is Gates sticking it to the fighter jocks who apparently run the USAF, why cut the C-17? Do we have enough? Or were additional purchases associated with the pipe-dream that is/was FCS and the mobility/deployability requirement it had built in?

No more C-17, would be great idea if the money is used to re-engine and upgrade all C-5 available. C-17 is costly to operate, carries less playload over a lesser distance and needs more tanke support. C-5M can take a lot more over the pond and wiht only one stopp to Irak of Afghanistan.

Those are my thoughts precisely. To have invested all this time and effort over a period of twenty years in coming this far with F-22, and then to throw it away for what amounts to blatant political posturing on defense issues, is a sign that the US no longer has what it takes to maintain superpower status.

As far as other parts of this announcement that I don't like, DDG-1000 goes forward in spite of its severe technology management problems and cost control issues, and LCS -- the Little Crappy Ship -- also survives as a jobs program. (Ultimately, that's what DDG-1000 is too, a jobs program for the Northeast.) I now firmly believe that the US Navy will indeed fall to 250 ships, or possibly even as low as 200 ships, by the year 2020.

And you may be very optimistic, because according to this graph found on Congressman Gene Taylor's website, the US Navy will hit the 200-ship mark in 2015 :
http://www.taylor.house.gov/shipbuildingca...hina_russia.pdf

V-22, over the objections of SECDEF Cheney.

To me this is the big disappointment in the SECDEF's decisions. The C-17 is heavily used in the wars that we are fighting. We have too few and their useful life is being used up due to high op tempo.

I think people fail to remember that the military is supposed to be a force of deterrence as much as it is to be used for actual conflict. We're fighting small wars now precisely because we've had an effective deterrent against potential 1st world aggressor militaries.

I feel many of the people in power are perfectly happy to be ignorant of that fact. The fact that we have the F22 will deter most nations from getting involved in a conflict (that may attract our attention)that may include any of their aircraft from having to fly in the same hemisphere as the F22s. It may be sickeningly expensive, but, how much is the deterrence really worth? Really, in this area of the South, just knowing that most people have guns keeps thieves out of houses at night. Just can't put a price on that.

Do we have enough raptors to figuratively hang the "I don't dial 911" sign? We may have enough to get the job done, but will we have enough to prevent it from starting?

My big question is what is the plan for C5 fleet replacement?

The youngest were made when, the mid 80's? They've got to be about ready to start falling out of the sky in the next few years surely?
I still reckon a stretched C-17, losing the STOL ability would be a great C5 replacement...

Guys, they are adding billions to the F-35 program. It is getting all the money it needs to continue along. LCS ships are to be bought in a big way. F-22 is dead, FCS is getting the hatchet to delay the program 20 more years. But, we do get the massive military strike benefit of the BILLIONS of dollars they just promised to make the military a "green force". Electric vehicles around the base, Windmills, solar panels, etc. They are spending a bunch on this nationwide military program to save energy and this will make our military tougher and unbeatable!

You have to love it. The cuts are coming now.....

You don't believe in continuous upgrade of old vehicles? Why not? If it works and upgrades make better economic sense than replacement, why wouldn't you? Heck, look at our current service rifle, going on fifty and likely to keep soldiering on as the HK416. The M1 is over thrity now and likely to be useful for decades to come. There just wasn't that much real inovation in the FCS program. It was all vaporware and tech demonstrators.

The deterrent is an effective air force, not any one system. I'd love to see you throw up some real numbers that the F-22 is absolutely vital to our air force effectiveness.

Well dont think you want the S-92 right now. We lost another one a couple of weeks ago, and another was lost in Oz. Seems a gearbox leak causes it to drop out of the sky. Seems they are supposed to have a 30 fly dry time, but the civilian version flys on an exemption and the military S-92 does not have a fix yet. May not get it till at least 2015

Could we try to be at least a little bit less breathless? Just listening to people here, you'd think somebody was raping their twelve year old daughter. Or killing her. Or killing her, then raping her. According to contributors, the F-22 is "amazing", "revolutionary", and "creates gigantic overmatch". People should write PR blurbs for Lockheed...

Tsk! I wrote "There is no reason to think that more F-22s will improve US capabilities." That does not mean it is worthless. One can thus argue that enough is enough, given risks one must always take.

From some of the AF types I have talked to, the terms you used: "amazing, revolutionary, and a gigantic overmatch," are accurate.

Also you forget so easily the thread: Raptons and F16
There are numerous other articles you can additionally Google; all say the same thing- it kicks everything's ass and asked for seconds.

So what will the 35 honestly have that the 22 doesn't already excel at or will clearly beat it whenever the 35 comes into being?
I can think of three immediately items the 22 has over the future 35: operational height, on-station time, and sustained higher speed w/endurance making intercepts a pure b^tch if not impossible for many aircraft- provided they even know it is there, or live to tell about it if they find out.

People love the F22 because it delivers beyond what is advertised and looks good doing it.

But is it enough? Enough to have F-22 equipped units in readiness globally, actively fighting one war in Asia and simultaneously deterring another in the Pacific, for instance?

And?

The F-35 should be viewed by the USAF as replacement for the F-16 fleet and little more. The F-16 was eventually developed into a multi-role fighter that would support the F-15 in gaining air superiority and later do much of the work "hauling iron" and performing ground attack missions. The F-35A was designed following this concept and should not be seen as a substitute for having a significant number of F-22s. Even in the "post cold war" environment the ratio of F-22As to F-35As should be rather similar to that of F-15s to F-16s. Also unlike the F-15A-D, the F-22A can haul JDAMs and has a ground attack capability, and there is still the potential to develop an aircraft like the FB-22.

Hello?? This capability exists today! It has been paid for with billions of tax payer money. Hundreds of thousands of man hours of work have been sunk into this. And the result is by far the best air superiority fighter the world has ever seen. How incredibly stupid would it be to throw THAT away? Yeah alright, I know we got 180 or so of them anyway, but sheesh who here thinks that 180 will suffice considering that this plane will likely (have to) stay in service for at least a couple of decades?

So far all I've seen on this thread are the usual superlatives, without any backing data.

Make that five and we're probably closer to reality. The F-15 is already 3 decades old, and the F-22 wont in all likelihood have a successor as "soon" as it did.

With all the stand off munitions and satellite guidance, etc. won't a simple bomb truck(unmanned?) that can operate outside an opponent's anti-air capabilities be fine to supplement the F-22 and F-35? What I read elsewhere is there will be more squadrons of F-22 than the active Air Force has of F-15. With units switching over to drones is the future really as bleak as some are making it out to be?

What kind of useful data can you honestly expect out of either the F-22 or if you prefer, the F-35 as an alternative? Both programs have fairly high classification and it’s arguable that in many ways the USAF was its own worst enemy by keeping the Raptor under such a thick veil of classification (granted that may be prudent). The only snippets of hard data released beyond some of the basic cardinal performance parameters have been some TAC BRAWLER results and some USAF or LM ppt slides over the years.

The TAC BRAWLER results showed the F-22 achieved a 30:1 kill ratio against “top foreign fighters”. For the latter ppt slides they highlight that supercruising reduces vulnerability to SAM threats by half for the same signature (3.5s better vis-à-vis the larger signatured F-35) which explains why the F-22 upgrade path put so much emphasis on strike technology than A-A. That’s about it for any semblance of hard data. So all we’re left with is basically superlatives. There are some that are more revealing than others. For instance the USAF has said quite recently that 6 F-22 can do the job of 10 F-35s for covering a given area and Tom Burbage has said that against heavily defended target it takes less F-22s to attack it than F-35s.

The principal problem is that although the F-22 is overwhelmingly effective we only have 7 front line squadrons of 20 jets each (18 primary + 2 back up jets) for a total of 126 primary jets. Even though the jet has had some good showings MX wise lately that is on average around 100 jets available at any given time for the theater component commander. Those jets have to last for at least another 25 to 30 years; they’re going to wear out fast.

Which are repeated ad nauseum as if they were justifications in and of themselves.