PENTAGON SEEKS F-22A COST PROPOSALS TO EXTEND PRODUCTION INTO FY-10

Inside the Air Force - 3/6/2009

PENTAGON SEEKS F-22A COST PROPOSALS TO EXTEND PRODUCTION INTO FY-10

The Pentagon has asked Lockheed Martin to submit proposals for the
production of additional F-22As in fiscal year 2010, a move designed
to give the Obama administration a range of options in deciding next
month whether to cease or extend production of the Air Force’s marquee
fighter.

John Young, the under secretary of defense for acquisition, technology
and logistics, on March 3 told Air Force Secretary Michael Donley to
ask the F-22A prime contractor to prepare by March 15 two cost
estimates: One covering the manufacture of the four aircraft for which
advance materials were purchased over the last few months -- and one
covering an additional batch of 20 aircraft.

“In order to keep the F-22A production line viable until the
department completes its final review of the fiscal year 2010 defense
budget, I direct the Air Force request Lockheed Martin Corporation
provide not-to-exceed cost proposals for procurement of four F-22A
aircraft and, separately, for procurement of 20 F-22A aircraft,” Young
wrote. InsideDefense.com obtained a copy of the memo.

Young -- a Bush administration appointee who is expected to remain in
place until his successor is confirmed by the Senate -- also asked the
Air Force “to make every effort to extend the validity of the current
options for 16 F-22A aircraft until mid-April 2009, in order to allow
the department time to finalize” the FY-10 budget request.

The request comes just days after Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton
Schwartz said he had asked Defense Secretary Robert Gates to consider
buying more F-22As than the 183 in the current plan.

Schwartz last week declined to say exactly how many additional
aircraft he requested, but Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, has said the Air Force would like to buy 243 F-22As
-- an additional 60 aircraft.

Gates is expected to render a decision on the fate of the fighter
program next month as part of a series of “hard choices” that are
expected to be included in the Pentagon’s FY-10 budget proposal.

Gates has said he believes 183 F-22As are sufficient to meet
foreseeable requirements. More broadly, the defense secretary has
strongly advocated shifting some funding slated for conventional
combat capabilities to efforts that bolster the military’s ability to
conduct irregular operations.

The FY-10 budget request prepared by the Pentagon last fall does not
include funding for additional Raptors, according to senior Pentagon
officials.

Young estimated in November 2008 that buying another 20 F-22As in
FY-10 would require an additional $3 billion.

Rob Fuller, a spokesman for Lockheed Martin, confirmed the Air Force
has asked for a new F-22A pricing scheme.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense, which in 2004 slashed the Air
Force’s plans to buy 381 F-22As,

maintains that when combined with a larger force of F-35 Joint Strike
Fighters, a 183-aircraft fleet will give U.S. forces a robust strike-
fighter inventory.

Congress allocated $523 million in FY-09 -- the current fiscal year --
for the advance procurement of F-22A aircraft. The FY-09 Defense
Authorization Act directed that no more than $140 million of these
funds be spent until the president certified to Congress why either
continued production or termination was in the national interest.

That certification was due March 1. Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell
told reporters at the Pentagon on March 5 that a decision on the way
forward for the F-22A program will be conveyed to lawmakers in the
FY-10 budget request, which is due to be delivered to Congress late
next month.

To the frustration of F-22A supporters in Congress, the Pentagon last
fall availed itself of only $50 million to purchase long-lead items
for four additional aircraft.

On Nov. 10, 2008, Young signed an acquisition decision memorandum that
directed the Air Force to begin procurement of Lot 10 of the stealth
fighter, for four aircraft. That memo allowed the service to obligate
up to $50 million for the program and to negotiate an option to buy
long-lead items for an additional 16 aircraft.

Snip.

Interesting read.

Those ****ing stupid congressional and senatorial dumb-asses should
get off their collective backsides and remove the cost cap they
imposed on the F-22 development/procurement spending and not only
allow the purchase 381 F-22's (which is far below the actual needed
number). But allow the multi-year procurement of up to the original
stated number of 750; they also need to amend that idiotic export ban
law on the F-22 and allow certain trust worthy countries who can
afford the F-22 to buy it. Those countries a the UK, Australia,
Israel, Japan and South Korea.

ha scritto:
they also need to amend that idiotic export ban
law on the F-22 and allow certain trust worthy countries who can
afford the F-22 to buy it. Those countries a the UK, Australia,
Israel, Japan and South Korea.

Trouble is, that seems that some sekrit are unremovable (that is, at the
airframe level, and will be a real PITA put together a credible export
version....

On your list of "trusted countries" I can understand only the Japan, SK
is too "frontline", giving F-22 to Israel means more destabilizing an
already destabilized area, Australia, why ? I don't see hostile
airforces around Oz whose needs the advanced capabilities of the F-22
(if we discard the ominous shades behind JMSDF Hyuga...). Remains only
UK as a credible ally for the F-22, if not for the severe issues in the
UK defence budget, already more than strained....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

On Mar 8, 8:10 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
UK is credible, but may not be financially able. Australia looks like
a customer. Taiwan? Probably not. S. Korea? Unlikely right now, but
could change rapidly. Israel? Definite candidate. Western European
NATO? Depends on trends in governments...both theirs and ours. India?
Who knows. Emerging S. American capitalist democracy? Too far
down-stream to predict.

All of these are notable for the lack of a need for a pure air to air
fighter and a lack of airfields near to the spots they're likely to
drop bombs so all of them would be better off with JSFs.

-HJC

In message , Ed Rasimus
writes
UK is credible, but may not be financially able.

The COEIA in 1995 put the F-22 clearly top of the tree in capability,
but even at the prices then estimated it simply wasn't available in
adequate numbers compared to the alternatives; and the combat modelling
included numbers flying as a factor. The Raptor was outstanding when it
met the enemy, but the vignettes modelled ended up with too many Red
raids getting through without being intercepted when a (constant-budget)
force had F-22s: while Typhoon at that point was "half as good" (the
JOUST modelling put its exchange rate against a 'son of Flanker' at 4.5
to 1, compared to 9:1 for F-22 in the same conditions - a gross
oversimplification of some careful work, but a handy headline number)
but was available in sufficient numbers to actually meet and beat Red in
the scenarios seen.

I recall saying a decade ago that while Raptor was excellent, it was
expensive enough that only the US could afford a usefully-sized force
and even that wasn't certain... indeed I remember suggesting - in jest
at the time - that the US might end up with fewer F-22s than the UK were
getting Typhoons.

--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides


pauldotjdotadam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

On Mar 8, 11:06 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
On Sun, 8 Mar 2009 11:22:17 -0700 (PDT), hcobb
wrote:

On Mar 8, 8:10 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
UK is credible, but may not be financially able. Australia looks like
a customer. Taiwan? Probably not. S. Korea? Unlikely right now, but
could change rapidly. Israel? Definite candidate. Western European
NATO? Depends on trends in governments...both theirs and ours. India?
Who knows. Emerging S. American capitalist democracy? Too far
down-stream to predict.

All of these are notable for the lack of a need for a pure air to air
fighter and a lack of airfields near to the spots they're likely to
drop bombs so all of them would be better off with JSFs.

-HJC

Actually all of them are notable for the fact that their military
requirements are almost exclusively defensive and NOT offensive power
projection. Their most likely application is defending against attack
from the air.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the last superlative Air Superiority
Fighter developed by the US on the scale of ambition of the F-22
was the F-15.
A good bean-counter could likely give you the cost of deploying
and operating the F-15 fleet from pening the requirement to now.
Let me toss out that cost at $50 billion, lot's of beans (?).

Next part is harder. What is the $ value having the F-15 fleet
provide? It's more than it's combat record, because having them
is a deterrence and provides a sense of *subjective* security.

The many aware (US) taxpayers that frequent this group,
might ask, what if the F-15 fleet never existed? Would it
have made a difference?

Because the answers are so subjective, your responses
(opinions) cannot be wrong, so go at it.
Ken

Paul J. Adam ha scritto:
while Typhoon at that point was "half as good" (the
JOUST modelling put its exchange rate against a 'son of Flanker' at 4.5
to 1, compared to 9:1 for F-22 in the same conditions - a gross
oversimplification of some careful work, but a handy headline number)

Whose imply that the # of the Raptor should be at least half that of #
of Typhoon of the major foreign (to US) airforce (or coalized airforce) ?

Anyway. even assuming that the major typhoon-equipped foreign airforces
clash with USAF, there are not few logistic problems to resolve prior of
starting the dogfighting

The key issue is that all these things, embargo, classified thingies,
lack of an export version, etc. has given the monopoly of the 5th
generation fighter a/c market to the... 4th generation and half Typhoon !

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

In article
,
(hcobb) wrote:
On Mar 8, 8:10 am, Ed Rasimus wrote:
UK is credible, but may not be financially able. Australia looks
like a customer. Taiwan? Probably not. S. Korea? Unlikely right now,
but could change rapidly. Israel? Definite candidate. Western European
NATO? Depends on trends in governments...both theirs and ours.
India? Who knows. Emerging S. American capitalist democracy? Too far
down-stream to predict.
All of these are notable for the lack of a need for a pure air to air
fighter and a lack of airfields near to the spots they're likely to
drop bombs so all of them would be better off with JSFs.

The UK, Germany, Italy and Spain have committed to Typhoon; the French
to Rafael. Taiwan has this problem with security vs. China. South Korea
is just buying some high-end F-15s. Everyone would find the F-22A kind
of expensive. Australia and Japan are maybes, but nobody else looks
likely. JSF is far more likely to sell in quantity, since that was
actually an objective from the start of the project.

--
John Dallman, , HTML mail is treated as probable spam.

On Mar 8, 3:54*pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Paul J. Adam ha scritto:

while Typhoon at that point was "half as good" (the
JOUST modelling put its exchange rate against a 'son of Flanker' at 4.5
to 1, compared to 9:1 for F-22 in the same conditions - a gross
oversimplification of some careful work, but a handy headline number)

Whose imply that the # of the Raptor should be at least half that of #
of Typhoon of the major foreign (to US) airforce (or coalized airforce) ?

Anyway. even assuming that the major typhoon-equipped foreign airforces
clash with USAF, there are not few logistic problems to resolve prior of
starting the dogfighting

The key issue is that all these things, embargo, classified thingies,
lack of an export version, etc. has given the monopoly of the 5th
generation fighter a/c market to the... 4th generation and half Typhoon !

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.

Or the Sukhoi....

dott.Piergiorgio wrote:
ha scritto:
they also need to amend that idiotic export ban
law on the F-22 and allow certain trust worthy countries who can
afford the F-22 to buy it. Those countries a the UK, Australia,
Israel, Japan and South Korea.

Trouble is, that seems that some sekrit are unremovable (that is, at the
airframe level, and will be a real PITA put together a credible export
version....

On your list of "trusted countries" I can understand only the Japan, SK
is too "frontline", giving F-22 to Israel means more destabilizing an
already destabilized area, Australia, why ? I don't see hostile

Australia has problems with a little place called China.

Andrew Swallow

airforces around Oz whose needs the advanced capabilities of the F-22
(if we discard the ominous shades behind JMSDF Hyuga...). Remains only
UK as a credible ally for the F-22, if not for the severe issues in the
UK defence budget, already more than strained....

Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.