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

[mike]

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.

[[email protected]]

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 are: the UK, Australia,
Israel, Japan and South Korea.

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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 are: 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.

[hcobb]

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

[Paul J. Adam]

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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Ken S. Tucker]

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

[dott.Piergiorgio]

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 ;) :D

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.

[[email protected]]

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.

[David E. Powell]

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 ;) :D
>
> 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....

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

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 are: 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.

[hcobb]

On Mar 8, 11:27 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
> Australia has problems with a little place called China.

F-22s launched from Australia can't attack China, because they lack
the refueling capability.

And China's few long range bombers would get jumped by Australia's
Super Hornets.

-HJC

[Jack Linthicum]

On Mar 9, 10:34*am, hcobb > wrote:
> On Mar 8, 11:27 pm, Andrew Swallow > wrote:
>
> > Australia has problems with a little place called China.
>
> F-22s launched from Australia can't attack China, because they lack
> the refueling capability.
>
> And China's few long range bombers would get jumped by Australia's
> Super Hornets.
>
> -HJC

Oh?

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a330_200/

http://www.militaryglobal.com/forum/index.php/topic,5723.0.html

[Paul J. Adam]

In message >, Ed Rasimus
> writes
>On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb >
>wrote:
>>What potentially hostile powers can put jet fighters within range of
>>the population centers of UK
>
>For the UK, the unification of Europe has reduced the threat greatly,
>but the logical extension of that reasoning is that UK needs no
>defenses at all now.

There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
actually hostile air arms.

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[hcobb]

On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
> rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
> actually hostile air arms.

Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
off Nuke carriers. (Place an order for two with the Americans and
pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)

-HJC

[Andrew Swallow[_2_]]

Paul J. Adam wrote:
> In message >, Ed Rasimus
> > writes
>> On Mon, 9 Mar 2009 07:30:21 -0700 (PDT), hcobb >
>> wrote:
>>> What potentially hostile powers can put jet fighters within range of
>>> the population centers of UK
>>
>> For the UK, the unification of Europe has reduced the threat greatly,
>> but the logical extension of that reasoning is that UK needs no
>> defenses at all now.
>
> There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
> rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
> actually hostile air arms.
>
That implies Britain needs the ability to construct army, navy and
airforce bases quickly anywhere in the world. Living in tents 5
years after the war started is a bad idea. Runways and piers have
to appear within days.

The logistical load needs minimizing, so actions like saving
transported oil by heating water using solar power in hot
countries. Generating electricity by wind turbines.

Andrew Swallow

[Paul J. Adam]

In message
>,
hcobb > writes
>On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
>> There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
>> rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
>> actually hostile air arms.
>
>Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
>off Nuke carriers. (Place an order for two with the Americans and
>pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)

You're not really up to speed on the costs of current kit, are you?

(There's a hint - if we could afford CVNs we'd be buying them. Since we
can't, we're not)

--
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


paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com

[Jeff Dougherty]

On Mar 9, 7:46*pm, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> In message
> >,
> hcobb > writes
>
> >On Mar 9, 11:09 am, "Paul J. Adam" > wrote:
> >> There's also the point that we find ourselves operating away from home
> >> rather often these days, and thus rather closer to potentially or
> >> actually hostile air arms.
>
> >Which is why the perfect fighter for the UK is the F-35C, operating
> >off Nuke carriers. *(Place an order for two with the Americans and
> >pocket to lower price to pay off the Scottish yard workers.)
>
> You're not really up to speed on the costs of current kit, are you?
>
> (There's a hint - if we could afford CVNs we'd be buying them. Since we
> can't, we're not)

For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.

And that doesn't even get into issues like manning, O&M costs, &c.
Note that even at the current program cost there's some doubt as to
whether the RN will actually finish the program- they've had to
downsize the _Astute_ and _Daring_ classes by quite a bit to afford
the them and there's some speculation that the Treasury will wait
until a "main gate" decision has to be made and then announced that
the carriers have to be canceled since there's nothing to escort them
with.

And I imagine that the people in the UK who squawk about Henry Hyde's
antics with the JSF source code would have a collective stroke if a
move like that were announced.

-JTD

[hcobb]

On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, Jeff Dougherty > wrote:
> For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
> currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
> pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
> class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
> more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.

The costs will rise and the design already is not worth the current
fib of a price.

http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured
bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the
design in order to comply with cost limitations.

Did they learn nothing from McCain's tour on the Forest Fire?

-HJC

[Dan[_12_]]

hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:03 pm, Jeff Dougherty > wrote:
>> For those following along at home, the pair of CVs the Royal Navy is
>> currently buying is slated to run somewhere around 4 to 5 billion
>> pounds, which is around $8-10 billion US. The most recent Nimitz
>> class CVN cost about $6 billion, meaning that a pair would be much
>> more expensive than the Queen Elizabeth program.
>
> The costs will rise and the design already is not worth the current
> fib of a price.
>
> http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/cvf/
> A number of protective measures such as side armour and armoured
> bulkheads proposed by industrial bid teams have been deleted from the
> design in order to comply with cost limitations.
>
> Did they learn nothing from McCain's tour on the Forest Fire?
>
> -HJC

Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
blaming the fire on McCain?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[hcobb]

On Mar 9, 10:37 pm, Dan > wrote:
> Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
> blaming the fire on McCain?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It takes quite a jinx to keep The Navy down. ;-)

-HJC

[Dan[_12_]]

hcobb wrote:
> On Mar 9, 10:37 pm, Dan > wrote:
>> Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
>> blaming the fire on McCain?
>>
>> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> It takes quite a jinx to keep The Navy down. ;-)
>
> -HJC


Good thing they rejected you, isn't it?

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

[Matt Wiser]

On Mar 9, 11:03*pm, Dan > wrote:
> hcobb wrote:
> > On Mar 9, 10:37 pm, Dan > wrote:
> >> * *Wait, don't you usually tell us how perfect the U.S Navy is? Are you
> >> blaming the fire on McCain?
>
> >> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
>
> > It takes quite a jinx to keep The Navy down. ;-)
>
> > -HJC
>
> * *Good thing they rejected you, isn't it?
>
> Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

It's a good thing that any military service rejected him....