F-22 Line Faces Gap Despite Supplemental

[tigershark]

* Somebody come to my country and fix this!javascript:void(0);
Huh

F-22 Line Faces Gap Despite Supplemental


By Amy Butler/Aerospace Daily & Defense Report
Though Defense Secretary Robert Gates says he wants to keep the F-22 production line open at least until the next administration, there still will be a small gap in production for the Marietta, Ga., plant without at least some additional funding beyond the fiscal 2009 request and anticipated wartime supplemental funding.

Industry officials say that the first line shutdown activities for the F-22 will take place in October based on Lockheed Martin's multiyear contract with the U.S. Air Force; $4.1 billion for the program is included in the Pentagon's FY '09 request. The last of the stealthy twin-engine fighters would come off the line in the fourth quarter of 2011.

Gates says he wants to leave the next presidential administration the option of keeping the program alive. However, the plan to order four additional Raptors using supplemental war funding will not carry the entire F-22 line into 2009 and allow the next White House to decide the program's fate.

Each F-22 is built on a three-year cycle. The longest-lead parts are items such as bolts and fasteners as well as the bulkhead made by Boeing.

Long-lead parts for the first F-22 of Lot 10 (which would start beyond the current multiyear) must be ordered by October 2008, according to industry experts. Parts for the extra four fighters would provide less than two months of work beyond October, leaving a gap until the next administration takes office in January 2009. The next president would also likely need time to review major military programs before making a decision on F-22.

Without a sign from the Pentagon or Congress, the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 team may have to begin negotiations on whether to support the line with internal funds pending a new administration taking office next year.

Link
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/F22021108.xml&headline=F-22%20Line%20Faces%20Gap%20Despite%20Supplemental

[Webmaster]

Nice way of trying to force the order to be signed by the current administration. I think LM/Boeing should just decide whether to privately finance these parts, or not, like they would have done in any other market/industry. Risk of doing business, it's not like they can't calculate the financial risk. And I bet it would be best to just finance it, they could easily cope with any risk, as well as fund these long lead parts. I suppose the pentagon/government thinks the same way, bit silly to start using wartime supplemental funding for this at this point.

[Elias]

It's bad that the F-22 is not offered as an export - I am sure that there would be a number of airforces around the world interested in it. That would definitely ensure that the production lines would stay open.

[valkyrian]

Let's face it, the F-22 is expensive even for the US economy. The phenomenal capabilities it is supposed to posses are the same time it's Achilles heel.
How can you sell the F-22 to the USAF in large scale, when you have done everything that is possible to convince them that it is the best of the best. Starting from the Alaska air exercise, we were told that the -22 was untouchable. So why bother to buy more than 183? 1 airborne F-22 with 4 AIM-120 can shoot down an equal number of enemy fighters. Now do the math for 183 pieces.......

The succesor to the F-22 lets call it F-25, i think it will be produced in 30-40 pieces.....

The F-22 case reminds me of the B-2 case. were only 12 have come out of the production line.
From the hundrends of the B-52's we went to 100 B-1 down to 12 B-2. How many of the next strategic bomber will be bought?

[Webmaster]

12? You mean 21?

Anyway, the B-52H and B-1B are still in service, in decreased numbers yes, but the B-2 didn't replace them. So it's not a totally valid comparison. You make a valid point though, only the USAF seems to disagree and wants 381 to replace 475 F-15C Eagles rather than 183 Raptors and keeping 178 Eagles. This is only possible if the US exits Iraq, but now LM/Boeing wants the Pentagon to use (more) supplemental wartime funds to keep the F-22 line open (or at least fix the gap). I just don't get that, those funds should go to the war effort and the F-22 is not required for exiting Iraq. So LM/Boeing should be happy with this order for 4 more under current government and fill this gap themselves, as it could mean more orders. Being a little more customer-focused. But I suppose they fear a democratic administration.

Elias, it seems it's already too late for that, to fix this gap, because it takes some time before orders are signed. This isn't exactly like the C-17 where orders can be signed almost instantly because the requirement and selection is so obvious. The C-17 is also a case where Boeing warned about line closure if not more were ordered soon, it's stupid, it's their risk not the Pentagons to keep lines open for longer or not. As if they would sell a 'no' and wouldn't produce it anymore when the USAF decides to buy 20 more in 2015, I'd bet they'll set up a new line. Plus, you can just let the customer pay for reopening the lines then, and the customer will accept those costs because it's way cheaper than shopping abroad, or developing a new one. Same applies for the F-22, only now, the DoD wants to keep the line open, to avoid those costs when ordering more. Now LM/Boeing can use this to force more funding. I'd turn it around as DoD and make it their problem.

[tigershark]

This is a failure in the US Air Force administration planning plain and simple.   The F-22 numbers 186 just don't replace 667 F-15 A/B/C/D models.   The F-35 is still to far away the US Air Force started having F-16 shortest now can you imagine three years from now?   The US Air Force should rush order 90/120 F-15s but not the C models add a little air to ground capabilities.   With the F-16s it's worse because there depended on to carry out so many types of missions I would say 160/220 would be need, remember the F-35 is still more then 3/4/5 years away from pre-deliveries.   I know what some of you are thinking why spend the money but these  aircraft won't go to waste.   There are many National Guard units that need better Vipers so these newly built models can adsorbed very easily and with open arms.  They would be fighting over who got them.   My question is to all should the US run one last large batch of Vipers?   

[Webmaster]

Right, that's a good possibility, more upgraded F-15E models, production line is open for F-15K anyway, and more two-seaters are always good. Then you can cut plans to order more F-22s, without worrying about the sustainability of the F-15C 'Golden Eagles'. In any case, the additional Strike Eagles could then also lighten the burden of the initial F-35s, in that they don't have to do the strike role right away.

More F-16s, well, the current fleet is younger (and much bigger) than the Eagle fleet, so maybe only an additional 100 or so are needed to close the gap by the F-35 delay. The F-35 won't be replacing the A-10 anymore, and with the Warthog upgrade (although no new engine) it means all initial production F-35s will be replacing F-16s only, which is good. However the F-35 initial operational capability slipped from 2011 to 2013. I assume it can still get worse. Also taking in the probability that the first Blocks of F-35s will have limited air-to-ground capability, I could see more F-16s being useful.

[Elias]

Two news items relating to the topic...

USAF General: We Will Find A Way To Buy 380 F-22s

Feb 13, 2008 -Aviation week

By Bettina H. Chavanne

U.S. Air Force Gen. Bruce Carlson, chief of Air Force Materiel Command, told a group of reporters Wednesday that the Air Force will figure out a way to buy 380 F-22s, despite the fact that the Pentagon - through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) - has capped the number of Raptors to be procured at 183.

"We think that [183] is the wrong number," Carlson said. Even 380, a number he joked is a "compromise" from the 381 the Air Force originally asked for, still leaves too much room for risk. That risk could even include a future conflict with China, he said. "Most people say in the future there will be a Chinese element to whatever we do," he added.

"We're committed to funding 380," Carlson said Feb. 13 after speaking at Aviation Week's Defense Technology and Requirements conference in Washington. "We're building a program right now to do that. It's going to be incredibly difficult on the Air Force, but we've done this before." He added there are only three places from which to draw funds to accomplish the Air Force's goal: operations and maintenance, research and development and procurement. "We don't have a [money] printing machine," he said. "We have to pay for it."

OSD and the Air Force have long disputed how many Raptors to buy, with the Air Force maintaining that it needs 380-plus, especially as the rest of its fleet ages. OSD has tried to cap F-22s in light of planned future Joint Strike Fighters, which also are made by a Lockheed Martin-led team, as well as burgeoning defense investments elsewhere like shipbuilding and ground vehicles.

..and as far replacing the F-15 is concerned...

Pentagon eyes F-35 fighters, not pricier F-22s

Retrieved from Air-attack.com

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England expects the F-35A Lightning II will replace F-15s grounded due to a structural defect, instead of the F-22 Raptor.

During a Senate Budget Committee hearing on the Pentagon's fiscal 2009 budget request, he stated: "I do not believe the F-22s will be replacements for the F-15".

Around 40% of the F-15 fleet is still grounded, after an older F-15C model crashed due to structural defects on Nov 2. It will require billion of dollars to fix them, so the USAF is expected to replace most grounded aircraft.

"So I would expect instead we would try to accelerate the Joint Strike Fighter, which is more the class of the F-15," England said. "So the Air Force would move into Joint Strike Fighter and not into the much more expensive F-22 airplane."

The US Air Force, however, wants more F-22s than the current budgeted 183 and several Senators also want more, to prevent closure of the production line by Lockheed Martin.

DoD vs. USAF!

[Raptor]

USAF! GO! whoops that came out on impulse.

Actually, 381 forever sounds reasonable. After that they shut down the productions lines, and so on and so forth. Valk-183 pieces times 3 may seem a lot, but that's only on paper. Fighters are defensive weapons, and the F-22 will be scattered throughout the US. They have to defend both coasts in addition to alaska, which is effectively half of Canada's defence. Throw in Hawaii, which has gotten it's F-22s already anyway. You have 4 or 5 fighters for every big stretch of land. If any maniac wants to attack the US i don't think they'll only have 16 or 20 fighters/bombers.

About the bomber bit. They might ressurect the XB-70m programme and build one for top-secret stuff.