Romney wants to buy more F-22s

DOD Buzz ^ | 9/10/2012 | Michael Hoffman

[InsidiousMongo]

Romney wants to buy more F-22s

By Michael Hoffman Monday, September 10th, 2012 5:54 pm Posted in Air, Election

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he would buy more F-22 Raptors as part of his plan to reverse many of the defense cuts planned by the Obama administration.

Romney told a Virginia Beach, Va., television station he would not include the military in the spending cuts he is proposing to cut down the U.S. deficit.

“Rather than completing nine ships per year, I’d move that up to 15. I’d also add F-22s to our Air Force fleet. And I’d add about 100,000 active duty personnel to our military team,” Romney said in the interview. “I think the idea of shrinking our military to try and get closer to balancing our budget is the wrong place to look.”

He’s repeated his plan to increase ship building from nine to 15 ships per year and add 100,000 active duty troops to the military’s end strength. However, this is the first time he’s mentioned any plans to buy more F-22s.

F-22 production was famously ended by former Defense Secretary Robert Gates after the Air Force had fought for the U.S. to buy more fifth generation fighter jets. Air Force leaders wanted to buy 243 F-22s, Gates halted production at 187. Originally, the Air Force wanted to buy more than 750 Raptors.

The last U.S. F-22 rolled off the production line in 2011. The Raptor program has since come under scrutiny after a string of pilots have suffered hypoxia-like symptoms and struggled to breathe in flight. Air Force officials claim to have found the cause, but it has repeatedly grounded the F-22 fleet the past two years and continue to impose flight restrictions.

Air Force leaders pushed to build more F-22s to add to the fleet because they warned a fleet of 187 would be insufficient to defeat an enemy with a top line air force like China. Former Air Force Chief of Staffs Gen. Norton Schwartz and Gen. Michael “Buzz” Moseley argued the costs of re-opening the production line would be too costly to build up the fleet if Congress changed its mind and wanted more F-22s.

If Romney wins and follows through on his plan to buy more F-22s, it would cost at least $900 million to reopen the F-22 production line, according to Loren Thompson, a consultant for Lockheed Martin and other defense companies.

In 2010, Japan discussed buying 40 F-22s from Lockheed Martin, builder of the F-22. Lockheed officials then told Japanese leaders it would cost $900 million to re-open the production line. Thompson said the cost would surely increase when considering two years have passed and the production line was still “semi-warm.”

The cost to reopen the production line would come in addition to the per aircraft price tag to manufacture each jet. That per aircraft cost is harder to decipher. When factoring in development and manufacturing, the price tag per jet totaled the U.S. more than $370 million. However, the flyaway cost — the cost of manufacturing one jet — equaled $137 million per jet.

Re-opening the production line in Marietta, Ga., would take at least two years, Thompson said. Lockheed would be slowed by re-establishing supplier networks and re-training employees.

“In a rush, you could do it in about two years assuming all the other workers weren’t on other projects like F-35,” Thompson said.

He didn’t expect the problems with the F-22’s oxygen system to hold a Romney administration back from following through on buying more F-22 plans.

“It wouldn’t be a problem, Thompson said. “If there are still issues with the oxgen system they could just switch over to another supplier like Cobham.”

There are also questions about whether further F-22 buys would affect the acquisition schedule for the F-35. The Defense Department plans to buy 2,443 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters.

[jboot]

There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who absolutely cannot or will not see that the PLA is our number one stratigic threat and had been for most of a decade already. There is already a hot cyberwar with the PLA. I've been in that trench. Add a resurgent Russian Bear to the mix and we are perilously close to re-enacting 1961, only with the flashpoints on the other side of the Pacific instead of off the Florida coast.

If we intend to remain a world power, we need a useful force of fifth-Gen fighters. We need stealth ships. Most of all, we need a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. We certainly aren't going to get ANY of that under 0bama. He'll throw Taiwan and Japan and South Korea under the bus before you can say "peace in our time."

[jboot]

I suprised so many Freepers are willing to throw away all the R&D investment on the F22 just because of a few teething problems. It is a very needed aircraft.

I'm not. Paultardness runs deep these days. All the freedom and fiscal responsibility in the world will come to naught if we become a second-rate nation subject to some world hegemon. As a superpower we have been tolerant to a fault. We should not expect the same grace from our successors. They will scourge us with scorpions if they can.

[Monterrosa-24]

“...All the freedom and fiscal responsibility in the world will come to naught if we become a second-rate nation subject to some world hegemon...”

Whoa, that says it and that’s worth repeating.

[InsidiousMongo]

The tooling was not scrapped. There have been articles on military news sites indicating the tooling has been saved. How would they be able to make replacement components then? The program can be rebooted since the tooling still exists.

[Sequoyah101]

Don’t you honestly think you are being just a little extreme?

Not only did we reduce numbers but the cost continued to increase. The F-35 is much worse for not having delivered what has been promised, problems and costs.

The F-15SE isn’t exactly old retro technology having been upgraded considerably and having similar stealth attributes of the F-35 but with more payload, more range, comparable avionics capability and redundant systems. For the role intended, mostly air to ground it will meet the need for a long time to come.

For air to air on the other hand the F-22 is the best we have available though in some camps the Eurofighter is giving it a good run.

[Vince Ferrer]

Well I went out on the old internet thing and it looks like you’re right. I was going from memory on an article I read a couple of years ago. I still would like to focus on pilotless aircraft, though. If the same money that could be spent buying more F-22s could be spent advancing pilotless fighters by a few years, I’d take the pilotless aircraft.

[Nowhere Man]

A better idea though would be the F-15SE. More bang for the buck and better than the F-35.

Flame away all you stick and rudder experts, self-proclaimed and otherwise.

Still need some cuts of waste but more than than that sweeping change in how we run things and budget across the board... fat chance for that.

I get into trouble with this one. I favor keeping the F-15C's through E (I'd consider bring back the old 1972/79 A model, IIRC, it could be used for ASAT warfare), F-16's of various marks and for new stock, the F-15SE. I'd like to see it bulwarked with a low-cost but effective fighter like the old F-5, I always favored the F-20, a suped up version of it. I'd maybe take the F-22 to a nice even number, 200 though.

Basically, I get into trouble for this one too, but when it comes to speed and performance, the jet fighter plateaued around 1960 or so when we reached the Mach 2 area, the differences are in avionics and stealth, I think the latter is overrated. That's why I tend to favor the F-5 with improved electronics, in which you get the F-20. We should have kept the F-14 for the Navy.

The F-35 screams junk to me and the F-22 for some reason seems overrated for its cost. It's like buying a car, we have money problems and unless we cut drastically somewhere, we might have to buy the Chevy instead of the Cadillac. We need to supply the military with the best we can afford but we also have to remember that we only have so much money and we need to stick closer to more established, off the shelf equipment proven to work. We have to face reality.

[Nowhere Man]

The first two numbers on the tail of USAF aircraft are the year of acceptance. Take notice of that.

I noticed that the tankers for the 171st Penna Air Nat'l Guard begin with "57" so they were built in 1957, heck, that's older than me. B-) I think overall, we did hyperextend ourselves and that figures into the wear value.

[Nowhere Man]

I’m more of a Sopwith Camel/Pup guy myself although I also admire the Gloster Gladiator and the Stearman.

[turn_to]

Throwing money at defense contractors and rewarding cronies in congressional districts with bloated military projects is not being very fiscally conservative.

[LibLieSlayer]

Yes I know and I agree with you. I am certain that war is coming one day... our government used to prepare and evolve with the threat... we pray that it never happens... our enemies plan for it to happen.

LLS

[GBA]

This is good news and I hope he means it.

The way we've been going through our military equipment is second only to the way we've been going through what's left of our finances and reputation.

One of the best jobs programs around is rebuilding the military. It hires people from all walks of life and all professions, while making us smarter and stronger.

[ex-snook]

"I can see not totally shrinking gov by defence cuts, but given we spend more on military stuff than the next 20 countries combined (or something like that), there has to be some fat worth cutting."

I'm with you. But I will wait until he tells us if he is going to increase taxes to pay for them or bill all the countries in the world that we are protecting.

[noiseman]

We are currently spending about 4% of our GDP on defense. We can afford it, and it is a moral (and constitutional) imperative that we maintain sufficient force levels to deter and if necessary defeat any enemy.

As for the fact that we spend more than the next 20 countries combined, that fact is irrelevant. We have forces that have global reach. Most other countries do not. Maintaining that capability is expensive, but necessary.

We also must be prepared to defend our interests against a wide array of potential enemies, while any single potential adversary does not have the same need. They are all arrayed against us, with a few exceptions, and to maintain our superpower status (a need that is not debatable in my mind) we have to be prepared to deal with a wide range of contingencies that lesser nations do not.

If we withdraw from the world, as those like Ron Paul would have us do, the world will become a much more chaotic and dangerous place. Just as an example consider what we spend to provide a defense umbrella, nuclear and otherwise, for allies such as Japan. By defending Japan we prevent it from acquiring its own nuclear weapons and thereby sparking an arms race in East Asia.

Four percent of our GDP (or even 6%, if we were to return to cold war levels) is a small price to pay for the stability and protection that it provides.

[noiseman]

"I agree. If we can’t defend our country spending less than we do, we must not be doing it right."

I'm sorry, but that statement made no sense. Are you saying then that if we spent nothing on defense at all that we would then be doing it "really right?"

[9YearLurker]

No, what you’re asking is a non sequitor. As others have pointed out on this thread we pay more than most of rest of the world pays for defense combined. That’s what we are spending and what I was referencing.

[9YearLurker]

No, what you’re asking is a non sequitor. As others have pointed out on this thread we pay more than most of rest of the world pays for defense combined. That’s what we are spending and what I was referencing.

[af_vet_rr]

I suprised so many Freepers are willing to throw away all the R&D investment on the F22 just because of a few teething problems. It is a very needed aircraft.

I really want to like the F-22. When I first laid eyes on it not long after the prototype was rolled out back in 1990 or 1991, I thought it was going to be The Aircraft for the Air Force going into the future.

Here we are 20 years later, it's had all kinds of problems, cost overruns, delays, etc. It's going to be expensive as hell to restart the production line, and yes, you have to include the costs of restarting the production line in the per-unit costs. It's also going to take a few years to get fully up to speed. I don't necessarily buy the 2 year number being tossed around, I would say 3-4 years. Contractors move a lot slower than some think.

You mentioned R&D. There has been 25 years of R&D done since the F-22 was selected as one of the competitors in the ATF competition, and 20 or so years worth done since a YF-22 prototype actually took to the skies.

Romney is just trying to kiss up to the defense industry and its workers in an election. The Russians and Chinese have had a few decades of looking at the F-22 (and probably walking away with key technology thanks to Clinton). If we are going to build a fighter to take on future threats, and if it's going to be expensive and time consuming to restart production on something that amounts to a 25 year old design, let's take what's been learned over the past few decades from that program, let's take the latest avionics, and let's go ahead and make the leap to the next generation.

[af_vet_rr]

I’m sure we could cut our overseas commitments and installations by half and still be everywhere. Let Germany, Japan, South Korea and other rich allies foot their own defense bills.

We're in Germany and Japan more because of their location these days than for defending them. Germany is one of the major hubs for us as far as our operations in Afghanistan and formerly Iraq, and it's even a major medical hub for troops injured in the Middle East. Japan is a major hub for Asian operations as well.

It's the case for a lot of other places as well. South Korea is different (and Japan plays a roll in that).

Russia is not going to attack Germany and China is not going to attack Japan.

[af_vet_rr]

There are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle who absolutely cannot or will not see that the PLA is our number one stratigic threat and had been for most of a decade already. There is already a hot cyberwar with the PLA. I've been in that trench. Add a resurgent Russian Bear to the mix and we are perilously close to re-enacting 1961, only with the flashpoints on the other side of the Pacific instead of off the Florida coast.

If China wants to destroy us, it's not going to be by military conflict. It's going to economically, and I hate to break it to you, but while you've been in the trenches of the cyberwar, a lot of us have been paying attention to the economic war, and China is making damn sure they are going to win it over the long run. Even as you and I speak, using Chinese-built computers, that connect over Chinese-built infrastructure, China is working to undermine our defense and aerospace companies.

As China takes more and more contracts away from our aerospace and defense companies, as they take away more and more manufacturing jobs at all levels from America, they put us that much deeper in the hole.

Doesn't mean a damn thing if we have the best military in the world if they destroy us economically, or have the means to destroy us economically.

If we intend to remain a world power, we need a useful force of fifth-Gen fighters

Those vaunted fifth-generation fighters that we are relying on were designed in the mid 1980s. China and Russia are both working on aircraft that are 10-15 years newer than the F-22. You know what that means? That means they are working on aircraft that were designed with the F-22 in mind, and probably using stolen F-22 information.

Most of all, we need a new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems. We certainly aren't going to get ANY of that under 0bama.

Are you seriously suggesting we are going to get in a nuclear war with China? Because unless I missed something, China didn't come up with a way to destroy all of our nuclear weapons as they rain down on Chinese cities. I don't even know how to respond to somebody who worries about China trying to wipe out our nuclear arsenal, because it implies that China only cares about military power and that China is willing to risk annihilation.

Wake up. They are going to do more harm to us economically than they ever could militarily. They watched how the Soviets could not beat us militarily. Being Chinese and taking long-term approaches to things, they saw what worked, and they figured out that they don't have to beat us militarily to destroy us, they can do so much cheaper, easier, and more thoroughly economically.

China is beating us economically. It's been their goal for decades, and it's starting to pay off. People like you are focused on the next 5 years, but guess what? While people make hay about their latest weapons systems, people are missing out on the fact that those weapons systems aren't just for China. China is ramping up their defense industry to take military contracts away from American companies. They want to supply India and large parts of Asia and Africa with military hardware, and they want to move on from there.

Once American aerospace/defense companies have to lay off even more workers than they have, you will truly see China is doing something much worse than engaging in a military conflict. They are already making the cheap crap that Wal-Mart sells, now they are trying to make the expensive stuff that Boeing and GE make.

They are working on thoroughly ruining us for many decades to come in a way nobody could never do militarily.

Let me tell you something my friend, once they destroy us economically, the door will be open for full-on socialism/totalitarianism. They are not going to convert us at the tip of a bayonet. They are going to do so by bankrupting us and reducing the number of middle and upper class jobs in this country.