Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

Adux · 11-10-2007, 17:53 PM

Quote:

Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet

Fri Nov 9, 2007 5:18pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page |

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six senators on Friday urged the Pentagon to increase its fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 uu
The Republican senators also demanded Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England release three government-funded reports that reportedly call for additional F-22 purchases beyond a currently planned level of 183.

The senators cited the recent grounding of the Air Force's 700-plus fleet of Boeing Co F-15s, India's recent decision to join Russia's effort to develop a new fighter jet, and U.S. Air Force assessments that it really needs 381 F-22 Raptors, while it can only afford 183.

"We continue to be perplexed by the Department of Defense's insistence that only 183 F-22As should be procured," the senators wrote in a letter.

They asked England to let Congress examine in full three separate studies that reportedly concluded that a far greater number of F-22s was needed, and to make public the reports' conclusions about the minimum number of F-22s needed.

In addition, they asked for a detailed Pentagon briefing before January 15, 2008 on the number of tactical aircraft required to execute U.S. military strategy through 2020.

"We also request that during this briefing, the Department of Defense articulate why Raptor procurement should be limited to 183," said the letter.

The Pentagon had no immediate comment on the letter, signed by Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Robert Bennett, both of Utah; Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson, both of Georgia; James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Thune of South Dakota.

Lockheed builds the F-22 in Georgia and there is a maintenance center in Utah.

Loren Thompson, defense analyst with the Virginia-based Lexington Institute, last week accused the Pentagon of willfully ignoring expert studies which concluded that it needs around 250 of the next-generation fighter jets, substantially more than the 183 the government plans to order.

"HIDE THE STUDIES"

"The Pentagon paid for studies that showed more F-22s were needed, but when it got that answer it decided to hide the studies and not share them with Congress," Thompson told Reuters. "Now Congress wants to know why the program is being cut to 183 planes, less than half the Air Force requirement."

The Air Force says ideally it needs 381 radar-evading F-22s to equip each of 10 air wings with a squadron of 24 fighters, plus some for testing, attrition and training, but cannot afford that many.

The senators said they were worried about Russian work on a radar-evading next-generation fighter jet known as the Sukhoi T-50, citing media reports that it was being developed to directly confront the F-22.

India's participation in the project was "especially disconcerting," they said, given how well Indian Air Force fighters performed during recent joint military exercises with U.S. forces, and "the propensity of the Russian Government to sell advanced weapons to our potential adversaries."

The letter also cited media reports that China reportedly was working on a similar twin-engine stealthy fighter jet.

The Air Force initially planned to buy 750 F-22s when the program first began in the 1980s, but that number has been whittled lower due to rising costs, budget pressures and competition from other weapons programs.

Sources familiar with the studies in question have said they cite a need for at least 40 additional F-22s, including one prepared by Virginia-based consulting group Whitney, Bradley & Brown, and first reported by Reuters in July 2006.

(Reporting by Andrea Shalal-Esa; Editing by Brian Moss and Tim Dobbyn)

Senators seek boost to F-22 fighter fleet | Reuters

Jimmy · 11-10-2007, 22:41 PM

Good. I'm very very curious, myself. On a related note, I saw the F-22 demonstration at the Nellis airshow today.

Good

God.

Adux · 11-10-2007, 22:45 PM

F/A-22 are needed, and as soon as other countries catch up with US on stealth tech, it will have to increase its Raptor squadrons.

I am happy that our IAF boys have some good rep floating around, and PAK-FA is seriously taken by the US community.

Maxor · 11-11-2007, 00:24 AM

I really feel that anyone who actually thought the less than 200 number of front line air superiority fighters was all that would be nessacary to mainitan the US's long term commitments world wide would be enough get their head examained. It was almost as though currently plans were for the F-22 to be along side the f-15 untill about 2028 and have something new cominging down the pipe starting around 2020 anyways to replace the F-22. here would be some fillin in numbers by the JSF. It would work numbers wise if all went well and there weren't any serious conflicts but allways seemed sort of s shoestring plan.

Jimmy · 11-11-2007, 01:57 AM

The problem is that people want to plan for today's war, rather than what we might see in a few years.

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 02:55 AM

ya i think we should add to the 183 f22s we need atleast 10-15 fully operational squadrons and we should be exporting less capable versions to japan/israel/australia/ i know that we are planning on buying 1000+ f35 variants but we need to have a great deal of f22s aswell. With the amount of money we spend on military and the amount of money this country has we need to be putting more money out there army and the navy needs more funding.

The littoral combat ships are being postponed/scrapped alltogether the army needs a 4th generation tank with a autoloader system and countermeasures for rpgs/ and other missles like israels trophy system.

The m1a2 sep abrams is a great tank dont get me wrong but it is not the end all be all of tanks, compared to the xk2 tank. The biggest thing we need to get rid of is the god dam m16s and m4s we need a assault rifle with a bigger/hard hitting round that will put down the enemy with 1 shot not 2-3. The xm8 program was great the g36 is a great weapon any hk weapons are far better than colt products as far as reliabiality.

I think are soldiers deserve better. Whats worse than getting shot at while ur fiddling with ur m16 cause it gots sand that jammed it, sorry just my 2 cents dont get me wrong i think that we are the one and only superpower and are technology is great but we need to think of the threats of today, tommorow and the future plan on that and fork out the $$$.

Edit better for u bluesman =)

Bluesman · 11-11-2007, 03:01 AM

I'm not going to read anything you post if it's going to be in that style. I'm only speaking for myself, but I think you'll find that if you want anybody to actually register your opinion, it should be presented in a readable fashion. My two cents to YOU.

gunnut · 11-11-2007, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy

Good. I'm very very curious, myself. On a related note, I saw the F-22 demonstration at the Nellis airshow today.

Good

God.

Sir, please don't hold back. Tell us what you really think.

I don't know anything about flying a jet so I wouldn't be impressed even if a Raptor came up and bit me on the ass.

gunnut · 11-11-2007, 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

I'm not going to read anything you post if it's going to be in that style. I'm only speaking for myself, but I think you'll find that if you want anybody to actually register your opinion, it should be presented in a readable fashion. My two cents to YOU.

Well, there were enough punctuations. He needs to work some paragraph breaks in there.

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnut

Well, there were enough punctuations. He needs to work some paragraph breaks in there.

sorry am a little "high atm" apparently vikadin and tequila shots dont mix well.... lol

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 03:12 AM

On point we need a far greater heavy lift program we need some massive planes that can carry a few tanks/apcs that would be gooood =()

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 03:28 AM

1000 f22s and f35s would be superb along with the 1000+ f18 variants and f15/16s we have in active and reserve units

Bluesman · 11-11-2007, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rossiman

On point we need a far greater heavy lift program we need some massive planes that can carry a few tanks/apcs that would be gooood =()

You're more correct than you know. AIRLIFT is where airpower really comes into its own. Obviously, complete air dominance is the first step to achieving ANY result by air, so the forces that make that possible are Job #1. But in my opinion, being able to move massive weights to any point on the globe literally overnight is as vital to the American way of making war as being able to strike any given point on the planet with precision. And the state of our airlift forces needs attention. Oh, I admit it's still lightyears ahead of anybody else, BUT, the fact that WE rely so heavily on it means we've got to think 10 years into the future.

I hope we don't neglect this absolutely vital aspect of airpower in favor of a 'weapons-centric' doctrine.

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 03:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bluesman

You're more correct than you know. AIRLIFT is where airpower really comes into its own. Obviously, complete air dominance is the first step to achieving ANY result by air, so the forces that make that possible are Job #1. But in my opinion, being able to move massive weights to any point on the globe literally overnight is as vital to the American way of making war as being able to strike any given point on the planet with precision. And the state of our airlift forces needs attention. Oh, I admit it's still lightyears ahead of anybody else, BUT, the fact that WE rely so heavily on it means we've got to think 10 years into the future.

I hope we don't neglect this absolutely vital aspect of airpower in favor of a 'weapons-centric' doctrine.

i argee with u 110 % sir we need a heavy lift program and we need it fast.

Rossiman · 11-11-2007, 03:53 AM

Lockheed Offers USA a $6B C-130J Deal

I am beginning to beleive that we need to highly consider this offer dont you think?

11-11-2007, 02:55 AM	#6 (permalink)
Rossiman Banished Join Date: 03-29-07 Location: Peoria,Arizona Posts: 132 Country:	ya i think we should add to the 183 f22s we need atleast 10-15 fully operational squadrons and we should be exporting less capable versions to japan/israel/australia/ i know that we are planning on buying 1000+ f35 variants but we need to have a great deal of f22s aswell. With the amount of money we spend on military and the amount of money this country has we need to be putting more money out there army and the navy needs more funding. The littoral combat ships are being postponed/scrapped alltogether the army needs a 4th generation tank with a autoloader system and countermeasures for rpgs/ and other missles like israels trophy system. The m1a2 sep abrams is a great tank dont get me wrong but it is not the end all be all of tanks, compared to the xk2 tank. The biggest thing we need to get rid of is the god dam m16s and m4s we need a assault rifle with a bigger/hard hitting round that will put down the enemy with 1 shot not 2-3. The xm8 program was great the g36 is a great weapon any hk weapons are far better than colt products as far as reliabiality. I think are soldiers deserve better. Whats worse than getting shot at while ur fiddling with ur m16 cause it gots sand that jammed it, sorry just my 2 cents dont get me wrong i think that we are the one and only superpower and are technology is great but we need to think of the threats of today, tommorow and the future plan on that and fork out the $$$. Edit better for u bluesman =) Last edited by Rossiman; 11-11-2007 at 03:26 AM..

11-11-2007, 03:01 AM	#7 (permalink)
Bluesman WAB Bartender *Defense Professional* *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-24-04 Location: Vacaville, CA. Posts: 7,667 Country:	I'm not going to read anything you post if it's going to be in that style. I'm only speaking for myself, but I think you'll find that if you want anybody to actually register your opinion, it should be presented in a readable fashion. My two cents to YOU. __________________ "The quickest way of ending a war is to lose it, and if one finds the prospect of a long war intolerable, it is natural to disbelieve in the possibility of victory." - George Orwell

11-11-2007, 03:28 AM	#12 (permalink)
Rossiman Banished Join Date: 03-29-07 Location: Peoria,Arizona Posts: 132 Country:	1000 f22s and f35s would be superb along with the 1000+ f18 variants and f15/16s we have in active and reserve units Last edited by Rossiman; 11-11-2007 at 03:42 AM..

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Royal Navy ASW, MW,careers, etc	rickusn	Naval Forces	8	12-04-2006 15:12 PM
Annual Naval Review(Quite long)	rickusn	Naval Forces	2	03-19-2006 14:39 PM
Who needs the USN?	rickusn	Naval Forces	10	07-05-2005 00:47 AM
USN 30-Year Fleet Structure Plan	rickusn	Naval Forces	0	03-28-2005 18:45 PM
Russian Navy	rickusn	Naval Forces	13	02-16-2005 23:55 PM

11-10-2007, 22:41 PM	#2 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 1,369 Country:	Good. I'm very very curious, myself. On a related note, I saw the F-22 demonstration at the Nellis airshow today. Good God.

11-10-2007, 22:45 PM	#3 (permalink)
Adux Banished Join Date: 07-29-05 Location: Cochin Posts: 2,931	F/A-22 are needed, and as soon as other countries catch up with US on stealth tech, it will have to increase its Raptor squadrons. I am happy that our IAF boys have some good rep floating around, and PAK-FA is seriously taken by the US community.

11-11-2007, 00:24 AM	#4 (permalink)
Maxor *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-18-05 Location: Suburban Ohio, I commute to redneck land on the weekends. Posts: 709 Country:	I really feel that anyone who actually thought the less than 200 number of front line air superiority fighters was all that would be nessacary to mainitan the US's long term commitments world wide would be enough get their head examained. It was almost as though currently plans were for the F-22 to be along side the f-15 untill about 2028 and have something new cominging down the pipe starting around 2020 anyways to replace the F-22. here would be some fillin in numbers by the JSF. It would work numbers wise if all went well and there weren't any serious conflicts but allways seemed sort of s shoestring plan.

11-11-2007, 01:57 AM	#5 (permalink)
Jimmy *Military Professional* Join Date: 11-16-05 Posts: 1,369 Country:	The problem is that people want to plan for today's war, rather than what we might see in a few years.

11-11-2007, 03:12 AM	#11 (permalink)
Rossiman Banished Join Date: 03-29-07 Location: Peoria,Arizona Posts: 132 Country:	On point we need a far greater heavy lift program we need some massive planes that can carry a few tanks/apcs that would be gooood =()

11-11-2007, 03:53 AM	#15 (permalink)
Rossiman Banished Join Date: 03-29-07 Location: Peoria,Arizona Posts: 132 Country:	Lockheed Offers USA a $6B C-130J Deal I am beginning to beleive that we need to highly consider this offer dont you think?

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)