USAF: "Economic Crisis? What Economic Crisis?"

[Sionnach Glic]

Or, "The USAF Wastes Yet More Money On Buying Advanced Fighter Jets That They Don't Need".

The Air Force's chief of staff was careful to withhold his professional military advice until Defense Secretary Robert Gates gets it, but Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters this morning that he would not "dispute" comments by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs late last year that the service would get an additional 60 F-22s, for a total of 243.

Schwartz then poured cold water on any hopes the Japanese and Australians might have of buying F-22s, saying some of the technologies in the plane are just too sensitive to export. However, he said "it was a possibility" that allies could pay for planes that were modified extensively enough to eliminate the export concerns. Given how expensive that would be, Schwartz has probably put the kibosh on export sales.

The Air Force chief of staff defended the decision to scale back the long sacred Air Force requirement of 381 F-22s, saying the service had performed honest and objective analysis to determine the new number of planes. "I'll be happy to defend the numbers once they become available," he told us, adding that the new fleet size offers "moderate risk" to the nation.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that 60 is the exact number everyone has decided on, but Schwartz didn't try to pour cold water on it either He did say the final decision should be out very close to the congressionally mandated date of March 1.

In addition, Schwartz hinted the service would probably find money in its own budget to pay for more F-22s if that is the decision. However, he didn't directly address the question, saying the service generally pays for what it buys.

Asked about John Young's comments last November that the F-22's mission capable rate was too low and expected enhancements too expensive for the country to afford, Schwartz said "the truth of the matter is" the F-22's rate is 60 percent including stealth issues and is "in the mid- to high-70s without low observable" issues. Looking at the system overall, the F-22's reliability "is respectable," he said.

And Schwartz reiterated a long-standing position of the military, namely that jobs are not a criteria for him and his colleagues to consider when they make decisions about which weapons to buy. However, he made clear that other parts of the government - can you say Congress? - do have this responsibility and he knows they will act accordingly.

On other Air Force issues, Schwartz threw a dart at John Young, undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics, saying that CSAR-X is a joint requirement, "notwithstanding the acquisition executive's views " Young has questioned whether the CSAR-X requirement is valid, saying other assets such as the V-22 could do the same job.

Finally, Schwartz offered a very good line about whether the Air Force should worry about its roles in view of Gates' oft-repeated comments about balance and the right mix of forces, which many have interpreted to mean the Air Force and Navy will have to scrap systems designed during the Cold War. The service's "contribution is what we should focus on, more than the attribution "

[Monroe]

Well I for one am glad that some technology is too sensitive to export. The F22 will be the dominate fighter for the next 30 years by the projection I saw on the history channel. Best to ensure that so US remains supreme in the sky. Least in my centralist nationalism first viewpoint.

[Sionnach Glic]

The US is already supreme in the sky, and will remain so for at least a decade even if they did absolutely nothing. Nothing's going to drasticaly change if you lot actualy funnel this money into saving the economy.

[Monroe]

The US is already supreme in the sky, and will remain so for at least a decade even if they did absolutely nothing. Nothing's going to drasticaly change if you lot actualy funnel this money into saving the economy.

I agree with you that buying new airplanes probably isn't a good way to spend money. But I think we should keep what f22s we have made and have already ordered. We should just stop ordering new ones until this crisis is over.

[Mikey]

Considering the already-ordered F-22's, we could simply hold onto our F-15's and have complete superiority.

Hey, at least when we waste money that we don't have, we do it big time.

[stitch626]

That's all I have to say about this.

Oh and Mikey... .

[Tsukiyumi]

I'm with Monroe. The F22 is well worth it.

If we really want to save billions, we should transform welfare into a job-training system and save the $360 billion a year we spend on that.

[Monroe]

I'm with Monroe. The F22 is well worth it.

If we really want to save billions, we should transform welfare into a job-training system and save the $360 billion a year we spend on that.

I like that idea. Also would create jobs. Job training requires new jobs that in turn need to be trained. I love it

[Graham Kennedy]

The US is already supreme in the sky, and will remain so for at least a decade even if they did absolutely nothing. Nothing's going to drasticaly change if you lot actualy funnel this money into saving the economy.

Yes and no. Take the F22 away and the USAF is pretty much using F15/16s, both designs which are now well over 30 years old. Whilst they have been updated greatly over the years, both are certainly long in the tooth.

And there is no shortage of designs out there to challenge them. The Typhoon walks all over F15s and 16, the Su-30MKI is as good if not better, Rafale is up there, to name a few.

Where the US wins hands down is that no likely enemy has such designs, and certainly not in any great numbers, and not with the kind of force multipliers that the US has - AWACS, superb pilot training, etc. It's true that they could probably do without the F22 and still have enough superiority over their likely enemies that they could win any conceivable war.

But the US really doesn't like to lag behind in any are. They seem philosophically committed to not only being the best, but being the best in every single aspect of every single area of the military. I can see why they want to do that, but is it really affordable?

I'll be curious to see how many F22s they buy. As it is, the UK might end up flying more Typhoons than the US has F22s... which is an intriguing prospect indeed!

[Sionnach Glic]

Hm, wasn't aware the other US planes were so outdated. Conceded, then.

[Mikey]

Sure they are. But with the quantities of even slightly-outdated F-15's and F-16's which the US can field, to say nothing of the newly-updated F/A-18 SuperHornets, there is still really no need for even more F-22's.

[Graham Kennedy]

Sure they are. But with the quantities of even slightly-outdated F-15's and F-16's which the US can field, to say nothing of the newly-updated F/A-18 SuperHornets, there is still really no need for even more F-22's.

True enough, in terms of whether you win or lose any foreseeable war.

But the rub is... fighting a war with F15 and 16s will involve greater casualties than fighting one with F22s. It's hard to turn around to your pilots and tell them that you've decided some of them can die so that you can save money. Not impossible to be sure, just about every other country does it. But the US has built such an expectation of not just victory but overwhelming, easy, casualty free victory. Remember when that one pilot went down in Bosnia and the media went ape over it for like a week? They even made a movie out of it for Pete's sake.

I dunno. Maybe the US just needs to accept the lesson everyone else has, that "good enough" has to do sometimes, even if it means people die.

[Aaron]

Sure they are. But with the quantities of even slightly-outdated F-15's and F-16's which the US can field, to say nothing of the newly-updated F/A-18 SuperHornets, there is still really no need for even more F-22's.

The F-15 fleet is starting to get fatigue cracks in the wings, so there about due for retirement. Now IIRC the F-15 is still in production for a couple nations (SK and another), so they could just order some more. The F/A-18 is a naval fighter and you'll never get the USAF to purchase another naval aircraft after the F-111 debacle and they are overweight for the USAF role anyways. I'd have no problem with the US springing for F-22's if they would allow the sale to some allies; Australia, Canada and various European ones. It'll spread the R&D costs around and let the rest of us catch up a bit.

As it is the US is likely going to do what is always does, purchase just enough to get by and in 20 years it'll repeat the process.

[SteveK]

I'm pretty sure the U.S government is going to allow the export of the F-35, so it isn't like we're hoarding all the good stuff.

[Aaron]

I'm pretty sure the U.S government is going to allow the export of the F-35, so it isn't like we're hoarding all the good stuff.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of a single engine fighter for Canada. The Hornet beat out the F-16 because of its dual engines providing a safety margin, thanks to Canada being retardly huge.