Got word earlier today from Will Collier that the President had, indeed, cancelled the purchase of 20 “extra” F-22A Raptors. Twenty fighters might not sound like a lot, but out of a force of only 187 planes, they could make a real difference.
That difference is even more real when you consider that 187 Raptors are to replace 483 F-15C Eagles — a reduction-in-force of over 60%, coming quick on the heels of a nearly 50% RIF throughout the ’90s. Shortly, those 187 planes will be our only manned air supremacy fighters. They’ll also likely be our last manned jets, and expected to operate for 20 years or longer. Talk about so many owing so much to so few.
But the Raptors aren’t the only program facing cuts:
Mr. Gates announced cuts in missile defense programs, in the Army’s expensive Future Combat Systems and in Navy shipbuilding operations.
But he proposed, as he has before, spending an extra $11 billion to finish enlarging the Army and the Marine Corps and to halt reductions in the Air Force and the Navy. He also announced an extra $2 billion for intelligence and surveillance equipment, including more spending on special forcers units and 50 new Predator and Reaper drones, the unmanned vehicles that are currently used in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iraq for strikes against militants.
More broadly, Mr. Gates signaled that he hopes to impose a new culture on the Pentagon, particularly the way it chooses and buys weapons.
Overall, the new priorities look about right, especially given Washington’s newfound parsimony*. But if the Air Force has too few planes for the future, don’t even think about how small the Navy is. We need to up the money we’re spending on “smart ships,” and quickly, so that fewer sailors can man a bigger navy. We simply don’t have enough ships to put to sea, and that situation is going to get worse before it gets better.
*If my tongue were any further in my cheek, I could lick my earlobe.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
11 Comments
1. Larry J:It sounds like Gates is doing a great job of preparing to fight the last war. Unfortunately, if history is any guide, the next war is unlikely to be like the current one.
As for the last manned fighter, that is supposed to be the F-35 JSF. We’ll see.
Apr 6, 2009 - 3:05 pm 2. Stephen Green:Larry –
I should have been more clear. The Raptor will be (probably) the last manned pure-air superiority fighter. Like the F-16 it’s replacing, the JSF is dual-role, but primarily a strike fighter.
Apr 6, 2009 - 3:08 pm 3. Jim Pritchard:One correction: there will never be a “force of 187 Raptors.” Two have been lost in crashes, four or five more early production jets have been retired from service. The 27 training jets at Tyndall Air Force Base will never see combat, and another dozen or so are committed to flight test for their operational lives. That leaves around 140 F-22’s spread out over only six operational squadrons.
Apr 6, 2009 - 3:11 pm 4. Stephen Green:Jim –
Of course, just as there was never “a force” of 483 Eagle-Cs. But that’s how many were built, and rather than do the math and complicate an already-long post, I kept things simple.
But, yeah, your figures look about right. And distressing.
Now think about the fact that only a maximum 66-80% will ever be ready to fly at any one time (given enough warning!) and you’re left with a surge-able force of 90-115 jets.
Shudder.
Apr 6, 2009 - 3:15 pm 5. rbj:I wonder how much blow back Dear Leader’s going to get from Congress, seeing as how there’s a lot of spending in a lot of Congressional districts.
Apr 6, 2009 - 4:37 pm 6. Neil:Y’know, if they take the money for the extra Raptors and put it into, say, offensive cyber warfare, anti-anti-satellite defenses, social dynamics research, and targeted assassination teams, I’d say it might be a good deal. Y’know, work out the techniques for using a well-placed tap with a hammer, rather than an indiscriminately-applied bulldozer. Cause your opponent to collapse from the inside out, judo-style, while defending the high-tech systems that keep our society running.
China will likely take 10 years to pose a real physical threat to the U.S., largely due to training and logistical limitations. That’s enough time to figure out true next-generation techniques and weapons. Meanwhile, their anti-satellite and cyber warfare units are the most worrying capabilities they have.
Would (or could) the Pentagon actually do such a thing? I have no idea.
Apr 6, 2009 - 4:43 pm 7. Joel_:by cutting the program it means we’ve wasted ALL the R&D we have been putting into this figher the last decade. It’s not just about the marginal cost of the NEXT jet we buy. You know this decision is coming from big O himself… only he would want to cripple our most dangerous weapon.
Apr 6, 2009 - 9:00 pm 8. MG:Folks,
Relax. What I find interesting is that there is a dog that hasn’t barked in this news coverage.
What mention of unmanned vehicles?
UAV’s have picked up a substantial part of the ground attack mission, and the description of the “next generation bomber” will handle that role in a less permissive operation.
USV (submersible or surface) + littoral ships (or larger) wind up being similar in concept to the U-Boats and mother ships of 1940. Only a lot more capable, with a lot fewer people.
UGV already exist, and have been armed. Again, lots less people required for perimeter security.
None of these are large platforms. There aren’t tens of thousands of “good paying jobs” relying upon their production. They are not so readily a basis for members of Congress to build re-election campaigns upon.
BUT… they ARE a reflection of the cultural advantages the US brings to warfare. We can crank out several UAV’s per F-35, and network them.
The DoD has talked for a long time about becoming network-centric, yet the budget has been platform-centric. It may be that Secretary Gates has taken the first steps towards putting a little ass behind that talk.
But what do I know? I am just an Army veteran with an aerospace education. I couldn’t POSSIBLY have any idea whereof I speak.
Apr 6, 2009 - 9:38 pm 9. Stephen Green:MG -
As I thought I’d made clear (but possible — probably? — didn’t), I’m sure the future is in unmanned fighters.
What I didn’t make clear, is that I worry about the transition phase, and if we have enough manned jets to make between now (with a mix of Eagles and Raptors) and the midterm (with a mix of Raptors and robot fighters) and the long term (with, presumably, just robots).
Is a force of 187 jets enough to get us through until the long term? 207? I don’t know. But I do know I’d rather err on the side of buying too many Raptors than too few. I also know that a very tiny percentage of what we’ll waste on mere overhead (!) in the stimulus package would easily make up the difference.
Apr 6, 2009 - 9:45 pm 10. WillDoMathForFood:This is, I fear, another terrible decision driven by politics. Pennywise and pound foolish. All that overhead development money has already been spent, and the unit cost of this superb aircraft will never get any cheaper than it is right this very moment. The composition of our Air Force is predicated upon a zero loss rate. How foolish is that?
Apr 6, 2009 - 11:34 pm 11. Mauther:One thing the article doesn’t address is the huge waste and cost overrun problems that many DoD programs encounter. It wouldn’t kill the Pentagon to force programs to actual stay somewhere near their projected budgets. While the F22 and F35 had overruns, the Navy is the true master at smashing pennies. Look at the Zumwalt, supposedly $18,000,000,000 for 3 light destroyers, that may not be able to handle rough sees and are sub par compared to the DDG51s in many key capabilities. Or its cousin the Littorral Combat Ship, costing more than half a billion dollars for what is essentially a corvette with some add-ons. Hell the Ford class carriers will “only” cost $8 billion a piece. I like the weapon systems, and I know you pay top dollar for quality, but too many contractors have been suckling too long on DoD’s teats.
Apr 9, 2009 - 5:58 pmSorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.