Jump to content

Congress debates dangers of exporting Pentagon's prize jet

Rapier01

By Rapier01,
in Real Aviation

 Share Followers 0

Recommended Posts

Rapier01

Rapier01

Posted
Posted
Congress debates dangers of exporting Pentagon's prize jet

By Leslie Wayne The New York Times http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/09/12/business/plane.php

Published: September 12, 2006

NEW YORK The F-22 fighter, now being delivered to air force bases around the United States, is the Maserati of the skies. Intended to take on a military opponent that no longer exists - the Soviet Union - it has a cruising speed of Mach 2, twice the speed of sound; its top speed is a Pentagon secret. And with radar-evading stealth technology, it can attack its enemies almost invisibly.

But the F-22's only real battles these days are taking place in the corridors of power in Washington. F-22 supporters have been taking on the Bush administration and Washington budget-cutters who want to limit production to 183 planes because the cost to taxpayers has risen to $350 million a plane.

The air force and Lockheed Martin, the plane's maker, arguing that the plane provides global aerial dominance, say they need to build more F-22s, potentially hundreds more. That is why they have gone around their ostensible bosses in the Pentagon and White House to push Congress to open the door so more of them can be made.

One measure, passed by the House in July on a voice vote after only 11 minutes of discussion, would end a ban on F-22 sales abroad.

The ban was put in place to prevent sensitive F-22 technology from leaking to other countries. But F-22 backers are hoping to make the program's $65 billion overall cost more palatable by spreading costs over more planes and more countries.

Another measure, passed by the Senate 70 to 28 over the strong objections of the Armed Services Committee, directed the Pentagon to enter into a multiyear contract to extend the F-22's production run beyond its current 2011 termination date and reduce annual congressional oversight. Negotiating committees will take up the two measures this month.

"Congress is firmly in the air force corner on this one," said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington Institute. "My best judgment is, the air force will get all the F-22s it wants. You are talking about an air force dominated by fighter pilots, and past experience shows that if a military service really wants a weapon, it gets it."

Both measures provide a bird's-eye view of what Washington calls "the Iron Triangle" - a politically powerful combination of military contractors and their allies inside the Pentagon and in Congress. The Senate language in the multiyear contract measure, for instance, is identical to a proposal drafted by the lobbyist for Lockheed.

"Please vote 'yes' on the proposed Chambliss Amendment," said an e-mail circulated by Lockheed to Senate members before the measure had even been introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican whose district includes an F-22 assembly plant.

The House effort to lift the ban on foreign sales was offered by Representative Kay Granger, the Texas Republican whose district includes the Lockheed factory that makes the F-22's midsection and employs 2,640 people.

The air force, which has made the F-22 its top priority, has taken possession of 74 F-22s, with six others now in production. Lockheed plans to make 20 to 25 a year.

The F-22 was conceived two decades ago to take on the Soviets. Even though that threat disappeared, the F-22 program dragged on for years as the plane's design was altered to take advantage of the latest technologies. As a result, the price rose.

The F-22 has also suffered from a number of embarrassing glitches. This year, an F-22 pilot got trapped in the jet and had to be rescued from his cockpit with chainsaws. Landing gear failed in another instance, causing the aircraft to fall on its nose. Structural cracks have also been reported.

Originally, the air force wanted 750 F- 22s. But while government officials say cost constraints have limited the program to 183 planes, the air force has said it needs 381 or more.

The plane's "fly away" cost, equivalent to the sticker price on a car, is $130 million. If development costs are included, that cost rises to $350 million a plane.

As recently as July, one of the F-22's biggest critics, the Government Accountability Office, issued a report saying, "The F-22 acquisition history is a case study in increased cost and schedule inefficiencies."

Technical glitches aside, even critics concede that the F-22 is an engineering marvel. And that becomes part of the problem when the United States considers foreign sales.

For decades, the United States has allowed sales of its fighter jets. For instance, thousands of F-16 fighter jets have been sold to dozens of countries including Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and Venezuela.

But as geopolitical alliances shift, some military experts fear that some sales could come back to haunt the United States.

Not only is there the risk that potential rivals could gain access to the Pentagon's most advanced technologies, but allowing countries to build up their arsenals for use in regional conflicts could also hurt American foreign policy interests and destabilize parts of the world.

"I do not know if the House understands the extraordinary implications of selling a state-of-the-art plane overseas," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project for Government Oversight. "The argument for the F-22 was that it was needed because our own aircraft was being flown by potential enemies."

NEW YORK The F-22 fighter, now being delivered to air force bases around the United States, is the Maserati of the skies. Intended to take on a military opponent that no longer exists - the Soviet Union - it has a cruising speed of Mach 2, twice the speed of sound; its top speed is a Pentagon secret. And with radar-evading stealth technology, it can attack its enemies almost invisibly.

But the F-22's only real battles these days are taking place in the corridors of power in Washington. F-22 supporters have been taking on the Bush administration and Washington budget-cutters who want to limit production to 183 planes because the cost to taxpayers has risen to $350 million a plane.

The air force and Lockheed Martin, the plane's maker, arguing that the plane provides global aerial dominance, say they need to build more F-22s, potentially hundreds more. That is why they have gone around their ostensible bosses in the Pentagon and White House to push Congress to open the door so more of them can be made.

One measure, passed by the House in July on a voice vote after only 11 minutes of discussion, would end a ban on F-22 sales abroad.

The ban was put in place to prevent sensitive F-22 technology from leaking to other countries. But F-22 backers are hoping to make the program's $65 billion overall cost more palatable by spreading costs over more planes and more countries.

Another measure, passed by the Senate 70 to 28 over the strong objections of the Armed Services Committee, directed the Pentagon to enter into a multiyear contract to extend the F-22's production run beyond its current 2011 termination date and reduce annual congressional oversight. Negotiating committees will take up the two measures this month.

"Congress is firmly in the air force corner on this one," said Loren Thompson, a military expert at the Lexington Institute. "My best judgment is, the air force will get all the F-22s it wants. You are talking about an air force dominated by fighter pilots, and past experience shows that if a military service really wants a weapon, it gets it."

Both measures provide a bird's-eye view of what Washington calls "the Iron Triangle" - a politically powerful combination of military contractors and their allies inside the Pentagon and in Congress. The Senate language in the multiyear contract measure, for instance, is identical to a proposal drafted by the lobbyist for Lockheed.

"Please vote 'yes' on the proposed Chambliss Amendment," said an e-mail circulated by Lockheed to Senate members before the measure had even been introduced by Senator Saxby Chambliss, the Georgia Republican whose district includes an F-22 assembly plant.

The House effort to lift the ban on foreign sales was offered by Representative Kay Granger, the Texas Republican whose district includes the Lockheed factory that makes the F-22's midsection and employs 2,640 people.

The air force, which has made the F-22 its top priority, has taken possession of 74 F-22s, with six others now in production. Lockheed plans to make 20 to 25 a year.

The F-22 was conceived two decades ago to take on the Soviets. Even though that threat disappeared, the F-22 program dragged on for years as the plane's design was altered to take advantage of the latest technologies. As a result, the price rose.

The F-22 has also suffered from a number of embarrassing glitches. This year, an F-22 pilot got trapped in the jet and had to be rescued from his cockpit with chainsaws. Landing gear failed in another instance, causing the aircraft to fall on its nose. Structural cracks have also been reported.

Originally, the air force wanted 750 F- 22s. But while government officials say cost constraints have limited the program to 183 planes, the air force has said it needs 381 or more.

The plane's "fly away" cost, equivalent to the sticker price on a car, is $130 million. If development costs are included, that cost rises to $350 million a plane.

As recently as July, one of the F-22's biggest critics, the Government Accountability Office, issued a report saying, "The F-22 acquisition history is a case study in increased cost and schedule inefficiencies."

Technical glitches aside, even critics concede that the F-22 is an engineering marvel. And that becomes part of the problem when the United States considers foreign sales.

For decades, the United States has allowed sales of its fighter jets. For instance, thousands of F-16 fighter jets have been sold to dozens of countries including Pakistan, Israel, Turkey and Venezuela.

But as geopolitical alliances shift, some military experts fear that some sales could come back to haunt the United States.

Not only is there the risk that potential rivals could gain access to the Pentagon's most advanced technologies, but allowing countries to build up their arsenals for use in regional conflicts could also hurt American foreign policy interests and destabilize parts of the world.

"I do not know if the House understands the extraordinary implications of selling a state-of-the-art plane overseas," said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project for Government Oversight. "The argument for the F-22 was that it was needed because our own aircraft was being flown by potential enemies."

I sure hope the conference committee shots down this proposed exporting of the F-22. Personally, even selling the F-15 back in the day was a mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Les / Creative Edge Photo

Les / Creative Edge Photo

Posted
Posted
Never underestimate the power of greed. As a friend of mine says "Lockheed is evil".

Lockheed is not evil, but the greed of defence contractors *can* be evil and history often shows us the evil side (just look at how they want to charge money for plastic model companies to make their stuff, can one say PETTY!). The fine balance of defence and greed is just that fine. President Eisenhower was very correct in his 1961 final speech to the public, but we have surpassed his words of wisdom today and as such when one corporatizes war and defence as esp. the USA has been doing over the last few decades well you see how greed becomes evil and military contractors can run with that evil very well. Throw in politicians who want votes in their states etc. well they will push things to get these votes even if such may not be wise. This happens in other countries too but the USA is the biggest at this and thusly most easily seen as of today.

Should F-22 be exported? Maybe to the most trusted and least likely to mess up with allies. For intance and I'm not saying we would, but Canada would be a safe ally to sell F-22's too, though we are not likely going to fork out such money we hardly would be a fear for secrets to escape. There are a few other nations that the US govt. could trust as being rather safe too. But obviously the export sale will never rival those even in numbers of nations who buy as say the F-16 or even F-18 have.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keith Diamond

Keith Diamond

Posted
Posted
Intended to take on a military opponent that no longer exists - the Soviet Union -

Don't really like the way this news report was written. Yeah, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but should we forget about the many users of Soviet/Russian technology?

$350 million a plane

Sure, mention this stat, and then mention the 130 million tag only briefly and much later :banana:

The F-22 was conceived two decades ago to take on the Soviets. Even though that threat disappeared, the F-22 program dragged on for years as the plane's design was altered to take advantage of the latest technologies. As a result, the price rose.

Again, Soviet/Russian technology is largely exportable. Nice how this article mentions the possibility of American technology being exported but neglects to mention the same for Soviet/Russian technology. Also, they neglected to mention that a big reason for the per unit cost rise is the cut backs in the original numbers ordered.

The F-22 has also suffered from a number of embarrassing glitches. This year, an F-22 pilot got trapped in the jet and had to be rescued from his cockpit with chainsaws.

As we saw here when the incident first occured, the news media blew the incident out or proportion. That statement could have been written a billion different ways, and billion different ways to more accurately portray the incident, but the news reporter decided against that.

Sorry, but I have a thing against many news reporters and I think this is another case of an irresponsible news reporter doing a very biased report. News reports skew public perception and I think this article was grossly irresponsible and unprofessional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yuri

Yuri

Posted
Posted

Well, I don't like the F-22 (it has nothing to do with its capabilities, I simply don't like the look), anyway it's an interesting dilemma...

Apart from the fact that I'd like to know who else can afford a plane that costs 350 million dollars a piece (if this is the right price, dunno, as I never managed to get one) then you must also consider maintenance and training costs.

Anyway, you spent a lot of money to develop the ultimate fighter and then you sell it to someone else? This could sometimes be dangerous. On the other hand if you sell a downgraded version (such as the Soviets usually did, keeping in mind that today's friends could be tomorrow enemies, think of what happened with Iranian Tomcats) then you run the risk of having something that doesn't perform so well. Think at what happened in the middle east wars: downgraded soviet planes were an easy prey for well trained Israeli pilots flying almost full standard western planes.

In that case I don't think they'll ever export the F-22 as the JSF program has been carried on exactly for that: give western allies that can't afford the F-22 a cheaper plane of the same generation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cobrahistorian

Cobrahistorian

Posted
Posted

There they go with that $350 million pricetag again. For once I want someone to say the actual cost, up front, not buried in the @$$ end of the article!

THEY ARE $130 million apiece. ($129 million actually, I've seen the delivery forms!)

Link to post
Share on other sites
BadCop

BadCop

Posted
Posted

I can't see why the US would have any problem exporting the plane to other stable and trusted countries like the UK, Canada and maybe (dare I say it) Australia.

I suppose a far bigger reason than risk of having the technology fall into enemy hands would the risk of other nations aerospace companied reverse engineering some of the advanced technologies and taking advantage of the huge amount of R&D dollars poured into this plane.

My 2c anyway

Link to post
Share on other sites
otis252

otis252

Posted
Posted

"Lockheed is evil"! I can only guess what your "friend" thinks about other "evil corperations". I'm sure he would suggest their "greedy profits" are made on the backs of the poor. Sorry, had to say it. Lockheed buttered my families bread for a lot of years.

Chuck

Link to post
Share on other sites
f14peter

f14peter

Posted
Posted
When I saw "New York Times" I pretty much threw accuracy out the window ... Keith nailed it dead on !!! :huh:

Gregg

Indeed, how many errors/misleading statements in only the first paragraph? Hmm, lessee . . .

NEW YORK The F-22 fighter, now being delivered to air force bases around the United States,

Geez, makes it sound like there will be a Raptor appearing at an Air Force base near you.

is the Maserati of the skies.

Nope, I suspect that unlike a Maserati, the Raptor will actually run more days than not.

Intended to take on a military opponent that no longer exists - the Soviet Union -

True, but "Soviet" style weapons and tactics are all over the place . . . you can't even swing a dead cat without hitting a MiG or T-something-or-other tank.

it has a cruising speed of Mach 2, twice the speed of sound; its top speed is a Pentagon secret.

Wow, when they say "Supercruise", they really mean it! It must be "Super-Duper Cruise!"

And with radar-evading stealth technology, it can attack its enemies almost invisibly.

Okay, got this one at least close . . . I suppose one out of five ain't too bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rapier01

Rapier01

Posted
  • Author
Posted
"Lockheed is evil"! I can only guess what your "friend" thinks about other "evil corperations". I'm sure he would suggest their "greedy profits" are made on the backs of the poor. Sorry, had to say it. Lockheed buttered my families bread for a lot of years.

Chuck

Considering the guy is a lifelong Republican and former miltary officer... I'm sure he's fine with other corporations, considering what does for a living these days.

I'll say this- the knee jerk reactionary BS that prevades this country these days is disconcerting. Just because someone breaks with some precieved party line somewhere along the way and all of a sudden they're pounced on.

That's all I'll say about that.

Nope, I suspect that unlike a Maserati, the Raptor will actually run more days than not.

My aunt's Maserati Quattroporte seems to have no issues... I would have used the Bugatti Veyron as my example.

Wow, when they say "Supercruise", they really mean it! It must be "Super-Duper Cruise!"

That's was an interesting assertion which the reporter makes without citing a source... but no one except the people working on the jet knows for sure though...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Aggressor Supporter

Aggressor Supporter

Posted
Posted
I can't see why the US would have any problem exporting the plane to other stable and trusted countries like the UK, Canada and maybe (dare I say it) Australia.

I suppose a far bigger reason than risk of having the technology fall into enemy hands would the risk of other nations aerospace companied reverse engineering some of the advanced technologies and taking advantage of the huge amount of R&D dollars poured into this plane.

My 2c anyway

I think that's a big reason too. I certainly hope it won't happen for the foreseeable future.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rapier01

Rapier01

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The tech transfer issue is what bothers me about exporting the Raptor. All of these countries are going to demand access to technology for their own industrial base. Basically, that allows them to compete with our companies using technology that was funded by our tax payers. So we're basically subsidizing the industrial bases of our allies so they can compete with us.

This is also the fundamental problem I have with the JSF program. Even though the US tax payer is paying for the vast bulk to of the developmental costs, the partners demand they be given access to the keys to the castle. Given the JSF is already geared toward export and is still causing this much trouble, I can only imagine the tech transfer issues on a Raptor export.

I doubt anyone other then the Japanese really have the money to pay for Raptor in any case- problem is they'll for sure demand atleast partial domestic manufacture of the jet and substantial tech transfer.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BadCop

BadCop

Posted
Posted
:D :blink: :rofl::rofl:

Seriously though....won't happen. Even at $106 million a shot as Waco suggested....Canada will never be able to afford even one squadron of F-22s....let alone the infrastructure needed to support a squadron....weapons, spares, training, etc.......We're along for the ride with the JSF program.......so who knows when we will get new fighters.....but if and when we do, it wont be Raptors.

I think Australia is in the same boat. Our defence Minister recently dismissed the idea of us ever buying Raptors, and pretty much confirmed that F-35 is all we're going to get.

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Share
Followers 0
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...