Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Posted: 11/20/2008 10:43:32 AM EDT
Pentagon acquisition executive John Young says the U.S. Air Force will spend $8 billion to upgrade 100 F-22 fighters, which he said would be "lesser models" without the modifications.

The money, which will be used to create and install better software and make other unspecified modifications, is included in the 2010 defense spending blueprint that will be handed to the incoming Obama administration, Young told reporters during a Nov. 20 breakfast in Washington.

"The Air Force had planned and accepted to have a two-tiered structure where some of the earlier jets were not fully capable jets, not to the Block 35 configuration, which provides important capabilities. I think something like 100 jets would kind of be lesser models" under that plan, Young said. "One thing that's in the [2010 budget plan] is to bring more of that fleet to common, high-end, capable configuration. The cost of that is $6.3 billion of [research and development]."

He expressed concern about spending so much to upgrade the Air Force's prized fighter because "this is [for] a platform we've already developed."

His comments came one day after he was grilled for more than two hours by lawmakers about the Bush administration's decision to not follow Congress' direction to spend $140 million of advance procurement money on parts for 20 more F-22s, which would help bring the fleet to 203 Raptors.

Young told lawmakers that senior Pentagon officials, who decided to only spend $50 million of the funds made available in the 2009 Pentagon spending measures, were trying to save money in advance of an Obama administration about the program's future.

The Bush administration's Pentagon team has bristled at buying more than 183 of the Lockheed Martin-made fighters; the Air Force has long said it needs 381. The Bush defense team opted earlier this year to take steps to keep Raptor production going long enough to allow the next administration to decide whether more are needed.

Young told the panel on Nov. 19 that if the new administration decides to keep the program going, it can order $90 million more in parts for 16 more planes without any extra cost to taxpayers.

The next morning, he cautioned reporters that before the next administration decides whether to buy more Raptors, the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Air Force brass should seriously discuss issues like the needed upgrades to the 100 models that rolled off the production line first.

"Those discussions need to be had before you talk about buying more jets," he said. "That's really a requirements and capability discussion that Air Force and OSD has to have."

EXPENSIVE TO FLY
But that's not all the next Pentagon leaders will have to debate about the super-secret Raptor, he said. He said operational tests have showed the plane is "proving very expensive to operate."

Those tests have shown what he called a negative trend, meaning the "maintenance man-hours per flying hour has increased through those tests. The last one was a substantial increase."

Young also expressed concerns about the plane's mission-capable rates, saying recent marks in the "62 percent kind of range" are "troubling." He also said data shows the plane "meets some but not all" of its key performance parameters."

"We're not seeing the mission-capable rates that we expected. And it's complex to maintain," Young told reporters. "I would highlight the maintenance on the plane is too high. They are struggling with some of the [low-observable features] and other issues."

A spokeswoman for Raptor-maker Lockheed had not yet returned a call seeking comment at time of this posting.

The bottom line, according to Young: "There is clearly some work that needs to be done there to make that airplane capable and affordable to operate."

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 10:49:35 AM EDT
Can't say I'm surprised. I saw this coming when they first introduced it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 10:50:52 AM EDT
So a space aged, super hi-tech fighter jet cost a lot to run and maintain, and it's so advanced they couldn't have possibly thought of everything it would take to do so.

I think that's what he's saying.

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:25:33 AM EDT
wow, a myopic politician criticizes others for being short sighted
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:31:33 AM EDT
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:34:06 AM EDT
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.


that's a good closing right there. Strong. Good stuff.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 11:34:32 AM EDT
$8B is nothing.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:01:49 PM EDT
Mneh, that's just for the "pilot-is-optional" upgrade.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:03:24 PM EDT
So Bush has been trying to kill the F-22 and pass off the decision onto the next administration?

Can someone explain why?
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:04:11 PM EDT
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:04:15 PM EDT
Good investment IMHO, better than 350b getting pissed away to friends of paulson
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:06:20 PM EDT
$8,000,000,000

100 fighters

$80,000,000 per fighter. For an upgrade !!!!!???!!!

HO-LY FUCK.



Welfare for defense contractors, auditors, DCMA, project offices, etc....... is expensive too.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:12:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.


Perhaps the US learnt how to forget from the UK.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:18:26 PM EDT
$8 billion to install software that is already used on newer planes?!
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:19:18 PM EDT
Maybe we can bail them out or give them a short term loan for the $8 bil.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:22:02 PM EDT
Give them one of the Big 3s bailout money

$25-$50B goes a long way.

Or how about a little AIG bailout cash
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:26:56 PM EDT
I'd rather bailout the F22 than the F-250.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:29:32 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ghengiskhabb:
$8,000,000,000

100 fighters

$80,000,000 per fighter. For an upgrade !!!!!???!!!

HO-LY FUCK.



Welfare for defense contractors, auditors, DCMA, project offices, etc....... is expensive too.


Yeah, that is fucking ridiculous.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 12:30:17 PM EDT
[Obama] ABSOLUTELY NO bailout for the Military...Unless of course it is China's Military!![/Obama]

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 1:56:13 PM EDT
ahh yes, nothing like selecting the lowest bidder to do your contracts with
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 3:08:02 PM EDT
Facts -

The F-22 Raptor is basicly a hand made aircraft in certain respects.

What has been learned by the manufacturers during component manufacture and on the production line during assembly has resulted in assemblies and sub-assemblies being made cheaper and easier to manufactre and assemble.

Add in to that the ongoing development of the aircraft even now as they are being delivered to the USAF as front line fighter aircraft means that the aircraft already produced need to be upgraded to meet the current manufacture/assebly specs.

After the first combat ready F-22's had been delivered to the USAF Lockheed and the USAF upgraded certain components and structures to the assembly line aircraft.

The aircraft already produced needed to have the upgrades done, along with aircraft already on the production line.

Lockheed kept aircraft already manufactured and awaiting delivery plus had some of the delivered aircraft sent back to the factory to have the upgrade kit installed.

As aircraft on the assembly line rolled off the line they too had the upgrade done.


The Raptor had a different problem with the aft boom. Engineers were worried the rear section of the jet, as designed, could not meet the 8,000-hour requirement, so they designed an aluminum reinforcement, called a “doubler.” That fix was added to the production line, but 41 jets were turned out before the production-line change. The repairs to these F-22As will have to be made at either the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, or at Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif., plant. Moore could not estimate the repair bill other than to say labor costs would be higher than parts costs.


Back in the mid 80's the Navy put the F-14 Tomcat through a center barrel replacement program.

The F-14 was "cut in half", the center barrel structure replaced was replaced along with the hydraulic lines.

All fighter aircraft are going to require upgrades and modifications during their lifetime.

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 3:20:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By osprey21:
$8B is nothing.


..........especially in light of recent FedGov financial events.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 4:17:57 PM EDT
Originally Posted By KA3B:
Facts -

The F-22 Raptor is basicly a hand made aircraft in certain respects.

What has been learned by the manufacturers during component manufacture and on the production line during assembly has resulted in assemblies and sub-assemblies being made cheaper and easier to manufactre and assemble.

Add in to that the ongoing development of the aircraft even now as they are being delivered to the USAF as front line fighter aircraft means that the aircraft already produced need to be upgraded to meet the current manufacture/assebly specs.

After the first combat ready F-22's had been delivered to the USAF Lockheed and the USAF upgraded certain components and structures to the assembly line aircraft.

The aircraft already produced needed to have the upgrades done, along with aircraft already on the production line.

Lockheed kept aircraft already manufactured and awaiting delivery plus had some of the delivered aircraft sent back to the factory to have the upgrade kit installed.

As aircraft on the assembly line rolled off the line they too had the upgrade done.


The Raptor had a different problem with the aft boom. Engineers were worried the rear section of the jet, as designed, could not meet the 8,000-hour requirement, so they designed an aluminum reinforcement, called a “doubler.” That fix was added to the production line, but 41 jets were turned out before the production-line change. The repairs to these F-22As will have to be made at either the Ogden Air Logistics Center at Hill Air Force Base, Utah, or at Lockheed’s Palmdale, Calif., plant. Moore could not estimate the repair bill other than to say labor costs would be higher than parts costs.


Back in the mid 80's the Navy put the F-14 Tomcat through a center barrel replacement program.

The F-14 was "cut in half", the center barrel structure replaced was replaced along with the hydraulic lines.

All fighter aircraft are going to require upgrades and modifications during their lifetime.



$80 mill per plane for the upgrades seems kinda steep though.

I love the F-22 and wish we would build a ton more.

Maybe sell the 100 to another country that wants F-22s.

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 4:23:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.


Roll a wheelbarrow full of wishes and good intentions to Lockheed corporate and ask if they'll take that in lieu of cash.

We aint got the scratch. We aren't going to have the scratch. And if Gates stays on as SOD the number is not going to move.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 4:44:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 4:46:01 PM EDT by USMCTanker]
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.


Roll a wheelbarrow full of wishes and good intentions to Lockheed corporate and ask if they'll take that in lieu of cash.

We aint got the scratch. We aren't going to have the scratch. And if Gates stays on as SOD the number is not going to move.


Do you really believe that? We can give away money to aid an African AIDS epidemic, but we can't buy more jets to defend ourselves with? We can give away 700 Billion so banks will lend money, but defense spending is "low priority"-especially as America is faced with nations that see us as *weak*?

Instead of a wheelbarrow full of good intentions, how about a few congressmen and women standing trial for treason, corruption and graf, institute term limits, and find some true patriotic citizens to represent the needs of our Republic, instead of the "professional" politician BUFFOONS that foolishly spend MY GODAMN TAX MONEY to BUY VOTES from their half-wit constituants.

Spending priorities. It all comes down to spending priorities, and right now our priorities are not where they need to be.

I need to drink.

ETA: I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. I wasn't. I just feel strongly that when it comes to DOD, you spend what you need, or die.

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 5:22:24 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 5:22:56 PM EDT by JonasWright]
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.


Roll a wheelbarrow full of wishes and good intentions to Lockheed corporate and ask if they'll take that in lieu of cash.

We aint got the scratch. We aren't going to have the scratch. And if Gates stays on as SOD the number is not going to move.


Do you really believe that? We can give away money to aid an African AIDS epidemic, but we can't buy more jets to defend ourselves with? We can give away 700 Billion so banks will lend money, but defense spending is "low priority"-especially as America is faced with nations that see us as *weak*?

Instead of a wheelbarrow full of good intentions, how about a few congressmen and women standing trial for treason, corruption and graf, institute term limits, and find some true patriotic citizens to represent the needs of our Republic, instead of the "professional" politician BUFFOONS that foolishly spend MY GODAMN TAX MONEY to BUY VOTES from their half-wit constituants.

Spending priorities. It all comes down to spending priorities, and right now our priorities are not where they need to be.

I need to drink.

ETA: I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. I wasn't. I just feel strongly that when it comes to DOD, you spend what you need, or die.



The four biggest expenses right now are Social Security, Defense, Health and Human Services (which includes all sorts of shit) and servicing the debt.

Cutting anything in terms of Social Security or Medicare is just not going to happen.
I totally agree that we're spending money on the wrong shit. But good luck in changing it.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 5:33:24 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ThePatriot556:
I'd rather bailout the F22 than the F-250.


Why is it that the most brilliant statements always require so few words?

Thank you!

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 5:37:01 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Chaingun:
Give them one of the Big 3s bailout money

$25-$50B goes a long way.

Or how about a little AIG bailout cash


What will happen is they will pay the Big 3 the 8 billion to fix the F22 in addition to their $50Billion bailout
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 5:49:20 PM EDT
Isn't this the same guy that canceled ARH? Are they going to fund ANYTHING?
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 5:56:46 PM EDT
Originally Posted By motown_steve:
So Bush has been trying to kill the F-22 and pass off the decision onto the next administration?

Can someone explain why?




to ease our transition into the new world order.

daddy Bush is so proud.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:14:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SnoopisTDI:
Isn't this the same guy that canceled ARH? Are they going to fund ANYTHING?


Apparently FCS is gold-plated....

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:19:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ThePatriot556:
I'd rather bailout the F22 than the F-250.


I see what you did there...
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:37:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/20/2008 7:07:52 PM EDT by DnPRK]
F-22's basic design is 20 years old. The original designers intended it to go through a technology refresh every 7 years based on advancements in computer processor speed and memory. I don't think that refresh has ever occurred.
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:38:50 PM EDT
$80 million in upgrades to a plane that is a year old!?
Link Posted: 11/20/2008 6:42:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ridge_Runner_5:
$80 million in upgrades to a plane that is a year old!?


Don't bother to do any of your own research.

The F-22 has been in service for how long?
When was the first combat capable F-22 delivered?

Link Posted: 11/20/2008 10:11:05 PM EDT
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
Originally Posted By JonasWright:
Originally Posted By USMCTanker:
So it costs money, so what? We can't fly the F16 and F15 until the wings fall off. Something has to replace it, and if we invest in more R&D to find a "cheaper" replacement, it'll end up costing us more later on.

I say build 500 of the godamn things and watch the liberals wet their pants.


Roll a wheelbarrow full of wishes and good intentions to Lockheed corporate and ask if they'll take that in lieu of cash.

We aint got the scratch. We aren't going to have the scratch. And if Gates stays on as SOD the number is not going to move.


Do you really believe that? We can give away money to aid an African AIDS epidemic, but we can't buy more jets to defend ourselves with? We can give away 700 Billion so banks will lend money, but defense spending is "low priority"-especially as America is faced with nations that see us as *weak*?

Instead of a wheelbarrow full of good intentions, how about a few congressmen and women standing trial for treason, corruption and graf, institute term limits, and find some true patriotic citizens to represent the needs of our Republic, instead of the "professional" politician BUFFOONS that foolishly spend MY GODAMN TAX MONEY to BUY VOTES from their half-wit constituants.

Spending priorities. It all comes down to spending priorities, and right now our priorities are not where they need to be.

I need to drink.

ETA: I didn't intend to sound like I was attacking you. I wasn't. I just feel strongly that when it comes to DOD, you spend what you need, or die.



The four biggest expenses right now are Social Security, Defense, Health and Human Services (which includes all sorts of shit) and servicing the debt.

Cutting anything in terms of Social Security or Medicare is just not going to happen.
I totally agree that we're spending money on the wrong shit. But good luck in changing it.


I know, you're right about changing any of it. I have to really restrain myself at this point, because the change needed would be....well, I need to just shut the hell up now.

And for the love of God Almighty, don't even get me started on the mismanagement of Social(ist) Security...

Your little reality check just made me more thirsty

Link Posted: 11/21/2008 2:41:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2008 2:42:21 PM EDT by AeroE]
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 2:52:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.


Obama's fault,












right?
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 2:57:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Det0nate:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.


Obama's fault,

right?



I'm not surprised that you don't know, but it is largely the Democrats fault. The oversight rules were changed in the late 70's/early 80's, and we'll be feeling the effects until they are changed again.
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 3:32:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2008 3:32:47 PM EDT by Nighthawk08]
On 23 April 1991 the USAF ended the design and test flight competition by announcing Lockheed's YF-22 as the winner. It was anticipated at the time that 650 aircraft would be ordered
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 3:51:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 11/21/2008 3:53:13 PM EDT by Det0nate]
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Originally Posted By Det0nate:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.


Obama's fault,

right?



I'm not surprised that you don't know, but it is largely the Democrats fault. The oversight rules were changed in the late 70's/early 80's, and we'll be feeling the effects until they are changed again.

Not surprised the kool-aid clouds the honesty. There have been a few republican administrations since then. The 'r's have also had times when they controlled both houses of congress. It was sarcasm towards both parties, that put their own asses above those of our men in uniform, but as long as you're here, do you prefer grape, or berry?
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 4:01:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Det0nate:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
Originally Posted By Det0nate:
Originally Posted By Tomislav:
The US seems to have forgotten how to run a new procurement program.


Obama's fault,

right?



I'm not surprised that you don't know, but it is largely the Democrats fault. The oversight rules were changed in the late 70's/early 80's, and we'll be feeling the effects until they are changed again.

Not surprised the kool-aid clouds the honesty. There have been a few republican administrations since then. The 'r's have also had times when they controlled both houses of congress. It was sarcasm towards both parties, that put their own asses above those of our men in uniform, but as long as you're here, do you prefer grape, or berry?


You're one of those Ronbots, aren't you?

I'd love to see procurement procedures change, but that's not likely. I'd also love to see the vestiges of the Church Committee go away (another Democrat fucking of our nation that you've probably not heard of), but that also isn't happening.
Link Posted: 11/21/2008 4:01:32 PM EDT
Give me the 80 million from just one of those planes and I promise to spend it on things that are sleek and have curves.
Top Top