Senators looking to boost more procurement of F-22s.

news.yahoo.com...;_ylt=AiEC7k0CARs_IyMwEx6hEGtsbEwB

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Six senators on Friday urged the Pentagon to increase its fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp F-22 fighter jets, saying they were concerned by development of rival aircraft by Russia, India and China, and the recent grounding of U.S. F-15 fighters.

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.

I support the procurement of more F-22s, at least 500 or perhaps more if Congress were to provide the funds for it.

Do you think 183 aircraft total would actually do that job than what 700 F-15s can do?

I am in favor of increasing the amount of F-22's in the U.S. Air Force as long as it doesn't call for exporting the Raptor. We have to keep our best fighter to ourselves, just as with past aircraft like the Blackbird, B-2, and F-117.

And well those senators might want more airframes.

It is not really a matter of the ultimate capabilities of the F-22 v the F-15. It is very much a matter of numbers of squadrons. The real question is how many squadrons does the USAF require to defend US airspace and meet the requirements of the various current and future conflicts that they are involved in. All this considering airframe life usage, which must last until the F-22's successor (whatever that may be) is in service. The worst case scenario that must by on some planners minds at the moment would conceivably involve a 9/11 style attack involving more hijacked aircraft against more widespread targets - the fighters can only be in one place at any one time.

183 aircraft doing what 700+ aircraft are doing now obviously means that the F-22s now entering service are only going to have a service life (in years) of between a third and a quarter of that of the F-15 (in fact less so, because the early service life of the F-15 saw comparatively little combat action). Therefore the USAF needs more 'something' - either more F-22s, more F-35s (with no further delays) or an acceleration of whatever programs follow - obviously without the possibility of a F-22 / F-15 mix there is a much greater urgency in developing the next generation of fighter.

Not being a stats type of guy, could someone please let us know the answer to a couple of questions.....

1. Does the grounding of the F-15s include the younger F-15E Strike Eagle airframes? (If so, this must be making quite a mess of ME capabilities). In this case, the USAF must urgently seek a replacement of at least equal capability for the F-15 bomb truck - is there one in the offing sooner than F-35.

2. With the grounding of the F-15 fighter fleet, what is the alternative fighter strength of the USAF at the moment? (Presumably F-22s, ANG F-16s and a few F-5s)

3. How much CONUS tasking has had to be assigned to USN / USMC units, thus tying US naval aviation assets to the continental USA, and restricting overseas deployment?

It appears to me that unless the F-15 airframe problems can be quickly solved (for example by re-winging them and even that will take considerable time), then there is going to be a massive shortfall in USAF capability with a flow-on effect to the USN and the ability of America to project tactical airpower worldwide. Without urgent action (at massive expense), this shortfall may prevail for 20 or more years, not to mention the effect it will have on ME operations and hence the ability of the US to influence world events politically.

The Winged Wombat


[edit on 10/11/07 by The Winged Wombat]