When does a word of praise for the F-22 imply a latent critique of the F-35?
Consider the following statements by Senator Saxby Chambliss. It's from a press release on 16 January. Forty-four senators have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to continue F-22 production.
Read a certain way, Chambliss's letter in defense of the F-22 is not logically far removed from the outspoken critiques of the F-35 by the Air Power Australia crowd.
Read the full letter on the jump.
Consider the following statements by Senator Saxby Chambliss. It's from a press release on 16 January. Forty-four senators have signed a letter urging President Barack Obama to continue F-22 production.
Some have suggested filling the remaining F-22 requirement with other aircraft, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter. However, the F-35 is designed for multi-role strike missions and not optimized for the air dominance missions of the F-22.Fair point. The next paragraph is where it gets interesting.
Further, we must not overlook the fact that our potential adversaries are increasing their air combat capabilities both in terms of technology and numbers of aircraft. Several have announced that they are developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, fifth generation fighters that will reach production within the next five to ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and highly lethal air defense systems such as the SA-20, and S-300/400 are proliferating worldwide resulting in the possible requirement to achieve air dominance in multiple theaters simultaneously.Extending the logic, a perhaps unstated assumption is the F-35 can't stand-up to the next generation of air- or ground-based threats, but the F-22 can. Or is it?
Read a certain way, Chambliss's letter in defense of the F-22 is not logically far removed from the outspoken critiques of the F-35 by the Air Power Australia crowd.
Read the full letter on the jump.
January 16, 2009
The Honorable Barack H. Obama
President-Elect of the United States
The President's Transition Team
Washington, DC 20270
Dear President-elect Obama:
The fiscal year 2009 National Defense Authorization Act requires
your certification on continued F-22 production by March 1, 2009. We
urge your certification of continued production of the F-22 Raptor.
The F-22 Raptor is the nation's most capable fighter and the world's only
operational fifth generation fighter aircraft in full-rate
production. The F-22 is a model production line and, since full-rate
production began, the unit flyaway cost has decreased 35 percent.
The F-22 is optimized to achieve the air dominance necessary to
protect our joint fighting forces in any future conflict. However, a
fleet of 183 aircraft, the current program of record, is insufficient
to meet potential threats. After accounting for test, training, and
maintenance aircraft, only about 100 F-22s would be immediately
available for combat at any given time. Even those who don't support
continued production of the F-22 agree that to sustain the currently
planned level of combat-coded aircraft over the life of the program
will require an additional lot of aircraft. In fact, 30+ air campaign
studies completed over the last 15 years have validated a requirement
for far more than 183 F-22 Raptors to replace the original force of 800
F-15 A-D Eagles. Some have suggested filling the remaining F-22
requirement with other aircraft, like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
However, the F-35 is designed for multi-role strike missions and not
optimized for the air dominance missions of the F-22.
Further, we must not overlook the fact that our potential
adversaries are increasing their air combat capabilities both in terms
of technology and numbers of aircraft. Several have announced that
they are developing stealthy, twin-engine, high-altitude, fifth
generation fighters that will reach production within the next five to
ten years. Additionally, sophisticated and highly lethal air defense
systems such as the SA-20, and S-300/400 are proliferating worldwide
resulting in the possible requirement to achieve air dominance in
multiple theaters simultaneously.
The F-22 program annually provides over $12 billion of economic
activity to the national economy, it fulfills a validated Air Force
requirement, and it helps to sustain our strong national defense
industrial base. If this certification is not provided, layoffs will
begin as this critical supplier base shuts down, and it will quickly
become expensive or perhaps impossible to reconstitute in the event the
Department of Defense chooses to procure additional F-22's at a later
date. Furthermore, certifying continued production by March 2009 will
enable production to continue while the Department undertakes a more
in-depth analysis of the F-22 requirement in the 2009 Quadrennial
Defense Review (QDR).
Over 25,000 Americans work for the 1,000+ suppliers in 44 states
that manufacture the F-22. Moreover, it is estimated that another
70,000 additional Americans indirectly owe their jobs to this program.
As we face one of the most trying economic times in recent history it
is critical to preserve existing high paying, specialized jobs that are
critical to our nation's defense.
With these things in mind, we urge you to expeditiously certify
that continued production is in the economic and national interest of
the United States of America.
on January 21, 2009 9:24 AM | Reply
But note that Senator Chamblis comes from Georgia where F-22's are built, not Texas where F-35's are built.
Surely this is just parochial politics, even pork-barrelling?
on January 22, 2009 4:05 AM | Reply
Saxby Chamblis doesn't know an aileron from a ground power cart so his comments on the F-22 are pure politics and a cheer for the home crowd.
on January 22, 2009 11:53 AM | Reply
I strongly suspect Senator Chambliss did not write the document. It was very likely written either by his staff or Lockheed Martin's "government relations" (read: lobbyists) staff, or both. And they would know.
on January 23, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply
I hate to sound like a rube here, but why does it take 25,000 people to build 183 aircraft in over twenty years? Not to mention the other 70,000 indirect jobs created. This would seem to make Ford look efficient, and we saw what the American people thought of them asking for a handout. The defense contractors should stick to the "national interest" argument more than the "economic" interest. It seems a thorough audit of all of these workers' timesheets might be within the "economic interest" more than the continued production of the F-22. The lack of competition in the defense industrial base is the real problem here - you can't have three companies build two types of competing aircraft that eat up one third to one half of the Air Force's procurement budget fairly consistently for about a decade. The F-22 is a great airplane (the best), we just don't have an option to see if there is anything as good, better and at a lesser cost. If the JSF was built by an entirely different defense contractor would it have put more pressure on the F-22 program? How come our enemies can pump out so many "capable" aircraft and double-digit SAMs without a problem? This letter raises more hard questions for the new Administration to ask than it does provide a clear argument for them doing what is asked. Ever since the "Last Supper" the defense industry has eaten DoD's lunch.