Congress to Air Force: Build more F-22s! Also Faster Carriers.

[Skroe]

Big news today. Congress is going to order the Air Force to give an official report on resuming production of the F-22. How many more? At least 194 more.

To be clear resuming production is far from certain, but this is the biggest move on this issue in the past two years of talking about it.
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...tudy/83248788/

WASHINGTON — Almost five years after Lockheed Martin shut down production of its F-22 stealth fighter jet, House legislation released Tuesday would direct the Air Force to look into restarting the assembly line.

At the direction of then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates, Lockheed terminated F-22 production at its Marietta, Georgia, and Fort Worth, Texas, facilities after producing just 187 aircraft — far short of the original requirement for 749 jets. But in light of the growing perception that the US military is losing its technological edge to adversaries like Russia and China, Congress has expressed keen interest throughout this year’s budget season in restarting the line. The F-22 has also drawn attention recently from several high-profile deployments to Europe and the Middle East.

However, Air Force officials have consistently dubbed reviving the Raptor line as a nonstarter, citing the enormous cost of the project. A 2010 RAND study commissioned by the Air Force placed the cost to buy just 75 more F-22s at $17 billion in 2008 dollars.

The House Armed Services Tactical Air and Land Forces subcommittee's markup for its section of the 2017 defense policy bill directs the Air Force secretary to conduct a study of the costs associated with procuring at least another 194 F-22s. The legislation would require a report on the study to the congressional defense committees no later than Jan. 1, 2017.

“In light of growing threats to U.S. air superiority as a result of adversaries closing the technology gap and increasing demand from allies and partners for high performance, multi-role aircraft to meet evolving and worsening global security threats, the committee believes that such proposals are worthy of further exploration,” according to the bill.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-us...-idUSKCN0XH2H7

A U.S. congressional committee is planning to ask the Air Force to assess the cost and feasibility of restarting production of Lockheed Martin Corp's F-22 fighter jet in the face of greater security threats around the world.

The radar-evading jets formally entered service in December 2005, but then-Defense Secretary Robert Gates canceled the program in 2009 amid efforts to control Pentagon spending and orient the department toward the wars it was then fighting.

Only 187 of the stealthy, high-tech jet fighters were produced, about a quarter of the 749 originally planned. The last was delivered to the Air Force in 2012.

In its portion of the National Defense Authorization Act, the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Tactical Air and Land Forces has included a provision directing the Air Force secretary to carry out a comprehensive study of the cost of resuming production of the F-22.

Congressman Mike Turner, chairman of the subcommittee, said restarting production should be considered because of threats to U.S. air superiority.

"As a result of our adversaries closing the technology gap, and increasing demand from allies and partners for high-performance, multi-role aircraft to meet evolving and worsening global security threats, the committee believes that the prospect of restarting the F-22 production line is worthy of further exploration,” Turner said in a statement on Wednesday.

The committee is asking for the report by Jan. 1, 2017. Consideration of the NDAA, the annual defense policy bill, is still in its early stages. The defense bill must be approved by the House Armed Services Committee, the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate before going to the president for his signature.

Gates' decision to halt the F-22 fighter jet sparked criticism from some lawmakers, but was ultimately upheld by Congress. Lawmakers argued that Air Force studies have shown the military needs more of the high-end fighters to be ready for conflicts with other major powers.

The last four F-22 aircraft produced cost about $150 million each.

In August, the United States said it would deploy F-22 fighter jets to Europe as a part of a broader effort to support eastern European members of the NATO alliance that have been unnerved by Russia's intervention in Ukraine.

The Air Force has also been using the aircraft to carry out attacks against Islamic State.

(Reporting by Idrees Ali and David Alexander; Editing by Frances Kerry)

More From Reuters

But wait there's more!
http://www.defensenews.com/story/def...bers/83272706/

WASHINGTON — As advocates call on the Pentagon to buy as many as 200 next-generation bombers to counter growing threats, House legislation released this week urged the Air Force to take another look at how many B-21s commanders really need.

Both top military officials and experts outside the Pentagon have recommended the Air Force buy more than the 100 planned Northrop Grumman B-21 bombers to ensure enough aircraft are available to meet combatant commander requirements, according to the House Armed Services Seapower and Projection Forces Subcommittee’s markup of the 2017 defense policy bill, released Tuesday.

The sweet spot is between 174 and 205 B-21s, independent experts told the committee, according to the legislation. Meanwhile, Air Force Global Strike Commander Gen. Robin Rand said the 100-bomber number should be treated as the lower limit of the requirement, lawmakers noted.

The legislation would direct the secretary of the Air Force to submit a report to the congressional defense committees by Feb. 1, 2017, estimating the number of B-21s needed to meet the demand signal. The report should also include a detailed transition plan that integrates the B-21 into the current bomber fleet out to 2040, according to the language.

Lawmakers also expressed concern that Congress does not have sufficient ability to track cost and schedule of the highly classified development effort. The legislation would direct the secretary to submit an initial “B-21 Development Progress Matrix” to the congressional defense committees, including milestones and metrics for measuring the program’s progress.

“The committee is pleased to see progress on this program and believes that this program has stable requirements in place,” according to the legislation. “However, the committee is concerned that, given the length of time associated with the [engineering, manufacturing and development] phase and the amount of resources planned for this phase, the congressional defense committees need an improved ability to track annual progress and cost throughout the development.”

The legislation comes on the heels of a recent Congressional Research Service report urging Congress to take a look at whether it has enough oversight of the bomber program. The Pentagon is procuring the B-21 via the Air Force’s secretive Rapid Capabilities Office, a small group inside Air Force acquisitions that handles classified programs such as the X-37B spacecraft. The RCO is exempt from many of the rules and regulations Congress usually imposes on a normal acquisition program.

The same bill will also add nearly $2.3 billion to the annual ship building budget and shift Carrier Production from 5 years back to 4 years starting with CVN-81 (the fourth Ford class) in 2023, increases sub production, and freezes the Army at 480,000 troops. It would be the fastest ship building rate since the 1980s. Further evidence Obama's Reign of Error on Defense spending is quickly ending.

[Cybran]

They admit that F-35 is a flying pile of dog shit. Why are you trying to spin that as a positive thing?

[Skroe]

The F-22 and F-35 fulfill very different roles and are very different aircraft.

It's a positive thing because it grows the air superiority fleet and is the best defense bill this country has had in a decade.

[Nihilist74]

Doesn't America already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world has combined? Maybe martians are invading and that's why they need more f-22s.

[Independent voter]

A lot of defense spending these days is just to fund the defense contractors, if we don't give them money to make things they'll go out of business and won't be around when we need them.

[Aori]

A lot of defense spending these days is just to fund the defense contractors, if we don't give them money to make things they'll go out of business and won't be around when we need them.

Make spaceships then!

[Mormolyce]

I guess they're looking forward to another decade or two of exploding brown people without getting their boots dirty. Worked so well so far.

[Jtbrig7390]

Yes lets build more useless shit....

[Cybran]

The F-22 and F-35 fulfill very different roles and are very different aircraft.

F-22 is defunct and F-35 is useless. Completely different roles.

Yes lets build more useless shit....

“Government is the Entertainment division of the military-industrial complex.”

― Frank Zappa

[Skroe]

Doesn't America already have more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world has combined? Maybe martians are invading and that's why they need more f-22s.

The ones built in the 1970s (the first few Nimitzs) all retire over the next 14 years. The Nimitz itself is gone in 2024-2026.

When Carter was elected, the Nimitz program was paused while the country investigated building smaller carriers for a couple of years.

Reagan restarted Nimitz-class production his second month in office, that continue through 2006 with a total of 10 ships, so there is a small "age gap".

Point is, the first rounds Nimitiz will hit 50 years in the coming decade and have to be retired and replaced 1:1.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

It never ceases to amaze me that's there's always money for jets and aircraft carriers...but none for bridges

[Dr Assbandit]

I wonder whether there will be any outrage over this and the usual suspects from the "the governments is spending frivolously and handing out money to the destitute like Oprah!!!" will speak up.

Let's cut all social programs and heaven forbid you invest in infrastructure but boy oh boy do we sure need all those aircrafts for the war that's going on, oh wait.

[Sliske]

"Think of how many more brown people we can kill with these babys!"

- - - Updated - - -

It never ceases to amaze me that's there's always money for jets and aircraft carriers...but none for bridges

or fixing roads

or anything else except michael bays wet dream

I like how America's main enemies for the past like 20,30 years don't even have rudimentary helicopters for scouting purposes, yet the Americans have those, then they have the ones with a ton of guns, then they have the ones with a ton of guns and rockets, then they have the ones that can deliver tanks, and then we had in planes...

Its like Conor McGregor going out to buy some knuckle dusters for his big fight against an anorexic with only one arm. America's police alone out gears ISIS.

[Skulltaker]

It never ceases to amaze me that's there's always money for jets and aircraft carriers...but none for bridges

If Trump gets elected at least they will have money for walls...

And America again doesn't fail to live up to it's clishee, that politicians will do anything to keep their pockets lined. I mean make sure the arms industry employees get to keep their jobs. God bless them.

[Skroe]

Make spaceships then!

They do that already.

Largest Defense Contractors: Lockeed, Boeing, Northrop, BAE, Airbus

Largest Space Contractors: ULA (a Lockheed+Boeing consortium), Nothrop, BAE, Airbus. Also LM and Boeing work independently of ULA.

[Demoncrash]

It never ceases to amaze me that's there's always money for jets and aircraft carriers...but none for bridges

... and walls.

[Trickname]

I'm not American so I don't really understand. Do the majority of US citizens usually agree with this sort of military spending when it could otherwise go into providing free health care or education or something?

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

I'm not American so I don't really understand. Do the majority of US citizens usually agree with this sort of military spending when it could otherwise go into providing free health care or education or something?

Putting government money into Healthcare and Education...but that would be dirty, evil, and filthy Socialism.

[Sliske]

I'm not American so I don't really understand. Do the majority of US citizens usually agree with this sort of military spending when it could otherwise go into providing free health care or education or something?

Questioning military spending is 1:1 converted to "So you hate our soldiers then?" so its hard to even penetrate the thick skulls of most people.

[Skroe]

It never ceases to amaze me that's there's always money for jets and aircraft carriers...but none for bridges

Infrastructure is paid for mostly by local and state tax dollars, which spend nothing on defense.

Federal Infrastructure spending is the "cherry on top", but still amounts to tens of billions per year.

Don't believe me? Check here: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/numbers

Transportation: $92 Billion in Fed money, $110.5 Billion in State Money, $156.6B in Local Money, total is $297.2 Billion


You want your roads and bridges fixed? Go to your State House and yell at your State Representatives / Governor.