PDA

View Full Version : F-22 backers question Gates' cuts



thedrifter
04-30-09, 06:42 AM
F-22 backers question Gates' cuts
Jen DiMascio
2 hrs 53 mins ago

The handwriting is on the wall, and the Air Force and Lockheed Martin have seen it. The decision earlier this month by Defense Secretary Robert Gates to kill the F-22 Raptor fighter jet was devastating. But do not expect the jet’s supporters to fly gentle into that good night.

Loren Thompson, a military analyst and consultant at the nonpartisan Lexington Institute, wrote recently that Air Force chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz is facing heat from senior generals behind the scenes.

“They accused him of betraying the service’s requirements process by siding with Defense Secretary Robert Gates in terminating key air power programs without rigorous analysis and signaled that Schwartz’s credibility is at risk among his Air Force peers,” Thompson said on the Institute’s website.

Although the Air Force chief and Lockheed are staying out of the public brawling, Gates’ decision to cap new purchases of F-22s at 187 sparked a wave of protest from retired generals, aerospace industry advocates, unions and interested members of Congress, who have rallied to defend the fifth-generation fighter jet — on both economic and national security grounds. And then there are the senior Air Force generals grumbling behind the scenes about being a neglected service.

Gates framed his 2010 weapons proposals as a way to boost the importance of — and funding for — counterinsurgencies in a budget long dominated by investments in conventional warfare. He talked about giving unconventional warfare “a seat at the table.”

For some, the proposed shift was a painful reminder that the Air Force is focusing on new missions and priorities. It’s partly a generational shift — moving from an era of fighter jocks to gamers who fly unmanned aerial vehicles. And it’s a perceived downgrade that doesn’t sit well with some.

Lt. Gen. Mark Shackelford, the top military weapons buyer for the Air Force, is matter-of-fact about the service’s evolution. “I don’t think it’s an uncomfortable change as much as it is a) change and b) trying to make sure we can do everything that the president wants us to do,” Shackelford said.

Publicly, Raptor backers are raising questions about the strategy and asking for the analysis that backs it up; they’re challenging Gates’ assertion that the decision was not driven by budgetary considerations.

“When you look at the decisions that he made, those decisions are, in my opinion, purely budget-oriented choices,” said Georgia Republican Sen. Saxby Chambliss, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Whether that argument will be enough for Congress to make changes to the proposal Gates laid out April 6 — which included cuts to the F-22, the Army’s Future Combat System, the Missile Defense Agency and numerous other big-ticket weapons systems — is an open question.

Gates “has a fair chance of getting the majority of what he wants through,” said Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Pa.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who supports many of the secretary’s recommendations.

Leading Republicans acknowledge that Gates’ package — because of the strategic argument behind it and the clout of its author — is difficult to attack.

“Everyone respects the secretary of defense,” said Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.).

Still, a challenge is coming on the Hill and in-house.

“I’m concerned the secretary’s budget reflects more of a number rather than emerging threats to the United States,” said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas). “The rising threat of China is grossly understated, and their investment in oil and gas around the world is something they will want to protect.”

Cornyn expects to see an amendment to the supplemental war spending bill that already adds money for four final F-22s. Lawmakers may also add money for C-17 cargo jets and F/A-18 naval fighter jets to the supplemental. Gates is scheduled to testify on the war spending bill before Senate appropriators on Thursday.

The chairmen of the appropriations committees have indicated that if Lockheed “doesn’t want to stand up” for the F-22, lawmakers aren’t likely to take up their cause, a defense industry official said Wednesday.

Last week, the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Air Force Association brought together a panel to discuss the proposed death of the F-22 Raptor.

CSIS President John Hamre, the deputy defense secretary under President Bill Clinton, said he’s been through three similar cycles when defense secretaries cut back on weapons investments. He cautioned against the impulse to brand all opponents of cutting as parochial.

“That’s wrong in my view,” Hamre said. “The country needs to have a debate about what threats America does need to prepare for” and about the impact that will have on the defense industrial base.

Hamre argued, for instance, that the United States should prepare for three different kinds of fighting: a scenario such as defending the Taiwan straits, which would require high-end conventional military equipment; low-tech insurgencies such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan; and a midrange threat such as the one posed by Iran.

Although limiting the purchase of F-22s, the Pentagon will increase spending on the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is being developed for the Air Force, the Navy and the Marines.

But while the F-35 may be a good complement to the F-22, said Rebecca Grant, a senior fellow at the Lexington Institute, it’s not a replacement.

Grant noted that the Air Force had previously sought 381 of the F-22s, and just last December, Schwartz and Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, sought 60 more of the fifth-generation jet — a number deemed a moderate risk, Grant said.

The F-22 can fly above 50,000 feet at Mach 1.6 with no afterburn — a speed known as “supercruise” — and its speed and stealth make it capable of evading and taking out surface-to-air missiles, Grant said.

Chambliss said the choices were based more on money than on strategy.

“It’s clear the recommendations that he’s made were without conducting virtually any analysis of risk, what the strategic goals of the military are or should be and how, if implemented, his recommendations will affect our ability to achieve these goals,” he said.

But that argument will face debate.

Sestak, a former Navy admiral, said the Pentagon has war-gamed scenarios involving surface-to-air missiles over and over.

“You don’t get close to needing 180 F-22s,” he said.

Ellie