Of Fighters and Pig Books

Clue-free: I was watching Washington Journal this morning while making the rounds. A Mr. Tom Schatz, president of Citizens Against Government Waste, was on…speaking about CAGW’s annual report on government waste, strangely enough. The report (The Pig Book) is smaller than usual this year, due to the moratorium on ear-marks. But…what caught my ear (remember, I’m reading at the same time and I’m male) was Mr. Schatz saying the F-22 is included in this year’s report. “We don’t need it,” sez Mr. Schatz, “because it was designed to fight the old USSR. The Cold War is over.” I go back to my reading. Then some clown calls in and I hear that “the military doesn’t even want the F-22, it’s only in the budget because of the collusion between Congress and the military-industrial complex.” Our Dear Mr. Schatz nods sagely up and down and lets the clown prattle on without correcting the many errors in fact the idiot was making.

I grabbed the remote and changed over to the WX Channel.

So. I got curious later and went looking for source documentation on this F-22 thingie at CAGW’s web site. Here’s what the Pig Book says about the F-22:

$1,190,000,000 for full funding of 20 F-22A fighter jets; this barrel of pork is so big that Congress will not even spend it all in one year. The bill funds 20 F-22s per year until 2009. The F-22 was originally designed as an air superiority fighter for use against the Soviet Air Force. Before Congress put the ink on the check, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) sent a 13-page letter on June 20, 2006 to then-House Defense Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman C.W. (Bill) Young urging Congress to stop funding this program due to its high cost and the fact that the aircraft is out of date. The GAO said, “DOD has not demonstrated the need or value for making further investments in the F-22A program.” The GAO also noted that the F-22s “are not sufficient to be effective in the current and future national security environment.” There are 22 test F-35 aircrafts that are more modern, effective, and cheaper. In 2003, Popular Science reported the F-22 had a price tag of $120 million each while the F-35 cost $35 million. In June 2006, the GAO report raised the F-22’s numbers, concluding that the multi-year contract would drive per-plane costs up to $183 million from $166 million. The F-35 made its maiden flight in December 2006. Apparently, the F-22 will be stopped only when pigs can fly. (Emphasis mine on the dumb-ass points)

I think the Air Force might disagree with this. Maybe. Here’s Lt. Gen Ray Johns, quoted in this month’s Air Force Magazine:

Buying the new fighters is “critical,” according to Lt. Gen. Raymond E. Johns Jr., deputy chief of staff for strategic plans and programs.

“While extending the service life of legacy aircraft meets some niche requirements,” they will find it increasingly tough to get past modern integrated air defense systems, Johns said.

“It’s critical that we keep production of our fifth generation fighters on track, ensuring sufficient quantities” to preserve the US edge in air combat, he said.

Nevertheless, there just aren’t enough F-22s or F-35s on order to meet all the Air Force’s commitments, which for the fighter force involves the ability to fight up to two nearly simultaneous major theater wars as well as ensuring sovereignty over US airspace.

[…]

The QDR also specified 183 F-22s, versus the Air Force’s long-validated requirement for 381. All agree the smaller figure was driven by monetary constraints and not by strategy.

“We still need and want 381,” Johns said, but he said the lower figure is “not ... a crisis to me” because the decision on whether to go beyond 183 will take place beyond the current planning cycle, in 2010. The Air Force succeeded in winning Congressional approval to buy the F-22 on a multiyear contract basis, getting three lots of 20 each. In Fiscal 2010, when the multiyear expires, the Air Force hopes to get approval to buy at least 20 more. The decision point will come beyond the term of the Bush Administration, which set the 183 limit.

The USAF is “extending the lives of 1980s vintage fighters” (F-15, F-16, A-10) in order to compensate for not getting the fighters we need. Some of the ‘80s fighters’ lives will be extended until 2030, making our fighter aircrews go to war in 50-year-old airframes. Now there’s a confidence-inspiring move.

I’m all for cutting real pork. But organizations such as CAGW don’t do themselves any favors, nor do they gain support, by advocating cuts in military programs when it’s patently obvious they don’t know what the Hell they’re talking about. And especially when they throw around bogus numbers to substantiate their points. Specifically: regarding the cost of the F-22 vs. the F-35:

In 2014, when production reaches about 21 airplanes per month, the F-35A will cost $48 million a copy. The F-35B and F-35C will cost $62 million and $63 million, respectively. By comparison, the Eurofighter Typhoon—probably JSF’s closest foreign competitor—costs more than $95 million and the F-22 is expected to come in at an average of about $120 million by the time production winds up in 2010.

CAGW overstates the F-22 costs and the F-35 costs are understated. But Hey! You substantiate your points however you can. Popular Science is a great authority on fighter procurement, I suppose. God only knows how much better they are than, say, USAF generals who are responsible for fighting the nation’s air wars and ensuring our front-line fighters are world-class.

(About the image: Titled "Hunters" this piece of art was created by Ken Chandler and downloaded from the official USAF web site. You can download the hi-res version of this painting here.)