From Aviation Week

 

Dogfight Over F-22 Reveals DOD Schisms

Nov 18, 2008

By David A. Fulghum

 

The battle over how many F-22 Raptors the U.S. Air Force requires is revealing some nasty infighting as the White House administration change nears.

 

The Defense Secretary staff has told Air Force planners not to talk to congressional staffers and to work only through the offices of Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England and acquisition chief John Young.

 

Insiders on Capitol Hill contend that the Defense Department has been and is continuing to withhold F-22 funds — in defiance of the law and the intent of Congress — in an attempt to punish the Air Force. England is still angry about the service’s success in getting Congress to approve long-lead funding for 20 more aircraft, which would bring the service’s total to 203 stealthy fighters.

 

However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has released funds for only four aircraft, which brought howls from aerospace analysts that it is too few aircraft to avoid a shutdown of production between administrations (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 13).

 

The U.S. Air Force’s new chief of staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz, is soon supposed to tell the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin (D-Mich.), how many F-22s the service needs beyond the 183 that are already in the budget.

 

Schwartz’s budgeters and planners are expected to recommend a force of 250-275, a cut of more than 100 aircraft from the service’s current requirement of 381. The 250 would allow a force of seven squadrons with 24 aircraft each or 10 squadrons with 18 Raptors (Aerospace DAILY, Nov. 12).

 

Young points out that there is no money in the Air Force’s budget plans for fiscal 2010 for F-22s. Neither Congress nor the defense secretary want to keep funding F-22 and C-17 production through supplemental defense budgets.

 

“John is stuck taking direction from England, which I think he agrees with in this case, unlike with the alternative engine for the F-35 [which England attempted to kill],” says a Washington-based official with insight into the affray between the Air Force, Congress and senior Pentagon civilians. “Plus John has people around him who have their own agenda, or are not competent. They had John believing that the numbers being used by Lockheed and the Air Force late last week were from a Rand study on F-22 that has nothing to do with the current circumstances.

 

“I don’t know where all the [defense] money is going to come from,” he says. “But at least with the F-22 we know what we are getting and have some grasp of the cost.”

 

A new study from the Center for Strategic and International Studies — whose CEO, John Hamre, has been mentioned as a possible candidate for President-elect Barack Obama’s defense secretary — contends that war costs, manpower costs, underfunded operations and procurement crises in every service will force the new administration to reshape almost every aspect of current defense plans, programs and budgets.

 

Obama will be faced with contracts worth $70 billion (Armed Reconnaissance Helicopter, Transformational Satellite, the Combat Search and Rescue Helicopter and a new tanker aircraft) that would be added to current procurement and force modernization plans that total more than $183 billion in the fiscal 2009 defense budget, say Anthony Cordesman and Hans Kaeser, authors of “Defense Procurement by Paralysis.”

 

They predict the new president will have to make unpopular (especially with Congress) cuts. “Reshaping an affordable and effective procurement program may well take at least the full term of the next president and involve major program cancellations and further hardship for the defense industry,” the authors write.

From Aviation Week

 

Pentagon Duels Congress To F-22 Standstill

Nov 19, 2008

John M. Doyle and David A. Fulghum

 

U.S. Defense Department leaders may have effectively choked off further F-22 procurement through their narrow interpretation of fiscal 2009 defense lawmaking.

 

Despite some congressional insistence that the Pentagon spend $143 million in advance procurement for 20 F-22s in FY '09, Pentagon acquisition czar John Young on Nov. 19 stood by a DOD announcement last week to allocate only $50 million for long-lead parts for four aircraft.

 

"The law does not require me to buy these airplanes as [a block of] 20," Young told the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee, adding that his aim was to save the taxpayers money by acquiring the aircraft in a group of four now, and 16 in the next war supplemental "to preserve the options of the next administration."

 

He insisted that by only spending $50 million instead of the full $143 million, the DOD was saving taxpayers $93 million if the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama decides not to buy any more Raptors.

 

Lawmakers looking for more Raptors did not take kindly to Young's argument. "The defense bill is not negotiable and you will obey what the defense bill says," insisted Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii) the subcommittee chair. "The question of the 20 aircraft is not an issue ... That is what the Congress said is going to be done."

 

But Young stuck to his guns, insisting the law only directed that not more than $140 million of the $523 million Congress authorized for F-22 advanced procurement could be spent until the next president certifies to Congress that continued production is in the national interest. That certification must be done between Jan. 21 and March 1, 2009, right after Obama takes office.

 

Abercrombie acknowledged the congressional language was crafted in a conference of House and Senate negotiators and could have been more clear in its intent. "Perhaps there should be a lesson to us in this," Abercrombie said at the hearing's end.

 

"It's a time problem," an exasperated congressional staffer admitted after the hearing, noting there wasn't time for the normal process of Government Accountability Office investigation and legal action to force an executive agency to do congressional bidding. "They have us right where they want us," the staffer said.

 

Still, some on Capitol Hill are showing their opposition by leaking a comparison of F-22 and F-35 unit procurement costs that show the most expensive F-35 -- which Pentagon civilian leaders want to accelerate -- will cost a lot more, at least until after 2010, than the most expensive F-22.

 

The price list used by lawmakers -- with numbers supposedly coming from the Air Force and the F-35 Joint Program Office -- shows F-22s in the FY '09 budget costing $143 million each. In 2010, the cost of 20 Raptors, funded in three increments, will cost $153 million, $163 million and $170 million - $178 million.

 

In comparison, 16 F-35A/B/Cs in the 2009 budget will cost $237 million each. In 2010, 12 F-35A will cost $203.1 million each and 18 F-35B/Cs will cost $198.1 million apiece. For unit costs over the total program in then-year dollars, 1,763 F-35As will cost $96.8 million per aircraft, while the 680 F-35B/Cs come in at $122.6 million.

From DefenseNews

 

Lawmakers' F-22 Demands May Go Unheeded

By william matthews

Published: 19 Nov 18:25 EST (23:25 GMT)

 

House Republicans and Democrats joined forces for two and a half hours to pummel the Pentagon's chief weapon buyer for failing to spend $90 million on future F-22 jet fighters.

 

Undersecretary of Defense John Young was warned that the 2009 Defense Authorization Act "is not negotiable. You will obey what the bill says. That holds for the Pentagon and the secretary of defense," scolded Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, during a hearing of the House Armed Services air and land forces subcommittee.

 

"You are acting in defiance of the law and the intent of Congress," lectured Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga. "Is it up to you to decide which laws you will follow and which you will flout?"

 

Is Congress not to be taken seriously, demanded Rep. Silvestre Reyes, D-Texas.

 

Congress' intent was perfectly clear, said Rep. Robin Hayes, R-N.C.: The Defense Department was to spend $140 million on advance procurements of parts for 20 more F0-22s.

 

Young, the Pentagon's chief of acquisition, technology and logistics, tried to explain.

 

He said he ordered just $50 million worth of aircraft parts for four F-22s to avoid wasting money if incoming President Barack Obama and his defense secretary decide to kill the Raptor program.

 

If the new administration decides to keep the program going, it can order $90 million more in parts for 16 more planes without any extra cost to taxpayers, he said.

 

There's a catch: To avoid a cost increase, the new administration must act by Jan. 21, one day after Obama is sworn in as president.

 

If a decision is delayed until March, for example, costs could increase by $200 million to $400 million, according to the Air Force. The extra cost would include the expense of restarting parts production lines that would shut down for lack of steady funding.

 

Gingrey, whose district includes thousands of Lockheed Martin workers who build F-22s, told Young his decision "won't save taxpayers a dime," but could inadvertently kill the F-22 program by driving up its costs.

 

Abercrombie, who is subcommittee chairman, warned that the Defense Department's failure to comply with Congress' instructions to spend $140 million on 20 aircraft "seems a willful rejection of what you've been ordered to do."

 

"Congress rules," he said. "The Pentagon can propose, admonish or put forward recommendations … Nevertheless, in the end, Congress makes the decisions."

 

Out of Time

 

Well, maybe not.

 

After 150 minutes of hectoring Young, Gingrey conceded that he was uncertain how Congress could make the Defense Department comply.

 

"I don't know," he said. "Do you call the Justice Department? I don't know."

 

Congressional aides seemed to know the answer: As a practical matter, Congress can do nothing.

 

In two days, lawmakers would adjourn for the year. And even if they didn't, it would take more time to go through the legal procedures to force the Pentagon to follow the law than there is time left before money has to be spent on the F-22, one aide said.

 

Lockheed Martin, the F-22's manufacturer, is already paying production line expenses for six parts suppliers with the expectation that they will be needed when the Pentagon orders more F-22s, he said.

 

During his inquisition, Young argued that he is complying with the law.

 

At the center of the dispute is Section 134 of the 2009 Defense Authorization Act. It allocates $523 million for advance procurement of F-22 aircraft parts. But it also says that "not more than $140 million may be obligated" until after the next administration decided the fate of the F-22 program.

 

Young argued that the phrase "not more than" does not require him to spent the entire $140 million, it merely says he just can't exceed that amount.

 

Subcommittee members insisted it is clear that they intended for the full $140 million to be spent.

 

Young said his intent is to give the next administration the greatest degree of leeway in deciding whether to keep or kill the F-22 program.

 

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and his deputy, Gordon England, have argued for ending the program, saying the F-22 money is needed more urgently to buy weapons that are more likely to be used in today's wars. Despite two wars, the F-22 has yet to be used in combat.

 

However, the Air Force made it clear it wants more of the high-performance jets. So far, 183 have been ordered, and the Air Force's acquisition chief, David Van Buren, told the subcommittee that the service plans to ask for 20 more in the 2010 budget it will send to Congress next February.

 

Young said the $50 million he wants to spend is enough to begin buying parts for four F-22s that Gates has agreed to buy as replacements for older fighters that have been lost in Iraq and Afghanistan. A request for the rest of the funding for those F-22s is to be included in the next Iraq war emergency spending bill, Young said.

 

If the next administration kills the F-22, Young will have saved $90 million. But if the next administration doesn't make a decision by the day after inauguration, and then opts to keep the program alive, "the probability of additional cost … is reasonably high," Young said.

 

Not Unanimous

 

Although Young's verbal thrashing was thorough, it wasn't unanimous.

 

Rep. Roscoe Bartlett, R-Md., reminded fellow Armed Services Committee members that Congress cannot afford to buy everything the Pentagon wants. Lawmakers must choose between equipment for the type of warfare now being fought now in Iraq and Afghanistan and high-tech weapons for fighting high-tech enemies in the future.

 

Too often, such decisions are made by the party with the best lobbyists, Bartlett said.

 

Rep. Joseph Sestak, D-Pa., a retired admiral, called the F-22 a "Seawolf of the Sky."

 

Like the F-22, the Seawolf was a weapon designed for the Cold War, but entered service after the Cold War ended. A dozen ships were planned, but the enormously costly Seawolf was canceled in 1995 after three ships were built.

 

With the end of the Cold War, the Air Force has searched for missions to make the F-22 relevant, Sestak said. The plane has gone from a dog fighter to a ground attack aircraft to a cruise missile chaser, he said.

 

Gingrey wrapped up the hearing saying he hopes Young "will strongly consider reversing" his decision on F-22 spending and spend the full $140 million Congress intended.

 

Young gave no indication that he will.