TOPICS

The Defense Department announced Wednesday that it will miss the Sunday deadline Congress set for disclosing whether it will buy more F-22 fighter jets, saying it will take several weeks to decide the fate of the program.

Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said Wednesday that the decision on the F-22 will be announced along with the details of the Defense Department's fiscal 2010 budget, expected in April.

"We will not signal in our communication to Congress that is due on March 1 ... where we are going with the program," Morrell said. "You will know when the fiscal 2010 budget is rolled out where the F-22 program is going, but not until that point."


RELATED STORIES

Congress approved $2.9 billion to buy the last 20 F-22s this fiscal year and added $523 million in advanced procurement money should incoming administration officials opt to buy 20 more of the fighters in fiscal 2010.

But the fiscal 2009 defense authorization bill limits the obligation of the advanced procurement money to $140 million until administration officials determine whether to continue the program or shut down the production line.

The law requires the president to notify Capitol Hill of his decision by March 1.

Morrell did signal that the Pentagon was committed to funding at least four more F-22s, which would replace other aircraft lost in combat. The F-22, the newest and most sophisticated fighter in the Air Force's inventory, has not deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan.

"So those replacement aircraft would put us above the 183 to 187. But those are replacement aircraft," Morrell said. "That doesn't speak to where we are going with this program."

So far, the Defense Department has agreed to obligate only $50 million of the advanced procurement funding as a down payment for the four additional F-22s. Several lawmakers, including House Armed Services Air and Land Subcommittee Chairman Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, have called the $50 million inadequate.

Morrell said there "will be a communication made to the Congress about the status of that $140 million," but emphasized that any decision to put the additional $90 million toward the F-22s should not be read as a commitment to buying more of the fighters. Materials bought with the money could be used for other aircraft, he explained.

A spokesman for Lockheed Martin Corp., which builds the fighters, said in a statement Wednesday that, if a decision is not made by Sunday, the firm needs the additional $90 million to keep production lines humming.

Last week, Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said he planned to ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates for more F-22s, but the request would fall short of the service's long-standing goal of acquiring a fleet of 381 fighters.

While Schwartz would not disclose the number of additional F-22s he plans to recommend, he did not take issue with comments made in December by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Michael Mullen that the Air Force plans to buy about 60 more of the fighters.

A defense source tracking the program said Wednesday that the Pentagon could not make a decision on the F-22 without resolving larger defense budget issues raised by Gates and others, especially the affordability of current weapons procurement and development programs.

"I think they'll go to the [congressional defense] committees and say, 'Hey, give us a break here,'" the defense source said.

During his speech before a joint session of Congress Tuesday, President Obama signaled that one way he will drive down the federal deficit is to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use."

Obama did not detail which programs could get the ax, but some lawmakers, including House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank, D-Mass., have argued that continuing F-22 production is simply too pricey and not strategically necessary.

But the program, which employs 25,000 people in 44 states, has a legion of supporters on Capitol Hill who have argued that, despite the cost, more F-22s are needed to deter and defeat threats.

COMMENTS

  • All of you, I agree and disagree with the comments made here. Since I am a retired 30 plus year employee with the epartment of the Navy and now a re-employed annuitant I'd like to shed some light on the F-22. First it is made of composite material and other know metallic materials. It has certain designed-in LO characterisitcs. It has variable thrust exhaust vanes. It uses the most sophisticated a nd state of the art radar and avionics package. Not so long ago the F-14 "Air-Superiority" fighter attack aircraft was conceived. It employed use of titanium, gobs of it. It employed boron epoxy laminate construction horizontal stabilizers. It had square inlet ducts with inlet ramps and twin vertical stabilizers. It had a weapons system that could detect multiple targets and pick out the 6 most threatening bogies. And yet the same arguments about it's cost kept coming up. The first flight flight was 1970 and they were just recently retired. Did we ever use the Phoenix missiles to shoot down those bad Russian Bear bombers. NO. But it still was a deterent. So should the F-22. However, had the F-22 been built as a Tri-Service {i.e. USAF, USN, US Marine Corps) aircraft such as the F-4 Phantom was perhaps the cost would not be as extreme as it is now. On the other hand, Lockheed Martin has to be held profoundly accountable for their defunked "Grass Roots" cost estimating system and the USAF has to stop shoveling gobs of tax payer dollars just because they have plenty of funds they don't know what to do with.
  • The F-22 is neither "outdated" nor is it having "maintenence problems". The fact is that it is a top of the line Air Superiority fighter that was set out to replace our aging fleet of F-15/F-16s. Those are "outdated" and having "maintenence problems". The reason they are not in active service is a question to ask Secretary Gates. He has refused to fulfill his part in replacing the aging fighters even though the Air Force and Congress have wanted it done. To those that claim there is no longer a need for this Air Superiority fighter, I would remind them that every other aircraft we have in service (eg. AWACS, etc.) need fighter support in times of crisis. Better to have it at the ready, than need it and not have it. There is a mission, but Gates won't allow it.
  • Whatever the result I can only hope it is what is best for the ultimate customer - the American people and the defense of their nation.