• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

Bond Fights to Keep F-15 in Production

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25814-2004Jul29.html

Bond Fights to Keep F-15 in Production
Missouri-Made Fighter-Bomber Is Among Earmarked Projects in $416 Bill Defense Bill

By Dan Morgan
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 30, 2004; Page A17

Over the objections of the Air Force, Sen. Christopher S. Bond (R-Mo.) used closed-door congressional negotiations, which ended last week, to win a guarantee that the Boeing Co. plant in St. Louis will keep producing F-15 fighter-bombers at least through the end of 2008.

The maneuver shed light on the grass-roots politics swirling around the writing of the 2005 defense spending bill, a sprawling $416 billion measure stuffed with hundreds of projects earmarked by lawmakers but not sought by the Pentagon. House and Senate conferees agreed on a final version of the bill last week, and it was then quickly approved by Congress. It is now awaiting President Bush's signature.

For Bond, who is running for a fourth Senate term this year, extending the life of the F-15 assembly line -- set to run out of work in mid-2008 -- has been a top priority all year. Although recent polls show Bond running ahead of his main Democratic challenger, State Treasurer Nancy Farmer, some Democrats believe the race will tighten after their primary. Farmer, a rising Democratic star, was showcased as a speaker at the Democratic National Convention on Tuesday night.

Bond's news releases have cited strong labor union support for his F-15 initiative to ensure that jobs stay in Missouri. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a friend and political ally, backed Bond's proposal to add $120 million for the F-15 program.

But according to congressional aides in both parties, senior Air Force officials are concerned that prolonging F-15 production could weaken support in Congress for Lockheed Martin Corp.'s newer but costlier F-22 fighter, a top Air Force priority that is now in its test phase at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

The F-22 was initially intended as a replacement for the F-15, with a primary mission of defeating enemy planes in aerial combat. However, an updated F-15 version, the Eagle, became a workhorse in conflicts in the Persian Gulf theater, delivering "smart" bombs to targets in Iraq and Afghanistan and gathering intelligence, as well.

That record has led some mid-level Air Force officers, and some lawmakers, to raise the possibility of reducing purchases of the F-22 while continuing to outfit some squadrons with new, upgraded F-15s.

Speaking on the Senate floor last week, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, listed the added $120 million for the F-15 in a $8.9 billion "pork" list of projects included in the defense spending bill even though they were not sought by the military services. On the list were hundreds of projects, including $1 million for the biathlon trail at Ford Richardson, Alaska; and $1.9 million for the Lewis and Clark bicentennial celebration.

Noting that the F-22 was supposed to be a replacement for the F-15, McCain said the decision to extend production forced him "to question the necessity of the F-22 procurement in the numbers of aircraft and at the funding levels requested by the Air Force. Apparently, we just decided to pay for both."

In 1997, Congress, concerned about the long-range cost of the F-22 program, set a ceiling of $36.8 billion for the life of the program. That top number has forced the Air Force to reduce its goals for numbers of planes as the costs of the aircraft have risen to about $150 million each, nearly twice that of the F-15.

Bond initially had the additional F-15 funding placed in the Senate version of the 2005 defense spending bill, but it was not in the House-passed bill. And neither the House or Senate versions of the pending 2005 defense authorization -- which sets policy for the military -- included the funding.

"Senator Bond is highly regarded by me," said Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, which writes the separate authorization bill. But he said that he had had no contact about the issue with Bond, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which produces the defense spending measure.

"There is a world of difference between the 15 and the 22," Warner said. "This country must step forward with the F-22."

The behind-the-scenes battle is indicative of the political stakes -- and the grass-roots impact -- of almost every line in the defense bill.

Boeing's Seattle plant supplies avionics and parts for the F-22, but the plane is mainly built in the Fort Worth, Tex., and Marietta, Ga., plants of the prime contractor, Lockheed Martin. While Bond was on the House-Senate team that negotiated the final defense bill, Georgia was not represented. Texas's sole negotiator, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R), is junior to Bond on the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Yesterday, Boeing spokesman Doug Kennett said the company "appreciates Senator Bond's strong leadership on the F-15 issue."
 

Punk

Sky Pig Wrangler
pilot
great, there's your politicians at work, only trying to get themselves reelected while not giving a damn about what is really needed
 

FlyingDoc

Registered User
"Bond's news releases have cited strong labor union support for his F-15 initiative to ensure that jobs stay in Missouri. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), a friend and political ally, backed Bond's proposal to add $120 million for the F-15 program."

120 million is not even a rounding error in the gov't budget. And how many F-15s can you buy with 120 mil? Not many. I think this might be insignificant. If they are using the plant to upgrade current 15s, I say go for it, cause they probably need it.
 

bch

Helo Bubba
pilot
I think the point was, why continue to feed money into an aged platform, when it's replacement is at hand. Pork Barrell at its finest.
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
It's an interesting problem. The F-15 is reaching the end of its life, but the F-22 is too expensive and the JSF is nowhere near coming online. Do you buy more F-15s or throw money at the F-22? I can see both sides.
 

jarhead

UAL CA; retired hinge
pilot
sounds to me like the article is talking about the F-15E Strike Eagle, not the F-15C, which is what the F-22 is suppose to replace.

im not too sure that the F(/A)-22 can really replace the F-15E ...

s/f
 

Fly Navy

...Great Job!
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
jarhead said:
sounds to me like the article is talking about the F-15E Strike Eagle, not the F-15C, which is what the F-22 is suppose to replace.

im not too sure that the F(/A)-22 can really replace the F-15E ...

s/f

You obviously didn't get the memo... it's now the F/A-22. They're going to make it a fighter/attack. I mean, I think a bleeding edge high-tech stealth fighter can be a low flying ground pounder.... wait.... HAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHHAHA
 

kevin

Registered User
im not saying this to be a smart-ass....somebody explain to me why the air force and not marines has the a-10 (i do realize it's not STOVL, but still).
 

bunk22

Super *********
pilot
Super Moderator
Punk said:
great, there's your politicians at work, only trying to get themselves reelected while not giving a damn about what is really needed

Perhaps this Politician is looking out for the people. The F-15 is not obsolete by any means and by keeping it in production means jobs for the people of his state. There are other platforms that are desparately in need of replacement, more so than the F-15C or E.
 

46Driver

"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
bunk22 said:
Perhaps this Politician is looking out for the people. The F-15 is not obsolete by any means and by keeping it in production means jobs for the people of his state. There are other platforms that are desparately in need of replacement, more so than the F-15C or E.

Concur. The F-15s are fine. They might want to start looking at more transports (the C-5 is old), more tankers (and getter a better deal than the one Boeing was proposing), UAVs, etc - or anything that is relevant against todays enemys - and not one designed to fight the long since gone Soviet Union.
 

Punk

Sky Pig Wrangler
pilot
the F-15's are fine, they need to put them money to good use in other places
 

phrogdriver

More humble than you would understand
pilot
Super Moderator
Would everyone stop pugging the A-10? It's not navalized and it's way too specialized an aircraft for the Marines. It's a great bird, but it is reaching the end of its service life. It just seems as if any CAS thread gets into an A-10 discussion. Of course, now I've guaranteed that the thread goes that way.

Which F-15 is going to be built? More E mods or some enhanced C air superiority version? I ask because they are comparing it to the F22.
 
Anybody hear about the AMRAAM-D? Supposedly it's GPS guided during initial stages of flight, switching on radar only for the terminal stages.

An advantage is supposedly that you can have AWACS literally vector the missile onto the target, with the fighter keeping its radar off the ENTIRE time.

And there's a 2way datalink between it and the fighter.

The AESA radars on the F-15C and SHs are supposedly in a class far above what the opposition has.

The point I'm trying to get at is, if all these new toys are as great as claimed, the F-15C should still theoretically whip the crap out of anybody who tries to come up at us.

On the other hand...F-22 production has started, and the massive development costs are sunk in. What can you do?
 

46Driver

"It's a mother beautiful bridge, and it's gon
F-22 production has started? You mean full scale, initial low rate production, or are they still doing R & D?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top