Air Force Asks for More F-22s (Updated)

For years, the Air Force has clung to the F-22 like its the last life vest on the Titanic. In the meantime, its tankers have aged, the F-35 has moved forward, and extended fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced the Air Force to think about new applications of airpower (that likely don't involve the F-22 aircraft). Yet the Air Force has continued to ask for as many F-22s as it can get congressional backers to support. And now, they're set to ask for four more, reports Reuters:

The Pentagon will keep the production line for Lockheed Martin Corp's (LMT.N: Quote, Profile, Research) radar-evading F-22 fighter jet open beyond 2011, but has no plans to enter into another multiyear production agreement as the U.S. Air Force had hoped.

The Pentagon will ask Congress to approve the purchase of four additional F-22s in a supplemental budget request for fiscal year 2009, a senior defense official said on Thursday. That is on top of the 20 that were already in the regular budget request.

"There are no plans to buy any additional aircraft beyond that level at this time," added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

The Pentagon's civilian leadership has not exactly been supportive of the Air Force's F-22 love affair.

Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon England, a long-time critic of extending F-22 production, underscored his skepticism in a letter to lawmakers dated Jan. 14 and obtained by Reuters.

"The current multi-year production program procures sufficient numbers of F-22s to deal with projected needs," England wrote in the letter.

The Pentagon's in-depth review of its tactical aviation needs showed it would be better to invest in the new generation of F-35 aircraft which "provides more effective capability to the joint force commander than concentrating investments in a single service by buying more F-22s," England wrote.

It'll be interesting to see how the F-22 does in the* *first budget of a new administration.

UPDATE: An interested observer writes in to say...

If England really thinks, or believes that we don't need more F-22s... Then does replacing a $50 million F-16 (or $80
million F-15) at current prices with a $200 million (`08 budget number)
F-22 make sense?

But then maybe we need F-22s to protect Texas from the UFO outbreak. :-)

Here's an interesting question to ponder. What's arguably the biggest limitation on most tactical aircraft? Unrefueled range? Yeah, tankers fly around Iraq unmolested but in the war the Air Force wants to fight?

I have never seen any official range on F-22, but a Rand report I found put it at about 600 miles. Turn the super cruise on for a few seconds and I suspect its substantially less.

If you believe the F-35 promises (I don't necessarily, but ...)
F-35A range is supposed to be upards of 900 miles. Carries twice the bomb load plus air-to-air weapons, same radar technology I gather ...
Promised price (yeah, sure) today's dollars around $60 million. Five years from now when it actually is in production say at least $75
million.

But then as a young person I was thrilled to drive a Chevy Malibu with a small V-8 and an automatic that got 22 mpg (and gas was 50
cents). Other kids wanted an SS 396 (about 325 hp) or a Hemi!!