By Jen DiMascio
Defense Secretary Robert Gates yesterday explained that the Pentagon has opposed mass production of additional F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets after weighing the near-term risk from near-peer competitors.
Gates told the Senate Armed Services Committee in a hearing he is aware the Air Force is talking with lawmakers about the need to buy 350 F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets, but he worries that expanding Raptor production could come at the expense of the more affordable Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program. The F-22 costs $140 million per copy, versus $77 million for each F-35 JSF, Gates said. Lockheed Martin [LMT] builds both aircraft.
“The reality is we are fighting two wars, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theater. So it is principally for use against a near peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is,” Gates said. “And looking at what I regard as the level of risk of conflict with one of those near peers over the next four or five years until the Joint Strike Fighter comes along, I think that something along the lines of 183 is a reasonable buy.”
Gates faced a number of questions about the Raptor from both Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) and Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.).
Gates said the department will keep the F-22 Raptor line open in FY ’09 with the purchase of 20 planes under the current multiyear agreement as well as an additional four in war requests. The line will remain open until 2010, Gates said, acknowledging that he is concerned about the line closing.
“My objective is to give the next administration an option,” he said. “And what I’ve been told is that this will keep the line open that gives them that opportunity.”
Wide-ranging hearings yesterday about the defense budget before the Senate and House Armed Services Committees focused largely on issues pertaining to Iraq but also touched on several major weapon systems–including a swipe by Gates at the Army’s leading modernization effort, the Future Combat System (FCS).
Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) asked Gates about the Army’s effort to increase its force size, saying the Army needs $260 billion through FY ’11 to make the jump in personnel but only $141 billion is budgeted for the effort.
“That’s a big delta,” Reed said.
Noting continuing pressures on the defense budget along with a $120 billion life-cycle cost for the FCS, Gates said FCS is a program he will have to look at closely.
“Frankly, it is hard for me to see how that program can be completed in its entirety,” Gates said, adding that one of the attractive things about the Army’s approach to the program is fielding pieces of the program right away.
Adm. Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also cited affordability with respect to the president’s decision to accept risk in some near-term missile defense accounts to continue investing in the future.
According to Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), combatant commanders are concerned by that decision that they don’t have the near-term capability, then, to protect against short- and medium-range missiles. The budget request, Nelson said, buys only about half as many Aegis combat systems, Standard missile interceptors and Theater High-Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) systems as the COCOMs have requested.
According to Missile Defense Agency (MDA) budget materials, the Pentagon has deferred delivery of THAAD’s third and fourth fire units by one year.
Meanwhile, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) requested an update on efforts to build a third ballistic missile defense site in Poland and the Czech Republic.
Gates said he is talking with Poland and added that he his hopeful the nations can reach agreement and break ground this fiscal year.
According to MDA, the agency realigned work on the European site in response to last year’s congressional cuts by delaying some construction. The agency also placed funding for the European capability in military construction appropriations accounts, materials said.
In addition to weapons systems, a number of lawmakers asked for an explanation of why the department did not include full and detailed figures for war funding.
In response to a question from SASC Chairman Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), Gates estimated that based on last year’s figures full-year cost of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in fiscal year 2009 would be $170 billion–a number he stressed that he has “no confidence in.”
Gates laid out his rationale for not submitting a detailed request for war cost, saying that he is not trying to hide the true amount. He added that the challenge in crafting a realistic budget is receiving the outcome of the wartime budget request for FY ’08, only a portion of which was approved by Congress. In addition, the lion’s share of the FY ’09 supplemental will be spent by the next administration.
“I will give you a number if you wish, but I will tell you that the number will inevitably be wrong, and perhaps significantly so. So I will be giving you precision without accuracy,” Gates said.