|
|
 |
|
 |
 |
| THE F-22 DEBATE | |
 July 27, 1999 
|
||
|
|
|
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: For more on the F-22 we turn to California Republican Jerry Lewis, Chairman of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee; Georgia Democrat Max Cleland, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee; General Richard Hawley, whose most recent assignment before he retired this month was as commander of air combat command, which trains and organizes the U.S. Air Force; and Lawrence Korb, Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan administration -- he's now a vice president at the Council on Foreign Relations. General Hawley, tell us more about this plane. What would it add to the Air Force capability? |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Continued air superiority | ||||||||||||||||||||
 GENERAL
RICHARD HAWLEY, U.S. Air Force, ret.: Well, Elizabeth, you know, an earlier
generation of political leaders sent my generation of airmen to Vietnam
with a fleet of multi-role airplanes not unlike those that people talk
about today as substitutes for the F-22 -- Joint Strike Fighters and F-16's
and F-18. We suffered almost 1700 combat losses in Vietnam. We lost 640
airmen who were killed in action and another almost 300 who were imprisoned.
Out of that experience the Air Force learned that we need a dedicated,
high-end, air superiority fighter in order to guarantee air supremacy
over future battlefields. We produced that fighter in the F-15, which
has served us now for more than 25 years, assured air superiority in the
Gulf in 1991, and, of course, we saw what dominant air power can do for
the country in the most recent conflict in Kosovo. And so what the F-22
will do for this nation, with its combination of maneuverable stealth,
the ability to evade detection by enemy radar defenses, the ability to
cruise at more than 1.5 times the speed of sound for prolonged periods
of time, without using afterburner, and some very, very modern avionics,
which will give the pilots of these airplanes unprecedented ability to
understand what's going on around them in the battle space. This airplane
will assure this country's ability to be dominant over future battlefields
all the way through the year 2030, and that's why this is a good buy for
the country.
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Go ahead, sorry. GENERAL RICHARD HAWLEY: Failure to buy it would result in added costs. We'd have to modify, the nation would have to modify -- |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| $1.8 billion production cut | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. I'll come back to that, General. Good. I want to come back to that, but, first, Congressman Lewis, as head of the House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee you led what eventually happened, which is that the $1.8 billion in production money was cut out. Why?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: And just briefly, Congressman Lewis, this is very unusual, isn't it, for Congress to take the money out for a program that's about to reach an assembly line. I mean, I've read it's highly unusual. Why did you do it now? REP. JERRY LEWIS: It's very unusual for us to suggest that the Air Force or a force should look again. We are in the research and development phase. The next step is major procurement. And we're talking about potentially six aircraft that cost $1.8 billion. If you don't step back and take a look before you start that procurement, you'll never be able to. And this program could cost 50 or 70 billion dollars. If there are questions as to which avenue is the best, the F-18, the F-22 or the Joint Strike Fighter, we'd better pause first before that major buy begins. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| A plane to win wars, save lives | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. Senator Cleland, you supported the production money. Why?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Lawrence Korb, what about the argument, that the air dominance is necessary?
GENERAL RICHARD HAWLEY: Well, this aircraft began development in 1991. And the objective was to complete development in about six years at that time. The program was slipped three, maybe four times, depending on how you look at it during those years due to budget cuts and the quantities of airplanes were reduced from over 750 to 339. So over that time, the cost of both development and the average cost of the airplane went up because of those reasons. Now we're at a point where we have already invested almost $20 billion to develop this airplane and people, of course, attribute that cost to the 339 airplanes that are currently planned to be produced. This airplane will actually cost on average for those 339 about $84 million apiece. Now, that's a lot of money, but an F-15 today costs $50 million, and it is only about one third as capable as an F-22. So this airplane is not going to break the bank. In its most expensive year, the first year of high-rate production, it will consume less than 6 percent of the Air Force budget and only 1.7 of the DOD budget. That's very much in line with the amounts that were spent on the F-15 back in the late 70's, early 80's, on the F-16, other major procurements like the F-18 that Congressman Lewis mentioned. So these are well within the norm for fighter airplane procurement. And I think this debate has focused so much on costs that people have lost sight of the need for these high-end capabilities if this country is going to adequately support its men and women in uniform in the next century. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Lewis, your response to that? SEN. MAX CLELAND: I'd like to respond, actually. The Senate last year responded to the rising costs of the F-22 and installed a cost cap of total production cost of $44 billion for 339 aircraft. The F-22 is designed to be an expensive, but low production item aircraft to dominate the air. The Joint Strike Fighter is a completely different animal. But if we don't dominate the air, we won't have the chance to do the other thing we want to do on the battlefield. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
| Finding the right price | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Congressman Lewis. REP. JERRY LEWIS: But, wait a minute, Senator. The fact is that we began talking about this program in 1985, and the projections then were that the R & D would just be about $12 billion. Currently, as of now we've spent almost $23 billion in the research and development side. The escalation of costs continues forward. And indeed we hear from the Air Force today that we can afford this aircraft, but they keep ratcheting down the numbers that we'll be able to buy or that they need. First we're going to buy 750. Then it came down four times in a row. Now we're at 339. The actual cost with the R & D is going to be $184 million an airplane. And when they were first selling it in 1985, the Air Force told us it would cost about $35 million a plane. So, it's clear that there is a need to review the management that's taken place, look at three lines of different aircraft to be our future tactical aircraft and decide which one among those we can afford, or which two. We certainly can't afford all three. And I said earlier, if we produce all three, it's going to cost us $350 billion and push all kinds of other very critical needs for our young men and women in the services just off the board. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: General Hawley, what are the threats you're most concerned about here? Give us a sense of the threat.
LAWRENCE KORB: Well, if you take a look at some of the planes that the general mentioned, the Soviets or the Russians are only going to produce those planes that he mentioned when their economy gets better. Their economy is certainly going in the other way. The interesting thing when you look at the Rafael and the Mirage, people around the world are buying the F-16. I mean, it's rather ironic the head of international sales for Lockheed said the plane most in demand around the world is the F-16. And in fact when the Navy does its war games against the next generation of Soviet fighters, they basically use the F-16. So I think we're already, you know, with the best. And if you take a look at what's happening with surface-to-air missiles around the world, now the Russians, the Soviets were the leaders in those. Now that they are no longer putting any effort to theirs, they're not going to be upgraded to the extent that they were during the Cold War. So I think the Joint Strike Fighter will be more than adequate to deal with any reasonable threat. And if the world should turn dramatically, we are so far ahead in research and development compared to any country in the world. I mean, we spend three times as much on research, development and test and evaluation than all of Europe combined. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. And very, very briefly. We have just a little bit of time left. Senator Cleland, and then to you, Congressman too, very briefly. Are you going to really push for this to - in your case, Senator Cleland -- keep the money in, in the joint committee, that will rationalize the two bills, and what's the consequence if it's out?
ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: Okay. And, Congressman? REP. JERRY LEWIS: We need the best that we can buy for our service men and women, but also we need to give them the kinds of benefits and variety of needs that causes them to stay in those military careers. Without the best pilots staying, we can have the best aircraft in the world and still have problems. As of this moment, we do have the best in the world. It's my intention to see that as we go out of conference, we have not just the best tactical aircraft but also the best Air Force. ELIZABETH FARNSWORTH: All right. Gentlemen, thank you very much for being with us. |
 |
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
REP.
JERRY LEWIS: Well, you know, I was very much impressed by what General
Hawley had to say. I mean, he's come before our committee on a number
of occasions. And during his work with the Air Force before he left
the force he was most concerned about the fact that our wonderful men
and women who fly in the Air Force are spread too thin. We have them
doing too many things in too many places in the world. Indeed, our assets
also, the F-15, the F-16, et cetera, are against the wall. There is
not enough money to go around. Well, the fact is in terms of future
tactical aircraft we have -- we're on three lines as your introduction
mentioned -- the F-18, the F-22, and the Joint Strike Fighter. If we
complete all those programs, it costs some $340 billion. We just can't
afford that. So what we have really done here is not eliminate the F-22
but rather suggesting a pause, that is, first there was $3 billion proposed.
If we leave $1.2 billion in, for research that will go forward with
the F-22, but also add substantially to the work that's needed for the
Joint Strike Fighter. In the meantime, if we took $1.8 billion out and
redistributed among other very, very important Air Force programs that
-- the F-15, the F-16, some transport aircraft -- it is absolutely critical
for us to recognize that our men and women are at stake here. And, indeed,
if we're not willing to support them at the beginning point, the assets
don't mean very much. Within this total package we increase the pay
for those men and women, given bonuses to keep our pilots in the force.
It's an effort to make sure that the Air Force is well balanced and
not focusing on just one major asset, as they had been doing.
SEN.
MAX CLELAND: Well, you know, I think the best way to serve our young
men and women who we commit to harm's way is to give them the best technology
available. Air dominance does two things: First of all, it wins wars.
Secondly, it saves lives. And all you have to do to understand that
is look at the most recent conflict this country has engaged in. It
was air power that brought Milosevic to heel. It was air power that
dominated the air so that we could work our will. And it was air power
that saved lives. They shot down two of our aircraft though. We have
to get better at this air power game. And the F-22 is the air dominant
force for the next 20-25 years. I support it because it saves lives,
and provides us access to work our will around the world and use our
naval and other forces as we might desire.
LAWRENCE
KORB: Well, I think that the air dominance could be achieved at much
less cost. General Hawley was talking about flying over Vietnam. The
Navy also flew over Vietnam. They think the FA-18, E and F, which is
much less expensive than the F-22, and much less sophisticated will
assure air dominance, and I happen to think they're right. This was
a good plane when it was first conceived, but the world changed between
1981 and 1999. I don't think you need that sophisticated an aircraft
to ensure what we all want to is to safeguard the lives of our men and
women. And I think as our Congressman Lewis pointed out the fact of
the matter is that this thing is getting so expensive, you'll have so
few of them, you will not be able to deal with situations around the
world. With the money that they took out this year, they were able to
buy over 20 planes of different categories, which the forces need because
they have been so busy wearing out the current generation of equipment,
and then have money left over to keep the pilots in. And if you don't
have the pilots, it doesn't matter what kind of plane you have. 
ELIZABETH
FARNSWORTH: Okay. General Hawley, what about that and please respond
to the questions that have been raised about the way costs have continued
to go up with this plane. 
GENERAL
RICHARD HAWLEY: Well, you know, we've never been very good at predicting
threats 15 or 20 years out, but there are a number of very good airplanes
being produced by friends and former foes around the world. The French
produce wonderful airplanes. I've flown their Mirage 2000. It's every
bit as good as our F-16 and F-15. And they are now producing a more
advanced airplane called the Rafael. The Russians have two excellent
airplanes that they are producing, the MiG-29, the Su-35. These are
very good airplanes, but even more important are the surface-to-air
missile defenses that our airplanes must face when they go into combat.
And of course, in Yugoslavia most recently, that country opposed us
with a fleet of surface-to-air missiles and airplanes that represents
1960's technology. SA-2's, SA-3's, SA-6's. We've been facing these kinds
of defenses for 30 years. But the defenses of the next century will
be SA-10's and SA-12's, much more modern, sophisticated surface-to-air
missiles, and airplanes like the Rafael and the Su-35, that will make
it very difficult for us to even enter the air space, much less dominate
it the way we have recently in both Iraq and over Yugoslavia. 
SEN.
MAX W. CLELAND: Well, I'm going to continue to fight for the F-22 with
every ounce of strength I possess. We need that fighter. We need the
air dominance that it provides. And Lord knows what kind of missile
attacks we might find against our forces. On the news tonight we just
saw where North Korea is developing an intercontinental ballistic missile.
We are going to go up against some very tough foes in the future. We
need the best that we can provide our country for our servicemen and
women.