by Emory Rowland

  Corporate Warfare

The original Advanced Tactical Fighter bid included three contractors: Lockheed (now Lockheed Martin), General Dynamics, and Boeing. Lockheed was team leader and the work was split roughly three ways. Later, Lockheed bought General Dynamics, giving them 2/3rds of the F-22 program. Besides its stake in the F-22, Boeing is also the principle contractor of both the F-15, F-18E/F Super Hornet and heads a team competing against Lockheed Martin for the large and lucrative JSF program.

Over the last 20 years, Boeing has fought hard to enter the fighter aircraft manufacturing arena where Lockheed has a long and successful history. The two are natural competitors. Publicly, cooperation between the two companies is reported to be good. However, one source close to Lockheed Martin tells me that "once in a while you hear something said negatively about Boeing's effort." Another believes that Boeing may be doing a little corporate foot-dragging on the F-22. Is Boeing filibustering on the F-22, since they stand to benefit from more F-15 orders if the F-22 is cut?

Build it. Don't build it. Build it. Don't...

The concern about soaring spending projections is valid. There's nothing wrong with cutting or canceling a program that is not meeting expectations or is out of control financially. In the late 1980's, Congress proposed terminating the F-22 program, but 10 years and 20 billion dollars later is somewhat late for a fiscal epiphany.

High-tech fighter planes have traditionally cost much more than estimates, yet Lockheed Martin maintains that they can stay under their cap of 72 million dollars, even agreeing to absorb some costs if overruns occur. Furthermore, Tom Burbage, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems, states that the F-22 "requires only half the maintenance personnel and a third of the maintenance of an F-15." These statements make the recent cuts by the House more puzzling during this "budget surplus" era.

Click to continue

I'm Pro-Life On The F-22

Amazingly, the mainstream media has kept silent about the F-22 issue, opting instead to travail over next year's New York Senate race and the Kennedy family updates. Considering the importance of the F-22 program, we've heard very little debate about it. Why aren't more defense-conscious Congressmen forcing this issue to the front lines? Where has the public been?

This Is Not A Game (I Mean, Sim)

It's too early for a eulogy and too late for abortion. Remember that the F-22 program has not been cancelled. The Senate wants it, the House doesn't. The two must work out a compromise in conference. The country is too far past the drawing board and too close to production to give up.

Due to the cut-backs and precipitation in morale that have occurred under the current Administration, I believe that the next ten years will be a crucial and trying time for our military.

The F-22 must be allowed to defend the citizens of the U.S. in the future. Besides saving the lives of American military personnel, the U.S. has a chance to establish a "peace through strength" doctrine with conventional weapons. This is a big opportunity for the U.S. to make a quantum leap in air superiority. If the U.S. wants to remain a superpower, build the F-22. If not, don't. I have one thing to say to Congress: find a way.

Find out more about the F-22 here: F22 Raptor, and F22 Updates.

There is also some very thoughtful discussion of the recent F-22 events appearing in the COMBATSIM.COM™ Real Military Forum.. (When you get there scroll down the page.)

Emory Rowland reviews military sims for Gamepen and Gamezilla. He is an occasional contributor to COMBATSIM.COM™

Join a discussion forum on this article by clicking HERE.