July 9, 2009 -- The Defense Department has completed a new analysis that affirms a requirement for 187 F-22A fighters, the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said today -- a finding he said fits with a developing war-planning strategy that assumes the U.S. military must be prepared to fight one major theater war at a time.
Gen. James Cartwright, during his confirmation hearing for a second two-year term as vice chairman, told the Senate Armed Services Committee the new study dovetails with Defense Secretary Robert Gates' decision -- which the Marine Corps general said he supports -- to cap the production of the fighter at 187 aircraft, a proposal some in Congress want to roll back.
“There is a study in the Joint Staff that we just completed and partnered with the Air Force that said: Proliferating within the U.S. military fifth-generation fighters from all three services is going to be more significant than having them based solely in just one service, because of the way we deploy and because of the diversity of our deployments,” Cartwright said, referring to plans to field the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to the Air Force, Marine Corps and Navy.
Press officials for the Joint Staff and the Air Force could not say, by press time today, exactly what study Cartwright was referring to.
The new Pentagon assessment Cartwright cited comes as both the House and Senate defense authorization committees have defied a marquee recommendation of Defense Secretary Robert Gates' fiscal year 2010 Pentagon spending proposal -- his bid to end production of the F-22A program. The White House has threatened to veto the bill if funding for the fifth-generation fighter is not removed.
Cartwright said another factor that influenced the decision to limit the total F-22A buy was the need to support regular requests from combatant commanders for electronic warfare capabilities and, more specifically, the need to keep Boeing's F/A-18 aircraft assembly line -- which produces an electronic warfare variant of the combat aircraft -- hot, he said.
Beyond the study, Cartwright explained how Pentagon leaders are adjusting their thinking about the need for tactical fighter aircraft in light of a major strategy revision now under way.
“The military requirement right now [for the F-22A] is associated with the strategy that we are laying out in the Quadrennial Defense Review,” Cartwright said. “And it is a departure from the two-major-theater-war construct that we have adhered to in the past and in which this aircraft grew up.”
“The strategy that we are moving towards is one that is acknowledging . . . that the more likely conflicts are going to be similar to the ones we're in in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said. “But [also] that we do need to have a capability against a major peer competitor and that we believe that the sizing construct demands that we have fifth-generation fighters across all services rather than just one. And that the numbers of those fighters probably does not need to be sufficient to take on two nearly simultaneous peer competitors. We don't see that as the likely, we see that as the extreme.”
Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), an ardent supporter of the Raptor which is assembled in his state, said Cartwright's assertion that the requirement for F-22As does not exceed 187 was “not in accord” with statements made by key Air Force leaders.
“You realize that is contrary to the opinion of the Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. [Norton] Schwartz?” Chambliss asked Cartwright.
On May 19, Schwartz told the House Armed Services Committee that 243 F-22As “is the right number” while 187 “the affordable force.”
“I do not realize that,” Cartwright parried. “He has said in several meetings with me and certainly in meetings with the chiefs that [187] has been the number he has espoused.”
Chambliss then asked about Gen. John Corley, the commander of Air Combat Command who is slated to retire this summer. In a June 9 letter to Chambliss, Corley said the Air Force needs between 250 and 381 F-22As.
“He and I have spoken about that,” Cartwright said. “He was speaking in the context of the two-major-theater-war context.” -- Jason Sherman
792009_july9d