"The committee believes that ... continued F-22 production
is not justified at this time. The committee thus recommends
an F-22 'production pause.' ... The committee specifically denies
the $1.8 billion F-22 production funding requested for Fiscal
Year 2000."
-House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, final report
on Fiscal 2000 Defense Appropriations, released July 12.
"The committee remembers vividly how just two years ago
the thenChief of Staff of the Air Force explained ... how
his service had consciously decided to give up force structure
and manning levels in order to free up additional resources for
modernization. Now, that gamble and others taken by this service
have come home to roost, leading to what the committee believes
is an Air Force personnel and readiness crisis, even while the
Air Force still confronts a modernization crisis of considerable
size and scope."
-House Appropriations Defense Subcommittee report, released
July 12.
"The F-22 ... made sense when we faced enemies who had
the expertise to develop advanced aircraft and the ability to
produce large numbers of them. But the events of the past eight
years-most especially the engagements we have fought in the Persian
Gulf and Kosovo-have made it clear that we must also address
other needs that have become more pressing. The most urgent crisis
facing the Air Force is finding a way to recruit and train the
pilots and support crews who will fly and maintain the technologically
advanced aircraft we already have in the air."
-Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif.), subcommittee chairman, July
12.
"Yesterday's subcommittee vote is totally unacceptable.
... To dominate the wars of the future, we will have to dominate
the air. We cannot do that without the F-22."
-Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.), Senate Armed Services Committee
(SASC), statement, July 13.
"I have not said it's the end of the program, but there's
no doubt that it will be the first step of a serious discussion
about whether the F-22 is the answer to our air superiority problems
or whether we shouldn't be looking in the final analysis to other
alternatives."
-Lewis, Legis-Slate News Service (LNS), July 15.
"This decision, if enacted, would for all practical purposes
kill the F-22 program, the cornerstone of our nation's global
airpower in the 21st century."
-Defense Secretary William S. Cohen, letter to Congressional
committees, July 16.
"That program was eating a huge hole in the ability of
the Air Force to do anything else to deal with the real world.
[USAF] will be afraid to fly it and afraid to lose it."
-Rep. David R. Obey (D-Wis.), LNS, July 15.
"The Air Force has such tremendous needs in so many other
areas-air tankers, airlift transports, aerial reconnaissance-that
we believe it is imperative for them to reassess their priorities."
-Lewis, press release, July 16.
"We need to concentrate on those things that work."
-Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), supporting
continued funding of today's F-15s and F-16s rather than investing
in the F-22, New York Times (NYT), July 17.
"The Air Force's money and everything in the Air Force's
mind is focused on the F-22. ... We need to fix it [the Air Force].
... Now, can we fix it if we put all our money into one basket?
No, we can't."
-Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (RFla.), chairman
of full House Appropriations Committee, NYT, July 17.
"It's really a remarkable occurrence, one of the rarest
imaginable. I'm absolutely amazed."
-Former Sen. Dale Bumpers (D-Ark.), a longtime F-22 critic,
NYT, July 17.
"We can no longer guarantee that we'll be able to dominate
the sky [without the F-22]."
-Maj. Gen. Bruce Carlson, director of Air Force operational
requirements, NYT, July 17.
"I can assure that, if the F-22 is canceled, that technology,
which is being developed [and] which would ... be incorporated
in the Joint Strike Fighter, will send the costs of the Joint
Strike Fighter much higher. ... And so the concept of having
a highlow mix, so to speak, of having a very high-performance
F-22 and a lower-performing but capable Joint Strike Fighter
with a lower cost-that will be eliminated."
-Cohen, SASC testimony, July 20.
"Neither I, nor anyone in this building, or anyone in
the service ... was aware of the effort under way on the part
of the committee. The purpose was quite obvious, I think, and
that is to avoid any public discussion, public debate, and any
ability of the Air Force or contractor to respond to questions
raised about the system."
-Cohen, DoD news briefing, July 20.
"There are many systems being produced today that can
challenge the capabilities of the F-15. ... So if we want to
give our pilots ... air dominance in the years 2005 to 2015,
it seems to me that we ought to continue with the F-22."
-Cohen, news briefing, July 20.
"As a career naval aviator who appreciates and knows
firsthand the value of air superiority, this decision did not
come easy for me. Nonetheless, I fully support the committee's
decision, knowing that there are other priorities that are being
squeezed out and because of the F-22's troubled past."
-Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-Calif.), letter
to House colleagues, July 21.
"I consider this plane absolutely essential for America's
inventory of fighter aircraft."
-Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), SASC chairman, remarks at a
hearing, July 21.
"There has been much discussion in the House about whether
the Joint Strike Fighter could perform the same role [as that
of the F-22], and the answer is, it really cannot."
-Then-acting Secretary of the Air Force F. Whitten Peters,
SASC hearing, July 21.
"If we were to take F-22 out of the inventory, we would
be looking at a massive change of direction ... on Joint Strike
Fighter."
-Peters, SASC hearing, July 21.
"The Air Force has a deliberate planning process where
we go out for ... a period of over 18 years, and we look at aircraft
out of that period of time ... to see if they will fit within
reasonable budget assumptions. And F-22 does, in fact, fit within
those assumptions. By comparison, at its highest point F-22 will
take no more of the Air Force budget than F-15 did in its day
when it was being built up."
-Peters, SASC hearing, July 21.
"If we go forward, the additional cost per airplane,
on average, is about $85 million in '99 dollars. ... That price
is less than the cost of the modern Eurofighter, Gripen, and
similar airplanes that are coming out today which have less capability,
which are in the $95 million to $100 million price range."
-Peters, SASC, July 21.
"It is ironic that we're talking F-22 because the B-2
was the subject of these same discussions about killing the program,
as was the C-17, as was the F-15, and as was the F-16-four platforms
that proved to be so valuable in Kosovo."
-Peters, SASC hearing, July 21.
"To me, the F-22 is the key to the strategy of airpower
for the future. Without the F-22, we'd have to change the level
of our forces. We would have to bring back the 'Wild Weasels'
[aircraft equipped to jam enemy air defenses] and all the other
systems that we let go out of production because we knew we were
going to have the F-22."
-Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), chairman of Senate Appropriations
Committee, LNS, July 21.
"I must tell you that I cannot accept a defense bill
that kills this cornerstone program."
-Cohen, Defense Daily, July 21.
"We are not buying this airplane to fight a war in the
year 2000. We are buying it to fight and win America's wars in
2010 and 2030 or beyond."
-Carlson, Defense Daily, July 21.
"We can fund the F-22 without compromising the basic
priorities of our national defense within the funds set aside
and that is what I will fight to do. I think it would be a mistake
to abandon the project. I think it has real potential to add
to our national defense. I have always supported it, and I hope
that it can be preserved."
-President Clinton, White House media briefing, July 21.
"I think beyond any doubt, it will survive. It is a program
that is essential for America's future defense. It's as simple
as that."
-Warner, interview with Bloomberg News, July 21.
"In today's environment, if you match airplane to airplane,
we're at near parity with the MiG-29, the Su-27-the airplanes
that are deployed around the world in large numbers."
-Carlson, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, July 22.
"It makes no sense for the Pentagon to proceed with three
separate advanced fighter programs when no other country has
a chance of threatening America's air superiority in the foreseeable
future."
-NYT, editorial, July 22.
"It's ironic ... that, coming out of what's been called
the most successful air engagement in history, that Congress
would even contemplate denying us the hardware that would allow
us to maintain this dominance well into the next century."
-Pentagon spokesman Ken Bacon, press briefing, July 22.
"Clearly, this is a very important weapon, and it's not
just important to the Air Force. It's important to all forces
that depend on air dominance as one of the keys to success."
-Bacon, press briefing, July 22.
"I don't think we build planes to be cheap. We build
planes to be effective."
-Bacon, press briefing, July 22.
"Look at the C-17, now regarded by everybody as a huge
success. The last story I wrote when I covered the Pentagon in
1980 for the Wall Street Journal was about whether the C-17 would
be approved, whether it would ever be built because there was
so much criticism both of its lack of ability and its high cost.
Now we consider it indispensable to our operations. The B-2,
obviously the focus of enormous debate for a number of reasons-cost,
capability, need over the last couple of decades-has proved to
be a decisive weapon in Operation Allied Force."
-Bacon (Wall Street Journal Pentagon reporter in the late
1970s and early 1980s), press briefing, July 22.
"While many in the Air Force may question the decision,
some of the most pro-defense members of the House are sending
an important message. The Air Force has such tremendous needs
in so many other areas-air tankers, airlift transports, aerial
reconnaissance-that we believe it is imperative for the Air Force
to reassess its priorities."
-Lewis, House floor statement, July 22.
"The F-22, no doubt about it, is a beauty of an airplane.
It is like a Jaguar or a Cadillac. It would be a great plane
to have if we had all of the money in the world, but the problem
is that its costs are taking off faster than the airplane is
expected to if it is ever constructed."
-Obey, floor statement, July 22.
"Make no mistake about it: ... If we cancel the F-22,
we are making a decision to stake the lives of American soldiers
on inferior equipment because some in Congress think they know
more about air warfare than the United States Air Force."
-Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), floor statement, July 22.
"I flew the F-15 when I was active in the Air Force.
That has been over 25 years ago. Can my colleagues believe that
we are trying to retrofit an F-15 that will be in service for
over 33 years by the time the F-22 achieves initial operational
capability? If a 33-year-old aircraft had been used in Korea,
we would have been fighting MiGs with Sopwith Camel biplanes.
If a 33-year-old aircraft had been used in the Gulf War, we would
have been fighting third-generation Soviet fighters with Vietnam-era
F-4s."
-Rep. Sam Johnson (R-Texas), retired USAF colonel and Vietnam
War POW, floor statement, July 22.
"It is not enough to say that something better may be
available in the future. Something better is always available
in the future. Serious threats to American air superiority may
arise sooner, and the nation's security cannot tolerate a loss
of command of the air. Congress and the Administration must focus
on this fundamental reality and fully fund the nation's only
truly stealthy air superiority fighter."
-Letter from seven former defense secretaries--James Schlesinger,
Donald Rumsfeld, Harold Brown, Caspar Weinberger, Frank Carlucci,
Richard Cheney, and William Perry, quoted in floor debate, July
22.
"Just as the Air Force is poised to field an aircraft
capable of assuring air dominance through the first three decades
of the next century, the Congress seems poised to snatch defeat
from the jaws of victory by killing the F-22. This rash act will
commit future generations of airmen to fight the air war with
weapons no better than those of our foes."
-Gen. Richard E. Hawley, recently retired head of Air Combat
Command, Washington Times, July 26.
"If they take the production money out of the F-22, we
have to go back and rethink the Joint Strike Fighter. ... If
you bust that [relationship], you start questioning whether the
Air Force needs the JSF at all."
-USAF Chief of Staff Gen. Michael E. Ryan, Wall Street
Journal, July 27.
"I cast aside almost out of hand the suggestion that
this pause automatically kills this program. The fact that in
a day's time they [Air Force officials] could come up with an
added-on cost of $5 [billion] or $6 billion [resulting from a
one-year pause in production] says that they will use almost
any data, accurate or not, to support their position."
-Lewis, Defense Daily, July 28.
"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 percent of the DoD budget. That's very much in line
with the amounts that were spent on the F-15 back in the late
70s, early 80s on the F-16. ... 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."
-Hawley, PBS "NewsHour," July 27.
