http://mil.news.sina.com.cn/2008-07-11/0922509965.html
美軍將F-22A戰機生產線關閉時間推遲到2010年
http://www.sina.com.cn 2008年07月11日 09:22 中國國防科技資訊網
據英國《飛行國際》2008年7月8日報導 F-22將首次出現在國際性的重要航展上，不久F-22將參加今年的范堡羅航展。與此同時F-22項目正面臨未來生產的投資問題。
到目前為止，美國國會編制明年國防預算的工作已經過半，但F-22的前景仍不清晰。引起目前局面的原因部分是因為前國防部長拉姆斯菲爾德於2005年對該專案的調整。當時拉姆斯菲爾德出臺了一份新計畫，決定2008財年後將削減掉F-22的全部投資。
2006年，由於F-35專案出現18個月的延遲，美國空軍以需要維持第5代戰鬥機持續全速生產為名，成功要求延長F-22的採購。總計60架飛機的3年採購合同使F-22生產減緩到每年20架，同時使生產線維持開工到2010年。這一成功不僅使生產線多維持2年，而且增加了將F-22的命運交由新政府決定的機會。
在現任布希政府內，拉姆斯菲爾德的繼任鮑勃•蓋茨對美國國防部進行了多項改變，但對於F-22項目則未帶來多大變化。他同意拉姆斯菲爾德的決定，並駁回了空軍的要求決定在明年底後將不再申請投資延長飛機生產。蓋茨認為，美國空軍在其空中優勢戰鬥機上的投入已經足夠，現在是再次投資於目前抵禦國土安全威脅最有關的技術的時候了。
蓋茨的決定將F-22的命運交與了國會。但對制訂預算有影響力的國會委員會的立場各不相同，從而使得F-22的前景仍未明朗。眾議院武裝部隊委員會(HASC)已投票決定2009財年恢復投資購買下一年製造20架F-22所需的全部前期部件，需要資金5.23億美元。而參議院武裝部隊委員會(SASC)更希望將投資決定權交給下屆政府，SASC為關閉生產線或購買前期部件留出了4.97億美元。SASC的這一辦法獲得了蓋茨的贊同。
從工業界的角度看，如果F-22投資的決定不能在10月31日前做出，將付出昂貴代價。屆時，洛•馬公司由於缺乏後續投資將不得不切斷最早批部件的供應。(中國航空工業發展研究中心 吳蔚)
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/07/08/225109/f-22-set-to-make-farnborough-debut-faces-further-funding.html
F-22, set to make Farnborough debut, faces further funding problems
By Steve Trimble
DATE:08/07/08
SOURCE:Flight International
A debut flying demonstration at one of the world's major air shows can be a sort of coronation, a rite of passage for the relatively few aircraft concepts that survive the process of development and flight test and enter production.
When the Lockheed Martin F-22 makes its belated debut in the public display at this year's Farnborough air show, the event will be testament to the stealth fighter programme's perseverance over sometimes formidable odds in a decades-long development phase.
But the F-22's big moment comes amid yet another crisis over the programme's funding. Even as the aircraft is celebrated on its most public stage, Lockheed must hope the event will not be followed by the curtain falling on production as soon as the end of October.
In the US Congress, the laborious process of producing next year's defence budget is already past the halfway point, yet the outlook for the F-22 remains more unclear than at any time since the depths of the development challenges that threatened its survival repeatedly in the late 1990s.
The current stalemate was set in motion by a programme restructuring in 2005 orchestrated by former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. With little warning, Rumsfeld unveiled a new plan that year to cut off all funding for the F-22 after fiscal year 2008, reducing the USAF's projected buy from up to 277 aircraft to 183 aircraft - enough to outfit seven squadrons. The USAF's approved requirement for F-22s is still 381 aircraft, enough for 10 squadrons, but it has not been funded at that level since 2001.
Bridge a Gap
In 2006, the USAF succeeded in partly rolling back part of Rumsfeld's changes. Explaining its need to keep a fifth-generation fighter in continuous full-rate production, the USAF stretched out the order for F-22s to bridge a gap created by an 18-month delay for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
A three-year procurement deal for a total of 60 aircraft slowed production to 20 F-22s a year, but kept the production line intact until 2010. That victory not only kept the production line moving two more years, it created the opportunity for the F-22's fate to be decided by a new administration.
Under the current White House regime, Rumsfeld's successor, Bob Gates, brought many changes to the US Department of Defense when he arrived in late 2006, but not for the F-22 programme.
Agreeing with Rumsfeld's decision to cap the programme at 183 aircraft, Gates decided not to request funds to extend production beyond the end of next year, overruling the objections of a chastened US Air Force.
Gates thinks the USAF has invested enough money in its premier air superiority fighter, and it is time to reinvest in technologies most relevant to current national security threats.
"The reality is, we are fighting two wars - in Iraq and Afghanistan - and the F-22 has not performed a single mission in either theatre," Gates told a congressional committee in March. "So it is principally for use against a near peer in a conflict, and I think we all know who that is. 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 something along the lines of 183 F-22s is a reasonable buy."
Gates Could Stay
Gates also silenced a senior USAF commander who told reporters in March that funding for the F-22 programme would be restored when Gates was no longer in power. The Bush administration leaves office in January, although speculation continues that Gates could be retained by either party in the next administration in his current role.
Gates' staunch refusal to fund long-lead items to continue production into FY2010 passes the decision for the F-22's fate to Congress. Already, congressional committees with a role in the budgeting process have taken a variety of positions, resulting in no clear view about the aircraft's chances of survival.
The House Armed Services Committee has voted to restore funding in FY2009 to buy enough long-lead items to build a further 20 F-22s the following year. The long-lead funding in question amounts to $523 million. That is nearly the same amount Gates' staff took away from the F-22 and put into the Boeing F-15 sustainment account.
The status of the funds shifted to the F-15 account is no longer publicly understood. The money was allocated to repair a manufacturing defect detected after an F-15C crashed in November 2007.
"Since that time, the air force has determined that these additional funds are not necessary for completing the repairs required to correct F-15 structural problems and return them to flying status," the HASC wrote.
It is not clear whether that money could still be available to move back into the F-22 account. The HASC report does not mention that possibility.
Restoring the F-22's funding for long-lead procurement in FY2009 would save the production line and allow the supply chain to continue for at least another year, and would spare the USAF the drama of cutting funds for another programme to pay for more F-22s in the Pentagon's internal budgeting process.
"On the F-22, a lot of people don't realise we've got a third of that programme," Boeing chief executive Jim McNerney told investors in May. "It's about $1 billion a year and we were encouraged in the 2009 HASC language that they'd put in money for long lead for another 20 F-22s. I think they really decided to defer the decision on how many F-22s to be built until the next administration."
One more year of production would increase the USAF's total order from 183 to 203. But the Senate Armed Services Committee prefers to leave the funding decision to the next administration, passing a bill that would permit the next US president to shut down the production line or pay for long-lead items. The SASC bill provides $497 million for either purpose.
"The next president of the USA would have to decide which alternative would be in the best interests of the nation and submit a certification of that decision to the congressional defence committees before any of these funds could be spent," says the committee's report on the bill.
Softer Stance
This approach has earned Gates's endorsement. Although earlier this year he called for a complete halt to F-22 production, he has recently softened his stance to embrace the Senate panel's compromise.
Meanwhile, appropriators in the House and Senate are squabbling about whether to allocate the same amount of funding as part of a supplemental spending bill intended to pay for the cost of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars.
Leaving the decision to the next administration will present a huge decision very soon after the election. The next president will not be sworn in until late January, and the following year's budget request is traditionally submitted by early February.
From the industry's point of view, keeping the programme's future on hold could prove costly if a decision is not made before 31 October. That is the date when Lockheed must turn off the earliest components of the supply chain in the absence of continued funding. Turning those elements back on later could cost up to $1 billion if no decision is made for another year, say Boeing officials.
本城市首頁
看回應文章
等級：8
