Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1 Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern By ANNE GEARAN AP Military Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs. Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan. The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year. The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces. Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut. Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended. Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back. Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents. "It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said. The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion. A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals. ------------------------------------------------------------------ I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow... -DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

flamingknives       4/6/2009 4:21:48 PM
Is there any indication as to how much of the Marine One buy is threatened?
The VH-3s are surely somewhat long in the tooth now and some kind of replacement must be required.

Would it be the sensible step of taking on largely unmodified VH-71s and scrapping the programme that intends to make them into an almost entirely new helicopter?
Or is it a case of getting rid of the lot and forcing the VH-3 to soldier on (or should that be Marine on) whilst the project is re-competed?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You missed what was important to you.   4/6/2009 5:14:45 PM
Gates gutted the Army's future. (training and spares as well as new equipment0
 
Tend to overlook the important stuff, some of us do. 
 
Herald
 

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 5:28:23 PM

Because Russia growing increasingly stronger and China allocating a majority of their defense spending towards systems specifically built to destroy American Forces, certaintly does not sound like a future possible scenario. Is this guy for real...are we really going to try and maintain air superiority with 187 F-22's and thirty year old F-15's. Memo to China, No need to fire a shot, you have already one the war.

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/6/2009 5:30:21 PM
No need to brace yourself, Darth.  You might want to gird your loins, however.
 
Losing more F-22s is dumb, for reasons already outlined.  The USAF might be able to make up the difference in F-35s (which I notice the new budget increases, which is good), but the sad fact is that the F-15 won't magically become younger, and we lack a replacement for it.  Silent Eagle might be a workable alternative, or buying foreign.  There's also the obstacle of Congress; for once, the USAF might be happy for lobbyists--Georgia and Texas in particular are not going to like the loss of jobs to the end of F-22 production.
 
The loss of the new Presidential helicopter can be handled.  I'm not sure how pleased Obama is going to be when he's informed that the helicopter he's riding on is nearly as old as he is.  Yet replacing it with a quick conversion of a preexisting civil helicopter shouldn't be all that difficult, and in a pinch, I guess the Marines could just send over a stock V-22 and make Obama slum it.
 
The biggest losses here is to the Army's future weapons programs and to the missile defense system.  Obama and his administration have managed the hat trick of doing two remarkably stupid things at the worst time possible: Obama wants to reduce the nuclear stockpile, while reducing missile defense considerably--at a time when North Korea is obviously bent on playing brinkmanship with ICBMs and Iran is not halting its own nuclear program.  Rather than present a tough stance to international terrorist cliques like those in Teheran and Pyongyang, Obama's signaling a willingness to roll over for them, and leave the US and its allies vulnerable to attack.  Hopefully Gates and Obama are right, and we don't face a real threat from this, but if they're wrong, it will be interesting to hear their explanation as to why thousands of Americans are dead and a city reduced to radioactive rubble, because it was more important to throw billions at Barney Frank's pet projects but not a cent for missile defense.  Assuming I'm not one of the thousands of dead Americans, of course.
 
Gates and Obama are making the perennial mistake of politicians and old generals: prepare for the last war.  We won't be fighting in Afghanistan forever.  What happens if we have to fight a conventional war and lack the means to do so?  What happens when the gear we have wears out and breaks down for a lack of replacements? 
 
History tells us what happens.  A lot of Americans and our allies get killed.  In the next war, we may not have the luxury of fighting someone as ill-equipped as the Taliban, as incompetent as Saddam, or as willing to give us a few months to get our act together as some of our past enemies.  No one ever seems to learn that lesson.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/6/2009 5:31:15 PM
Herald,

I didn't miss anything. I posted this here to specifically discuss aviation issues. I realize that we have been on the downside of a relationship since Nov. But If we could please get past that and stick strictly to exchange of views and discussion of data. Thank You sincerely. If you are wondering what I think of the scaling back of FCS and other U.S. Army programs, I am not prepared to discuss that at this time. I'll need a few hours to take a look at the potential consequences at which point I could post a more thorough review. I believe I've already stated my opinion of the F-22 though so unless there are questions, my position remains the same.


-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    It Ain't Just Obama Calling For Changes   4/6/2009 5:50:48 PM

McCain throws support behind defense budget shifts
Mon Apr 6, 2009 2:36pm EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Monday threw his support behind Defense Department plans to refocus spending for key defense programs.

"I strongly support (Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates' decision to restructure a number of major defense programs," McCain said in a statement.

"It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow," he said.

h**p://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5355HQ20090406

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Reply.   4/6/2009 5:54:58 PM
If you cannot see the proposed effects on the Army by now from what I have in front of me, then my estimate of your ability to handle raw data and implicit outcomes just nose dived.
 
I don't need to discuss the aviation implications much as those are obvious. Lose air superiority and see the war fought LOST. What I could say in detail I can't say, but in summary: Gates serves his political interregnumist master and not the nation here.
 
As for the total strategic judgments shown, since the interregnumist is irrelevant, I'm waiting to see what CONGRESS does-especially to the Navy.  
 
That will determine how screwed we really are.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/6/2009 6:07:40 PM

McCain throws support behind defense budget shifts

Mon Apr 6, 2009 2:36pm EDT

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senator John McCain, the top Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, on Monday threw his support behind Defense Department plans to refocus spending for key defense programs.


"I strongly support (Defense) Secretary (Robert) Gates' decision to restructure a number of major defense programs," McCain said in a statement.


"It has long been necessary to shift spending away from weapon systems plagued by scheduling and cost overruns to ones that strike the correct balance between the needs of our deployed forces and the requirements for meeting the emerging threats of tomorrow," he said.


h**p://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5355HQ20090406


v^2


No, it's not just Obama. This is something I've been saying for months. It's the DoD as a whole. Sure there are those who object to specific programs being cut or funded as it is there area of specialty or pet project. But all of us involved directly know that there are programs we can cut and that the DoD is sitting very good next to the threats we are likely to face. The world is in flux right now almost as much as it was with the fall of the Soviets and the threat matrix needed redefinition. A lot of people don't see that because they are "obsessed" with whatever it is they are fixed on such as China for instance. I can't stress enough that people should sit back and exercise a little patience and caution with regard to assessments. Don't cry wolf or create a bogey man. That kind of thinking is what brought us to OEF/OIF.

I don't have the time to go into too much detail but people should know that the exporting security is a singularly US/DoD capability considering the scale. The Military Market link must be understood in order to perceive the threat. And large scale wars between nation states are on a decline. The US benefits most through treaty and coalition building with regard to national security.

-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/6/2009 7:28:21 PM
So let's see:
 
It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk
 
China is neither remote nor diminishing in capability.  The fact that we're myopically focused on insurgency warfare does not mean that it is the only potential type of future conflict.  We're once again gearing up to fight today's war tomorrow, instead of tomorrow's war on its own terms.
 
or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant
 
Capabilities do not age well.  Our aircraft are not aging gracefully, and our dominance diminishes every year as our availability and reliability rates decline due to aging fleets in dire need of recapitalization.
 
is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.
 
You don't "reset" an air force, you buy new aircraft.  We can afford to meet our goals in the wars we are currently in without gutting our acquisition budget.  And the capabilities in which we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable are our air superiority fleet on which our entire warfighting paradigm relies, our air to air tankers which average close to forty years in age, and our command and control aircraft which are too few in number and aging rapidly. 
 
Here's a question for Mr. Gates: if we're so worried about fighting insurgencies, why are we replacing the vast majority of our tactical airpower with an airplane that
- is less capable by every useful measure than the airplanes it is replacing in providing close air support? 
- will inevitably turn out to be vastly more expensive than the airplanes it is replacing
- by its own tacit admission the Air Force does not believe is as capable as the F-15C in the air superiority mission (because if it were, we wouldn't need to keep 178 "Golden Eagles" around)
- is mired in cost overruns and design issues -- weight, heat dispersion, noise, deck damage in STOVL -- and those are only the issues that have been identified to date due to the limited flight test program
We have the means and the production lines today to invest in a fleet of tactical aircraft with unrivaled capabilities -- a high/low mix of the F-22 and advanced blocks of F-16 -- but instead we bizarrely choose to abandon both of those programs in the name of a risky and underperforming airplane whose immense cost forces us to underfund critical infrastructure programs like tankers and sensor platforms.  We're doing the right thing in the Navy -- stopping the insane and out of control gold-plated CG and DDG programs and instead building more Burkes -- so why can't these people apply the same logic to the Air Force?
 
In terms of American air power, this defense budget is sheer, unmitigated idiocy.  The combination of a Rumsfeld crony SecDef and an Obama presidency is going to make Johnson and MacNamara look like visionaries by comparison.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       4/6/2009 7:31:02 PM
We're going to lose naval superiority because of the greed of shipyards.  They never should have closed the navy operated yards.  The private sector is juicing the navy and the navy is making it worse by changing the specs every other week.  The Luftwaffe did that and ruined German production during WW2.
 
As for the F-22 it's a generation behind in terms of having an upgrade path and such.  I'd like to see the line stay open just in case the world situation deteriorates but it looks like it's gone.  Obama better make allies with whoever has bought Typhoon.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy