The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 11:46:53 PM
Given this backdrop I don't see any reasonable data to suggest that these old aircraft won't break down at ever increasing rates (with safety issues causing accidents). We will use up our F22's faster than we would have liked as well, working 187 airframes like they were 450 aircraft. Last, the F35 isn't real yet and may not arrive on time in adequate numbers to help win a war and as I have demonstrated in my earlier posts, new F15's aren't the answer either.

 

I'm going refer you to something. Take a look at the highlights:

Of the F-15C fleet, the Air Force plans to retain 178, which it has already identified by tail number. Like the F-16s, these aircraft have been chosen because of their relative youth, health and a history of being good maintenance performers. The Air Force calls it the ?golden fleet,? and those in it are being called ?Golden Eagles.?

Those that don?t make the cut to be Golden Eagles will be retired at the rate of about 20 per year between now and 2018—roughly mirroring the delivery rate of the F-22, at least through 2010—then between two and 10 per year through 2025, according to Brian Dillon, an analyst with CPM Solutions, which is advising Air Combat Command on management of the F-15 fleet.

The 178 Golden Eagles will be the ones to get a comprehensive upgrade, both in structure and capability. The biggest feature of the upgrade is to replace the F-15?s analog radar with a new, active electronically scanned array radar, or AESA, of a kind now being fitted to the Navy?s F/A-18E/F Superhornets, and which come as standard gear on the F-22 and F-35.

The AESA—in this case, the APG-63(V)3—offers many more modes of operation, more simultaneous functions, greater range, and higher reliability because it is a solid-state system without moving parts. Care of the old analog radar has always been a major driver of F-15 maintenance hours.

Golden Eagles will also get a new combined Global Positioning System/Inertial Navigation System, new radios, digital video recorder, new identification, friend or foe systems, a helmet-mounted targeting system like that on the F-16, and ?anything else we come up with between now and 2025,? Dillon said. Other candidate improvements include new electronic warfare gear, a new central computer, and improved Link 16 systems. The Golden Eagles will be ?the priority airplanes? to get the new equipment as it becomes available.

Moreover, the entire F-15C fleet will be powered by the Pratt & Whitney F100-PW-220, the last and most advanced version of the original F100 engine.

There will be a host of structural replacements, too, including wiring—which has started to rot on some early aircraft—new ribbing under weapons stations, and replacement of some of the flight-control system.

For several years, some F-15Cs have been flight-restricted, unable to go to their maximum potential speed or G-loading, because of age-related problems with the vertical stabilizers. There have been episodes where the verticals have become delaminated at high speed. (See ?When Aircraft Get Old,? January 2003, p. 30.) A repair is being done when the aircraft go through depot maintenance; Golden Eagles will all be fixed within the next three years.

However, Dillon said, the Golden Eagle program does not amount to a rewinging or reskinning.

An industry official said the F-15 was ?overdesigned? back in the 1970s and, while it was originally specified to have a life of about 4,000 hours, the fleet is now expected to easily surpass 8,000 hours without a major SLEP. With ?average? or benign usage, the F-15 could even double that figure again, to around 16,000 hours. An Air Force official noted that the F-15, being a large airplane, has ?a lot of real estate inside,? making it easier to install both structural and capability upgrades.

Dillon said the idea is to upgrade the 178 Golden Eagles as soon as possible. The structural upgrades, most of which are already funded, will add years to the life of the airplanes only if the work is done on the front end of the life extension. Funding for most of the capability improvements will await future budgets.

The Golden Eagles will be used in those parts of the world where the penetrating qualities of the F-22—particularly stealth, sensor fusion, and supercruise capability—are not essential to success in the air. That could be a domestic mission or one against an adversary that lacks a sophisticated integrated air defense system. The AESA radar will give the F-15C a capability against cruise missiles, which the current versions cannot easily defeat.

The Golden Eagles will serve in both the active and Guard forces.

As for the F-15E Strike Eagles, Dillon said they are all considered to be of the ?golden? variety already, being much younger than the F-15Cs and having benefited from newer technology both at production and in subsequent upgrades.

?Right now, the entire inventory of E Models are Golden Eagles, if you will,? Dillon said. ?They?re all on the [combat air forces] roadmap past 2025. All 224? of them. There are no structural upgrades planned for the F-15E fleet right now. However, the F-15E will get a radar upgrade ?similar? to that on the F-15C fleet, and it will also be among the first to employ the Universal Armament Interface, a new pylon system that will allow the airplane to carry practically any munition in the USAF inventory.


 

 
 

I am happy to agree to disagree with you and would rethink this whole issue if someone could present compelling data to suggest you are correct and we don't need all those air superiority airframes anymore.

Check Six

Rocky

 

So Rocky, thats 402 airframes that can be used for air superiority NOT COUNTING 187 Raptors +  F-35's + Super Hornets and whatever F-16s are still flying between now and 2025. I know not all F-35's will be delivered by 2025 BTW but thats still a lot.

-DA
 
 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 11:53:33 PM








OK, so then what about all the countries who have placed orders for this aircraft? The cost of canceling the F-35 would be enormous from a financial and political point of view. 

 No one has placed ANY orders for the JSF as of yet DA. UK ordered 3 *test* a/c. That's it. You wait, with the economic times like they are, don't be surprised if we see some start getting cold feet. Delayying and/or cancelling.        
I would also like to know how it is Mr Gates plans on getting 513 F35's by 2014? Between 2010 and 2014 (next 5 years budget he spoke of) there is scheduled to be a total of 534 total built. Of that the US is slated for 361 of them. Of that the USAF is getting about 196 with the Navy/USMC 165. LM will be doing everything possible just to ramp up to meet that schedule and not even slated to hit the 230/yr till 2015. So where are they coming from? The partner nations just going to roll over and give theirs up because we decided we wanted ours faster? I doubt it. If they start backing out of the entire deal the F35 could very well find itself competing with the F22 in price and since we can only afford 187 of them, how we gonna afford all these thousands of the F35?

I say Gates is just blowing smoke till next year or the next when the other shoe falls on the F35. It's not humanly possible to get the amount of planes he says in that time frame and even with what we *may* get, the USAF is only going to have 196 new planes. How many literally hundreds of  F15/16's will be forced into retirement by that time DA? To even expect to get the planned number of planes LM has scheduled by that time is goning to be nothing short of a miracle. Got maybe 3 or 4% of flight testing done till now and gonna go from that to what he's stateing? He's intentionally misleading the American public is what he is doing.
Beazz,
 
He is the SecDef. If he says he will Procure X number of F-35s, then thats what he's going to do. Otherwise he will have to come up with an alternative. You can't prove he is misleading anybody so I wont debate that with you because it is clearly your opinion. Just know that the F-35s could be made at 1 per day IIRC. Do the math...

 
 link

-DA 



 



 





 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/9/2009 12:04:24 AM
First of all, I have to comment on something DA said a few posts back: why not build Veritechs?  My answer to that is: Hell yeah!  We should.  That would be an easy sell to Congress and the military: it can do air superiority missions, then transform and literally kick tanks around.  Maybe we're barking up the wrong tree with UCAVs and we should be working on two-story tall death machines.  Laugh all you like, but I guarantee the nutcases of the world would soil themselves seeing something like a Valkyrie on the horizon...
 
But seriously, folks...
 
DA, no offense intended, but I have to wonder maybe if you're looking at this with more than a little Army bias.  The Army needs to replace worn-out equipment and needs transport to get the equipment to the tip of the spear.  Okay, I agree completely.  I agree too that the needs of the current war outweigh the needs of the future war.  So absolutely, let's do that; let's give the Army boots on the ground what they need to kick hell out of the Taliban and win the damn thing.
 
However, that doesn't mean we can't at least plan for the worst case scenario.  Yes, the Army should have priority right now.  But just because we're fighting a COIN campaign in Afghanistan right now doesn't mean we'll be fighting there forever, or that the next war will be a counterinsurgency campaign just because the last few wars were.  That's looking backwards, not forwards.  Everyone thought the next big sea battle in the Pacific would be a repeat of Tsushima Strait and Jutland, but instead it was dominated by airpower.  Everyone thought we didn't need guns on fighters until the North Vietnamese abruptly reminded us of it.  Hell, the Brits ditched all their manned fighter programs because they thought UCAVs were the next big thing--in 1956.  (The result was the demise of some very promising aircraft: the TSR.2 and the Arrow, for starters.) 
 
Do we need to repeat the same mistakes?  I say we don't.  Leave the F-22 production line open, produce a few fighters a year, until we can afford it better.  Or better yet, cut some of the billion dollar boondoggle pork.  ACORN, which pretty much exists to steal elections for Democrats, would be a good place to start.  (Which is, of course, why it won't be cut.) 
 
Again, no offense, DA, but your posts are starting to remind me of Bradley insisting that WWII be won by linear infantry tactics, WWI style, when Patton and Montgomery were driving on Germany at 40 mph with tanks.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 12:14:17 AM
Russia Considers Major Troop Withdrawal in Chechnya
 

26 March 2009

Russia is reported considering the withdrawal of more than 20,000 Interior Ministry troops from Chechnya and an effective end to a state of war in the Caucasus republic. The move may be linked to financial problems caused by the global economic crisis.

Russian news media are quoting anonymous Interior Ministry sources as saying Moscow could end what it refers to as an "anti-terrorist" operation in Chechnya by the end of March. A statement broadcast on Russian state television by Chechnya's Kremlin-backed president, Ramzan Kadyrov, has added to the speculation.

Ramzan Kadyrov
Ramzan Kadyrov
Kadyrov says there is information that all restrictions imposed on Chechnya will be lifted by the end of this month. He says the struggle against rebels is effectively over, and only remains on paper. He says when restrictions end, the airport and customs service in Grozny will function properly, and Chechnya will operate like a normal subject of the Russian Federation.

The anti-terrorism operation in Chechnya was launched in 1999 under Russia's late president Boris Yeltsin. As many as 100,000 people may have died in the two wars between Russia and Chechnya since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but exact figures are not known.  

An Interior Ministry spokesman told VOA his superiors did not tell him anything about à possible troop withdrawal. But the Interfax news agency quotes unnamed law enforcement officials as saying more than 20,000 out of the current 50,000 troops currently in Chechnya could be withdrawn. And the speaker of Russia's lower house of Parliament, Boris Gryzlov, says conditions in the republic are much improved and allow for an end to the anti-terrorist operation. But he also notes the expense of maintaining so many troops.  

A Russian soldier looks on from top of a building on a patrol mission in Chechen provincial capital Grozny, Russia, (2008 file photo)
A Russian soldier looks on from top of a building on a patrol mission in Chechen provincial capital Grozny, Russia, (2008 file photo)
Gryzlov says lawmakers understand that enforcing the anti-terrorist regime requires rather significant forces and resources; forces in terms of Interior Ministry troops, and resources in terms of the federal budget. He adds that in a time of global economic crisis, Russia needs to consider the need to keep such a large force in Chechnya.

Alexey Malashenko, military analyst at the Moscow Carnegie Center, told VOA he agrees the situation in Chechnya is much better than it was five-six years ago. But he disputes Ramzan Kadyrov's estimate that no more than 50 to 100 insurgents remain.

Malashenko notes the situation in the republic is complicated. There are, he says successes as well as problems; and just as before, there are those who live in the mountains and cities who continue to launch attacks on federal forces and those of Ramzan Kadyrov.

Malashenko adds that shooting in Chechnya will not stop with the wave of a wand, or with a signature on a piece of paper, but Kadyrov will, nonetheless, try to show Moscow he can keep control of the republic with his own forces.

The latest fatality in Chechnya occurred Wednesday, when masked gunmen abducted and shot a police officer in the southern Vedeno region.



US hopes Georgia protest peaceful

WASHINGTON (AFP) — The United States on Wednesday urged both sides in Georgia to avoid violence after the opposition called for major protests to oust President Mikheil Saakashvili.

Opposition leaders have vowed to attract more than 100,000 supporters to peaceful rallies starting Thursday to force out Saakashvili, a close US ally whose popularity was dented by Georgia's disastrous war with Russia last year.

"We urge the government of Georgia and all those participating in the April 9 protest rally to ensure that the demonstrations are peaceful and without violence," State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.

"Peaceful protests are an important part of any democracy and an integral and acceptable way to express political views," he said.

In Tbilisi, Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili told AFP that authorities would show "maximum tolerance" for the protesters.

He tried to ally fears that the protests would end in a repeat of events in November 2007 when riot police used rubber bullets, tear gas and water cannon to disperse thousands of anti-government protesters. 





This conflict here in Georgia has a lot more to do with the United States than folks back home actually realize. This is very much Russia flexing its muscles here in this region, sending a signal, not just to Georgia, which was a former satellite state within the Soviet Union, now firmly pro-American, that it cannot rely upon its American sponsor, as a message to be sent throughout this area to other countries. We're looking at the expansion of NATO, Americans sponsoring and aiding states within this region who were once aligned with the former Soviet Union, and Russia now using this opportunity, taking its moment when it sees the U.S. unable to respond, with its military already overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.  

transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0808/14/sitroom.03.html


-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 2:43:01 AM

Again, no offense, DA, but your posts are starting to remind me of Bradley insisting that WWII be won by linear infantry tactics, WWI style, when Patton and Montgomery were driving on Germany at 40 mph with tanks.

 
I'm not offended. You are debating...;) And you are doing it the way it is meant to be done. I salute you...and disagree as well. The "Worse" case is happening right before our eyes.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/9/2009 8:03:30 AM




If the new theory is that future wars will be similar to Afghanistan and Iraq then why exactly are we spending billions on the F-35?




 


Two things. It's not theory anymore, it's reality. Almost the entire last 20 years have been dominated by that type of warfare. A trend that is almost certain to continue through the middle to end of next decade. The F-35 will do all missions currently being performed by just about every tactical aircraft out there now and at the same time be applicable to higher tier threats from near peer level threats. F/A-18C/D, F-16, F-15C, AV-8B, A-10 and an entire range of NATO/Allied aircraft as well. I don't have exact numbers but I'd estimate that well over 75-80% of all combat sorties flown by manned fighter platforms in the last 20 years by US/Coalition forces could have been done by F-35s at half the cost and with corresponding reductions in the burden on the support aircraft.




-DA 






Eliminating money already spent on R&D from the equation, what possible scenario would arise that could not be dealt with by the force structure I hypothetically proposed, assuming of course that the F-35 was cancelled?
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Darth   4/9/2009 10:43:13 AM
Darth, I can find magazine articles that think we need more F22s. So this does not advance your case. I would draw your attention to several items in your post's article:
* The article isn't linked. I can't tell who wrote it or what the context is. It isn't even all there.
* The article says we are now only keeping 178 F15Cs. That is 102 fewer than I thought. Thats bad.
* The article says we should use our Strike Eagles to perform air superiority missions. Thats bad on two levels! First
   the Strike Eagle isn't an air superiority fighter and would have a rough time of it inside the merge with a SU27 or similar, 
   threat. Second, who is going to perform their strike missions while they are standing BARCAP? The "E" lives to bomb.
* The articles quotes "industry sources" not warfighters or specifically aviation warriors (who's opinion would differ).
 
I remain unconvinced. Who's to say we don't have another "no fly zone" type mission in the near future that will require US wings to stand guard and burn up those airframes. Under your calculus we will now only own 365 air superiority fighters half of which are probably older than you or not far from it and the F35 is still in diapers. Best to keep the F22 line open for now.
 
The decision to cut the F22 is political and probably not  in the best interest of force requirements.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 11:27:19 AM

Darth, I can find magazine articles that think we need more F22s. So this does not advance your case. I would draw your attention to several items in your post's article:

Well Rocky, I'm not really trying to "advance" a case. I did that in Nov with my vote. I'm merely stating why I personally agree with it. I already know you disagree. Sure, you can find magazine articles. But you can't say that you have seen that the disproportionate strain and need right now is on the ground components because of your own experiences. I can.
 

* The article isn't linked. I can't tell who wrote it or what the context is. It isn't even all there.

Google it. 

* The article says we are now only keeping 178 F15Cs. That is 102 fewer than I thought. Thats bad.

No its not bad. Thats at 2025. Between now and then we will have more. 

* The article says we should use our Strike Eagles to perform air superiority missions. Thats bad on two levels! First 

   the Strike Eagle isn't an air superiority fighter and would have a rough time of it inside the merge with a SU27 or similar, 

   threat. Second, who is going to perform their strike missions while they are standing BARCAP? The "E" lives to bomb.

They are dual role and more than capable of handling any SU27.


* The articles quotes "industry sources" not warfighters or specifically aviation warriors (who's opinion would differ).

 Aviation warriors will disagree. Land Warriors such as my self agree. We won the debate with the person that matters.

I remain unconvinced. Who's to say we don't have another "no fly zone" type mission in the near future that will require US wings to stand guard and burn up those airframes. Under your calculus we will now only own 365 air superiority fighters half of which are probably older than you or not far from it and the F35 is still in diapers. Best to keep the F22 line open for now.

Not according to the SecDef. And our "no fly zone" missions are being performed by Reapers now. Time and technology have changed. Take a look at the skies over Pakistan.

 

The decision to cut the F22 is political and probably not  in the best interest of force requirements.

Check Six

Rocky

 
No, its military, strategic paradigm shift and definitely in my best interest and I am more than qualified to make that assessment. Not that you have to agree with it. But I get to do the dying if this is wrong.

-DA 
 


 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/9/2009 11:33:37 AM
What is amazing in this thread is that the F-22 opponents are simply ignoring the $1 trillion lifetime cost of the F-35 program —more than $300 billion to acquire 2,456 aircraft and $760 billion in life cycle operating and support costs.  And that's just the current program estimates, there is absolutely no reason to believe it won't get even worse.
 
The current plan is simply a boondoggle.  Here is my prediction: the F-35's acquisition cost will continue to spiral, while its performance will never really live up to its claims; in particular, its maintainability and availabilitiy will suffer.  As a result of all of these, we will never be able to afford the currently projected numbers, so our Air Force will soldier on with aging and increasingly expensive to maintain aircraft alongside its excessively expensive F-35s.  The resulting reduced availability and increased costs will decrease operational tempo and we'll end up with a hollow, undeployable force.
 
This quote from the GAO report linked above is instructive:
Further, expected cost per flight hour now exceeds that of the F-16 legacy fighter, one of the aircraft it is intended to replace. With almost 90 percent (in terms of dollars) of the acquisition program still ahead, it is important to address these challenges, effectively manage future risks, and move forward with a successful program that meets our and our allies? needs.
If we're really worried about cost, why are we going to replace a huge number of our airframes with a bigger, costlier airplane than the F-16, when we don't need it?  It would be cheaper in the long run to have a force of 400 F-22s, 1300 F-16s (on a 1 for 1 basis, replace the Block 25/30/32, then 40/42, then 50/52 in turn by new-build Block 60+) and 217 F-15Es.  Drop the F-35 in favor of new-build F-16s, and build 30 F-22s a year, retiring F-15A-Cs on a 2:1 basis.  That gives us a modern, sustainable force of F-16s that are cheap and plenty capable, and a large enough force of F-22s to do OCA/SEAD/DEAD/first day of war strike.  Quite simply, with a large enough force of F-22s to deal with the triple digit SAM threat, you don't need the bulk of your aircraft to have VLO features.
 
That plan would absolutely be cheaper in terms of both new procurement and operational costs, it has no technological risk because all of the aircraft to be procured are available now and work now, and it eliminates the growing and ever more costly maintenance headache of the F-15A-C early.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    What Will Decide the Raptors Fate... Not Gates nor Obama...   4/9/2009 11:47:05 AM

link

Connecticut?s political leaders bristled with defiance Monday at Defense Secretary Robert Gates? announcement that the Pentagon plans to end production of the F-22 Raptor jet fighter powered by Pratt & Whitney engines — a move that could cost as many as 3,000 jobs in the state.

Some of the most pointed responses came from Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, and Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn. Lieberman, who is a senior member of the Senate Committee on Armed Services, said he will strongly oppose dropping the F-22 program.


link

"The most important thing to remember is this is just one step in a process," U.S. Rep. Kay Granger, R-Fort Worth, told the Star-Telegram after Gates spoke.

Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Lewisville, added another point in his interview: "The world remains a dangerous place, and this vital program is integral to maintaining a strong national defense."

And, said Burgess, "thousands of Fort Worth-area jobs are at risk, and now is not the time to impose policy decisions that will only add more workers to the ranks of the unemployed."

About 1,800 people work on the F-22 at Lockheed?s Fort Worth plant, with another 4,000 involved in the F-35 program. Nationwide, Lockheed has said that 95,000 jobs are tied to the F-22. And those jobs are in a number of congressional districts.


link

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Pentagon will end its purchase of F-22 Raptor jets — a move that will affect more than 1,000 Seattle-area Boeing workers who help build the fighter plane.


link

When it came time to name the world's first fifth-generation jet fighter, the mechanics who assemble the F-22A at Lockheed-Martin's Marietta plant got the honors.

"The baddest bird in the sky," says Jeff Goen, a 30-year employee and local machinists union president.

Now that the Pentagon has said it will cap production of America's top-of-the-line fighter at 187 aircraft, plane-builders ? many of them unionized and staunch Democrats ? are "mad as hell," Mr. Goen says.

To be sure, the looming debate in Congress will be fundamental to the nation's defense: Is a full fleet of what's being touted as the world's premier jet fighter really necessary in a world of low-level insurgent wars and unmanned drones ? a world where the Raptor has yet to see combat?

At the core of the opposition to the Pentagon's new marching orders is an argument over whether the military-industrial complex ? in the midst of a recession ? should be considered part of a job stimulus plan.

The coming congressional debate over the F-22's future also will test the waning power of Southern politicians to defend the military status quo. And it's likely to have an impact on nearly 100,000 workers across the US, among them the 2,000 plane-builders at the sprawling Lockheed-Martin plant here on the edge of Dobbins Air Force Base.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/9/2009 11:51:02 AM


Darth, I agree with you that UCAVs are the future.  That's what is puzzling to me about your position.
 
We're busy investing a titanic amount of money in the F-35, while at the same time developing UCAVs that will probably make the F-35 redundant before the program is even completed.  On the other hand, we do need VLO airplanes now and for the next decade or so; UCAVs are simply not there yet for air to air and not really mature enough as a primary strike platform.
 
It makes a lot more financial sense to procure a sufficient number of F-22s to perform the air to air and high threat strike missions, and recapitalize the bulk of our tactical jet fleet with inexpensive updated-4th-gen airframes, than to invest in a 5th generation platform that will be obsolete as soon as it enters service in numbers.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Rocky.......   4/9/2009 11:52:21 AM
This army guy doesn't know the first thing about how UCAS systems actually work, does he?.  A picture posted doesn't substitute for real knowledge and experience with the machines. You have to have a comm link and a TV camera withn the robot. You have to use HUMAN eyes looking at what you shoot before you pull the trigger, and you have to have very good positive control before you turn a weapon loose over own troops. Its a lot easier when the final controller is with the launch platform in realtime radio contact when it comes to CAS instead of half a planet away when a whoopsie might occur because the sat link failed. Notice that the preferred method for bombing danger close to own troops in combat is still <MANNED>  aircraft? 
 
ALL PHYSICS IS LOCAL.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Darth gets pissy! funny stuff   4/9/2009 11:55:54 AM
Hey Darth, no I'm not going to "google it". If you want to try and make a factual case it is up to you. My case is made and I'm happy to let everyone here judge it on it's own merits.
 
In the end you said it all when you said you "voted" for it. That proves my assertion that its about politics for you. You believe it and no one else can argue with your vote. That's pittiful. I'd suggest you stop using your service to the country as justification for your views. It diminishes both your service, which is sincerely appreciated, and your opinions which you should learn to support with factual debate or learn to admit it when you are wrong.
 
That kind of thing makes you look quite trollish. As to my qualifications, I've said it before, you don't know anything about me.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    Softwar reply   4/9/2009 11:56:04 AM

At the core of the opposition to the Pentagon's new marching orders is an argument over whether the military-industrial complex ? in the midst of a recession ? should be considered part of a job stimulus plan.

The coming congressional debate over the F-22's future also will test the waning power of Southern politicians to defend the military status quo. And it's likely to have an impact on nearly 100,000 workers across the US, among them the 2,000 plane-builders at the sprawling Lockheed-Martin plant here on the edge of Dobbins Air Force Base.

Quite frankly, I'm all for using military procurement as a "job stimulus plan".  It keeps people employed and gives us a product we need.  And today is not really a good time to lay off thousands of aviation workers.  Yet another benefit of the the plan I favor is that it would keep F-22 workers employed, now, and increase the number of F-16 workers employed, now.  The F-35 is not in a real production mode and the small numbers of people working on it can move over to F-16 and F-22 production, or go into R&D for UCAV programs.  The reverse is simply not true; there is currently nowhere for the F-22 people to go.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/9/2009 12:04:16 PM

This army guy doesn't know the first thing about how UCAS systems actually work, does he?.  A picture posted doesn't substitute for real knowledge and experience with the machines. You have to have a comm link and a TV camera withn the robot. You have to use HUMAN eyes looking at what you shoot before you pull the trigger, and you have to have very good positive control before you turn a weapon loose over own troops. Its a lot easier when the final controller is with the launch platform in realtime radio contact when it comes to CAS instead of half a planet away when a whoopsie might occur because the sat link failed. Notice that the preferred method for bombing danger close to own troops in combat is still <MANNED>  aircraft? 


 

ALL PHYSICS IS LOCAL.





Herald



Herald - we all know that Darth is more qualified than anyone (including Gates) to make this decision.  He has told us so.
 
Yet - UAV and UCAV operations are much more effective when teamed with fighters like the F-22.  First, to clear the way against any fighter opposition and second to control not one but a multitude of UAVs.  The Reaper is nice - but slow and easy meat to even a MiG-17.  The only reason the Paki strikes work is the Isalamabad government approves of the strikes and does not send up interceptors.
 
The F-22 and its AESA are also an overlooked portion of his agenda driven argument.  One cannot minimize the effective CPU and AESA combination with stealth that the F-22 represents - in short - you want to knock out someone's power grid but not destroy anything - the Raptor is the answer.
 
You want to hack into Kim Jun Il's personal bank account records in the DPRK - the Raptor is the way to go.  You want to knock out an IADS without firing a shot - the IW features already demonstrated by the F-22 are the answer.
 
Then there is the functionality of the AESA against missiles.  You and I know that the F-22 has already knocked out missiles in flight with the AESA alone.  It is not unlikely that it could also throw off ballistic missiles such as the Tae Po Dong or Shahab... and here is the key - because of its stealth - it won't be detected.  This does not mention what it could do against 4th gen fighters and their not-so-smart radars.
 
In the end - there is no convincing Darth.  So I best leave him to the US Army to deal with (thats if he is not using their networks to post here at SP - in which case the CID might give him a call).  In the end - he is perfectly willing to loose fighter pilots and have a ground war start instead of listening to any argument to the contrary.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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