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
Softwar       4/8/2009 11:17:49 AM


Overwhelming force and strategy had everything to do with Gulf War 1, endurance had nothing to do with it.






This is typical of the short sighted myopic view of warfare. Saddam endured for a decade. He correctly wagered that we would not be willing to pursue him to Baghdad and thus he could survive which was his primary objective, regime survival. As a result he tied up a huge percentage of US assets until finally we launched OIF to finish what we started. An operation that still goes on today. Wars don't actually end when CNN stops coverage or the DoD changes the name of the Operation.




-DA 



 
OIF was all brute force - the problem was we were not prepared to endure "occupation" - not really a US forte ...ever.  Gulf One was based on overwhelming force - the 100 hours ground campaign succeeded because we applied an overwhelming force from the air.  Bush One stated the object was to boot Saddam out of Kuwait.  Nothing more.
 
The Clinton years were a joke - with occassional missile strikes to offset the daily scandals from making top page.  Thus one reason why Desert Fox was unoffically called operation Monica Storm.  The objective was to keep Saddam in a "box" and pray that he didn't break out.  This is not endurance nor force.
 
The only way to prevent war is to demonstrate from the get go that we are prepared with overwhelming force to defeat an opponent.  This is called detterence - a strategy in any field of potential conflict of being prepared to inflict unacceptable damage on an aggressor, and making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk so that he refrains from aggression.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/8/2009 12:54:03 PM


Overwhelming force and strategy had everything to do with Gulf War 1, endurance had nothing to do with it.






This is typical of the short sighted myopic view of warfare. Saddam endured for a decade. He correctly wagered that we would not be willing to pursue him to Baghdad and thus he could survive which was his primary objective, regime survival. As a result he tied up a huge percentage of US assets until finally we launched OIF to finish what we started. An operation that still goes on today. Wars don't actually end when CNN stops coverage or the DoD changes the name of the Operation.




-DA 




Excuse my shortsightedness, I was under the impression we were discussing the need for more F-22's which would be used in a COMBAT SITUATION in an attempt to provide overwhelming force.   A chess match for 12 years bears no merit on the subject matter as I believe major combat lasted about a month and half due to overwhelming force. The Coalition defeated and drove out an enemy and declared victory versus in contrast Operation Iraqi Freedom...an invasion and occupation which is the endurance you are referring to. Let us not confuse the two wars as they are nothing alike.
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/8/2009 1:35:32 PM
DA, I put your quotes in italics.  My response:
We have several solutions to this in addition to more Raptors. They are:

GOLDEN EAGLES

SILENT EAGLES

F-35s

...So there isn't just one way to do this. Thats 4 at least. A fifth and sixth option would be...
 
Apparently you missed the whole point of my post.  The F-15Cs ("Golden Eagles") will be 30 years old within the decade.  The F-15E ("Silent Eagle") is a revamp of a 30-year old design.  Either way, you're relying on an old aircraft nearing the end of its service life.  The Silent Eagle will help, yes, but it's an interim design at best.  The Golden Eagles in particular will not magically become younger airframes just by changing the name.
 
The F-35 is a possibility, but it's not designed to be an air superiority fighter.  It's designed to be a multirole fighter.  Again, we're trusting that the F-35 can do the job of the F-16 (which I believe it will do), but it's simply not meant to replace the F-15.  Trying to make the design do something it isn't designed to is also a hallmark of McNamara.
Raptors are improved throughout its life cycle and a Raptor Circa 2015-2018 is 1.x-2.x times as effective as a Raptor today. Let me ask you this. Would you agree that if you have to battle early model F-15A's or Todays F-15C's with AESA, the later is many times more deadly? The same will happen with Raptors. The six option but unlikely in the timeframe we are discussing would be to develop a new platform. 
 
Absolutely.  But it will cost a lot more to reopen the production line for the F-22 than keep it going.  And reopening the production line a few years down the road basically means that Gates' decision is an entirely political one, rather than a military one.  Which means that he's wrong.
 
 McNamara certainly made mistakes in Viet Nam. But he is one of the fathers of multirole aircraft. Look into it. IN any event, right or wrong, 60 more F-22's is not going to make or break the DoD. But hey look at it this way. If Congress forces the issue and we get 60 more Raptors, I can live with that too...;) I just think the priority should be elsewhere.
 
I don't have to look into it, DA; the Vietnam air war is my forte.  McNamara was an accidental father of multirole aircraft. 
The F-4B was always a multirole aircraft when the Navy bought it, though it was intended primarily for fleet air defense.  The USAF bought it because McNamara wanted to save money, and it was the USAF, not McNamara, who built it into a dedicated strike aircraft (F-4D), air superiority fighter (F-4E), and Wild Weasel (F-4G).  It became a multirole aircraft more out of necessity than anything else. 
 
McNamara also intended the F-111 to be a multirole aircraft--again, to save money--and while the USAF was able to tweak the F-111A into a superb penetration bomber (after the disastrous Combat Lancer debut), it cost a lot of money and lives before it became one.  The less said about the F-111B fleet defense "fighter" the better; the only thing the F-111B did was convince the Navy to buy Grumman's F-14 instead. 
 
McNamara's achievement in the role of air combat was to get over a thousand American pilots and aircrew killed, as well as 35,000 Vietnamese, for nothing.  Once more, he ignored using overwhelming force, which would've ended North Vietnamese involvement in South Vietnam in 1965, in favor of "endurance."  The result of that can be read on a long black wall in Washington DC.

No, Gates isn't for ending Missile Defense. Neither is POTUS. They merely seek to place emphasis on parts of the program that are more mature and spending as much on developing some of the more advanced concepts like ABL. Those funds are needed in OIF/OEF. But they aren't canceling it. Just scaling it back for now. Keep in mind that we do field a MIssile Defense force capable of defending against the rogue state threat such as the one we faced last week.

I can buy that Gates isn't ending it but scaling back--okay.  Not good, but I can see doing so to free up funds for current operations.  (Though I'm thinking a quarter of the money spent on Porkulus would have done the same thing.)
 
But Obama? He's bee
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 2:16:46 PM


Overwhelming force and strategy had everything to do with Gulf War 1, endurance had nothing to do with it.


This is typical of the short sighted myopic view of warfare. Saddam endured for a decade. He correctly wagered that we would not be willing to pursue him to Baghdad and thus he could survive which was his primary objective, regime survival. As a result he tied up a huge percentage of US assets until finally we launched OIF to finish what we started. An operation that still goes on today. Wars don't actually end when CNN stops coverage or the DoD changes the name of the Operation.
-DA 



OIF was all brute force - the problem was we were not prepared to endure "occupation" - not really a US forte ...ever.  Gulf One was based on overwhelming force - the 100 hours ground campaign succeeded because we applied an overwhelming force from the air.  Bush One stated the object was to boot Saddam out of Kuwait.  Nothing more.

No. All you saw was the brute force. ODS was 3rd Gen Maneuver Warfare with a bit of 4th Gen ISR and Precision mixed in. I recognize what the stated objective was. Ultimately that ended up to be short sighted and while it solved Kuwait's problems, it was the beginning of ours. Saddam saw this. 

The Clinton years were a joke - with occassional missile strikes to offset the daily scandals from making top page.  Thus one reason why Desert Fox was unoffically called operation Monica Storm.  The objective was to keep Saddam in a "box" and pray that he didn't break out.  This is not endurance nor force.

 Indeed it was. Go visit Iraq and talk to Iraqi officers and they will tell you different. During the Clinton years we were still under the false impression that airpower alone was sufficient to deal with a problem of this magnitude. It was very much a test of endurance for both sides.

The only way to prevent war is to demonstrate from the get go that we are prepared with overwhelming force to defeat an opponent.  This is called detterence - a strategy in any field of potential conflict of being prepared to inflict unacceptable damage on an aggressor, and making sure the potential aggressor is aware of the risk so that he refrains from aggression.

There is no need to demonstrate what is obvious. No one questions that we are prepared with overwhelming force. They question our ability to deploy, willingness to use it and whether or not we have the strength to see it through completion. This is why all of our potential and real enemies are seeking asymmetric methods to deal with the huge imbalance of force. Note things like BMs, Terror Attacks, Cyber War and Undersea warfare. Again, there is no need to demonstrate the obvious. What is needed is to demonstrate the strength to see things through until completion. COmpleting things is one of the hardest things you can do in any situation and especially war. This is why Bush/Patraeus "Surge" strategy had so much success. Iran saw that the USA in spite of the cost and losses was willing to ENDURE and remain in Iraq. This upset their calculous and forced realignment. It had nothing to do with overwhelming force and everything to do with Endurance. Russia saw this and knew we could not Endure to resist in Georgia. So they acted. All of the bulk of the USAF and USN most powerful air and sea assets could do nothing to stop it.
Buying F-22's does increase one aspect of our ability to use force, but it combined with other discress
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 2:20:52 PM


Excuse my shortsightedness, I was under the impression we were discussing the need for more F-22's which would be used in a COMBAT SITUATION in an attempt to provide overwhelming force.   A chess match for 12 years bears no merit on the subject matter as I believe major combat lasted about a month and half due to overwhelming force. The Coalition defeated and drove out an enemy and declared victory versus in contrast Operation Iraqi Freedom...an invasion and occupation which is the endurance you are referring to. Let us not confuse the two wars as they are nothing alike.


Again, see my last post. And do not think of this as separate wars because that isn't how the enemy sees it. Because the history will ultimately show that is is not.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Sentinel reply   4/8/2009 2:34:41 PM


Apparently you missed the whole point of my post.  The F-15Cs ("Golden Eagles") will be 30 years old within the decade.  The F-15E ("Silent Eagle") is a revamp of a 30-year old design.  Either way, you're relying on an old aircraft nearing the end of its service life.  The Silent Eagle will help, yes, but it's an interim design at best.  The Golden Eagles in particular will not magically become younger airframes just by changing the name.



Fighting mostly other 30 and 40 year old platforms. This isn't an American thing. Its something all Air Forces are dealing with. Look at the last Mig-29 post from SysOp. Look at the BUFF. Look at the F-4. Look at all the fighters that have flown and fought for 30 years. None of this is unprecedented.


 

The F-35 is a possibility, but it's not designed to be an air superiority fighter.  It's designed to be a multirole fighter.  Again, we're trusting that the F-35 can do the job of the F-16 (which I believe it will do), but it's simply not meant to replace the F-15.  Trying to make the design do something it isn't designed to is also a hallmark of McNamara.



Wrong. Because one of those roles is AIR COMBAT. A role it can do with many times more effectiveness that legacy aircraft. It's got the sensors, LO characteristics, flight performance and weapons to dominate any opponent. And it will fly with the the F-22 by it side as well. Because it isn't in the Brochure that it was built to replace F-15's does not mean it can't.




Absolutely.  But it will cost a lot more to reopen the production line for the F-22 than keep it going.  And reopening the production line a few years down the road basically means that Gates' decision is an entirely political one, rather than a military one.  Which means that he's wrong.



No need to reopen the production line for design improvements. Gates decision is not political. It's transformational.


 


I can buy that Gates isn't ending it but scaling back--okay.  Not good, but I can see doing so to free up funds for current operations.  (Though I'm thinking a quarter of the money spent on Porkulus would have done the same thing.)

 

But Obama? He's been against missile defense since day one.  He's already sold the Poles down the river to score points with P
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Cost benefit   4/8/2009 2:48:03 PM
 
Since we know new air superiority fighters are required in the near future it becomes a question of which one is the best tool for the job. Which one can come on line fastest and have the attibutes our warfighters need to accomplish the missions it will face. Today we have a handful of options, assembly lines open right now. those include F18 SH, F15 (two seat Strike Eagle version), F16, and F22 (honorable mention goes out to the F35 which is in limited advanced prototype production today).
 
Don't even try to argue we don't need new airframes because the F15's are litterally falling apart now and ANG wings are g limiting some F16s due to their high flight times.
 
The best air superiority fighter is the F22. To convert the other airframes to Air Superiority would take additional time and money and deliver good airframes, but certainly not the best. The new F15 being contemplated would probably cost the same as continuing the F22 production line (when you add the cost of additional development for stealthiness and re-open the single seat production line for a couple hundred airframes). Your net savings in the case of a new F15 would be zero and the other F15 option is a two seat strike fighter that really isn't up to snuff as a dogfighter/Air Superiority bird. Would a Super Hornet fill the billet? Maybe but that creates problems with having a couple hundred SH's in USAF inventory. Again, not really a long term cost effective solution.
 
Can the F35 be made to fill the Air Superiority role? I'm not sure but even if it can it won't be available for another 2-5 years
It reamains a big assumption that the foo admin does not cut US procurement of the F35. That shoe just hasn't fallen yet but probably will.
 
The best choice, and the most cost effective, is to continue the F22 production until those Air Superiority requirements are filled.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Ascerbic comment.   4/8/2009 3:06:37 PM
1. The P-47 was the first multi-role USAAF aircraft.
2. Anyone who embraces McNamara as a positive example to make his argument in  defending Gates and by extension the interregnumist is just............... 
3. At this point this argument is OVER. See (2.) for why.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/8/2009 3:06:52 PM
So, DA, your solution is that, just because our enemies don't have the money to replace their 20-year old designs (the current crop of Flankers is about 15 years old in design), we shouldn't either.  In other words, let's piss away our technological edge in favor of cutting spending.  I could live with that if Obama wasn't increasing spending in every other Democrat wish list.  But then again, I forget: the military doesn't need "fancy toys."  Keeping millions of Democrat voters completely dependent on the party's largesse is far more important than keeping American soldiers and pilots alive, I guess.  Bastards are probably conservatives anyway...
 
I will partially concede on Gates and missile defense, though.  I went back over his comments on North Korea's missile launch, and his words could be construed as saying "We don't want to interfere with the launch" (given that it would indeed be an act of war) rather than "We can't interfere with the launch."  If it's the former, then okay.  I still think we should at least continue work on the ABL, given that one is already in service.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 3:08:28 PM


Can the F35 be made to fill the Air Superiority role? I'm not sure but even if it can it won't be available for another 2-5 years

It reamains a big assumption that the foo admin does not cut US procurement of the F35. That shoe just hasn't fallen yet but probably will.

 
YES, the F-35 can do Air Superiority and it will be used that way by almost all users. 2-5 years from now, our current fleet will still be more than capable of holding the line against the practically nonexistent threat from air breathers. Also, an even bigger assumption is that Obama will cut the F-35 when in fact thats the platform Gates is actually accelerating into production. There hasn't been one hint of a cut to F-35 procurement.

 

The best choice, and the most cost effective, is to continue the F22 production until those Air Superiority requirements are filled.
Check Six

Rocky
Not even by your own analysis is this correct. F-35s will be coming off the line be the time 60 additional airframes of F-22 are being produced. Bottom line is, we have the Raptors and Eagles for now to handle the short term, 2-5 years. And we have the Raptors/F-35's to handle things 5+ years out. So the question is really one of preferred method rather than capability which we have.
-DA

 
 
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