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

JFKY    Herald    4/8/2009 4:29:51 PM
Screw it man, you want to be obscure be obscure...when one makes "points" one genrally tries to define terms.  Hey you be as obscure as you care to be...or pointless or crazy or whatever it is you are trying to be, with undefined terms of discussion.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Once agaijn the appeal to hidden authority.   4/8/2009 5:01:16 PM
Parsing words is not my style. We can with some success engage an IRBM at least midphase and descent phase now. Shooting down satellites from a moving ship proves this. Part of that though is gaining and maintaining an EW edge over the IRBM user. Gates is about to throw that all away.
 
I doubt that some of the posters here understand why I say this, but there are still some of you; especially those of you involved with the electronic end of the intercept operation that know why I say this.  

Not hardly. If anything he is increasing our capability in these phases. That's were the money and attention are going.
 
Pardon me but I know you are in no position to know this. I really doubt you know where the money is going and what is being funded. 

As for an Army guy commenting on airpower issues and aviation industrial policy, I'm not convinced that he knows enough to be credible on topic. Hr hasn't proved that he understands the dynamics

Nice appeal to authority and attempted attack on my credibility but excuse me if I say, who the heck are you. Other than being a technical person or engineer of some kind, which I am also in civilian life, you have never even served in the military. So should I belittle your words and attack your credibility? No, because I've got logic and experience to back up my opinions and I'm perfectly fine to simply disagree with you and leave it at that without personally attacking anything about you.

No I am stating an obvious fact. You are well established now as being a technology dilettante. I don't have to do more and read your gaffes, mistakes, and outright errors on many subjects to know this. If you are an engineer, you are not an aviation one. 


He has to supply far more than he has: a definite concrete something, something more definite than his "opinion".

Its called data and FACTS.

Herald

Again, because of my experience, I know THE FACTS you are lamenting about are not publicly available materials. I know the methodology used to access these threats as well as the data needed to do it. Thats why I know your Guam scenario doesn't work and it's why I know neither I or anyone else can present FACTS that prove beyond doubt any of this. You can try of course, and I'll stop with the casual posting and proceed to disembowel any attempt you make to "prove" anything about the need for F-22's.  There are just too many unknowns to be accounted for in these contrived scenarios to settle things down to precise numbers here. All that can be said for certain is that the USA will have a decisive advantage with 250 Raptors + Legacy + F-35 OR 187 Raptors + Legacy + F-35 with the true question being how much of an advantage is enough given that we have to balance things against other needs.
 When someone tries to buzzword his way out of a corner and BS besides, its easily recognizable. Do you see me buzzword or BSing here? Well do you? As for the Guam scenario, you have no idea of what is going on or how many ways its gamed out with how many variations to Sunday, so don't try to run that bluff. You are Army not Navy or Air Force. In this you are frankly clueless.
Also, it can be said, that the trend has been moving steadily away from manned fighter combat and towards unmanned technologies of all kinds and that is where our attention needs to go. There are physiological limits to this technology and we are at a crossroads with regard to focusing on the needs of the future. 
 
Again you are confusing the thruster and wings with the decider who has to pull the trigger, and you don't know what you are talking about..
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Illustrated Difference Between US Darth   4/8/2009 5:04:27 PM
There is no need to demonstrate what is obvious.
 
I see a different world than you do - having also been there, done that and met them.  I know I am quite a bit older than you. 
 
Saddam knew we were much more powerful than Iraq - but that did not stop him from invading Kuwait.  He figured wrong - based on intentions.
 
We were much more powerful than North Vietnam and North Korea - that did not prevent extended wars that consumed thousands of American lives.  They too figured wrong - based on the political winds and intentions.
 
The Soviets knew we were serious - having bumped into our ships and aircraft on a daily basis for decades.  The Russians play chess - we play poker.
 
This is where you and I differ so much - I come from a Cold war era where intentions are worthless - capability is everything.  You plan for it and you set your priorities accordingly.  We failed in that because during the 1990s we wanted to have our peace dividend.  We are paying the price now for that golden days of pool boy politics with a global instability instead of unquestioned peace.
 
One has to constantly demonstrate deterrence - because others have short memories and are often distracted by local politics.  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply   4/8/2009 5:23:45 PM
The debate between you and I is not concluded. You, armed only with your opinions and "lite"- Ad Hominem redirection on me rather than the subject, can't prove anything you say other than you disagree with my opinion. Thank Goodness you've been properly muzzled so as not to allow you to proceed even further down that path. When you can go into more detail about "why" 60 more F-22's is crucial to national security, I'll listen intensely. Until then I'm quite satisfied to have successfully demonstrated my point against yours. 

What I'm not going to do is allow you to take this thread into the realm of a "Herald-Centric" vs Darth style digression. So, having said that. I agree to disagree, 187 Raptors it is unless Congress sees fit to change that, and there exist no threat that could withstand the USAF by qualitative means. Unless you can expand on your disagreement in a post that makes no direct reference to Obama, Gates or me and is purely data centric so as to remove an scintilla of perceived bias, NFC from me.

Thus endeth debate. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Herald reply   4/8/2009 5:36:47 PM

There is no need to demonstrate what is obvious.
 
I see a different world than you do - having also been there, done that and met them.  I know I am quite a bit older than you. 

 You do not know that but you are free to speculate. I'm in early middle age so if you are older, congratulations on your longevity. And yes, we do see the world different. Especially on military matters. Its because I've been in a lot closer contact to the pointy end. It could be, that I've been so close, that I am missing the broad view. Or that I am so close that I understand it better. Or even perhaps we are both right and wrong about a lot of things. Only time will tell.

Saddam knew we were much more powerful than Iraq - but that did not stop him from invading Kuwait.  He figured wrong - based on intentions.

 Umm...Hmm no argument there.

We were much more powerful than North Vietnam and North Korea - that did not prevent extended wars that consumed thousands of American lives.  They too figured wrong - based on the political winds and intentions.

They were backed by a sponsor, and fought us to stalemate. 

The Soviets knew we were serious - having bumped into our ships and aircraft on a daily basis for decades.  The Russians play chess - we play poker.

This is where you and I differ so much - I come from a Cold war era where intentions are worthless - capability is everything.  You plan for it and you set your priorities accordingly.  We failed in that because during the 1990s we wanted to have our peace dividend.  We are paying the price now for that golden days of pool boy politics with a global instability instead of unquestioned peace.

I also come from the Cold War era. The foundation of my understanding of these issues goes back to the Early 1980's. But having done my fighting in the 21st Century, I've been able to see first hand the differences between theory and practice. For too long we have neglected the world as it is and approached national security from the point of view of how we wish it to be.

One has to constantly demonstrate deterrence - because others have short memories and are often distracted by local politics.  Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.

 I said, our dominance is obvious. Being obvious, it means it's known to all. Constant demonstrations of something that people can see anytime the U.S. Military manifest itself is a waste of effort. Heck, why not build X-Wing fighters? Why stop at the F-22. Lets demonstrate Veritechs? I wonder what Mullah Omar thinks of that? Well he doesn't think of such things because they are no threat to him. Nor are they a threat to any of our opponents who chose not to engage us in areas we dominate. Eternal Vigilance requires ENDURANCE. Endurance requires he prioritization of the was we use limited resources such as funding. In a perfect world, we would have several hundred F-22's. But in this real world, we have to balance that want with the need to cover a broad range of more immediate needs. Otherwise, we will be the most recently defeated Army with the best least used Air Superiority fighter in the world.

-DA 

 



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/8/2009 5:37:55 PM

The debate between you and I is not concluded. You, armed only with your opinions and "lite"- Ad Hominem redirection on me rather than the subject, can't prove anything you say other than you disagree with my opinion. Thank Goodness you've been properly muzzled so as not to allow you to proceed even further down that path. When you can go into more detail about "why" 60 more F-22's is crucial to national security, I'll listen intensely. Until then I'm quite satisfied to have successfully demonstrated my point against yours. 

You have lost on the merits of the topic you started. Actually you lost it when you couldn't for the life of yourself figure out why you still need a manned platform that could intrude into an actively  defended airspace. Furthermore this bombast and that is what it is  your frank admission that you have nothing else of a technical or strategic nature to offer so that you here resort to  a veiled personal attack. I stated plainly you did not know what you were talking about, and showed why. I called your bluff and you didn't stand your ground on the technical proofs because you just don't know and dare not argue it on that basis. I haven't been muzzles to then extent that I can't prove that you are unqualified to have an opinion about something about which you really know less than you pretend to do.

What I'm not going to do is allow you to take this thread into the realm of a "Herald-Centric" vs Darth style digression. So, having said that. I agree to disagree, 187 Raptors it is unless Congress sees fit to change that, and there exist no threat that could withstand the USAF by qualitative means. Unless you can expand on your disagreement in a post that makes no direct reference to Obama, Gates or me and is purely data centric so as to remove an scintilla of perceived bias, NFC from me.

I also dictate how I end debates, Darth. Here is a parting shot to set you on your merry way. When you learn something about titanium forgings then you can come in here and try to discuss this topic again. until then;
    


Your concession of defeat is accepted
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/8/2009 5:45:05 PM
Unless you can expand on your disagreement in a post that makes no direct reference to Obama, Gates  and is purely data centric so as to remove an scintilla of perceived bias, NFC from me.

Note that i have edited out the reference to you - mainly because I don't see it as being particularly helpful for either you or Herald to arc each other up in what I see as an extremely relevant post.

That dealt with I do see as relevant the inclusion of individuals in the decision making process.  US Service history is replete with examples of the impact that individuals had on US military services.

Kennedy, Carter, Ford, Reagan, George the elder are all classic examples of POTUS who for better or worse had an impact on their countries future and/or perception while on their own watch.

Similarly across various executive levels, Forrestal, Towers, Rickover, LeMay Kissinger, Albright, Zeb,  Gates reflect the policies of their own ideology etc.....

Individuals have to be included in  the debate as they singularly impact upon policy direction.  Indded, if you take personalities like Towers, Rickover and LeMay out of the equation, you end up with military services that would have been absolutely emasculated by their Civilian bosses at the time.  All 3 have had far longer impact and influence on how the US is repected and feared militarily than any POTUS or SecState/SecDef.

On another note, the reason why JSF will be the primary air interceptor for at least 7 other countries is due to a raft of issues.  availability, access and their own force structure (and that includes the non shooters)

The US through sheer ability has to look at fighting at a far more complex level than any of the other 8 countries selecting JSF.  The US strength is in its absolute dominance across all the fighting vectors en-masse.  They have that because they don't fight with one hand tied behind their back.  The F-22 means that you don't fight crippled relative to your absolute capability.   For the rest of us, we don't have near peers where they can threaten us sufficiently and where politics would most likely see our allies ramping up to assist.  The US cannot and has seen that it cannot rely on absolutes.  It's power and capability must always be assumed as organic and total.  
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 5:56:09 PM




Unless you can expand on your disagreement in a post that makes no direct reference to Obama, Gates  and is purely data centric so as to remove an scintilla of perceived bias, NFC from me.



Note that i have edited out the reference to you - mainly because I don't see it as being particularly helpful for either you or Herald to arc each other up in what I see as an extremely relevant post.
 
Thank You for that.

On another note, the reason why JSF will be the primary air interceptor for at least 7 other countries is due to a raft of issues.  availability, access and their own force structure (and that includes the non shooters)

The US through sheer ability has to look at fighting at a far more complex level than any of the other 8 countries selecting JSF.  The US strength is in its absolute dominance across all the fighting vectors en-masse.  They have that because they don't fight with one hand tied behind their back.  The F-22 means that you don't fight crippled relative to your absolute capability.   For the rest of us, we don't have near peers where they can threaten us sufficiently and where politics would most likely see our allies ramping up to assist.  The US cannot and has seen that it cannot rely on absolutes.  It's power and capability must always be assumed as organic and total.  

Agreed with the caveat that I believe that with 187 F-22's we can project that absolute capability in sufficient quantities to overcome any conceivable threat. So in my opinion, buying more during a time when funds and focus are clearly needed elsewhere represents waste. My abbreviated 0.02 cents...;)

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Mustang reply   4/8/2009 7:12:27 PM
 
Mustang, there is a big difference between a F15C, single seat interceptor and the F15E Strike Eagle. The Strike Eagle can perform many similar tasks however it is probably not optimal to go up against lighter more agile SU-27 family of aircraft. It is an aircraft that has been optimized for the penetrator strike role. To go back into production with the single seat variant of the F15 we would need essentially to bring the entire production line on as if we were building a new aircraft. Along with the updates involved, the design the cost would equal or exceed the cost of the next F22 off of the production line (because F22 costs are going down now not up) and the aircraft would be less capable.
 
Earlier in this thread Darth had mentioned new F15's as a option, and I was showing why that is simply not going to save Us any money.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Darth reply   4/8/2009 7:42:39 PM
 
It is good to get to the bottom of your opinion. You simply think we don't need those new airframes and think it would be money spent elsewhere. Fair enough.
 
So you might understand why so many might disagree, let's look at recent history: My numbers are a little foggy but I think they are close enough. As of 2003 we had around 450+/- F15C dedicated Air Superiority fighters. These are Cold Warriors who saw endless rotations over the continental US, Europe and the Pacific during the Cold War and then spent years in Bosnia as well as flying combat patrols over Iraq guarding the "no fly zones". Some of these airframes actually saw more flight time in the years after the Cold War than they did during it! All of this used the airframes up at a prodigious rate. You might remember last year about 170 of them were scrapped or sent to the shop to be completely rebuilt when a F15 broke in two pieces over Indiana while pulling about a 3g turn (pilot ejected safely). The remaining 280 or so are now being reinforced with the new F22's, which are just coming onto duty in small numbers. F22 operational wings are just now learning how to accomplish their missions and aren't exactly 100% yet (remember when their systems shut down in mid flight when they flew across the international date line?). What remains is some less than 300 F15's that are ancient and being used way to hard given their geriatric status. The F22's on the other hand will be used extremely hard to give the F15's a break while they are in the hangars being repaired (in part because of their age). Yes we have Air National Guard aircraft (F16's which are not quite as good for the air superiority task) to fill in some of the blanks but there is no doubt that we are stretched thin on this critical asset.
 
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 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
 
 
 
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