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

DarthAmerica       4/8/2009 8:36:18 PM
Well, let me do the commute thing and I'll respond to you in a bit Rocky. I do have an opinion about some of the things you are saying.


I'll Be Back
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/8/2009 8:40:23 PM
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? If a conflict with PRC is that unlikely (my opinion has not changed) then playing devils advocate, I would like to know what type of scenarios could not be handled by:
 
1. 400 F-22 Raptors
2. 224 F-15E 
3. 300 F-15 Silent Eagles
4. 1000 F-16 brought up to block 60 standard
5. A lot of money left over for UCAV R&D
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    GF, check your PMs    4/8/2009 8:44:58 PM
Herald.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Mustang Reply   4/8/2009 9:36:48 PM

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 


 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/8/2009 10:56:17 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.

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

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 e

 
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...

 

-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 th
 
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



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