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

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 spira...l, 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

http://www.journalinquirer.com...

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.


http://www.star-telegram.com/2...

"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.


http://www.bizjournals.com/sea...

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.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/...

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



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