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
Herald12345    I can't tell you that exactly.   4/11/2009 6:00:14 PM


Herald, what is the expected attrition rate for the F-22 (expected or realistic?)?

About 3-6% per 100,000 hours flown.

I mean, training accidents, etc happen and equipment, even brand new kit, goes down.

Based on the current rate of US peacetime aircraft attrition. It could easily double operationally due to high tempo wartime rates..

Accidents of one sort or another are bound to occur. So what happens when we have capped our most valuable air to air bird and we start incurring annual attrition that we cannot replace?

We start a new aircraft preogram that delivers us a new bird in ten years. Just because we capped this bird doesn't mean that the requirement goes away. We need an air dominance fighter of some sort.

Are they to become hanger queens out of fear of losing one or are they to simply be whittled down until there is not enough birds (assuming we have enough at the cap) to kick down the doors we face in the future?

Don't ask me. Ask Gates. he's the one who can't add.

Or are we to assume the F-22 will go 20 years with out losing a single bird in due to one reason or another?

But it directly addresses the landmine I laid six pages ago. I can say this.
 
Let's do a little math shall we?
 
Let's assume we fly 187 Raptors 30 hours a month in peacetime?  Each bird racks up 360 hours a year. In 20 years it will have 7200  hours on it. Now how do I come up with 30 hours a month? Well that figure is based on training a team of three pilots on it. They have to stay current. There are more pilots than planes. You can turnaround a plane and send it out between sorties, but you have to rest the aircrew and you have to train that aircrew, so.......
 
Anyway,  
 
It doesn't look like a problem to the amateurs because the aircraft is rated for that lifespan of hours and then some, but.......
 
 
It can be fixed, But in the meantime the useful hours estimates for the F-22, like they are for the defective and UNFIXABLE Eagles will be fewer than the amateurs assume.
 
We are sucking wind on our air-power and the fools in charge are lying to you when they say we will be all-right with this CRAP of a plan they put forth.
 
That is not an opinion. Its a materials science and industrial fact. Even for such crap police actions like a few more Afghanistans,  we may be caught short. The air fleet is wearing out.
 
Herald

   
 
 
 
 
 
     
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 6:23:30 PM

DA,

 

It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?


Mustang,

I read some of the other post and I noticed some things I disagree with. Just o answer an potential followup questions you may have let me add some things. First, the no matter what the internet says country x has in total numbers of aircraft. There are some very practical limits to how many of those aircraft can be brought to bear in a given battle space. Realistically, we are looking at 600-700 total PRC aircraft in a given area and not up all at the same time.

With regard to BMs, I know there is a popular myth that F-22's will be roaming the skies of the PRC hunting down all these TELs and SAMs but that is not likely. The F-22 is designed with the European theater in mind and is too short legged for that kind of SCUD hunting over China. China is a large nation with a good amount of strategic depth. A much better what to defeat the 2nd Artillery is to have a strong missile defense and rather than SCUD hunt with Raptors, that is the way we are preparing for that. Notice that we are adding Missile Defense Capable Ships to the Pacific and building more Burkes. If I had to go after a TEL in China, it would not be with F-22's. Human pilots have physiological limits that limit effectiveness. Much better would be an LO high altitude high endurance Hunter Killer UAV.

-DA    

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Mustang Reply...   4/11/2009 6:42:05 PM
Mustang, forget about war with China and Russia in 2015 and think about war with places like SOMALIA and in and near other crucial waterways. Wars in Mexico and Pakistan.

Here is where some of the 9 billion in immediate savings canceling F-22's should go...

 


 All of our worse nightmares about non-state actors and failed states is coming true NOW.

 -DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/11/2009 6:46:05 PM

Mustang, forget about war with China and Russia in 2015 and think about war with places like SOMALIA and in and near other crucial waterways. Wars in Mexico and Pakistan.




Here is where some of the 9 billion in immediate savings canceling F-22's should go...




 







 All of our worse nightmares about non-state actors and failed states is coming true NOW.




 -DA

Should go?   You do realize that it will NOT go there right?

Darth, you do realize that the money saved from cutting the Raptor program will NOT be shifted to other parts of the DOD right?

You know this right?

That money, money that was originally slated for F-22s will fund Congressional pork projects NOT MILITARY RELATED in the next Great Society


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Malarkey.   4/11/2009 6:49:03 PM




DA,



 



It is 2015 and an all out engagement with PRC is waging in the Pacific. Russia is again taking advantage of a situation in which our military is severley stretched and begins mobilizing near the Caucusus Region. What is the minimum number of F-22's that would be needed to maintain air superiority to allow less capable platforms to survive? Assuming we are talking about first day of war, most likely there would be plenty of SU-30/J11's in the air which would need to be eliminated, SAM and COMM sites which need to be knocked out and airfields to destroy. So my question is how many F-22's  are required to perform these missions before other aircraft can be fully utilized in their perspective roles?







Mustang,




I read some of the other post and I noticed some things I disagree with. Just o answer an potential followup questions you may have let me add some things. First, the no matter what the internet says country x has in total numbers of aircraft. There are some very practical limits to how many of those aircraft can be brought to bear in a given battle space. Realistically, we are looking at 600-700 total PRC aircraft in a given area and not up all at the same time.




With regard to BMs, I know there is a popular myth that F-22's will be roaming the skies of the PRC hunting down all these TELs and SAMs but that is not likely. The F-22 is designed with the European theater in mind and is too short legged for that kind of SCUD hunting over China. China is a large nation with a good amount of strategic depth. A much better what to defeat the 2nd Artillery is to have a strong missile defense and rather than SCUD hunt with Raptors, that is the way we are preparing for that. Notice that we are adding Missile Defense Capable Ships to the Pacific and building more Burkes. If I had to go after a TEL in China, it would not be with F-22's. Human pilots have physiological limits that limit effectiveness. Much better would be an LO high altitude high endurance Hunter Killer UAV.




-DA    




1. One thing about air-power, Mustang. In a battlespace it can flow like a liquid toward or away from an objective. It is logistically the hardest and kinetically the easiest force in a military arsenal to mass locally. All it has to do is FLY to the fight..  
2. Ballistic missiles have range limits. Most of the Second Artlllery's IRBMs and TBMs have to be at or near the coast to hit their primary target sets. A TEL can run, but not more than 40 kilometers per hour with a HOT missle aboard, and not usually setback more than 500 kilometers from the coast with the current known ranges taken into account. Anyone with an ounce of common serns and a protractor could figure this out from available data.
 
3. Raptors don't hunt Scuds or their DF11, 13, 15, 21,  equivalents as their primary purpose. Raptors kill the defending PLAAF and help WEASEL  (SEAD) the seams in the SAM belt so that the B-1s and B-2s can kill the 2nd Artillery. And there is alweays John Q Tanker orbiting offshore for a fill her up.  
 
Once again the poster pretends that he has an answer, when he really doesn't know or understand the problem in its concrete numerical aspect.
 
But whatever. I'm going to continue to analyze what he posts and explain it in its proper real context and not in the numerous erroneous suppositions  that that poster likes to imagine and assert. Data and numbers tell you what is going on here. Not opinion tossed out there with nothing concrete or factual in the way of a true analysis to back it up.
 
By the way, where is that coverage analysis that we were supposed to see that was to negate the Guam scenario?
 
Herald


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 6:55:56 PM
Should go?   You do realize that it will NOT go there right?

Darth, you do realize that the money saved from cutting the Raptor program will NOT be shifted to other parts of the DOD right?

You know this right?

That money, money that was originally slated for F-22s will fund Congressional pork projects NOT MILITARY RELATED in the next Great Society


EF,
 
I'm looking at this on a much higher level. I think the DoD would be wrong to see China as an enemy and set itself up to wage near peer war with them. We already have vast advantages and more immediate threats. Money not spent on F-22's will go to other DoD programs, the wars  or even things like Universal Health Care. My point is that I see all of these things as more important that having 60 additional Raptors. If we get them, great. But I'd be more happy to see that money spent elsewhere where it is more needed. Sorry but I just don't subscribe to the Sinophobic views some have.

-DA 




 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Malarkey.   4/11/2009 7:02:21 PM
Want to fight pirates?
 
Who was it, that said,  "scuttle that over glorified, mine-hunting speedboat and tell that ---------,. Gates, to buy  helo capable, cheap gun frigates instead?
 
We have an Arleigh that should be body-guarding capital ships babysitting a bunch (four?) of scum and one hostage.
 
I suppose the thought of putting a hole in the raft and putting those people in the water, hasn't occurred to anybody?
 
Be tough on the poor captain's family, but that is the price of admiralty.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/11/2009 7:07:04 PM

Thank you for that analysis Herald. I had no idea the F-22 had structural problems such as that and that merely reinforces my fear that the overall life span may, potentially, theoretically, run into something that is unforeseen that limits their life.

Why do I have the feeling we will regret this DOD decision?

 

---DA---I'm looking at this on a much higher level. I think the DoD would be wrong to see China as an enemy and set itself up to wage near peer war with them.---

Why is it China sees the USA as an enemy and is doing everything with in their power to counter as many American advantages as they can?

Hell, they are not even secretive about it.

---DA---We already have vast advantages and more immediate threats.---

Vast advantages a victory doth not make. How many times through out history has an adversary with overwhelming advantages been defeated by an underdog?

---DA---Money not spent on F-22's will go to other DoD programs,---

No they will not.

The Congress is CUTTING THE DOD budget; not shifting funds around.

The ENTIRE military is going to LOSE MONEY.

---DA---the wars or even things like Universal Health Care.---

The money is slated to go SPECIFICALLY to thinks such as UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE which, if you like it, that is fine, but we are talking about the MILITARY here and Universal Health Care does not help us win wars.

---DA---My point is that I see all of these things as more important that having 60 additional Raptors.---

If 60 Raptors meant X fewer US Army grunts KILLED IN ACTION, would you go for them then?

---DA---If we get them, great. But I'd be more happy to see that money spent elsewhere where it is more needed.---

But it will not be spent elsewhere! That is the point; the DOD is not SHIFTING FUNDS; they are LOSING FUNDS.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Malarkey.   4/11/2009 7:12:30 PM
And as for higher level........<Comment not allowed> .
 
That is that secret knowledge claim asserted again. "I have a superior perspective than some", um...... "yes I have a loftier view of the global situation than .........".
 
Yeah, right. That poster can see the BIG PICTURE.
 
No he can't.
 
That is not my opinion. That is observed fact as this makes the twentieth shibboleth of his, that I've skewered in two days.of factual rebuttal of error after error after error after error after error...........
  
I wonder what next off topic and off point strawman or unsupported assertion made, will now be presented to be knocked down?
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 7:26:34 PM

Troll and Troll-Wannabe Posters a troll is defined as a poster who comes to these boards with the sole purpose of flaming, disrupting, antagonizing, provoking and/or abusing existing board members. New posters will be given a ?break-in? period, with the assumption that they come here to learn and contribute to their knowledge base in a positive way. However, if the poster exhibits behavior CONTRARY to our Mission Statement, and begins acting in a ?Trollish? manner, they will, though NOT always in this order, be warned. Normally, you will:

Be privately warned that there is a concern regarding the nature of your posts; if that fails, then

Public admonishment will follow, with the aim of giving an open warning that such posts are questionable and that the poster needs to clean up their act; if the behavior is not corrected, then finally

The poster will have all of their threads deleted, and their HANDLE will be PERMANENTLY BANNED from posting on this website.


 


Being that some of us have agreed to disagree, unless we are asking for clarification of something, I think it would be best to leave the subject alone and move on for people who can't help but be confrontational and antagonistic.

-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF Reply   4/11/2009 7:36:15 PM
I think the DoD should lose money. What's left needs to be re-prioritized. More F-22's aren't a priority from my point of view based on years of study and debate. Thus I agree with SecDef Gates decision on the matter. So cutting at least 9 billion from the F-22 means that DoD funding that would have been used on the F-22 can now be used on something else.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That is a funny quote of the rules.    4/11/2009 7:47:16 PM
Considering the bullying and personal abuse the poster has resorted to in this thread

Troll and Troll-Wannabe Posters a troll is defined as a poster who comes to these boards with the sole purpose of flaming, disrupting, antagonizing, provoking and/or abusing existing board members. New posters will be given a ?break-in? period, with the assumption that they come here to learn and contribute to their knowledge base in a positive way. However, if the poster exhibits behavior CONTRARY to our Mission Statement, and begins acting in a ?Trollish? manner, they will, though NOT always in this order, be warned. Normally, you will:


Be privately warned that there is a concern regarding the nature of your posts; if that fails, then


Public admonishment will follow, with the aim of giving an open warning that such posts are questionable and that the poster needs to clean up their act; if the behavior is not corrected, then finally


The poster will have all of their threads deleted, and their HANDLE will be PERMANENTLY BANNED from posting on this website.







 







Being that some of us have agreed to disagree, unless we are asking for clarification of something, I think it would be best to leave the subject alone and move on for people who can't help but be confrontational and antagonistic.




-DA 

 


It also is posted as a threat to intimidate and stifle debate on the point under discussion. May I ask the poster again to present data on topic and to restrict himself to the discussion at hand and not try to usurp a role that is not his by right or priveledge?

As to technical commentary on point concerning the defense budget and the judgments that went into it, there is none
 
Herald
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 8:02:58 PM
Alright Herald, we will try this one more time. First, if you are going to address me, please use my handle and I'll use yours. That will avoid any confusion about who we are talking about, and the nature of any discussion. Second, I started this post so that I can share my opinion about Gates decisions. Simply put, I agree with it. If you disagree, simply state why. If you cannot or will not, then lets not talk at all or reference each others post. This is a genuine attempt to keep things civil and within the scope of the posted rules.

Are you able to do that?

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/11/2009 8:04:16 PM
1).  I don't get it.  Why don't you guys polish DA off by showing him that if the only assets we have are 187 F-22 we couldn't possibly come close to meeting our air superiority needs if we have to simultaneously drive our Army to Moscow and also use the Marines to occupy China?  I mean, c'mon, what are you people waiting for?
 
----
 
2).  Several of you "posters" need to understand the difference between claiming we could produce some level of capability within a certain timeframe if it is made a higher priority and current capabilities under development are rushed into service, from claiming we could produce the best possible capability within a certain timeframe based on extrapolating historical priorities and capability implementation rates.
 
Oh, and if an arquebus is a firearm, a Sopwith Camel is a fighter, an SA-1 is a SAM, etc., etc., then MQ-9s certainly *ARE* UCAVs (as autonomous operation is NOT a necessary condition for being a UCAV) and hanging a couple puny Stingers on one certainly *DOES* give it the capability to conduct air superiority missions.  Of course, it gives it virtually no capability to do so, and such as it is is only for a very small sub-set of all conceivable air superiority mission scenarios, but it does.
 
----
 
3).  Herald, seemingly trying to apply this standard, "What I am proving (and quite successfully) is that you are UNQUALIFIED to have an opinion on this subject," to posting on StrategyPage is bullcrap for most anyone short of some pedant like BW or most recently Arklight, and certainly is for DA--regardless of how ignorant his posts sometimes appear, particularly basically everything he says that's actually personally in favor of The Obamination.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/11/2009 8:05:28 PM
Even in this unlikely scenario not all PLAAF birds will be in the air but you can bet that the best will be and not straying too far from the SAM belt. Also PRC has the advantage of all of its assets close by, the U.S. would have to rely on allied bases which are vulnerable to missile attack or carrier reinforcement with subs crawling up their ass. So where do you support the hundreds of aircraft and their crew to offset the lack of F-22's? Guam and Kadena are most logical suitors but still within cruise missile range. It would seem that first day is of major tactical advantage to destroy enemy fighters and eliminate SAM batteries and given the amount of airspace and terrain to cover a fleet of at least 144 F-22's would be necessary to overwhelm the enemy given 70-80 would be in the air at any one time. This would reduce the number of other assets needed in the region and number of casualties taken from less capable platforms. F-15E's and Raptors could then be used in conjuction to hunt the mobile launchers. Sending a UCAV to hunt these launchers would be a waste of money as they are easily targeted and destroyed. I also would have a 36 Raptors sitting at Elmendorf and Langley respectivley so not to leave the CONUS unprotected. This is why I believe the 60 extra Raptors is necessary. Unlikley or not there are many instances that past history will show us that weren't supposed to happen but did.
 
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