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    Sen. Dodd Opposes F-22 Cut   4/9/2009 1:36:12 PM

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

The Machinists union, Rep. John B. Larson, D-1st District, and Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., are participating in a strategy session and rally today to discuss ways to salvage the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program.

Larson, Dodd, and the rest of Connecticut?s congressional delegation sent a letter Tuesday to President Barack H. Obama asking him to interceded on behalf of the workers facing layoffs and save the F-22 Raptor fighter jet program.

In the letter, the delegation said that the Pentagon must buy additional F-22s in order to maintain national security. In addition, terminating the F-22 ?will seriously erode our industrial base, leaving our nation with significantly reduced capability to produce advanced fighter aircraft,? the delegation said, in a reference to maintaining enough production workers to manufacture the upcoming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter due to enter service in 2014.

?Once lost, we believe it will be extremely difficult to reconstitute such a skilled work force — impeding not only our national security, but also our competitiveness for decades to come,? the delegation said.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    DA   4/9/2009 1:40:16 PM
It will also be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run than recapitalizing the bulk of the TACAIR fleet as well. IIRC turning TOMCATs to BOMBCATs cost ~2.5-3 billion for just 210 planes and that was really not even as extensive. I also think not going F-35 hurts our preferred method of coalition warfare and would have disastrous consequences for our defense industry. An F-35 is many times more effective in it's role compared to legacy platforms.
 
Just to clarify, when I say "recapitalize the bulk of our tactical jet fleet with inexpensive updated-4th-gen airframes", I mean buy new updated-4th-gen airframes (new-build F-16 Block 60+).
 
Agree about the Bombcat, but that was a stopgap due to bad procurement decisions in the early 90s -- in fact, kind of a parallel to the situation I see happening now.  We didn't go ahead with the A-6F and stopped the F-14D because we thought we'd get the A-12.  Then the A-12 fell apart, and suddenly we were left with no long range carrier strike, so we had to quickly wire up 30-year-old F-14As to drop LGBs.  They worked well over Afghanistan, but the maintenance effort required to keep their sortie rate up in 2001 was nothing short of herculean.  I can see the same type of thing happening ten years from now as a result of Gates' decision.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Rocky reply   4/9/2009 1:42:15 PM

Darth's UAV problem is that he does not seem to know how or when to use them. The "no fly zones" over Bosnia and Iraq burned up thousands of hours of airframe life and was not a mission that could have been done with a Predator drone (or any other drone today). It was a pure air to air mission that soaked up 2 full F15C airwings during the 90's. Every morning the Iraqi Airforce would drive their migs at the no fly zone border and the US F15c's would respond. We had a standing BARCAP mission 24-7 for about a decade in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Bosnia (hey darth, google it!). On top of that there were standing HARM patrols to keep Iraqi SAMs pinned down.

None of this can be done by a UCAV today. Since he is unaware of those missions and their effect upon the USAFs overall mission it is safe to say he isn't qualified to discuss the USAF air superiority requirements moving forward. His argument is first political and second ego-manic. Whenever he meets someone who obviously has a clue, Phaid for instance, he retreats behind a thin veil of "I'm a veteran" and declares himself the smartest guy in the room where any who disagree are "biased". What a boob!

When he learns history and context of these conversations he might be able to think critically on the subjects. For now he is a troll.

Check Six

Rocky


No, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs. ISR and Time Critical Strike against Targets of Opportunity has taken the the lead in this regard. Contrary to some of the errors people have posted here, we are much closer to having UCAV's than people think that are capable of taking over significant portions of the roles we use manned platforms for. Particularly with regard to CAP, SEAD and Strike roles. And this doesn't even consider the roles they will take over that we use some rotor winged assets for now. 

We are past the peak of manned air combat. It's an area that is radically changing. Especially in the air to air domain. WE NEED F-22's. But with the current trend and considering other assets we can bring to bear not in any more numbers than we have already agreed to procure. This is another one of those issues people will come back to 5 years from now and say, WOW how did you know that? The signs are clear if you know what to look for. But it requires a broad look across a range of military and technological disciplines to grasp.  

Now, this is my opinion. It's based on facts and my own military and civil experiences. It ***could*** be wrong. But I don't think so. If you, disagree, say so and let it be. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle calling people trolls because 1 guy you don't know on the internet thinks we don't need more F-22's.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       4/9/2009 1:46:38 PM

Unfortunately the above plan (1) Leaves the Navy without a true stealth aircraft for its carriers. If you want to create a real financial scream try suggesting adapting the F-22 for carrier duty. (2) Loses the flexability of new V/STOL aircraft and (3) Undercuts our international F-35 partners.

 

1) The Super Hornet and Growler are perfectly capable until stealthy UCAVs join the fleet.
 
The question  of course is when the air defense, attack and EW stealthy UCAVs will be available. To quote Rumsfeld you go to war with the militaery you have.


 

2) There is no point in acquiring a new V/STOL aircraft.   The Marines should buy Super Hornets.  LHA/D/A(R)s are not strike carriers, and the Marines wind up operating their Harriers from fixed runways the vast majority of the time.
 
The flexibilty of the V/STOL aircraft is lost. I believe Marine air doctrine  based on close ground support has been well served by the Harriers and with the number of CVNs being decreased to 10  it's nice to have the flexibility of using the the amphibious thru-decks as light fleet carriers.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    AESA Exploits   4/9/2009 1:47:14 PM

Appeal to the crowd and character assassination its called when the shouter has no facts to rebut the plain stated case on its merits.

 

I do have to correct you on a couple of points, SW. When a properly designed ballistic missile decouples from its ground support cables it is a self contained robot that flies on its internal guidance. Some of them will have guidance updating mid-phase or will read radio-location beacons to correct for drift error as they debus their RVs, but most don't.

 

There is thus no antenna vulnerability to exploit to misdirect such a war rocket. To may knowledge there is no EW way to spoof such a self-contained weapon within the Earth's atmosphere.

 

Guided missiles are another story.




In  addition to other science fiction things we must be careful about when we make assumptions and declare things, we don't exactly burn missiles out of the air as much as we exploit information paths that the enemy builds in his missiles to disable them. We've done this as spoofing for a long time with self protection jammers and other active countermeasures, but now we can build it into the radar which has the power at last to do more than just spoof. We can cook pilots at range, if the enemy aircraft isn't radio opaque for example. 

 

But remember there has to be an exploit path. Mister Faraday is very much still with us.  





Herald



 

 

   




Granted that ballistic missiles do not have antennas to exploit - and the warheads are much more hardened than say an AAM or land attack missile.  However - the F-22 AESA can be used against sensitive electronics  and it is not limited on antenna entry points.  This is especially true of unsheilded or commercial grade products where there are exploits available.  Simple induction of current flow or distortion of the chip memory can result in unpredictable results.  A very good example is the unsheilded computers onboard the former Russian space station which malfunctioned.
 
Of course, generation 1 guidance systems - e.g. clock work mechanical systems - are not vulnerable but much less accurate.
 
The IW aspects of a powerful AESA combined with the CPU even alows for true hacking into networks without antennas using various unsheilded entry points such as nodes and even fiber optic relays.  This is one reason for rad hardened chips in your ballistic missile guidance and warhead assembly.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid reply   4/9/2009 1:47:50 PM

It will also be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run than recapitalizing the bulk of the TACAIR fleet as well. IIRC turning TOMCATs to BOMBCATs cost ~2.5-3 billion for just 210 planes and that was really not even as extensive. I also think not going F-35 hurts our preferred method of coalition warfare and would have disastrous consequences for our defense industry. An F-35 is many times more effective in it's role compared to legacy platforms.

 


Just to clarify, when I say "recapitalize the bulk of our tactical jet fleet with inexpensive updated-4th-gen airframes", I mean buy new updated-4th-gen airframes (new-build F-16 Block 60+).

 

Agree about the Bombcat, but that was a stopgap due to bad procurement decisions in the early 90s -- in fact, kind of a parallel to the situation I see happening now.  We didn't go ahead with the A-6F and stopped the F-14D because we thought we'd get the A-12.  Then the A-12 fell apart, and suddenly we were left with no long range carrier strike, so we had to quickly wire up 30-year-old F-14As to drop LGBs.  They worked well over Afghanistan, but the maintenance effort required to keep their sortie rate up in 2001 was nothing short of herculean.  I can see the same type of thing happening ten years from now as a result of Gates' decision.
 
 


Can you elaborate on this? I'm asking because suppose we do get the force Gates wants. Ten years from now, we would have significant F-35's in the arsenal and they would be a mature platform. Because they are multirole and capable of almost all TACAIR roles, where do you see a shortfall such as the one the A-12 cancellation left us with?


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Hidden authority appeal.   4/9/2009 1:53:09 PM
Didn't anyone read about what I wrote about self contained robots, antennas, and INFORMATION EXPLOIT PATHS?
 
I know that some of us think we can BS our way through on this topic, but get a CLUE!
 
You can't BS about stuff like this, not if somebody even knows basic electronics and about the exploits possible.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    No more air superiority fighters needed?   4/9/2009 2:05:16 PM
The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs.<Darth
 
UAVs aren't adequate for air superiority, and they won't be for many more years. The fundamental argument still comes down to  how many dedicated air superiority airframes we need. Based upon the last 10 years and projecting against potential threats, 187 F22s +170 30 year old F15Cs, just isn't enough.
 
Happy to disagree.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    DA   4/9/2009 2:06:54 PM

Agree about the Bombcat, but that was a stopgap due to bad procurement decisions in the early 90s -- in fact, kind of a parallel to the situation I see happening now.  We didn't go ahead with the A-6F and stopped the F-14D because we thought we'd get the A-12.  Then the A-12 fell apart, and suddenly we were left with no long range carrier strike, so we had to quickly wire up 30-year-old F-14As to drop LGBs.  They worked well over Afghanistan, but the maintenance effort required to keep their sortie rate up in 2001 was nothing short of herculean.  I can see the same type of thing happening ten years from now as a result of Gates' decision.
 
Can you elaborate on this? I'm asking because suppose we do get the force Gates wants. Ten years from now, we would have significant F-35's in the arsenal and they would be a mature platform. Because they are multirole and capable of almost all TACAIR roles, where do you see a shortfall such as the one the A-12 cancellation left us with?

What I mean is that I see the F-35 playing the same role the A-12 did: we halt working, low-risk programs in the near term (A-6F and F-14D then, F-22 now) in favor of a new program (A-12 then, F-35 now).  The new program doesn't pan out, and we're left with a major capability shortfall.
 
If the F-35 works as advertised and is delivered on time and on budget then I don't really see such a shortfall happening1.  However, I don't believe that will be the case, and that is why I disagree so strongly with Gates' decision.  If nothing else, we should at a minimum keep the F-22 line open until we know for sure how well the F-35 will work and how much it will cost.
 
1 this is not to take away from my opinion that even if the F-35 works as advertised, it would still be more efficient to instead buy more F-22s and new F-16s, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/9/2009 2:07:03 PM




Appeal to the crowd and character assassination its called when the shouter has no facts to rebut the plain stated case on its merits.



 



I do have to correct you on a couple of points, SW. When a properly designed ballistic missile decouples from its ground support cables it is a self contained robot that flies on its internal guidance. Some of them will have guidance updating mid-phase or will read radio-location beacons to correct for drift error as they debus their RVs, but most don't.



 



There is thus no antenna vulnerability to exploit to misdirect such a war rocket. To may knowledge there is no EW way to spoof such a self-contained weapon within the Earth's atmosphere.



 



Guided missiles are another story.










In  addition to other science fiction things we must be careful about when we make assumptions and declare things, we don't exactly burn missiles out of the air as much as we exploit information paths that the enemy builds in his missiles to disable them. We've done this as spoofing for a long time with self protection jammers and other active countermeasures, but now we can build it into the radar which has the power at last to do more than just spoof. We can cook pilots at range, if the enemy aircraft isn't radio opaque for example. 



 



But remember there has to be an exploit path. Mister Faraday is very much still with us.  













Herald









 



 



   











Granted that ballistic missiles do not have antennas to exploit - and the warheads are much more hardened than say an AAM or land attack missile.  However - the F-22 AESA can be used against sensitive electronics  and it is not limited on antenna entry points.  This is especially true of unsheilded or commercial grade products where there are exploits available.  Simple induction of current flow or distortion of the chip memory can result in unpredictable results.  A very good example is the unsheilded computers onboard the former Russian space station which malfunctioned.

 

Of course, generation 1 guidance systems - e.g. clock work mechanical systems - are not vulnerable but much less accurate.

 

The IW aspects of a powerful AESA combined with the CPU even alows for true hacking into networks without antennas using various unsheilded entry points such as nodes and even fiber optic relays.  This is one reason for rad hardened chips in your ballistic missile guidance and warhead assembly.

All physics is local SW. In this case you have to be on top of the launch site at almost point blank range, so its rather pointless. Your window is less than 30m seconds to cause an induction path. Aluminum shells are also kind of good shields when there is a fiberglass sandwich included. Additionally  the reason for keeping our war rockets underground or underwater is to Faraday them.  The command inputs that feed them their launch data until they fly is from on site stored media and control systems that is independent of the rest of the environment. Once the lids open and the bird's in the air its to late to do anything about them except KYAG.or apply kinetics and pray.

In other words while its nice to say that the ICBM rocket is a huge flying antenna just aching for a radio beam to ground short its guidance, it isn't any such thing.
 
Herald. 
 
 
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