The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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
Herald12345    JHe serves the Comstitution.   4/6/2009 10:04:43 PM

Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
We have no fuhrer principle in this nation nor king either.

And who is the basis of the Constitution?
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
Gates can be fired and should be. As should that interregnumist.
 
The path to a UCAS force is not there yet. We are farther way from that than we are from the particle beam.
 
These are not just my opinions. You can open source the trends and even if you are a truck driver figure it out from the published work.
 
The key to battlefield dominance is being able to not only gain air superiority, but deny the enemy any use of the air at all.  UCAS forces cannot do that remotely. You have to be there occupying the battlespace with MEN.  
 
The F-22 may not be the ideal bomber or Army cooperation aircraft, but it is the best fighter there is. And when yuou talk about Scud hunting or intruder raids to smoke an ICBM in preparation on the pad with a low observable aircraft, the F-22 is the current striker of choice that we have.  
 
I don't care wht lies Gates try to carp or what the macaws who claim they understand what the advantages of his proposed programs are. You start your system of systems with the STYLE your nation adopted in war and orient your means used 
 
Right now as I write this the USAF chased a stolen Cessna aircraft from Ontario Canada that intruded into US air space. Fighters forced it down on a highway near St. Louis. MANNED air superiority fighters.we scrambled to chase it. UCAS systems could not do that.   

Gross stupidity has its limits.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/6/2009 10:17:21 PM
Which would you rather have, DA--an air supremacy fighter that can destroy anything that flies, or a 30-year old design just good enough to handle anything a potential enemy might have?
 
The American way of war is overwhelming force through use of superior technology.  Unlike other nations of the world, we'd rather spend money on tech rather than spend blood.  This "just good enough" strategy is going to get people killed.
 
I don't mind the DoD going over contracts with a fine-tooth comb.  That's overdue, and a good idea.  And I agree that canceling the Zumwalts in favor of more Arleigh Burkes with pretty much the same capability and half the cost was a good idea.  But nothing disguises the fact that the F-15 is getting old.  If halting F-22 production means that Boeing restarts the F-15 line building Silent Eagles, okay--I don't like it, but it's better than relying on increasingly ancient fighters.  If it means we license-build Typhoons (which I highly doubt we will, even without taking into account the "Buy American" mania of the defense establishment), fine.  But you can only push an airframe so far.
 
As I said before, I think Gates is too busy trying to win the last war.  Yes, we need more counterinsurgency warfare troops.  But we also don't want to be behind the power curve if something else happens.  A treaty never stopped a bullet, and making the US armed forces reliant on old weaponry will make war more likely, not less.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Thats all good but...   4/6/2009 10:23:45 PM



Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 





I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

We have no fuhrer principle in this nation nor king either.




And who is the basis of the Constitution?

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


 

Gates can be fired and should be. As should that interregnumist.


 

The path to a UCAS force is not there yet. We are farther way from that than we are from the particle beam.


 

These are not just my opinions. You can open source the trends and even if you are a truck driver figure it out from the published work.


 

The key to battlefield dominance is being able to not only gain air superiority, but deny the enemy any use of the air at all.  UCAS forces cannot do that remotely. You have to be there occupying the battlespace with MEN.  


 

The F-22 may not be the ideal bomber or Army cooperation aircraft, but it is the best fighter there is. And when yuou talk about Scud hunting or intruder raids to smoke an ICBM in preparation on the pad with a low observable aircraft, the F-22 is the current striker of choice that we have.  

 

I don't care wht lies Gates try to carp or what the macaws who claim they understand what the advantages of his proposed programs are. You start your system of systems with the STYLE your nation adopted in war and orient your means used 

 

Right now as I write this the USAF chased a stolen Cessna aircraft from Ontario Canada that intruded into US air space. Fighters forced it down on a highway near St. Louis. MANNED air superiority fighters.we scrambled to chase it. UCAS systems could not do that.   





Gross stupidity has its limits.

 

Herald


 
 
NO technical or fact based analysis at all from any of the principle F-22 supporters. And this calling for Gates and Obama to be fired is simply emotions gone wild. Compare the responses from both sides of this issue. THe Pro-F-22 side has no substance to their argument except to call Gates stupid for no apparent reason. An objective reader just coming to the site with no knowledge of the subject matter would most certainly see a lack of depth to your post when compared to Gates points about focusing on current threats ect.

You can should do better IMHO. All you have done is assert.

-DA 
 
 
 
 



 

 


 

 

 




 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 10:24:49 PM

Report: Chinese Develop Special "Kill Weapon" to Destroy U.S. Aircraft Carriers

Advanced missile poses substantial new threat for U.S. Navy


U. S. Naval Institute
March 31, 2009

With tensions already rising due to the Chinese navy becoming more aggressive in asserting its territorial claims in the South China Sea, the U.S. Navy seems to have yet another reason to be deeply concerned.

After years of conjecture, details have begun to emerge of a "kill weapon" developed by the Chinese to target and destroy U.S. aircraft carriers.

First posted on a Chinese blog viewed as credible by military analysts and then translated by the naval affairs blog Information Dissemination, a recent report provides a description of an anti-ship ballistic missile (ASBM) that can strike carriers and other U.S. vessels at a range of 2000km.

The range of the modified Dong Feng 21 missile is significant in that it covers the areas that are likely hot zones for future confrontations between U.S. and Chinese surface forces.

The size of the missile enables it to carry a warhead big enough to inflict significant damage on a large vessel, providing the Chinese the capability of destroying a U.S. supercarrier in one strike.

Because the missile employs a complex guidance system, low radar signature and a maneuverability that makes its flight path unpredictable, the odds that it can evade tracking systems to reach its target are increased. It is estimated that the missile can travel at mach 10 and reach its maximum range of 2000km in less than 12 minutes.

Supporting the missile is a network of satellites, radar and unmanned aerial vehicles that can locate U.S. ships and then guide the weapon, enabling it to hit moving targets.


While the ASBM has been a topic of discussion within national defense circles for quite some time, the fact that information is now coming from Chinese sources indicates that the weapon system is operational. The Chinese rarely mention weapons projects unless they are well beyond the test stages.

If operational as is believed, the system marks the first time a ballistic missile has been successfully developed to attack vessels at sea. Ships currently have no defense against a ballistic missile attack.

Along with the Chinese naval build-up, U.S. Navy officials appear to view the development of the anti-ship ballistic missile as a tangible threat.

After spending the last decade placing an emphasis on building a fleet that could operate in shallow waters near coastlines, the U.S. Navy seems to have quickly changed its strategy over the past several months to focus on improving the capabilities of its deep sea fleet and developing anti-ballistic defenses.

As analyst Raymond Pritchett notes in a post on the U.S. Naval Institute blog:

"The Navy's reaction is telling, because it essentially equals a radical change in direction based on information that has created a panic inside the bubble. For a major military service to panic due to a new weapon system, clearly a mission kill weapon system, either suggests the threat is legitimate or the leadership of the Navy is legitimately unqualified. There really aren't many gray spaces in evaluating the reaction by the Navy?the data tends to support the legitimacy of the threat."

In recent years, China has been expanding its navy to presumably better exert itself in disputed maritime regions. A recent show of strength in early March led to a confrontation with an unarmed U.S. ship in international waters.

https://www.usni.org/forthemedia/ChineseKillWeapon.asp
_________________________
Be careful what you wish for, it might come true!!!

 
No need to be concerned with the PRC, they are all talk. Another Cold War is starting only Reagan isn't around to win this one.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Sentinel reply   4/6/2009 10:31:30 PM
I'd rather have weapons systems capable of doing the job. We have that now. Will have that for the forseeable future. And I assure you, Gates isn't fighting the last war. He is fighting the war we have right now. It's a double edge sword that the Taliban haven't been able to strike American soil since 2001. That's because people really don't appreciate the threat they and other non-state actors and failed states represent. Instead people are fixed on this non existent near pear nonsense that doesn't exist. The Golden Eagle program will work. Will they be as effective as F-22s? Hell no. Will they get the job done. Absolutely. As a result, funds will go to other areas of defense and economy that need it more.

Unless somebody can make a case for why the Gates plan won't work, then these arguments are unfounded. About all that can be said is that it is not YOUR PREFERRED way. But it is a way that will work.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Sentinel reply   4/6/2009 10:39:25 PM

_________________________

Be careful what you wish for, it might come true!!!


No need to be concerned with the PRC, they are all talk. Another Cold War is starting only Reagan isn't around to win this one.


This is crying wolf! This anti ship BM is nothing new. The USN has been aware of that for sometime and can defend against this. It is China's asymmetrical way of dealing with a threat that can't fight on equal terms. And it is a poor substitute. We should expect and not be alarmed by the PRC developing weapons to defend their interest. This is as normal as us making F-22's or France making M51.

We will develop and have developed counters....

Raytheon Standard Missile-2 Destroys Target

This was the third test of the modified SM-2 Block IV missile against short range ballistic missiles and the latest in a series of tests using the SM-2 Block IIIA. Raytheon is also working with the Missile Defense Agency to develop a far-term, sea-based terminal capability.
by Staff Writers
Point Mugu CA (SPX) Apr 02, 2009
A Raytheon Company Standard Missile-2 Block IV missile intercepted and destroyed a ballistic missile target at the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center Weapons Division. The SM-2 Block IV engagement demonstrated a near-term, sea-based capability for destroying short-range ballistic missiles in their terminal or final phase of flight.

During the same test, a Raytheon SM-2 Block IIIA missile intercepted and destroyed a low-altitude, anti-ship cruise missile target.

The first-of-its-kind test simultaneously demonstrated an air warfare capability against a low-altitude, anti-ship cruise missile and a ship system engagement capability.

The crew of the guided missile destroyer USS Benfold (DDG-65) fired both SM-2 surface-to-air missiles. The ballistic missile target was launched from San Nicolas Island, Calif., while the anti-ship cruise missile target was launched from Point Mugu.

"These intercepts once again prove SM-2, whatever the mission, is the best option for protecting our warfighters at sea," said Frank Wyatt, Raytheon Missile Systems vice president of Naval Weapon Systems.

"SM-2 Block IV can destroy incoming short-range ballistic missiles through direct impact or by detonating a blast-fragmentation warhead close to the target. SM-2 Block IIIA offers the best advanced fleet protection against all air warfare threats."
This was the third test of the modified SM-2 Block IV missile against short range ballistic missiles and the latest in a series of tests using the SM-2 Block IIIA. Raytheon is also working with the Missile Defense Agency to develop a far-term, sea-based terminal capability.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Discreditted.    4/6/2009 10:40:29 PM







Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 













I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.



We have no fuhrer principle in this nation nor king either.










And who is the basis of the Constitution?



 



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.






 



Gates can be fired and should be. As should that interregnumist.






 



The path to a UCAS force is not there yet. We are farther way from that than we are from the particle beam.






 



These are not just my opinions. You can open source the trends and even if you are a truck driver figure it out from the published work.






 



The key to battlefield dominance is being able to not only gain air superiority, but deny the enemy any use of the air at all.  UCAS forces cannot do that remotely. You have to be there occupying the battlespace with MEN.  






 



The F-22 may not be the ideal bomber or Army cooperation aircraft, but it is the best fighter there is. And when yuou talk about Scud hunting or intruder raids to smoke an ICBM in preparation on the pad with a low observable aircraft, the F-22 is the current striker of choice that we have.  



 



I don't care wht lies Gates try to carp or what the macaws who claim they understand what the advantages of his proposed programs are. You start your system of systems with the STYLE your nation adopted in war and orient your means used 



 



Right now as I write this the USAF chased a stolen Cessna aircraft from Ontario Canada that intruded into US air space. Fighters forced it down on a highway near St. Louis. MANNED air superiority fighters.we scrambled to chase it. UCAS systems could not do that.   













Gross stupidity has its limits.



 



Herald






 

 

NO technical or fact based analysis at all from any of the principle F-22 supporters. And this calling for Gates and Obama to be fired is simply emotions gone wild. Compare the responses from both sides of this issue. THe Pro-F-22 side has no substance to their argument except to call Gates stupid for no apparent reason. An objective reader just coming to the site with no knowledge of the subject matter would most certainly see a lack of depth to your post when compared to Gates points about focusing on current threats ect.




You can should do better IMHO. All you have done is assert.




-DA 

 

 

 

 








 



 






 



 



 










 







I gave four real world operational examples that constitute sufficient demonstration of need and highlights characteristics desired in ajn aircraft such as the F-22. Assertion that such examples were not supplied os a misrepresentation of fact and is rtejected out of hand as is the assertion by someone who has yet to supp;y a single sensible explanation in support of Gate's idiocy that passes the SMELL^1 test.
 
Such incompetence demands the producers of it to be fired. That is not political, its performance based criteria, I use. Note that this is not limited to their idiocy today, not limited to the F-22, not limited to the gutting of the Army and the incompetent realignment if the Navy. this is based on stupid war making in Afgjanistan, stupid strategic policy and gross mismanagement across the board.of this government for whicb those two incompetents are directly responsible., When I can do a better job and I say so^2 than those named individuals, then you know the country is in deep trouble   
 
Herald
^1
Strategy
Materials
Economics 
Logistics
Logic

^2 Blue Wings could do a better job than those two misfits.

 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/6/2009 10:51:59 PM
Herald,

All you have done is assert your well known vitriol towards the POTUS and SecDef. Noted, but I was more interested in some kind of solid analysis or opinion, even an good guess on why 100-200 more F-22's is going to make a difference in terms of not being about to win the skies. Obviously you do not have those answers. At least not to the standards we use in the military when we conduct IPB or threat analysis. Everybody pretty much lays out best and worse case scenarios in order to see if we can meet the commanders intent and at what cost. You aren't doing that. But it's cool, I'm not going to try to change your mind. I'll just agree to disagree and discuss this with people who want to back this up with some sort of data.


 
Is there anybody out there who can make a case for more F-22's beyond you just you like it or you hate the Politicians behind not buying more? Seriously because we debated this over the weekend at the unit and nobody could honestly say that we can't accomplish our mission with the F-22's we have.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/6/2009 10:52:06 PM

Herald, the US is in deep trouble.  We don't even know how we're going to shoot manned aircraft off Ford now.  Promises were made but not delivered upon by the people many trust to keep us safe.  On the UCAV side of things, I'll simply declare that we know how to make this technology work today and the warfighter is sold on it. 0.02

v^2
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/6/2009 11:07:51 PM

Herald, the US is in deep trouble.  We don't even know how we're going to shoot manned aircraft off Ford now.  Promises were made but not delivered upon by the people many trust to keep us safe.  On the UCAV side of things, I'll simply declare that we know how to make this technology work today and the warfighter is sold on it. 0.02


v^2


Regarding UCAV. There are some really radically advanced concepts out there. Some of it operationally tested. If people had any idea how far along we really were jaws would drop to the floor. Look at the known state of the art. Just imagine the kinds of classified programs out there now. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 11:17:22 PM







Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 













I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.



We have no fuhrer principle in this nation nor king either.










And who is the basis of the Constitution?



 



We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.






 



Gates can be fired and should be. As should that interregnumist.






 



The path to a UCAS force is not there yet. We are farther way from that than we are from the particle beam.






 



These are not just my opinions. You can open source the trends and even if you are a truck driver figure it out from the published work.






 



The key to battlefield dominance is being able to not only gain air superiority, but deny the enemy any use of the air at all.  UCAS forces cannot do that remotely. You have to be there occupying the battlespace with MEN.  






 



The F-22 may not be the ideal bomber or Army cooperation aircraft, but it is the best fighter there is. And when yuou talk about Scud hunting or intruder raids to smoke an ICBM in preparation on the pad with a low observable aircraft, the F-22 is the current striker of choice that we have.  



 



I don't care wht lies Gates try to carp or what the macaws who claim they understand what the advantages of his proposed programs are. You start your system of systems with the STYLE your nation adopted in war and orient your means used 



 



Right now as I write this the USAF chased a stolen Cessna aircraft from Ontario Canada that intruded into US air space. Fighters forced it down on a highway near St. Louis. MANNED air superiority fighters.we scrambled to chase it. UCAS systems could not do that.   













Gross stupidity has its limits.



 



Herald






 

 

NO technical or fact based analysis at all from any of the principle F-22 supporters. And this calling for Gates and Obama to be fired is simply emotions gone wild. Compare the responses from both sides of this issue. THe Pro-F-22 side has no substance to their argument except to call Gates stupid for no apparent reason. An objective reader just coming to the site with no knowledge of the subject matter would most certainly see a lack of depth to your post when compared to Gates points about focusing on current threats ect.




You can should do better IMHO. All you have done is assert.




-DA 

 
Darth are you kidding me? Gates isn't stupid for no apparent reason, he is stupid for a lot of apparent reasons. First off the likes of Phaid and Herald whom you seem to disagree with most often explained in detail on this post and several others over and over there is a need to keep the F-22 program alive. I certainly see no lack of depth in anything that they have asserted to this point. No disrespect to you as your posts bring up valid points but like anything there are two sides to every story. I just happen to disagree with you on this particular subject. There is nothing that you or anyone else no matter how qualified can do to convince me that the only future conflicts we will be faced with are low intensity garbage that Spec Ops and UCAV's will deal with. I keep saying this but it doesn't ever seem to sink in. What makes all the anti-F-22 fanatics think the rest of the world will stop developing fifth generation fighters, advanced radars and missle technology that current legacy fighters will stand little chance against...please tell me Russia and China will stop spending money on weapons and research if we stop building F-22's. Who the hell is Gates to put this countries' pilots in harms way 10 or 15 years from now when he is sitting on his ass retired and smoking a cigar?  He cant tell the future any more than you or I at this point making the case to flood the skies with F-22's sounds more responsible than asking the F-35 to the job of 3 different aircraft when it cant do the job as well as any one of them it is to replace. It cant provide the ground support that the A-10 can, maybe it is equally as effective as the  F-15 in AA for more money, which leaves the F-16. Well for three times the cost I hardly think its three times as effective, so where do you justify it as a worthy replacement. Why spend billions on the new Gerald Ford class carriers, aren't the current Nimitz class good enough to deal with insurgencies?  I guess if all we have to worry about is intercepting Cessna's then the current fleet will do.
 

 

 








 



 






 



 



 










 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/6/2009 11:28:51 PM
Is there anybody out there who can make a case for more F-22's beyond you just you like it or you hate the Politicians behind not buying more? Seriously because we debated this over the weekend at the unit and nobody could honestly say that we can't accomplish our mission with the F-22's we have.
You keep begging this question as though we haven't been over all of the technical merits, but we have.  But at this point you're asking the wrong question.
 
You keep saying that we can save money by canceling the F-22.  But the F-22 is a working, available system here now.  So is the F-16.  The system that is not currently available and whose program costs we are far from finished paying for is the F-35.  That is the system we should cancel.
 
Seriously: what capabilities does the F-35 bring to the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq that a F-16 Block 60 does not?  The F-35 has shorter range, less payload, much higher maintenance cost, and no capabilities whatsoever over the F-16 that matter one iota in a fight like that.  What's more, we're not finished developing it yet, and even when we do it will cost more per aircraft than the F-16.  So from the standpoint of cost and capability in current wars the F-35 makes no sense.
 
On the other hand, there really aren't any aircraft flying that are significantly more capable than the F-16, and even the ones that come close wouldn't matter because if we canceled the F-35 we could easily afford to recapitalize the entire air superiority fleet with F-22s.  We'd have enough F-22s to do the OCA and DEAD missions that the F-15 and F-117 used to do, but better and more safely.  And, again, it's an aircraft that is paid for, a big aircraft that is expandable, and an aircraft that we know for sure works and is available today.
 
You brought up logistics earlier.  How is the F-35 better than the F-16 in that respect?  We have a couple thousand F-16s now, and if we phased the Block 40/42/50/52 into the ANG and re-equipped active wings with Block 60s we'd have a massive advantage in logistics due to the commonality between all those airframes.  Meanwhile we have parts-hungry F-15s that are hard to support, and 178 "golden" ones won't get any better about that; and under Gates' plan we'll have 187 F-22s which will become increasingly hard to support for the same reason -- a small and ever dwindling support manufacturing base.
 
I raised several technical concerns about the F-35: weight, heat dissipation, melting runways, and noise.  None of those has been fully addressed to date.  The weight issue was dealt with through redesign of internal structures -- which did bring the airplane's weight within margins, but left no room for expansion.  The heat dissipation issue is definitely an ongoing concern.  So are noise and so is VTOL thrust effect on runways and decks (though hardly an Air Force concern, but that's another story).  Buying the F-35 means we're buying an airframe that comes maxed out in terms of space, weight, and heat dissipation right from the factory.
 
So the upshot is that Gates wants us to buy an airplane that has strengths that don't matter but lacks capabilities that do, whose development costs keep rising, and whose final capabilities still exist only on paper.  To pay for it, we're giving up the single best air to air fighter we could ever need, whose development is paid for, and which could be complemented by a much cheaper airplane which we also have now and which we know without a single doubt can carry out the missions we require for the next two decades.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 11:34:31 PM


Is there anybody out there who can make a case for more F-22's beyond you just you like it or you hate the Politicians behind not buying more? Seriously because we debated this over the weekend at the unit and nobody could honestly say that we can't accomplish our mission with the F-22's we have.
You keep begging this question as though we haven't been over all of the technical merits, but we have.  But at this point you're asking the wrong question.


 

You keep saying that we can save money by canceling the F-22.  But the F-22 is a working, available system here now.  So is the F-16.  The system that is not currently available and whose program costs we are far from finished paying for is the F-35.  That is the system we should cancel.


 

Seriously: what capabilities does the F-35 bring to the fight in Afghanistan and Iraq that a F-16 Block 60 does not?  The F-35 has shorter range, less payload, much higher maintenance cost, and no capabilities whatsoever over the F-16 that matter one iota in a fight like that.  What's more, we're not finished developing it yet, and even when we do it will cost more per aircraft than the F-16.  So from the standpoint of cost and capability in current wars the F-35 makes no sense.


 

On the other hand, there really aren't any aircraft flying that are significantly more capable than the F-16, and even the ones that come close wouldn't matter because if we canceled the F-35 we could easily afford to recapitalize the entire air superiority fleet with F-22s.  We'd have enough F-22s to do the OCA and DEAD missions that the F-15 and F-117 used to do, but better and more safely.  And, again, it's an aircraft that is paid for, a big aircraft that is expandable, and an aircraft that we know for sure works and is available today.


 

You brought up logistics earlier.  How is the F-35 better than the F-16 in that respect?  We have a couple thousand F-16s now, and if we phased the Block 40/42/50/52 into the ANG and re-equipped active wings with Block 60s we'd have a massive advantage in logistics due to the commonality between all those airframes.  Meanwhile we have parts-hungry F-15s that are hard to support, and 178 "golden" ones won't get any better about that; and under Gates' plan we'll have 187 F-22s which will become increasingly hard to support for the same reason -- a small and ever dwindling support manufacturing base.


 

I raised several technical concerns about the F-35: weight, heat dissipation, melting runways, and noise.  None of those has been fully addressed to date.  The weight issue was dealt with through redesign of internal structures -- which did bring the airplane's weight within margins, but left no room for expansion.  The heat dissipation issue is definitely an ongoing concern.  So are noise and so is VTOL thrust effect on runways and decks (though hardly an Air Force concern, but that's another story).  Buying the F-35 means we're buying an airframe that comes maxed out in terms of space, weight, and heat dissipation right from the factory.


 

So the upshot is that Gates wants us to buy an airplane that has strengths that don't matter but lacks capabilities that do, whose development costs keep rising, and whose final capabilities still exist only on paper.  To pay for it, we're giving up the single best air to air fighter we could ever need, whose development is paid for, and which could be complemented by a much cheaper airplane which we also have now and which we know without a single doubt can carry out the missions we require for the next two decades.


Definition of depth: see above text.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 11:39:51 PM
I think its funny how idiot Gates stated that "officially the Air Force was ok with that force size" of 187 Raptors, being how the last two Generals that were not ok with his force size were fired. Eat your peas Jr or you'll be sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/6/2009 11:45:24 PM
At this time I would like to call for the firings of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Attorney General Eric Holder as neither one are capable of  performing their jobs to the standards that We The People Expect.
 
Quote    Reply



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