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

Phaid       4/6/2009 7:50:27 PM
As for the F-22 it's a generation behind in terms of having an upgrade path and such.  I'd like to see the line stay open just in case the world situation deteriorates but it looks like it's gone.  Obama better make allies with whoever has bought Typhoon.
 
The F-22 has more upgrade potential than any other airplane ever designed, even more so than the F-35.  It's bigger, has more power and cooling, and was intended from the outset to have a spiral lifecycle.
 
As far as the Typhoon, it's a great airplane, but capability per dollar it isn't really competitive -- it costs more than any other airplane than the F-22 but doesn't bring commensurate capability.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       4/6/2009 8:25:15 PM
Have seen conflicting sources on the upgrade potential of the F-22, thanks for setting me staright.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/6/2009 8:53:56 PM

F-35 is to be the last great manned aircraft project for the US arsenal.  UCAVs, when scale-produced, may lack perfect equivalence but the operating pricepoint sells itself.  SecDev is in part clearing the way for a different way of approaching aerial warfare and I welcome this shift from F-22 type thinking.  No more Seawolfs of the air. 0.02

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid WTF?   4/6/2009 9:04:32 PM

- is less capable by every useful measure than the airplanes it is replacing in providing close air support? 

Measures like what? And why aren't we measuring it against the threat rather than other airplanes? And it's also more capable than those other planes in that it is multirole, better on logistics and useful in any threat environment.
 

- will inevitably turn out to be vastly more expensive than the airplanes it is replacing
 
OK? Again, by what measure are you saying it's going to be vastly more expensive? Sticker price? Operations cost? Survivability? Economy of force?

- by its own tacit admission the Air Force does not believe is as capable as the F-15C in the air superiority mission (because if it were, we wouldn't need to keep 178 "Golden Eagles" around)
 
The USAF fighter community is FOS. An F-117 is not as effective as some previous strike platforms either but it was sure able to actually fly sorties in places the other couldn't. And we are keeping and still developing Eagles so we don't lose that capability either. And to date, no poster has been able to discuss factually any scenario that would find 187 F-22 + 178 F-15's + 1000+ F-35s wanting in air to air combat. I don't deny 300 + F-22's would give a much more powerful air superiority fleet. But against what and who? No threat exist today or anytime in the near future to justify that.
 
P.S. Anybody chiming in here please don't remind me how naive I am because the PRC is just waiting to gobble us up. Show me numbers and data to support any assertions. I already know most of the forum thinks the PRC's and hoards of Su-27s will dominate. I'm calling you incorrect and asking you to prove that.


- is mired in cost overruns and design issues -- weight, heat dispersion, noise, deck damage in STOVL -- and those are only the issues that have been identified to date due to the limited flight test program

Just about all of these issues have been addressed and are common to any fighter in development. We can go back to F-22's belly flopping. Needing to have the structure redesigned, F-teens crashing due to engine problems during IOC.

Phaid, I find your analysis very wanting for any supporting details. Perhaps you are merely venting due to a love for the F-22. I can respect that. However, an analysis will show that had Gates chosen to endorse your way or this way the USAF would still in the end be well positioned to accomplish it's mission. The difference is that finally we have a SecDef who is correctly focusing our DoD on the threats that actually exist. The wars we are fighting are not theoretical unlike the laughable Red Dragon scenarios that are much less likely to occur. They happen everyday and we have suffered as a result of not being able to get it under control. It's time to focus on 21st century threats and the enemies that exist rather than the enemies we wish existed but don't.

Please don't take offense to my disagreement. I respect your post but I simply do not agree. 
 

Regards
-DA 


 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   4/6/2009 9:36:56 PM
Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 
 
Quote    Reply

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/forthemed...
_________________________
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



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