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

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
cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:10:12 AM
Darth, while I agree that the F-35 is a fighter that serves America's allies well and has a jack-of-all-trades strength (and drawback in terms of excelling) it also suffers from design flaws that you HOPE will be properly removed - this however is the least of my concers. The USA can certainly afford to specialize it's air superiority missions. Your scenarios with the other professionals do not account for a major war.
Importantly the F-22 has been finished and is proven to be a workable design of SUPREME air-to-air performance, needs a larger manufacturing base to support the fighters it already has and would be cheap enough if produced in large numbers. You speak of being able to handle all missions needed. Of course, you're the USA. What you need the F-22 for is potential and future efficiency, current cost-efficiency and for the current conflicts, a marginally stronger efficiency in select missions.
 
The Joint Strike Fighter is being made for your allies and as a pet project to streamline America's fighter base. Fighter-bombers were never the king of efficiency, only low-intensity convenience, cost (which I disagree with since it is perfectly possible to keep a moderate stock of F-35s, sell it to allies and mass produce the F-22) and allied commonality.
 
 
Furthermore... I have noticed that in your posts you frequently criticize others of being 'fanatics' 'biased' 'radical haters' etc. etc. where you praise yourself for your neutrality in disputes. Preferring a middle ground does not necessarily make you right or even much more likely to be correct (and despite the advantage of moderation one will miss out on great truths), despite Aristotle. It all depends on whose middle ground it is.
 
This is very pompous; hating and disagreeing with one side's politics and going for the middle ground respectively does not make a devil and a villain.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 11:15:53 AM




Darth - I fail to see how an expensive prototype - reportedly pressed into service perhaps at the contractors expense - which may have more to do with recce than anything else has something to contribute to the argument for/against the F-22. 



 What it has to do with it is that this is the direction the we need to be going in to combat current and future threats. The F-22's we have are great for air combat today and through 2025 but represent a technology path at it's peak. If we want to stay ahead, it's UCAVs.



At most  - this maybe flying prototype that you have pranced before us here is nothing more than a two way version of Tomahawk.  Iis nothing more than a stealthy version of the Global Hawk - which BTW crashed once because some programmer forgot to put in hills just outside of the airbase operating it.



 A two way reusable CM is a UAV by definition. Its also designed for penetrating denied airspace.



So far - the most advanced UCAV is the NAVY X-47B - which has a limited payload and has not even demonstrated the ability to land or take off from a carrier.  The USAF may very well be pursuing a UCAV bomber - but that is years away - not today - not next year or even by 2015.  Thus - the only two aircraft in the inventory that are stealthy enough to perform deep strike are the billion dollar plus B-2 and the F-22.



 That's not true. There are others. And the USAF Bomber had a target of 2018 Softwar on a very conservative schedule. 2015 is not a stretch by any means.



None of this applies in an air combat mode - which no UCAV has demonstrated or even been required to do so in its program specs. 




Well I already showed that isn't true with actual footage of a UAV involved in air combat vs a live target that shot back.  




-DA 






Darth - a UAV is in the command loop - in other words - requires a human operator.  It is NOT a UCAV which is an autonomous attack aircraft - no human. 
 
A cruise missile is NOT a UAV.  Tomahawk does not require a manned operator.  It is selft contained and attacks according to a pre-porgrammed set of pecs.  There is no manned loop.  Tomahawk can attack without radar - using a variety of other imaging systems to identify and strike.  Thus it can attack in a silent mode.  The command link cannot be jammed since there is no link.
 
UAVs require a command link - thus a UAV requires constant RF communications - it also has an RF signature - and depends on bandwidth being avaible.  It also requires a good  set of operators along with the associated equipment.  UAVs are not silent in RF terms.  UAVs have less tactical and operational awareness than manned fighters - this is something placed on them by the limitations of sensors and having to look at the world through TV cameras.
 
Did it ever occur to you that a simple barrage jammer will knock down your two way link and ruin your whole mission?
 
UAVs have been dogfighting with manned aircraft for years - see the Ryan Firebee.  Again - since you don't know any of the history - the 1972 SPASM project included an exercise against manned fighters - the UAV won because it could do a 50 g turn but - and this is a big one - it depended on a sure-fire two way link - which cannot be JAMMED.  Thus, it was clear from the start that no such weapon could be fielded until you come up with a jam proof link.
 
You got an answer to that or are you just going to avoid the physics involved again?
 
The unmanned bomber you speak of is nothing more than a glorified Tomahawk in B-2 lite form.  It is a strategic system designed to strike pre-designated targets using a set of strict progam specifications with nuclear weapons.  It is not intelligent enough to retarget, avoid AA fire, provide TAC close air support or hunt down a moving ballistic missile or SAM systems.  The bomber also included a cockpit for crews - to use the aircraft when HUMANS are required.  Thus - even if it were to attack strategic targets in a unmanned mode - there would also be other - manned bombers - to do the SCUD hunt for mobile ICBMs,  knock down double digit SAMs that have moved and strike C3 centers as needed.
 
You confuse UAV and UCAV as if the two are interchangable - they are not.  One is a radio controlled airplane - the other is a  self-contained cruise missile that can return home after delivering its warload.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 11:16:41 AM

Darth -

 Compass Arrow was a revised Ryan Firebee drone - which we flew over Vietnam to perform recce missions.  It was nothing more than a drone with TERCOM and a pre-programmed course to perform elint/and photo recon.  It had no part in the early SPASM program.

 I'm familiar with it, I'm just demonstrating with facts and photos that the things I'm suggesting are not new and have already been done and NONE of it required autonomous operation and they flew through very heavily defended airspace doing everything from recce, attack and even air combat.


Again - this has zero to do with current capability - other than two show 1970s history.  In fact, I'll give you dollars to donuts you have no idea what the SPASM program was or what it evolved into.

No, I don't. I'm sure you will tell me though. But what these post have to do with is to show that contrary to what someone mentioned earlier, UAV/UCAV technologies have been in development and deployed operationally for decades. The have like MIssile Defense, been matured since the 1970's and are now bearing fruit that we can use beyond experimental programs and start to do things we used manned fighters and bombers for.

Some of you are "convinced" that a conflict with the PRC is right around the corner and the Red Dragon is just waiting. OK, setting the unlikelihood of such a scenario aside, if you wanted to go after the PRC missile forces, you would be wasting your time AND tipping your hand to do it with F-22's/B-2/s and B-1Bs. It would be the SCUD hunt all over again. First of all, the F-22 doesn't have the range or endurance to clear the air space over mainland China in enough volume for the heavies. It would be Allied Force all over again in terms of SEAD. Second, and I have experience with calling in air on targets of opportunity, the bombers would be very hard pressed to react fast enough to spotting a TEL unless we could track it in realtime for long periods. The B-1B with it's supersonic dash and long range would definitely have somewhat better chance. But it would be difficult still. Just think of how difficult it is in Iraq where we control the air completely and the only concern is getting from point a to point b. Or Allied Force SEAD.

If you want to go after PRC rocket forces, you have got to be there laying in wait. You do that with assets that don't have to worry about SAMs and fighters and who's endurance isn't limited by biology. Think about the advantage the TEL has in the respect. It's manned in shifts, it's crew can sleep/eat and plan it's movements around when inbounds are detected or suspected. Sure we'd get some, but all it would take is a WMD warhead and it wont matter. With a UAV/UCAV, we can already be there watching and when a TEL exposes itself or something xmits, the UCAV/UAV can immediately strike. It can do so at ranges that no manned fighters can match. A properly designed UCAV can fly out from GUAM or Japan and stay in Chinese airspace for a day or two at a time. Whatever TELs do manage to fire, missile defenses can take care of. You save your F-22's, B-2's and Bones for strikes on the fixed sites and BM infrastructure and logistics. That's the way to negate the second artillery.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:17:42 AM
Now, I have been pompous myself in the past... perhaps a bit back when I was hurt, but mostly judging the idiots around here and lauding my ability at such an easy and ineffective task. I'm trying not to be now.
But it's true this whole 'You disagree with me so you're a fanatic' shtick is old.
Herald may be acidic, but that hardly makes him wrong - the truth of a matter is largely indepedent of attitude.
 
He's saying the F22 is a superb plane, and would be cheap and well-taken care of if mass-produced. Is this correct? If this is correct does it make the government leaders he accused idiots as he calls them?
It's just my personal opinion that I think I KNOW that the F-22 is in fact 'all that'. The F-35 may be a good investment, but it has yet to enter service and thus is in far more doubt.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 11:21:46 AM


Darth - a UAV is in the command loop - in other words - requires a human operator.  It is NOT a UCAV which is an autonomous attack aircraft - no human. 

 

SOFTWAR, you are wrong. A UCAV does not have to use autonomous modes at all. I know that because I spent the majority of last year in operations supported with UCAVs. I've been briefed in detail repeatedly about this fact.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:23:03 AM
Also the F-22 can be complemented by F-16's, cheap foreign purchases (if pride allows it) and the moderate stock of F-35s that would combined with massing 22s perhaps more than make up for the cost efficiency of buildings 35s. I agree with building it to sell to others, but not massing it for the USA itself.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:25:00 AM
UCAVs are the light of the future.
 
The FAR future... decades.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/13/2009 11:26:10 AM

Sure, the Reaper is capable against third world nations, but I would like to see it win in a fight against a well-trained F-16 pilot. Then I'll believe it's 20 years left till UCAVs can challenge the best.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 11:34:57 AM

Sure, the Reaper is capable against third world nations, but I would like to see it win in a fight against a well-trained F-16 pilot. Then I'll believe it's 20 years left till UCAVs can challenge the best.


There are already "robots" that can do that. They are called missiles. Thats why the fighters like F-16's have evolved into fighters like F-22/35 so that they can hide from them.

-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 11:41:27 AM


Did it ever occur to you that a simple barrage jammer will knock down your two way link and ruin your whole mission?


Yes. Has it ever occurred to you that there are countermeasures? I've had this used against me in combat! Barrage jamming isn't the end of it at all.

 

UAVs have been dogfighting with manned aircraft for years - see the Ryan Firebee.  Again - since you don't know any of the history - the 1972 SPASM project included an exercise against manned fighters - the UAV won because it could do a 50 g turn but - and this is a big one - it depended on a sure-fire two way link - which cannot be JAMMED.  Thus, it was clear from the start that no such weapon could be fielded until you come up with a jam proof link.

You got an answer to that or are you just going to avoid the physics involved again?

Why get into a "dogfight"? A UCAV can be faster and fly higher so that a 50g dogfight isn't necessary. Like what F-22's do. Like Mig-31 and Mig-25 do. No need to get close with BVR weapons. RF isn't the only way to control either.   I know the physics and THE OPERATIONAL CONCEPT.


You confuse UAV and UCAV as if the two are interchangable - they are not.  One is a radio controlled airplane - the other is a  self-contained cruise missile that can return home after delivering its warload.

No, you are just not familiar with the definitions.  UAV+Weapons=UCAV. Simple as that. No autonomy required.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 11:41:43 AM

Darth -


 Compass Arrow was a revised Ryan Firebee drone - which we flew over Vietnam to perform recce missions.  It was nothing more than a drone with TERCOM and a pre-programmed course to perform elint/and photo recon.  It had no part in the early SPASM program.


 I'm familiar with it, I'm just demonstrating with facts and photos that the things I'm suggesting are not new and have already been done and NONE of it required autonomous operation and they flew through very heavily defended airspace doing everything from recce, attack and even air combat.
 

There are NO documented cases of Firebees performing air combat - in Vietnam or in service with the Israelies - who have used them quite a bit.  The Firebee was a drone - a UAV with the man in the loop - which could fly a preprogrammed mission when out of contact but nothing more.

Again - this has zero to do with current capability - other than to show 1970s history.  In fact, I'll give you dollars to donuts you have no idea what the SPASM program was or what it evolved into.


No, I don't. I'm sure you will tell me though. But what these post have to do with is to show that contrary to what someone mentioned earlier, UAV/UCAV technologies have been in development and deployed operationally for decades. The have like MIssile Defense, been matured since the 1970's and are now bearing fruit that we can use beyond experimental programs and start to do things we used manned fighters and bombers for.
 
Which tells me you have zero idea what you are talking about.  This is because everyone in the industry (UAV, UCAV and cruise missile) knows about SPASM.  While I am sure you are frantically trying to google SPASM - forget it.  It won't be there.

Some of you are "convinced" that a conflict with the PRC is right around the corner and the Red Dragon is just waiting. OK, setting the unlikelihood of such a scenario aside, if you wanted to go after the PRC missile forces, you would be wasting your time AND tipping your hand to do it with F-22's/B-2/s and B-1Bs. It would be the SCUD hunt all over again. First of all, the F-22 doesn't have the range or endurance to clear the air space over mainland China in enough volume for the heavies. It would be Allied Force all over again in terms of SEAD. Second, and I have experience with calling in air on targets of opportunity, the bombers would be very hard pressed to react fast enough to spotting a TEL unless we could track it in realtime for long periods. The B-1B with it's supersonic dash and long range would definitely have somewhat better chance. But it would be difficult still. Just think of how difficult it is in Iraq where we control the air completely and the only concern is getting from point a to point b. Or Allied Force SEAD.
 

You don't know how to hunt mobile missiles do you?  I will give you a clue - its not with unmanned aircraft.  The same goes for TACAIR and for other moving targets like SA-20 missiles.

A UCAV can search but it is reliant on its recognition software - which to date cannot tell the difference between a tank and a house - a UAV is better but there are limitations to identification and bandwidth.  Thus - the only systems available to perform those missions are manned aircraft.  Leave the fixed targets to the UCAV.

UAVs can only fly where they are not opposed and can avoid detection.  An active RF link draws a lot of attention in the combat air space.  Just how do you think the Russians were able to shoot down a UAV over Georgia - by visual means? 

If you want to go after PRC rocket forces, you have got to be there laying in wait. You do that with assets that don't have to worry about SAMs and fighters and who's endurance isn't limited by biology. Think about the advantage the TEL has in the respect. It's manned in shifts, it's crew can sleep/eat and plan it's movements around when inbounds are detected or suspected. Sure we'd get some, but all it would take is a WMD warhead and it wont matter. With a UAV/UCAV, we can already be there watching and when a TEL exposes itself or something xmits, the UCAV/UAV can immediately strike. It can do so at ranges that no manned fighters can match. A properly designed UCAV can fly out from GUAM or Japan and stay in Chinese airspace for a day or two at a time. Whatever TELs do manage to fire, missile defenses can take care of. You save your F-22's, B-2's and Bones for strikes on the fixed sites and BM infrastructure and logistics. That's the way to negate the second artillery.
 
I have already covered why UCAVs are not suited for chasing ballistic missiles.  They can't tell the difference between a gas tanker and a BM on the ground much less anyone using decoys.  A UAV might - if the operator can keep it online and not get shot down.

The advantage of UAV and UCAV is loiter - maybe - if you count Global Hawk but not in terms of other systems.  So far no jet UCAV has flown for more than 4 hours not several days.  Again, Global Hawk can stay up for maybe two days - but it is also a high flying sitting duck and you have to transmit the images back somehow - RF emissions problems again.

Your arguments do not negate the physics involved and your ignornance of the systems, their history and their current program levels speak volumes.

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 11:46:02 AM
No, you are just not familiar with the definitions.  UAV+Weapons=UCAV. Simple as that. No autonomy required.

-DA 
 
Darth - I give up.  You are just so very lost here.  RF command loop is NOT a UCAV.  Even armed Predators are UAVs not UCAVs.  They are radio controlled airplanes and you AGAIN failed to overcome that RF problem of jamming and detection.  I am sorry you do not understand the difference and why relying on an radio controlled airplane will not work agtainst a first world opponent with even the simplest of RF jammers.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Claim to secret knowledge.   4/13/2009 11:47:06 AM






Darth - a UAV is in the command loop - in other words - requires a human operator.  It is NOT a UCAV which is an autonomous attack aircraft - no human. 



 





SOFTWAR, you are wrong. A UCAV does not have to use autonomous modes at all. I know that because I spent the majority of last year in operations supported with UCAVs. I've been briefed in detail repeatedly about this fact.







-DA 



You have called for support? That is not the same thing as operating the things poster, nor is it the same as operating against countermeasures.
 
Once again you don't know what you are talking about. Your briefings may have included such things as time to employ limitations and terrain obstruction limitations but they sure didn't include such things as enemy exploit paths or possible enemy EW counters to use or you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes over and over again. You assume low intensity EW conditions which is the favorite mistake most fan-boys and amateurs make.
 
What I want to know is why do you assume that the B-2 or the B-1 would be limited in a Scud hunt?
 
Let me give you an example.
 
A DF 15 launches from a TEL in Fujian about 100 kilometers setback from the coast from one of the forward Alpha sites.
 
A US platform, call it Hydra Knight for example purposes, detects the launch plume at the slant at 400,000 meters from an altitude of about 22,000 meters. Another US platform similar range separation launches a cruise missile, Mach 6, in reprisal from 400,000 meters away . 200 seconds later, BOOM. That is three minutes, twenty seconds. Not enough time for the TEL to clear datum, poster.   
 
Want to tell me you know what you discuss?
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/13/2009 11:47:45 AM
What all of these nice stealthy UAV programs show is that we will very soon have no need for a huge fleet of expensive manned VLO fighters.  UAVs like the one spotted in Kandahar are the kinds of platforms -- cheaper than any manned fighter, longer legged than any manned fighter, and stealthy -- that we can use over countries like Pakistan.
 
On the other hand they also clearly show the limitations of the technology, and the fact that what we do need is a force of VLO offensive counter air aircraft for air superiority and first day of war strikes.
 
The near-term availability of these stealthy UCAVs makes the F-35 redundant, not the F-22.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/13/2009 12:16:05 PM

What all of these nice stealthy UAV programs show is that we will very soon have no need for a huge fleet of expensive manned VLO fighters.  UAVs like the one spotted in Kandahar are the kinds of platforms -- cheaper than any manned fighter, longer legged than any manned fighter, and stealthy -- that we can use over countries like Pakistan.

 

On the other hand they also clearly show the limitations of the technology, and the fact that what we do need is a force of VLO offensive counter air aircraft for air superiority and first day of war strikes.


 

The near-term availability of these stealthy UCAVs makes the F-35 redundant, not the F-22.


Exactly right, the mythical Hydra Knight in the example stays behind the Raptor to execute its search. The Raptor itself is a survivable NODE. Notice that the example setup doesn't care if the rocket launched is a TBM or a SAM? This procedure is called "skinning the onion".
 
Herald
 
 
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