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

DarthAmerica       4/10/2009 12:58:31 PM

The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!


 
It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.


1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF

2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents

3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces

3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 
 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    DA Reply   4/10/2009 1:17:15 PM
1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF
 
Your opinion - not shared by a host of others - as demonstrated by the various postings, articles and sources here.

2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents

Your opinion - clearly not shared by a multitude of others - including the Russians and the PLA.

3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces

N/A - we are doing the same - sometimes using assets such as the IW capability of the Raptor.

3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 
 
There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Darth    4/10/2009 1:50:59 PM

1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF
 

Your opinion - not shared by a host of others - as demonstrated by the various postings, articles and sources here.





2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents



Your opinion - clearly not shared by a multitude of others - including the Russians and the PLA.




3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces



N/A - we are doing the same - sometimes using assets such as the IW capability of the Raptor.




3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 

 

There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.




 


I agree with Softwar's response. In fact Darth you have not provided a single item of evidence that the 187 aircraft can do the work of some 400 aircraft performing those duties today. You have provided an unsupported opinion which must be judged against other data and history.
 
Your posts have been informative but mostly not pertinent to the conversation at hand. The question remains how many airframes do we need to perform the air superiority tasks in the USAF mission.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    ?We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way?    4/10/2009 2:22:17 PM
I have already put the USAF air superiority aircraft inventory into a historical context with my earlier posts. History of our air superiority fleet is that they have been worked harder than planned in the 90's through today. Those requirements aren't going to change IMV. On the question of how many F22s are needed, here is what the USAF Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz had to say about the number of F22s our nation needs (note I have included the link and all of the article for further context. Nobody has to "google it"):
 
htt**p://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F22s021709.xml

U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, the chief of staff, says more stealthy F-22s are needed ? though less than the 381 required by the service in recent years - yet he has stopped short of identifying how many more.

?We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way? and produced a number that ?I feel is credible,? Schwartz said during a Defense Writers? Group breakfast this morning in Washington. The general said he would not release his new number until presenting it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates - but he noted he would not disagree with statements from Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress 60 more F-22s were needed.

This would include orders of about 20 aircraft per year for three years. Lockheed Martin currently has orders for 183 of the twin-engine aircraft.

The top four-star USAF general further said it is a ?sign of a healthy institution? when it is ?willing to revisit its own beliefs.?

Gates has ordered a quick-turnaround review of major Pentagon programs ahead of submission of a fiscal 2010 budget. In this review, Gates has directed eight teams to look at the following areas: tactical aircraft, mobility, shipbuilding, network centric capabilities, rotary-wing systems, missile defense, irregular warfare and nuclear capabilities, according to an industry official. Gates is said to be placing an emphasis on technologies that can help with ?irregular warfare,? or nontraditional warfighting capabilities, as the Pentagon expects continued battles against non-state actors and insurgent forces for many years.

Such a rebalancing of the military force could prompt senior leaders at the Pentagon to assume more risk in traditional warfighting areas, such as air-to-air combat or lead-in operations in the opening hours of a major theater war. Leaders are now looking at how much risk is appropriate for the capabilities offered by systems such as the F-22, Schwartz said. The general notes that any added systems the Air Force wants in the FY ?10 budget will be paid for with suggested cuts by the service.

The new F-22 analysis presumes deliveries of operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will commence as planned in 2013 and 2014 without delay.

Schwartz defended the F-22?s mission capability (MC) rates. Pentagon acquisition chief John Young criticized the low MC rates last fall, noting that Raptors are ready for a mission around 62 percent of the time, if its low-observable requirements are met (DAILY, Nov. 20). Reliability goes up above 70 percent for missions with lower stealth demands.

Schwartz said the F-22?s performance is ?respectable,? especially when compared with the first-generation stealthy F-117 and the B-2 bomber. ?These are not numbers to be scoffed at,? he says.

Young also has criticized plans to spend another $8 billion on the F-22 to modify it from its air-to-air role to also take on ground targets. Schwartz noted that this block upgrade plan has been in the works for a long time.

Schwartz was cool on the notion of developing an export version of the F-22. Japan has expressed interest in buying the system, but the so-called Obey Amendment, named after the top House appropriator who drafted the language years ago, prohibits foreign Raptor sales.

Citing the cost associated with developing an export variant, Schwartz said, ?I don?t see that in the cards now.?

Photo: USAF
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    OI understood perfectly,poster.    4/10/2009 3:03:45 PM



The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!






 

It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.







1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF




2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents




3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces




3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 

 




-DA 
 

Naw, poster you got caught in your own doubletalk. You didn't know what you were discussing, you mixed apples and rocks and now you resort to the personal attack again-to wit.
 
"You fucked up."
 
Well poster, this isn't an ego contest. You lost that rpound wjhen I demnonstrated that you are off point and irrelevent. This is a discussion now aboutr what you don't know.

Your latest fallback is to claim that Global Haek and Predator are UASes in the force.
 
Are they? 
 
Do you know what a   "man in the loop"  is?
 
Answer is no.
 
A continuously monitored drone is not autonomous. It can't even properly be called a drone. What it is, is a teleoperated and monitored aserial system. The man is still there, just not in the aircraft.
 
Now..........
 
1. I demomnstrated by coverage analysis what a minimum air dominance force would look like
2, Here and eleswhere I showed that Gates has a very unsavory reputation to trumpet whatever line the bozos in power want to adopt for the moment of political expediency.
3. I demonstrated that the poster, here, lnows less about robotics and aircraft than I know about the insode of my own nose. 
4. I demonstrated here that the poster will go to enormous lengths to try and belittle opponents and doismiss
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I understood perfectly,poster. (cleaned ip version.   4/10/2009 3:15:52 PM








The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!














 



It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.

















1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF










2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents










3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces










3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 



 










-DA 

 





Naw, poster you got caught in your own double talk. You didn't know what you were discussing, you mixed apples and rocks and now you resort to the personal attack again-to wit.

 

"You fucked up."


 

Well poster, this isn't an ego contest. You lost that round when I demonstrated that you are off point and irrelevant. This is a discussion now about what you don't know.





Your latest fall back is to claim that Global Hark and Predator are UASes in the force.


 

Are they? 

 

Do you know what a   "man in the loop"  is?


 

Answer is no.

 

A continuously monitored drone is not autonomous. It can't even properly be called a drone. What it is, is a teleoperated and monitored aerial system. The man is still there, just not i
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 7:41:33 PM
No, it's clear to me you don't understand. So lets just agree to disagree before things get too out of hand. I'll be responding to some of the other posters and perhaps that might put things in context for you.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 8:01:41 PM

I agree with Softwar's response. In fact Darth you have not provided a single item of evidence that the 187 aircraft can do the work of some 400 aircraft performing those duties today. You have provided an unsupported opinion which must be judged against other data and history.

Your posts have been informative but mostly not pertinent to the conversation at hand. The question remains how many airframes do we need to perform the air superiority tasks in the USAF mission.

Check Six
Rocky



That's the problem then. What you and Softwar are doing is confusing my point. Which is I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED 400 Raptors to do the job in the first place. It's my belief that 187 Raptors plus the F-15s we have from now until 2025 plus the F-35s once they enter service are enough to deal with ANY realistic threat between now and 2025. That means Norks, PRCs, Russians and Iranians if need be.  I've taken a look at ORBATS and the capabilities of the threats and I can't find a scenario where the outcome is not in our favor because of 60 more Raptors. Thats not the same as saying 187 Raptors can do the job of 400.
 
-DA
 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 8:15:13 PM

There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.


That's not true at all. Reapers are UCAV's. Operating autonomously is not required to be considered a UCAV. It's UNMANNED or UNINHABITED. It's certainly a combat vehicle and its waging real war inside Pakistan proper. As far as I'm concerned that's a UCAV. If however you can show a definition that says UCAV's must be autonomous then I strongly disagree. Even if you are right, it is a semantic issue. It's like arguing if an AK is a Gun or Rifle. Yes there is a technical definition, but in common speak it doesn't matter.

I agree with you that it is "UNLIKELY" that we would field a a2a UCAV in 2014. But it's absolutely possible and in fact has already been done since 2002. Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 

-DA 

 


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Nitpickery.   4/10/2009 10:53:14 PM



There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.





That's not true at all. Reapers are UCAV's. Operating autonomously is not required to be considered a UCAV. It's UNMANNED or UNINHABITED. It's certainly a combat vehicle and its waging real war inside Pakistan proper. As far as I'm concerned that's a UCAV. If however you can show a definition that says UCAV's must be autonomous then I strongly disagree. Even if you are right, it is a semantic issue. It's like arguing if an AK is a Gun or Rifle. Yes there is a technical definition, but in common speak it doesn't matter.




I agree with you that it is "UNLIKELY" that we would field a a2a UCAV in 2014. But it's absolutely possible and in fact has already been done since 2002. Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 




-DA 



 







You didn't address the technical issues I raised at all, poster. You tried to bluff your way out of it again. Not addressed the deteriorating air fleet situation  or the technical issues about bandwidth, sensor issues, comm link vulnerability.. Tried to say that unmanned means something.


I don't care about those 'games'. What I care about is that you think you have something useful to say on this subject. I'm trying to tease that out of you, to see if you can even address the core of your arguments defects.


You think the predator is a UCAS. Its a man operated reconnaissance bird with a very limited usefulness as a close support weapon. it is more of a man operated opportunity assassination weapon. WQhat gives you the idea that such a bird which carries a few small air to surface weapons; has the payload capacity to  be turned into an air to air capable bird.


Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 
 
 
On the face of it, that entire statement is so stupid technically across the board that it left me rolling on the floor with laughter.  
a. The Predator doesn't carry enough payload to loft or the right sensor fit to use anything but one or two  WVR weapons. it doesn't have the maneuvering ability (*energy reserve) to survive a simple BVR shot or the radar footprint to evade detection. 
b. Thje F-16 and the F-35 could loft such weapons. The
 
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