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       4/11/2009 1:20:28 PM
HERALD CAN YOU NOT REFER TO ME AS INCOMPETENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER PLETHORA OF PERSONAL INSULTS YOU USE HERE.


Thank You. I'll give you the same courtesy. If you disagree fine, but do it without being disrespectful. If you cannot, I'll forward any post by you with such content/behavior to the Moderators.


-DA  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 1:24:11 PM




Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.



 



That didn't work out so hot... the one time they tried it.





I agree THAT TIME. But that isn't the point. The loss of a single Predator is inconsequential to what's important here. THEY TRIED IT. And that wasn't the only time. The implications are huge. Also, why so emotional? What did you find to be ridiculous? Are you able to articulate your feelings? You seem to be contradicting your own post when you say what I said about Predators as air to air capable and then you repost a video I already showed confirming the fact?




Phaid, at one point AIM-7's didn't work well either if you recall. The technology and tactics were matured and now we have AMRAAM, R-77 and METEOR. Are you suggesting that there is no future for air to air capable UCAVs? A lot of what's been discussed here was my opinion. However, this latest stuff is fact.




FACTS:




1. I gave you the definition of Air Superiority




2. I Gave you the definition of what a UCAV is




3. I Showed you a working air to air capable UCAV shooting at a live opponent 

 




Again, Air Superiority is a condition independent of the platforms that create it which also aren't always fighters.







-DA 
IN BOLD, notice.
This is an example of the standard personal insult and the personal attack, the poster uses.
 
Notice that in the rest of the post there is no technical discussion at all? The meat of the posting was an attempt to belittle and demean the person. I think that some now can see what this actually means about the tactics of the cited poster.
 
Not able to argue merits on a level playing field, the poster persists in the long habits he's established in trying to shift the argument off point and in trying to either red herring, or resort to the ad hominem or directly attack the person of his "opponent", which in this case is totally wothout merit, since the "opponent" is qualified by posted evidence to have an opini9on while the poster as we wade deeper into this debate has long since proved not to have the remotest understanding of subject based on reading the evidence that the poster has submitted..
 
Once again, I emphasize, no credible data or even the rudiments of system analysis of the topic but just conjecture, personal attack, unsubtantiated opinion , and frankly, bad manners has he presented..
 
 Where is the proof of the poster's assertion again?
 
Summary:
 
1. I supplied cut and paste definitions of terms.
2. Secretary Gates says so.
3. A Predator drone controller (Human) tried to fire a Sidewinder at a Foxbat WVR and missed.
 
Pardoin me but even a superfical read of the last 14 pages shows who really has a clue here. it isn't the poster who asserts with no proof, no data, and no REAL understanding of what is NOW going on here. 
 
Where os the beef? And I'm not talking about cows. 
 
Herald
 
 
 
.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 1:40:21 PM
I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.


It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces. The MQ-9 would not even need to carry the sensors necessary to guide the weapon. Through Datalinks, the MQ-9 could act as a shooter using information from off board sensors as Current manned aircraft do. At high altitude, there would be plenty of target sets this UCAV/AAM combo could threaten during an air superiority mission. Would this be an adequate substitute for manned fighters? In some situations, yes. That answer changes to YES with a purpose built platform like an F-4, Mig-17, F-16 or F-35 modified to fly unmanned.

People reading this need to understand the proper context of what I'm saying. I know that the technology is new, need improvement and will not replace our manned fighters for a whole lot of reasons as soon as it could. I do not deny that. What I deny is that it is not POSSIBLE. I'm not sure why anyone familiar with the technologies involved would say it's not possible. That's probably why people who are familiar are not saying that at all. This technology is progressing very rapidly and we should expect to see some exciting things next decade. Things like the Predator C for instance...

link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 10px; background-position: initial initial; ">Jet-powered Predator C makes first flight and gains funding support
link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; font-size: 11px; background-position: 0% 100%; ">

General Atomics Aeronauti... flew its jet-powered Predator C unmanned aircraft system for the first time in early April, chief executive Thomas Cassidy has told Flight International.

The next-generation surveillance and attack UAS completed the first flight with "absolutely no problems", Cassidy says. "It was ready to go again right after it landed."

Cassidy declines to reveal details about the secretive aircraft's features or performance. Since 2005, General Atomics...has been internally developing the Predator C in anticipation of a US Air Force requirement for a next-generation UAS, but federal funding is likely to appear shortly.

Quote    Reply


Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 1:43:36 PM

HERALD CAN YOU NOT REFER TO ME AS INCOMPETENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER PLETHORA OF PERSONAL INSULTS YOU USE HERE.







Thank You. I'll give you the same courtesy. If you disagree fine, but do it without being disrespectful. If you cannot, I'll forward any post by you with such content/behavior to the Moderators.







-DA  
You did not read properly poster, I said   your presentation is incompetent.
 
What I am proving (and quite successfully) is that you are UNQUALIFIED to have an opinion on this subject.
 
And as to personal; attacks and insults, such as the one I pointed out that you aimed at Phaid, I wouldn't be trying to draw attention to myself, poster.
 
 Now, that you have protested that you've been caught in the open with no fdata or qualified opinion of merit on subject would you like to address the air defense and offense coverage issues, your numerous technical errors that I've exposed, the aging and needed replacing air fleet, the moral terpitude as extensivley reported of Mister Gates, the incompetence of the decision making process in the defense budget that requires the signing of non-disclosure agreements that would muzzle RETIRING officers as well as active duty personnel, etc.
 
In other words.if the caser being built up isn't true, poster, why the THREAT language and the useless bullying tactics?
 
Why not argue the data and porive that you are capable of presenting an argument of merit worthy of consideration?
 
Where are your facts? I've read fourteen pages from you and I was/am able to summarize it succinctly..

1. Poster said so.
2. Gates said so.
3. You (insert name) have an emotional problem and I'm not going to discuss politics. 

Never mind that procurement is a POLITICAL decision.
 
 
which the poster obviously also does not understand oin the slightest degree.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 1:52:04 PM
Predator C—$26,000,000
In July 2008, I took a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan to assess the current conditions on the ground.  In a meeting with General David D. McKiernan, Commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), he emphasized that the most important tools needed to successfully conduct operations are more ?eyes in the sky,? also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).   Most importantly, this request will help save lives through better intelligence gathering and greater strike capabilities.  Furthermore, Predator C means more jobs contributing to San Diego?s local economy.  Predator C will provide the USAF and other customers with an additional covert capability, enhanced by much higher operational and transit speeds for quick response and quick repositioning for improved mission flexibility and survivability. This request was made by General Atomics with the verbal support of General David D. McKiernan prior to the official request being made.

 
h*tp://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/BilbrayContinuesCommitmentToTransparency.html


Cutting the 60 F-22's saves at least $9,000,000,000. Enough to but over ~300 + new Predator/Reaper system for instance. I'm not saying we need that many, I'm just putting the savings into context. It's money we could and should use to win the wars we are in rather than the wars people wish we were in. 



-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    POSTER REPLY   4/11/2009 2:00:31 PM
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT AGREE TO DISAGREE POSTER? YOUR STYLE OF DEBATE IS UNNECESSARILY CONFRONTATIONAL POSTER. I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND BECAUSE I AM OFFENDED BY THE WAY YOU REPLY TO ME I AM CHOOSING TO NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING YOU POST ON THIS ISSUE POSTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FRIENDLY CASUAL DISCUSSION POSTER. THAT IS IT FOR YOU AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED POSTER. I HOPE YOU GET THE POINT OF THIS POST POSTER. MOREOVER, SINCE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT MY OPINION IS INCOMPETENT, WHY NOT MOVE ON TO OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH LIKE MINDED POSTERS, POSTER? DO YOU SEE ME IN YOUR THREADS INSULTING YOU POSTER? NO YOU DON'T POSTER. GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY POSTER.



-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Darth Reply   4/11/2009 2:07:04 PM

I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.

 

It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces.
 
Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.

Yes - some things never change...
 
First - the Predator is not designed for air combat, it would take extensive modification and still remain unsuitable due to g forces and speed. 
 
The Predator is a UAV not a UCAV - it is flown by remote - so now you bring in additional items such as bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion.  Any of which makes the manned fighter a better choice and the Predator easy meat (as displayed by Saddam's air force when they shot one down).
 
Second, your point about an unmanned bomber just underscores what I am referring to.  The unmanned UCAV projects are designed to strike fixed targets pre-designated before launch.  The unmanned strategic bomber project is a nuclear role not a tactical or even CAS role.  There are other factors which one can program for but its kind of like sending in a Tomahawk that can return from the mission. 
 
The Predator C is a jet version designed to compete with Global Hawk at a lower price.  Great for recce but not intended for combat roles.  Again - not a suitable example of anything close to replace the F-22.
 
Finally, the X-45 and X-47 systems are the only UCAV types under consideration.  They are experimental and will take years to mature the technology.  They have yet to prove one can land on a carrier much less take on other aircraft in combat.  They have been used in tests with relatively simple strike missions in comparison to taking on an SA-20, fighting off SU-27s and striking a command bunker filled with Generals.

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 2:20:27 PM
Thios is what I meran by incompetent presentation. A desperate cut and paste jonb without thinking about a few things.
I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.







It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces. The MQ-9 would not even need to carry the sensors necessary to guide the weapon. Through Datalinks, the MQ-9 could act as a shooter using information from off board sensors as Current manned aircraft do. At high altitude, there would be plenty of target sets this UCAV/AAM combo could threaten during an air superiority mission. Would this be an adequate substitute for manned fighters? In some situations, yes. That answer changes to YES with a purpose built platform like an F-4, Mig-17, F-16 or F-35 modified to fly unmanned.




People reading this need to understand the proper context of what I'm saying. I know that the technology is new, need improvement and will not replace our manned fighters for a whole lot of reasons as soon as it could. I do not deny that. What I deny is that it is not POSSIBLE. I'm not sure why anyone familiar with the technologies involved would say it's not possible. That's probably why people who are familiar are not saying that at all. This technology is progressing very rapidly and we should expect to see some exciting things next decade. Things like the Predator C for instance...





link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 10px; background-position: initial initial; ">Jet-powered Predator C makes first flight and gains funding support


link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; font-size: 11px; background-position: 0% 100%; ">

General Atomics Aeronauti... flew its jet-powered Predator C unmanned aircraft system for the first time in early April, chief executive Thomas Cassidy has told Flight International.


The next-generation surveillance and attack UAS completed the first flight with "absolutely no problems", Cassidy says. "It was ready to go again right after it landed."


Cassidy declines to reveal details about the secretive aircraft's features or performance. Since 2005, General Atomics...has been internally developing the Predator C in anticipation of a US Air Force requirement for a next-generation UAS, but federal funding is likely to appear shortly.


Brian Bilbray, a California congressman, has asked to insert $26 million in an unnamed appropriations bill for the

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 2:29:02 PM


WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT AGREE TO DISAGREE POSTER? YOUR STYLE OF DEBATE IS UNNECESSARILY CONFRONTATIONAL POSTER. I DISAGREE WITH YOU AND BECAUSE I AM OFFENDED BY THE WAY YOU REPLY TO ME I AM CHOOSING TO NOT RESPOND TO ANYTHING YOU POST ON THIS ISSUE POSTER UNTIL SUCH TIME AS YOU DEMONSTRATE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A FRIENDLY CASUAL DISCUSSION POSTER. THAT IS IT FOR YOU AS FAR AS IM CONCERNED POSTER. I HOPE YOU GET THE POINT OF THIS POST POSTER. MOREOVER, SINCE YOU HAVE EXPRESSED THE OPINION THAT MY OPINION IS INCOMPETENT^1, WHY NOT MOVE ON TO OTHER THREADS WHERE YOU CAN DISCUSS THESE MATTERS WITH LIKE MINDED POSTERS, POSTER? DO YOU SEE ME IN YOUR THREADS INSULTING YOU POSTER? NO YOU DON'T POSTER. GIVE ME THE SAME COURTESY POSTER.










-DA 

 




More TEXT shouting, more emotional personal attacks, (bolded),  more attempted bullying (red) and not a single technical point worth discussing.
 
Herald
 
^1 When I set out to prove a case by data and example , that means I am not expressing an opinion. I am building a case based on facts. 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 2:34:10 PM




I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.

It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces.

Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.
Yes - some things never change...

First - the Predator is not designed for air combat, it would take extensive modification and still remain unsuitable due to g forces and speed. 

 I agree that it is not an ideal design considering todays concepts.
 

The Predator is a UAV not a UCAV - it is flown by remote - so now you bring in additional items such as bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion.  Any of which makes the manned fighter a better choice and the Predator easy meat (as displayed by Saddam's air force when they shot one down).

No, it's a UCAV now by definition. That it is flown by remote has nothing to do with whether or not its a UCAV or UAV.  Sorry but thats the way UAV and UCAV are defined. Bandwidth, jamming and sensor fusion are issues we have or can solve for this application. If the definition has changed since I last checked please correct me. But it's all rather semantic don't you think?
 

 

Second, your point about an unmanned bomber just underscores what I am referring to.  The unmanned UCAV projects are designed to strike fixed targets pre-designated before launch.  The unmanned strategic bomber project is a nuclear role not a tactical or even CAS role.  There are other factors which one can program for but its kind of like sending in a Tomahawk that can return from the mission. 

That makes it a UCAV by definition. Now what's so hard to visualize about a UCAV doing the same thing?
 

The Predator C is a jet version designed to compete with Global Hawk at a lower price.  Great for recce but not intended for combat roles.  Again - not a suitable example of anything close to replace the F-22.

Nope, it's got an attack role too.

 
Finally, the X-45 and X-47 systems are the only UCAV types under consideration.  They are experimental and will take years to mature the technology.  They have yet to prove one can land on a carrier much less take on other aircraft in combat.  They have been used in tests with relatively simple strike missions in comparison to taking on an SA-20, fighting off SU-27s and striking a command bunker filled with Generals.
 
For now and that the public is aware of not counting Predator C which also qualifies. If you give GA, Boeing or LM part of that 9 billion in Raptor savings and a 2014 deadline.  I bet you would be amazed at how fast they could get one ready for IOC.


-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