SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production

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

mustang22 4/15/2009 3:21:22 PM

Your views have been shot down by everybody that matters with the exception of your small local fan club on this forum.

-DA

I believe this statement is untrue and time will inevitably prove you wrong. The F-22 has a lot of support in Congress so don't be surprised if more are on the way.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/15/2009 3:29:23 PM

Mustang,

Granted, I already acknowledged many post back Congress may get involved. So with that minor quibble, I agree with you.

-DA

Quote Reply

Softwar You Funny Man DA 4/15/2009 3:32:07 PM

You aren't qualified to negate anything I say. You don't have the skill sets, the experience or the professionalism to survive any kind of military related debate with me. Don't confuse my lack on interest in your cyber chest beating and ego trippin' for lack of capability. Note that I didn't mention anything about air dominance, a concept you don't even understand obviously.

When you are up to my standard of debate and level of experience and understanding, we can have much more fruitful discussion and perhaps then you might have something useful to contribute. Until such time you are just blowing more hot air. But I know you need to have the last word on everything so go right ahead. I've got everything for the SecDef, Top USAF brass and even simple cursory analysis of capabilities of threats, real threats and not your contrived fake PRC-Bandit obsession, to back up what I said.

Your views have been shot down by everybody that matters with the exception of your small local fan club on this forum.

-DA

Now this is a hoot - Darth the beast of SP - the one guy who whips out his TS clearance every time he gets into trouble and the only guy to argue successfully against himself.

We have already cleared the F-22 part - you would rather not buy it - Gates wants to cancel it. A whole bunch of folks who hold the purse strings disagree. I say its needed - you say its not. My way is opinion (in your opinion) while yours is fact (in your opinion).

You suggest that its role in air combat can be replaced by a Predator and I counter that you are so full of stuffed blueberries as to become a muffin by showing that such things are not possible. Then you claim that there is a jam proof two way link - backing it up with (and the drum roll please).... It's so secret that you can't post anything about it and if you did you would have to kill me.

Yawn... You are really getting full of yourself. So far you are an expert on Iraq, China, Iran, Somalia, Afghanistan, radar, UAVs, communications, stealth, air combat, ground combat, nuclear combat, missiles, satellite, guns, butter, blood, sweat and tears. Have I forgotton anything?

Yet - you don't seem to know enough - like SPASM. Completely lost on you ... but if you were as you claim you'd be able to recite SPASM back to me. Why is that... perhaps your expertise is a bit more limited?

In fact - your claims to be such a super expert are so outstanding that I am surprised you are not in the five sided building - that is unless your expertise comes in trash postings of weapons grade baloneyium.

Now Darth - I do know you have an ego the size of the Death Star (and a proclivity to post things in lots of places here on the net about yourself including the faces of your comrades in arms) but really... If you wish to insult someone - then do so - don't beat around the bush.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/15/2009 3:40:36 PM

Strawman. As others have already pointed out, I didn't say or make the claims you are making up in your post. Therefore I wont entertain this latest nonsense any further. You want to be taken seriously yet in the same breath you accuse me of saying a Predator is replacing the F-22. Can you back that up? NO. Did you even understand the context of why I brought up UAS? NO. Heck you could not even correctly define the terms...lol. Spare me.

-DA

Quote Reply

Softwar 4/15/2009 3:49:35 PM

-DA

So - take note here newbies - the answer to dealing with a question or problem about your logic skill-set is to increase your volume and shout down to your fellow SP poster - using larger Fonts and highlighted colors.

Yes Darth - you lost that round - and still don't know what SPASM is. What - couldn't get into the SCIF this weekend because it was closed for bunny day? Or perhaps your clearance is not high enough? You might as well take that mythical non-jammable - perfect communications system and go peddle it to someone who buys into fantasy warriors.

And do keep up the good work - posting about your personal life on other sites and stuff - real interesting. But I do still wonder if you are using a government (mil) IP - which brings into question are your stealing from the taxpayer to post here on SP?

Quote Reply

maruben Gates' explanation 4/15/2009 4:49:55 PM

MAXWELL AIR FORCE BASE, Ala. (AP) — Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Wednesday the high-seas pirate drama shows why the Pentagon should buy more affordable ships, planes and weapons even if they are not perfect.

"As we saw last week, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of teenage pirates," Gates said.

Although he has praised the precision training of Navy SEAL snipers who killed three pirate hostage-takers Sunday, the secretary was referring to the imbalance of massive U.S. warships and dazzling weaponry corralling the pirates' tiny lifeboat. The Somali pirates were armed with automatic weapons and pistols and holding an American cargo ship captain for ransom.

Gates is touring war colleges this week, selling his plan to reorder the Pentagon budget. He wants to cancel some big programs and scale back others.

It was at this same Air Force War College that Gates a year ago accused the service of dragging its feet on sending relatively low-tech surveillance and reconnaissance aircraft to Iraq and Afghanistan. Gates said Wednesday that those wars should drive the design and purchase of realistic weapons.

The goal should be larger quantities of well-priced and versatile systems, instead of exquisite machines "so costly and complex that they take forever to build and then only in very limited quantities."

Gates' proposed $534 billion defense budget for the coming year would end production of the Air Force's marquee fighter plane, the F-22 Raptor, a sleek $400 million beauty that has not seen a day of combat in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Gates wants to build more workhorse planes called Joint Strike Fighters, at about $80 million apiece. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes.

The F-22 is a "niche, silver-bullet solution" to a narrow problem, and 187 of them will be plenty, Gates said.

He got no complaint about the F-22 from his audience of students and instructors, and the Air Force leadership has signaled it will support the phase-out. Manufacture of the plane creates jobs in more than 40 states, however, and it is not clear whether Congress will try to keep the program going.

Gates told the group he opposes a congressional push to buy new Air Force refueling planes from two different defense contractors. The Pentagon has been trying for nearly a decade to build a badly needed replacement for the 50-year-old fleet of refueling planes called tankers.

Gates joked that he is "laying my body down across the tracks" by insisting on a leaner tanker buying plan. He plans to try again this summer to pick a manufacturer.

Congress has not begun work on Gates' budget plan, released earlier this month after weeks of secret strategy sessions. Gates made even top military officers swear in writing that they would not discuss the budget lineup before its release.

The ambitious plan is the product of Gates' frustration with what he has called narrow thinking by military services and defense contractors too accustomed to ever-swelling defense budgets since the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

The defense chief, a holdover from the Cabinet of Republican President George W. Bush, has asked members of Congress to look beyond parochial interests in their home districts, and told the Air Force audience he has been pleasantly surprised by a muted response so far. Congress is on a break, and will return next week.

Defense analysts say most of Gates recommendations will probably stick, especially with the endorsement this week of President Barack Obama.

Quote Reply

FJV 4/15/2009 4:58:56 PM

Did you stand your orals or was it all written?

Basically what I had to graduate from the polytech (I believe this is the correct term) do was:

- Do a graduation project

- Write a report.

- Do a presentation of that report in front of an audience.

- Defend what I've written against one teacher who was assigned to guide me and one knowledgeable person form

outside of the polytech. Right after the presentation.

For me the thing that makes it "brutal" was doing the presentation. If you are not used to doing presentations the stage fright is enough to make a lot of people vomit from nervousness, which I did the day before. That's what makes it "though" IMHO.

The defense of your report really depends on how good you did your project. Also you can have the teacher that is assigned to you read a draft prior to doing this and he will point out the strengths and weaknesses of your report. This will enable you to fix flaws you may have overlooked.

Over all this does not come across to me as being unfair or overly harsh

Now what is really a brutal experience is when you have designed something that does not work, because of a stupid mistake you made. Every engineer has I know has made such mistakes. I know I have.

Just imagine how you feel that exact moment when you find out that the machine you designed the piping for is in reality ±1 meter shorter than the reference drawings of the machine you used. Whether I was informed that there was a short version of that machine was not remembered by the parties involved (me and the guy I made the drawings for).

Quote Reply

maruben Gates' explanation 4/15/2009 4:59:06 PM

"As we saw last week, you don't necessarily need a billion-dollar ship to chase down a bunch of teenage pirates," Gates said.

Gates is touring war colleges this week, selling his plan to reorder the Pentagon budget. He wants to cancel some big programs and scale back others.

Gates wants to build more workhorse planes called Joint Strike Fighters, at about $80 million apiece. That program could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes.

The F-22 is a "niche, silver-bullet solution" to a narrow problem, and 187 of them will be plenty, Gates said.

Gates joked that he is "laying my body down across the tracks" by insisting on a leaner tanker buying plan. He plans to try again this summer to pick a manufacturer.

Defense analysts say most of Gates recommendations will probably stick, especially with the endorsement this week of President Barack Obama.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/15/2009 5:11:53 PM

Awesome. Gates, gets it.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica More from SecDef Gates on F-22 4/15/2009 6:15:32 PM

When examining the issue of air supremacy, we had to ask, what is the right mix of weapons to deal with the span of threats? What are the things that the F-22, and only the F-22, can do ? and where would it be required? There is no doubt that the F-22 has unique capabilities that we need ? the penetration and defeat of an advanced enemy air defense and fighter fleet. But, the F-22 is, in effect, a niche, silver-bullet solution required for a limited number of scenarios ? to overcome advanced enemy fighters and air defense systems. In assessing the F-22 requirement, we also considered the advanced stealth and superior air-to-ground capabilities provided by the fifth-generation F-35s now being accelerated in this budget, the growing capability and range of unmanned platforms like the Reaper, and other systems in the Air Force and in other services. I also considered the fact that Russia is probably 6 years away from Initial Operating Capability of a fifth-generation fighter and the Chinese are 10 to 12 years away. By then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Continued... 4/15/2009 6:34:58 PM

...Looking forward, the goal of our weapons buying is to develop a portfolio ? a mixture of weapons whose flexibility allows us to respond to a spectrum of contingencies on or beyond the horizon. Focusing exclusively, or obsessively, on a single weapons system designed to do a specific job or confront a single adversary ignores what a truly joint force can and must do in the 21^st century.
Where the trend of future conflict is clear, I have made specific recommendations. In other areas, however, I believe that we need to develop a more rigorous analytical framework before moving forward ? the type of framework that will be provided by the Quadrennial Defense Review. I should note that this will be the first QDR able to fully incorporate the numerous lessons learned on the battlefield these past few years. Lessons about what tactics future adversaries, both state and non-state actors, are likely to pursue ? especially given our conventional dominance in air and at sea.

I'll take the liberty of adding my opinion of these words. First, it's very refreshing to read from a person who so obviously understands the full dynamic of the situation we are in. Gates knows what's going on, the threats we face out there and how to proceed.

For instance, I really like how he mentions that we should not get obsessive about single weapons systems. He also covers in brief why the threat from near peer nations such as Russia and China don't justify additional air frames. We are looking at 6 to 12 years before advanced 5th Generation threat aircraft start reaching IOC. At which point we will have many times more 5th Gen jets capable of dealing with those threats. In other words, we aren't compromising our ability to defeat advanced threat aircraft or IADS and will have both quantitative and qualitative advantage in a system thats flexible and designed not only to defeat those threats, but the much more likely threats that we see today. Moreover, SecDef Gates recognizes the importance and growing capability of UAVs which include UCAVs like Reaper that are going to only grow in capability and importance as we move forward.

Again, its great to have a SecDef that is paying attention to the things we are asking for and need.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/15/2009 10:57:49 PM

By then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.

Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders. The 2nd statement is an outright lie. Two weeks ago they were firm on 243 Raptors. Two men in that high profile of a position do not just change their minds unless forced to do so. To be more clear letting the 2005 budget take the fall is complete cowardice. I would at least have respect for the guy if he just said I have advised the Air Force Secretary and Chief of staff that my analysis has concluded and there will not be a need to further procure the F-22 at which time the program will be terminated after final deliveries have taken place. There are people who have a clue and people that need to get one, clearly we know where Gates falls. I would like him under oath to say he did not manipulate either AF Sec or Chief of Staff.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 4/16/2009 12:59:43 AM

By
then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our
inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of
the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the
program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number
to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as
codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be
completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.

Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders.

Negative. I already told you that many of the F-35 users will be using it as the primary air to air platform. What do you not understand about multirole? Its the second most capable air to air platform in the the world indisputably when integrated into our system and using our CONOPS. Other examples...

...F-35 is superior.

The 2nd statement is an outright lie. Two weeks ago they were firm on 243 Raptors. Two men in that high profile of a position do not just change their minds unless forced to do so. To be more clear letting the 2005 budget take the fall is complete cowardice. I would at least have respect for the guy if he just said I have advised the Air Force Secretary and Chief of staff that my analysis has concluded and there will not be a need to further procure the F-22 at which time the program will be terminated after final deliveries have taken place. There are people who have a clue and people that need to get one, clearly we know where Gates falls. I would like him under oath to say he did not manipulate either AF Sec or Chief of Staff.

LOL c'mon don't be religious about this. These men all stated the reasons for changing their minds. The evidence supporting that change is well documented and LOGICAL. Can't you see that the PRC and Russia aren't in a position to threaten our dominance and all other threats fly comparatively primitive fighters in fewer numbers in inferior systems? Don't you see that Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, North Korea and Somalia define the kinds of conflicts we are likely to have to deal with. We have a viable F-15C and F-15E fleet that remains viable through 2025 as well.

-The idea that our air supremacy rest on 60 additional airframes is false.

-The idea that the PRC is breathing down our back and actually capable of beating us in the air is false.

-Above applies to Russia

-The F-15's are falling out of the sky stories were blown way out of proportion in order to lobby for more Raptors.

-F-35's are not just ground attack platforms

It's just like those Rafale threads where people dig in their heels and wont bulge in spite of mountains of evidence that suggest the previously held positions and opinions are wrong.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/16/2009 10:26:05 AM

By

then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our

inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of

the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the

program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number

to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as

codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be

completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.

Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders.

...F-35 is superior.

-The idea that our air supremacy rest on 60 additional airframes is false.

-The idea that the PRC is breathing down our back and actually capable of beating us in the air is false.

-Above applies to Russia

-The F-15's are falling out of the sky stories were blown way out of proportion in order to lobby for more Raptors.

-F-35's are not just ground attack platforms

It's just like those Rafale threads where people dig in their heels and wont bulge in spite of mountains of evidence that suggest the previously held positions and opinions are wrong.

-DA

Darth,

I don't want to start a pissing contest but my views on this haven't and will not change. Gates simply refuses to look past his tunnel vision idea that the only future conflicts are Somalia, Mexico, etc. etc. Simply put most nations are tired of the United States being known as a superpower. The Russias and Chinas want a piece of the pie as well will build their militaries accordingly. Rogue states simply cannot compete and use terrorism or nuclear threats to gain an advantage. There are so many more legitimate reasons to continue on with the F-22 than abandon it, why is that so hard to comprehend?

Was the United States fully prepared to enter WWII from a military standpoint. or did millions of people and factories have to spit out tanks, planes and ships by the thousands?

Other F-35 users are not the U.S. Multirole fits their requirement presently but cost overrun and IOC delays may start to frustrate some buyers. Why is it that Japan, Israel and Australia all countries which understand and require air superiority fighters would rather buy F-22's vs F-35?

Can you honestly say that a fully loaded F-35 in AA mode offers a significant advantage over an AESA equipped F-15 or F-18 after it loses its LO capability/ Losing 1 engine and still being capable of landing on a flightdeck is a lot cheaper than ditching into the ocean or losing a pilot.

Spending a trillion dollars on a redundant program that offers little advantage over current systems is a waste. The F-22 is currently up and running and cheaper systems are available to upgrade. Spend that money to develope unmanned systems which makes much more sense for the future especially since fighting insurgents and pirates are the only real threat.

Have you stopped to think for just a second about the very real possibility of another structural concern with F-15's down the road? What happens if the entire fleet is grounded? The 60 extra Raptors gives you that RESERVE.

While Russia and China may not currently be capable of challenging us in the air, I was unaware that they cancelled fifth generation fighter development.

And please tell us how a 2005 budget cut to pay for two wars is real analysis on the future needs of the Air Force. This has been purely budget driven for years. Every independant study done has shown a need for more F-22's, all of which are based on possible scenarios and not money driven decisions.

Quote Reply

LB So Which Is It 4/16/2009 10:28:42 AM

First you state you are not interested in comparing the F-35 and F-22 and now your position is the F-35 does air to air and thus we do not need as many F-22s.

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

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us