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
Softwar    Compass Arrow   4/13/2009 10:26:40 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.
 
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.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Combine this with JITSA   4/13/2009 10:36:35 AM
ht*p://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2d1ORgVjZto


Also,

Budget document discloses existence of secret US Air Force UAV programme 

Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works is believed to be developing a high-altitude, stealthy unmanned aircraft system (UAS) for the US Air Force (USAF) under a secret programme, funded with money taken from the terminated Joint Unmanned Combat Air System (J-UCAS) project. 

The existence of a classified air force UAS project was disclosed in a navy Fiscal Year 2007 budget document, which stated that the Pentagon "directed the J-UCAS programme to split into two separate programmes: one air force classified programme and a navy UCAV [unmanned combat aerial vehicle] programme". 

The new UAV, sometimes known as the Penetrating High Altitude Endurance (PHAE), is believed to be capable of operating at the 70,000-80,000 ft altitudes used by the U-2. One report refers to the aircraft using engines from an inventory that has been in storage since the 1970s. This almost certainly refers to the General Electric J97-GE-3 engine for the Teledyne Ryan AQM-91 Compass Arrow UAV (a project terminated in 1971). In 1998, a NASA paper reported that 24 J97 engines were in storage at the agency's Ames research centre. The Compass Arrow exceeded 80,000 ft during tests, the highest unclassified altitude ever recorded for a subsonic jet-powered aircraft. The J97 was rated at around 25 kN and the new UAV is probably a twin-engine design. 
The new UAV is much larger than the small stealth UAV that has been evaluated operationally in Iraq. That aircraft - believed to be powered by one or two Williams FJ33 engines - has only eight hours' endurance, like DarkStar, and that is currently seen as inadequate.  

 

 

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Softwar Reply   4/13/2009 10:47:13 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 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Just sdo some of you know exactly what thois poaster keeps grasping.   4/13/2009 10:54:17 AM
 
Note how many exploit paths I can use to disrupt it?

All of these concepts rely on secure friendly telemetry in the battle-space and a stupid static enemy.. As tested as early as the Balkans IN WAR the telemetry fails the proof stage of concept. 
 
Posting without understanding isn't helping that poster make any kind of a legitimate case here.
 
Analysis indicates that he doesn't know exact systems limitations or integration issues involved.
 
It's called in plain English, information channel confusion, or what is true and not true and who is talking to what? 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Just so some of you know exactly what this poster keeps grasping.   4/13/2009 11:00:15 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 





There has been no further air to air attempts you'll notice? You'll also notice that all of your examples are operator monitored and controlled as well as look down talk up or talk back?
 
In other words you still fail to prove a thing, poster.  All you do is catalog a series of drone approaches that all contain a man in the loop element and most of which have FAILED.
 
Keep trying. I'm drinking my coffee and enjoying the exercise.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

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 we
 
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



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