The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 3:34:34 PM




DA,



 



You still have not addressed my question as to why we would need to spend a trillion dollars on a program that's mission could be performed by existing aircraft with sufficient F-22 support, especially in the low level conflicts you base your arguments on. Please explain to me where we stand once the F-22 line is closed and the unlikely and rare(sarcasm) event that a major weapons program is cancelled(F-35). Zumwalt, Seawolf(after 3 boats), FCS, Crusader, Sgt York, B1(until Reagan came along) just a few that haven't made it.


If the F-35 is cancelled then the DoD would have to come up with an alternative to address what areas the loss of the F-35 would leave open.

-DA 



We can start with these.


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 4:11:40 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 4:17:38 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 4:18:47 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 4:19:29 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 4:23:53 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 5:17:47 PM









On the contrary, DA.  Where I think you and Gates are making a huge mistake is assuming that nothing will change in the next 15 years. 







 You can think that but then you will be wrong. Rather, try to understand what I'm saying. FORGET ABOUT HOW COOL THE F-22 is. Its just a tool in a tool box full of them. I'm not trying to patronize you and I offer an apology in advance. 







As I pointed out before, it's great and wonderful that we're working on 6th gen fighters.  Where are they? Are they ready for production in two years?  If so, I'll agree with the decision to cap the F-22.  If not, then we need something to bridge the gap.  The F-15 won't cut it.  By 2025, it'll be a 55 year old design.  55 years ago, the F-86 was frontline equipment, and technology moves faster today than it did in the 1950s. 







 That comment above is not logical. Why would we have or need a 6th Gen platform 6 years after the F-22 went IOC? WE DONT HAVE A FREAKIN GAP. We have an access abundance of air power. Also, you stating the F-15 wont cut it is plain wrong. New builds and upgrades are still being produced! An F-15 of 2009 is not the F-15 of the early 1980s. They are radically different and with next decades upgrades will be even more advanced. That plane has an enormous amount of growth potential due to size. You cannot compare it to an F-86. It's almost like you are being purposely blind to advances in technology. 









Ask yourself why if the F-15 wont be viable in 15 years, why are top rates high quality airforces like S Korea, Singapore and Israel buying and upgrading them? Why would Boeing roll out the F-15SE is the design was obsolete? You aren't making sense.












Okay, China and Russia are five years from their 5th gen fighters.  Great.  Wouldn't it be awesome to have a fleet of F-22s ready to confront such a threat, rather than relying on 4th generation fighters and the F-35--which won't be able to achieve the level of air superiority as the F-22--to pick up the slack?







 OK, I really must be in an alternate universe. WE HAVE F-22's. WE DON'T NEED F-35's to be F-22's. Just like we dont need F-16's to be F-15s. Sure roles overlap in some areas. But they are designed and procured based on different requirements. 










Face it, this is a political decision made without the input of the people who will be risking their ass if Gates and you are wrong.  Nothing good ever came out of political decisions made on weapons systems.  Again, if the government was making cuts across the board, I might feel better about this.  But they're not.  Obama's spending like money can be pulled off the cherry trees in Washington, yet he wants to cut necessary defense programs.  That should raise a very big "why?"  I mean, if he's going to run up a $9 trillion deficit and devote several billion to Hamas, then he should be able to get up off a few bil to keep the F-22 in low-scale production. 



I keep bringing up Barney Frank's snarky comment about the military not needing "fancy toys."  The Democrats have had the military in the crosshairs since last November.  This is just the start.







I know now why I get paid what I do. Sentinel, I'm not saying there isn't a counter argument to Gates and myself that has to be considered. But this circular error filled argument that the people on the site regurgitate over and over isn't it. Do you see the ease with which I'm able to factually counter all of this point by point?










-DA

















DA, most of my arguments with you end up like this: you're somehow connected with the Pentagon, I'm just a history professor, so you know more than me and I should shut up.  Excuse me, but I'm not accepting that.  One, for all I know you're lying your ass off.  Two, I think you're wrong.  That's okay; we can agree to disagree.  But when I see the SecDef doing something I believe is stupid, I'm going to say something.  Especially since I pay his salary.


I do not have orgasms when I see the F-22.  (Matter of fact, I think it's kinda ugly.) I do not care how kewl it is.  What I do care about is that it kills enemies of the US, and does it very well, according to the pilots I've personally talked to.  They want it, and like I said before, I care a hell of a lot more that my tax dollars goes to protecting American pilots than they do to Barney Frank's latest screwup. 

 

The F-15 customers you're referring to are buying the F-15E Strike Eagle--which is designed for long-range strike, not dogfighting.  It can dogfight, and do so pretty well, but like the F-35, it's not designed to seize air superiority and keep it.  South Korea wants it to fry Yongbyon if they have to.  Israel wants it to wreck Bushehr.  Singapore wants it to sink any Chinese ships that take it in their heads to invade them.  They're not buying it to achieve air superiority against an enemy, because it isn't designed to do that.

 

Like it or not, the F-15 fighter is 30 years old and not getting any younger.  If it has a lot of growth potential, that's fine, but unless Boeing is going to restart production of the F-15C, you're still dealing with old airframes.  You could stick an AESA, AMRAAMS, and new engines on a F-4, and the Germans and Japanese have done something similar, but you don't see air forces lining up to buy a F-4X.  Because the design is old, it's hit the ceiling on development, and you can only push a design so far before it becomes obsolete.  You accuse me of ignoring years of aircraft design, but then you do it yourself to push the idea that the F-15 can do the job of a F-22. 

 

Yes, we have F-22s.  We'll have 187 of them.  That's enough for three wings, maybe four.  Not enough to cover the US, let alone be deployed, unless you want to leave the defense of the US to old F-15s.  We could probably get away with that, since the only thing that can touch the continental US are Russian bombers, and you don't need F-22s to shoot them down.  It still ignores the very real problem that the airframes themselves aren't getting any younger, will wear out, and will start crashing.  In fact, they already have.  If Boeing wants to reopen the F-15 line and start building Silent Eagles to replace the old F-15Cs, okay, we can do that.  But so far I've seen no hint from Gates that there is anything coming down the pike, two years or twenty years from now, to replace the F-15. 

 

Do you see the ease in which I've refuted your arguments? I know you won't be satisfied with it, because you're DA with all the connections, and I'm just some hick history professor. 




 

 

 

Sentinel, I'm afraid we are going to just have to agree to disagree. I've tried and failed to explain it and I just think this is a terribly complex subject to deal with with such a huge imbalance of knowledge on the operational concepts and threat matrix. I don't mean that as an insult, it's just my opinion. All the same though you should avoid the ad hominems. I mean, this is the second time someone has come in here and argued on whether or not an F-15E is an air superiority fighter or not.

 

Sentinel, a lot of what we are saying is getting lost in the communication medium. These back and forth post give the appearence of a confrontational disagreement. If we talked, I could better convey the tone and sincerety of my position.

 

 

 

-DA


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    We need more F-22's(SARCASM)   4/17/2009 6:20:55 PM
 Q     General, this is Carlo Munoz from Inside the Air Force. I just had a question about current UAV operations being conducted by NATO. A recent report in February basically stated that NATO has not identified the number of tactical UAVs needed in theater, and to that end, NATO has also had difficulties with UAV availability as far as consistency with those aircraft. 
 
            I wanted to ask you, sir, how is your organization -- what sort of actions are being taken to kind of close these gaps? And in your opinion, how are those operations going on in the area? 
 
            GEN. VAN LOON: I believe operations like we're doing in the southern region, as in most counterinsurgency operations, do rely heavily on all kinds of ISR assets and, of course, unmanned vehicles are part of that. We are having quite some contributions from the nations in the use of UAVs, and we use them extensively to make sure that the troops do not get surprised. Of course the development of more of these capabilities would always be welcome. ISR is clearly one of the areas that NATO can develop more of so we can actually have more ISR platforms in the air providing us with better situational awareness in all the areas. 
 
            Q     General, Nathan Hodge with Jane's Defense Weekly. As commander of ISAF South, are you happy with the lift assets and other equipment that member nations have contributed to your force? Is there anything that your force is lacking in terms of that, or close air support, other things? 
 
            GEN. VAN LOON: One of the resources that we could never have enough of in this very large country, very -- with very low infrastructure levels -- only a few paved roads, the rest are very bad roads or none existing at all -- aviation, therefore, are very, very important, and we can never have enough. It is clearly also something that we have to rely on the American aviation assets heavily. We're very glad for the Americans' support the efforts in RC-South with a large helicopter force, and we need them badly to be able to do the operations. 
 
            Q     Yeah, this is -- (name inaudible) -- with the Journal of Electronic Defense. You talked about the importance of ISR assets. Are you noticing, are the Taliban, are they showing any advances in their technology or their ability to work around your ISR assets or are things working out well? 
 
            GEN. VAN LOON: Luckily, things are still working out well, although, of course, the Taliban realizes that we are on to them. But the enormous array of ISR assets available to us do make us effective against the Taliban. 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are not fooling anyone.    4/17/2009 6:38:25 PM




Its not my fault you put it in black and white. You have just destroyed yourself. I told you to be careful about over-reaching;. 



 



Surely you remember that discussion about the need for UCAS autonomy and your constant assertions that there were things in the works that we would see in five years and that you had seen some of these yourself?













I told you constantly not to assert what you could not prove and not to state what you could not prove.






 



Five years is what you said. 



 



I am not calling you a liar.






 



I just read back to you what you wrote.



 



Take a good long look at your own words in this thread and see that you did this to yourself. 



 



You have no one here to blame but yourself.



 



You said it. All I did was note it and read back.






 



Too  bad. 



 






 



Counter-thesis proved.



 



Herald






 




It's funny to watch you tantrum and squirm Herald now that I've shown proof that you lied. Get a little bit of integrity, lose the ego and join the rest of us and lets stop talking about boring things like how you lied and discuss fascinating things like F-35's and F-22's. Much more interesting and in fact on topic don't you think? Unless you want to draw more attention to yourself with what you said...




The poster said we would have great UCAV capabilities negating the need for manned aircraft such as the F-22 that he's seen demonstrated within five years.

 




...Of course, you could always true to prove that by copying my words. But we both know you can't and why...;)

Like I said, stop talking in riddles and using $5 dollar words and prove what you said. I didn't think so. You may go now.




BTW, here is the date and time you made the claim minus any proof: Herald12345    Now he contradicts himself.   
4/16/2009 1:32:50 PM 






 

-DA




 

 

 











 



 



 



 



 



 



















A paraphrase is good enough to prove it but if you want to be buried.
 
 
 
DarthAmerica    Rocky reply   4/9/2009 1:42:15 PM

Darth's UAV problem is that he does not seem to know how or when to use them. The "no fly zones" over Bosnia and Iraq burned up thousands of hours of airframe life and was not a mission that could have been done with a Predator drone (or any other drone today). It was a pure air to air mission that soaked up 2 full F15C airwings during the 90's. Every morning the Iraqi Airforce would drive their migs at the no fly zone border and the US F15c's would respond. We had a standing BARCAP mission 24-7 for about a decade in Iraq and to a lesser degree in Bosnia (hey darth, google it!). On top of that there were standing HARM patrols to keep Iraqi SAMs pinned down.

None of this can be done by a UCAV today. Since he is unaware of those missions and their effect upon the USAFs overall mission it is safe to say he isn't qualified to discuss the USAF air superiority requirements moving forward. His argument is first political and second ego-manic. Whenever he meets someone who obviously has a clue, Phaid for instance, he retreats behind a thin veil of "I'm a veteran" and declares himself the smartest guy in the room where any who disagree are "biased". What a boob!

When he learns history and context of these conversations he might be able to think critically on the subjects. For now he is a troll.

Check Six

Rocky


No, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs. ISR and Time Critical Strike against Targets of Opportunity has taken the the lead in this regard. Contrary to some of the errors people have posted here, we are much closer to having UCAV's than people think that are capable of taking over significant portions of the roles we use manned platforms for. Particularly with regard to CAP, SEAD and Strike roles. And this doesn't even consider the roles they will take over that we use some rotor winged assets for now. 

We are past the peak of manned air combat. It's an area that is radically changing. Especially in the air to air domain. WE NEED F-22's. But with the current trend and considering other assets we can bring to bear not in any more numbers than we have already agreed to procure.
This is another one of those issues people will come back to 5 years from now and say, WOW how did you know that? The signs are clear if you know what to look for. But it requires a broad look across a range of military and technological disciplines to grasp.  

Now, this is my opinion. It's based on facts and my own military and civil experiences. It ***could*** be wrong. But I don't think so. If you, disagree, say so and let it be. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle calling people trolls because 1 guy you don't know on the internet thinks we don't need more F-22's.

-DA
 
In red, staff sergeant. I think you need to apologize to the forum; before you get yourself in way TOO DEEP. That is also $20.00 you owe somebody.   
 
Make it out to CARE and donate it under the name, Anonymous.,
 
Discredited. Completely.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/17/2009 6:58:23 PM
Herald you are a complete and utter...TROLL


Did you bother to read that highlight and compare it to your paraphrase? Here for all to see...

Here is what you said I said...

The poster said we would have great UCAV capabilities negating the need for manned aircraft such as the F-22 that he's seen demonstrated within five years.

Here is what I said...

No, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs. ISR and Time Critical Strike against Targets of Opportunity has taken the the lead in this regard. Contrary to some of the errors people have posted here, we are much closer to having UCAV's than people think that are capable of taking over significant portions of the roles we use manned platforms for. Particularly with regard to CAP, SEAD and Strike roles. And this doesn't even consider the roles they will take over that we use some rotor winged assets for now. 

We are past the peak of manned air combat. It's an area that is radically changing. Especially in the air to air domain. WE NEED F-22's. But with the current trend and considering other assets we can bring to bear not in any more numbers than we have already agreed to procure.
This is another one of those issues people will come back to 5 years from now and say, WOW how did you know that? The signs are clear if you know what to look for. But it requires a broad look across a range of military and technological disciplines to grasp.  

Now, this is my opinion. It's based on facts and my own military and civil experiences. It ***could*** be wrong. But I don't think so. If you, disagree, say so and let it be. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle calling people trolls because 1 guy you don't know on the internet thinks we don't need more F-22's. 




Thank you Herald for making such a fool of yourself and saving me the trouble of doing it AGAIN. This thread moved well beyond your juvenile behavior and onto discussion. Please, go to a Rafale thread where you belong and let the adults in the room. I never said any of the crap you claimed. Which of course makes you a...

LIAR


-DA  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Keep screaming it.   4/17/2009 7:07:47 PM
You are cooked.
 
Your word is no good.
 
Your claims are no good.
 
Its there in red.
 
Can't deny it, because I quoted one post where you said it.. I tried to give you an out, but you wouldn't take it.

Not my fault if your words showed you up.
 
Its not a lie if you wrote it.
 
If it is a lie, then you are the one who wrote the lie.
 
Make that check out to CARE and just chalk this one up to experience.
 
Don't argue and don't gamble unless you are SURE.
 . 
Herald 
 
 



 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    SURPRISE   4/17/2009 7:59:43 PM

 
I know Softwar posted the AvWeek. But because I mentioned this platform first earlier in this thread, I thought I'd post a picture for some context.



HERALD give up the lying. Its obvious and you are irrelevant. 


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/17/2009 8:23:51 PM

Who do you think the SecDef serves?  S/he serves the POTUS, not "the Nation." 

The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States who serves at the discretion of the people of the United States of America.

Ergo the Secretary of Defense-s boss is Obama. His boss is ME, you and Herald. Therefore, he serves the PEOPLE.


 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/18/2009 10:52:34 AM

  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.
 This raises a question - can we detect LO/VLO aircraft?  During our efforts to develop stealth did we learn how to detect or defeat LO/VLO aircraft.  If so, could this have played a role in the decision to stop further production of the F-22?  Put another way, if there was no Obey amendment or ITARS restrictions on exporting the F-22 and countries such as Australia, Japan, or Korea requested the F-22, would the US do so?  If the requests were denied, would it be due to fear of the technology leaking to potential enemies or we don't have an effective counter (you don't export what you don't know how to beat or work around)?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald and Darth   4/18/2009 12:37:35 PM
We fon't you two take a "Time-Out" before teh SysOps Collective MAKES you take a time out...I don't know about Darth, but Herald you know they will can you for a while.  Can we not be nicer and a little more gentle?
 
I don't care if Darth is a Staff sergeant or a Major General...and since much of what we discuss is classified, in the REAL world, how can say if someone is lying or not?  So why doesn't everyone take a deep breath and play nicer. 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy