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

MM       4/13/2009 12:42:42 PM
In that horrid op-ed in the post today the Generals who gave up their sole discuss ?their? rationale for cancelling the F-22 but offer a token consolation prize: F-X. F-X is the unofficial 6th gen fighter program follow on to the F-22 that they said will start soon and a recent JSF ppt presentation showed IOC in 2027. Given that time frame, do you gents think it may the last manned ?fighter? program?  I've always understood that the A-A mission is the most difficult to "program" for and most industry types feel that that'll be the last mission to go full autonomous.

If I had to wager a guess on what the general KPPs they?d go for, it?d be improved SC economy and range, much larger radius of action (1,000+nm), improved broadband (see low frequency) all aspect stealth, increased internal weapons load (larger bay volume for larger A-G weapons and higher A-A internal load outs) and supersonic agility.

MM

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    phaid reply   4/13/2009 1:01:04 PM

What all of these nice stealthy UAV programs show is that we will very soon have no need for a huge fleet of expensive manned VLO fighters.  UAVs like the one spotted in Kandahar are the kinds of platforms -- cheaper than any manned fighter, longer legged than any manned fighter, and stealthy -- that we can use over countries like Pakistan.

 Indeed.

On the other hand they also clearly show the limitations of the technology, and the fact that what we do need is a force of VLO offensive counter air aircraft for air superiority and first day of war strikes.

They certainly show the state of the art with regard to operational status and reasonable cost. I disagree that they show the absolute limit as I'm aware of UAVs and UCAVs that are in development with far greater capability. I think we should recall that Predator was a ACTD pressed into operational service.
ht*p://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR899.pdf 

 
The near-term availability of these stealthy UCAVs makes the F-35 redundant, not the F-22.

Agreed. With the caveat of in some roles. I'm not saying we don't need F-22's. I think we do. Just not any or many more than the SecDef is asking for. I think the billions we would spend would be much better spent on this UAV technology for example.


-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Incompetent citation.   4/13/2009 1:23:48 PM




What all of these nice stealthy UAV programs show is that we will very soon have no need for a huge fleet of expensive manned VLO fighters.  UAVs like the one spotted in Kandahar are the kinds of platforms -- cheaper than any manned fighter, longer legged than any manned fighter, and stealthy -- that we can use over countries like Pakistan.



 Indeed.



On the other hand they also clearly show the limitations of the technology, and the fact that what we do need is a force of VLO offensive counter air aircraft for air superiority and first day of war strikes.




They certainly show the state of the art with regard to operational status and reasonable cost. I disagree that they show the absolute limit as I'm aware of UAVs and UCAVs that are in development with far greater capability. I think we should recall that Predator was a ACTD pressed into operational service.

ht*p://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR899.pdf 




 

The near-term availability of these stealthy UCAVs makes the F-35 redundant, not the F-22.





Agreed. With the caveat of in some roles. I'm not saying we don't need F-22's. I think we do. Just not any or many more than the SecDef is asking for. I think the billions we would spend would be much better spent on this UAV technology for example.







-DA 






RAND report is a 2003 study on the structure of the US aviation industry, its history and the future of its infrastructure base as referent to government  research and procurement policies. Very little useful data as to EXACT platform mix capabilities is offered, and none which is useful to this argument. Makes one wondwer of the poster even READ the obsolete study.
 
This is also the seventeenth claim to secret knowledge that the poster makes which by now is just about proved to be hogwash.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 1:26:58 PM



RAND report is a 2003 study on the structure of the US aviation industry, its history and the future of its infrastructure base as referent to government  research and procurement policies. Very little useful data as to EXACT platform mix capabilities is offered, and none which is useful to this argument. Makes one wondwer of the poster even READ the obsolete study.

 

This is also the seventeenth claim to secret knowledge that the poster makes which by now is just about proved to be hogwash.


 

Herald
 
Summary

I hate DarthAmerica but I can't refute with data anything he says except to express my own opinion. But because I'm not that good at it, I have to insult him to get you to listen to me.

Herald


 

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 1:38:08 PM
Incompetence is:

ht*p://www.answers.com/incompetent 

So Herald, like most of us, is by definition INCOMPETENT having no experience with UAVs whatsoever so to speak and using the actual definition. Most of the posters on this website would be I suppose. I guess we should shut the site down.(Sarcasm)

Herald is trolling and tearing down the quality of the debate here. I KNOW YOU DISAGREE HERALD WITH MY OPINION. Thank You for sharing that. Can you please allow the rest of us incompetents discuss in peace now?

Again for the rest of us since there still seems to be some confusion:

link

UCAV does not require autonomy.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 1:51:33 PM

Darth -

First your references to the USAF next generation bomber forgot to include the fact that Gates is ALSO delaying that project (see ref. below) as part of the new spending plan.  Thus - it will not be available for 2018.

Second - and you simply must read this carefully - UCAV is autonomous for a reason.  A command link is jammable, and can be tracked.  UCAV was designed from the outset to be autonomous in operation to avoid the command link problem.  That is why the Reaper and Predator are UAVs even when armed.

 

Gates Proposes Massive Spending Shift for Pentagon in 2010

Aviation Week & Space Technology Apr 13 , 2009 , p. 22

The most profound impact on aviation could be realized by projects that did not get a chance to enter production, such as the sidelined duel that was to take place between Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team over the next-generation bomber. This delay could be more worrisome to Boeing; St. Louis had hoped bomber work would provide jobs as the company?s fighter programs wind down.

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Negation process.   4/13/2009 1:52:27 PM







RAND report is a 2003 study on the structure of the US aviation industry, its history and the future of its infrastructure base as referent to government  research and procurement policies. Very little useful data as to EXACT platform mix capabilities is offered, and none which is useful to this argument. Makes one wondwer of the poster even READ the obsolete study.




 




This is also the seventeenth claim to secret knowledge that the poster makes which by now is just about proved to be hogwash.








 




Herald


 

Summary




I hate DarthAmerica but I can't refute with data anything he says except to express my own opinion. But because I'm not that good at it, I have to insult him to get you to listen to me.




Herald







 



 




As long as the poster continues to post non-relevant, out of date, not on point data, and asserts  claims to secret knowledge  that he cannot back up, it is incumbent upon me to use empirically use direct evidence to show the errors and inconsistencies in his assertions, claims, and flat out errors in understanding to show hos exact ;level oh knowledge in subject.
 
The process is called peer review to see if the thesis or claim stated holds up to challenge. It does not. 
 
As for data, the claim that I have not repudiated or negayed dozens of superfocial claims or assertions and called the poster on numerous presentation errors has sixteen pages worht of evidence to show that thisd ;last assertion the poswter makes is a false one. 
 
Until the poster demonstrates a competent argument he has no case, and no grounds for claiming that he can even generate one.
 
That ois what peer revoew means. if he thinks there is anything personal in the process then he has not paid attention to the data based nature of the argument, not that he hyas from the beginning or he wou;d have generated a cpomposite whole case that starts from his premise. If he wants to know how such a case is built I suggest he read my presentation in isolation and see how it flows from a stated thesis on page two into the proof.
 
Being too personally involved in what looks more and more like an ego defense exercise I suspect he will not take the oppoirtunity to learn how to do a proper presntation of a case; and will instead assert some more off point and off topic presentations that have nothing to do with the budget, the nature of UCAS employment or the misunderstandings he continues to show about the way EW operates or how airpower is ermployed: much less the subjects of ":grand strategy" or the "big picture".
 
Nothing persional. This is a case study applied to competencyt of presentation.

So far the defense of thesis exercoise, as that poster mounts it, is a fail exercise.
 
Not opinion. Fact.
 
Herald

.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Negation process.   4/13/2009 1:57:45 PM
















RAND report is a 2003 study on the structure of the US aviation industry, its history and the future of its infrastructure base as referent to government  research and procurement policies. Very little useful data as to EXACT platform mix capabilities is offered, and none which is useful to this argument. Makes one wonder of the poster even READ the obsolete study.










 










This is also the seventeenth claim to secret knowledge that the poster makes which by now is just about proved to be hogwash.




















 










Herald






 



Summary










I hate DarthAmerica but I can't refute with data anything he says except to express my own opinion. But because I'm not that good at it, I have to insult him to get you to listen to me.










Herald

















 







 











As long as the poster continues to post non-relevant, out of date, not on point data, and asserts  claims to secret knowledge  that he cannot back up, it is incumbent upon me to use empirically use direct evidence to show the errors and inconsistencies in his assertions, claims, and flat out errors in understanding to show hos exact level oh knowledge in subject.

 

The process is called peer review to see if the thesis or claim stated holds up to challenge. It does not. 

 

As for data, the claim that I have not repudiated or negated dozens of superficial claims or assertions and called the poster on numerous presentation errors has sixteen pages worth of evidence to show that this;last assertion the poster makes is a false one. 


 

Until the poster demonstrates a competent argument, he has no case, and no grounds for claiming that he can even generate one.


 

That is what peer review means. If he thinks there is anything personal in the process then he has not paid attention to the data based nature of the argument, not that he has from the beginning or he would have generated a composite whole case that starts from his premise. If he wants to know how such a case is built I suggest he read my presentation in isolation and see how it flows from a stated thesis on page two into the proof.


 

Being too personally involved in what looks more and more like an ego defense exercise I suspect he will not take the opportunity to learn how to do a proper presentation of a case; and will instead assert some more off point and off topic presentations that have nothing to do with the budget, the nature of UCAS employment or the misunderstandings he continues to show about the way EW operates or how air power is employed: much less the subjects of ":grand strategy" or the "b
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    These Are NOT UCAVs   4/13/2009 2:01:25 PM

http://www.af.mil/factsheets/f...

Official USAF mil website:

"MQ-9 REAPER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"

"MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 2:12:07 PM

Darth -


First your references to the USAF next generation bomber forgot to include the fact that Gates is ALSO delaying that project (see ref. below) as part of the new spending plan.  Thus - it will not be available for 2018.

THAT's irrelevant as my POSITION WAS THAT IT COULD BE. UCAV's like the ones I'm talking about are available in the immediate future Softwar. What are you not understanding about what I'm saying? 

Second - and you simply must read this carefully - UCAV is autonomous for a reason.  A command link is jammable, and can be tracked.  UCAV was designed from the outset to be autonomous in operation to avoid the command link problem.  That is why the Reaper and Predator are UAVs even when armed.

Air to air missile are jammable too! Guess what, we use them!!!!! Also UCAVs ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE AUTONOMOUS? You keep proving you are wrong each time you claim otherwise.

 


Gates Proposes Massive Spending Shift for Pentagon in 2010

Aviation Week & Space Technology Apr 13 , 2009 , p. 22

The most profound impact on aviation could be realized by projects that did not get a chance to enter production, such as the sidelined duel that was to take place between Northrop Grumman and a Boeing/Lockheed Martin team over the next-generation bomber. This delay could be more worrisome to Boeing; St. Louis had hoped bomber work would provide jobs as the company?s fighter programs wind down.

That's irrelevant to my point and a strawman. We aren't talking about the 2018 strategic bomber. I'm talking about UCAVs in general and where I'd like to see the USAF focus more of it's energy. These fantastic scenarios envisioned by the local Sinophobes have no bearing on reality. Not military, political or economic. We don't face a military threat by China the mandates procurement of additional F-22s. The Chinese are also not out to get us. They are simply expanding the scope of their military to cover the expanding nature of their export oriented economy. That means they need blue water capability to defend their SLOC. Coincidentally, they only threat to their sea commerce is the USN which can at anytime and with near impunity cut off and starve them. SO quite obviously, they are designing counters to that specific threat. However, they are decades from being able to carry that out. So in the short term, they seek to make any blockade so costly that we might not try it in the unlikely event of a war. Thats because if the Chinese economy falls off this most perilous balance beam, the integrity of the Han Chinese territories will be threatened as poverty and joblessness soars. That would mean they would have to refocus on internal security rather than external economic growth. 
 
Clearly for the United States, we need to focus on the threats that actually exist since as anyone can see the Chinese are not a likely threat and even if caught off guard, can't do much to stop us over the life of the F-22. But we do need SOF, Helos and UAVs for todays conflicts. This is why we need to refocus the whole DoD away from this legacy mindset.
 
-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