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       4/13/2009 2:14:48 PM

link...

Official USAF mil website:


"MQ-9 REAPER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"


"MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"


 
WRONG. UCAV or UCAS are subsets of UAS/UAV.  So any UCAS/UCAV is also a UAS/UAV. Give up Softwar this isn't even questionable.  

-DA 

 



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The poster appears to be text shouting again.   4/13/2009 2:21:10 PM




link... target="_blank">link



Official USAF mil website:




"MQ-9 REAPER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"




"MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"







 


WRONG. UCAV or UCAS are subsets of UAS/UAV.  So any UCAS/UCAV is also a UAS/UAV. Give up Softwar this isn't even questionable.  




-DA 




 







This is indicative of an emotional appeal and again bullying of  a sorts based on the poster's past style of assertive and non-fact based presentation.^1


Herald 
 
^1 Zero information content.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/13/2009 2:32:39 PM
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. 
 
Shows a total lack of understanding of the competition underway in the PACRIM, today.
 
More direct evidence, the poster generates, that the poster knows little or nothing about what is going on outside the very narrow scope of his own bias and quite limited experience.
 
The knowledge base just isn't there that her has to make correct data reads.
 
Shrug, I've generated enough data and supplied enough sources and analysis MYSELF HERE that if he wanted to try  he could attempt to make his case coherent. I'd destroy it easily, but at least he would have consistent accurate and on point data to try.   
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 2:33:17 PM










link... target="_blank">link









Official USAF mil website:








"MQ-9 REAPER UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"








"MQ-1 PREDATOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEM"





WRONG. UCAV or UCAS are subsets of UAS/UAV.  So any UCAS/UCAV is also a UAS/UAV. Give up Softwar this isn't even questionable.  


-DA 




This is indicative of an emotional appeal and again bullying of  a sorts based on the poster's past style of assertive and non-fact based presentation.^1



Herald 

 

^1 Zero information content.



Try reading the definitions I provided and stop trolling my post. 

What is a UAV?

An unmanned aerial vehicle, or UAV, is one of many similar types of aircraft which do not carry a pilot onboard. At the lower end of this scale are remotely controlled (R/C) planes like those built and flown by modellers. Though a pilot is obviously not aboard the aircraft, the plane is controlled by a pilot throughout its flight.

A similar type of aircraft is the remotely piloted vehicle (RPV) which is essentially an enlarged version of the R/C plane. For many years, RPV's have been used by the military as target drones, test aircraft, and reconnaissance platforms.

The UAV, on the otherhand, differs from remotely controlled aircraft in that a pilot is not needed during most or all of the flight. Instead, the plane is controlled by computers. Most UAV's rely on pre-programmed flight paths guiding them to and from the area of interest, though human interaction is possible throughout the flight.

UAV's are commonplace in all branches of today's military. Some of the more well-known examples include the Navy's Pioneer and the Air Force's Darkstar and Global Hawk. These UAV's are used to obtain battlefield and theatre reconnaissance. For more information on these aircraft, see the Links... section.

A new type of UAV which is still under development and is the subject of this project is the Uninhabited Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV). As its name implies, the UCAV goes beyond observation and is designed to attack enemy targets.

ht*p://www.aerospaceweb.org/design/ucav/project.shtml 

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 2:33:21 PM
Darth -
 
Sad to say you are wrong and the USAF web site proves it.  The UAS is the Unmanned Air Vehicle - the S part stands for SYSTEM - meaning the ground crew, radio link, vans and extra equipment.  The S has nothing whatsoever to do with being a UCAV or some other type of vehicle.
 
Of course, if you knew that you would not be posting in bold letters and giant fonts as if you are trying to shout me down.  Forget it Darth.  You cannot intimidate and old geezer like me.
 
As for the jam side  - the UCAV is designed to operate in a non-jam mode - that is why it is autonomous.  The fact that manned fighters use missiles which can be spoofed with chaff, ecm or flares does not negate why the UCAV is autonomous in operation.  So you are deflecting - not proving - an argument.  
 
UAVs operate for hours over enemy territory while the flight time of an AMRAAM or Sidewinder is measured in seconds.  If your enemy has hours to track, listen, jam, monitor, spoof and eventually shoot down a UAV - it is because of that comand link
 
Conclusion number 1 - the budget for what you are proposing is also slashed with the F-22.  So it is not a viable substitute.
 
Conclusion number 2 - the current NAVY UCAV has yet to make an autonomous landing on a carrier and is not scheduled to do so until 2011.  Thus, it cannot replace the F-22.
 
Conclusion number 3 - air combat is too dynamic for current programming and UAV command links are too easily jammed.
 
Conclusion number 4 - the political environment on Capitol Hill indicates the F-22 cut will not stand.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 2:36:19 PM


Shows a total lack of understanding of the competition underway in the PACRIM, today.


Yeah, I never understood irrational Hatred of other humans. You got me there!
 

More direct evidence, the poster generates, that the poster knows little or nothing about what is going on outside the very narrow scope of his own bias and quite limited experience.

News from Planet Herald
 

The knowledge base just isn't there that her has to make correct data reads.

Shrug, I've generated enough data and supplied enough sources and analysis MYSELF HERE that if he wanted to try  he could attempt to make his case coherent. I'd destroy it easily, but at least he would have consistent accurate and on point data to try.   

Herald


Yet you don't even know the definition of what a UCAV is lol. Even the PLAAF knows that...hahaha
 

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 2:44:56 PM

Darth -

 

Sad to say you are wrong and the USAF web site proves it.  The UAS is the Unmanned Air Vehicle - the S part stands for SYSTEM - meaning the ground crew, radio link, vans and extra equipment.  The S has nothing whatsoever to do with being a UCAV or some other type of vehicle.
 
No, it doesn't. And thats obvious and I keep proving it to you with links. BTW, I was the first poster to use the term UAS on this site. Thats because I was in one of the first briefings where the term was used instead of UAV and we spent an additional 20 minutes during that Death by Power Point explaining it to people.
 

Of course, if you knew that you would not be posting in bold letters and giant fonts as if you are trying to shout me down.  Forget it Darth.  You cannot intimidate and old geezer like me.

 
As for the jam side  - the UCAV is designed to operate in a non-jam mode - that is why it is autonomous.  The fact that manned fighters use missiles which can be spoofed with chaff, ecm or flares does not negate why the UCAV is autonomous in operation.  So you are deflecting - not proving - an argument.  

 UAVs operate for hours over enemy territory while the flight time of an AMRAAM or Sidewinder is measured in seconds.  If your enemy has hours to track, listen, jam, monitor, spoof and eventually shoot down a UAV - it is because of that comand link

 
Think of how SSBN/SSNs accomplish this.

Conclusion number 1 - the budget for what you are proposing is also slashed with the F-22.  So it is not a viable substitute.

Strawman

Conclusion number 2 - the current NAVY UCAV has yet to make an autonomous landing on a carrier and is not scheduled to do so until 2011.  Thus, it cannot replace the F-22.

 Never said it could. Strawman.

Conclusion number 3 - air combat is too dynamic for current programming and UAV command links are too easily jammed.

 Proven wrong, been an EWO for long enough to know this. Experienced it in combat as well.

Conclusion number 4 - the political environment on Capitol Hill indicates the F-22 cut will not stand.

 
We will see. I wouldn't mind getting more in small quantities. I just don't see it as absolutely necessary for maintaining national security. My Opinion.


-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 3:09:10 PM
SSN s do not have a two way control link/sensor fusion requirement.  They do communicate using burst transmission and low frequency systems but not often and not on a continious basis.  Again - you dodge but do not address the physics of the problem.
 
The kind of continous bi-directional command link you propose simply does not exist anywhere.  In order to do what you propose we must create a link, keep it secure and unjammable in a combat environment during the entire mission profle - this is not a viable solution.  Even Global Hawk does not have that kind of tether - and for good reason - in order to perform its mission silently.
 
That is why the UCAV is what it is - it can be directly linked - taking advantage of the data fusion and human control - but it also can be released to perform whole segments of its mission out of the loop.  As the degree of autonous functionality increases so does the complexity (and cost) of the vehicle in question.  At the moment - dogfighting (yes even BVR) is out of the question.  Maybe in 10 years - after the Navy X-47B grows up and proves the programming.  Not yet.
 
While you might have died in front of some idiot armed with Power Point - Please read what the USAF publishes about its own equipment.
 
UAS - from the USAF.mil site:
"The typical system consists of several air vehicles, a ground control station, or GCS,  communication equipment/links, spares and people who can be a mix of active-duty and contractor personnel. The crew for the MQ-9 is a pilot and a sensor operator, who operate the aircraft from a remotely located GCS. To meet combatant commanders' requirements, the MQ-9 delivers tailored capabilities using mission kits that may contain various weapons and sensor payload combinations."
So once again - you are wrong - you heard wrong or you were briefed wrong.
 
The kind of systems you propose - including the USAF next bomber project - are not going to happen on schedule.  You did not check that in the Gates budget so you missed it and now you cannot use it as a substitute.  So you are wrong again.
 
Instead, we are to make do with what we have.  That includes the F-22 and a few more (e.g. 60) will help greatly.
 
Your claims to be this, that and some other thing - appear to be so very made up as to almost be laughable.  If that were so you would have a working history of the most famed UAV/UCAV tests that pioneered the current systems.  Did you ever figure out what SPASM was?  I thought not - thus proving you have no experience at what a RPV, UAV, or UCAV can or cannot do.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 3:22:59 PM


Your claims to be this, that and some other thing - appear to be so very made up as to almost be laughable.  If that were so you would have a working history of the most famed UAV/UCAV tests that pioneered the current systems.  Did you ever figure out what SPASM was?  I thought not - thus proving you have no experience at what a RPV, UAV, or UCAV can or cannot do.



You have got to be kidding me. I could post a whole raft of acronyms you would never figure out. That proves nothing. The point is you were demonstrably proven wrong about what UCAV's are. Now get over it. YOu failed to provide any kind of basis to justify more Raptors. YOU DIDN"T EVEN PROVIDE AN OPINION. You simply state we need them just because and it's nice. Whatever, you are becoming just like another poster who is not able to be objective when proven wrong.

YOU GUYS DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WHAT AIR SUPERIORITY WAS. Thats in plain english on this site. It's ok to be wrong. But don't get indignant when corrected. Assert and insult all you want. The facts are you were not correct. Others have publicly recognized that and called you on it.  

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 3:25:20 PM
Darth - quit trying to avoid the subject ...You are wrong and that's that.  Class dismissed.
 
 
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