The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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
JFKY    Evil Fishy   4/18/2009 12:45:22 PM
The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States
 
 
And hence the SecDef works for the POTUS, not you or I.  His/her boss is Barak/Dubya/Slick Willie it ain't us; because we can't fire the SecDef.  The SecDef executes the will of the POTUS, not the People.  B*tch and moan all you want about Gates' policies, write all the lettres you care to...there is NO election for SecDef and as long as the Commander-in-Chief is satisfied with the performance of the SecDef, s/he stays, irrespective of the opinion of 1 or 300 million US citizens.  You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
Technically, what Barak wants is a DECREASE in defense spending, of a certain amount.  OMB has a set of target programs, of course, they wish to preserve OR can...given the budget allocation and the target list, the SecDef executes the POTUS' will in meeting the target budget goal.  Please note Herald's desire to build more F-22's is not a part of that process...nor are any of our desires incorporated, so it is fair to say that the SecDef doesn't have as his/her boss, you and I.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/18/2009 5:36:11 PM
The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States

And hence the SecDef works for the POTUS, not you or I.

If you want to remove the Secretary of Defense, really badly, you can lobby your President to do so.

If your President will not remove the Secretary of Defense, and you want to remove him badly enough, you simply replace the President with a person who will do just that.

Ergo, the Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of taxpayer (that means you and me).

Do not let the time frame trip you up; just because 1 voter cannot send the White House a fax and have the Sec Def removed does not mean he does not work for us.

 The system was created this way purposefully with the VOTER being the check against cabinet level positions (both via who we elect as our State Representatives who elect our electors who elect our President and by our election of our State Congressional Representatives who go about the token approval process).


There is a reason these positions, more often than not, change dramatically with the arrival of a new administration.

 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/18/2009 6:44:18 PM
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)?
In 2004 I attended an Australian Military Conf where Richard Armitage attended as senior USG representative.
He stated point blank, in front of approx 400+ people at the official dinner function, that if Australia wanted to buy the F-22, then the USG would look favourably upon it.  From that pont on every lunatic under the sun without any idea of australian tactical and strategic requirements has wanted us to have the F-22.

In the Nov 2007 Committe meetings held in Australia, RAAF point blank said that even if it was affordable, it was not suitable for our future force structure - and that  in their considered view, the JSF was a far better and more relevant solution.

Irrespective of that comment, every dickhead with a keyboard (Goon, Kopp, Jensen, Mills, Eric Palmer etc... have waxed lyrical on the subject.  The previous are Australias contribution in a parallel universe to Carlton/Sparks/Meyers/ Riccioni :)

We don't need it and we haven't asked for it.  Every political comment made in australia was in the context  of political colour and movement where political parties sought a position of opportunity - and actually took advantage of the gullibility of techno geeks and used them as part of their vehicle of political debate/  When the opposition party came into power, they were then left with the enbarassment of having to look like we hadn't asked for the F-22 and went through symbolic public commentary.  Again, they were briefed by RAAF and NACC and have now quietly but surely turned down the volume 

We know about some of the upgrade and future life issues with F-22 - we are not interested in it.  period. 

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/19/2009 8:20:33 AM
You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
 
You must be a lot smarter than the rest of us, I didn't realize that maintaining air dominance was "a total waste of money". Why don't we just sell the 187 off to Iran...since they are a waste of money we have nothing to fear right?
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22    JFKY Reply   4/19/2009 8:22:27 AM
You and I, heck all 300 million of us might want 350 F-22's (a total waste of money) but if the POTUS wants 187, that's what we get and the SecDef will cap production at that level. 
 
 
You must be a lot smarter than the rest of us, I didn't realize that maintaining air dominance was "a total waste of money". Why don't we just sell the 187 off to Iran...since they are a waste of money we have nothing to fear right?
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/19/2009 8:36:34 AM
Schwartz speaks in Air Force Magazine.
The Military Requirement Is 243: Despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates? announcement earlier this month that 187 F-22s is a sufficient inventory for the Air Force—and his claim that the service did not make a case for more—Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said yesterday that ?243 is the military requirement? for the advanced fifth-generation fighter. Speaking at a National Aeronautic Association luncheon in Washington, D.C., Schwartz acknowledged that 243 Raptors would have been a ?moderate-risk? inventory, while 381 F-22s, the long-standing requirement prior to this year, was a low-risk number. (Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley articulated these points in an April 13 op-ed in the Washington Post.) During his talk, Schwartz elaborated on the decision to cap production at 187, saying that ?nothing is free,? and that more F-22s would mean less of something else. ?Our conclusion was and remains—Mike Donley and I—that more F-22s are unaffordable in the context of other things we must do,? said Schwartz (his emphasis). He declined to say whether the number 187 represents a ?high-risk? fleet of F-22s, though, and when pressed, said ?I gave you my answer.?
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/19/2009 9:29:06 AM

 http://www.ausairpower.net/JSF-Growth-Limits-1.png
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/19/2009 9:36:02 AM
The difficulty in countering long range counter-ISR missiles lies in the extreme ranges from which they are fired, and the high kinematic performance of the fighters taking the shots.

This presents an insurmountable problem for legacy teen series and proposed fighters such as the JSF because an effective counter demands the defending fighter detects the presence of the attacker, is able to fly to within missile release range and destroy the attacker before the attacker has released its own counter-ISR missile. The only platform with the kinematic capabilities to achieve this is the F-22A Raptor.

AWACS Killer Missiles - Click for more ...

The US Air Force approach to dealing with this issue is the use of the F-22A Raptor. The US strategy is to push the F-22A to the boundaries of ISR coverage to pre-empt shots against ISR platforms, and use the sensors on the F-22A as ISR capabilities, permitting the specialised ISR platforms greater standoff range. There are good reasons why the US Air Force wants at least 400 F-22s in their force structure.

In the Australian Defence debate these weaknesses in current thinking have been raised repeatedly, but ignored by advocates of the F/A-18E/F and JSF, neither of which can kinematically deal with this type of threat. This response should not be surprising since the emergence of long range counter ISR missiles renders both types ineffective, with strategically dire consequences if operationally deployed.

Warning times for deployment of weapons such as the R-37 and R-172 will be very short, where an operator uses late variants of the Su-27/30 series.

The emergence of the R-37 and R-172 is an excellent example of the reactive evolution of asymmetric capabilities intended to defeat an overwhelming advantage possessed by an opponent.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Your first post   4/19/2009 10:37:26 AM
from which I quoted says it all..."The Secretary serves at the discretion of the President"
Once you said that you lost...because you just admitted...the SecDef DOESN'T work for us...neither you nor I can fire him/her.
 
If you persist in this silliness, we'll just carry it on and say, well the guy/gal at DMV works for you, too...as you employ the Governor of your state, via your vote.  Or that they guy in Accounting works for the stockholders, because the stockholders fire/hire senior management...
 
Sure all that's true, in a very THEORETICAL sense...but in any practical sense, it is not.  So as long as the POTUS is happy with SecDef, whether it's Bill Ayers or Jim Webb, it's irrelevant what you or I think.  I can't think of a single POTUS who has been unemployed, by the voters, on the basis of their SecDef.  People blamed LBJ/Carter/Dubya not McNamara/Schlessinger/Rumsfeld....it's the nature of the beast.  And rightfully so, as the SecDef executes the will of the POTUS...
 
Which leads us back to the inescapable starting point, "The Secretary serves at the discretion of the President"
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/19/2009 10:39:11 AM
I'm sorry GF - I failed to adequately explain my question.  I'm aware Australia is not interested in the F-22 from your numerous replies to earlier questions on this topic.  Let me try again and hopefully I can more clearly state my question.
 
Does anyone believe we (US) have found a way to detect LO/VLO platforms?  Could or did we find methods while we were developing the F-117, B-2, or F-22?  
 
GF, as you have stated on threads on DT regarding stealth, you only export systems you know you can defeat. So, assuming there were no legal barriers to F-22 exports and a country wanted to purchase the Raptor, would US refusal be an indication we don't have a way to detect such platforms?
 
Perhaps Secretary Gates feels 187 Raptors is sufficient because 1)we can detect LO/VLO aircraft, and 2)by the time Russian and China can field such a capability we will have other solutions in place such as hypersonics.
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/19/2009 10:49:32 AM
I'm sorry GF - I failed to adequately explain my question.  I'm aware Australia is not interested in the F-22 from your numerous replies to earlier questions on this topic.  Let me try again and hopefully I can more clearly state my question.
 
Does anyone believe we (US) have found a way to detect LO/VLO platforms?  Could or did we find methods while we were developing the F-117, B-2, or F-22?  
 
GF, as you have stated on threads on DT regarding stealth, you only export systems you know you can defeat. So, assuming there were no legal barriers to F-22 exports and a country wanted to purchase the Raptor, would US refusal be an indication we don't have a way to detect such platforms?
 
Perhaps Secretary Gates feels 187 Raptors is sufficient because 1)we can detect LO/VLO aircraft, and 2)by the time Russian and China can field such a capability we will have other solutions in place such as hypersonics.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Gee Mustang22   4/19/2009 10:52:08 AM
Can you name ONE nation that can withstand the onslaught of 2 wings of even 96 F-22's?  You make the fallacious assumption that air dominance can ONLY be secured via the F-22 and by 300 of them.  You ignore the question I began the thread with, "What will you give up to maintain a 300 F-22's?"  How many carriers, how many F-35's, how many Marine/Army brigades.  The US economy is CONTRACTING, so unless you are going to INCREASE the share of GDP devoted to defense (something this Administration/Congress will NOT accept), then the Defense Budget, too, must SHRINK.  The budget was hovering around 4% of GDP, prior, and even with an expanding economy that might be viewed as a "ceiling" of sorts, meaning that even without the recession the number of F-22's was going to be near 187, because the US was not willing to trade-off other defense capabilities for an increased number of F-22's
 
And it's not just a US recession, IT'S A GLOBAL ONE, the people that you and Herald fear so much, Iran, the PRC, Russia are also in economic free fall.  They aren't going to increase their defense spending on any sustained basis, either.  So there aren't going to be 500 PAKFA's or SU-27 or MiG-33's or whatever wunder waffe you can imagine, wresting aerial dominance from the US.  Yeah I can make that bald assertion...20 million Chinese lost their jobs last year, the Russian stock market and economy is in FREE FALL, since last year...they don't have the money to buy hundreds of 5th generation fighters.  Leaving the US as the SOLE possessor of a Fifth Generation Fighter.
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/19/2009 11:23:13 AM
I'm sorry GF - I failed to adequately explain my question.  I'm aware Australia is not interested in the F-22 from your numerous replies to earlier questions on this topic.  Let me try again and hopefully I can more clearly state my question.
 
Does anyone believe we (US) have found a way to detect LO/VLO platforms?  Could or did we find methods while we were developing the F-117, B-2, or F-22?  
 
GF, as you have stated on threads on DT regarding stealth, you only export systems you know you can defeat. So, assuming there were no legal barriers to F-22 exports and a country wanted to purchase the Raptor, would US refusal be an indication we don't have a way to detect such platforms?
 
Perhaps Secretary Gates feels 187 Raptors is sufficient because 1)we can detect LO/VLO aircraft, and 2)by the time Russian and China can field such a capability we will have other solutions in place such as hypersonics.
 
Quote    Reply

Ispose    F-35 Air Superiority Role   4/19/2009 11:50:54 AM
Everyone seems to think that the US will use F-22's for the AS role but isn't the US Navy going to have to rely on the F-35 to achieve AS wherever the F-22 won't be available?
We could get into a hot shootin match with someone and it may be a week or so before a F-22 wings and it's support infrastructure are in theatre.
In many cases the USN will have to achieve AS before the F-22's arrive.
I think they can do it with the F-35 but it's too bad there isn't a carrier capable version of the F-22.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/19/2009 12:10:12 PM

The difficulty in
countering long range counter-ISR missiles lies in the extreme ranges
from which they are fired, and the high kinematic performance of the
fighters taking the shots.




This presents an
insurmountable problem for legacy teen series and proposed fighters
such as the JSF because an effective counter demands the defending
fighter detects the presence of the attacker, is able to fly to within
missile release range and destroy the attacker before the attacker has
released its own counter-ISR missile. The only platform with the
kinematic capabilities to achieve this is the F-22A Raptor.



AWACS Killer Missiles - Click for more ...



The US Air Force approach
to dealing with this issue is the use of the F-22A Raptor. The US
strategy is to push the F-22A to the boundaries of ISR coverage to
pre-empt shots against ISR platforms, and use the sensors on the F-22A
as ISR capabilities, permitting the specialised ISR platforms greater
standoff range. There are good reasons why the US Air Force wants at
least 400 F-22s in their force structure.




In the Australian Defence
debate these weaknesses in current thinking have been raised
repeatedly, but ignored by advocates of the F/A-18E/F and JSF, neither
of which can kinematically deal with this type of threat. This response
should not be surprising since the emergence of long range counter ISR
missiles renders both types ineffective, with strategically dire
consequences if operationally deployed.




Warning times for
deployment of weapons such as the R-37 and R-172 will be very short,
where an operator uses late variants of the Su-27/30 series.




The
emergence of the R-37 and R-172 is an excellent
example of the reactive evolution of asymmetric capabilities intended
to defeat an overwhelming advantage possessed by an opponent.




 
Unfortunately the links don't seem to work for some of the pictures you posted, but the one drawing of the F-35 by The Usual Gang of Idiots looks like they are or could all be true statements... except for the absurd conclusions in red in the lower right.  The F-35 is as good as or better than everything else in the air (other than the F-22) at both those missions.  As for the non-existent and very, very, very long awaited and heralded threat to high value airborne assets from missiles like Kh-31 and KS-172 (and R-37, don't forget the R-37, gotta collect them all!) it's absurd to say the F-35 can't meet that threat if it ever actually becomes reality.  If something like the KS-172 ever becomes a threat, then no matter what jets we have it seems likely we're going to need to adjust our TTPs, keep the HVAAs further back, and engage the attackers sooner.  F-35s would make corned beef hash out of FLANKERs.  Not to mention the fact that we will also have F-22s for that, too.
 
 
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