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
mustang22       4/19/2009 12:21:07 PM

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.


Short term, the recession is kicking everyone's butt, does that mean once we bounce back that other nations will not? They will decrease/increase accordingly and remain committed to upgrading and modernizing their military capabilities. Why don't you try and answer some of the questions that I posed but have yet to generate a response.
 
1. New technologies are being developed for the Gerald Ford class carriers at the cost of billions. If major wars with near peer threats are so unlikely than why are the Nimitz class technologies good enough?
2. With 300-400 Raptors to provide air dominance, why spend a trillion dollars on the F-35 program when legacy aircraft can fulfill the mission requirement or does Iran/North Korea pose a super high tech electronic defense that only the JSF can defeat?
3. 243 Raptors was acceptable to me, as the extra 60 provided a reserve should F-15's develop more structural problems and F-35 becomes delayed or canceled outright. With the 20 per year buy that roughly gives a three year cushion to keep the line open if the cancellation ever became a possibility however remote that may sound.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/19/2009 12:41:43 PM
There also seems to be some confusion here about what "187 Raptors" means.  That most assuredly does not mean you'll have a combat force of 187 aircraft.  From Jane's ("Raptor Rapture", JDW Jan. 18, 2006):
 
The air force established a requirement for 381 Raptors. A fleet of this size would give it 240 combat-coded F-22s ? enough to constitute 10 combat squadrons ? along with 75 aircraft for training and testing and 66 jets in backup inventory and attrition reserve, according to air force figures.
...
While the breakdown of a 180-aircraft Raptor fleet has not been publicised, the air force did release the notional details on how it would organise a fleet of 170 Raptors: 105 combat-coded aircraft; 28 for training; seven for testing; 14 backup aircraft and 16 in attrition reserve.
 
Let's be generous and say that with 187 aircraft the AF will keep 126 of them combat-coded.  The Air Force already decided that the reduced number of F-22s dictates moving to an 18-aircraft squadron size.  With 126 aircraft that gives you seven squadrons of 18 aircraft each (that works with the 14 backup aircraft since each squadron has 18 aircraft + 2 backups).
 
So 126 is your best-case number for available planes; of that number, a certain percentage will still be unavailable for various reasons.  And over time you'll start eating into the backups and the attrition reserve, and you'll have lower uptimes as airframes age.  That's the reality.  And that is why Schwartz speaks of 381 as a "low-risk" force -- the risk of too few being available is low; and 243 as a "medium risk" force.
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/19/2009 1:01:28 PM
I also enjoyed Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne's take on the Gates cuts.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid reply   4/19/2009 1:43:53 PM


So 126 is your best-case number for available planes; of that number, a certain percentage will still be unavailable for various reasons.  And over time you'll start eating into the backups and the attrition reserve, and you'll have lower uptimes as airframes age.  That's the reality.  And that is why Schwartz speaks of 381 as a "low-risk" force -- the risk of too few being available is low; and 243 as a "medium risk" force.

Concur. And Gen Schwartz also says...

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,? 

So this is high level acknowledgement that in order for the DoD as a whole to be able to do its mission, purchases beyond 187 are contrary to our security strategy and the USAF acknowledged that. This makes sense considering that the Economy is considered the most dangerous threat to national security because it breeds failed states which leads to non-state entities using them as bases which requires manpower intensive long duration campaigns, not techno-centric forces to end.

We can't just focus on the F-22. You have to look at the big picture. 

-DA   
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid reply   4/19/2009 2:05:36 PM

I also enjoyed Former Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne's take on the Gates cuts.

I enjoyed reading that, but probably for different reasons. That is another one in a long long list of China phobic hypothetical assertions that do not reflect reality. Whether or not we agree with stopping F-22 production, there is not a strategic drawdown. Rather, a refocus by the Defense Department on missions that seemed to be displacing old paradigms. State versus state near peer conflicts are the exception not the rule. While we see hotspots breaking out across the world. Even the more technologically-based threats are pursuing strategies that involve direct confrontations between symmetric forces. Look at the North Koreans, look at Iran. Hey look at the Chinese. The ballistic missile programs in these countries are designed to avoid confrontations with superior forces such as our Air Force. Thinking such as that shown by the former secretary is going to take a decade or so to die out. It will be replaced by an equally fanatical low intensity conflict centric mentality. The more things change the more they stay the same. It just takes visionaries who are able to recognize the changes.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       4/19/2009 2:08:22 PM
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    Posts   4/19/2009 2:09:20 PM
Sorry about the multiple posts.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Well Mustand22   4/19/2009 2:31:02 PM
The F-35 is necessary because we can't SCREW the USMC, the USN, the RAF, and the RAAF amongst others who are a part of the F-35 program...so a certain F-35 buy is absolutely necessary!  And we can't screw the USAF F-16 fighter community, who will be needing the F-35, and the US Army and the US Marine Corps who need the F-35 to provide CAS, and BAI, and for that matter deep strike into the enemy's rear to destroy strategic targets as well...also yo ignore JSEAD and a number of other tasks, necessary for an air force to accomplish.
 
As the saying goes, "Fighter Pilots make Headlines, bomber pilots make HISTORY."  In a choice between air parity and air SUPERIORITY I'll choose air parity, as in Tunisia 1942/43 as long as the ground forces are making progress.
 
We can't afford 300-400 F-22's and don't need them...the F-22 is the peerless A2A a/c a la F-15, but the F-35 is going to be doing the REAL work of air-land combat a la the F/A-18 and the F-16...you know dropping bombs and shaping the battlefield so the ground forces can win the war, and achieve US national ends?
 
Finally Air Superiority can be achieved by many means, some of which don't involve fighter pilots very much at all...Tomahawk strikes, B-2 strikes, ALCM strikes, OFFENSIVE Counte-Air also whittles down the opponent's air power and they don't involve F-22's.
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    These statements cannot be made with confidence.   4/19/2009 2:49:28 PM
 
Where are the radar cross section measurements, the wind tunnel data, etc. to be able to make such statements?
 
Often I refrain from posting, because I cannot really back things up, like my hunch that it could be technically possible to distribute the AESA radar on the plane, for instance in the leading edge of the wings. May be possible, may not be possible, I haven't done the math.
 
Then there are these statements:
"Single engine risks for overwater operations"
- A4 Skyhawk, F8 Crusader, A7 Corsair are all not succesfull navy planes with single engines.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/19/2009 5:09:09 PM

The F-35 is necessary because we can't SCREW the USMC, the USN, the RAF, and the RAAF amongst others who are a part of the F-35 program...so a certain F-35 buy is absolutely necessary!  And we can't screw the USAF F-16 fighter community, who will be needing the F-35, and the US Army and the US Marine Corps who need the F-35 to provide CAS, and BAI, and for that matter deep strike into the enemy's rear to destroy strategic targets as well...also yo ignore JSEAD and a number of other tasks, necessary for an air force to accomplish.

 

As the saying goes, "Fighter Pilots make Headlines, bomber pilots make HISTORY."  In a choice between air parity and air SUPERIORITY I'll choose air parity, as in Tunisia 1942/43 as long as the ground forces are making progress.

 

We can't afford 300-400 F-22's and don't need them...the F-22 is the peerless A2A a/c a la F-15, but the F-35 is going to be doing the REAL work of air-land combat a la the F/A-18 and the F-16...you know dropping bombs and shaping the battlefield so the ground forces can win the war, and achieve US national ends?

 

Finally Air Superiority can be achieved by many means, some of which don't involve fighter pilots very much at all...Tomahawk strikes, B-2 strikes, ALCM strikes, OFFENSIVE Counte-Air also whittles down the opponent's air power and they don't involve F-22's.

You act as if dropping bombs and shaping the battlefield can only be made possible with the F-35. Someone should tell that to the B-52's that have been dropping bombs since 1955.
Flying approximately 1620 sorties in the Gulf War, B-52s delivered 40% of the weapons dropped by coalition forces,[4]
while suffering only one non-combat aircraft loss, with several receiving minor damage from enemy action.
40% of all ordinance dropped and no combat losses. Why, because air superiority was maintained and there was nothing to threaten them.
 
Why should we be worried about screwing over RAF and RAAF when Gates obviously isn't worried about screwing over his own country? Tell me again how dropping bombs cannot be accomplished by F-16 Block 60's, F-15E's, Super Hornets and Tornado's? 
 
What is stopping F-22's and EA-18G's from performing SEAD missions?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/19/2009 5:32:01 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 



Subsonic its supposed to be, but wrong wing camber, wrong intake design, the sat-dish, as is usual, is under the forward hump and the lookdown sensors are presumably under the chin strake. No room for A2A radar in nose. No indication of SAR strips or SAR canoe. Wings too far forward for CG or CM. That artist's concept aircraft is a JOKE 
 
Irrelevant? Hardly. I just demolished in fifty words what you don't begin to understand at all, poster.
 
I see the ego defense continues. But go right ahead, tell me your expert description of this so called UCAV's function, poster. What kind of mission is it supposed to perform again?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    You aren't worth it. Just pay attention to the rest of us who actually know what we are doing.   4/19/2009 6:09:39 PM
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/19/2009 6:30:55 PM

--- JFKY---    Your first post  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.---

 

Who has the power to fire the President of the United States?

Who does the President of the United States work for?

You can sit there and say that the the person who works for the boss over whom I am the boss is not at my service all you please.

I can sit here and tell you gravity does not exist but that does not seem to impact the apple falling from the tree.

Once more, if a group of Americans really, and I mean truly want to replace the Secretary of Defence, or any other Secretary for that matter, they can do so.   Just because it takes a bit more work than sending off a fax does not change the matter one bit.

 

This government, which is run by the supreme law of the land (the Constitution) exists at my (the people) discretion.

Period.

End of story.

No win.

No lose.

Just fact.

Deal with it how you may.

 

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    EvilFishy   4/19/2009 7:05:44 PM
Ok, even though you admit you're wrong..in your own opening statement...feel free to warm your self with the belief that Gates/Rumsfeld/Cohen work for YOU...when, in fact, as YOU admit, they work for the POTUS.
 
Heck when you change POTUS' does the SecDef change...Who was Dubya's last SecDef...Why Gates wasn't it and who is Obama's frist SecDef...why the same aforementioned Gates...so WHO chooses Sec Def's?  Oh that's right, the PRESIDENT.
 
You chose Congress, 2/535th of (1/however many votes were cast in each race you are eligible to vote) in X 100%, plus a percentage of the POTUS vote....you're stockholder...you don't choose the stock boys or the accounting department or even the senior management of the firm...you choose the Chairman of the Board, who may change the manament team/work force, or s/he many not.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/19/2009 7:30:25 PM

So General Atomics has showed us a "flash of leg" from an in-house project.  Here are a few tasks Avenger should be able to perform in a high-threat environment that a F-22/F-16 combination cannot accomplish as well:

- operate off an aircraft carrier

- persistent BDA and battery fire support for Marines and MLRS

- persistent ELINT and surveillance near coastal areas

- persistent mobile missile hunting if armed with SDB

- persistent land interdiction if armed with Hellfire

- cheap off axis MALD deployment in support of raids

- search and rescue relay and support for downed Navy crews

- P3/8 multiplier

Avenger clearly is an interim platform.  But given its a/c carrier abilities, price point, reduced signature design,400+kt speed, endurance and bays I hope that we buy several tens of them once fieldable.  The end user will keep however many we acquire constantly working.

v^2

 
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