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 3:28:17 PM

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.



Again, here is demonstrated lack of knowledge. I've used just such an experimental system in Iraq for 2 years!!! Here is a hint, it doesn't say UNCLASSIFIED at the top of the display either. Softwar, you are speaking about things you obviously do not know.

Also, it's almost impossible for  any comm to be unjammable or completely secure. There are levels of risk. 
 
-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 3:31:25 PM

Darth - quit trying to avoid the subject ...You are wrong and that's that.  Class dismissed.

 

YOU quit avoiding the subject. I've proven you wrong and everybody can see that. Once again you are letting your politics and personal feelings get the better part of your judgement. The day you prove me wrong on something, I'm happily admit it. It means I learned something from you which I would appreciate rather than your child like trolling and disagreement just for the sake of it. You were demonstrably wrong on at least three occasions in this thread Softwar. 3, THREE, III. That's not even disputable.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 3:37:38 PM



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.










Again, here is demonstrated lack of knowledge. I've used just such an experimental system in Iraq for 2 years!!! Here is a hint, it doesn't say UNCLASSIFIED at the top of the display either. Softwar, you are speaking about things you obviously do not know.




Also, it's almost impossible for  any comm to be unjammable or completely secure. There are levels of risk. 

 

-DA

 



Trying to shout again are we?  So keep yelling and playing games with your fonts.  I think its kind of funny watching you get so hot that you have to make your letters 10 inches tall.
 
The kind of link you speak of does not exist.  You played with a computer to computer commo link - but did it pass real time video, radar, IR, vehicle air data, location and allow for two way traffic for command linkage - all encrypted and unjammable?  Yeah sure Darth, and I played with the Forbin project.  Oh, sorry - you are not DP literate - just think of it as an advanced AI concept that backfired.
 
Now multiply that by the number of vehicles you want to fly in a combat zone. 
 
Sorry - we don't have the bandwidth.  Sat link maybe ....not.  Even worse on the bandwidth and can loose contact if high g runs are required.  So - autonomous is the only way to go.  Sad to say - even Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, the US Navy and USAF agree with me.  Too bad you are not in the five sided building - you could tell them all about your miracle communcations system.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 3:39:52 PM




Darth - quit trying to avoid the subject ...You are wrong and that's that.  Class dismissed.



 




YOU quit avoiding the subject. I've proven you wrong and everybody can see that. Once again you are letting your politics and personal feelings get the better part of your judgement. The day you prove me wrong on something, I'm happily admit it. It means I learned something from you which I would appreciate rather than your child like trolling and disagreement just for the sake of it. You were demonstrably wrong on at least three occasions in this thread Softwar. 3, THREE, III. That's not even disputable.




-DA 

Politics?  Hmmm... did I say republican or democrat?  Did I make reference to any elected official.  Nope.
Instead, I keep talking about SPASM - and you are clueless.  I am all techical here - and you are deflecting again by saying this is political.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I don't relu on your googled defintions poster.   4/13/2009 4:04:41 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 





The UCAS is what I discuss:
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Herald Reply   4/13/2009 4:12:32 PM



This is for SW.


 

SW, trust me, you think I am savage when it comes to peer review? I'm a pussycat. There are some thesis presenters I know who were reduced to potential suicide cases when the peer review was through with them. Thesis defense is when the good manners disguise a peer review's wolf pack mentality. One gross error in fact or analysis and they will rip you to bloody shreds.


 


Herald



Herald -
 
Of all the posters here - you are the one I thank after you hand me my rear-end.  There are others to be sure - because they do prove a point with factual backing.
 
As for the other poster - I will continue to counter him with simple facts despite his efforts to bully me and others. 
 
All My Best!
Softwar
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 4:21:46 PM







This is for SW.






 



SW, trust me, you think I am savage when it comes to peer review? I'm a pussycat. There are some thesis presenters I know who were reduced to potential suicide cases when the peer review was through with them. Thesis defense is when the good manners disguise a peer review's wolf pack mentality. One gross error in fact or analysis and they will rip you to bloody shreds.






 






Herald










Herald -

 

Of all the posters here - you are the one I thank after you hand me my rear-end.  There are others to be sure - because they do prove a point with factual backing.

 

As for the other poster - I will continue to counter him with simple facts despite his efforts to bully me and others. 

 

All My Best!

Softwar


You have yet to counter me with anything other than your opinion and thinly veiled insults. Also, this is not a peer review or PDR. It's a simple discussion of a decision from the SecDef that you two can't refute with anything more than your opinion.
 
So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. When more objective posters who actually aren't beating their chest start to chime in, I'll consider things from another point of view. Otherwise, you two are once again coming up far short.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/13/2009 4:34:05 PM



You have yet to counter me with anything other than your opinion and thinly veiled insults. Also, this is not a peer review or PDR. It's a simple discussion of a decision from the SecDef that you two can't refute with anything more than your opinion.

 

So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. When more objective posters who actually aren't beating their chest start to chime in, I'll consider things from another point of view. Otherwise, you two are once again coming up far short.

 

-DA


Darth,
 
I challenged you on the SSN reference, the RF link, the operational uses, your assertion that the unmanned bomber would be around in 2018 and a wide variety of other things.  I even tried to throw you a bone to save yourself from wetting all over the place by pointing out the SPASM project.  (You might want to use your TOP SECRET decoder ring access at the SCIF to find out about SPASM.) 
 
I did not mention political considerations - you did.  I did not suggest UAVs could substitute for the F-22 - you did.  I did not contend that there is an unjammable - totally secure - communicaitons link which can allow for bi-directional information flow to control a UCAV in flight - you did.
 
I have challenged you on technical matters, quizzed you on projects that you should know about and tested your knowledge of the Gates proposal - all of which you failed.  About all I get now out of your postings - is the hot air blast of a bruised ego.
 
So you failed.  So what?  I won't think any less of you even if you had the stones to admit it.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 4:50:26 PM

The kind of link you speak of does not exist.  You played with a computer to computer commo link - but did it pass real time video, radar, IR, vehicle air data, location and allow for two way traffic for command linkage - all encrypted and unjammable?  Yeah sure Darth, and I played with the Forbin project.  Oh, sorry - you are not DP literate - just think of it as an advanced AI concept that backfired.

 Wrong, the kind of link I spoke of does exist, I've used it. One day, I'll post pictures and video of it in action.

Now multiply that by the number of vehicles you want to fly in a combat zone. 

 

Sorry - we don't have the bandwidth.  Sat link maybe ....not.  Even worse on the bandwidth and can loose contact if high g runs are required.  So - autonomous is the only way to go.  Sad to say - even Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, the US Navy and USAF agree with me.  Too bad you are not in the five sided building - you could tell them all about your miracle communcations system.

Again, BTDT, Softwar are wrong. Used it. Too bad you never have seen it yourself.

-DA 


 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/13/2009 4:54:22 PM
You have yet to counter me with anything other than your opinion and thinly veiled insults. Also, this is not a peer review or PDR. It's a simple discussion of a decision from the SecDef that you two can't refute with anything more than your opinion.
 
So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. When more objective posters who actually aren't beating their chest start to chime in, I'll consider things from another point of view. Otherwise, you two are once again coming up far short.
 
-DA
 
Actually it is a peer review. I so stated in my thesis formulated on page two. (Reread). That you participate in the discussion from that point onward and continue to try to mount a personality based defense instead of objectively defend Mister Gates decision with fact based rebuttal proves two things. One, you've lost sight of your own thesis poster, and two, you have decided that this is a test of your competency to express an opinion.
 
Now I don't care about your inability to understand the terms and conditions now in effect. You are here poster and you rather much set those terms when you started to bully threaten and insult people like Phaid, me, or others. We are big boys. We know the rules. Its a little late to whine about those rules now. You wanted those conditions, then you will be peer reviewed. That is that. So I don't care about what you think you can dictate. As noted earlier, Sysop dictates-we conform
 
So its the tyranny of evidence .You don't seem to care about rigorous evidence much poster    
 
But I do care that:
-you demonstrate that you know little about information warfare.
-you know nothing about economic warfare.
-you know little about current threats.
-you know next to nothing about uninhabited aerial systems.
-you do not understand aircraft attrition as a function of usable airframe hours.
-you are not current as to how the US technology tree works.
-you don't know how an air force works.
-you don't know how a navy works.
-you don't know the first thing about the resources of the Earth or the competition for the resources thereof.
-you don't know how to read a map.
-you cannot present an enemy viewpoint battlespace analysis.
-you don't know the difference between an assertion and a proof.
-you equate proper skepticism with the personal attack.
-you claim that your own personal attacks are not to be weighed in the balance of evidence, as to judging the meroits of your arguments and the (lack of) competence exhibited thereof:.
-you deny that the same rigor of proof applies to you when you demand others coinform to it, nay when you assert that they "have not proved you wrong" when the error is  "you continue to fail to prove your thesis is correct.
 
The burden of competence as well as the burden of proof is on you, poster.
 
So far the verdict is "thesis not proved on the merits."

Herald
 
 

 


 
 

   
 
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