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

warpig       4/13/2009 5:54:33 PM




Well, in addition to The Obamination and SecDef Gates saying it, now we have SAF Donley and CoS Schwartz saying it.



Stick a fork in it, the F-22 program is done.


----------------------------------

Moving Beyond the F-22


By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz



Monday, April 13, 2009; A15


 

. . .


Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.




. . .


Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.






We've moved beyond the explicit programming paradigm for air dominance.  Anything that can be presented and decided upon by a human pilot in that context can be handled by a rules-driven machine.  F-35 and phased attrition should provide plenty of time to implement the next round.  0.02

v^2






 
Wow, that seems a much more bold statement than even DA is suggesting for our near future.  I do not claim to be in a position to dispute that, but it seems to me there remains very much yet to prove in order for that to be confirmed.
 
Like I've said before, I'm not sure that we "need" more F-22s, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable with the risk reduction that would come along with producing something like 60 more.  However, I suspect that much of my gut reaction comes from having a very USAF-centric experience base.  Sadly, I doubt that any so-called "savings" from not making more jets will be added to whatever other programs might be more critically needed in the Big Scheme of Things.  I fear the "F-22 Dividend" will just disappear from the defense budget altogether.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/13/2009 6:08:49 PM


Warpig, those were specific negations addressed to specific off-point issues that that poster raised that were off his topicand MINE. Each reply  addressed a quoted or immediate post preceding it.

Do you want to say that they repetitive? That they do not drive at the central counter-thesis?  Do you even know what the counter-thesis is?

I stated it clearly enough. "I was trying to establish if the other poster knew enough to competently defend what he discussed."

That was it in a nutshell.


Well, it seems to me what has been going on for the last 300 posts is similar to what has gone on in other threads involving DA and/or you (and note it's not necessarily both):  It's not thesis/conter-thesis, but rather it's DA has a thesis and you have a thesis.  DA may occasionally directly address your thesis, and you may occasionally directly address his thesis, but mostly the two of you are addressing the other's comments from the point-of-view of your own thesis and not the other's.  Discussion of UCAS is a prime example.  DA never once said that UCAS could *completely* replace manned fighters with autonomous UCAS that are better at the air dominance mission than manned fighters within 5-10 years, yet that's constantly the thesis you are aiming your comments toward refuting.  Based on my not-inconsequential knowledge I can confirm to myself that you are right regarding most of what you say, but also I can confirm to myself that DA is right regarding most of what he says, because the two of you are often talking about two similar, yet different subjects.

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    V^2 and Warpig reply   4/13/2009 6:09:55 PM

Wow, that seems a much more bold statement than even DA is suggesting for our near future.  I do not claim to be in a position to dispute that, but it seems to me there remains very much yet to prove in order for that to be confirmed.

 
Here is my opinion of this aspect with regard to software. I believe we are at a point where a basic rule driven machine could be developed and perform some limited air to air missions.  Especially BVR. For instance. If the UCAV can gather or receive the target data on enemy aircraft. It could "decide" based on the "rules" that targets above or below a certain Latitude are hostile and then position itself to fire a weapon at that target. Thats just one case.  Of course being a computer and bound by rules, a human exposed to that rule may discover a pattern and develop a tactic to counter it. But it's possible IMHO. Of course we could write pseudo code for a lot of cases which would be exhaustive as I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Like I've said before, I'm not sure that we "need" more F-22s, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable with the risk reduction that would come along with producing something like 60 more.  However, I suspect that much of my gut reaction comes from having a very USAF-centric experience base.  Sadly, I doubt that any so-called "savings" from not making more jets will be added to whatever other programs might be more critically needed in the Big Scheme of Things.  I fear the "F-22 Dividend" will just disappear from the defense budget altogether.


The budget will shrink I agree. But even so, thats 13 billion, that would otherwise have had to come from somewhere else which would represent and even larger percentage of spending on a platform the USAF admits it doesn't need in more numbers.

-DA 

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/13/2009 6:28:20 PM




First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.


WOW, this is exactly what I have been saying for the last 200 post.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.


More of my words almost verbatim.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.


Looking from a broader view? Where did we hear that before?

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.




Indicating low risk and adequate coverage

 


Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.


Hmm, anyone wanrt to wager UCAV will be competing to take this role?

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.


Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force




Confirmation of a point I've been making for the past few days. I agree 100%

 




-DA






DA,
Come on. You know full well anything these guys say has to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of how nice and neat their statements are. Just a few short months ago a couple guys that held those jobs felt 100% different then them and they got fired for it. So is it surprising the next 2 guys are marching lock, stock and barrel in line with what Gates and OBama wish?
Even you, as someone who agrees with
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 6:47:49 PM

DA,

Come on. You know full well anything these guys say has to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of how nice and neat their statements are. Just a few short months ago a couple guys that held those jobs felt 100% different then them and they got fired for it. So is it surprising the next 2 guys are marching lock, stock and barrel in line with what Gates and OBama wish?
 
You mean Gates Bush wish BTW. And no, I don't take it with a grain of salt. I do realize its a big change, affects a lot of career paths and not everyone will agree though.

Even you, as someone who agrees with them has to realize this. From a realistic viewpoint, Gates has destroyed the credibility of anyone that he chose as a replacement for these gentlemen when the new conclusions just happen to NOW fall in line with what him and Obama wish and coincedentally are complete reversals of the views of their predecessors. One can only assume those men are simply lapdogs with no pride at all and willing to say anything for a job.

No, I don't see it that way. Nor has anyone demonstrated that.

After reading that info Herald posted about Gates a while back, I think it is safe to say that Gates is simply a male prostitute and he is now in the process of hiring new male prostitutes to further his and his bosses agenda. It truly is a sad day for our military and this nation.


Beazz

Herald is about as biased as you could get so for now I don't take what he has to say about other people very seriously especially considering the level of disrespect he has shown me. Moreover, your characterization of Gates as a Prostitute to me suggest that you aren't very objective either although I respectfully disagree. But the issue I'm interested in has nothing to Gates personality or sexual behavior. I'm simply interested in the rational for more Raptors and thats it. But it's not a sad day for us. I'm in the MIlitary and we do not see this as sad. At least not from my point of view.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    he is not competent in subject.,    4/13/2009 7:26:27 PM





Warpig, those were specific negations addressed to specific off-point issues that that poster raised that were off his topicand MINE. Each reply  addressed a quoted or immediate post preceding it.



Do you want to say that they repetitive? That they do not drive at the central counter-thesis?  Do you even know what the counter-thesis is?



I stated it clearly enough. "I was trying to establish if the other poster knew enough to competently defend what he discussed."



That was it in a nutshell.







Well, it seems to me what has been going on for the last 300 posts is similar to what has gone on in other threads involving DA and/or you (and note it's not necessarily both):  It's not thesis/conter-thesis, but rather it's DA has a thesis and you have a thesis.  DA may occasionally directly address your thesis, and you may occasionally directly address his thesis, but mostly the two of you are addressing the other's comments from the point-of-view of your own thesis and not the other's.  Discussion of UCAS is a prime example.  DA never once said that UCAS could *completely* replace manned fighters with autonomous UCAS that are better at the air dominance mission than manned fighters within 5-10 years, yet that's constantly the thesis you are aiming your comments toward refuting.  Based on my not-inconsequential knowledge I can confirm to myself that you are right regarding most of what you say, but also I can confirm to myself that DA is right regarding most of what he says, because the two of you are often talking about two similar, yet different subjects.



 


If he was then I would address THAT. OI spend mnpore tome correcting mistakes and debunking myths assertions and errors than I can address some3thing relevant.

Read that again.
 
It explains exactly what I have with which to work. its not like I have much credible to comment on WQarpig., he really doesn't know. He might have seen a  RAVEN and actually sat and observed one used by an Army controller but he's clueless when it comes to telemetry issues, artificial intelligence, or long range waldo.
 
 You see that I disagree with V^2 about the progress made on artilects and the rules we write for them. What works in the computer though has a maddening habit of not working in the aircraft when we try to give it radar eyes and tell it what to shoot. I can see that he's encouraged by the work at Washington State and Michigan, but it isn't ready for prime time. Not yet. 
 
A Human still has much better pattern recognition, and that is the problem.
 
Herald
 
.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    More.    4/13/2009 7:38:47 PM
I'm in the military so you have to show me respect.
 
WRONG. Don't confuse an occupation or a niche that a man occupies with the right of respect.
 
Respect is based on accomplishment, not based on position or organization niche.
 
There is an old retired Filipino man who is seventy years old who is not only the hardest working man I have ever seen (part time janitor now) but who is so mechanically gifted that he can look at a clockwork or mechanical fault of an electrical  device he's never seen before  that baffles me, and point to the fault, describe to me what it is and how to fix it. I RESPECT him.
 
Herald   
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 7:42:48 PM

If he was then I would address THAT. OI spend mnpore tome correcting mistakes and debunking myths assertions and errors than I can address some3thing relevant.

I'm not competent to have an opinion? Mistakes? In that case I've addressed some of your mistakes as well. See the definitions thread.


Read that again.

It explains exactly what I have with which to work. its not like I have much credible to comment on WQarpig., he really doesn't know. He might have seen a  RAVEN and actually sat and observed one used by an Army controller but he's clueless when it comes to telemetry issues, artificial intelligence, or long range waldo.

I never discussed the specifics of any of those issues with you. Thats a strawman argument. 

 You see that I disagree with V^2 about the progress made on artilects and the rules we write for them. What works in the computer though has a maddening habit of not working in the aircraft when we try to give it radar eyes and tell it what to shoot. I can see that he's encouraged by the work at Washington State and Michigan, but it isn't ready for prime time. Not yet. 

I didn't say it was ready now Herald. I specifically gave you an estimate 5 to 10 years out. Also, you treated V^2 with actual respect. I asked for nothing more than the same even if in the end we have to disagree and walk away.


A Human still has much better pattern recognition, and that is the problem.

Herald

I do not dispute this and I said so in my last post to V^2. What I do dispute is the necessity of it for the missions I had in mind. I also dispute that it's absolutely necessary even if desirable.
 

-DA



 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 7:48:49 PM

I'm in the military so you have to show me respect.

I never said that, and if you interpreted anything I said to mean that, I apologize. 

WRONG. Don't confuse an occupation or a niche that a man occupies with the right of respect.

Respect is based on accomplishment, not based on position or organization niche.


 

Herald   



There is a basic level of courtesy and respect that you owe people IN GENERAL. You haven't posted any creds or accomplishments, you have been shown to be wrong on occasion, yet I don't disrespect you as you do me. Read the last two post from me to you and note the TONE and NATURE. There is respect. Thats is what I've been asking of you. Thats what others have pointed out to you on several occasions, including the Mods. 
I've even offered to not address you at all so long as you agree to do the same if for some personal or other reason you can't.
-DA

 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/13/2009 10:27:32 PM




DA,



Come on. You know full well anything these guys say has to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of how nice and neat their statements are. Just a few short months ago a couple guys that held those jobs felt 100% different then them and they got fired for it. So is it surprising the next 2 guys are marching lock, stock and barrel in line with what Gates and OBama wish?

 

You mean Gates Bush wish BTW. And no, I don't take it with a grain of salt. I do realize its a big change, affects a lot of career paths and not everyone will agree though.

What I mean is just a few months ago there were a couple of very respectable men who said the USAF needed 381 F22's. They got fired for saying what they felt was in the best interest of this nation and the USAF. That is a just a fact DA. Now you trot out some paper by their replacements stating the company line from above and all the sudden this is the gospel? You say you are not biased. I simply cannot buy that if you honestly have the gumption to trot this report out there like it now shows this is the way things *really* are. It is clearly a report by 2 men that saw what happened to the last 2 that dared to be honest about the needs of this nation. You seem to just dismiss them as meaningless for some reason. All I see from these men is a couple guys that need a job and not ready for early retirement yet. Me personally, I'll take the word of a man who said what he said knowing he could be fired over it because he believed it in the best interest of this nation over a couple of obvious yes men.

Even you, as someone who agrees with them has to realize this. From a realistic viewpoint, Gates has destroyed the credibility of anyone that he chose as a replacement for these gentlemen when the new conclusions just happen to NOW fall in line with what him and Obama wish and coincedentally are complete reversals of the views of their predecessors. One can only assume those men are simply lapdogs with no pride at all and willing to say anything for a job.
No, I don't see it that way. Nor has anyone demonstrated that.
Well DA, there are those that when they see an individual being fired for stateing a belief that happens to go against the *boss* and then their replacement just *happens* to be in 100% agreement with the *boss* as just a tad bit questionable. At least anyone with an open mind as you so often claim on here. It seems to me more and more you are open to what suits you, not what actually is stareing you in the face.

After reading that info Herald posted about Gates a while back, I think it is safe to say that Gates is simply a male prostitute and he is now in the process of hiring new male prostitutes to further his and his bosses agenda. It truly is a sad day for o
 
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