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

cwDeici       4/14/2009 5:44:43 AM
No UCAV has shot down a well trained F-16 fighter pilot in combat!
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/14/2009 5:45:09 AM
That is: a war, not a training exercise.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       4/14/2009 5:52:12 AM




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





He is a bit acidic, but he seems to have reigned it in.
Well, I'm quitting this subject.
But before I'd like to say UCAVs might be all that great as you say though I doubt it even if I low the UAVs, but I'm pretty sure an actual high-tech war would show lots of shortfalls.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/14/2009 11:37:26 AM

He is a bit acidic, but he seems to have reigned it in.

Well, I'm quitting this subject.

But before I'd like to say UCAVs might be all that great as you say though I doubt it even if I low the UAVs, but I'm pretty sure an actual high-tech war would show lots of shortfalls.


All weapons systems have limitations. The limits suggested here, are not accurate. UAVs will continue to encroach into the roles our manned fighters do now. That includes air to air. Things are certain to exist in the black world that are already doing this stuff as is indicated by the recent spotting of a possible UCAV in Afghanistan. A lot of the necessary things are already in place and we have a perfect condition in which to test under operational conditions. Next decade will be exciting. Just remember, the F-117 was in service a long time before revealed officially and highlighted in ODS. Similarly, the Atom Bomb was developed in secret during a war as well. We have a history of this.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Golden rule in the peer review analysis.   4/14/2009 11:40:07 AM




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




This is a peer review based on merit of argument. Respect demanded has zero nerit to do with the actual thesis. .Besides previous statements the poster made, such as "I  served in Iraq and the military and saw things" which form the basis of his claims to secret knowledge., show that he specifically demands that his military service be taken into consideration as a factor in his argument evaluation. His own behavior of falsely accusing people of being emotional and biased in argument against him (Phaoid specifically), shows that he has no objective right to expect common courtesy when he shows them none.
 
His attemtps to threaten to exert to influence argument to intimidate (me) by claiming that he could somethow force a poster into banning by drawing attention to what he considered a personal attack (there was nothing of the kind), shows that not only does this poster not have the merits of a proper argument, he refuses to show the courtesies to those that he demands that others show him.
 
Exceeding his reach in that case with a vveiled threat was a glaring datum point as to how that poster usually argues when his facts are in error.
 
Far from demanding respect, or expecting courtesy, the poster shows by his behavior that he expects to not abide by the limits and rules he expcts others to follow, and that furthermore when the data finally starts showing that his case lacks substantove merits and that his argument shows his errors plainly he resorts to the very tactics he accuses others of using against him.
 
That data exists iin the form of his actual; postings in this thread and it shows this trend conclusively.
 
Then he pretends that what he did never happened, when its pointed out and explkained, and that he is the actual offended party. By count this happens six times in this thread. It is part of his repetitive cycle I observed and commented upon to see if he could and would conform to a predictable behavior pattern. He did and does, this last cycle being the latest example. Note that I did and do nothing to force that pattern. I just observed, noted, and now explain the pattern as it emerges. Its quite predictable and repetitive..
 
The conditiion as observed in general Human behavior and this specific case is called  Hypocrisy....

That datum can be factored into the merits of a thesis argument when as it is peer reviewed. Does the defender try to use false arguments and character assassination in his presentation?
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    No Analysis   4/14/2009 12:33:35 PM
It's worth pointing out that according to this article the decision to only buy 187 is entirely budget driven with no analysis to back up the numbers.  Point one is that the USAF is taking another look at some scenarios which is simply a statement that additional analysis is going to be done.  Point two is that 60 more would cost 13 billion and that is a lot of money.
 
Short term budget savings have a habit of turning into a long term capability deficit.  It's irrational to cut a program due entirely to budget motivations when that program is replacing old airframes (F-15C) that have had repeated recent and public problems and blithely assume those same airframes can be upgraded to fly another 20 years.
 
The head of the USAF some years back testified in front of congress, in multiple years, that his biggest fear was the premature loss of any one of several airframe types due to surprise issues affecting life cycle.  It's simply too dangerous to risk the nations ability to achieve air superiority by relying on one old air frame, F-15C, when there will be no other air superiority fighter under production or projected to be under projection.
 
The least the nation should be doing is keeping the F-22 production line open in low rate production as insurance.  Where is the risk analysis on merely doing that?  There is none.  This is all budget driven.  It's not possible to point to a set of studies or analysis that concludes 187 F-22 is all the nation requires the next 20 years.  Quite the contrary in fact in that all the existing studies assumed many more F-22s.
 
 
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



The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.


The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability.


We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives -- all balanced within the context of available resources.


We are often asked: How many F-22s does the Air Force need? The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.


These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.


Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.


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.


This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challen

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/14/2009 12:50:27 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



The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.


The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability.


We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives -- all balanced within the context of available resources.


We are often asked: How many F-22s does the Air Force need? The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.


These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.


Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.


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.


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.


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.


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.


Much rides on t

 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Strange   4/14/2009 3:04:01 PM
The peer  review process is rather brutal and not for the timid to enter into unless they have the stomach for it. There is no room for mere unsubstantiations, evidenceless assertions, or for incompetent presentations of fact. The case must be tight.
 
The report I had to write with a presentation that was reviewed for graduation did not give me an impression of being brutal. It's not like they bite your head off. As a matter of fact being judged by your facts is rather refreshing in a world where you are constantly judged on political reasons.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/14/2009 3:13:09 PM

The peer  review process is rather brutal and not for the timid to enter into unless they have the stomach for it. There is no room for mere unsubstantiations, evidenceless assertions, or for incompetent presentations of fact. The case must be tight.

 

The report I had to write with a presentation that was reviewed for graduation did not give me an impression of being brutal. It's not like they bite your head off. As a matter of fact being judged by your facts is rather refreshing in a world where you are constantly judged on political reasons.


 

 
Agreed. It's not brutal. Its designed to help not hinder. I've been involved in two within the last 6 weeks. If someone sees something that doesn't seem correct, the issue is raised, discussed in detail with the various subject matter experts, action items and responsibilities are delegated and then the issues get resolved per the revised program schedule. At no time does it digress into anything "personal".  I'm managing 4 programs now and this is a uniform experience.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Darth   4/14/2009 7:07:30 PM




He is a bit acidic, but he seems to have reigned it in.




Well, I'm quitting this subject.



But before I'd like to say UCAVs might be all that great as you say though I doubt it even if I low the UAVs, but I'm pretty sure an actual high-tech war would show lots of shortfalls.







All weapons systems have limitations. The limits suggested here, are not accurate. UAVs will continue to encroach into the roles our manned fighters do now. That includes air to air. Things are certain to exist in the black world that are already doing this stuff as is indicated by the recent spotting of a possible UCAV in Afghanistan. A lot of the necessary things are already in place and we have a perfect condition in which to test under operational conditions. Next decade will be exciting. Just remember, the F-117 was in service a long time before revealed officially and highlighted in ODS. Similarly, the Atom Bomb was developed in secret during a war as well. We have a history of this.




-DA 


Last year I supported my boys from Bragg at a SOCOM combined arms exercise out in Nevada.  It was huge, with a lot of high speed low drag guys from the US, UK ans OZ running around the desert running scenarios and developing techniques specifically with regards to getting the best out of the latest developing technologies.  Interestingly this exercise was on the huge range complex attached to Creech AFB which is where the US and UK control the "Various" UAV missions underway around the world.  The interesting thing is that we were not required for all the scenarious being played out and at a certain time each evening every single one of us had to be verified as being off the range.  As we all discussed why this might be required the Captain in command of the battery turned to me and said "Arty (Obviously he said my name), theres things in them thar hills that we cant even imagine at this moment in time"   So I totally agree with Darth that there are Aircraft etc in the Black World right now that we probably wont know about for 10 or 15 years!!!!!
 
Regards
 
Arty

 
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