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
Phaid       4/20/2009 3:26:45 PM
Your goal is damage to the US Navy, so that the USAF can have another 60 toys?
 
Where did I say that?  My point is that the Ford class is vastly more expensive than the current-build Nimitz and it is not at all clear that the Ford class improvements are needed.  Yes, the Fords will be superior in some ways.  Does that superiority justify its massive cost?  It isn't as though the Navy would be unable to carry out its missions if we kept building more ships like the G.W. Bush instead of the new design.
 
And what is it with your love of the F-16? Alternatively, let's zero out the F-22 and just build more F-15's...how about that.  Because you seem perfectly willing to go with a 30-plus y.o. air frame in the F-16, why not just save even more money and not build any more F-22's and just build more F-15's?  We can kill BOTH the F-22 AND the F-35...is that OK?
 
No, it isn't OK, but I don't think you're really making any effort to understand my point.  Here it is again:
 
We need large numbers of new, up to date tactical fighters.  Block 60 F-16s, a far cry from the "30-plus y.o. air frame" of the F-16, are perfectly suited to most of our current tactical aviation needs.  They have the range, the systems, the payload, and are among the most available and maintainable airframes anywhere.  And they are in production and cheap.

We also need a new air superiority fleet that can ensure our air dominance, and we need a sizeable number of stealthy strike platforms.  The F-22 meets both of those requirements today.  The F-15 meets neither.
 
If we bought large numbers of new-build F-16s and brought the number of F-22s up to about 400, we would spend vastly less than we will on the F-35, while being able to meet all of our realistic needs for the foreseeable future.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 3:34:37 PM

After all you from the safety of your internet hide tried and failed to call me a liar. Here's your chance to PROVE that you might have a clue and that you ,ight be able to build a case. it go0es forectly to the point of your claim that the UAS technology was able to replace the F-22 in mission role in five years which is what you said .

Herald
 

WHAT I SAID... 


 No, you misunderstood me. Let me clarify. The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs. ISR and Time Critical Strike against Targets of Opportunity has taken the the lead in this regard. Contrary to some of the errors people have posted here, we are much closer to having UCAV's than people think that are capable of taking over significant portions of the roles we use manned platforms for. Particularly with regard to CAP, SEAD and Strike roles. And this doesn't even consider the roles they will take over that we use some rotor winged assets for now. 

We are past the peak of manned air combat. It's an area that is radically changing. Especially in the air to air domain. WE NEED F-22's. But with the current trend and considering other assets we can bring to bear not in any more numbers than we have already agreed to procure.
This is another one of those issues people will come back to 5 years from now and say, WOW how did you know that? The signs are clear if you know what to look for. But it requires a broad look across a range of military and technological disciplines to grasp.  

Now, this is my opinion. It's based on facts and my own military and civil experiences. It ***could*** be wrong. But I don't think so. If you, disagree, say so and let it be. There is no need to get wrapped around the axle calling people trolls because 1 guy you don't know on the internet thinks we don't need more F-22's. 

...clearly Herald you misinterpreted what I wrote which is as obvious as can be. Now, please, let it go. Everybody here understands what I wrote. If anybody else thinks I said that UAS were going to replace the F-22 in 5 years, how come you are the only one to interpret it that way? It is possible that you make a mistake in your interpretation. Now, above, without edit is a clear explaination. If you are sincere you should be able to see that there is a difference between my words and what you think I said. If you are going to deny that when your words and mine are both clear,

a. I think you are being disingenuous

b. you have a personal motive

I am trying to extend you a olive branch. Please take it and move on. The facts of who said what are clear to everyone except you.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/20/2009 3:38:10 PM
ALL government bureaucrats serve at the discretion of the PEOPLE (ME) and, as per the Constitution, can be removed by the PEOPLE (ME) via numerous constitutionally provided mechanisms.
Ok, God Forgive me, absolutely not true, check out the Hatch Act....it's too simple, I know what you mean, but really you're wrong, on this point especially.
 
You keep dreaming that Sebelius or Gates or Geitner work for YOU, directly...when of course even the Constitution says they work for the POTUS.
 
They work for those that appointed them and the interests of those that appointed/elected them...we HOPE that those interests and the "interests" of the US run parallel...but they needn't.  And it can be argued that the "Nation" has NO interests, whatsoever...
 
In fact, it is INARGUABLE, that institutions have no interests, PEOPLE do...ergo Obama/Dubya/Clinton et al. serve those that elected them, and in turn their appointees serve the POTUS and those interests that helped secure their appointments.  Your control, such as it is, is very indirect on Cabinet appointees. 
 
NO ONE serves the US, because the US has NO interests.  US interests, such as they are, are an amalgam of competing and cooperating interest groups desires, and their hierarchical ordering of policy preferences.  The US, per se, has no interests.....you, seemingly, represent those who have a different set of policy preferences than the Obama Administration.  As Obama said, "We won", the corollary is "You lost"....so your interests, as YOU define them, may or may not be served by the F-22 decision (Because interest groups can be WONG in their advocacy of certain policy preferences, and the decision to cancel the F-22 may or may NOT help/hurt your interests).
 
This should not be something to argue, it's obvious.  SecDef gates answers to POTUS Obama.  Who desires a reduction in the Defense Budget, John McCain would no doubt desire one too.  Combine that with OMB Orszag's and Gates' predilection to cut the F-22 and you have one obvious target for this budget reduction.  It is IRRELEVANT if 51% or 5% of the US populace wishes to keep the F-22, the policy-makers have their goals, budgetary and programmatic.  These they will implement.  In their minds, THEY ARE SERVING THE US NATIONAL INTEREST.  From their poV they serve the US Nation, by serving those that appointed them and set budgetary priorities...
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Procurement is not based on realistic goals here.   4/20/2009 3:43:32 PM
Its based on politics and the prejudices of some vwery incompetent people who don't read their own threat reports.
 
I'm still waiting for you to post one acceptable and competent point onm topic , poster, that doesn't appeal to "experts" that shows you have the original ability to analyze or originally think.
 
Considering that you were wrong about logistics, geography, SHOOTING, battle space management, boat handling, UCAV's I just wonder where you get off calling anybody ignorant or a liar?
 
What gives you that right again? Your opinion which we are supposed to take on your word?
 
You can solve a lot of issues for yourself poster, just do some original work. Should take you about fifteen minutes., 
 
Prove that you are qualified. Do a little analysis. The sad fact is that you CAN'T.
 
Otherwise you wouldn't keep running away from it in the technocals when youh are challenged.
 .
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    But Phaid   4/20/2009 3:45:10 PM
Why can't we just buy new, upgraded F-15's then and not buy ANY F-22's?  Why is it that the F-22 is necessary, but a 30 y.o air frame is "good enough" for the F-16...I say if we can just keep turning out F-16's new and upgraded; then we can do the same with the F-15 and delete  the need for the F-22, as well.
 
Sure you want to damage the Navy...when you zero out the R&D for the USS Ford, you effectively CANCEL the USS Ford...so you kill the Navy of tomorrow for the USAF of today...now that may or may not be good policy, but please at least accept that this what the results of your policy decision would be. 
 
Alternatively, at a minimum, you jack up the FUTURE cost of the USS Ford, because you can't just start and stop an R&D process, or any process and to do so merely compounds your future cost(s)....and by jacking up the future cost of a program you increase the likelihood of its cancellation.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 3:47:16 PM


Your goal is damage to the US Navy, so that the USAF can have another 60 toys?


Where did I say that?  My point is that the Ford class is vastly more expensive than the current-build Nimitz and it is not at all clear that the Ford class improvements are needed.  Yes, the Fords will be superior in some ways.  Does that superiority justify its massive cost?  It isn't as though the Navy would be unable to carry out its missions if we kept building more ships like the G.W. Bush instead of the new design.

Apples and Oranges. The USN need to replace Carriers and buying F-22s are two different things. For you to make this argument, you would need to list in detail the cost of going to the Ford Class vs the staying with the Nimitz to include modernization and also show the differences in capability. Can you do that?



And what is it with your love of the F-16? Alternatively, let's zero out the F-22 and just build more F-15's...how about that.  Because you seem perfectly willing to go with a 30-plus y.o. air frame in the F-16, why not just save even more money and not build any more F-22's and just build more F-15's?  We can kill BOTH the F-22 AND the F-35...is that OK?



No, it isn't OK, but I don't think you're really making any effort to understand my point.  Here it is again:

We need large numbers of new, up to date tactical fighters.  Block 60 F-16s, a far cry from the "30-plus y.o. air frame" of the F-16, are perfectly suited to most of our current tactical aviation needs.  They have the range, the systems, the payload, and are among the most available and maintainable airframes anywhere.  And they are in production and cheap.

This is almost entirely untrue. How much is a Block 60 F-16? How much is it's Operations cost? How much more support does an F-16 need to attack in denied airspace vs an F-35? How would canceling the F-35 affect the fighter market and relationships with allies who are dependent on it? Would F-16s give the same capability as the F-35? Such as the UK requirement for super sonic VTOL to operate off carriers? Or the LO capability of the F-35? Can you address this?


We also need a new air superiority fleet that can ensure our air dominance, and we need a sizeable number of stealthy strike platforms.  The F-22 meets both of those requirements today.  The F-15 meets neither.

Yes. And the CoS said that 187 is the max number if we want to keep balance with other needs. The F-15 does meet the need of strike and air dominance as well and can now be had in LO version.
 

If we bought large numbers of new-build F-16s and brought the number of F-22s up to about 400, we would spend vastly less than we will on the F-35, while being able to meet all of our realistic needs for the foreseeable future.

Show how this will cost less and provide the same or better capability?
 
 
-DA
 








 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   4/20/2009 3:49:46 PM
Its based on politics and the prejudices of some vwery incompetent people who don't read their own threat reports.
 
Your pont IS?  Most defense budgets/programs are based on politics and prejudices...you have a phobia about the PRC.  It drives YOUR analyses of defense programs.  Gates has his 'philia's and 'phobia's, too....
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 3:53:28 PM

---JFKY---You keep dreaming that Sebelius or Gates or Geitner work for YOU, directly...when of course even the Constitution says they work for the POTUS.---

Apparently you lack the ability or the desire to read and understand what I have said (as is evident by the fact you either just LIED or misrepresented what I have said no less than three times in plain English).

If you wish to continue spouting nonsense and silliness due to your own inability to understand something so simple, go right ahead boyo.

I have already presented the truth of the matter; the fact of the matter and the simple reasoning behind it.

Your inability to recognize this and correct your own faults is not my concern; I am not here to do the job your teachers failed to do.

My stature in life is not affected either way by your ignorance; willful or otherwise.

The fact that you cannot wrap your mind around something so simple that the employer is the employer of all of his employees even those who have other employees under their delegated authority speaks to your own short comings.
 
Obama answers to THE PEOPLE (ME) via a whole slew of Constitutional mechanisms. If enough citizens want Gates gone; Obama will replace him (as has occurred in the past).

If not, Obama very well could be replaced himself (by more than one method). Just because it is not done over night with a fax machine does not mean it cannot be done.

That is the beauty of our government and the Constitution that frames that government:  all of the rats answer to the PEOPLE.   Perhaps you should acquire an education on the matter before proceeding further.

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 3:56:54 PM
Why can't we just buy new, upgraded F-15's then and not buy ANY F-22's?  Why is it that the F-22 is necessary, but a 30 y.o air frame is "good enough" for the F-16...I say if we can just keep turning out F-16's new and upgraded; then we can do the same with the F-15 and delete  the need for the F-22, as well.
 
Strike and air dominance are not equivalent.  An F-16 Block 60 provides all the capabilities that we need in a strike fighter.  An F-15SE does not provide all of the capabilities we need in an air dominance fighter.
 
Sure you want to damage the Navy...when you zero out the R&D for the USS Ford, you effectively CANCEL the USS Ford...so you kill the Navy of tomorrow for the USAF of today...now that may or may not be good policy, but please at least accept that this what the results of your policy decision would be. 
 
That was kind of the point, yes.  As I said, I understand the benefits of the new systems on the Ford class.  Are they worth having?  Sure.  Are they worth having at the vast cost that we seem to be paying for them in this economic climate?  That is not at all clear.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/20/2009 4:16:57 PM
ALL the RAT'S don't answer to the people...or have you forgotten or not heard of the Federal Civil Service?
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Phaid   4/20/2009 4:21:30 PM
The same can be said of the F-22....
 
And why not new F-15's?  Is there an air force out there that can take the USAF AND it's allies, now or the near future?
 
By your argument we could take a procurement holiday from the F-22 as well...it provides an increase, yes, but an increase commensurate with its costs?  In this economic climate?
 
And 400 is just right out of the question, the question is it ~250 or 187, it was NEVER 400.
 
And you seem quite willing to screw the USMC, the Navy, the RAAF, the RAF and the FAA and a number of other allies who have signed onto the JSF Program....I've got to say I'm glad you AREN'T SecDef...
 
Because you want an unreasonable number of F-22's and are quite willing to sacrifice quite a bit, of others people's time, talent and treasure to get it....
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 4:24:58 PM
Where did I say that?  My point is that the Ford class is vastly more expensive than the current-build Nimitz and it is not at all clear that the Ford class improvements are needed.  Yes, the Fords will be superior in some ways.  Does that superiority justify its massive cost?  It isn't as though the Navy would be unable to carry out its missions if we kept building more ships like the G.W. Bush instead of the new design.

Apples and Oranges. The USN need to replace Carriers and buying F-22s are two different things. For you to make this argument, you would need to list in detail the cost of going to the Ford Class vs the staying with the Nimitz to include modernization and also show the differences in capability. Can you do that?

Why is anything apples and oranges?  It is all in the defense budget.
 
As far as capability and cost, it's simple enough to compare the cost of the G.H.W Bush to the R&D + acquisition of the Ford and the followon Ford class.  The George Bush cost about $5 Billion, the Ford $5 billion in R&D +  $9 billion in acquisition.  Is a Ford three times as capable as the George Bush?

We need large numbers of new, up to date tactical fighters.  Block 60 F-16s, a far cry from the "30-plus y.o. air frame" of the F-16, are perfectly suited to most of our current tactical aviation needs.  They have the range, the systems, the payload, and are among the most available and maintainable airframes anywhere.  And they are in production and cheap.

This is almost entirely untrue. How much is a Block 60 F-16? How much is it's Operations cost? How much more support does an F-16 need to attack in denied airspace vs an F-35? How would canceling the F-35 affect the fighter market and relationships with allies who are dependent on it? Would F-16s give the same capability as the F-35? Such as the UK requirement for super sonic VTOL to operate off carriers? Or the LO capability of the F-35? Can you address this?

Block 60 F-16s have a flyaway cost of about $30 million.  The F-35's will be somewhere between 60 and 100 million depending on who you ask.  I've already posted GAO studies showing the operational cost of the F-35 will be more per flight hour than the F-16's.
 
The stuff about other countries really is irrelevant, as I've said already there is no guarantee that even if the project goes forward anyone but us will buy it.  We don't need a supersonic V/STOL and we don't need 2,400 stealthy tactical fighters.
 
We also need a new air superiority fleet that can ensure our air dominance, and we need a sizeable number of stealthy strike platforms.  The F-22 meets both of those requirements today.  The F-15 meets neither.

Yes. And the CoS said that 187 is the max number if we want to keep balance with other needs. The F-15 does meet the need of strike and air dominance as well and can now be had in LO version.
 
The CoS also said 187 F-22s did not meet the military requirement.  The F-15 does not meet the needs of future air dominance, the availability of a less-observable (the idea that it is truly LO is laughable) does not change that, and nobody is contemplating the USAF buy new-build F-15s anyway.

If we bought large numbers of new-build F-16s and brought the number of F-22s up to about 400, we would spend vastly less than we will on the F-35, while being able to meet all of our realistic needs for the foreseeable future.

Show how this will cost less and provide the same or better capability?
 
It is clear that it will cost less; as I said above the F-16 costs far less than the F-35, and costs less to operate.  The F-22 currently has a flyaway cost of about $130 million, which would decrease to $110 million or less if the number purchased rose to 400.  And that's just procurement costs, never mind the savings an F-22 + F-16 fleet realizes due to efficiencies:
 
- Eliminating the F-15A-C fleet early, thus simplifying logistics
- Taking advantage of the established F-16 logistics, training, basing, and other well established infrastructure
- Reducing the number of tactical fighter types to 5 (A-10, F-15E, F-16, F-22) instead of 6 (the preceding + the F-35)
 
As far as capability, the force as a whole would be just as capable of facing near-peer threats.  It would still be a modern, networked, AESA-equipped fleet, but with a larger number of F-22s to do the first day of war strikes against the most heavily defended targets.  More to the point, it would be a more capable force in dealing with the current types of wars we are fighting, because F-16s are cheaper to operate than F-35s. 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY       4/20/2009 4:27:01 PM

The Secretary of Defense serves at the discretion of the President of the United States who serves at the discretion of the people of the United States of America.

Ergo the Secretary of Defense-s boss is Obama. His boss is ME, you and Herald. Therefore, he serves the PEOPLE.
 
I haven't misstated or lied about you in ANY way...you claim you are Gates' boss because you elect Obama, and I simply point out that neither in reality nor technically is that true...
 
You're not, Jane Hamsher's not....Markos Moulitsas is not...Obama IS...Gates executes the will of Obma, not eh will of the American People.  As it should be...and that assumes that the American "People" have a will or an interest...which I don't believe they do, BTW.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 4:38:49 PM

Strike and air dominance are not equivalent.  An F-16 Block 60 provides all the capabilities that we need in a strike fighter.  An F-15SE does not provide all of the capabilities we need in an air dominance fighter.

What does it lack?


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/20/2009 4:57:01 PM

ALL the RAT'S don't answer to the people...or have you forgotten or not heard of the Federal Civil Service?

No I haven't. Have you forgotten who has authority over them, JFKY?
 
Hint: Article 1, Section 8.
 
Herald
 
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