The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

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


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
Phaid       4/20/2009 5:04:38 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?

The F-15 lacks any significant advantage over its late-4th-generation competitors.  It might be qualitatively better in some areas (radar), worse in others (instantaneous turn rate), equal in yet others, but it is not really superior.  It is not really at any advantage in BVR (and depending on the opponent might be at a disadvantage given its radar signature) and it is probably at a draw in WVR due to the proliferation of HOBS missiles.  In order to win against a near-peer foe, it relies on a superior support environment (AEW support when the other guy doesn't have it), and on numerical superiority.  We can't really guarantee either in a decade.
 
The F-22 breaks out of that zero sum game cycle by changing the rules.  You can't track it in BVR and its supercruise gives it a massive advantage in setting the terms of engagement.  It may or may not be any better than anything else in WVR but that doesn't matter because it can choose never to go there.
 
Moreover the F-22 can operate at will in high SAM threat envelopes, and it has ESM sensors that make it an ideal SEAD platforms even while carrying simple GPS-guided munitions.  The F-15 is not a SEAD platform at all.
 
All of which means that the F-22 can perform the entire spectrum of OCA missions in the near future, while the F-15 cannot.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/20/2009 5:10:48 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....


My point is:
-that Gates is an apparatchik 
- a certain poswter'ssanalysis is based on BHO worship and not any serious consideration of the numbers or the threat
-that furthermore he lacks the knowledge base and the objectivity as well as the intellect to pull together a credxible case of anaylsis based on original thought.
-my personal hatred of the Brijing regoime does not cliud the threrat anay;lis I pulled tigether in this thread nor does it have anything to do with your own nbasic misunderstandfing of the faulty numbers, tech assessments, or political calculations involved.
-your blindness (boith of you) toi the lies and chicanery involved that you try to defend is downright hilarious.
 
You honestly think that Gates is telling the truth when he seeks to "reorient" and reform the procurement process?
 
As I pointed o0ut with coincrete examples (Navy PEO), it is well within hos power as SecDef to reform if he wanted to. But he lacks the guts and the honest convictions to change business as ussual
 
So retire your emtional arguments and try to argue the merits.BY THE NUMBERS wjjhy you think thois dead onh arrival proposal is going to change anything for the positive?
 
Jusat like the pother poster doesn't have the credentialds to argues the ,merits of robotics or airpower I now challenge you to guarantee that this pack of lies is not going to shift us into a Peacekeeping and useless warfighting force a la Jimmy Carter as we had when we were almost globally defeated in 1978?
 
Show me YOUR analysis. I've showed mine. Funny nobody else has even tried, isn't it? 
 
By the numbers.
 
Herald


 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/20/2009 5:11:24 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.


 









It doesn't get much simpler than that.
 
JFKY if I had a dollar for everytime I posted a legitimate question and you twisted it around by implying all I want to do is hurt the other services to help the Air Force I could by enough Raptors myself. I would like you to tell me why another Nimitz class carrier under the name of Gerald R. Ford would not provide more than overmatch capability for all of the Navy's FUTURE needs. We better hope so because the last Nimitz class isn't due to come out of service until 2058. Also in the event that the F-15 develops a severe problem 5 years from now and has to be grounded what is your solution for maintaining air dominance. I also want you to tell me what the F-35 offers over a block 60 F-16 in a strike package. Any LO advantage will be lost due to exterior stores. Even clean with no AAM's A and C can only accomodate 4,000lbs internally and B only 2000lbs. Does that justify a trillion dollars? The F-22 can also carry 2000lbs internally so what have you really gained? And please stop acting like major weapons programs have never been cancelled either during r&d or low rate production, I named 5 or 6 just in last 25 years, not to mention the ARH program that was cancelled twice at a cost of over 13 billion with absolutley nothing to show for it except a neat looking stealthy prototype. So when you can prove to me that these cost overruns are necessary when there are already capable platforms in production I will listen, until then keep avoiding the context of the actual question by blowing smoke up my ass.
 
By the way wasn't the F-35 supposed to be the affordable replacement for all these other ineffective aircraft? Guaranteed flyaway cost is over 100 million. DOD buying 2500 is about as realistic as us agreeing how many F-22's are needed
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Phaid Rely   4/20/2009 5:13:32 PM
Description
The CVN 21 Program is the future aircraft carrier replacement program for USS Enterprise and CVN 68-Class aircraft carriers. Centerpiece of the Sea Strike Pillar, and integral to Sea Shield and Sea Basing, Gerald Ford Class will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. Gerald Ford Class and the Carrier Strike Group will provide forward presence, rapid response, endurance on station, and multi-mission capability. Gerald Ford Class balances improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our Sailors and reduced acquisition and life cycle costs.
 
Features
Starting with the lead ship, Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the new Class features a multitude of improvements over existing aircraft carriers all designed to improve the combat capability of our carrier fleet while simultaneously reducing acquisition and life cycle costs.
Major improvements include:
  • CVN 78 Warfighting Capability Improvements:
    • 25 percent increase in sortie generation rate
    • Nearly 3 fold increase in electrical generating capacity
    • Increased operational availability
    • Survivability improvements
    • Integrated Warfare System
    • Restoration of Service Life Allowances
  • CVN 78 Quality of Life Improvements
    • Improved Work Spaces, Berthing, Sanitary Facilities
    • Improved Food Service Operations
    • Increased Air Conditioning Capacity
    • Increased Training Capabilities
  • CVN 78 Cost Reductions
    • Over $300 million reduction in procurement costs
    • Over $5 billion reduction in Life Cycle Costs
    • 1000-1200 billet reductions (ships crew and air wing)

New Technologies include:

  • New propulsion plant design that includes a 50 percent reduction in the number of personnel required for plant operation and maintenance.
  • Electromagnetic Catapults and Advanced Arresting Gear that support future airwing configurations including unmanned air vehicles.
  • Improvements in weapons and material handling designed to more efficiently move ordnance and material around the ship in support of flight operations.
  • Improved and enlarged flight deck to support a 25 percent increase in Sortie Generation Rate.
  • New smaller Island designed to accommodate the Dual Band Radar (DBR) developed by the DDG 1000 program.
  • New Integrated Warfare System including flexible ship infrastructure design improvements to support future mission adaptability and flexibility.

Development and Design Costs
The non-recurring investment in the design and development of the Gerald Ford Class is $5.6B. This is comprised of $3.2B in RDT&E funds used to develop technologies needed to meet program requirements and $2.4B of SCN funds used to develop the detail design for the class. 

Construction Costs
The total cost to build the lead ship is $8.1B in FY08 dollars. The Navy expects to award the CVN 78 construction contract in FY08 with an expected delivery in FY15. 

Total Ownership Costs
Each ship in the new class will save $5.3B in total ownership costs over its 50 year service life, compared to the CVN 68-class. Half of the total ownership cost for an aircraft carrier is allocated to the direct and indirect costs of manpower for operations and maintenance of the ship. The CVN 78 is being designed to operate effectively with 800 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship. Improvements in the ship design will allow the embarked air wing to operate with 400 fewer personnel. Technologies and ship design initiatives that replace maintenance intensive systems with low maintenance systems are expected to reduce watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew. For comparison, the total ownership cost for a CVN 68-Class ship is $32.1B in FY 04 constant year dollars, and the total ownership cost for CVN 78 is expected to be $26.8B. 



Thats About 6 billion in savings in FY09 dollars. Or 40 F-22's per Ford class CVN using the Fly away cost.  But that does even get into the 25% increase in sorties over CVN-68. Thats something like 250 strike sorties per day. So I think Phaid you really don't want to measure the value of 60 or 213 F-22's against Ford Class.

-DA 

d
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 5:26:13 PM
Development and Design Costs
The non-recurring investment in the design and development of the Gerald Ford Class is $5.6B. This is comprised of $3.2B in RDT&E funds used to develop technologies needed to meet program requirements and $2.4B of SCN funds used to develop the detail design for the class. 

Construction Costs
The total cost to build the lead ship is $8.1B in FY08 dollars. The Navy expects to award the CVN 78 construction contract in FY08 with an expected delivery in FY15.
 
That's a nice, optimistic brochure you copy pasted there.  Let's see how the numbers look when and if the problems with EMALS get fixed and development finishes on all the other unproven technology that carrier depends on.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Have you ever noticed Phaid   4/20/2009 5:29:15 PM
How the incompetent never include the LOGISTICS TAIL of a  naval task force
 
-like the Tico
-the two Arleighs
-the Sacramento
-the Los Angeles or the Virginia
-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?
 
Sixty F-22s versus a Ford.
 
Apples and rocks again.
 
One equipped USAF base versus a Navy task force.is the proper comparison.
 
This is what I mean by incompetent and someone who is not ton be taken seriously in his pronouncements.
 
He fails when he ventures into analysis, most of the time.
 
Herald  


 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/20/2009 5:39:15 PM














Description

The CVN 21 Program is the future aircraft carrier replacement program for USS Enterprise and CVN 68-Class aircraft carriers. Centerpiece of the Sea Strike Pillar, and integral to Sea Shield and Sea Basing, Gerald Ford Class will be the premier forward asset for crisis response and early decisive striking power in a major combat operation. Gerald Ford Class and the Carrier Strike Group will provide forward presence, rapid response, endurance on station, and multi-mission capability. Gerald Ford Class balances improved warfighting capability, quality of life improvements for our Sailors and reduced acquisition and life cycle costs.
 
Features

Starting with the lead ship, Gerald R. Ford (CVN 78), the new Class features a multitude of improvements over existing aircraft carriers all designed to improve the combat capability of our carrier fleet while simultaneously reducing acquisition and life cycle costs.

Major improvements include:


  • CVN 78 Warfighting Capability Improvements:

    • 25 percent increase in sortie generation rate
    • Nearly 3 fold increase in electrical generating capacity
    • Increased operational availability
    • Survivability improvements
    • Integrated Warfare System
    • Restoration of Service Life Allowances

  • CVN 78 Quality of Life Improvements

    • Improved Work Spaces, Berthing, Sanitary Facilities
    • Improved Food Service Operations
    • Increased Air Conditioning Capacity
    • Increased Training Capabilities

  • CVN 78 Cost Reductions

    • Over $300 million reduction in procurement costs
    • Over $5 billion reduction in Life Cycle Costs
    • 1000-1200 billet reductions (ships crew and air wing)


New Technologies include:



  • New propulsion plant design that includes a 50 percent reduction in the number of personnel required for plant operation and maintenance.


  • Electromagnetic Catapults and Advanced Arresting Gear that support future airwing configurations including unmanned air vehicles.


  • Improvements in weapons and material handling designed to more efficiently move ordnance and material around the ship in support of flight operations.


  • Improved and enlarged flight deck to support a 25 percent increase in Sortie Generation Rate.


  • New smaller Island designed to accommodate the Dual Band Radar (DBR) developed by the DDG 1000 program.


  • New Integrated Warfare System including flexible ship infrastructure design improvements to support future mission adaptability and flexibility.



Development and Design Costs

The non-recurring investment in the design and development of the Gerald Ford Class is $5.6B. This is comprised of $3.2B in RDT&E funds used to develop technologies needed to meet program requirements and $2.4B of SCN funds used to develop the detail design for the class. 



Construction Costs

The total cost to build the lead ship is $8.1B in FY08 dollars. The Navy expects to award the CVN 78 construction contract in FY08 with an expected delivery in FY15. 



Total Ownership Costs

Each ship in the new class will save $5.3B in total ownership costs over its 50 year service life, compared to the CVN 68-class. Half of the total ownership cost for an aircraft carrier is allocated to the direct and indirect costs of manpower for operations and maintenance of the ship. The CVN 78 is being designed to operate effectively with 800 fewer crew members than a CVN 68-class ship. Improvements in the ship design will allow the embarked air wing to operate with 400 fewer personnel. Technologies and ship design initiatives that replace maintenance intensive systems with low maintenance systems are expected to reduce watch standing and maintenance workload for the crew. For comparison, the total ownership cost for a CVN 68-Class ship is $32.1B in FY 04 constant year dollars, and the total ownership cost for CVN 78 is expected to be $26.8B. 














Thats About 6 billion in savings in FY09 dollars. Or 40 F-22's per Ford class CVN using the Fly away cost.  But that does even get into the 25% increase in sorties over CVN-68. Thats something like 250 strike sorties per day. So I think Phaid you really don't want to measure the value of 60 or 213 F-22's against Ford Class.




-DA 




d




All that and DOD gets to save about .02% based on a 550 billion budget or 106 million a year.
A 2009 report said that the Ford would cost $14 billion including research and development, and the actual cost of the carrier itself would be $9 billion.[5]
So an extra 5 billion up front for r&d. Finished cost is always higher than quoted, plan on 10billion in 2015, 12 billion in 2020 and so on. The 5.3 billion in ownership costs over 50 years just took a serious dump.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 5:42:46 PM

Development and Design Costs

The non-recurring investment in the design and development of the Gerald Ford Class is $5.6B. This is comprised of $3.2B in RDT&E funds used to develop technologies needed to meet program requirements and $2.4B of SCN funds used to develop the detail design for the class. 



Construction Costs


The total cost to build the lead ship is $8.1B in FY08 dollars. The Navy expects to award the CVN 78 construction contract in FY08 with an expected delivery in FY15.


 

That's a nice, optimistic brochure you copy pasted there.  Let's see how the numbers look when and if the problems with EMALS get fixed and development finishes on all the other unproven technology that carrier depends on.
 
 
 

It is nice. And there is no reason to think it wont meet it's design goals. The F-22 did...eventually. The bottom line is the Aircraft Carrier is a system. Its going to provide many times more capability than any single platform. You cannot compare it to the F-22 for obvious reasons. Never the less, I just showed you the cost savings with the Ford class. 40 new Raptors per ship if we replace the CVN-68 with CVN-78. I didn't just use procurement cost. I used Unit lifetime cost. TOTALS. You haven't done that. Try it with the F-16 vs F-35 and see what you come up with. But like I did, include the increases in capability. Phaid, you can't and we both know that. If anything, you should be lobbying for Ford Class because it could buy your 60 extra Raptors plus in just two hulls with spare change left over and a single pair of them give 500 to 600 strike sorties per day compared to 400 for two CVN-68s. 

So lets see, Taiwan and PRC go to war in 2020. A pair of CVN-78's and the 60 Raptors they paid for with savings could deploy to assist and give you up to 600 NAVAIR and 120 F-22 sorties in support. Thats an astonishing amount of firepower to add to the ROC own capability. Plus the extra power generation capacity of the CVN-78 might be able to power the Naval FEL that will be needed to zap all those DF-21's out of the sky. This doesn't include unmanned strike sorties from TLAMS and other assets like B-52/B-1/B-2 and unmanned assets such as Reaper and Avenger or other UCAV. The mere purchase of 60 F-22's would cost all of that immediately NOT including the operational life cycle cost. Think about that, 200 less sorties a day.

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    THE ONLY INCOMPETENT IS HERALD   4/20/2009 5:53:41 PM

How the incompetent never include the LOGISTICS TAIL of a  naval task force

 

-like the Tico
-the two Arleighs 
-the Sacramento
-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 
-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?
 
Sixty F-22s versus a Ford.

Apples and rocks again.

One equipped USAF base versus a Navy task force.is the proper comparison.

This is what I mean by incompetent and someone who is not ton be taken seriously in his pronouncements.

He fails when he ventures into analysis, most of the time.

Herald  




Once again creating his own strawman argument. I'm discussing the cost savings of the CVN-78 over the CVN-68 where savings over the life are clear at about 6 billion if we replace CVN-68 with CVN-78. This incompetent is now building the strawman of logistics tails without regard to the fact that these are also going to be required for ANY CARRIER. Unless Herald is suggesting that CVN-68 doesn't also require:
 -like the Tico
-the two Arleighs 
-the Sacramento
-the Los Angeles or the Virginia 
-plus the sixty or so aircraft and the bombs and rockets that the Ford Class have to carry?


I'm sure glad I'm the voice of reason and not obsessed with a platform. Herald obviously thinks the Ford Class will simply increase that Carrier fleet numbers and USS Enterprise and the Oldest Nimitz class will remain inservice indefinitely. And he has the nerve to call a person incompetent? LOL



-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 6:03:17 PM

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

 I gather that your experience is limited to Google on this matter.   

 

Do you think a Government job that exists today, that did not exist 200 years ago, cannot disappear legally?   

 

Furthermore; bureaucrats GS14 (not in the Senior Executive Service) and lower are routinely railroaded for political purposes (quite legally I might add) and the methods, instituted by Congress, are quite effective (albeit slow) although named appropriated to preserve some semblance of employer equity.

 

Hell, you do not need to fire a bureaucrat to force him out.   Give him or her poor performance evaluations, ship him off to another bureau, RIF his or her job description, etc.

 

---JFKY-- I haven't misstated or lied about you in ANY way...---

 

Your own words paint a different picture boyo.

---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---

The statement above is either a LIE or a misrepresentation of what I have said.   Pick.  Crack open the Constitution of the United States for further clerification.

 

---JFKY-- you claim you are Gates' boss because you elect Obama, and I simply point out that neither in reality nor technically is that true...---


The people of this country can have Gates removed from office if they disapprove of his methods/actions/etc.

 

Do you disagree or agree with this statement?

 

 ---JFKY-- 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.---

 

Credit goes to Herald for saying this first (not that I could say it better):

--- I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

We have no fuhrer principle in this nation nor king either.

 

And who is the basis of the Constitution?

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. ---

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 6:08:47 PM
Never the less, I just showed you the cost savings with the Ford class. 40 new Raptors per ship if we replace the CVN-68 with CVN-78.
 
No, you showed potential cost savings if everything works as promised, based on promises made before development even started.  I can show you great brochures about DDG-1000 too, and we see where that wound up.
 
I didn't just use procurement cost. I used Unit lifetime cost. TOTALS. You haven't done that. Try it with the F-16 vs F-35 and see what you come up with.
 
I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
But like I did, include the increases in capability. Phaid, you can't and we both know that. If anything, you should be lobbying for Ford Class because it could buy your 60 extra Raptors plus in just two hulls with spare change left over and a single pair of them give 500 to 600 strike sorties per day compared to 400 for two CVN-68s.
 
That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.
 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 6:23:18 PM

No, you showed potential cost savings if everything works as promised, based on promises made before development even started.  I can show you great brochures about DDG-1000 too, and we see where that wound up.

Half full half empty? You have no data to disprove the savings of the Ford and you have no data supporting additional F-22s. 
 

 

I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
No, you didn't. No it isn't. Try to make this case and see for yourself. 


 

That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.


Thats a false statement. Fighter programs can last 50 years. Look at the F-15/16. Look at the BUFF. Aircraft programs last a long time.

 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.

Or you can save 13 billion right away by not buying irrelevant air dominance fighters that we have enough of given the realities of todays threats. Phaid, I'm still waiting for just one coherent argument that shows the current number to not be enough and that our ability to win a conflict is predicated on us having either 60 more airframes, the 400 total you want compared to the 187 we will get. Just one.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 6:46:35 PM
I already did.  The F-16 costs less to acquire and less to operate. The picture gets worse over time for the F-35, not better.
 
No, you didn't. No it isn't. Try to make this case and see for yourself. 

I'm not sure how many different ways I can say it. From the latest GAO report on the JSF:
The program also makes unprecedented demands for funding from the defense budget—an annual average of about $11 billion for the next two decades—and must compete with other defense and non-defense priorities for the shrinking federal discretionary dollar. Further, informed by more knowledge as the program progresses, DOD doubled its projection of JSF life-cycle operating and support costs compared to last year?s estimate and its expected cost per flight hour now exceeds that of the F-16 legacy fighter it is intended to replace. With almost 90 percent (in terms of dollars) of the acquisition program still ahead, it is important to address these challenges, effectively manage future risks, and move forward with a successful program that meets our and our allies? needs.
Beyond that, as I said before the F-35's flyaway cost is higher than the latest block F-16's, and that doesn't even start to factor in the massive R&D cost of the F-35 program which we still have to pay for.
 
That's not a reasonable statement to make; you're talking about a (optimistic, projected) 5 billion dollar savings spread out over 50 years -- a span of time that exceeds the lifetime of any fighter aircraft. And note that even if those numbers turn out to be true, when you factor in the R&D expense and the increased acquisition cost, you have to buy three CVN-78s just to break even compared to sticking with the Nimitz design -- and that breaking even takes 50 years.

Thats a false statement. Fighter programs can last 50 years. Look at the F-15/16. Look at the BUFF. Aircraft programs last a long time.

Saving $100 million a year (after the 4th ship) over 50 years does not in any way equate to buying 40 more Raptors in the next 2-5 years.
 
But, again, comparing the total life cycle costs of a carrier to a fighter plane is pretty meaningless given the difference in time scale.  And you can easily save $100 million per year (your 5 billion over 50 years) by doing intelligent things like operating fewer types of aircraft, closing a couple of bases, or any other basically noise-level increase in efficiency.

Or you can save 13 billion right away by not buying irrelevant air dominance fighters that we have enough of given the realities of todays threats. Phaid, I'm still waiting for just one coherent argument that shows the current number to not be enough and that our ability to win a conflict is predicated on us having either 60 more airframes, the 400 total you want compared to the 187 we will get. Just one.
 
There have been plenty of perfectly coherent arguments made in favor of both continuing to build 20 F-22s a year for 3 more years, and of ditching the F-35 and building a total of 400 F-22s and a fleet of F-16s instead.  The fact that you choose to ignore them in favor of appeals to authority based on policy statements from politicians does not make them any less valid.
 
It's interesting the way you keep changing the goal posts, though: when it's convenient (arguing for CVN-78, arguing for the JSF) we have to worry about near-peer competitors, generating high sortie rates, and having an all-VLO air fleet.  But when it comes to just specifically the F-22, near-peer competitors are irrelevant and all you can say is that it isn't useful against an insurgency.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy   4/20/2009 6:57:58 PM
The people of this country can have Gates removed from office if they disapprove of his methods/actions/etc.

 

Do you disagree or agree with this statement?
 
Uh No they can't....You like the US Constitution so much, just whip that bad boy out and point out to me where YOU, the PEOPLE, can replace ole' Bob Gates...I'll wait while you look.
 
Your oath of office is NICE, dude/dudette.  but you are ALSO bound to follow the lawful orders of your superiors.  And the presumption IS that your superiors orders ARE lawful...try dodging out of Iraq because its illegal, or Kosovo or Bosnia because you swore an oath to the United States, not the UN....So your ability to rely on the Constitution to bolster your position is limited.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/20/2009 7:10:55 PM

---JFKY---Uh No they can't....----

 

So the people cannot elect a man other than Obama who chooses to fire Gates?
 
That is ONE method.  There are many more.

 

Thank you for demonstrating that you have ZERO working knowledge of the United States Constitution boyo.

 
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