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

Herald12345    GF    4/14/2009 11:36:04 PM
Expect an e-mail in a couple of hours.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       4/14/2009 11:56:54 PM

Expect an e-mail in a couple of hours.

 

Herald


send private if urgent as offsite
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Your Article of April 13   4/15/2009 1:29:31 AM
I'm merely commenting on your article dated two days ago that states the USAF is "revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based it's assessment."  If you want to state they have made any analysis this is not the case based on your citation.  If you or anyone has any citation of any analysis done I would love to see it.
 
In fact there are other citations on this thread that state Sec Def ordered USAF senior personnel to not comment on the issue.  There has been no evidence presented showing the USAF or Defense Dept has any analysis or study showing 187 is enough or the risks of relying on F-15C for 20 more years and a ton of evidence available in the public domain that casts serious doubt on that airframe making it that long.
 
OSD ordered the F-22 cut entirely to budget considerations.  It was certainly not done after a comprehensive risk analysis as there is no evidence of the existence of this study.  The article you cited supports the cut was budget driven.
 
There will be hearings on this matter and you can be sure if there is any analysis on minimum numbers of F-22s, risks of relying on F-15Cs 20 more years, and risks of having no air superiority fighter production line up and running and available if needed that they will be cited by the Administration.  If you or anyone else can cite them now great please do so and if not please stop assuming or stating they have been done.
 
Exactly what happens if the F-15C fleet can't last 20 years needs to be known now.  Are we going to keep the F-15 line up?  What other airframe might we purchase?  I'm not interested in speculation but rather the official USAF and OSD position on what happens if so many F-15s fall apart in mid air in say 10 years that a replacement is required immediately.
 
This in fact was the number one concern of the former head of the USAF in public testimony to Congress a few years ago.
 
This leaves aside little notions of having zero reserve even given 187 is just enough.  Were one to stipulate that 187 is just enough it's worth pointing out that having no reserve, and no production line, means little things like mother nature, sabotage, attrition, etc. can reduce your number far enough below 187 to be a serious problem.  In fact if 187 is just enough one might inquire as to why a reserve is not required given there will be no production line for any air superiority fighter whatsoever and thus no reserve means many years of possible vulnerability.  This further leaves aside the F-22 being found essential in other mission areas and little things like potential conflicts or other factors significantly increasing projected flight hours.  No reserve indeed.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/15/2009 1:40:40 AM
LB,

 you say you don't want speculation, but you're speculating yourself. There is no evidence that suggests the F-15 fleet will fall apart. In fact the United States Air Force stated that the fleet is liable to 2025 at least I will conduct phased retirement of older airframes. Let's not forget the joint strike fighter will be in full production, is multimission capable and is more than a match for any other aircraft besides the F-22 in production today or are likely to enter production prior to 2025.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Is that so?   4/15/2009 2:22:13 AM

LB,




 you say you don't want speculation, but you're speculating yourself. There is no evidence that suggests the F-15 fleet will fall apart. In fact the United States Air Force stated that the fleet is liable to 2025 at least I will conduct phased retirement of older airframes. Let's not forget the joint strike fighter will be in full production, is multimission capable and is more than a match for any other aircraft besides the F-22 in production today or are likely to enter production prior to 2025.




-DA 
Didn't read any of the open source evidence posted?

Shrug, and some ask why I don't take them seriously at all.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/15/2009 2:57:52 AM




LB,










 you say you don't want speculation, but you're speculating yourself. There is no evidence that suggests the F-15 fleet will fall apart. In fact the United States Air Force stated that the fleet is liable to 2025 at least I will conduct phased retirement of older airframes. Let's not forget the joint strike fighter will be in full production, is multimission capable and is more than a match for any other aircraft besides the F-22 in production today or are likely to enter production prior to 2025.










-DA 


Didn't read any of the open source evidence posted?




Shrug, and some ask why I don't take them seriously at all.

 

Herald



Who cares. Accept that you are nothing more than a guy with an opinion. No one here is looking for your approval. When you can support your ego with a real supported opinion actually directed at the topic, I'll care what you have to say.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/15/2009 9:48:25 AM
I regard the last post the poster posted  as a continuation of his well established pattern. I note it and point out that it oios o0ff topic as much of his last poists have been. As are most personality driven posts.
 
I have to ask what it has to do with the decision about the F-22, but then he's long since left that boundary condition, being reduced to a conflict of personalities instead of addressing the issue of the competency of evicence and presentation.
 
Shrug.
 
He's not on point and he is no longer relevant to the thesis proof.
 
Anyone else here want to try to defend Gates on the merits or are done with this?
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    No Evidence of Problems with F-15s   4/15/2009 9:53:22 AM
I do not agree that I am "speculating" on F-15 problems.  You might look at the threads on this board dated 2/14/08, 3/25/08, 1/11/08, 1/09/08 or the myriad news articles elsewhere.  Furthermore, it's simply a fact that as airframes age new problems are discovered.  If you want to cite a study that shows the remaining F-15Cs can last another 20 years great please do so. 
 
Your reply that F-35s could be used to replace F-15s is rather problematic given the F-35 is not nor is designed to be an air superiority fighter.  Leaving aside all the reasons the F-22 is far superior air to air (supercruise, greater stealth, etc.) the capacity of the F-35 to carry internal air to air missiles is 2.  The launch rail is on the inner door of each bay.  The UK originally wanted 4 air to air missiles carried internally and as reported by Jane's on March 4 2008 it will carry only 2 because there are only 2 launch rails.  If someone wants to speculate that one day an F-35 can carry more than 2 air to air weapons internally great please cite your source for this being worked on.
 
In fact the normal operating condition for the F-35 appears to be carrying external weapons at least according to Jane's and the other dozen public sources I've looked at right now after google of 'F-35 internal bay'.
 
Frankly either the F-35 can perform the role of air superiority fighter or it can not.  If it can then there is some level of insurance against the small buy of F-22s and the shutting down of the production line.  If it can not then there is no such insurance.  Furthermore, your comment that the F-35 will be available would seem to indicate you agree there is some level or risk to manage.
 
 
 
LB,




 you say you don't want speculation, but you're speculating yourself. There is no evidence that suggests the F-15 fleet will fall apart. In fact the United States Air Force stated that the fleet is liable to 2025 at least I will conduct phased retirement of older airframes. Let's not forget the joint strike fighter will be in full production, is multimission capable and is more than a match for any other aircraft besides the F-22 in production today or are likely to enter production prior to 2025.




-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/15/2009 10:27:17 AM
LB,

I agree there are problems with some of the older F-15C's. The Much newer F-15E's and the F-15C's that are in good shape are referred to as Golden Eagles. They are scheduled to last until 2025 in sufficient numbers to maintain a credible force along with the F-22's we do have. Look into GOLDEN EAGLE.

The idea that 60 fewer F-22's produced threatening our capability to maintain air superiority does not stand up to scrutiny. The threat does not justify that number.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/15/2009 10:33:09 AM
Also, the F-35 is not designed to fight the F-22. So a comparison of the two is not relevant. It's designed to fight threat aircraft and it is more than a match for any of them. With regard to numbers of air to air weapons. You show why you think it doesn't have enough. Also, read around a bit on your own. There are numerous threads and OSINT with industry officials discussion the F-35 carrying various internal a2a loads. Its not that it can't. It's just that there is no urgency. Notice the Pirates and Taliban do not have an "Air Force" so to speak.

When the old thinking dies off and as people who do understand the threat continue to rise, promote and take over, the nature of these debates and defense reporting will change away from this "Cold War" type of analysis because it is no longer relevant.

-DA 
 
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