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
VelocityVector    Phaid   4/20/2009 7:28:38 PM

ditching the F-35

What's your plan for Navy if F-35 is culled?  Rely on Air Force though land bases may not be available, or send F-22 over long distances with tankerage?  Or is Navy/Marines fixed wing aviation unimportant to a Straits invasion scenario? (you I suspect would reject continuing to operate Harrier from short decks).  Curious.

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/20/2009 7:49:47 PM

ditching the F-35

What's your plan for Navy if F-35 is culled?  Rely on Air Force though land bases may not be available, or send F-22 over long distances with tankerage?  Or is Navy/Marines fixed wing aviation unimportant to a Straits invasion scenario? (you I suspect would reject continuing to operate Harrier from short decks).  Curious.


The Navy has a perfectly good late-4th-generation fighter in current production, and the F-35 doesn't really bring a whole lot to the table from a naval aviation perspective that the Super Hornet doesn't bring now or that a Block 3 version of the Super Hornet couldn't for a lot less money.
 
And yeah, I am not a big proponent of V/STOL from our short decks.  It's an expensive and pretty much pointless capability.  Marine fixed wing aviation mostly operates from CVNs and land bases, where V/STOL is useless.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 7:57:33 PM

 

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.





No one is moving goal post. The F-35 is a lot cheaper than the F-16 Blk anything.

Its at least 4 times as effective in a2a compared to any legacy fighter, 8 times more effective in a2g missions. Its SEAD capable right off the factory floor. Its going to require less support from tankers. There is no way you can compare it to an F-16 and state with any truth that the cost to operate is going to be more. The GAO is stating an estimate. If it takes 4 more F-16s to be the equivalent of an F-35, which is more expensive? Is an F-16 Blk 60 .25 the cost of an F-35? Or how about .125 for at2? What happens to the billion already spent on R&D? That gets factored into your Blk 60 plan because WE LOSE EVERY DIME with a decision like this. And finally, what about allies? WHat about the USN and USMC? These are questions you cant answer Phaid and it completely invalidates your position. CVN-78 and F-35 can be used against all threats, not just high tech neer pear. Thats the point. Applicability across the board.

Ask yourself Phaid, how many F-35s would it take to conduct Osirak vs all the planes used. How many F-35 would it take to fly to Iran and back for the IDF/AF vs F-16I? There is a reason people want this plane so bad.
 
-DA


 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Hate to play gotcha but:   4/20/2009 8:14:20 PM
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 8:19:39 PM

And yeah, I am not a big proponent of V/STOL from our short decks.  It's an expensive and pretty much pointless capability.  Marine fixed wing aviation mostly operates from CVNs and land bases, where V/STOL is useless.

It's not useless if the Runway gets peppered with cluster munitions delivered via BM. F-22's would not be able to even take off! Also think of the increase in power and missions a short deck carrier could perform. Got a problem in 5th Fleet AOR, say like a need to hit something WMD related in Pakistan proper in the event of Gov collapse. Your USMC pilots could lift off, tank and go for the goal line minus escort and probably not have to fight through AMRAAM armed Pak F-16s or J-7s. 
 
-DA
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Nichevo    Hate to play gotcha but:   4/20/2009 8:22:59 PM
Stupid computers...anyway:
 
What happens to the billion already spent on R&D? That gets factored into your Blk 60 plan because WE LOSE EVERY DIME with a decision like this.
 
 
DA, do you understand the ramifications of "sunk costs?"  I won't quiz or try to trap you.  Sunk costs are money that is already spent, and that no tears, piety or wit will ever bring back.  Getting fixated on sunk costs is the dictionary definition of "throwing good money after bad."  I'm not stepping into the F-22 yes/no debate with this, just making my one targeted observation.  Maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you stuttered, but it is not sound doctrine to mull over sunk costs AFTER they are sunk.  A very common fallacy.
 
 
 The only other thing - I was curious and interested to understand the significance of that fork-tailed drone you posted.  Still know nothing about it and you refuse to engage with Herald.  Herald, can you renounce the opportunity to play gotcha with DA and tell us (tell me, anyway) what you know or believe?  I have a very few guesses but would rather hear more about the d--d thing, like its name or any other facts available besides the rendering. 
 
I will just pipe up and say: What engine?  Almost surely a Williams, no?

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 8:43:00 PM

Stupid computers...anyway:

 


What happens to the billion already spent on R&D? That gets factored into your Blk 60 plan because WE LOSE EVERY DIME with a decision like this.


 

 

DA, do you understand the ramifications of "sunk costs?"  I won't quiz or try to trap you.  Sunk costs are money that is already spent, and that no tears, piety or wit will ever bring back.  Getting fixated on sunk costs is the dictionary definition of "throwing good money after bad."  I'm not stepping into the F-22 yes/no debate with this, just making my one targeted observation.  Maybe I misunderstood you, maybe you stuttered, but it is not sound doctrine to mull over sunk costs AFTER they are sunk.  A very common fallacy.


 

 

 The only other thing - I was curious and interested to understand the significance of that fork-tailed drone you posted.  Still know nothing about it and you refuse to engage with Herald.  Herald, can you renounce the opportunity to play gotcha with DA and tell us (tell me, anyway) what you know or believe?  I have a very few guesses but would rather hear more about the d--d thing, like its name or any other facts available besides the rendering. 

 

I will just pipe up and say: What engine?  Almost surely a Williams, no?





I understand the concept of sunk cost. My point was after spending this money, if we cancel the F-35, we get no return on investment. In other words, we spend the GDP of a small nation developing the most advanced tactical combat jet that can be used for any mission by anybody for a much less capable air plane we wasted money. At least we get back from the F-35 some of the fruits of that labor. And sense it takes a minimum of 4 or 8 F-16s to do the work of a single F-35 depending on the mission the F-35 will actually pay for itself over time because it's a more efficient jet.

The UAV was significant because I explained earlier that the future would be stealthy UCAVs loitering silently behind enemy lines doing what manned fighter often do now or just plain can't do. I explained that these UCAVs would be coming into service fast and furious and that Avenger is visual reference to the fact. AND it will not be the last surprise in the next few years either. 

If you do the research you can see the F-22's cannot possibly clear PRC airspace of fighters and IADS fast enough to do anything about the 2nd artillery as it is protected by a natural barrier covered with fires over a vast amount of area. It would be the SCUD hunt fiasco all over again with PRC BMs falling though our defenses if God forbid a conflict broke out. A stealthy armed UCAV however could get through IADS and avoid fighters and then locate TELS before they launch or even shoot down missiles in the boost phase. The possibilities for UAS are spectacular.

-DA 

-DA 
 

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/20/2009 9:57:20 PM
No one is moving goal post. The F-35 is a lot cheaper than the F-16 Blk anything.
 
How does contradicting the perceived threat have anything to do with cost comparison? You support the F-35 when it comes to near peer conflicts but there are no near peer adversaries to support more F-22's. I strongly suggest you provide supporting documentation on the cost comparisons, last time I checked the F-35's flyaway cost in 2009 dollars is 83 million. Considering that will easily escalate to over 100 million by 2011 that is a far cry from the estimated 34 million when the program sucked everyone in for an affordable do it all replacement fighter.
 
You had one top exec from LM blow off some numbers to keep all the check writers from jumping ship after several people trounced the the F-35's capability compared to the aircraft it was replacing. 4x this 8x that is all theory and why is acceptable to replace F-16's, A-10's and F/A-18's on a 1:1 basis with a much more capable aircraft but F-15's are not afforded the same luxury?
 
CVN-78 and F-35 can be used against all threats, not just high tech neer pear. Thats the point. Applicability across the board.
CVN-77 and F-35 could also be used against all threats, depending on which side of the fence you happen to be supporting that day.
 
If you do the research you can see the F-22's cannot possibly clear PRC airspace of fighters and IADS fast enough to do anything about the 2nd artillery as it is protected by a natural barrier covered with fires over a vast amount of area. 
 

The PLA is revamping its doctrine to meet the challenges of the types of wars it expects to fight in the near future. Based on its assessments of recent military operations (e.g. the 1999 Kosovo Air Campaign and the 2003 Operation Iraqi Freedom), the PLA believes that future military conflicts will be ?Local Wars under Informatized Conditions? (China Brief, June 7). The Second Artillery Corps would play a central role in such high-intensity and high-lethality conflicts because they would place a premium on mobility, speed, logistics, sustainability, deep strikes, joint operations and high-tech weapons. In future conflicts of this type, the Second Artillery would cooperate with the other services to conduct ?integrated operations? (zhengti zuozhan) and launch ?key point strikes? (zhongdian daji) against the opponent?s key vulnerabilities (China Brief, November 8). The key target sets for the Second Artillery would include military C2 centers, early warning facilities, communications facilities, air defense sites, air bases and surface-to-surface missile sites. The most important mission for the Second Artillery in such a campaign would be the suppression of Taiwan?s air defenses [10]. China would expect an adversary to launch precision deep strikes against targets such as its own C2 centers, air defense networks and air and missile bases, so conventional missile doctrine also devotes considerable attention to protecting strategic points from enemy long-range attacks.

China is also exploring the use of ballistic missiles for anti-access missions, such as precision strikes against airbases, ports, command and control facilities, air defense systems, ground-based command, control, communications, computers, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) nodes, and possibly surface ships such as aircraft carriers. According to a recent Congressional Research Service report, China could eventually employ ballistic missiles in combination with a broad-area maritime surveillance and targeting system to strike ships at sea [11]. This would form part of an emerging area denial or anti-access capability.

Implications for the United States and Taiwan

The synergy between force modernization, evolving doctrine and increasingly advanced training is enhancing the capabilities of the Second Artillery Corps in ways that pose serious challenges for the United States and Taiwan. The Second Artillery?s conventional force modernization is focused on developing the capabilities required to rapidly degrade Taiwan's defenses and deter, delay, or otherwise complicate U.S. military intervention in a cross-Strait conflict. The Second Artillery?s conventional arsenal has increased from about 30-50 SRBMs in the mid-1990s to almost 800 SRBMs today and has increased in both accuracy and lethality. This quantitative and qualitative improvement represents a severe threat to U.S. forces in the region, and especially to Taiwan. Indeed, as a result of the rapid growth in numbers and improvements in accuracy, China could paralyze Taiwan?s communication links, command centers, airbases and ports with five waves of strikes in as little as 10 hours, according to Lt. Col. Chen Chang-hua, a Taiwan Ministry of National Defense official (Taipei Times, March 8; AFP, March 8). This raises serious questions regarding whether Taiwan?s military possesses the capability to hold out in the event of a cross-Strait conflict until the U.S. military could intervene decisively. In addition, China?s development of new MRBMs and LACMs is enhancing its regional conventional strike capabilities and has the potential to complicate U.S. intervention in a future cross-Strait crisis or conflict.
 
Enough F-22's would make a difference but that's ok will just keep preparing for pirates while PRC plans for the war that will never happen.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/20/2009 10:19:02 PM
Mustang

Your argument isn't really an argument. You are just complaining about not replacing F-15s plane for plane with F-22s with no analysis or rational other than we should be afraid of China. Even Phaid's incorrect assertions that F-35s will cost more than F-35s are based on the incorrect direct platform comparison. What keeps getting missed is that the F-15C's fighter mission is DECLINING in frequency while the multirole missions of F-16/F-18/AV-8 are all increasing and in near constant demand. F-15C's were withdrawn from CENTCOM because there was nothing for them to do. Meanwhile, Balad is a beehive of constant Viper, Predator, Helo and Xport sorties. This doesn't mean the some of the time we wont need our F-15s and F-22's in a2a configurations. But with over 300 of them just counting F-22's and F-15C's to toss around at any given time with F-15Es and F-16C's as backups, this is a lot of a2a firepower on call.

The F-35 will be coming soon. It will provide for a2a capability that no legacy platform to date wil be able to match. It's just as theoretical as the F-22 which hasn't seen real combat either. The Irony of that is the F-35 will probably fire a shot in anger before the F-22 does.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid    DA F-35   4/21/2009 3:07:55 AM
Its at least 4 times as effective in a2a compared to any legacy fighter, 8 times more effective in a2g missions. Its SEAD capable right off the factory floor. Its going to require less support from tankers. There is no way you can compare it to an F-16 and state with any truth that the cost to operate is going to be more.
 
Sorry, but (apart from the SEAD thing I will grant you) those are just ridiculous assertions.  Completely.
 
An F-16 Block 60 needs less tanker support -- not only does it have equally good unrefuelled range, it achieves it with less fuel to begin with.
 
Then this 4/8 times nonsense.  That is absolutely meaningless.   You might as well say "it's a super duper awesome fighter and the F-16 is not".
 
How is the F-35 going to be four times more effective at dropping SDBs on the Taliban or AQ or whoever we wind up going after on the HOA?  If we're so worried about "the wars we're fighting today" then that is a question you must be able to answer.
 
And against a near-peer: how is it going to be four times more effective in SEAD when it has to carry HARMs externally?  How is it going to be four times more effective in AA when it has ZERO kinematic advantages and has to carry anything more than 2 AAMs externally?
 
The simple fact is that if it wants to stay stealthy the F-35 carries less ordnance than the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it, and if it doesn't care about stealth the F-35 carries the same amount of ordnance as the F-16 and costs more in fuel and maintenance to do it.
 
What it comes down to is that a force of 2000 F-16s and 400 F-22s concentrates its capabilities where they are needed -- large numbers of cheap, and cheap to operate, fighters for "today's war" that can more than hold their own against a near peer, supplemented by a comparatively small number of expensive fighters for first-day-of-war and high-value targets.  Instead of a mostly-F-35 force that carries around all this stealth and weight whether it needs it or not and pays the price in reduced availability and greater cost regardless of its mission.
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 9:17:44 AM

Mustang




Your argument isn't really an argument. You are just complaining about not replacing F-15s plane for plane with F-22s with no analysis or rational other than we should be afraid of China. Even Phaid's incorrect assertions that F-35s will cost more than F-35s are based on the incorrect direct platform comparison. What keeps getting missed is that the F-15C's fighter mission is DECLINING in frequency while the multirole missions of F-16/F-18/AV-8 are all increasing and in near constant demand. F-15C's were withdrawn from CENTCOM because there was nothing for them to do. Meanwhile, Balad is a beehive of constant Viper, Predator, Helo and Xport sorties. This doesn't mean the some of the time we wont need our F-15s and F-22's in a2a configurations. But with over 300 of them just counting F-22's and F-15C's to toss around at any given time with F-15Es and F-16C's as backups, this is a lot of a2a firepower on call.




The F-35 will be coming soon. It will provide for a2a capability that no legacy platform to date wil be able to match. It's just as theoretical as the F-22 which hasn't seen real combat either. The Irony of that is the F-35 will probably fire a shot in anger before the F-22 does.







-DA 

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

F-35, MORE REDESIGN


The F-35 is having enough of a problem getting rid of excess heat that it will require a redesign. While the leaders of the program state that the aircraft is meeting its thermal requirements, reading between the lines of an Aviation Week article says that there will have to be more work done to solve this problem or the jet won?t be able to handle hot weather environments.(1)

Conventional aircraft have vents and drain holes all over them to vent heat and keep corrosion problems minimized. Stealth aircraft don?t have the luxury of putting these much needed devices just anywhere on the airframe. Drain holes and vents are ?apertures? that can compromise stealth performance. For heat build up, on-board fuel is used as a ?heat-sink? to keep equipment from over-heating. For the F-35, the digital engine control unit and portions of the electrically driven flight controls depend on this method to keep cool. Toward the end of the mission, an F-35 has to keep a certain amount of fuel on-board to assist with cooling.

A look at the history of the aircraft  shows some interesting surprises that needed redesign. One of the aircraft?s big selling points was commonality of the three variants and ease of production. This started to go away in 2003 during a weight reduction event to shed some pounds from the design. ?Make-joints?, appliances built into the design to make assembly easier, were a victim of the diet. After the 2004 weight reduction event, more commonality of design and ease of assembly were traded off. This added a year lost and billions of dollars to the program.

2006 saw the killing of certifying external fuel tanks for the end of the test program. They posed too much risk and couldn?t be figured out in time. Today the jet is hyped and sold as not needing external fuel tanks. Go figure.

Internal carry of four AIM-132 ASRAAM missiles couldn't be qualified in time to meet schedules. It was too much work. The answer was to certify only two for internal carry and if two more were needed, put them out on the wings.

2007 saw funds let to redesign the engines to create more electrical power output. This was the result of a long grounding of the program to fix a flight control failure during a test mission.

Not long afterward were engine problems that added over a year to the qualification for Short-Take-Off and Landing (STOVL) flight for the F-35B model.

Now there will be the heat-sink issue that will cause some redesign. How much extra money will this cost and what will it due to the scheduled USMC initial operating capability (IOC) for 2012?

What is next after that? With several times more software code than an F-22, expect that there will be a lot of compromise here just to get the jet out the door. The capability definition of Block I, II, and III jets was watered down in 2008 compared to what it was in 2006.

After this there are airframe fatigue problems. With so little testing done thus far, the U.S. is already committing itself to make hundreds of ?mistake jets? before full rate production and the finish of development testing. Question marks on fatigue knowledge were mentioned in past reports going back to 2007.

Mr. Gates seems happy that there is no real risk in the program
This article exemplifies everything I have been saying about this program for the last 2 years. I believe Gates and DOD know they are in way over their heads with this. Trying to incorporate the tasks and responsibilities of many aircraft into a single design was optimistic at best. IOC will probably push past 2011 and don't be surprised if final cost is more than a Raptor.
Maybe this is Gates's way of planning for the future, at the expense of the F-22.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Evil Fishy...   4/21/2009 10:04:51 AM
So the people cannot elect a man other than Obama who chooses to fire Gates?
They can, supposedly they DID when they elected Obama...but he chose to KEEP Gates...so it would imply that elections do NOT always replace cabinet Ministers...also see Norman Mineta, George W.Bush...
 
Thank you for playing.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       4/21/2009 10:35:27 AM
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 
 
Clearly Phaid has made a compelling case and your failure to recognize that shows "bias". While I don't agree with Phaid, that the answer lies with buying more F16s, I have to acknowledge it does address the concerns. The best case for buying more F22s was made by people who know what they are talking about. USAF Secratary Michael Donley and USAF Cheif of Staff Norton Scwartz.Their comments have already been posted by me and others but Darth you have to be "unbiased" to retain new knowledge. Schwartz and Donley present a cogent, informed, and declassified analysis of why they are asking for an additional 60 aircraft.
 
Darth, your case is utterly discredited so far in this coversation. Your assertion that unmanned aircraft are ready to replace the air superiority simply is wrong. They aren't. We know from history that these birds get a hell of a work out, see my earlier posts above, and replacements will cost as much or more than the next F22 that comes off of the assembly line, ie: Silent Eagle or openning the F15C line. Also, it has been proven that the 30+ year old airframes in use are wearing out too fast (most of them were scrapped in the last 5 years!). Note also, that the F22 will wear more hats in our force structure than the F15Cs they are replacing. This contributes to their being worn down too fast. We need more than 187 but don't take my word for it, listen to the USAF:
 
Here is their case for an additional 60 aircraft:
 
 ht***tp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202268.html
By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz
Monday, April 13, 2009; Page 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 the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

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

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

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 11:02:22 AM

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 
 

Clearly Phaid has made a compelling case and your failure to recognize that shows "bias". While I don't agree with Phaid, that the answer lies with buying more F16s, I have to acknowledge it does address the concerns. The best case for buying more F22s was made by people who know what they are talking about. USAF Secratary Michael Donley and USAF Cheif of Staff Norton Scwartz.Their comments have already been posted by me and others but Darth you have to be "unbiased" to retain new knowledge. Schwartz and Donley present a cogent, informed, and declassified analysis of why they are asking for an additional 60 aircraft.

 

Darth, your case is utterly discredited so far in this coversation. Your assertion that unmanned aircraft are ready to replace the air superiority simply is wrong. They aren't. We know from history that these birds get a hell of a work out, see my earlier posts above, and replacements will cost as much or more than the next F22 that comes off of the assembly line, ie: Silent Eagle or openning the F15C line. Also, it has been proven that the 30+ year old airframes in use are wearing out too fast (most of them were scrapped in the last 5 years!). Note also, that the F22 will wear more hats in our force structure than the F15Cs they are replacing. This contributes to their being worn down too fast. We need more than 187 but don't take my word for it, listen to the USAF:

 
Rocky,

You are creating a strawman. I didn't say UAVs can replace the air superiority. Again, show where I said that. YOu can't so you misunderstood something. If you understand strategy, the USA's geopolitical imperatives and how that ties into national security, then you would see why Phaids case is completely unsuitable. You have also proved nothing about 30 year airframes wearing out. I've however shown a program to deal specifically with that issue. I did listen to the USAF. The CoS acknowledges that there are more important priorities. A convenient fact all of you are omitting. A least Phaid presents an alternative even if it wont work. The problem with most of you is that you do not understand this from the point of view of grand strategy. Its not something I expect a person to grasp in a few post. But it is reality. Rocky, anytime you think you can make a case, try.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/21/2009 11:09:12 AM

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 
 

Clearly Phaid has made a compelling case and your failure to recognize that shows "bias". While I don't agree with Phaid, that the answer lies with buying more F16s, I have to acknowledge it does address the concerns. The best case for buying more F22s was made by people who know what they are talking about. USAF Secratary Michael Donley and USAF Cheif of Staff Norton Scwartz.Their comments have already been posted by me and others but Darth you have to be "unbiased" to retain new knowledge. Schwartz and Donley present a cogent, informed, and declassified analysis of why they are asking for an additional 60 aircraft.

 

Darth, your case is utterly discredited so far in this coversation. Your assertion that unmanned aircraft are ready to replace the air superiority simply is wrong. They aren't. We know from history that these birds get a hell of a work out, see my earlier posts above, and replacements will cost as much or more than the next F22 that comes off of the assembly line, ie: Silent Eagle or openning the F15C line. Also, it has been proven that the 30+ year old airframes in use are wearing out too fast (most of them were scrapped in the last 5 years!). Note also, that the F22 will wear more hats in our force structure than the F15Cs they are replacing. This contributes to their being worn down too fast. We need more than 187 but don't take my word for it, listen to the USAF:

 

Here is their case for an additional 60 aircraft:

 

 ht***tp://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/12/AR2009041202268.html
By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz

Monday, April 13, 2009; Page 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 the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.


We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.


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


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




 


 




The article you cited is substantially Darth's position here.  It calls for a cap at 187 F-22s and closure of the production line.  "But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget."  Based on your citation, I don't see that you have a disagreement with Darth except as to the viability of UAVs and perhaps tone. 0.02

v^2

 
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