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
JFKY    Fishy   4/21/2009 3:55:33 PM
The POTUS serves the folks that elected him...but the SecDef serves the POTUS.  That;'s the round and round we keep having...there is NO direct link between voter-SecDef...it's not in the Constitution.
 
And can you name one other way, besides the ballot box, you seem keen to bring these alternate methods up...if you don't like Bob Gates, just how DO you intend to get rid of him, save by voting out Obama?  I'm intrigued....
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Fishy   4/21/2009 3:55:40 PM
The POTUS serves the folks that elected him...but the SecDef serves the POTUS.  That;'s the round and round we keep having...there is NO direct link between voter-SecDef...it's not in the Constitution.
 
And can you name one other way, besides the ballot box, you seem keen to bring these alternate methods up...if you don't like Bob Gates, just how DO you intend to get rid of him, save by voting out Obama?  I'm intrigued....
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF & JFKY Reply...   4/21/2009 3:57:19 PM


---JFKY---But to re-state the ORIGINAL pont...SecDef's Serve the POTUS...not the "nation." ---



 Whom does the President of these United States serve?





 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF & JFKY Reply...   4/21/2009 3:57:41 PM
...I'm lost. In all the techno babble and discussion of CONOPS, I really don't understand your respective positions with regard to the F-22

EF Your position?


JFKY Your?


Thanks

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    And Further more   4/21/2009 3:59:50 PM
What is so tough about admitting the SecDef doesn't work for you?  I sure never thought the SecDef, or SecHealth or SecState worked for ME...they were appointed by the POTUS to fulfill certain political appointment promises and to undertake certain items of the POTUS agenda...an agenda that I may or may not have voted for.  What is so D@mned difficult to understand in that?  They work for and serve at the pleasure of the President...not you or I.
 
 
Are you so naive as to think that the POTUS or his/her Cabinet are governing for "all of us?"  The POTUS may tell you that, heck s/he might even believe it...but the truth is they serve the ideology and the voting interests that placed them in office.  That's not America, because "America" doesn't exist...voting groups interests exist, nothing else.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 4:08:57 PM

---JFKY---The POTUS serves the folks that elected him..---

So you are saying the President only serves 538 American citizens? That is a pretty bold statement there boyo.

---JFKY---but the SecDef serves the POTUS.---

Ok. You work for Darth. Darth has the power to fire you. But Darth works for ME. I have the power to replace Darth and FIRE YOU.

Who, ultimately, is the boss of you in this example?

---JFKY---And can you name one other way, besides the ballot box, you seem keen to bring these alternate methods up---

Yeah, it is called the mail box and it works (or the INBOX as it were).

---JFKY---...if you don't like Bob Gates, just how DO you intend to get rid of him, save by voting out Obama? I'm intrigued.?---

I have not posted an opinion on Gates one way or the other (apart from the observation that he does what he is told) so I wonder where you got the idea that I

1) do not like Gates

2) seek to have him replaced.

Perhaps had you spent more time READING and UNDERSTANDING what I have been saying; that the People of the USA are the BOSS of their GOVERFNMENT, you would not be drawn into some obfuscated rabbit hole of that I have not traversed in the first place.

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 4:13:23 PM

JFKY; why is it so difficult for you to understand that the people of the United States, are in ultimate control of THIS GOVERNMENT?

That is how this government was created.

That is how the government works.

Obama is not a king. Obama is not a demigod.

Obama is a citizen of the United States of America, just as was Bush, as was Clinton, as was etc who is bound by the same laws you and I are and he SERVES at THE PEOPLE-s discretion just as his subordinates do.
 
Why is this SIMPLE concept; something an American 5 year old can master, so difficult for you to understand?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 4:19:43 PM

What is so tough about admitting the SecDef doesn't work for you?  I sure never thought the SecDef, or SecHealth or SecState worked for ME...they were appointed by the POTUS to fulfill certain political appointment promises and to undertake certain items of the POTUS agenda...an agenda that I may or may not have voted for.  What is so D@mned difficult to understand in that?  They work for and serve at the pleasure of the President...not you or I.

 

 

Are you so naive as to think that the POTUS or his/her Cabinet are governing for "all of us?"  The POTUS may tell you that, heck s/he might even believe it...but the truth is they serve the ideology and the voting interests that placed them in office.  That's not America, because "America" doesn't exist...voting groups interests exist, nothing else.

OK I'm tracking. So in otherwords...Obama to Gates...

Obama: 
"They elected me. I told them I would get defense spending under control, reduce the budget, bring troops out of Iraq, deal with Pakistan and Afghanistan...ect. Go make it happen and get back to me with your recommendations"


Gates:
"Yes Mr. President..."


A few months later

Gates:
"Mr. President, I'm recommending a cap on F-22 production, ending FCS building F-35 faster...blah blah blah"

Obama:
"Sounds good make it happen"



So JFKY, in essence, what you are saying is that at no time in that decision loop is the average Joe Six Pack involved and thus, the President acting on his mandate works for us. The SecDef works for him to carry out his mandate and both serve the people and Constitution. One directly working for the people and the other serving and working directly for him and serving solely at the Presidents pleasure as a member of the Cabinet and would only technically work directly for the people if his turn came up as six in the succession of Command.

-DA 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 4:25:24 PM

Darth. If Obama goes to Gates, and tells him all of that you have said, and Gates DOES THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, and Obama does NOTHING, and the people CARE DEEPLY about that ISSUE, they can elect somebody OTHER THAN OBAMA who runs on the premise of replacing Gates.

That man or woman gets elected and fires and replaces Gates. The people get what they want.

This usually does not happen because Presidents can read POLLS and if one of their secretaries does something utterly and truly stupid, they simply replace them and the problem goes away.

Either way, the check is preserved.

 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    F-22   4/21/2009 4:31:44 PM
F-22 and Phaid...phaid is absolutely out of his/her mind in advocating 400 F-22's and a cancellation of the F-35.  Air superiority is ONLY ONE aspect of the airland campaign AND to kill the F-35 is to screw a whole lot of our partners and allies...like the USMC, the USN, the RAAF, the RN-FAA, and the RAF, plus a number of other NATO buyers.  It is UNTHINKABLE to cancel the F-35 or the USAF's participation.  And Phaid might as well advance the theory of "stealth flying carpets" as an alternative to what s/he proposes.
 
As to 187-250 F-22's I am agnostic...I began by asking "what would you give up" for the extra 60 F-22's and why anyone thinks that the US Defense Budget is NOT going to shrink in the light of the current economic climate?  So, we are asking not only what will you give up, but what will you give up, OVER AND ABOVE THE PROPOSED CUTS... because as the budget shrinks and the F-22 budget grows then other programs must be cut even further than they already will be.
 
Phaid advances the unrealistic argument that not only will we have ~250 F-22's, but we need 150 more, but to pay for it, we will give up the F-35.  And as I've said, totally unrealistic.  The F-16 is an old airframe and an old design and just why it needs to be kept so we can have the neatest "gee-Whiz" fighter seems puzzling, and it totally ignores the other services and nations that participate in the F-35 program.
 
Herald, at one point, said he wanted to see the USAF and USN given pride of place, because they "know what they're doing" and that's laughable...if they are so darned smart why did the USAF lose its acquisition authority to the SecDef, by screwing the pooch on Tankers and CSAR.  And by Herald's own admission the USN is clueless about LCS and the LPD-17...
 
I'm not sure what people have reasonably proposed...over the next 20 years an increase in F-22's (60) will cost about 1.25 Billion per year.  What will you give up, at about that rate?  It's about 6-12 battalions worth of troops, for the next 20 years....all smeared out.  It's the loss of one US Army/USMC Division...is it worth it?  I'm not so sure.
 
I just know that some of the debate is wholly unreasonable...on the order of F-22= GUDE....Army/F-35= BAAAAAAAD...someone wants to cancel out the USS Ford, well that's one possibility, but it damages the Navy in the future...how about decommissioning a CVN, NOW for 60 more F-22's?
 
Bottom-line: for me any budget is about trade-offs and priorities....in a shrinking budget, which is inevitable for the next foreseeable future, even more so.  So I'm just interested in what people might give  up the to achieve 250 F-22's.  Phaid is right out and I don't fear the PRC like Herald does, and I'm not convinced we are going to have to fight the PRC any time soon...so I'm interested but fearful of the proposed other service cuts.  Some proposals are just NONSENSICAL...others may or may not have merit.
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 4:39:24 PM

You can drop bombs out of and off of just about anything you can get into the air.

Hell, you can drop bombs from a hot air balloon all you like.

Of course, this presumes that you have OWNERSHIP OF THE AIR.

I would rather have 400 F-22s and OWN THE SKY in ANY situation and be forced to turn a balloon into a bomb truck than have 160ish F-22s, NOT OWN THE SKY in SOME situations and have 500 new and decent bomb trucks.

There is NO REASON we cannot have 1,000 F-22s regardless of whether or not we need them.

All you need to is get Congress to stop SPENDING on things they are not Constitutionally obliged to spend on (that means removing apathy and ignorance from the voting mass) and re-rout that money to the Military (which is one of the FEW things Congress is specifically tasked to spend money on).

It is not like the money --saved-- from cutting excess F-22s is going to be shifted somewhere else in the Military (it most certainly WILL NOT).

Who was it who warned: Never ignore the unknown, or the unforeseen!

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 4:50:32 PM
JFKY,

I'm just waiting for one of these guys to make a VALID case for why we need the F-22's beyond 187 in the first place. That's the core issue. Assume I'm Obama and you need me, to understand in lay terms why we need more of those planes and you can't call stupid or any of that because ultimately, YOU NEED my endorsement. Thats what I want these guys to do. Phaid tried but his suggestion does not work considering the very wide spread consequences of such a suggestion globally. As to everyone else.  They got nothing. They can't show in plain english how 60 is going to matter in the context of causing us to lose wars. again LOSE WARS. As in we were defeated because we came up 60 Raptors short of a victory.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EF reply   4/21/2009 4:56:26 PM

I would rather have 400 F-22s and OWN THE SKY in ANY situation and be forced to turn a balloon into a bomb truck than have 160ish F-22s, NOT OWN THE SKY in SOME situations and have 500 new and decent bomb trucks.



And here is the strawman people keep making. Its 187 F-22's and there is no situation they could not own the sky in along with the hundreds of F-15s and thousands of F-35As that will be out there too.

-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 4:59:50 PM

Darth can you make a valid argument for spending TRILLIONS of dollars in government pay offs INSTEAD of buying a machine specifically designed to ensure Grunts like you ARE NOT BOMBED from the air by our enemies?

By pay offs I am referring to the following:

---Feinstein sought $25 billion for agency that awarded contract to spouse---

H--p://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/senate-husbands-firm-cashes-in-on-crisis/

How many F-22s can you buy with $25,000,000,000.?
 
 
 
This is not a ---show me why we neex X+1 rather than X--- argument.
 
 
This is a ---We are spending TRILLIONS on NOTHING and PAYOFFS so why should we not spend that money on something that at least has some value to the American taxpayer?---
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Already posted, many times.   4/21/2009 5:04:44 PM
I'm just waiting for one of these guys to make a VALID case for why we need the F-22's beyond 187 in the first place -Da
 
This has already been presented many times. It is a silly question. The USAF's last review of the issue requested 243 F22s and that data has not been updated with anything substantial. We continue to wait for you to make your case based upon more than your opinion. Your opinion appears to be solely based upon Obama/Gates an political decision and not mission requirements.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
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