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
DarthAmerica    Continued...   4/15/2009 6:34:58 PM
...Looking forward, the goal of our weapons buying is to develop a portfolio ? a mixture of weapons whose flexibility allows us to respond to a spectrum of contingencies on or beyond the horizon. Focusing exclusively, or obsessively, on a single weapons system designed to do a specific job or confront a single adversary ignores what a truly joint force can and must do in the 21st century.  
Where the trend of future conflict is clear, I have made specific recommendations. In other areas, however, I believe that we need to develop a more rigorous analytical framework before moving forward ? the type of framework that will be provided by the Quadrennial Defense Review. I should note that this will be the first QDR able to fully incorporate the numerous lessons learned on the battlefield these past few years. Lessons about what tactics future adversaries, both state and non-state actors, are likely to pursue ? especially given our conventional dominance in air and at sea.


I'll take the liberty of adding my opinion of these words. First, it's very refreshing to read from a person who so obviously understands the full dynamic of the situation we are in. Gates knows what's going on, the threats we face out there and how to proceed.


For instance, I really like how he mentions that we should not get obsessive about single weapons systems. He also covers in brief why the threat from near peer nations such as Russia and China don't justify additional air frames. We are looking at 6 to 12 years before advanced 5th Generation threat aircraft start reaching IOC. At which point we will have many times more 5th Gen jets capable of dealing with those threats. In other words, we aren't compromising our ability to defeat advanced threat aircraft or IADS and will have both quantitative and qualitative advantage in a system thats flexible and designed not only to defeat those threats, but the much more likely threats that we see today. Moreover, SecDef Gates recognizes the importance and  growing capability of UAVs which include UCAVs like Reaper that are going to only grow in capability and importance as we move forward.

Again, its great to have a SecDef that is paying attention to the things we are asking for and need.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/15/2009 10:57:49 PM
By then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.
 
Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders. The 2nd statement is an outright lie. Two weeks ago they were firm on 243 Raptors. Two men in that high profile of a position do not just change their minds unless forced to do so. To be more clear letting the 2005 budget take the fall is complete cowardice. I would at least have respect for the guy if he just said I have advised the Air Force Secretary and Chief of staff that my analysis has concluded and there will not be a need to further procure the F-22 at which time the program will be terminated after final deliveries have taken place. There are people who have a clue and people that need to get one, clearly we know where Gates falls. I would like him under oath to say he did not manipulate either AF Sec or Chief of Staff.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 12:59:43 AM

By
then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our
inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of
the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the
program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number
to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as
codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be
completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.

 

Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders. 

Negative. I already told you that many of the F-35 users will be using it as the primary air to air platform. What do you not understand about multirole? Its the second most capable air to air platform in the the world indisputably when integrated into our system and using our CONOPS. Other examples...


 
...F-35 is superior.



 

 
The 2nd statement is an outright lie. Two weeks ago they were firm on 243 Raptors. Two men in that high profile of a position do not just change their minds unless forced to do so. To be more clear letting the 2005 budget take the fall is complete cowardice. I would at least have respect for the guy if he just said I have advised the Air Force Secretary and Chief of staff that my analysis has concluded and there will not be a need to further procure the F-22 at which time the program will be terminated after final deliveries have taken place. There are people who have a clue and people that need to get one, clearly we know where Gates falls. I would like him under oath to say he did not manipulate either AF Sec or Chief of Staff.

LOL c'mon don't be religious about this. These men all stated the reasons for changing their minds. The evidence supporting that change is well documented and LOGICAL. Can't you see that the PRC and Russia aren't in a position to threaten our dominance and all other threats fly comparatively primitive fighters in fewer numbers in inferior systems? Don't you see that Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, North Korea and Somalia define the kinds of conflicts we are likely to have to deal with. We have a viable F-15C and F-15E fleet that remains viable through 2025 as well.

-The idea that our air supremacy rest on 60 additional airframes is false. 

-The idea that the PRC is breathing down our back and actually capable of beating us in the air is false.

-Above applies to Russia

-The F-15's are falling out of the sky stories were blown way out of proportion in order to lobby for more Raptors.

-F-35's are not just ground attack platforms 

It's just like those Rafale threads where people dig in their heels and wont bulge in spite of mountains of evidence that suggest the previously held positions and opinions are wrong.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/16/2009 10:26:05 AM




By


then we will have more than 1,000 fifth-generation fighters in our


inventory. In light of all these factors, and on the recommendation of


the Air Force secretary and chief of staff, I concluded that 183 ? the


program of record since 2005 ? plus four would be a sufficient number


to meet requirements. To be clear, the F-22 program of record as


codified in the FY 2005 budget (and all budgets since) will be


completed, and not cut as many have said and reported.



 



Too bad 813 of them will be glorified ground pounders. 




Negative. I already told you that many of the F-35 users will be using it as the primary air to air platform. What do you not understand about multirole? Its the second most capable air to air platform in the the world indisputably when integrated into our system and using our CONOPS. Other examples...







 


...F-35 is superior.












 




 

The 2nd statement is an outright lie. Two weeks ago they were firm on 243 Raptors. Two men in that high profile of a position do not just change their minds unless forced to do so. To be more clear letting the 2005 budget take the fall is complete cowardice. I would at least have respect for the guy if he just said I have advised the Air Force Secretary and Chief of staff that my analysis has concluded and there will not be a need to further procure the F-22 at which time the program will be terminated after final deliveries have taken place. There are people who have a clue and people that need to get one, clearly we know where Gates falls. I would like him under oath to say he did not manipulate either AF Sec or Chief of Staff.






LOL c'mon don't be religious about this. These men all stated the reasons for changing their minds. The evidence supporting that change is well documented and LOGICAL. Can't you see that the PRC and Russia aren't in a position to threaten our dominance and all other threats fly comparatively primitive fighters in fewer numbers in inferior systems? Don't you see that Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico, North Korea and Somalia define the kinds of conflicts we are likely to have to deal with. We have a viable F-15C and F-15E fleet that remains viable through 2025 as well.




-The idea that our air supremacy rest on 60 additional airframes is false. 




-The idea that the PRC is breathing down our back and actually capable of beating us in the air is false.




-Above applies to Russia




-The F-15's are falling out of the sky stories were blown way out of proportion in order to lobby for more Raptors.




-F-35's are not just ground attack platforms 




It's just like those Rafale threads where people dig in their heels and wont bulge in spite of mountains of evidence that suggest the previously held positions and opinions are wrong.







-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    So Which Is It   4/16/2009 10:28:42 AM
First you state you are not interested in comparing the F-35 and F-22 and now your position is the F-35 does air to air and thus we do not need as many F-22s.
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Essay by Eric Palmer   4/16/2009 10:35:48 AM
In an astonishing surrender of future air capability, the two have written a piece that showed up in the Washington Post called, ?Moving Beyond the F-22?. In it, they say it is time to stop funding the F-22 and move on toward full funding of the F-35. The reasons they give for this are seriously flawed. It ends with a wild blue sky marking statement claiming, ?Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.? First, is the top USAF leadership insane? I mean that with all due respect because these are not dumb people, they are just seriously misled on what defines air power capability and risk. Part of the justification for their statements is that the USAF is out of money. There is just no way to pay for all of the things in the current plan. This first part pretty much kills the final statements of any dream of sixth generation capabilities. Sixth generation capabilities will come with a sixth generation price. A price that a debtor nation won?t have funds for. Another point made by Donley and Schwartz is that the F-22 will provide capability for decades to come. And then what? In the 2020?s the USAF will start retiring its first F-22s. The two go on to state that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter will pull us back from the abyss facing the nation with its growing geriatric fighter force. Their claims aren?t reassuring. For example this quote stands on a house of cards, ?Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost?. The F-35 has only two percent of its flight testing done, contains a wide variety of risk, is over budget and behind schedule, yet Donley and Schwartz continue with this statement, ?This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production.? OK, so I?ll ask it again with all due respect, is the top USAF leadership insane? Donley and Schwartz don?t have a very good grasp how air domination is achieved. They also don?t understand what tools are needed. Just as stunning, is their lack of understanding in relation to the U.S. defense establishments track record of not delivering weapons programs any where close to cost, schedule or capability. The F-22 was designed to break stiff enemy air defenses long into the future. F-22 systems have truly no peer in lethality. The F-22 uses extreme altitude, high speed, high quality stealth, and leading edge sensors to kill and survive on its own terms. What the two USAF leaders don?t understand is that once the F-22 has cleared the huge threats which are enemy long range super surface to air missiles (SAMs) and enemy aircraft, common legacy aircraft can do the rest of the bombing and not get touched by the lesser threats. In other words, current legacy aircraft that are in production now, the F-15, F-16 and F-18 can drop cheap near all weather precision bombs from high altitude and not get touched by shorter range battlefield SAMs, shoulder fired SAMs, anti-aircraft artillery ( ?triple A?) and trash fire. ?I can touch you, but you can?t touch me?. Based on this, the USAF has not justified a reason to acquire the F-35. The F-35 is not interchangeable with the F-22. The USAF claiming that it needs an expensive all stealth fighter force isn?t practical. With its limited funds, the USAF can rebuild its fighter force to meet requirements of expeditionary war and home air defense. This can be done by funding the F-22 to a proper number of aircraft and buying new build F-16s which still contain a significant war fighting capability. If the top USAF leaders believe what they wrote, then America should consider their ability to do the job. The track Mr. Donley and General Schwartz want to take us down will risk not only billions on an unproven and untested F-35 aircraft, but billions more to clean up the mess all while leaving the U.S. unable to secure air domination in future conflicts.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I am sirprised by the lack of simple common sense.   4/16/2009 10:49:36 AM




Nothing to do with the air superiority fleet.

The rules say I* have to point out with data that you don't know what you discuss whenj you make a groundless assertion and misinterpret what you read in my data..

Consider yourself negated, yet again.. 





Herald






* the E series is a strike aircraft with a secondary air to air mission capability. Its not intended for air dominance.; its a bomber and SEAD bird..






 



 


You aren't qualified to negate anything I say. You don't have the skill sets, the experience or the professionalism to survive any kind of military related debate with me. Don't confuse my lack on interest in your cyber chest beating and ego trippin' for lack of capability. Note that I didn't mention anything about air dominance, a concept you don't even understand obviously. 

When you are up to my standard of debate and level of experience and understanding, we can have much more fruitful discussion and perhaps then you might have something useful to contribute. Until such time you are just blowing more hot air. But I know you need to have the last word on everything so go right ahead. I've got everything for the SecDef, Top USAF brass and even simple cursory analysis of capabilities of threats, real threats and not your contrived fake PRC-Bandit obsession, to back up what I said.

Your views have been shot down by everybody that matters with the exception of your small local fan club on this forum. 

-DA



 

 



Personal attack and outright claiming of an expertuse and superior knowkledge base you clearly don't have.poster. You are unable to mathematyically treat any subject I raised and refute with data anygthing I've said. I seriously question your qualifications to question anyone's qualifications on anything when you try something as ridiculous as this?
 
Considering that you are using the authority fallacy, the appeal to the crowd fallacy and the ad hominem attack again in a desperate attemtp to discredit me as a person (defamation), I offer you this citation to read and consider very carefully lest you go right over the edge totally in this argument and destrouy whatevver little credibility you actually have left on this topic, poster.
 
Read it carefully and see if it fits the data that I've piled up about your debate pattern for the last twenty pages.
 
A proper defense of thesis would not show this personal attack and DEFGMATION pattern. You would be talking about the F-15 at this point and trying to explain away your mistake about not knowing about aircraft airframe fatigue issues or manageing the usable life houes in the US air fleet, a subject of which you are glaringly oignorant of even the most basic opf facts if you keep saying Gplden Ragle and not realize that means 160 birds and not the 300+ that you claim.  
 
 
Stick to the facts please and ditch the personal attacks.
 
Herald
 
 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/16/2009 10:50:04 AM
Yup, Eric Palmer pretty much exactly stated my position.  Fund the F-22 up to ~400 aircraft and buy new F-16s.  This is vastly cheaper and less risky than investing in the F-35, and a much more common-sense investment since we know that stealthy UCAVs will make the F-35 redundant anyway.
 
I still find it incomprehensible that we're using the rubric of "shrinking budgets" to forego buying 60 F-22s, and then turning around and spending over a trillion dollars on the F-35.
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    Herald Reply   4/16/2009 11:28:10 AM


Personal attack and outright claiming of an expertuse and superior knowkledge base you clearly don't have.poster. You are unable to mathematyically treat any subject I raised and refute with data anygthing I've said. I seriously question your qualifications to question anyone's qualifications on anything when you try something as ridiculous as this?

 

Considering that you are using the authority fallacy, the appeal to the crowd fallacy and the ad hominem attack again in a desperate attemtp to discredit me as a person (defamation), I offer you this citation to read and consider very carefully lest you go right over the edge totally in this argument and destrouy whatevver little credibility you actually have left on this topic, poster.

 

Read it carefully and see if it fits the data that I've piled up about your debate pattern for the last twenty pages.

 

A proper defense of thesis would not show this personal attack and DEFGMATION pattern. You would be talking about the F-15 at this point and trying to explain away your mistake about not knowing about aircraft airframe fatigue issues or manageing the usable life houes in the US air fleet, a subject of which you are glaringly oignorant of even the most basic opf facts if you keep saying Gplden Ragle and not realize that means 160 birds and not the 300+ that you claim.  


 


 

Stick to the facts please and ditch the personal attacks.


 

Herald


We all know that Darth is right about everything - never made a mistake in his life and never moved the goal posts here on SP to avoid having to say he was wrong.  Darth is certainly better qualified to make this judgement than all the Defense analysts, Professors, Senators, Congressmen and their staff combined.  He is clearly so qualified that he should be Defense Secretary and not Gates.  I am surprised that Obama has not seen this and appointed him.
Of course, some view SP as a debate session, others as a flame forum and a small cadre as a place to exchange information.  It would be nice to see that exchange take place without the beast of Company B telling everyone that he has access to top secret information and therefore cannot tell you why he is right.
 
Still - I view this F-22 thread as a dead issue here on SP.  We have kicked it around enough to know where each of us stands and how much information is available to make an honest decision.  Since it is now a political football and a sore spot in the paychecks of Union employees who will soon get pink slips - it is up to our elected representatives to make the call. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up.   4/16/2009 12:02:41 PM
I was particularly struck by Gates stup-id statement asserting that the Reaper could do what most of us would consider to be beyond the capability of the X-47 demoinstrater, which is basic air intrusion into a hostile IADS and successfully engage it. 

That was a stupid unnecessary distortion of what the Reaper does and what its limits are..

As for the rest of his speech, it generally conforms to the views of a man who has an idee' fixee aboiut fiuture wars and is clueless about the threat and potential for a Sudan or a DPRK blowup.
 
If he was also concerned about pirates he would then balance the fleet by pulling gun frigates out of mothballs, accelerating Sea-Scout procurement and putting the Global Hawk Maritime and the P-8 on the fast track
 
There is a lot of duplicity and mendacity Gates employs in his speeches that his ACTS betray. You know the truth about a ,man by what he does, not what he says.^1.
 
Clearly this apparatchik is pushing a political as opposed to force effectiveness agenda.
 
As for his forecast that the Russuans are five years away and the PRCs are ten years away from a fifth genration aircraft of their own? Dubious since the Russians are farther and the PRCs closer to an IADS threat that justifies an accelerated American counter effort than he speculates, and if THAT is the time frame as he so claims then that is even more reason to accelerate and not shut down our own aircraft tech base and manufacturing rersearch and procurement.
 
I am aware that again of the behavior pattern appears of the appeal to authority and the attempt to sound pseudoreasonable. Some posters may think this forms a valid core to a valid argument, but then again, I haven't seen any nimbers or correct force or tech analysis or even understanding of the "BIG PICTURE" by those opposing viewpoint to justuify the  appeal to authority argument. especially as Gates instruction from the interregnumist (political decisions driving these program decisions explained) seems to be from the news reports: is to wind up the Afghan and Iraq wars as quickly as possible and in such a manmner so as to appear as to not lose those lost wars.
 
The future BHO budget relies on this actual policy outcome and driver, as to prolong those conflicts robs the BHO budget of monies the interregnumist desirees and needs for his social programs.
 
No wars means no need for weapons.
 
That is a proven American political pattern and does not show political bias as every administration exhibits that behavior. This interregnum appears to need to lie about that factor and the fact that they are trying to skate from two wars they've made the political decision to lose.. I wonder why? Could they be pulling a Kissinger?  
 
 
[quote]
 

COMMENT ON THIS !

 
Be the first to comment



Your Views!
Comment