The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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
DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 5:05:30 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?---


NO, I can't. That would be beyond the scope of the DoD budget. If you want to do that then open up a thread on what you think the DoD budget should be including a breakdown. Otherwise, I'm not interested in a politically charged digression.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 5:06:00 PM

Good God Darth; STOP USING THE WORDS STRAW MAN!

You obviously do not understand what constitutes the use of the straw man fallacy (I did not present a Straw man fallacy) so for your own sake, STOP SAYING THAT!

You just look silly doing screaming STRAW MAN where none exists!

---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. ---

Those hundreds of F-15s are aging and FAST.    

Those thousands of F-35s ONLY EXIST ON PAPER and have not been paid for yet.

Here is how your comment SHOULD READ:

---Its 187 F-22's and there is no situation I CAN SEE 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. ---

You are ignoring things you cannot see in the future. That is a horrid mistake that, in the past, has lead to the deaths of many Americans.
 

What happens if something we cannot foresee occurs and those hundreds of F-15s dwindle rapidly?

What happens if something we cannot foresee occurs and those thousands of F-35s never get built?

 

You cannot argue this WILL NOT HAPPEN because neither you nor I know for certain what WILL HAPPEN.

What we DO KNOW is that we have the production line OPEN RIGHT NOW for a fighter that is the best of any fighter on EARTH RIGHT NOW.

Put Congress on the drunken sailor diet and you save TRILLIONS of dollars so now you can take a SMALL PART of that and buy F-22s that we may or may not need (along with all the kit the Army needs as well).

 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 5:08:15 PM

What a copout Darth! Your thread TITLE brings in the budget, if only implicitly so it is well within the scope of the thread you CREATED.

Now please address this ISSUE!

How is it we can spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars to pay off a Senator and improve her financial standing and we cannot spend a FRANCTION of that for a few more F-22s?!

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/21/2009 5:35:22 PM

How is it we can spend TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars to pay off a Senator and improve her financial standing and we cannot spend a FRANCTION of that for a few more F-22s?!

Why do defense executives (Dick Cheney) pocket tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer money that could buy needed capability?  How is it we can afford to squander gazillion dollars taxpayer money on myrida worthless defense programs with no reform in sight?  Why do we spend a greater %gdp on defense than Taipei does?  We have been looting our grandchildren for prestige and projected vanity long enough!

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 5:37:50 PM
I CREATED. This discussion is within the context of the current DoD budget. As I said, if you want to discuss whether or not the DoD should get a bigger percentage of the budget fine. Open a thread in the US board, and let do it. But it is not relevant here and is not the intent of MY THREAD.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 5:40:19 PM



Why do defense executives (Dick Cheney) pocket tens or hundreds of millions of taxpayer money that could buy needed capability?  How is it we can afford to squander gazillion dollars taxpayer money on myrida worthless defense programs with no reform in sight?  Why do we spend a greater %gdp on defense than Taipei does?  We have been looting our grandchildren for prestige and projected vanity long enough!


v^2


Why?  Because politicians are CORRUPT (D and R) and voters are STUPID.
Vote for change and you get more of the same.  Only because the letter infront of their name changed, it is more acceptable.
 
All that said and done; I would rather have waste and corruption in Military kit, where at least you still GET SOMETHING at the end of the day, than waste and corruption in anything and everything else where at the end of the day you get nothing but the BILL.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 5:41:06 PM


You cannot argue this WILL NOT HAPPEN because neither you nor I know for certain what WILL HAPPEN.


What we DO KNOW is that we have the production line OPEN RIGHT NOW for a fighter that is the best of any fighter on EARTH RIGHT NOW.


Put Congress on the drunken sailor diet and you save TRILLIONS of dollars so now you can take a SMALL PART of that and buy F-22s that we may or may not need (along with all the kit the Army needs as well).






We don't know that aliens won't come attack either. It's possible. But no way to tell how likely. I can however tell you with complete confidence that it is highly unlikely that the USA loses it's edge through the life of the F-22 and F-15.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 5:41:36 PM


You cannot argue this WILL NOT HAPPEN because neither you nor I know for certain what WILL HAPPEN.


What we DO KNOW is that we have the production line OPEN RIGHT NOW for a fighter that is the best of any fighter on EARTH RIGHT NOW.


Put Congress on the drunken sailor diet and you save TRILLIONS of dollars so now you can take a SMALL PART of that and buy F-22s that we may or may not need (along with all the kit the Army needs as well).






We don't know that aliens won't come attack either. It's possible. But no way to tell how likely. I can however tell you with complete confidence that it is highly unlikely that the USA loses it's edge through the life of the F-22 and F-15.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 5:43:09 PM
---DA---I CREATED.---

I know you did; I can READ your name as the first post and thread creator.

---DA---This discussion is within the context of the current DoD budget.---

What I posted is intimately related. Please address.

---DA---As I said, if you want to discuss whether or not the DoD should get a bigger percentage of the budget fine. Open a thread in the US board, and let do it. But it is not relevant here and is not the intent of MY THREAD. ---

IT IS RELEVENT when you are discussing CHOPPING THE DOD budget and increasing EVERYTHING ELSE!

Please address how you can justify chopping the DOD budget while increase payoffs and buying votes?

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    USAF to Gates: 243 F-22s please.   4/21/2009 5:44:05 PM
 
ht***tp://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3951842
By michael hoffman
Published: 17 Feb 16:36 EST (21:36 GMT)
  

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz told reporters Feb. 17 that he will ask Defense Secretary Robert Gates in the next couple of weeks for more F-22 Raptors than the 183 approved by Congress, but he wouldn't disclose the final number. Congress set a deadline of March 1 for President Barack Obama's administration to decide whether to purchase more F-22s beyond the 183 already approved. The Air Force originally requested 381 of the stealth, fifth-generation fighter jets, but that number has dropped. It's less than 381," Schwartz said. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen said in December that he and Schwartz had talked about buying 60 more F-22s, which would bring the total to 243. Schwartz said Feb. 17 that he "wouldn't dispute Admiral Mullen's characterization."

 
ht***tp://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2009/April%202009/April%2017%202009/TheMilitaryRequirementIs243.aspx
Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said yesterday that ?243 is the military requirement? for the advanced fifth-generation fighter. Speaking at a National Aeronautic Association luncheon in Washington, D.C.,
 
ht***tp://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/02/airforce_schwartz_F22_021709w/
"...F-22s cost about $150 million apiece and have been scrutinized for not contributing to the irregular wars the U.S. faces in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Air Force generals have said the current buy of 183 F-22s is too small, especially considering that only 100 could be available for combat at one time because of maintenance rates."
 
ht**tp://www.airforce-magazine.com/DRArchive/Pages/2009/April%202009/April%2010%202009/Muzzled.aspx
Muzzled: Evidence indicates that the Air Force really wanted 60 more F-22s for a fleet of 243 and did not favor stopping production at 187 as Defense Secretary Robert Gates decreed earlier this week. But Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz never had the chance to articulate this position publicly due to the draconian non-disclosure agreement recently imposed by Gates on the uniformed military leadership. So argues Rebecca Grant in a Lexington Institute issue brief released yesterday. Grant, a senior fellow at Lexington Institute and director of the  Mitchell Institute for Airpower Studies, recounts Schwartz?s comments at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee last July when he said that 381 F-22s—the Air Force?s long-standing requirement—were too many, but that the 183 bought to date under the program of record were too few. Schwartz promised to return with a new number after thorough analysis. But with Gates? restrictions, ?Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised,? writes Grant. As a result, ?Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith,? she states.
 
Okay, we have once again established that the USAF's "unbiased" review of mission requirements found that at least 243 F-22s would be needed to keep the world free for democracy. The decision to reduce that puts lives at risk. Further, Gates demanded that all DOD personnel sign an agreement not to "disclose" dissenting views.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/21/2009 5:46:51 PM
---DA---We don't know that aliens won't come attack either. It's possible.---

Then let us discuss LIKELY from PAST events.

Is it likely, from past history, that this Congress or a future congress will CUT THE F-35 before we get numbers in the thousands?

I say given the fact this current Congress is already cutting the DOD budget in order to buy votes, the F-35 is anything but a done deal.

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 5:54:44 PM




That isn't the article I meant to post. Oh, well, let's go with it:    from the article note the following... 







Based on different war fighting 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.



Air force has been advised to change their analysis for political reasons. Obama wants to plan his procurement based upon "different war fighting assumptions", ie: one where he can cut the program for political reasons.  












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.



 



Here they state that since they are not going to get the money so they have to change their minds.



 



Clearly, the USAF is reacting to political realities in this piece. Their "unbiased" review had lead them to the conclusion that 187 was  not enough. "since then additional factors have arisen" "unfunded $13 Billion". They didn't get the money. No where does the USAF say that new factors have created a different threat matrix, requiring fewer air superiority aircraft. The piece demonstrates that this is political and the real requirement is for 243 aircraft (that is my story and I am sticking too it!). I'd say that their original assessment was the honest assessment and their new one is clearly not supported. It is life in the DOD procurement cycle.







On the F35, it does not exist yet and as such isn't a factor in this conversation. What might be in 5 years is a thin whisp of a hope compared to an open assembly line with certified aircraft running off of it. The cost of the F22 is getting lower with every unit produced. Phaid shows US clearly that the cost of the F35 is not yet known and like all new aircraft it has teething problems. Finally, the F35's budget will be cut significantly once the F22 is killed.







Bet on it.



 



Check Six



 



Rocky



 



 



The other article (the one I meant to post):

 



ht***tp://lexingtoninstitute.org/1396.shtml






 



AIR FORCE PREPARED TO END F-22 AT 243 AIRCRAFT, NOT 187









Rebecca L. Grant, Ph.D.





Issue Brief





Apr 9, 2009




Print friendly page



Email this article







When Secretary of Defense Robert Gates stated on April 6 that the Air Force advised him they wanted 187 F-22s, the reaction was shock.  That?s because evidence indicates the Air Force was ready and willing to cap off production after buying a total of 243 F-22s, not 187.  Do the simple math: just 187 F-22s to replace 522 F-15s now in the total inventory is not enough in a crisis.  A total buy of 243 F-22s is the minimum to fill out ten F-22 squadrons for overseas missions and homeland defense.







What happened to the 243 number?  Is the Obama Pentagon clamping down on the Services?  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen confirmed in December 2008 that he and Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz were discussing 60 more, or 243 total F-22s.  On April 7, a reporter said to Gates: ?As recently as a few weeks ago, Air Force leadership was still publicly saying 260, 265. When did that change for them??  Here is Gates? verbatim reply: ?Well, you?ll have to ask them. (Chuckles.)?







Recall how things work in normal times.  The Pentagon budget is a $500 billion behemoth that relies on a formal process derived from the checks and balances in the Constitution.  The Services submit their budgets.  The Office of the Secretary of Defense makes adjustments, then sends the budget to the President, who sends it to Congress.  Key committees call generals, admirals and civilian officials to hearings where they swear under oath to give Congress their undiluted opinions.  







Here?s the dog that didn?t bark in the night.  Last summer, Schwartz said in testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed 381 F-22s were too many but 183 were too few.  He promised to ?delve deeply? into the analysis and return with a new number.  Schwartz had numerous opportunities to call a halt to the F-22 at 183 aircraft.  He did not.  Going forward, Congress appropriated partial money for the next 20 F-22s based on the long-standing requirement for the F-22 to replace F-15s.  Outgoing Bush Administration officials threw in procedural delays to prevent the Lockheed Martin ? Boeing ? Pratt & Whitney team from getting to work.  







Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that?  







Schwartz never had a chance to present his analysis for 243 F-22s to Congress as promised.  To speak up given Gates? new restrictions might risk the tradition of civilian control begun by George Washington.  Air Combat Command, whose airmen fly and maintain F-22s and other fighters, is left to pick up the pieces after this shattering break in faith.  Is this what change in Washington means?  


















DA,


Have you done an in-depth analysis on exactly how many F-22's the Air Force should have or do you just agree with the 187 because Gates's thinking is along the same lines  as your own?  Certaintly if the AF leaders compromised on the original number of 381 down to 243 they were taking into consideration minimum and maximum risks involved. Being a veteran of the Iraq war I can see how you may be inclined to restructure thinking for today's battles. But Iraq and Afghanistan are one type of enemy not the only one. Gates was criticized more than once in his CIA years for inaccurate assumptions and predictions of the Soviet Union, what if his predictions are wrong again? The 60 more Raptors the AF wants is what they believe to be the right number to fulfill their mission requirement not because they want to waste taxpayers money and look at pretty planes. If the Navy thought they could fulfill their mission requirement with 10 carriers they would retire the Enterprise now but they aren't doing that. You assert that 60 more planes will not make a difference but you don't seem to be looking at it from any other point of view than the money involved. Out of a force of 5000 P-51 Mustangs, 60 planes is insignificant but 60 planes out of 243 or 25% of your entire force means a great deal. I can find many legitimate reasons to have a reserve force of 60 that you simply cannot make a case against other than the money. If JSF is 4x better in AA and 8X better in AG than the planes they are replacing , why then are we replacing the others on a 1:1 basis. Can you answer that or do you have to check with Gates first? 



Darth,
Maybe you missed this one. Feel free to tell  me how I have no argument.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 6:12:07 PM

Darth,


Maybe you missed this one. Feel free to tell  me how I have no argument.



NO PROBLEM. Those arguments are based on invalid threat assessments that have been revised by the CoS and USAF Secretary. Both now agree that GIVEN the REALITY of the budget 187 is the maximum number of F-22 platforms the USAF can procure without harming other equally important programs. That's not what I think, it's what they said. Unless you can show that they are wrong, it seems they are conceding that the recent past argument is invalid.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/21/2009 6:23:48 PM

---DA---We don't know that aliens won't come attack either. It's possible.---

Then let us discuss LIKELY from PAST events.

Is it likely, from past history, that this Congress or a future congress will CUT THE F-35 before we get numbers in the thousands?

I say given the fact this current Congress is already cutting the DOD budget in order to buy votes, the F-35 is anything but a done deal.


I disagree with the entire premise of your response which is political in nature. I do not believe or accept that the DoD budget is being cut in the interest of votes. I believe, it is being cut out of necessity. You don't have to believe that, but I do. And I've seen much of the waste. I can tell you that as a tax payer you are not getting the best possible return on investment using current wasteful spending practices. As a serving member of the Armed Forces I think the DoD waste money and should be audited and forces to justify all spending with regard to realistic threat scenarios.
When I attend a training event and during a briefing I'm told things like "I know this isn't how we do it anymore but TRADOC insist that we brief this outdates material..." I know we are wasting money and time. 

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    My comments in red   4/21/2009 6:42:39 PM
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.

This paragraph covers everything from Phaid's bold but unrealistic proposal for 400 F-22's, Rockies assertion that we need 60 more to EF assertion that this is a move to get votes.
 
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.

So, the USAF after taking a look at what actually happened and after also considering the most SinoPhobic scenarios, 60 more are not only unnecessary but also leave us 13 billion short of being about to adequately fund defense. 

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.


Basically, the F-22 is only one of many COMPETING NEEDS. Those needs are more important than 60 F-22's. This logic is crystal clear. No SP poster has been able to present a credible counter. The USAF CoS and USAF Secretary agree that the competing needs outweigh the benefit of more F-22's. The F-35 and USS Ford are part of those competing needs. Thats not disputable and can no longer be presented as a valid counter and they were part of the consideration. The same applies to SinoPhobia. So it's time to look for other rational because none of whats been presented so far measures up.

-DA
 
 
 
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