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       4/16/2009 2:44:00 PM

  I will elaborate on it, the demand for x is shrinking is based on opinion. Assuming (x) is the F-22 and (y) is whatever money alloted for low intensity conflicts then eliminate (z) F-35 which is a waste of money for low intensity conflicts and you will have more than enough money for (x) and (y). In the unlikely event of full scale war enough of (x) will allow (a) F-16 to perform just as effective as (z) and have a lot money left over.

Thanks for elaborating but you are incorrect about almost all of it. The demand for x has most definitely shrank. But as you say, it's OPINION. But what about the facts? Why are air to air engagements becoming less common in the USAF? Why have air to air kills by USAF air superiority fighters gone down in the 21st century? Why are the numbers being asked for with regard to fighters on CAP configured for air combat getting lower? Why are the numbers of threat aircraft declining in countries we are most likely to get into conflict with? Why is it that I could use F-35 to conduct CAS/ISR/Strike/CAP/SEAD and first day of war penetrating stealth attack in EVERY combat theater while the F-22 has virtually no use in any currently active combat theater? The only potential combat theater is the Pacific/Eastern Europe and that is low probability. Even Iran/Syria would not require F-22's to take on. It's not an opinion, its FACT.

Why were F-15's withdrawn from CENTCOMS AOR? 

-DA 

  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Scream all uyou want, poster.,   4/16/2009 2:44:53 PM
Its not my fault you put it in black and white. You have just destroyed yourself. I told you to be careful about over-reaching;. 
 
Surely you remember that discussion about the need for UCAS autonomy and your constant assertions that there were things in the works that we would see in five years and that you had seen some of these yourself?

I told you constantly not to assert what you could not prove and not to state what you could not prove.
 
Five years is what you said. 
 
I am not calling you a liar.
 
I just read back to you what you wrote.
 
Take a good long look at your own words in this thread and see that you did this to yourself. 
 
You have no one here to blame but yourself.
 
You said it. All I did was note it and read back.
 
Too  bad. 
 
 
Counter-thesis proved.
 
Herald
 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 2:53:57 PM


First problem is that there isn't anyone who can predict what amount of coverage that will be required. So cutting yourself short is wrong. Second problem is that you failed to address the fact that the need for a single engine stealthy ground pounder is negated if your current fleet can survive with adequate protection. The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because it could do the same job more effectivley, the F-35 cannot comparably perform the Raptor's mission requirement. And please spare me the overused fallacy that the F-35 is an adequate AA platform, it is speculation based on available technologies and theoretical anamolies and holds no merit. I keep saying that Nimitz class carriers are adequate but Gates must believe they won't be able to defeat Somali pirates because he sure hasn't cancelled the Gerald Ford class yet.


Wrong. I have to do that everytime I make a training schedule. You have to make predictions because there are limited resources. Otherwise lets just build 1000 F-22's. Can do that. All of these numbers come from estimates based on mission requirements. Thats how professional military personnel do that. Its as old as Sun Tzu. With regard to the F-35 air to air capability. Read...

This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,

 

The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.

For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.

The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.

But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.

Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon Quote    Reply


Herald12345    Scream all you want, poster.,   4/16/2009 3:04:09 PM
Follow up.
 
The Gates low intensity war fallacy is being argued as an excuse for not planning to meet a possible high intensity war surprise.
 
Shrug. That is apriori incompetent. You need to plan twenty years out for the future on best data.
 
Twenty years out is not four years and cross your fingers. 
 
The US planners knew what was coming in the middle of the twentieth Century and they tried to meet it They almost failed.
 
History repeats. Current US planners seem to know more than a certain poster who doesn't see that their private grumbling about Santyana is data driven and trend based.
 
I don't rely on those unnamed sources. I supplied my own analysis and drew the conclusions based on what I gave you here. I don't use the authority fallacy or the claim to secret knowledge. I give you what you can check.
 
Now you may disagree with me, (JFKY for example) but at least some of you who disagree, ask me to explain my conclusions and evidence. 
 
Its not the personal attack, the appeal to authority, the secret knowledge bluff, and the unsubstantiated "it isn't so" you use..
 
Whatever. This last sad behavior pattern cycle just shows that this discussion has become circular in that the poster with nothing left than "liar" and "prove that I'm a liar". has reached the end of his argument train, and has shown himself to have fauled at his thesis proof.
 
Again, its not my fault that he wrote what he wrote.
 
Its up to him to explain why he contradicted himself.
 
In the meantime, I'm going to have another cup of coffee and look at this pesky contraption again!

Herald
 
 

 
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 3:06:00 PM

Its not my fault you put it in black and white. You have just destroyed yourself. I told you to be careful about over-reaching;. 

 

Surely you remember that discussion about the need for UCAS autonomy and your constant assertions that there were things in the works that we would see in five years and that you had seen some of these yourself?





I told you constantly not to assert what you could not prove and not to state what you could not prove.


 

Five years is what you said. 

 

I am not calling you a liar.


 

I just read back to you what you wrote.

 

Take a good long look at your own words in this thread and see that you did this to yourself. 

 

You have no one here to blame but yourself.

 

You said it. All I did was note it and read back.


 

Too  bad. 

 


 

Counter-thesis proved.

 

Herald


 

It's funny to watch you tantrum and squirm Herald now that I've shown proof that you lied. Get a little bit of integrity, lose the ego and join the rest of us and lets stop talking about boring things like how you lied and discuss fascinating things like F-35's and F-22's. Much more interesting and in fact on topic don't you think? Unless you want to draw more attention to yourself with what you said...

The poster said we would have great UCAV capabilities negating the need for manned aircraft such as the F-22 that he's seen demonstrated within five years.
 

...Of course, you could always true to prove that by copying my words. But we both know you can't and why...;)
Like I said, stop talking in riddles and using $5 dollar words and prove what you said. I didn't think so. You may go now.

BTW, here is the date and time you made the claim minus any proof: Herald12345    Now he contradicts himself.   
4/16/2009 1:32:50 PM 

 
-DA

 
 
 



 

 

 

 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/16/2009 4:42:47 PM
DA, the problem with your arguments--and Gates'--from what I can see is, they're assuming we will never fight another war where air superiority is needed.  Of course we don't need the F-22 for Syria and Iran--Syria's lucky if it can put a squadron in the air, and the backbone of the Iranian Air Force is still the F-4D/E and the F-14.
 
However, it would be a huge mistake to assume that every war will be like the last.  That is a lesson that none of the "best and the brightest" ever seem to grasp.  Everyone thought in 1939 that the bomber didn't need fighter escort.  Everyone thought in 1956 that the era of the dogfight was over.  Both were tragically wrong, as the survivors of Schweinfurt and Rolling Thunder can attest to.  While I can agree that the Fighter Mafia has had too much power over the past few years, to the exclusion of getting a new bomber and expanding the transport fleet (the B-52 can't fly forever and the C-5 is hurting), it would be stupid to go too far in the other direction.
 
Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/16/2009 4:56:14 PM

Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.

 

To be completely fair to Obama, the F-22 was not designed to deal with unicorn farts and there is ZERO evidence that the F-35 or the F-15 will not be able to handle any future encounter with said unicorn farts.
I do, however, have to wory about a unicorn fart gap, which ranks right after the mineshaft gap, which is creeping up on us.
 
Thought for food.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 5:00:53 PM

DA, the problem with your arguments--and Gates'--from what I can see is, they're assuming we will never fight another war where air superiority is needed.  Of course we don't need the F-22 for Syria and Iran--Syria's lucky if it can put a squadron in the air, and the backbone of the Iranian Air Force is still the F-4D/E and the F-14.

 STOP! That's not what Gates or I am saying. We are saying, IF another war happens whether its the PRC or Somali "Bandits", the forces WE HAVE and WILL GET(F-35) are capable of dealing with. You have got to understand my position first.

However, it would be a huge mistake to assume that every war will be like the last.  That is a lesson that none of the "best and the brightest" ever seem to grasp.  Everyone thought in 1939 that the bomber didn't need fighter escort.  Everyone thought in 1956 that the era of the dogfight was over.  Both were tragically wrong, as the survivors of Schweinfurt and Rolling Thunder can attest to.  While I can agree that the Fighter Mafia has had too much power over the past few years, to the exclusion of getting a new bomber and expanding the transport fleet (the B-52 can't fly forever and the C-5 is hurting), it would be stupid to go too far in the other direction.

 6 and 12 years respectively. So sometime in 2015 and 2021, the Russians and PRC will have 5th Gen IOC. Meanwhile, they are stuck with FLANKER and FULCRUM(1980s) technology. This isn't an assumption, this is fact. With regard to ground based IADS, the F-35 is more than a match for it.

Militaries should plan for the worst case scenario, not what we hope will happen.  Gates isn't doing that.  He's essentially hoping to God that the F-35 can somehow fill out the F-22's role when it clearly can't, and that the F-15s will magically stay in the air for another 10 years without any sort of real replacement.  Obama has an excuse--his foreign policy clearly shows he believes that rhetoric and hugs will issue in the new era of unicorn farts.  Gates obstensibly is smarter than that.

How can you say that in good faith? He explained the threats. We are superior and are in good position to stay that way and have MORE NUMBERS. We are in the process of developing 6th Generation technologies RIGHT NOW. At what point is Gates or I saying we need the F-35 to fulfill the F-22's role? Also, by what magic are you referring to with regard to the F-15. The USAF has acknowledged that it has sufficient F-15s in good enough condition to meet requirements through 2025.

You are quite literally creating your own argument and not even discussing the same topics. If you are saying 187 F-22s aren't enough, thats different. If you are saying F-15's cannot defeat today or tomorrows air threats, thats different. If you are saying the F-35 would be incapable of defending itself or providing good enough air to air performance to be a viable air superiority platform when configured in that role as designed, that's different. Those are things we could actually debate. But what you and others are doing is saying, "What if in the future, Russia, China and Iran all get together and design and field 1000 Mig-41s by 2015, what are we going to do" without respect to the fact that it is not likely or even possible realistically. You are creating a "bogey man".

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/16/2009 5:26:26 PM






First problem is that there isn't anyone who can predict what amount of coverage that will be required. So cutting yourself short is wrong. Second problem is that you failed to address the fact that the need for a single engine stealthy ground pounder is negated if your current fleet can survive with adequate protection. The aircraft carrier made the battleship obsolete because it could do the same job more effectivley, the F-35 cannot comparably perform the Raptor's mission requirement. And please spare me the overused fallacy that the F-35 is an adequate AA platform, it is speculation based on available technologies and theoretical anamolies and holds no merit. I keep saying that Nimitz class carriers are adequate but Gates must believe they won't be able to defeat Somali pirates because he sure hasn't cancelled the Gerald Ford class yet.








Wrong. I have to do that everytime I make a training schedule. You have to make predictions because there are limited resources. Otherwise lets just build 1000 F-22's. Can do that. All of these numbers come from estimates based on mission requirements. Thats how professional military personnel do that. Its as old as Sun Tzu. With regard to the F-35 air to air capability. Read...






This article first appeared in Aviation Week & Space Technology,

 


The F-35's ability to win an air-to-air engagement is drawing increased attention as the U.S. military and industry's focus includes expanding the Joint Strike Fighter's customer base beyond the core purchasing nations.


For years, prime contractor Lockheed Martin seemed content to promote the F-35's "strike fighter" capabilities, if only to avoid competing against its other major fighter program, the F-22 Raptor. But with the F-22 not exportable, Lockheed Martin seems keen to talk up the F-35's air combat skills to bolster its chances for new foreign military sales -- namely, to Japan, Turkey and Greece.


The contractor tells Aviation Week that the JSF's combination of stealth, multisensor situational awareness, advanced pilot-machine interface and basic aeromechanical performance make it a credible fighter aircraft, too. That is key to several other customers, who cannot afford the so-called high-low fighter mix on which the U.S., U.K. and Italian air forces are planning.


But Lockheed Martin is focusing largely on the beyond-visual-range fight, with ranges greater than 18 naut. mi. that executives say will represent 62% of all aerial combat. Another 31% of engagements would fall into the 8-18-naut.-mi. transition range, and just 7% of fighting would be close-in combat where the airframe is stressed the most.


Lockheed Martin says it ran the F-35 through the Pentagon Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/16/2009 5:29:53 PM
Sentinel,

It took 15 years to go from this...

FIRST FLIGHT                                         IOC 
 
TEST PLATFORM                    OPERATIONAL WEAPON


The Russians were here(SEE BELOW) on 29 Sept 2002...


Assuming they had no problems with money or stability of industry that would mean that is they advanced at the same rate we do, which we know they don't, then they would be able to deploy an operational weapons sometime around 2017. Gates is saying a bit sooner at 2015 which makes some sense to me because they aren't necessarily making a derivative of THAT specific platform. But it gives a relative idea of where they might be in relation to us and 5th Gen jets. Just to give an idea of how far behind, they are buying UAVs from Israel for lack of the ability to deploy. They are without question behind. The Chinese can barely copy and technology for a modern jet engine. So without significant break through they are looking into the 2020 decade. 

So we are looking at a ~1000 plane head start in 5th Gen jets by the time the first threat 5 Gens even go operational. With regard to legacy platforms 4th Gen and prior, the F-15 has a demonstrated better than 100 to 0 kill ratio. The F-22 in simulation almost doubles that. Suppose that the PRC really got good and reduced our kill ratio by 75%. Thats still a 25 to 1 kill ratio assuming they get an Eagle unlike everyone else who have never been able. How many Flankers and J-10s would they need to kill off an F-15 FW fighting the way we do? They would get mauled. Most of the fighting, 0ver 60% is going to be BVR where they are at severe disadvantage even without the F-22 stealth. We have a proven highly lethal BVR weapon and doctrine as well. This is not an area where we have a deficiency. 

-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy