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
warpig       4/21/2009 11:03:55 PM
Here's how we pay for 60 more F-22 over the next 5-10 years or so (Rocky said it before I had this chance to):  Cut the USAF F-35A buy by about 400 or so, from 1750 to 1350.  At current prices of at least $50million apiece, 400 less F-35 would cut $20billion.  Now assuming that chopping out that many aircraft from the buy, especially from the front end of the program, would drive up the cost per aircraft of the remaining program, let's figure it would really only save $13billion.  Noila!  Now we can buy 60 more F-22 and be certain of air supreamacy, while still being able to bomb the crap out of anyone.  I challenge anyone to come up with the scenario in which 1350 F-35A, along with all our other F-22, F-15E, F-16, A-10, B-52, B-1, B-2, and the rest, plus our USN/USMC brothers, and also our allies/coalition isn't enough to handle the target list.
 
Hmmm, shoe's on the other foot.  How's it fit?
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 11:18:57 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 






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?  












Mark78 and Jesse are correct. The AF

desperately needs 60 more F-22. We in the Staff gave the classified air

campaign analysis to the 'new' CSAF and SecAF. They said 243 was

'their' number and tried to brief SecDef Gates to no avail. Then

suddenly a change of heart over 2 days? GIVE ME A BREAK.




Congrats Gents, you will rip the AF apart like no other 2 leaders.

You should have been true to AF combat requirements and stood up to

Gates like your predecessors who got blamed for "Bad Nukes" that

rightly belonged to STRATCOM Gen Cartright (the same guy also dogging

F-22 for Gates). There was NO change in requirements. There were NO new

facts coming to light--only the lies of Young and PAE being spread like

the plague. We are discarding the future keys to conventional

deterrence and peace to the enemy, and buying into the fools' gold of

"cheap stuff is good enough." We will pay the price with 100s of dead

airmen and 10,000s of dead soldiers and marines for not investing in

the best air superiority we could afford. And speaking of "affordable:"

In the last 3 months, We, the USA taxpayers just gave 600 times what 20

F-22s would cost to those banks and investment companies who sold US

investors assets that weren't worth anything. Now that's something the

Chinese will laugh about as they buy/build 500 brand new Su-30/35

Flankers by next year and we're still talking about Carbon Tax and the

President's new puppy.







Right from the horse's mouth. Gates made his decision long before Obama took office. He happened to be a Bush holdover and is getting exactly what he wants. He lied knowing he was going to be held over and now is forcing the AF to lie knowing full well he was going to recommend the cancellation of the program.






 



Lawmakers Pressure Pentagon to Release Funds for Controversial F-22 Fighter Jet



NOVEMBER 5, 2008







Senior House lawmakers are ratcheting up pressure on Defense Department

officials to release congressionally approved funding for an Air Force

fighter that has been the subject of a running battle between Pentagon

and Air Force leaders.







In a letter to Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who has said he wants

the F-22 Raptor's fate decided by the next presidential administration,

senior House Armed Services Committee lawmakers demanded an explanation

for why $140 million already set aside for the plane's suppliers is

being held up.







The money would go toward keeping the plane's production line ready for

new orders beyond the current plans calling for 183 of the jets to be

built. The situation pits lawmakers against Pentagon officials who

argue that, at a price tag of about $140 million apiece, the Lockheed

Martin Corp. F-22 is too expensive.







Lawmakers appropriated $500 million in the fiscal 2009 budget toward an

additional 20 jets, which the Bush administration hadn't sought. The

$140 million in question is part of that money.







Earlier this year, a battle between Air Force leaders and Mr. Gates

over the airplane's future contributed to the firing of two senior Air

Force officials.



 








So why were the funds held up? Anyone need anymore evidence that Gates is nothing more than a manipulating control freak?



 



Stop acting like a child with ridiculous questions about how a lack of  60 Raptors will cause us to lose wars. 



How will not building a new class of aircraft carrier cause us to lose wars?






How will 10 carriers not 11 cause us to lose wars?



How will 2000 F-35's not 2500 cause us to lose wars?






Why does a perceived strike fighter with so much more ability need to replace far inferior aircraft on a 1:1 basis?



When you can intelligently answer each and everyone of these questions without reaffirming to all of us how we have not met YOUR criteria for a valid argument maybe your OPINIONS will garnish a little more respect.









Mustang


I have an idea.  Let's eliminate Minuteman land-based deterrent to pay for additional F-22.  We will still have overmatch with SSBN, bombers and F-22 in the nuclear role.  And yet that is a war that will never be fought against any rational power, such as PRC, no matter how some may loathe them.  (those "some" probably shop at WalMart incidently; I've only visited once, never purchased there -- not ever).  Minuteman represents excess capability that we may shed in exchange for projectable forces like F-22/-35.


v^2



Ill sum it up in as few words as possible:
After 547 posts I have come to the conclusion that overmatch capability is acceptable for all facets of the military with the 1 exception being the F-22 and only people that shop at Walmart actually believe that a war with PRC is possible. Now that we have cleared that up we can all get back to our day jobs.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/21/2009 11:19:04 PM
DA, you are being disingenuous again.  Your argument is that Gates et al. has stated that 187 F-22 is enough, and you challenge anyone to make the case why 187 isn't enough.  However, since there are no facts in evidence that disclose Gates et al.'s justification for their conclusion, there is no way to rebut the argument on its merits.  All that can be done is to assert another conclusion different that the one reached by Gatess et al., and frankly there is no requirement to even support it with any facts of its own since there's no way to compare the two anyway, because we don't know the rationale behind their conclusion that 187 is enough.  An equally-valid argument is to say that in light of recent changes to the threat environment, 187 F-22 are not enough and in fact 243... or 381... or xxx are required.  Just as unassailable and irrefutable as what we know regarding Gates et al.'s position that 187 is enough.
 
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/21/2009 11:25:56 PM

Here's how we pay for 60 more F-22 over the next 5-10 years or so (Rocky said it before I had this chance to):  Cut the USAF F-35A buy by about 400 or so, from 1750 to 1350.  At current prices of at least $50million apiece, 400 less F-35 would cut $20billion.  Now assuming that chopping out that many aircraft from the buy, especially from the front end of the program, would drive up the cost per aircraft of the remaining program, let's figure it would really only save $13billion.  Noila!  Now we can buy 60 more F-22 and be certain of air supreamacy, while still being able to bomb the crap out of anyone.  I challenge anyone to come up with the scenario in which 1350 F-35A, along with all our other F-22, F-15E, F-16, A-10, B-52, B-1, B-2, and the rest, plus our USN/USMC brothers, and also our allies/coalition isn't enough to handle the target list.

 

Hmmm, shoe's on the other foot.  How's it fit?

 


Warpig I'm sorry to inform you that some of the posters here do not wear shoes due to the fact that they are so far above everyone else their feet never touch the ground. I actually proposed something similar several years ago and it was shot down so don't be surprised when they pick yours apart. As for the posters arguing for the F-22 my sarcasm need not apply.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       4/21/2009 11:40:14 PM




No SP poster has been able to present a credible counter. -DA



 



You have been deluged with data proving the F22 procurement should be continued at least to 243 aircraft. Don't make statements that have already been proven false. It makes you look silly (in fact it is a lie). The only thing your highlighting the article did was prove once again it was a political decision. I think a bad decision that will cost lives. This is about politics.



 



I would review this opinion if you could provide evidence disproving the Admiral Mullen and General Schwartz's "unbiased" assessment of February, 2009. It would be better to take the money for the 60 birds from the F35 program it it comes to that. Again, prove me wrong if you think you can.



 



With data this time?  Keep it real.



 



Check Six



 



Rocky



 




 

I already have Rocky. You are wrong. Get ready to live under the protection of 187 Raptors(Congress Willing) unless you can prove otherwise which you haven't. My data is more current and from the proverbial horses mouth. You lose unless you can find DATA to better represent yourself with.




-DA 

You do understand that you appear completely delusional? There is nothing here to win or lose. It is theoretical for both of US since you have no more knowledge than I on the subject. A well supported case for more fighters has been laid out and remains unchallenged as far as I can tell. Pity that. Best wishes though, come back and make another attempt at convincing US when you can support your thesis.


Check Six

Rocky

 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector       4/22/2009 12:03:31 AM

Ill sum it up in as few words as possible:

After 547 posts I have come to the conclusion that overmatch capability is acceptable for all facets of the military with the 1 exception being the F-22 and only people that shop at Walmart actually believe that a war with PRC is possible. Now that we have cleared that up we can all get back to our day jobs.

547 posts?  Meh.  That represents a mere 273+1 to 273 advantage.  Not exactly overmatch.  We're going to need at least 60 more posts to this thread -- not a F-35 thread mind you, and screw Navy -- this F-22 thread because we need to see the future.  Be the future, Danny, be the ball.  Na-na-na-na-na...

v^2

 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    arguments of equal weight....   4/22/2009 12:17:55 AM
Not Rocky, not Phaid, Not EF, Not Herald NONE OF YOU. NO ONE can present a coherent on topic rebuttal of any of this. At best, you can say you disagree. But you cannot support it with anything at this point that would actually be a counter of equal weight. -DA
 
I have challenged you several times to present a case of your own based upon publicly-available data. Ours is before the jury and the gallery is waiting on something tangible from you. Not magical UAVs, not planes that aren't real yet, not highlighted pages of pros about the politics of the decision, and certainly not any more bluster please! The USAF has advised US they need 243 (see references above). Why are they wrong?
 
...or, is it just about politics after all? (this theory gets my vote)
 
Check Six
 
Rocky
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    If I may be so bold....   4/22/2009 12:59:36 AM
If I may be so bold...

can a couple of things happen in here:

1) ratchet down the grumpyness
2) when quoting others responses, try and compress the quoted section and delete inconsequential replies
as much as possible - as some of these posts are now becoming a "mile long"
3) lobby the owners for decent editing software.  It really is rubbish and it does distract one from posting, esp when in a hurry and "you" realise that some of "your" typos make "you" like like a complete illiterate

/sermon off 

 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/22/2009 8:21:22 AM




Ill sum it up in as few words as possible:



After 547 posts I have come to the conclusion that overmatch capability is acceptable for all facets of the military with the 1 exception being the F-22 and only people that shop at Walmart actually believe that a war with PRC is possible. Now that we have cleared that up we can all get back to our day jobs.





547 posts?  Meh.  That represents a mere 273+1 to 273 advantage.  Not exactly overmatch.  We're going to need at least 60 more posts to this thread -- not a F-35 thread mind you, and screw Navy -- this F-22 thread because we need to see the future.  Be the future, Danny, be the ball.  Na-na-na-na-na...


v^2






Caddyshack was a great movie, glad you saw it.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Fishy   4/22/2009 10:21:13 AM
JFKY, you never answered my question: Whom does the President Serve?
Yes I did, over and over..S/he serves THOSE THAT ELECTED HIM/HER.  That is NOT the Nation or the People...it is that s/he serves at the pleasure of those that sent him/her to the White House.  And as long as that coalition of people represents 270 Electoral Votes, that person is POTUS.  You just don't like my answer apparently.  And apparently, I'm the one in need of an education, when almost anyone familiar with politics, as opposed, to some ideology could tell you the very same thing.
 
His Constitutional responsibility is to serve his NATION FIRST and his President Second
 
The SecDef has NO Constitutional duties...find me the Section or Article of the Constitution giving any Cabinet Secretary duties.  They are a part of the "Executive Branch"...and in the Constitution that means talking about the POTUS...the duties of Cabinet Secretaries are set by LAW...not the Constitution.  So, no Gates has NO "Constitutional" duty to serve the "nation"-whatever THAT is, first. 
 
Gates works for Obama, Obama works for any coalition that can produce 270 electoral votes...I'm guessing that coalition did not/does not include you...so I would argue Obama isn't working for YOU, though he can affect you.  In fact, if you claim or believe he is working against the "national interest" you really mean that his actions are negatively affecting YOUR interests, real or perceived.   They may be making Rev Wright, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Henry Waxman, very happy...and as far as they are concerned he IS serving the "Nation's" interests.  And as Pelosi et. al. represent Congress and a party with 270 Electoral votes, I guess they're "right", certainly as the POTUS said, "We won."
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Cabinet Secretaries   4/22/2009 11:21:24 AM
Don't and CAN NOT have Constitutional duties.
 
Don't...Well that follows from practical politics.  Gates/Rumsfeld/Cohen were appointed by the POTUS and serve at the pleasure of the POTUS.  No POTUS is going to have a SecDef or Sect. of Interior, buck him/her...the power doesn't flow that way.  "They work for ME."
 
But they CAN'T either, I'd argue...And that's from the Constitution.  The Executive Branch IS the POTUS.  I believe, and it really ought to inarguable, that there is an "Unitary Executive."  The POTUS heads the Executive Branch, Congress can not make the Sec of Interior answerable to THEM, alone...ALL Executive Branch heads report to the POTUS, who IS the Executive Branch. 
 
And for a SecDef or Attorney General or SecState to assert a "Constitutional right to serve the Nation/People" means they have an existence APART from the POTUS and the Executive branch.  And, BY THE CONSTITUTION, they don't.  The POTUS is the Branch...the POTUS is the executor of US Foreign Policy, the POTUS is Commander-in-Chief...the POTUS has a constitutional duty, not his/her appointees.  To think otherwise is to diminish the POTUS, and create a Fourth Branch of Government, the Cabinet Secretary(ies).  We don't have that Branch...what we have is the usual Three Branches.  So it is almost IMPOSSIBLE to conceive that a Cabinet Secretary has a "constitutional duty" to do ANYTHING, apart from the duties, or rather to execute the policies, set by the POTUS-within the relevant statutes.
 
An Oath of Office is NOT a duty...it is so vague as to be meaningless...to support and defend the Constitution?  What does that mean, in any practical sense?  The SecDef can strip a person of their life, liberty or property, limit their right to speak, assemble, petition, posses fire arms, even limit, practically their ability to vote...has the SecDef violated the Constitution?  The answer, usually is "No."  Courts have held that US service personnel have limited "rights" as compared to non-service personnel.  The oath really is meaningless, apart from law and case law.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Straight to the point.   4/22/2009 2:53:18 PM

Here's how we pay for 60 more F-22 over the next 5-10 years or so (Rocky said it before I had this chance to):  Cut the USAF F-35A buy by about 400 or so, from 1750 to 1350.  At current prices of at least $50million apiece, 400 less F-35 would cut $20billion.  Now assuming that chopping out that many aircraft from the buy, especially from the front end of the program, would drive up the cost per aircraft of the remaining program, let's figure it would really only save $13billion.  Noila!  Now we can buy 60 more F-22 and be certain of air supreamacy, while still being able to bomb the crap out of anyone.  I challenge anyone to come up with the scenario in which 1350 F-35A, along with all our other F-22, F-15E, F-16, A-10, B-52, B-1, B-2, and the rest, plus our USN/USMC brothers, and also our allies/coalition isn't enough to handle the target list.

 

Hmmm, shoe's on the other foot.  How's it fit?

 


And an excellent counter to the incompetent Gates program as well as the unqualified poster who to this point has failed to develop a solid case to affirm the Gates premise, much ;less present a coherent case for not supplying the air superiority cushion. If that unqualified poster is so enamored of UCAS systems why not cut the parky further by 300 units and develop a functioning  strike fighter robot off the Fords and legacy Nimitzes? Use the manned machines for air dominance and UCAS shepherds?
 
Bit that would destroy the unqualified poster's assertions and his whole house of cards argument that BHO and his SecDef toady know what they do by the numbers..
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald   4/22/2009 3:51:58 PM
What doe the elimination of 1/3 of the F-35 program do to the program and the left-over buyers and THEIR costs?  IF your proposal (yes I know it's not really YOUR proposal, just work with me here) raises the cost to the USMC, the USN, the RAF and the RAAF too high, the program dies, or at least goes into the cost death spiral and then dies.  Yours is an interesting idea, but what does it do the other F-35 program members?  That's how we have to judge.  Seriously, whip these numbers out and let's see...
 
Ball's in your court. Otherwise I'd say that killing about 1/3 of a program kills the other 2/3...but I could be wrong, crunch some numbers.
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    F-22 Budgetary Debate Mooted - LockMart Throws In The Towel   4/22/2009 4:08:38 PM
"Lockheed Martin will not spend any more time and effort trying to overturn Defense Secretary Robert Gates? decision to halt production of F-22 Raptor fighter jets, a top company official said Tuesday.

After making a vigorous case for the F-22 with Gates, other senior Pentagon officials and Congress in recent months, Lockheed plans to move on and meet its commitments for other major defense programs such as the F-35 joint strike fighter"
 
h**p://hotair.com/archives/2009/04/22/so-long-f-22/
v^2
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/22/2009 4:52:30 PM
What all the Gates fans including himself fail to realize is that there are many legitimate arguments on both sides of the fence. AF stood by their 381 number for a long time which played a big part in the firings of the top 2 Generals. Afterward knowing they would never see that number a detailed analysis was done on all perceived threats, current and future force structure, the Raptor's theoretical ability and so on. Taking into consideration JSF delays and a possible problem with F-15's, the minimum number the AF came up with to fulfill what they believe is their mission requirement was 243. They knew that a compromise was in order and that with a combination of F-22's, Golden Eagles and the upcoming JSF, 243 was still high risk but enough to committ a strong enough force structure to overwhelm any potential threat without stretching the fleet so thin that it can't meet operational requirements.
We are all familiar with types of wars and adversaries we are currently facing. Is the Raptor worth .02 in any one of these conflicts, not that I can see. Does this mean their will never be a need for it in the future. Iran, Syria, N. Korea, China, Russia and even Venezuela could all be considered threatening so lets not pretend that another major war is impossible.Gates wants to replace 1,645 F-16's and A-10's with 1760 JSF's which are 4-8x more effective but wants the AF to cap the F-22 at 25% less than what it said is the bare minimum. The ridiculous statement that not one person has made a valid argument for the extra 60 Raptors and there is no way it causes us to lose a war is childish. What's worse is that DA who firmly supports Gates's decision would IMHO have supported the decision if Gates in fact said "the AF and myself have revaluated the level of potential threats and due to lower intensity conflicts we will be facing in the future we have decided that 243 Raptors is sufficient to meet our requirments". Some posters would still be arguing for the 381 the AF said they originally needed and I believe DA's argument would not change in the least. I can hear it now, "Gates believes that 243 is the right number and not one person can provide a valid argument for more". I sure would like to know if his forces conducting ground operations had to take a 25% reduction. How far would you be stretched, how many more soldiers would die, how many longer rotations could your people handle, and how much longer are we in Iraq? 25% Darth, what does that number mean to you now. Let the AF have their Raptors, I think they know better than anyone what they need.
 
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